The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 14, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2009, Work Session, June 8, 2009, Work Session, June 17, 2009, Executive Session, July 8, 2009, Work Session, July 13, 2009, Work Session, July 15, 2009, Work Session, July 20, 2009, Civilian Review Board Interviews, July 20, 2009, Public Hearing, July 21, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, July 22, 2009, Work Session, July 22, 2009, Executive Session, July 27, 2009, City Council Meeting, August 10, 2009, City Council Meeting, and August 10, 2009, Executive Session. ATTACHMENTS A. May 11, 2009, Work Session B. June 8, 2009, Work Session C. June 17, 2009, Executive Session D. July 8, 2009, Work Session E. July 13, 2009, Work Session F. July 15, 2009, Work Session G. July 20, 2009, Civilian Review Board Interviews H. July 20, 2009, Public Hearing I. July 21, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting J. July 22, 2009, Work Session K. July 22, 2009, Executive Session L. July 27, 2009, City Council Meeting M. August 10, 2009, City Council Meeting N. August 10, 2009, Executive Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090914\S0909142A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S City Council McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 11, 2009 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, George Brown, members. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. I. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns reported on the City’s first homicide of 2009. He said the homicide had occurred in Skinner Butte Park. He did not know much about the victim at this time and indicated that officers were still processing the crime scene. Chief Kerns indicated he would share more information with the council as it became available. Mayor Piercy reported that along with several councilors and other elected officials, she had attended the deployment ceremony for the local National Guard battalion to Iraq to thank the battalion members for their service and their families for their sacrifice. She expressed the hope that all battalion members returned home safely. Mayor Piercy noted the council’s recent receipt of information regarding the 46 commendations received by Eugene police officers, as well as a communication to Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns from District Attorney Alex Gardner commending Eugene Detective Matt Herbert for his work on serious violent crime. She wished to acknowledge the good work being done by the Eugene Police Department. Mayor Piercy reported that Eugene had been mentioned as one of the top cities in the country for its residents’ interest in alternative modes vehicles, and was also listed as the third best place for the next generation of workers by Next Generation Consulting. She thought that the recognition Eugene received spoke to the livability of the community. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation about that day’s article in The Register-Guard about the fuel savings realized by Parks and Open Space employees. Mr. Clark recalled a motion he had made with regard to the City’s Civilian Review Board (CRB) and recruitment process, which was that it proceed in selecting two new members as soon as practicable. He asked if there was a staff person in place to take that responsibility as it was not his intention to wait for the fall recruitment process. City Manager Jon Ruiz indicated he would report back but anticipated that responsibility would be handled by Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary and her staff. Mr. Clark referred to the work being done by the Metro Plan Subcommittee, which was addressing questions related to authorities and having some interesting discussions. He hoped to have some good recommendations to address MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 1 Work Session some of the questions raised by the joint elected officials (JEO). He said a JEO subcommittee had also been working on economic development proposals and he complimented the manager on the staff support the committee was receiving. He thought its work would be useful to the community. Mr. Clark reported that he and Ms. Ortiz met earlier that day to discuss ambulance service area problems and they were considering some interesting options. He anticipated that there would soon be an article about that effort in The Register-Guard. Mr. Clark said that he and several other councilors had the opportunity to attend the memorial services for late Springfield City Councilor John Woodrow. He offered his condolences to the residents of Springfield on their loss. Mr. Brown noted that he had also attended the National Guard send-off as well as a recent Police Commission retreat. He said that there was discussion at the Police Commission on how to run meetings better, although he considered them well-run already. He acknowledged that improvement could always happen. He had also attended the joint elected officials economic development committee and had high hopes something positive would come out of those meetings. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Clark for his remarks about Mr. Woodrow, saying his funeral was well-attended and he believed that was a demonstration of Mr. Woodrow’s caliber. He said that he attended the National Guard send-off, which was also very well-attended. He wished the National Guard members well. Mr. Poling noted the upcoming Harlow Neighborhood Association meeting. Mr. Pryor said he attended the annual ACE awards and it was wonderful to see the recognition received by teachers, administrators and classified staff. He had been pleased by the turnout. He had also attended the service for Mr. Woodrow and noted his past work with Mr. Woodrow, whom he found to be outgoing and conscientious in the spirit of a good public servant. He believed that Mr. Woodrow had always considered the broader perspective and he thought the community had experienced a great loss in that regard. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor about the character and contribution of Mr. Woodrow. Ms. Ortiz asked for follow-up on the work that was to have been done by the Downtown Parking Subcommittee, which had met once. Mr. Clark concurred. Ms. Ortiz also attended the deployment of the National Guard battalion and said that it had been a very emotional event. It was hard for people to send their children away, and hard to witness that. However, she was glad she had attended. Ms. Ortiz noted the recent Mexican Mother’s Day celebration in Bethel, saying that the participating children were always very cute and the event was a great time. Ms. Ortiz reported that she had attended the Communities of Color event at the Lane Education Service District and the open house held at the Red Cross by Eugene Water & Electric Board. Ms. Ortiz said the Trainsong Neighbors had reorganized themselves and planned a neighborhood clean-up, celebration, and yard sale. Ms. Taylor had attended the Human Services Commission (HSC) special budget committee meeting and regretted that meeting did not result in any more money being allocated to human services. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor noted that the Farmers’ Market was open and suggested that the City do something to better the parking situation. She suggested that a start was to stop charging the market for parking. Ms. Taylor spoke to the council’s inability to separate motions. She said that in the past, people were allowed to separate motions but now people were forced to vote for something they did not support because people would not vote to separate motions. As a result, she had to vote about things she thought was wrong, like the supervision of the police auditor, which was a concern to some people. There were people who were upset about the limitations placed by the council on the interim auditor, which she had to support in order to get the auditor reinstated. She thought that was wrong. She also wanted to repeal the limitations the council placed on the auditor and hoped that occurred. Mr. Zelenka said he had attended a performance of Spam-A-Lot at the Hult Center and could report that the arts were alive and well in downtown Eugene. He expressed appreciation that the Hult Center could attract such events. Mr. Zelenka said that the Fairmount Neighbors had discussed the Walnut Mixed Use Station at its most recent meeting. He announced the upcoming meetings of the Fairmount Neighbors, Laurelhill Valley Neighbors and Amazon Neighbors. Mr. Zelenka noted the upcoming public hearing on the budget before the Budget Committee on May 18. Mr. Zelenka said he and Mr. Clark met with Interim Police Auditor Dawn Reynolds to confirm that she was following council direction. He briefly overviewed the meeting and indicated that Ms. Reynolds was checking with the City Attorney’s Office to see if the IA Pro Data base was confidential. Ms. Reynolds was working with the Attorney’s Office to put together a list of what was and was not confidential. He thought the list would help quite a bit. The council officers had also checked in with Ms. Reynolds on her case load and learned more about her job. Mr. Zelenka noted the police auditor interviews scheduled the next day. Mr. Zelenka noted that he had also attended Mr. Woodrow’s memorial service and agreed he was a good man who loved Springfield and would be sorely missed. Mr. Poling thanked the members of the citizen panel interviews who participated in interviews of the police auditor candidates. Mr. Poling said that a recent piece in the newspaper had suggested that the council’s support for the police auditor was waning, which he believed was “180 degrees” from the truth. He said the Mayor and council had worked hard to identify the best possible candidate for the job and was committed to that goal. To say the council’s support had waned was “completely and absolutely” wrong. He emphasized the council and Mayor’s support for the program and said they were working hard to make the system work right. City Manager Ruiz reported that he had attended a recent meeting of the West University Neighborhood Association and while there were there were not many people in attendance, those who were present had been engaged. City Manager Ruiz said that the application period for the position of chief of police had closed and he would soon review the applications the City received. City Manager said he recently attended a meeting of the Arts and Business Alliance and thought the potential for the alliance was huge. The alliance had a committed group of citizens. He anticipated the council would hear more about the alliance in the future. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 3 Work Session City Manager Ruiz thought the recent newspaper article on the work of Parks and Open Space staff demonstrated how employees at all levels of the organization worked to make a difference. Mayor Piercy said that Mary Lee Woodrow had asked her to convey her thanks for the council’s flowers, as they were the first she received and it meant a lot to her to hear from Eugene. Mayor Piercy said Eugene was getting wonderful cooperation from Springfield and Lane County on its economic development efforts. She expressed appreciation to those jurisdictions. Mayor Piercy noted the upcoming forum on the recommendations of the West Eugene Collaborative, scheduled to occur at the Eugene Library the following day. Mayor Piercy said the council was heading into a series of important decisions regarding the independent police auditor system. She suggested this was a good time for the council to gain some clarity around its expectations for the police auditor system so that could be shared with the public, the council, the chief, the Police Commission and the CRB. She believed the purpose of the system could be clarified, and she thought that the council needed to give direction in that regard. She recognized Mr. Zelenka for a motion. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a work session for Monday, May 18, 2009, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on expectations and roles of the police au- ditor, the Civilian Review Board, and the City Council in the police oversight system. Included in the packet should be information about the original information in the police oversight system. Mr. Clark looked forward to having a new beginning with the police auditor’s office and its function. He referred to the op-ed piece mentioned earlier by Mr. Poling, written by CRB member Kate Wilkinson. He had been surprised to read a member of the CRB suggest that the council’s support for the system was waning. He stated that he had been in favor of transparent, open, civilian oversight of the Police Department from the beginning of the discussion. While the opposite had been printed, it was not true. He was interested in having the most efficient and effective system possible. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Zelenka that the motion did not come to the council in advance of the meeting and reminded the council officers of the council’s agreement in that regard. She noted that the item was already scheduled for council discussion later in the month. Mr. Zelenka distinguished between the work session already scheduled on May 20, which was concerned with the recommendations of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (POARC), and the work session proposed, which would set out expectations for the roles of the police auditor, City Council, and CRB. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Zelenka that it was his intent with the motion that the council get ahead of the new police auditor’s hiring as he thought it possible the City Council could be hiring a new auditor as early as the next day and that individual could be on board by June. Mr. Zelenka noted his own long-term support for the police auditor system and his support for the changes recently processed by the POARC to make the system stronger. He also wanted to get the best candidate for the police auditor possible to ensure the office was strong and had a forceful role in police oversight. He was eager for the day when a new police auditor was in place, the CRB was at full strength, and police oversight was “business as usual.” Mr. Pryor appreciated Mr. Zelenka’s desire to provide more clarity about the roles of the various parties. He said it was important the council be clear about its intentions and what it wanted to have happen. He said every employee deserved good supervision and he thought the proposed work session would accomplish that. Mr. Pryor recalled that he had supported placing the auditor on the ballot and had worked to get the measure passed. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Now he was being characterized as being against the auditor. He did not know what he could do to be considered “for” the auditor other than to be politicized in regard to the position, and that was not the council’s role. He supported having stronger clarity around the roles of the three parties, what good performance was considered to be, and how the auditor’s job could be done in the best way. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for Mr. Pryor’s remarks. She said it had been difficult not to discuss her views as she did not want to politicize the issue beyond what was occurring through the media. She supported the police auditor and wanted a police auditor program that worked well. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. II. WORK SESSION: Next Steps on Facility Reserves The council was joined by Interim Central Services Director Kristi Hammitt. Acting Police Chief Pete Kerns and Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division were also present for the item. Ms. Hammitt provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Next Steps on Use of the Facility Reserve. The presentation provided background on the issue and outlined the staff recommendation for a consolidated, parallel planning process that would 1) explore site options for government services (excluding police) currently provided at City Hall and options for the future use of City Hall; 2) provide a detailed analysis of the Country Club Road site for Police Services; and 3) continue to explore long-term options for City Hall consolidation. The presentation also noted the chief’s recommendation for a downtown police substation. The presentation laid out a series of steps needed to accomplish the recommendation and associated timeline. Ms. Hammitt invited questions. Mayor Piercy opened the discussion. She indicated a police facility not in downtown would be a “hard sell” for her. She thought the staff presentation omitted mention of the public perception of a physical separation between the police and the rest of the organization, and the public perception of a reduced City commitment to downtown. On the other hand, she believed that City Hall was more than inadequate; it was dangerous. Mayor Piercy thought the council had a duty to get City employees to sites where they could work safely. She believed the City was tempting fate by staying in the building. She wanted to be pragmatic and thought the Country Club Road site was suitable for a police site that helped to address some of the concerns that had been raised. Mayor Piercy suggested the council could mitigate the perception of the appearance of moving away from its commitment by pushing hard on its commitment to keeping the rest of the organization and a public safety station downtown. She advocated for a community conversation about the topic. Mayor Piercy cautioned staff to do due diligence in regard to the Country Club facility. She observed that she would miss the connection with the County if the City administration moved out of City Hall. She anticipated that the manager would negotiate the best price possible. Mr. Clark shared many of the Mayor’s sentiments and expressed appreciation for them. With regard to the concept of a city hall campus, he favored the idea in a general way. He did not want the concept to become the permanent way of delivering City services, and wanted the organization to continue to look for a more permanent city hall location. He continued to favor the Eugene Water & Electric Board site for that purpose and hoped the council continued to discuss that option. Mr. Clark spoke to the proposed police facility building and expressed concern about traffic and access. He said he would like to hear more from staff about that. Mr. Clark liked the idea of having a public safety station downtown to mitigate for the move of the police to Country Club Road. He was concerned about leaving downtown but agreed that the need was real and imminent. He wanted MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 5 Work Session to be pragmatic because he was very concerned about what the City could afford, and thought that when such an opportunity arose, the City needed to be prudent about public resources and make a smart decision. He said that if the council could address the need inexpensively, it owed it to the taxpayers to do that. He looked forward to the appraisal process and hopped the costs could be brought down. Addressing Mr. Clark’s questions about access and traffic, Chief Kerns said the police were not dispatched out of the Police Department so he did not think access would be a problem. In regard to traffic and access, Chief Kerns did not think it would be much different than trying to access City Hall at rush hour, particularly if the station had a dedicated access to I-105. He thought the presence the department created in the downtown core, aside from assigned police patrols and assigned patrol teams, was determined by the department’s workload studies and those would not change because the police were not headquartered downtown. He did not think there would be much of a change downtown in terms of a police presence and suggested the police presence might be enhanced with the new substation. Mr. Poling pointed out to Mr. Clark that police officers also worked staggered shifts, which helped to mitigate traffic. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Penwell said there were several approaches the City could take to the purchase, including a purchase and sale agreement, which was the most expedient approach and left the purchase price subject to the appraisal and due diligence process. Mr. Poling clarified that the cost of the building was not $16 million; $16 million represented both the cost of the building and the costs of the move, and it was possible not all the money would be required. He looked forward to seeing the building’s appraisal. He thought in today’s market the City should be able to buy the property at the same cost as other parties could. Referring to the City Hall campus concept, Mr. Poling said he was still not sold on that. He questioned how long the concept would last and what would happen to the development when the City moved its offices out. City Manager Ruiz did not think the development would be constructed to the City’s needs as most of its needs were general office needs. Special facilities, such as a council chamber space, could be constructed but then easily remodeled to another purpose when the City moved. He suggested that part of the advantage of the concept was synergies created by the existing uses and the presence of so many people within a tighter geographic area. He reminded the council that the City agreed to lease up to 15,000 square feet in the Beam development if necessary and thought the concept might be a way of meeting that obligation. Speaking to the issue of appearances and separating the police from City Hall, Mr. Poling recalled the feedback the City heard during the public input process related to a new city hall facility, when most of the participants indicated support for a separate police facility. He said that once the police finished their briefing, they generally left the building and were on the street in the areas to which they were assigned. Speaking to the potential of a collapsed bridge on the Willamette River in the case of a seismic event, Mr. Poling pointed out that no matter what, one part of the community would lack services. Mr. Brown recalled that the council requested information about the police take-home vehicle idea and asked for the status of that. He said the council also requested information about other first responder sites, adding he would place the airport in that category. The council had not received that information. He thought the council needed that information before it voted on any motions. Mr. Brown asked about the independent analyses mentioned in the staff materials and asked to receive copies. Mr. Penwell indicated the reference was to the space needs assessments done during the city hall master planning process MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 6 Work Session as well as past space needs studies by parties such as Barry Architects. Mr. Brown asked the ideal space for the staff currently at City Hall. Mr. Penwell said the space needs projected for the department for the year 2010 was about 70,000 square feet, twice the amount of space occupied by the police in City Hall. He indicated that accounted for a modest increase in staff predicated on past staffing studies. He confirmed, in response to a question from Mr. Brown, that those studies included the Magellan report, which did not speak to the square footage needed by the department. The report’s staffing analysis was translated into square footage through a space needs analysis accomplished through the city hall master planning process. Mr. Brown requested a copy of the recent seismic analysis of the Country Club Road property. Mr. Brown expressed concern that the City did not have funding to hire the officers needed to fill the space on Country Club Road, even to a basic service level. The City would have to hire 71 new officers to get to a basic service level, but the recommendation did not provide for that. Mr. Brown said the recommendation would result in the expenditure of the Facility Reserve and the City would have “nothing to play around with” to hire new police or open new jail beds. He believed all councilors were interested in achieving a ‘typical’ community policing service level, which would require 186 new hires. Mr. Brown believed that the City should first hire more officers and then secure a building. Mr. Pryor said it was important to be thoughtful and deliberate, particularly when considering deviating from the master planning process. However, when opportunities presented themselves, particularly if they accomplished certain goals, they needed to be considered. Since the City only could spend the Facility Reserve once, the council needed to proceed carefully. He pointed out the council could not use the Facility Reserve to hire police because it was one time money and should not be used for an ongoing expense. Mr. Pryor suggested that regardless of the police facility’s location, the distribution of police officers would be the same. For that reason, he was less concerned about the effect of the location on police operations than about whether the building was a good investment for the use of the City’s one-time moneys. Mr. Pryor said he was interested in the EWEB site, but was unsure that could happen. He was also interested in the civic center concept. He wanted to explore the available options in a thoughtful and deliberate way. Mr. Zelenka recalled that he had initially favored using managing the Facility Reserve in a way that allowed the City to hire new police officers in a way that avoided the one-time money issue but that had not been well-received by the council. Mr. Zelenka believed that City government was already very decentralized, and pointed out that less than 20 percent of City staff worked in City Hall. He had considered the City Hall master planning process to be a consolidation process, which made sense but cost a lot of money. He did not think the current discussion was about the police or the police facility, but about City Hall. The biggest tenant of the building was the police, so that department’s needs had to be taken into account. Mr. Zelenka saw two options for the organization: stay in City Hall or move. He said the council needed to decide if City Hall was worth investing in, and if it met the organization’s needs. He noted that the building was built in 1964. It had seismic issues and HVAC issues and the space was inadequate. He said that renovating the building would still result in a space not adequate for the organization. He questioned where the money for such a renovation would come from. He was skeptical that it made sense to stay in the building. However, Mr. Zelenka hoped the building would be painted soon because he anticipated the organization would be housed there for a while regardless. Mr. Zelenka was intrigued by the City Hall campus idea. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Hammitt indicated that $22 million was available in the Facility Reserve. Ms. Taylor thought take-home police cars a better solution than a new police facility. She thought that deserved further investigation. Ms. Taylor believed any new police facility should be located downtown. She had reviewed the motion the council had passed that provided direction to staff, and it directed staff to find a downtown location for the police facility but staff had returned with a location outside of downtown. Ms. Taylor asked the cost of a police substation. Mr. Penwell said that staff had not programmed out those exact costs given the unknowns of whether the facility would be owned or leased. Ms. Taylor said she had visited the location of the proposed police facility and suggested it was easier to walk into the police station downtown than it would be at the Country Club location. There was no guarantee that a Breeze bus would continue to operate. Ms. Taylor said if the council decided to move forward, she hoped that there was a public vote on the proposal. Ms. Taylor asked if the City would have to demolish the existing City Hall if it was considered to be unsafe. She did not think that made sense. She thought the City needed to do the basic seismic retrofit of City Hall whether it used the building or someone else used it. Ms. Taylor did not think a civic center could be achieved by decentralization, which was what she considered the proposal. Ms. Ortiz asked if the City was still collecting money from the departments for the Facility Reserve. City Manager Ruiz said the transfer would not occur in fiscal year 2010. He believed that the City Council would need to determine how to replenish those dollars in the future to keep the fund sustainable. Ms. Ortiz endorsed staff’s incremental approach. She indicated she liked the idea of having the police separate from City Hall. She did not object to demolishing the building, and suggested the potential of doing so and making the site a downtown park until it could be sold. Ms. Ortiz was not happy about the concept of a police facility not in downtown. Many constituents had contacted her about the loss of foot traffic that patronized local businesses. She was cognizant of that concern, but also was also committed to doing what she could in regard to replacing those jobs and encouraging residents to visit downtown. She believed that examination of the parking issue was part of that effort. Mr. Brown believed that a new police facility was a low public priority because it had been voted down three times. However, he thought that public safety improvements were a high priority for voters. The public wanted more police and more jail beds. He thought the council and staff needed to spend more time figuring out reliable ways to fund public safety, even if it was incremental and involved hiring only four new officers each year. He suggested the Facilities Reserve could be used as a trust fund to hire new officers as had been proposed at the Budget Committee. He also thought the City needed to ensure all its buildings were safe for staff and visitors. He thought the City was just beginning to explore the options and there were more options to consider beyond what was before the council. His worst fear was that adoption of the staff recommendation could be divisive in the community and there could be a public backlash. If the funding was used as proposed, nothing was left in the Facility Reserve for seismic upgrades for two fire stations, the airport fire station, or any other first responder site. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Brown asked if council action on the recommendation could be referred to a ballot. Mr. Klein said the council could choose to place a measure on the ballot, but unless it voluntarily agreed to do so, the council could take action such that they could not be referred. Mr. Brown believed that if the council failed to refer its action to the voters it would destroy the council’s credibility even further and would be a terrible mistake. Speaking to the question of what would happen to City Hall if the police moved out, Mr. Poling suggested that was part of the future process. He said if the City Council decided to bring other functions back to City Hall if the police moved out, he would be willing to give up his office space, which he did not use and which was a project that had cost much more than initially envisioned. Speaking to Mr. Brown’s concern about the airport fire station, Mr. Poling pointed out that the City was in the process of building a new station with the use of federal stimulus money as well as from other sources. Mr. Poling said the public voted down new taxes, not necessarily a new police facility. Subsequently, the City Council had begun to set aside the money. The City had the need and opportunity to use the money as intended, and the council had the right to make the decision about the expenditure. Mr. Poling believed that the space issue was one of the hard decisions the council had to make. He said the council could “dance around” the issue and have a “chicken and egg” discussion but he thought it needed to “step up to the plate” and make a decision. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that the issue for him was not about the police patrol but about City Hall and all the functions in City Hall. He said he supported referring a measure to the ballot if it addressed only the police facility. He considered the recommendation a plan to deal with all the functions in City Hall. He reiterated that the civic center concept had a lot of appeal to him given the activity it would create within a one- to two-block period. Mr. Zelenka thought there were many things the City could do with the existing building and expressed interest in Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion for a park. However, he suggested the City needed the money the building’s sale would realize. Mr. Zelenka wanted to avoid creating another pit. Mr. Zelenka did not think all buildings needed to be preserved. Sometimes it was time for buildings to go. That left the question of where to locate the police, which was a service with special needs. Very few buildings fit those needs, and to build a new building would cost $34 million. Mr. Zelenka said that the City could get the functionality for less than half that amount, and he wanted to explore the concept in more detail. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged that he did not think the police needed to be downtown. He said that if the City built a new police facility, it would be basically be a “ghost garage.” If the police were doing their jobs right, they would not be in the building, and he did not think a “ghost garage” was the best use of space downtown. He believed the police presence could be provided through a police substation. He found the Country Club Road building interesting because it met seismic standards, was located on a Lane Transit District bus line, was proximate to I-105, was essentially a shell, the needed technology could be easily put in place and the building had adequate parking. Ms. Taylor asked why the City needed a police facility if there was no one there. She said that took her back to the suggestion for take-home cars. Ms. Taylor believed City Hall was falling apart because the City had not maintained it. She said the City needed to do the basic seismic upgrade of the building if anyone was to use it. She preferred to rehabilitate and reuse City Hall and construct a basic office building in the parking lot across the street for the rest of the staff. She did not think the City needed to embark on an expensive public input process and recalled a two-day event the City held several years ago, during which several people advocated for rehabilitation of City Hall, but after it was over nobody remembered that. Ms. Taylor thought City Hall could be made to look good, and commended the plantings outside the City Manager’s Office. She preferred to spend the money to make City Hall look decent and be safe. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Poling’s remarks about the past votes. She agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the council needed to look beyond downtown. She suggested that providing the police with decent space was a matter of equity. Ms. Ortiz said she used her office at City Hall but would also be willing to give it up. While she appreciated the space, she regretted the cost of the project. Mr. Pryor said constructing a new city hall building would cost $120 million, and the City would not have that kind of money anytime soon. The council had to do something in the interim. Mr. Pryor thought that the council would have to spend far more than the amount it had in the Facility Reserve to renovate City Hall. He said the council would have to seek voter approval for a bond to make that happen. Mr. Pryor was intrigued with the idea of a temporary park. Mr. Pryor believed the recommendation might not be the entire solution, but it would move the organization toward a more permanent solution. He said it was not viable for the organization to stay in City Hall. He liked the options presented to the council and supported the public input proposed. He said the council had the responsibility for making the decision, but he wanted its decision to represent an informed choice. ? Mayor Piercy reminded the council that it had been working on the issue for the last few years and the coun- cil majority had not changed its vote; for several years, the council majority had said the organization should vacate City Hall over time, and would build a new city hall. Nothing had changed; the issue was how the council would reach that goal. Given the current economy, Mayor Piercy believed that the public expected the council to go about solving the problem in the most practical and cost-effective way possible. Mayor Piercy reminded the council that it needed the organization’s first responders in a place where they could provide services in case of an emergency. That was a basic service, not the “bow on a cake.” She thought the council owed that to the public, and reiterated the question was which avenue it would try. She suggested that the council needed to move on and try to get together on this, and councilors needed to decide what they could live with. Mr. Brown thought there was general agreement with the Mayor. He clarified for Mr. Poling that he was speaking about the airport terminal and the two active fire stations that were considered seismically vulnerable. Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Penwell said that the building at 858 Pearl was about 16,000 to 17,000 square feet and had no basement. Mr. Brown said he was not interested in more public process about the future of City Hall, although he was interested in more public input related to a new police facility because someone might have a good idea that led to the best use of the $22 million in the Facility Reserve. He suggested the potential of using urban renewal dollars for a new police facility. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for Mr. Brown’s remarks about the need for new officers and said he would offer the Budget Committee a motion to fund new officers again this year. He believed that the public deserved the most effective public safety system at the least possible cost, and for that reason found the recommendation intriguing. Mr. Clark asked about City Manager Ruiz’ communication with EWEB regarding the City’s interest in the utility’s administrative building. City Manager Ruiz said he had not written a formal letter but had discussed the issue with General Manager Randy Berggren. He anticipated further discussion. Mr. Clark advocated for contact with the board as he had heard from a couple of board members expressing confusion about the status of the situation. City MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 10 Work Session Manager Ruiz indicated he would send the board a letter. Mr. Clark was interested in public input because he wanted to hear from the general public if there were better ideas available. However, he was not interested in another $2 million visioning process using outside consultants. He wanted to do what was possible with City staff to engage public input. Mayor Piercy did not contemplate a long public process and emphasized the importance of being clear with the public about what type of feedback the council was asking for. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate a public forum for the purpose of seeking community input on the options for City Hall and police facilities, and bring back the results to the council prior to the council break on August 13, 2009. Mr. Brown determined from Mr. Zelenka that the motion did not preclude people from coming up with their own options. Mr. Poling termed the motion a rehash of what the council had been doing for ten years. He feared to lose a practical and cost-effective way to move the Police Department to a new facility tomorrow. Speaking to Mr. Brown’s suggestion that a good idea could come from a member of the community, Mr. Poling pointed out that the proposal to use the building on Country Club Road came from a member of the community. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to substitute the motion with a motion that directed the City Manager to attempt to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) for the property at 300 Country Club Road for a price to be determined following completion of an appraisal, and to make the PSA contingent upon council approval of the purchase price. Mr. Clark said while he did not want to get bogged down in more discussion that did not lead to a council action, he wanted to leave room in the schedule for additional public input. Mr. Pryor did not think holding a forum was a complicated thing. He said the council had not had any formal public input on the options now before the council, and he was interested in hearing that. He did not think the process would materially affect the timeline. His concern about supporting Mr. Poling’s motion was that it sent a signal that the council did not want to provide for public input. While he appreciated Mr. Poling’s desire to get something done, he thought the public forum would not interfere with the other necessary steps, such as the property appraisal. City Manager Ruiz indicated that staff would prefer a council motion regarding the appraisal. He did not think a public forum that allowed people to provide meaningful feedback would be difficult to arrange using City staff. He said that the City also had other steps it had to take before it could purchase Country Club Road property. Mr. Poling said that if Mr. Pryor had accurately portrayed the process that would occur if Mr. Zelenka’s motion passed, he was willing to withdraw his motion. His intent in offering the motion was to convey to the owner of the Country Club Road property that the council considered his property a viable option for the police facility. Mr. Zelenka concurred with the assessment of Mr. Pryor. Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. Ms. Solomon withdrew her second. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment that the motion include direction to the City Manager to move forward concurrently with the property appraisal and other due diligence tasks related to the acquisition of the property. Mr. Zelenka accepted the friendly amendment. MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 11 Work Session The motion passed, 6:1:1; Ms. Taylor voting no, and Mr. Brown being out of the room when the vote was taken. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—City Council May 11, 2009 Page 12 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 8, 2009 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, George Brown, members. ABSENT: Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy introduced new Police Auditor Mark Gissiner, who introduced his wife Cheryl. Mr. Gissiner thanked the council and Mayor for their confidence and expressed appreciation for the welcome he had received from Eugene residents. He was pleased to be in Eugene and looked forward to embarking on the work of the Police Auditor’s Office. He expressed admiration for the community’s activism and the council’s engagement. Mayor Piercy reported that a bill addressing the problem of metal theft had recently passed the State legislature. She thanked Representative Nancy Nathanson and Senator Floyd Prozanski as well as City staff for their work on the bill. Mayor Piercy announced her upcoming attendance at the Whiteaker Community Council meeting. She commended the recent First Friday Art Walk and said that as a result of that and the Bite of Eugene event, downtown Eugene was very busy. Mayor Piercy thanked Scott Olmos and the Eugene Fire Fighters for the opportunity to participate in the “Fire Ops 101” event held June 6. She also thanked the residents of the Trainsong neighborhood for their successful neighborhood cleanup. Mayor Piercy reported that she had talked to Valerie Jarrett of the Obama administration about health care and would share the information she received with the council. Mayor Piercy concluded by reporting that at the last City Club meeting, she had presented the 2009 Arts Foundation of Western Oregon’s Bishop Arts & Letters Award to Emerald City Jazz Kings Artistic Director Stephen Stone. Ms. Solomon reported that June 17 was the next general meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens (ABC) at 7:00 p.m. at Petersen Park. The ABC had a full agenda and she anticipated it would be a good meeting. She said the ABC newsletter was very informative and she shared an item from the newsletter regarding the establishment of a community veterinarian service established in partnership with St. Vincent de Paul intended to serve low-income clients. Ms. Solomon noted the upcoming grand opening of Golden Gardens Park on June 25. Mr. Brown thanked Fire Chief Randy Groves and members of Local 851 of the International Association of Fire Fighters for providing the council with the opportunity to participate in “Fire Ops 101” and said his admiration and respect for the job they did, which was already strong, had gone up several notches. He said participants had MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 1 learned in tiny measure what the fire fighters did every day. Mr. Poling congratulated the Thurston High School men’s baseball team for winning the Oregon State Athletic Association (OSAA) Class 5A baseball championship, and also congratulated the Marist High School women’s softball team for winning the OSAA Class 4A softball championship. He recognized Kayla Braud of Marist for a hitting streak of 103 consecutive baseball games. Mr. Poling noted his attendance at the May 28 reception honoring the service of outgoing University of Oregon President David Frohnmayer and his wife Lynn. He also noted his attendance at the recent Fire EMS graduation class and thanked the new class for its decision to work for the City. He regretted his inability to attend Fire Ops 101 and hoped to get another chance. Mr. Poling said he recently received a call from a resident of the south hills about banning fireworks and asked if the City planned to do anything in that regard. Mr. Poling reported on the most recent meeting of Lane Transit District’s EmX Steering Committee, saying the committee heard that LTD received $3.2 million in federal stimulus money for capital improvements. The Gateway EmX station recently served its first bus for training purposes, and the grand opening of the station was June 14. He said that Wildish was the general contractor for the Gateway EmX route extension. He said the project was on schedule and the new buses for the route would be delivered in late summer or early fall ahead of route completion. The steering committee also heard an update on a council and LTD Board of Directors work session and a report on BLIMP (Bus Lane with Intermittent Priorities), a bus signalization system. Mr. Poling reported on a meeting that occurred at the Willakenzie Grange on June 5 for the purpose of discussing an affordable housing project being built. He said that 15-20 people attended to discuss the Request for Proposals process. Residents had expressed their concerns and there was dialogue between staff and residents. He thanked Planner Bill Almquist for updating him about the event. He advised the residents of the area to stay involved to ensure the historic character of the neighborhood was preserved. Mr. Pryor said he enjoyed Fire Ops 101 and it was a way to get a small sampling of what the fire fighters really do. He said that Ms. Ortiz was also in attendance and had helped to get things organized. It was a great event. Mr. Pryor said he planned to go on a police ride-along soon. Mr. Pryor had also attended the event for President Frohnmayer and thought that the community was fortunate to have him as a resident. Ms. Ortiz had also attended President Frohnmayer’s reception and had been impressed by the work both he and his wife had done. Ms. Ortiz said that she had been unable to attend the last meeting of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency but had some concerns about that agency’s budget process. She had hoped for a more inclusive and open process, but that had not occurred, and she wanted the council to be aware of her concerns. Ms. Ortiz had also attended the Fire Ops 101 event and said the fire fighters took pride in their work and enjoyed sharing what they did with the council. Ms. Ortiz said she had attended the We Are Bethel Celebration the previous week, which had grown over the eight years it had been in existence and was a really family-focused event. Ms. Ortiz said the Trainsong “Clean Sweep” was a very successful event. She looked forward to anything the manager could share about the follow-up to the event. MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Ortiz had attended the groundbreaking for the Sponsors house on Highway 99 and it had been a good event with much community support. She said it was good to see the dreams of those with the desire to help others come to fruition. She commended the Sponsors Board of Directors and staff. Ms. Ortiz invited the council to a barbeque celebrating the Trainsong Neighborhood on June 13 at Trainsong Park. Ms. Taylor recalled her own participation in a previous Fire Ops 101 and said she would have attended again had she been in Eugene that weekend. However, she had a family conflict. Ms. Taylor noted the upcoming Southeast Neighbors meeting at Spencer Butte School on June 7. Ms. Taylor noted that Wade Hicks of the City’s Minutes Recording staff was appearing as the lead in Humble Boy at the Very Little Theater. She encouraged people to support the arts in Eugene. Ms. Taylor spoke to the subject of street assessments and said she was glad to hear the City had received lower bids. She hoped to find ways to help people pay those assessments this year. She observed that she had talked with an engineer from St. Louis who had never heard of assessing abutting properties for such improvements. Ms. Taylor reported on her recent attendance at the National League of Cities Human Development Steering Committee. She said the committee had heard that the National League of Cities lobbyist and staff were very pleased with the new administration and were being invited to meetings at the White House and their opinions on issues solicited. Ms. Taylor said that the committee had appointed a subcommittee to track health care legislation and its focus this year was on reauthorization of the Work Force Reinvestment Act. She had heard interesting ideas, such as co-locating the work force investment board with unemployment offices. The committee was also working to get local work force investment boards more flexibility in how they spent money. Ms. Taylor said the committee was also working on efforts to reintegrate veterans into their communities and the prevention of unplanned and teen-aged pregnancy. Mr. Zelenka had also attended the Fire Ops 101 and thanked the fire fighters for attending on their own time. He said their work was hard, dark and dangerous to a greater degree than he realized. He said as a result of his participation, he had come to the realization that fire fighters’ work was equipment-intensive and having good equipment was very important, that repeated training was extremely important for fire fighters and that firefighters depended on team work to save lives. Mr. Zelenka noted that many donated materials went into fire fighter training and said that spoke well both of the community and the resourcefulness of the fire department. Mr. Zelenka said he attended the West University Neighborhood meeting, which included an extensive discussion of the future of City Hall and how the neighborhood organization could be involved in any future planning processes. Mr. Zelenka announced the Glenwood Hazardous Roundup on June 13 and reported the Amazon Neighbors also planned a recycle-reuse roundup. Mr. Zelenka said he heard a statistic that indicated 60 percent of individual bankruptcies were due to medical costs, which was a number he found surprising as well as a reason to change the nation’s health care system to a more universal system. For the benefit of those who were unemployed or laid off, Mr. Zelenka shared the Lane Workforce Partnership assistance line, 682-7200, and encouraged residents to call for help to take advantage of the federal grants the agency received to support job training. MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 3 Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy about the follow-up to the Trainsong neighborhood clean-up, which was not completed because the clean-up exceeded the tipping fee waiver the neighborhood had received, City Manager Jon Ruiz indicated much of the debris had been picked up by residents and the remaining debris would be picked up by the weekend. City Manager Ruiz announced that the City had a booth at the last First Friday event to commence public discussion on a new police facility and announced that several more would occur, on June 22 and June 25 at the Atrium Building and one on June 22 at the Sheldon Community Center. City Manager Ruiz thanked Petersen Barn staff for their work on the We are Bethel Celebration, saying it was a growing and fun event that residents enjoyed. He had also attended the Fire Ops 101 event and thanked the fire fighters. He said that the department was a good one with excellent leadership from the chief down to the captains. He thought that was demonstrated during the event. He believed that it was comforting to the community to have such well-trained fire fighters. City Manager Ruiz said he had attended the last Santa Clara community organization meeting, which enjoyed a good turn-out. He had also attended the Sponsors event mentioned by Ms. Ortiz and commended the good work the organization was doing. City Manager Ruiz noted his recent attendance at the Prefontaine Classic and commended the quality of the event, which was nationally televised. He said it was a great way to bring the community together. City Manager Ruiz noted the Eugene Police Department’s recent three-day workshop, which he termed a worthwhile investment in time and resources. Ms. Ortiz thanked Dr. Gary Young of PeaceHealth for his recent letter-to-the-editor, published in the June 7 edition of The Register-Guard entitled EMS System Needs Support. She said that Dr. Young’s letter encouraged people to get involved. Ms. Ortiz also noted the Mayor’s recent op-ed piece on the Seneca biomass project and the accidental omission of the last sentence, which she asked Mayor Piercy to share. Mayor Piercy said the article omitted that she planned to ask Seneca to work with other local businesses and with the neighborhood groups to get the air quality monitoring system in place that everyone had wanted to have in place for such a long time. B. WORK SESSION: Boards, Commissions, and Committees On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Piercy thanked the many volunteers who served on City boards and commissions. City Manager’s Office Division Manager Keli Osborn and Council Coordinator Beth Forrest joined the council for the item. Ms. Osborn indicated the work session was an opportunity for staff to solicit feedback on several issues from the council. She indicated staff was seeking council direction in three areas: 1. Representation; 2. Board, commission, and committee member development; and 3. Recruitment and selection. Ms. Osborn noted the outcomes identified by staff in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) related to the three topic areas. The outcome for representation included that the makeup of advisory groups should, over time, represent the richness of the community’s perspectives, neighborhoods, and population demographics. The outcome for MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 4 member development spoke to the provision of additional training and support for existing members as well as through the community to develop more potential members for boards and commissions. The outcome recruitment and selection spoke to continued refinement of City communication procedures to help ensure that outreach, recruitment, interviews, selection, and appointments were fair, transparent, and civil. Ms. Osborn invited feedback on the suggested outcomes, noting the pending boards and commissions recruitment season. Ms. Solomon, who had requested the work session, recalled the last boards and commissions interviews process, which had served as an impetus to her request. She hoped the council had a discussion of specific process improvements rather than a general discussion. She thought the current process could be improved considerably. Ms. Solomon identified her areas of interest as 1) an improved computer application process, and she noted the progress that had been made and suggested that the council needed to further refine the questions; 2) a different start date for the terms of board and commission members of July 1, and she suggested that the council extend the terms of existing members to accommodate that change; and 3) a change to the application process based on the system used by School District 4J that allowed each applicant three minutes to speak to convince the council of their suitability for the job, with the decision to happen the same evening. She suggested that would be a shorter and more efficient process. Ms. Ortiz was intrigued by Ms. Solomon’s suggestion for the process. She thought the application forms and interview questions were redundant and, given that each commission had its own criteria for membership, she did not think the form should include any questions. She wanted only information about the individual’s ability to satisfy the time commitment required. She suggested that each board and commission could recommend selection criteria that were relevant to their body. Ms. Ortiz wanted to include youth in the categories for outreach. She also suggested the potential of a boards and commissions “boot camp.” Mayor Piercy said she was bothered that applicants did not get information about the outcome of the application in a timely fashion. She thought the City should send each applicant a thank-you note for applying, and that should be done even if the applicant was not chosen for a position. Mayor Piercy noted the mention in the AIS of a Citizens Academy, which was of long-standing interest to Ms. Taylor, and thanked staff for acknowledging Ms. Taylor’s interest. Ms. Taylor thought that changing the start time for all new terms would be appropriate, although she had been going to suggest January as the new start date. Ms. Taylor emphasized her interest in a Citizens Academy. She suggested that the City’s former Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) had served as a useful “training ground” for residents who later went on to serve on other boards and commissions. Ms. Taylor wanted to have interview questions well in advance so the councilors could make revisions and address the redundancies mentioned by Ms. Ortiz. Mr. Pryor appreciated Ms. Solomon’s suggestions. He agreed that all members of boards and commissions should start at the same time and endorsed the July date mentioned by Ms. Solomon. He also supported holding a Citizens Academy or orientation of some sort and suggested that could occur in July as well. He believed an orientation was crucial to new members’ success and their ability to serve effectively. He said the school district’s system worked because by the time the council got to the three-minute presentation, it had considerable information from the application, making the application itself more critical. He believed the presentation merely MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 5 solidified the application. Mr. Pryor wanted to ensure that applications were made available as widely as possible and commended the current display ads in the newspaper. He suggested that parent-teacher site councils could also be used to spread the word and stressed the importance of making the application process easier. He said the on-line process could be critical to realizing that goal. He thought the council should fine-tune the existing process to make the recruitment effort as broad as possible. Mr. Zelenka spoke to the recruitment process, calling for more and different outreach. He noted the narrow demographics of City boards and commissions but acknowledged it was difficult to secure more diversity when applicants were self-selected and some areas of the community were more inclined to apply than residents of other areas. However, he did not want to change that because he did not think it could be changed. Mr. Zelenka liked the idea of having people making short presentations. He did not get much value from the questions currently being asked. He thought all candidates should appear at the same meeting. However, that required more homework on the part of both the council and the applicants. He suggested that the council could require a resume or the City could provide a one-page form for applicants to complete that served the same function. Mr. Zelenka thought the council needed to notify applicants more quickly in regard to whether they had been selected. Mr. Zelenka spoke of the council’s interaction with its boards and commissions, suggesting that the current level of interaction was unsatisfactory. He proposed that the council might want to schedule regular quarterly half- hour work sessions with all its boards and commissions, as well as require more regular written reports. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Ortiz that her remarks about the criteria had been focused on the application forms and her concerns about redundancy, but she envisioned the same type of voting process the council currently employed. Mr. Poling suggested the council could modify the questions on the application forms but he did not envision a significant change in the current preliminary screening process. He supported the idea of a three- to five-minute applicant presentation but did not think the council should vote on the applicants that same evening. He wanted more time to think about the applicants and perhaps compare notes with other councilors before making a decision at the next meeting. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the time for making a decision needed to be shortened. He agreed with Ms. Solomon’s recommendation for a July 1 start date for all terms, particularly for Budget Committee members, pointing out that in the current system, they were “thrown right into the fray.” He also concurred with Ms. Solomon’s suggestion that the terms of current boards and commissions members could be extended to accommodate the change. Mr. Zelenka thought July 1 was a logical start date but he was somewhat concerned about the timing of the date given its proximity to the budget process. He suggested that the selection process could occur in a compressed period after or before the budget process. Mr. Zelenka also liked the idea of a Citizens Academy, and endorsed the idea of resurrecting the CIC. He thought the CIC had helped to secure “more and better” citizen involvement from those not generally involved in government affairs, which was something the City and every government agency struggled with. He suggested that “throwing some smart people” from a perspective different than that of the bureaucracy or the council at the problem could be useful. MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 6 Mr. Zelenka reminded the council of the requests for interaction the council received from its different commit- tees on a regular basis. He noted the council’s existing work load and said it was impossible for the council to add more meetings, and reiterated his previous suggestion for a more formalized quarterly meeting process. Ms. Ortiz proposed that the council adopt Ms. Solomon’s proposal for the upcoming boards and commissions process, and that the change in dates be shared with the candidates. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the City condition funding for newsletters on the publication of City openings on boards and commissions. She suggested that a City staff person could attend neighborhood organization meetings and encourage residents to apply for City vacancies. Ms. Taylor said that she envisioned a Citizens’ Academy as a place where people could learn about local government and perhaps become motivated to apply to serve on a board or commission. Ms. Taylor recalled that the former CIC had included residents from the Voters’ Pool, and many were individuals who had never before thought of getting involved in City government. They had remained involved after their service on the CIC. Ms. Taylor thought that was a valuable aspect to that committee. Mr. Pryor suggested that the council could take advantage of existing programs such as the Eugene-Springfield Chambers of Commerce Leadership Program. He described the program and noted that it had graduated more than 400 people. He suggested the City could provide some support for additional people to be trained through that program, which could be modified to give volunteers the program essentials. Ms. Solomon noted her own participation in the chamber program and thanked Mr. Pryor for mentioning it. She also thanked Ms. Ortiz for her support. She asked if councilors were interested in changing the interview process before the next application cycle. Mr. Zelenka indicated interest in changing both the start date and process but continued to be concerned about the proximity between the budget process and suggested start date of July 1. He also liked the idea of shorter interviews, perhaps including one or two questions from the council, with a short presentation for applicants. He also thought that required the candidate to provide more information in the application. Ms. Solomon concurred. She said the council needed a fuller application with better questions and asked staff to look into the school district’s process as a starting point for future discussion. She suggested the possibility of eliminating the scheduled October recruitment to avoid the problem of terms that expired in June, and postponing the recruitment to the spring. Ms. Osborn indicated that some ordinance changes would likely be required to accommodate the council’s suggestions. Ms. Taylor suggested that if terms were to begin in July, recruitment should begin in January. She questioned whether anyone would bother applying in October if they knew their terms would expire in June. She preferred to extend the current members’ terms. While he continued to support the July 1 start date, Mr. Zelenka believed that recruitment and selection should start in the winter and be complete by the time the budget process started. Mayor Piercy hoped that any new member orientation included discussion of the goals and strategies of the City so that members were “in sync” with where the City was going, no matter what commission they served on. Mayor Piercy agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the council could have shorter conversations more often with MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 7 members of its boards and commissions. She thought that both the council and its advisory groups would benefit. C. WORK SESSION: City Manager Annual Performance Review The council was joined by Alana Holmes and Denise Smith of Central Services-Human Resources, who were present to discuss the process for the upcoming evaluation of the City Manager. Councilors shared feedback about the proposal. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—City Council June 8, 2009 Page 8 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 17, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown. Mayor Kitty Piercy pursuant to ORS 192.6602(f), called an executive session of the Eugene City Council, to consider records that are exempt from public disclosure, to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Piercy adjourned the executive session at 12:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 17, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 8, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Work Session of the Eugene City Council. A. WORK SESSION: Urban Renewal Mike Sullivan, Director of the Community Development Division, showed a supplement to the Register- Guard from 1972 that introduced the downtown mall to the community. He pointed out that this demonstrated that the City had been talking about the downtown for many years. Amanda Nobel Flannery, Loan Analyst for the Community Development Division, stated that the presentation was a follow-up on the City Council discussion of May 20 on downtown urban renewal projects, financial requirements, and the plan amendment process. She stated that these topics were part of a larger discussion on local economic development. She underscored that actions taken to encourage development and redevelopment in the downtown boosted the health of the urban core and contributed to the economic health of the community. Ms. Nobel Flannery said the May discussion had also included a plan amendment to increase the spending limit and the council had asked for specificity on such projects. She stated that staff had put together two potential projects as a “test run” of the type and scope of information they could provide before the plan amendment process was initiated in August. She noted that they would also review the timeline and the draft public involvement plan in order to garner feedback from the councilors. Ms. Nobel Flannery provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Economic Development & Downtown, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. She began with the list of the potential projects, which included the two examples to be used for the present work session: Park Blocks improvements and local business assistance. She noted that the details she intended to review were included in Attachment F in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She explained that the Park Blocks projects were those on the list of improvements from the Park Blocks Master Plan that were not yet implemented due to unavailability of funding. She underscored that the list of improvements would not come before the council for approval until future conversations with the council, the community, and stakeholders had been undertaken. Ms. Nobel Flannery stated that the Park Blocks projects also had a boundary issue that the council would have to address, as the East Block was not within the urban renewal district boundary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nobel Flannery discussed the local business assistance, her other example for how urban renewal funding could be used. She said one way funding could be allocated would be through matching grants that could be made available immediately and then would operate on an ongoing basis until funds were depleted or until Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. She showed a slide of a local building that would potentially seek to make improvements that would result in a 50 percent reduction in annual energy costs, noting that currently it was difficult for business owners to go into the financial market and borrow money. Continuing, Ms. Nobel Flannery reviewed the timeline. She noted that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) planned to meet in the following week on July 16 to start the discussion on specific projects and to help staff formulate a recommendation. She outlined the draft public involvement plan, which would be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval before final implementation. Ms. Taylor was “very disturbed” that the council was “rushing to do something” in the summertime. She averred that people had surprise summer guests, which diverted their attention, or were going on vacation. She felt that staff assumed the council would approve of this, noting that it would go before the ERAC in the next week. She remarked that ERAC was not a governmental body; she thought it had been intended to be a temporary committee appointed by the Mayor. Ms. Nobel Flannery clarified that the ERAC was a departmental advisory committee. Ms. Taylor opined that all of the information in the AIS assumed that the council would “do all these things” and would increase the debt limit and expand the boundaries. She felt the council should hold a work session to discuss whether the council even wanted to continue having an urban renewal district. She recalled the popular vote against the last proposed increase to the debt limit for an urban renewal project. She remarked that urban renewal money had been utilized to put in the pedestrian mall and then to remove it again. Ms. Taylor averred that the money “came from somewhere.” She said whether it came from state or local school funds, it was still from school funds. She asked how much of the urban renewal money would go to the General Fund. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the ERAC had been written into the plan, as directed by the City Council, as the initial step in this process. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager, stated that the information regarding urban renewal money was contained in Attachment B in the AIS. She said with delinquencies and discounts, the amount that would have gone into the General Fund in FY09 was approximately $800,000. Mr. Poling observed that in order to have a discussion on whether or not the council wanted to pursue this, they had to go through a certain process. He said what they were doing at the present meeting was the first step. He underscored that they did not know what the outcome would be at this point. He averred that the fact that it was summertime was no different than other times of the year; the government “goes on 365 days a year.” He declared that they had taken on this job to get things accomplished. He was happy with the timeline from July to October as he felt it gave everyone who wanted to get involved the opportunity to do so. Nonetheless, he predicted that when the council arrived at its decision point, there would be a “flurry” of people saying, “Oh, my gosh. When did this happen?” He wanted to get the word out at every opportunity that this was the time to participate in this discussion. He reiterated that the council could not make a decision until the process was completed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Brown said he would like to see the division of the tax impact on overlapping tax districts over the course of a plan. He commented that the projects did not seem compelling. He predicted that if they asked the citizens, they would wonder why the City would choose to use urban renewal money for the Park Blocks. He also believed that the City was doing a fine job of providing business assistance with its other programs. He was not convinced that this was an appropriate expenditure of urban renewal funds. Mayor Piercy agreed that the council would have to find compelling projects. She remarked that they also could not talk about losing money until they had it. She pointed out that if something was not built, it never generated tax revenue. She hoped the council would have a real discussion on how it would tie whatever it decided to pursue with the Council Goals. Ms. Ortiz observed that the council had often engaged in the conversation on whether an urban renewal district was valuable or not. She stressed that at the state level, the schools received their money. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the staff work that had gone into the presentation. She considered the Park Blocks improvement to be a good project. She also supported business assistance to improve energy efficiency. She said the older buildings in the downtown needed to be upgraded. She opined that increasing their energy efficiency was better than “letting them rot” or tearing them down. Regarding concern over discussing this in the summer, Ms. Ortiz felt the timeline would give adequate time for anyone who had an interest in participating to provide input. Mr. Pryor said the question was what outcome did they want to see occur and what would it look like. He was certain that if the council did not participate at all there would still be an outcome, but he was not sure what it would look like. He added his feeling that the timeline was “fine.” He hoped the input and deliberation would help guide the council in its decision on what way to go in its financial planning. He wanted the process to say not only that the City had these mechanisms and what did people think of them, but also what the people wanted to have downtown. He wanted to make sure the City received the maximum outcome for money spent. Mr. Clark echoed Mr. Pryor’s points. He wanted to gain more specificity about the longer term outcome and goal. He wanted to explore what the City wanted to achieve and whether urban renewal was the best way to achieve it. He added his appreciation for the staff work that had gone into the presentation. Mr. Clark was interested in the answer to the question that Mr. Brown had raised regarding whether urban renewal had worked. He was, in general terms, in favor of the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) because if the applicant received a tax break for a period of years then the City received more money from a long-term increase to the tax base. His understanding of urban renewal was that the City would essentially be borrowing on the future increase in taxes in order to build now what the City would like to have, with the assumption that those taxes would increase. He was challenged in that the projects they ended up building did not seem to increase the tax base. He did not want it to be construed that he did not consider what had been built to be good – urban renewal projects included the Hult Center for the Performing Arts and the Eugene Public Library – but he did not have a clear sense of whether tax increment financing had been a successful tool in Eugene for increasing tax revenue. Mayor Piercy noted that the packet materials included a list of tax paying projects. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka wanted to emphasize that the council was at the start of a process. He stressed that it was not a “done deal” and the outcome would be a plan. He did agree that August was a bad time to conduct public involvement. He said if he were revising the plan, he would shift the public involvement out to September. He also wished to note that there was not a one-to-one relationship between school funding and urban renewal. He felt it was confusing to people to say this. Mr. Zelenka thought some of the projects were in the public’s interest. He noted that the steam generation facility operated by the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) was slated to shut down within the next five years and downtown business owners needed to find another way to heat their buildings. He stated that this would be expensive and difficult and would have environmental consequences. He felt it would behoove them to ensure that it was done well. He had been impressed by the list of private businesses that had benefited from urban renewal monies, such as the Downtown Athletic Club and the U.S. Bank Building, among others. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Sullivan to speak to the list of projects and the tax value they brought to the City. Mr. Sullivan responded that the list spoke for itself. He said the loan money had been used to improve the cultural value of the downtown as well as the tax value of the downtown. Ms. Taylor opined that the council should be provided a list of things urban renewal had “destroyed.” She asserted that the tax revenue came to the City when the urban renewal district was terminated. Mr. Sullivan clarified that there was a continuous flow of tax revenue; the new value that had been achieved through urban renewal came onto the tax rolls when the district ended. Ms. Taylor ascertained that the downtown renewal district had been in existence since 1968. She thought if they had more money in the General Fund, the City could do other things. She thought the City could build a restroom downtown, which she felt was essential, using General Fund money. She did not feel that projects had to come from urban renewal. She asserted that urban renewal made it easier to spend the money without people being aware of it. She acknowledged that there was a limit on the expenditures. Ms. Taylor did not want to find projects that made people want to have an urban renewal district. She felt that if they had projects that needed to be done, they should then find out how to get the money for it. She noted that urban renewal was listed on property tax bills; people could see how much they were paying for it. In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the last year of the special levy for the library had been FY08 and it could not be revived. Mr. Brown suggested that the City extend the downtown zone to the PeaceHealth Clinic and “shave off” the University of Oregon portion. He understood that the University did not pay city taxes. Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that the Riverfront District can no longer be expanded and that state statutes did not allow the City to cut University property from the urban renewal district and other property. Mr. Brown asked if the City collected taxes from the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the City collected from the privately-owned land but not from the publicly-owned land. Mr. Poling said the two examples on the list were potential projects and, as a result of the public process, some of the projects would fall off and other projects could be brought forward. He also felt that the process could result in no plan and that the urban renewal district could be allowed “to die.” He pointed out that the proposed potential increase in the urban renewal debt limit was a very different discussion than the highly politicized measure that had been voted down. He predicted that the council would get very different types of information with the current discussion than it had in the larger more contentious issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the Hult Center did not have a direct connection with the tax base, but if an improvement to the downtown resulted in the construction of other amenities, this also provided an indirect increase to the tax base. Mr. Zelenka understood that the tools available to the council to “do things” to improve downtown were limited. He noted that they were mostly centered on property tax exemptions and other than that there were no other financial tools to enable some of the projects they were talking about other than urban renewal funds. He said while eliminating the urban renewal district would mean that monies there would go back to the General Fund, that fund had so many “pressures” on it, the funds would be diverted to things other than the projects needed to benefit the downtown area. He averred that the outcome he was seeking was to make the downtown better. He agreed that some past urban renewal projects had not worked. He felt that a public involvement process should include a question asking what they should do to make the downtown better. He believed that the answers to that question might result in projects that would make the downtown better and would provide the City with an urban renewal plan that would revitalize the downtown cultural area and increase the tax base. He thought having a compelling list of projects would be the way to promote public interest in the urban renewal work. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Nobel Flannery stated that a public vote was not required to increase the debt limit or to extend the boundary of an urban renewal district. Mr. Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Nobel Flannery that, though a public vote was not required, the public could force a referendum on such a decision. He thought the urban renewal district should remain limited and that the council should have a specific idea of what they wanted out of the process. Mr. Brown asked what specific changes the legislature had made to urban renewal, as referenced on page 8 of the AIS. City Attorney Glenn Klein offered to provide the councilors with a memorandum on this. He noted that the changes were focused on the way maximum indebtedness would work going forward. Mr. Brown disagreed that the tools to renew the downtown area were limited. He listed some of the other tools, including the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the program used urban renewal funds. Mr. Brown countered that it could be a self-perpetuating fund and the money could be continued outside of the urban renewal agency. He continued listing the financial tools, which included the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Business Development Fund, tax exemptions such as the MUPTE and for affordable housing, and the City’s General Fund. City Manager Jon Ruiz reiterated that they were just beginning the process. He underscored that there was a lot more discussion to come. Mayor Piercy encouraged everyone to focus on what they wanted to achieve and not what the mechanism to achieve it might be. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Surface Transportation Program – Urban Funding Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager, reported that Lane Transit District (LTD) had received stimulus funds that the district was able to use to offset the deficit they faced, and so would not be applying for Surface Transportation Program – Urban (STP-U) funding in the current round. He reminded the council that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), defined by the federal government as the metropolitan planning area, received approximately $2.5 million annually in STP-U funds. He stated that the funding would be allocated for the federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, which began October 1, 2010. He explained that the funds were distributed under the direction of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), on which Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka sat as Eugene’s representatives. Mr. Inerfeld briefly highlighted the information contained in the AIS. He said typically the MPC considered STP-U funds in three-year cycles, but because of uncertainty regarding future federal funding, and because the MPC wanted to look more broadly at the criteria used, it had decided to only look at FY10. He said the MPC would be reviewing a draft list of STP-U projects on the following day and was scheduled to make a decision on what projects would be funded on September 10. Mr. Inerfeld provided the staff proposal. He noted that STP-U funds were spent in three categories: pavement preservation, street improvements/modernization, and project development. He listed and outlined the three projects proposed to be included in the list for FY10: ? Coburg Road pavement preservation, $800,000; ? West Bank Path completion project development, $200,000; ? West Bank Path extension, $1 million. ? He conveyed staff’s feeling that these projects would compete well as they were regionally significant and multi-modal. Mayor Piercy asked what projects the other jurisdictions were putting forward. Mr. Inerfeld did not have the list before him, but he believed that Springfield was seeking funding for pavement preservation and slurry seal projects, Lane County was pursuing pavement preservation and traffic signal work, Willama- lane was seeking funding for the Quarry Creek Bridge, and LTD, though it was not requesting any funds at this time, would likely request funds in future years to offset operational costs. Ms. Ortiz asked where the pavement preservation project for Seneca Road to Roosevelt Boulevard fell in the queue of projects. City Engineer, Mark Schoening, replied that he did not recall the specifics. Mr. Inerfeld added that they did have a project for Seneca Road in design at present. Ms. Ortiz agreed that the bicycle path was a good project, but she felt the hazards posed by the current condition of Seneca Road to cars, bicyclists, and pedestrians warranted a greater degree of attention. She preferred to request to have that road completely paved. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Inerfeld clarified that all of the agencies in the MPO could submit projects for a portion of the $1.65 million. He noted that the City of Coburg, like LTD, was not submitting funding requests at all. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Poling ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that the estimated cost for the West Bank Bike Path was for the total project cost. He asked how long the projects that were being recommended for submission had been in the project list. Mr. Schoening responded that the bike path had been in the project list for four to five years. He said Coburg Road had been part of the $170 million backlog of pavement preservation projects and had come into the STP-U process because of the road’s regional significance. Mr. Poling questioned whether moving forward with the West Bank Bike Path extension would take such a big bite out of the STP-U funding that it would preclude other funds for the projects that other agencies were submitting for funding. Mr. Inerfeld responded that the City of Eugene would probably not get what was requested, but staff hoped that the City would receive at least $800,000 out of the $1.6 million requested. He reiterated staff’s feeling that the project would compete well. Mr. Poling was concerned that if Eugene received all that it asked for, there would be nothing left for the other agencies. He was also concerned that receiving substantially less than was asked for would hinder the City’s ability to complete the projects. Mr. Inerfeld replied that he believed staff could come up with ways to phase the project or find other sources of funding. He said to keep in mind that Springfield had received more than Eugene in the last round, as it had received $1.7 million for Gateway/Beltline projects. He underscored that the funding was not necessarily distributed according to population or street miles. In response to Mr. Brown, Mr. Inerfeld explained that Transportation Options (TO) had to do with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and the ten percent of STP-U that was allocated to TO funding went to Point2Point Solutions, formerly known as Commuter Solutions, which promoted car pooling and ridesharing and signed up employers for LTD’s group pass program, among others. Mr. Brown asked if the grant fund money allocated from the Transportation Enhancements (TE) program had been saved or if it had been spent on work on the bike path to date. Mr. Inerfeld replied that it was couched in the design and engineering costs. Mr. Brown ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that the total cost of the project was $2.2 million. Mr. Inerfeld added that there would also be a local match for it. Mr. Brown asked if the City had already received the TE money. Mr. Inerfeld explained that the money had been allocated but not received; the City was required by the federal government to provide a local match of 11 percent of the cost in addition to the $2.2 million, slated to come from Systems Development Charges (SDCs). Mr. Clark underscored that he did not want anyone to misinterpret his question. He observed, in looking at the map, that his constituents stood to benefit from the three recommended projects. He questioned why, in to be a time when there were such limited federal funds, 60 percent of the funding was being requested allocated to bicycle projects when there was such a great need to fix the roads. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the council had the option to put forward the Coburg Road project. He pointed out that the City had just allocated $3 million, of the $6 million received in economic stimulus funds, to pavement preservation. He thought the City had done well with that. He added that part of staff’s job was to consider their charge, which was to create a multi-modal transportation system and to address the backlog of road projects. He considered this to be a balancing act. He underscored staff’s belief that if the bicycle path project was moved forward, it would position the City well to receive TE funds in the next round for another project they would put forward. He stated that staff’s goal was to be as competitive as possible for any available funding from the federal government, so that the City could spend as few local dollars as possible and get as much state and federal funding for projects as possible. He believed that this could free up more local dollars to be spent on pavement preservation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark reiterated his concern. He understood that the entire request from the City of Springfield was intended to pay for slurry seal. He pointed out that the City of Eugene had just taken $1 million of service out of the general budget because the City could not come up with the money to fix potholes. He said while the bicycle path extension was a needed project, he was challenged by the idea of giving it priority over the much needed pavement work in the City’s backlog. Mr. Inerfeld noted that in the last three-year round of STP-U funding, all of Springfield’s money had been allocated to a modernization project and all of Eugene’s money had been allocated to the Roosevelt Boulevard pavement preservation project. Mr. Pryor found it challenging to determine what proposal would do the most good for the most people. He agreed that bike projects were important, but he felt that such a project had to have merit in other ways, such as being able to be used for commuting or for other purposes. He considered Coburg Road to be a clear project that would benefit a lot of people as well as a project that would cost less money out of a restricted amount of money. Because of this, he found the Coburg Road project to be more understandable. He suggested the City submit the bike path project in the next round of funding. He also agreed with Ms. Ortiz regarding Seneca Road, calling it “atrocious.” Mr. Zelenka asked that the agenda materials on the STP-U funding provided to the MPC be copied for the council. He was curious as to how the three projects that were being recommended had “floated to the top.” He said other projects on the list included the Glenwood Riverfront Path, which was a joint project with Springfield at $85,000, and pavement preservation projects such as Minda Drive, projected to cost rd $309,000, 33 Avenue, projected to cost $345,000, and Hawkins Lane, projected to cost $600,000. He wanted to know what the process was for determining this. Mr. Inerfeld stated that the Glenwood project would go before the MPC on the following day for action. He explained that because of the timing of the project, it required an answer as soon as possible. He said the request was coming from Springfield, though it would also benefit Eugene. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was then in Springfield’s project list. Mr. Inerfeld responded that there were some other STP-U funds on the table, in addition to the $1.6 million, because the City of Coburg had returned some funds it had not used. Mr. Inerfeld explained, in response to Mr. Zelenka’s original question, that the reason staff was putting the Coburg Road project forward was because of its regional significance and that it was seen as a multi-modal street. He said when competing with other jurisdictions, staff tried to put the best project forward. Mr. Zelenka allowed as how that made sense but wondered why the bike path project would rise above the three pavement preservation projects he had listed, though it was projected to cost almost as much as all three of them combined. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the bike path was a project that was partially funded already, but had a funding gap. He said staff saw the STP-U funds as a way to fill this gap. He noted that the project had been on the United Front list for years, adding that staff tried to prioritize United Front list projects. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 8 Work Session In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Inerfeld explained that the TE money had been allocated three funding rounds ago. He stated that the City had worked hard to be certified by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) as a Local Agency, which meant that it did not have to go through as much bureaucratic “red tape.” He said the City was now able to meet the federal regulations differently which made it more efficient. He indicated that “in some ways” the City had held off on the project until it had met that certification and now staff wanted to move more aggressively to get the project moving. He noted that the year after receiving TE funds for the bike path, the City had again garnered $1 million in TE funding for the Delta Ponds Bridge and in the last round the City had not received any funding. He underscored the need for the City to ensure that it was well-positioned when the next round of TE funding was allocated. Mr. Inerfeld thought one option would be to commit to making the Coburg Road a top priority in the next three years. He did not think the section of Coburg Road in question would degrade that badly. Ms. Taylor supported the West Bank Bike Path extension. She felt it fit in with their “desire to save the planet” and would help the City’s relationship with the Santa Clara area, as well as providing health benefits to residents who used it. Mayor Piercy read a sentence from the AIS that indicated that if the West Bank Bike Path extension did not move forward with construction in the next year, it could jeopardize future TE funding. She underscored that the City had been telling its congressional delegation that this was an important project for some time now. Mr. Clark agreed that the extension was an important project. He opined that when the City had “so few dollars” to work with, the roads should be fixed first. He reiterated that it boiled down to a question of priorities with the limited funds the City had. He intended to place a motion to forward the Coburg Road project. Ms. Ortiz asked what would happen to the TE funds if the City did not spend them. Mr. Inerfeld was uncertain how long the money would be held for the project. He reiterated staff’s belief that the City would be more competitive for future TE funds if the project went forward. Mr. Schoening added that, one way or another, the City would “hang onto” the TE funds and build something. Ms. Ortiz indicated that she would support forwarding the bike extension project for submission for STP-U funding. Mr. Pryor found the suggestion to make a commitment to fund the Coburg Road project in the next three years to be intriguing. He asked what the likelihood would be, should the City submit the bike extension for STP-U funding now, that the City would receive funding for Coburg Road. Mr. Inerfeld replied that the City would definitely receive a significant share of the STP-U funds. He noted that, historically, Eugene had received approximately 37 percent of the total funding allocation. He also pointed out that the next round of funding would likely be for three years of STP-U funds instead of one. Mr. Pryor ascertained from Mr. Inerfeld that there were options for the Coburg Road project as well. Mr. Inerfeld added that the timing was not as sensitive for the Coburg Road project either. He noted that the funds allocated in the current round would be available on October 1 of this year and the next round of funding would be available on October 1, 2010. Mr. Pryor underscored that he did not want to fund one thing to the exclusion of another. He understood from Mr. Inerfeld that funding the bike path would not jeopardize the funding for Coburg Road. He indicated that he could support the bike path extension in the present with the promise that Coburg Road would be prioritized. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Inerfeld related that in the last round the City had only received $800,000 to $900,000 for Roosevelt Boulevard and had added other funds for pavement preservation to complete it. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to apply for Sur- face Transportation Program – Urban funding for the West Bank Path Extension. Mr. Clark asked the combined total of all of the requests made by the MPO. Mr. Inerfeld could not recall the exact amount but said usually the MPO had an agreement to submit projects worth approximately 150 percent of the available funding. He stated that the staff recommendation from the Transportation Planning Committee would be a 100 percent proposal and would be the result of figuring out how to fund projects in each jurisdiction. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Inerfeld assured the council that the City would get some portion of its request funded, but what percent of the funding they would receive would not be an exact science. Mr. Clark asked if some of the other representatives from other jurisdictions would look at the City of Eugene’s request and determine that it was of a lesser priority than someone else’s request. Mr. Inerfeld did not think this would be the case. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to substitute the Coburg Road project for sub- mission to apply for Surface Transportation Program – Urban funding. Mr. Clark averred that they needed to consider more than the message. He felt that what they were talking about was money that was available at different times for different projects. He noted that the source for the rest of the needed money for the bike path project was not clearly identified; they were just saying that they hoped to be able to get it. The motion to amend the main motion to substitute the Coburg Road project failed 5:2; Mr. Poling and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 10 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon July 13, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 5:30 p.m. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy extended appreciation to a local software company, Palo Alto Software, which gave away about $3 million worth of software business plans throughout Oregon in an effort to help local businesses. She acknowledged the Lane Angel Network, including the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and the Corvallis Chamber of Commerce for their efforts to bring businesses to our communities to get the economy going. She noted New Roads, which provided housing and other services for runaway and homeless youth, reopened their facility and remodeled kitchen following a recent kitchen fire. Eugene students were traveling to Jinju, Korea as part of the Sister City program. The College Hill Reservoir reopening celebration recently occurred. She thanked the Friendly Area Neighbors, the City’s matching grant program and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) for coming together to make it happen. She congratulated the Eugene-based Solar Consortium and the Bach Festival for very successful events. Mr. Clark said he attended the Sheldon Community Center police station community discussion with Mr. Brown and Mr. Poling. Those in attendance were fully in favor of the idea of moving the police facility to the Country Club Road location, with only two of over forty participants who expressed disapproval of the proposal. On June 29 he and Ms. Ortiz attended the ambulance ASA subcommittee meeting. The group was attempting to resolve the long-term financing for the ambulance service. He thanked Susan Muir and Michael Kinnison for arranging a meeting with the Cal Young Neighborhood Association officers to discuss their concerns with the halfway house going in on Meyers Road. He attended the Creswell parade on July 4. He wanted the City Council to have a discussion regarding the possibility of having a July 4 parade in Eugene. He spoke at the City Club on July 10 regarding using the current EWEB building for a new City Hall. He appreciated Ms. Taylor’s willingness to debate him on the topic at the meeting. Ms. Solomon attended the grand reopening of Golden Gardens Park with Mayor Piercy and Ms. Ortiz on June 25, following significant reconstruction of the park to make it safer. The park was a wonderful asset for the community. The event provided an opportunity to honor the families. The event included food and blue grass music. She thanked staff for their work on making the park a jewel for Eugene. Mr. Brown reported he had attended the public forums regarding moving the police facility to County Club Road and a City Hall discussion. There were many in attendance at the Atrium meeting who did not like the idea of moving the police out of downtown including downtown business owners. Those in attendance at the Sheldon Community Center meeting were pretty much in favor of moving the police facility to Country Club Road. He attended the U.S. Track and Field Championships with Mayor Piercy, Ms. Ortiz, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Taylor. He attended a celebration for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) at First Unitarian Church. Mr. Poling commented that Travel Lane County had selected a local contractor to start the build-out of the new Gateway Adventure Center. It was hoped that the facility would bring travelers off the freeway and generate recreation and hospitality business. A small conference room was available for use by the public. He deferred to Mr. Clark and Mr. Brown for comments related to the meeting at the Sheldon Community Center regarding relocating the police facility to Country Club Road. Mr. Pryor attended the Bach Festival opening noting it was a great event. He attended an OPT planning meeting with Ms. Ortiz for Trainsong Neighbors. Residents were working to make the neighborhood more vibrant and be more involved. The Housing Policy Board (HPB) met July 13 to review the proposals for low-income housing. It was a very difficult choice in that both proposals were outstanding and it was a difficult decision. The HPB would forward a recommendation to the City Council in the near future. Ms. Ortiz attended an OPS grant meeting and Trainsong barbeque neighborhood meeting. The residents were dedicating a lot of effort and enthusiasm into making the neighborhood vibrant and empowering the residents. She added that Joint Elected Officials (JEO) from Lane County, City of Springfield, and Lane Rural Fire/Rescue were scheduled to meet on July 21. The meeting would feature a study jointly commissioned by the City of Eugene and City of Springfield around the viability and funding options for ambulance service. The overarching goal was to continue to provide good service for our communities. Ms. Taylor offered a correction and apology to Minutes Recorder Wade Hicks for calling him by the wrong name at the last meeting while complimenting him for his great performance in Humble Boy. She noted that Curtains was playing at Actors’ Cabaret. She had a visitor from Prague, the Czech Republic, who attended and enjoyed both the Bach Festival and the Oregon Country Fair. She expressed pleasure that an arts calendar was being developed. She encouraged everyone to make contributions to the street fund for Crest area neighbors. Election of officers was on the agenda for the Southeast Neighbors meeting scheduled for July 14. She asked that the City Council meet with Lane County to discuss how to share car registration fees. She said fireworks had come and gone, and another year passed with the City taking no action. Now was the time to take action for 2010 before people made plans and based their budgets on fireworks sales. She suggested cars should be issued to all police officers and WG should be asked to use some of their space for a police headquarters for senior staff instead of renting some other place. Mr. Zelenka stated he had attended the U.S. Track and Field Championships. He commended the organizers for a tremendous effort in putting on the event. He recently enjoyed whitewater canoeing in Eastern Oregon and attended the Oregon Country Fair. He attended the Lane Workforce partnership meeting, noting what good work they did. A telephone hotline, 682-7000, was available to assist people who needed help. He attended the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) meeting with Mayor Piercy. The MPC passed a motion that directed new money to help pay for the environmental study for the bicycle path under the new Interstate -5 bridge. The MPC provided feedback on its unanimous vote and recommendation for completion of the bicycle path and feedback to staff regarding further use of the STIPU money. He thanked Rob Inerfeld for work on the calendar which brought many disparate pieces of information together. He thanked Vicki Walker for her years of service in the Oregon Legislature and suggested it would be appropriate for the City Council to send a letter of thanks to her. He welcomed Emily Jerome to the City as the Deputy City Attorney. He announced the Fairmont Neighbors were having a summer party on July 19 and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association was having a summer event on August 23. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mayor Piercy announced she would participate in a press conference with other partners on July 17 to thank the legislative delegation for their work on behalf of the City of Eugene during the most recent legislative session. This would provide an opportunity to extend a special thanks to Senator Walker. City Manager Jon Ruiz said recreation staff were offering Staycation opportunities for the community this summer. An overnight campout at Amazon Park attended by about 50 people was held last weekend. The event offered a variety of activities and dinner. Feedback indicated that people felt safe and had an enjoyable experience. He reported a farmers’ market and family fun night would be held at Petersen Barn on July 21 and 22 in collaboration with the Active Bethel Citizens and the Bethel School District. The latest project of the Youth Action Board was a collaboration with the No Shame Theater, in which local high school students wrote and acted in a series of five-minute plays at the Atrium Building. Looking Glass was interested in partnering with the City on the Youth Action Board and verbally agreed to two hours staff time per week as well as $6,200 for community events. He thanked all of the recreation staff for their work this summer. City Manager Ruiz reported he would be reading at the Eugene Public Library as part of the summer reading program. Attendance was at record levels, likely a result of more people staying in Eugene during the summer and participating in local activities. He would attend the Downtown Neighborhood Associa- tion meeting on July 16. On July 14 he would participate in a cycling event with the Greater Eugene Area Riders (GEAR) around the city. This week’s packet would include copies of the Diversity and Equity Strategic Plan (DESP) which tied back to the council’s goals on race. This effort had been underway for a couple of years and received significant amounts of staff and community time. The purpose of DESP was to ensure that these were organizational and cultural values, and not just programs and initiatives. He had been participating in several conversations and meetings with Mayor Piercy and Ms. Ortiz regarding high- speed rail, and additional conversations would be held throughout the northwest. The challenge would be to get everyone focused on the same conversation. Mayor Piercy said it would be interesting to hear from Amtrak and UP regarding their plans. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with Police Commission Joe Alsup, former vice chair of the Eugene Police Commission, provided an overview of the Police Commission Annual Report Fiscal Year 2009, and the work accomplished in 2009. He noted with the economic crisis the City was facing the commission was forced to suspend work on the Police Long-Term Staffing Plan. He said the jobs performed by the officers gave the impression there was not a need for a significant increase in the number of police officers on the force. He stated the commission felt the quality of the officers, the job they performed and the professionalism they brought to the work was outstanding, and the commission felt the community was safe. However, the need for additional officers was critical. He reviewed the committee projects, including those of the Policy Screening and Review Committee (PSRC), the Universal Access Committee (UAC), the Public Outreach Committee (POC) and the Use of Force Committee (UOF). Tamara Miller, Chair of the Eugene Police Commission, offered an overview of the proposed Police Commission FY 2010 Work Plan dated June 11, 2009. She said in addition to the information included in the work plan, the commission had an opportunity to participate in community interviews with the Police Auditor, some of the listening conversations with police, and the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC). She reported that work plan objectives included continuing work of the PSRC, POC and UOF committees as well as a new committee that would relate to the City of Eugene’s budget and resources affecting the Eugene Police Department (EPD). She noted as part of the budget cuts, the Minutes Recorder for committee meetings had been eliminated. While EPD staff was doing a good job, MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 3 Work Session the commission was hearing from the public that it wanted more information, perhaps in the form of televised meetings, and not less information. She hoped the committee could find a low cost solution to capture meetings and webcast them. The department was considering conducting a survey to gauge public opinion. She reviewed the expected Work Plan Outcomes. While the Magellan staffing study had been disappointing, a subcommittee would begin working on department resources before work on the FY 11 budget process commences. The commission welcomed the new Police Auditor. The Human Rights Commission (HRC) and other community groups had expressed interest in jointly working on a hate crimes conference. On behalf of the City Council, Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the commission’s work. Mr. Brown stated the commission did an amazing job and EPD staff was always available at meetings to provide information. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Alsup for his dedication and tenure as vice chair. He congratulated Juan Carlos Valle on his incoming opportunity to serve as vice chair, and he expressed his appreciation to Ms. Miller for her outstanding service as commission chair. He noted the Budget Committee made recommendations to the City Manager regarding the Magellan report for further discussions this year. He was impressed by the presence of Interim Police Chief Pete Kerns at Police Commission meetings and his willingness to solicit feedback from the commission, as well as by the quality of information Chief Kerns provided the commission. Ms. Ortiz thanked Ms. Miller and Ms. Alsup for their work on behalf of the City. She was challenged by the Magellan study in that she did see how the amount of pay equated to staffing levels, adding she thought officers were well paid. She commended the commission and Ms. Zimmer for their good work. She supported participating in a hate crimes conference, noting the last one in Eugene was held in conjunction with the Department of Justice. A previous event held at Churchill High School included a big name in conjunction with the University of Oregon Wayne Morse Chair that drew participants while a similar event at Petersen Barn lacked a big name and experienced a low turnout. She was pleased next year’s workplan included conversations with officers. Mayor Piercy said the Police Commission could not have a staffing discussion without thinking about resources. While it was important to think about communicating with the whole community, it was critical to think about the whole public safety system and its needs. She asked if review by an outside organiza- tion to look at the various elements in the public safety system in both the City and across Lane County could provide suggestions for improvements. Ms. Ortiz asked if the Police Commission had had a discussion and formed an opinion on moving the patrol facility from downtown. Ms. Miller said the commission had the discussion on the patrol facility location and appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback although it was outside the commission’s purview. Although a vote was not taken, Commission members had toured the proposed site on County Club Road and additional opportunities would be scheduled. She added it was scary to think the community could suffer a catastrophic event and many police resources would be at the existing City Hall location and not be able to be used. Mr. Alsup said the majority of commission members had done “ride-alongs” with officers and had an opportunity to see that the cramped quarters officers used were woefully inadequate. He opined commission members would agree that something had to be done. There was no consensus on whether Country Club Road, EWEB or a new facility was the best way to go. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka thanked Mr. Alsup and Ms. Miller for their work. He noted the commission now had liaisons with the HRC and the Civilian Review Board (CRB), and asked what formal mechanisms existed for commissioners in terms of integrating information from those groups into the commission’s work plan. Ms. Miller said the issue had been discussed in a joint meeting with the CRB in June. The system was new and undergoing change. A CRB liaison attended Police Commission meetings and two annual reports had been received from the Police Auditor, one from Cris Beaumud and one from Dawn Reynolds. A formal mechanism had yet to be developed and there had been one request to look at an incident regarding flashlights which the UOF Committee had reviewed. There was still work to be done. The HRC had also experienced change and had been in a reforming period. Mr. Alsup said the most relevant aspect was the PAORC and the ability of the commission to come together with all stakeholders and community members. Mr. Zelenka encouraged the commission to implement the mechanisms for working with the HRC and CRB as soon as possible. He supported a hate crimes conference for the City and suggested contingency money could be used for such an event. Mr. Clark thanked the UOF committee and the CRB for their responsiveness in holding a special meeting on use of force issues. Ms. Ortiz asked that the commission ensure that trends were documented by the CRB and not necessarily the Police Auditor. Ms. Miller said some members of the commission had struggled with how issues had been presented to them. The CRB and the Auditor had been one homogenous group, going together to the commission, and presenting joint reports. She said it would be helpful for the commission to have clarification to know how the process flowed with the CRB work being separate and apart from that of the Police Auditor. Although their roles touched and concerned each other, they were different. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to approve the Police Commission’s FY10 Work Plan. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Current Status of Systems Development Charges Mr. McVey offered the staff report and provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Systems Development Charges. He said the purpose of the work session was to provide the City Council with information related to the current status of Systems Development Charges (SDC) in Eugene regarding policy framework, purpose, use of funds, financial impacts on development projects, and efforts to provide relief for development during the current economic downturn. City Manager Ruiz stated that a three-pronged approach consisting of use of stimulus recovery package projects, planning for the next regional economy with other jurisdictions, and removing obstacles that supported development was used. He added postponing SDC increases as well as encouraging financing and working with developers had been identified by staff as one tool for removing obstacles that supported development. Ms. Taylor asked what the interest rate was and when the SDCs were scheduled to be increased. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. McVey responded the interest rate was currently eight percent, but staff was working on updating the rates to be more market-based through an administrative order. He added recently increasing the administrative fee component of the SDCs had been considered as well and the City Council passed a resolution adopting an adjustment of the rate and postponing the effective date to January 1, 2010. The City Manager determined the City would not pursue an inflationary adjustment to the systems components of the SDCs until after January 1, 2010. The inflationary adjustment would be brought back to the City Council in December 2009 for consideration. Mr. Zelenka asked if most people paid the SDCs upfront or if they used the financing terms offered by the City. He asked for an explanation of SDC credits. Mr. McVey stated approximately 80 percent paid SDCs through direct means or private financing at the time of permit issuance while approximately 20 percent contracted with the City. He added there were basically three kinds of SDC credits including: ? Credits provided to developers who built capacity and infrastructure through a privately-financed, privately-engineered public improvement project (public improvement credits). ? Redevelopment or credit for existing use. ? Incentives that recognized when developments were built in a manner that reduced the impact on the capacity and systems. ? The City Council had provided an exemption for low-income housing. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. McVey confirmed the SDCs were generally established by the State of Oregon. He added that SDCs must be spent on capital projects. Responding to Mr. Clark’s inquiry regarding financing mechanisms, Mr. McVey said the financing mechanism for street assessments or other local improvement district assessments was the same type of financing mechanism, with some slight differences in the statutory regulations. An exception was in local improvement districts the assessment must be secured by a lien on the property, while the City was allowed by statute to consider other forms of security for SDC financing. Mr. Clark asked if there was a pool of funds available for the City to assist with SDCs and if developers did not take advantage of financing SDCs through the City since it was more expensive than private funding. Mr. McVey said the SDCs were essentially a pool of money that came in over time, and was spent over time, thus providing a stream of money coming from contracted payments that could be directed to capital projects. Therefore, it was not necessary to have another pool of money to provide financing although when the money came in more slowly it impacted the timing of projects. He concurred that market-based interest rates were lower than the City’s and more attractive to developers. More people would take advantage of the City’s financing of SDCs, particularly if other forms of security, such as certificates of deposit, could be used. Mr. Clark averred that by adjusting its internal policy, the City could increase the potential for economic activity and development. He asked if credits were transferable or could be donated to a 501(c)(3) organization when they were generated by a mixed-use development. Mr. McVey said according to the statewide framework it was possible to consider transferring or donating credits under the existing local policy. There were limited instances in which credits could be used within larger sites under phased development. Typically, under the City’s policy, credits were not transferred from one site to another, but stayed within a site. If development occurred at the site in the future, or if MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 6 Work Session more intensive use occurred, the credits could be used at the site. He added the credits were site specific, rather than property owner specific. Mr. Pryor, noting the specific restrictions on SDCs, asked why low turnover restaurants had high SDC rates when compared to other forms of businesses. He asked if development of a dry cleaning establish- ment would have a similar SDC rate. Mr. McVey explained low turnover was a term used in the transportation trip generation rate manuals that compared a low turnover restaurant to a fast food restaurant, and therefore generated fewer trips on the system than a fast food restaurant. He added that restaurants in general had some of the highest impact on the wastewater system in terms of volume and strength of their wastewater discharge, and the cost of treating that discharge. Mr. McVey stated dry cleaners also had significant impacts on wastewater. Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. McVey stated that typical costs for development of a fast food restaurant in terms of construction value may be lower than other businesses, and as a percentage the actual costs were likely similar. Mr. Zelenka asked what the source of SDC was financing and if the City often used the SDC fund as a debt service fund for borrowing. Mr. McVey said the City took the payment over time rather than in a lump sum payment. In other systems, such as utility systems, because the City had upfront capital costs, the City borrowed money from the State revolving loan program to pay for infrastructure projects which was repaid with future payments received. He added only in rare exceptions did the City use the SDC fund as a revolving loan program although it was used to pay for some costs on the Ferry Street Bridge project. Money was loaned from the Parks SDC balance to the Transportation SDC, and eventually repaid. Mr. Zelenka opined that lowering the rate was a double-edged sword in that it reduced the burden on the developers, but at the same time created a potential for more defaults as well as costs associated with credit checks and other administrative costs. He asked what the security on such loans was. Mr. McVey iterated the traditional form of security was a first order lien on the property. Other forms of security, such as certificates of deposit in which the City was named as the recipient in the event of default, were acceptable forms of security. Mr. Zelenka asked if the City had done any benchmarking the City’s SDC loan total compared to other communities. Mr. McVey said the City of Eugene conducted an SDC rate survey in 2004 of approximately 20 other Oregon communities, at which time the City was in the low- to mid-range of SDCs across the state. In 2007, the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) conducted a similar survey of Oregon communities. This survey also showed the City of Eugene to be in the mid-range. Mayor Piercy thanked Mr. McVey for his presentation. Mayor Piercy suggested moving Consent Calendar items scheduled for the City Council Meeting at 7:30 p.m. to the 5:30 p.m. City Council Work Session agenda. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to approve the items A. Approval of City Council Minutes and B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda, from the Consent Calendar, and to pull item C. Resolution 4985 Approving a Low-Income MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for the Property Located at 560-588 South Danebo Street, Eugene, Oregon (Prairie View LLC, Applicant) from the Consent Calendar. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 13, 2009 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 15, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:02 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers’ Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Public Works Director Kurt Corey provided an overview of the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 20337 for the benefit of the council and described the history of the local gas tax since its inception in 2003. Mr. Corey noted that the purpose of the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 20337 was to effectively make the five-cent local gas tax rate permanent by repealing the sunset provision on the two-cent fuel tax rate increase enacted in 2005. Mr. Corey reported that the proposed amendment was in response to House Bill 2001, a state transporta- tion bill adopted in the most recent legislative session and which was due to become active in September of 2009. Mr. Corey expressed that while HB 2001 would ultimately provide approximately $3 million in state highway funds, provisions of that bill would prevent local governments such as the City of Eugene from enacting any new gas taxes before 2014 and then only with the consent of the voting public. Mr. Corey provided a brief overview of the various preservation and improvement projects that had been funded by the City’s local gas tax. Mr. Corey noted that the next steps regarding the proposed ordinance would be a public hearing on Monday, July 20, followed by action on the matter on Monday, July 27, 2009. Ms. Taylor strongly supported the proposed ordinance. Mr. Poling noted that the proposed ordinance did not constitute a new tax, that the money was being spent conscientiously, and that the public was generally not opposed to the local gas tax itself. He felt that repealing the sunset provision as outlined in the ordinance would be a wise choice to help deal with the massive Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Poling felt the precise amount of revenue to be generated by HB 2001 was relatively uncertain and noted that he was therefore in favor of the ordinance before the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Piercy believed there had not been any reductions in the public’s desire to have the roads fixed in Eugene and that the public's desire for roadway improvements would outweigh any opposition to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka stated he had recently met with representatives from the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber’s Local Government Affairs Council (LGAC) and noted that they believed the local gas tax had been very helpful in addressing problems such as the operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported not only the ordinance but also other revenue stream strategies such as the street utility fee. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Poling that the proposed ordinance revision did not constitute a new tax. Mr. Zelenka reiterated for the benefit of the council, and those listening to the meeting, that every cent of the local gas tax was required to be spent on road repairs. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, clarified Mr. Zelenka’s previous statement and noted that until FY2010, the entirety of the local gas tax revenues had been spent on the capital preservation program. A portion of the gas tax proceeds are presently being used to balance the FY 2010 operations and maintenance component of the road fund budget. Mr. Clark commented that the public was not generally aware that most general fund revenues from property taxes did not go to fix local roads. Mr. Clark noted he was concerned by the council’s recent decision to direct $1 million in available federal funding to bike paths rather than local road improvements. Mr. Clark stated he would be willing to move the discussion of the proposed ordinance to a public hearing. Mr. Pryor felt that the local gas taxes might ultimately represent a declining source of revenue and questioned the reliability of the gas taxes as a continuing source of sufficient revenue for the City. He further expressed that the discussions surrounding the gas tax were part of a much larger overall revenue problem and that it was important to find a combination of careful and well-planned revenue-generating strategies to deal with the current budget crisis. Ms. Ortiz supported moving the proposed ordinance to a public hearing as well as the implementation of the ordinance itself. Mr. Brown and Ms. Solomon both supported the proposed ordinance and agreed with earlier comments made in that regard. Mr. Poling, referring to previous council conversations regarding the garbage hauler surcharge, stated there was no more direct nexus than that which existed between the road repairs and the gas tax. He further hoped that the City might find more ways to utilize general fund revenues to pay for road repairs and improvements. Ms. Piercy, referring to several questions regarding the use of local gas tax revenues, asked Mr. Corey to describe in further detail how such funds were specifically utilized. Mr. Corey noted that information describing the specific projects funded by the City’s gas tax could be viewed on the Public Works portion of the City of Eugene website. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked if there was any way for City staff to provide, perhaps in the form of a resolution, more detailed information on what projects gas tax revenues would be dedicated towards. City Attorney Glen Klein responded that the City Code already contained language describing how gas tax revenues could be used. Mr. Corey could not refer to the specific code language but added that the code generally mirrored State constitutional limitations on the use of such revenues. Mr. Zelenka requested that Mr. Klein return to the council with further information regarding the various overhead costs that might be applied in relation to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to send Option 2, “The council could approve the proposed code amendment as shown in Attachment A to repeal the sunset provision enacted in 2005 and extended in 2008, effectively leaving the fuel tax rate at five cents per gallon for an indefinite period,” to a public hearing. Mr. Clark noted that as a council member he received frequent questions regarding the local gas taxes and their uses but often did not feel as if he had sufficient information with which to respond to such questions. He hoped that Mr. Corey and staff would be able to provide a complete list of all projects that might be eligible for funding with local gas tax revenues. Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, suggested that the council take action regarding the proposed ordinance before their next break so as to minimize any potential implementation difficulties with respect to HB 2001. Mr. Klein further noted that a referral of HB 2001 would delay the effective date of the bill until after the subsequent election regarding it. Ms. Taylor agreed with earlier comments that the proposed ordinance did not constitute a new tax on the public. Mr. Klein, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Solomon, confirmed that a successful referral of HB 2001 would not jeopardize the City’s current five-cent gas tax. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION – Comprehensive Transportation Funding Solutions and a Street Utility Fee Mr. Corey provided a brief history and overview of the street utility fee as well as an overview of the other four comprehensive transportation funding solutions that had been reviewed by the council. Mr. Corey noted there had been some consensus from the council regarding their desire for further information and investigation into the concept of a street utility fee. Mr. Corey directed the council members to their copies of his November 15, 2007 memorandum to them and noted that the information contained therein remained current. Mr. Corey briefly described how a street utility fee would operate whereby the City would take a transportation system and put it in the context of any other utility system such as water or electricity. He noted that a transportation utility fee would be intended to develop a model to assess user fees to transpor- tation systems based upon the level of use by various classes of users. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Corey commented that recent discussions with members of the local business community such as the Northwest Grocers Association regarding the use of a street utility fee had been mildly encouraging. Mr. Corey noted that the lack of a billing system for the City to use in collection of a street utility fee represented a significant constraint. He further noted that while EWEB performed billing for the City’s wastewater/stormwater services, they had been historically reluctant to extend such billing practices to collect a street utility fee on behalf of Eugene. Mr. Corey reported that it would not be cost effective for the City to implement its own billing system for a street utility fee due to the significant up-front and ongoing costs involved. Mr. Corey stated that staff was seeking clear consensus regarding the specific direction to take regarding the street utility fee. He underscored the need for policy level discussions with the EWEB board of directors as the matter moved forward. Ms. Piercy recognized that Mr. Corey viewed the street utility fee as the last viable option from among the other funding solutions that had been considered and also that a clear consensus from the council would be needed. Mr. Clark noted that he would support Option 2 as listed in the agenda item summary and felt that there could not be a worse time for the City to create a new tax. He suggested that the council should continue to hold discussions regarding the prioritization and use of the City’s general fund in order to better address and reflect the community’s expectations regarding road repairs and improvements. He stated that he could not support further investigations into the use of the street utility fee until such conversations had taken place. Mr. Zelenka felt that further conversations regarding the priorities assigned to the general fund might not be productive and noted that the street utility fee would be an efficient and equitable means of generating revenue to deal with the transportation funding backlog. Mr. Zelenka stated that the parking-based street utility fee would be more explainable to the public than a trip-based model. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that an average number of two parking spaces per residence were expected to be used for the parking-based street utility fee. Mr. Poling expressed he was in favor of moving the discussion regarding the street utility fee forward but not necessarily the policy itself. Mr. Poling commented that the use of some sort of street utility fee seemed logical as everyone in the City used the roads in some capacity regardless of their preferred mode of transportation. Mr. Poling noted that it would be essential to include EWEB in any discussions of the street utility fee and the collection of those fees. Mr. Poling continued to believe that it might be best to refer the use of the street utility fee to the voters. Mr. Poling added that he also favored the parking-based model rather than the trip-generation-based street utility fee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, believed that most residential properties would typically be considered to have two parking spaces and that any special dispensations to be given to residences with more or less than two parking spaces had yet to be determined. Ms. Taylor averred that a vehicle registration fee would be less taxing on the public than a street utility fee and that the City had not worked diligently enough to explore the use of a vehicle registration fee. She believed that effective communications with Lane County government representatives as well as representa- tives from other city leaders within the County might make passage of a local vehicle registration fee possible. Ms. Taylor believed that using EWEB’s billing system to collect the street utility fee would not be effective. Mr. Pryor stated that the street utility fee represented a very important revenue-generating opportunity but believed that it would only be so if it was executed responsibly and in partnership with the rest of the community including local businesses and municipalities. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding specific rates and the number of parking spaces to be applied to the street utility fee would be premature without further consultation with various community representatives. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding prioritizations of the general fund could be conducted concurrently with the planning discussions regarding the street utility fee. Mr. Pryor suggested that a collaborative group comprised of business, government and community leaders be formed to explore the best ways in which a street utility fee might be implemented in a manner similar to what had been instituted in other Oregon cities such as Tigard. Mr. Pryor agreed that it would be very important to use EWEB as an effective collaborative partner with respect to the implementation of the street utility fee. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Brown regarding the manner in which street utility fee revenues would be used, noted that it had not yet been determined if the street utility fees would be directed expressly toward the Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Brown believed that a parking-based model for the street utility fee made more sense than a trip- generation-based fee and agreed with Mr. Pryor’s suggestion that a collaborative group might be formed to address the matter. Ms. Ortiz hoped that future discussions regarding the implementation of the street utility fee would be connected to other considerations such as LTD’s planned EmX expansions as well as other issues that might affect how and where motor vehicles were used throughout the area. Ms. Solomon believed a parking-based model might not be the most equitable manner in which to proceed with the street utility fee and hoped that any collaborative groups formed to investigate the matter would consider instances where a residence might have more than two vehicles. Ms. Solomon expressed that a necessary first step on the street utility fee would be for the City to enlist the cooperation of EWEB for the billing/collection of the fee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon hoped that a street utility fee based on a parking model would not conflict with any part of the City Code with respect to any development strategies designed to reduce the number of parking spaces in the City. Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that on-street parking would not be included as part of the street utility fee as such spaces were generally not the exclusive purview of the property owner. Ms. Solomon worried that increasing the number of City staff necessary to successfully implement a street utility fee would constitute an unnecessary increase in the size of the City’s overall organizational structure. Ms. Piercy recognized that there was a general consensus from the council to move forward with the discussion of the street utility fee, if not the full implementation of the fee itself. Ms. Piercy agreed with comments that maintained that a collaborative approach with the City’s business and community leaders would be the best way in which to proceed with discussions of the street utility fee and encouraged the council members to feel free to become more engaged in such collaborations as the matter moved forward. Ms. Piercy felt that it would be very important to include those community members who did not drive, in the various conversations surrounding the street utility fee. Mr. Zelenka noted his support of a vehicle registration fee and requested that staff gather more information on how such fees were applied in other areas of the country. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to contin- ue work on development of a street utility fee, including returning with a proposed budget for additional staffing and program needs for this effort and a plan to in- volve the public. Mr. Clark noted that while he was in favor of public involvement in the matter of the street utility fee he would be voting against the motion. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed, 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to develop the street utility fee using parking spaces as the metric for measuring relative use of the system and allocating the costs between user categories. Mr. Poling confirmed that the stated motion was only directing the City Manager to return with further information on the manner in which a street utility fee would be implemented, rather than direction for the City Manager to implement the fee itself. Ms. Piercy agreed with Mr. Poling’s statement and felt it was important that the public understood that the council discussions represented only the “beginning of a journey” with respect to the street utility fee. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the previously stated motion. The motion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to work with EWEB leadership to coordinate a joint elected officials meeting where the topic of discussion would be the potential for use of EWEB’s billing infrastructure for a City street utility fee. Ms. Piercy believed there needed to be several levels of conversation regarding the street utility fee but felt that a joint elected officials meeting would not necessarily be the best place for such conversations. Mr. Clark stated he would not support the motion but agreed that the City should work closely with EWEB regarding the street utility fee as well as other shared City priorities. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on the previously stated motion. The motion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the City Manager to imple- ment the street utility fee once the economy recovers with a metric to be deter- mined. City Attorney Glenn Klein noted that the City Manager would not have the authority to actually implement the street utility fee and suggested that Mr. Zelenka revise his previously stated motion. Mr. Zelenka, with the consent of the second, amended his previously stated motion and moved to direct the City Manager to bring an ordinance regarding the street utility fee back to the City Council for final approval once the economy recovers with a metric to be determined. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, suggested that one possible metric to be used with respect to his motion would be “two consecutive quarters of economic growth.” Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed 6:2 (Mr. Clark and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to put the street utility fee on the bal- lot before the voters in the event that the City decided to go forward with plans to implement such a fee. The motion failed, 3:5 (Mr. Pryor, Mr. Brown, Ms. Solo- mon, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition). Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session meeting at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Civilian Review Board Interviews McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon July 20, 2009 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Councilors interviewed the following applicants for appointment to the Civilian Review Board: Steven Broome Eric Van Houten Marisa Mendoza Steven Buel-McIntire Bernadette Conover Each applicant was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What can you tell us about your activities, personal attitudes and life experiences that would dem- onstrate you can make objective decisions about complaints against the police and objectively assess the completeness of Police Department internal investigations? 2. Please describe your views on the differing roles of the Auditor’s Office, the Civilian Review Board (CRB), the Police Commission, the City Manager and the Police Chief? 3. In your opinion, what are the most important functions of the CRB? 4. To ensure fair and thorough reviews of cases, CRB members typically must commit numerous hours per month. Are you prepared for this commitment? 5. Have you or a family member ever participated in an organization that advocates a position regard- ing the police or the criminal justice system? Have you, a close friend or a family member ever worked or volunteered within the criminal justice system? If yes, please describe. 6. Although the Civilian Review Board does not impose discipline, would you briefly describe what impacts you think the board can have when evaluating Police Department investigations, training, policies and procedures and the conduct of individual officers? Applicants were thanked for their interest in the Civilian Review Board and informed that appointments would be made at the council’s regular meeting on July 27, 2009. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2009 Page 1 Civilian Review Board Interviews ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 20, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Brown. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and reviewed the procedures for providing testimony. She determined that there was no one wishing to provide testimony and closed the hearing. The meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 20, 2009 Page 1 Public Hearing ATTACHMENT I M I N U T E S Joint Elected Officials Eugene and Springfield City Councils Springfield Library Meeting Room—Springfield City Hall th 525 5 Street—Springfield, Oregon July 21, 2009 Noon PRESENT: Eugene City Council: Mayor Kitty Piercy, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Brown. Springfield City Council: Dave Ralston, Christine Lundberg, Fred Simmons, Hillary Wylie, Terri Leezer. ABSENT: Eugene City Council: Chris Pryor. Springfield City Council: Mayor Sid Leiken, Joe Pishioneri. REPORT FROM EMERGENCY SERVICES CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL Councilor Dave Ralston called the special meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi called the role. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the special meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and noted a quorum of Eugene councilors was present. Eugene Fire Chief Randy Groves introduced the topic. He said that the two councils would hear a report on the findings of a cooperative services study performed by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI). He said that he and Chief Murphy believed the recommendations of ESCI were the next logical step for the two cities to take, based upon the success of the three-battalion interagency response system. Chief Groves endorsed the ESCI recommendations. He indicated that no action was expected of the two bodies at this time, and a follow-up meeting would be scheduled for early fall. Springfield Fire Chief Dennis Murphy provided some background on ESCI and introduced its representa- tives, Senior Vice President Bruce Caldwell, Senior Consultant Conrad Christensen, and Director of Financial Services Martin Goughnour. He indicated they would provide information about a regional fire and emergency medical services (EMS) system. Chief Murphy clarified that the data years in the Power- Point presentation were different for each jurisdiction and more current information for Eugene would be available later in the year. Ms. Ortiz arrived. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Springfield and Eugene July 21, 2009 Page 1 City Councils The consultants provided the elected officials with a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the results of the Cooperative Effort Feasibility Study and the consultant’s range of recommendations. The presentation highlighted the preferred option, which was an intergovernmental agreement between the Springfield and Eugene fire departments, and suggested implementation steps. The preferred option was seen as an intermediary step for a vision of a single fire agency via annexation to a fire district, with a preference for those districts that already had a relationship with the two departments. Copies of the study and the presentation were provided to the elected officials. Ms. Leezer and Mr. Zelenka arrived during the presentation. Mr. Goughnour invited questions. Ms. Ortiz commended the study as thorough and commended the chiefs for the work they do. She was pleased to hear the consultant’s third-party affirmation of the good job the chiefs did. She indicated she would have more questions later, when the Eugene council met, and thanked the consultants for their time. Ms. Taylor noted that the distance that firefighters might have to travel was not mentioned as a basis for cost. Mr. Goughnour confirmed that factor was not included. He said that typically, departments establish station locations and equipment requirements based on an urban/suburban or rural level of service and then establish a service level and response time for that area on the basis of the population served and the risk involved. Ms. Taylor posited a situation where one community had a more concentrated population and one community had more sprawl. She suggested that sprawl would add to the expense of providing services, and asked if that would be considered. Mr. Goughnour said that population density could be a factor. He said if a community’s population was very dense, that would likely result in a higher number of calls and the community would need more resources in terms of equipment and personnel to match that. That required a depth of resources so that when resources were out, backup resources were available. Mr. Caldwell said that demographics and human activity were other factors to consider. He suggested that a high concentration of people that required many EMS calls would be an area of concern. In terms of human activity, he cited Autzen Stadium on a Saturday afternoon and said that it represented a risky situation. Each city had its own variable and it would be difficult to pick them apart given that they were also a region. Mr. Clark said he had been struck by the fact that both departments, compared to the median, had fewer employees and resources. He said he was impressed by both departments. Regarding the potential of the savings from a merger or district, he noted the $850,000 savings in administration and support services cited in the study, and asked the savings to be realized on the 30 interim steps. Mr. Goughnour did not think he could estimate those savings. He pointed out there were some intrinsic values, such as the logistics involved in implementing a step; for example, in some cases, a captain might have to do some purchasing and the question was, did that take a unit out of service? Could the cities achieve efficiencies through joint purchases? He said there was a cost-avoidance factor to consider as well. Mr. Clark said he was looking for comparative figures that helped him evaluate the options available and whether there were substantial savings to be found; for example, in individual intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with other districts or other cooperative agreements without the need to merge departments. Mr. Goughnour said that there were not savings to the individual organizations. Mr. Poling thanked the consultants for their report. He looked forward to more discussion. Mr. Poling believed that the councilors were likely aware of the information presented at some level but it needed to be brought out for that “ah ha” moment. He commended the dedication of the two chiefs and their entire staffs. MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Springfield and Eugene July 21, 2009 Page 2 City Councils He thought the leadership the chiefs brought would lead to a bright future. He was concerned about the “deal breakers” mentioned in the report and said that the elected officials would have to pay attention to those to make the recommendation work. He did not want to forget about the concerns of the Lane Rural Fire Protection District. Mr. Poling liked the direction the process was going and wanted to move forward. Mr. Goughnour suggested the elected officials take an opportunity to make a significant change given the confluence of events that did not come along very often, including the retirement of Chief Murphy. Ms. Lundberg agreed that events had created an opportunity for what might otherwise be an impossible scenario. She recalled that Springfield had looked at the formation of a new fire district in a different context. She agreed that the other local districts needed to be taken into consideration and should be part of the discussion. As the two communities went forward, she thought that the elected officials needed to remember that the creation of a new taxing district could be a major stumbling block if not well-executed. She suggested the elected officials take a considered approach to the formation of a special district because she thought there would be public resistance from the voting public to what appeared to merely be a shift of dollars from one taxing entity to another. Ms. Lundberg commended the work done by the two chiefs. She wanted more information about the dollar implications of a department merger. Mr. Caldwell attributed the interim steps recommended by ESCI to the need for more information about the financial impact of the merger and to inform the public and address its reaction. Mr. Ralston clarified with the consultants how they arrived at the tax rates and response times mentioned in the study. Mr. Ralston thought the two approaches available to the cities were an IGA and annexation to a fire district. He was concerned about the governance aspect of the issue and for that reason was not interested in forming a new fire district with its own governing board. He wanted more information. Mr. Goughnour noted the existing models that included councilors as members of the board of directors. Mr. Caldwell pointed out the IGA model would involve no change of governance. Mayor Piercy thought the councilors had a great deal to think about. She said the departments were ready to move forward, but the question was whether the community was ready. She suggested the councils think about what an ideal world would look like and take a positive approach toward the question. Mr. Ralston adjourned the special meeting of the Springfield City Council at 1:35 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the special meeting of the Eugene City Council at 1:35 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Springfield and Eugene July 21, 2009 Page 3 City Councils ATTACHMENT J M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 22, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz. Ms. Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:30 p.m. A. WORK SESSION – City Manager Annual Performance Review Ms. Piercy stated that the work session discussion of the City Manager's annual performance review was to serve as a formal follow-up to the informal discussions held during the council's executive session. Ms. Piercy was pleased to see that the results of Mr. Ruiz’s evaluation had indicated that he had either met or exceeded the expectations of the Mayor and the City Council. Ms. Piercy further noted that she appreciated Mr. Ruiz's efforts to connect with a wide variety of community members as well as his efforts to improve the City's overall relationships with its community partners. Ms. Piercy appreciated Mr. Ruiz's ongoing work regarding the City's budget gap as well as the values that he had brought into that process. She further maintained that his approach to shrink the City's financial footprint rather than to eliminate services was the right course of action to take. Mr. Zelenka felt that Mr. Ruiz had done an excellent job as City Manager over the past year and appreciated how he had dealt expediently and forthrightly with a number of crucial issues the City had faced during that time. He further noted that the level of communication between the council, staff, and executive team had improved greatly during Mr. Ruiz's tenure. Mr. Zelenka looked forward to Mr. Ruiz’s continuing work regarding matters related to the new police auditor as well as a variety of issues pertaining to the Eugene Police Department and the EPD’s interac- tions with the community-at-large. Mr. Zelenka hoped that Mr. Ruiz would continue to focus on a variety of issues regarding transportation funding throughout the City. Ms. Solomon arrived to the meeting at 12:36 p.m. Ms. Taylor spoke favorably of Mr. Ruiz's performance as City Manager and noted that she appreciated his attitude as well as his sense of humor. Ms. Taylor believed that Mr. Ruiz should have been more supportive of the interim police auditor and shown a greater level of concern regarding the mistreatment of citizens involved in public demonstrations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had been working to find ways to ensure the success of the Beam development project downtown but felt that he might have been more conscientious in how he had relayed certain elements of the progress of the Beam project and other projects to the council. Ms. Taylor appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had made himself very accessible to the council and the community since taking over as City Manager. Ms. Ortiz agreed with several comments in support of Mr. Ruiz's performance as City Manager made by Ms. Piercy, Mr. Zelenka, and Ms. Taylor, but hoped that he might be more proactive in bringing items of concern to the council's attention. Ms. Ortiz cited the recent Human Rights Commission office relocation from their Willamette Street location to the Atrium Building in this regard. Ms. Ortiz felt that the public did not generally understand much of the managerial language or culture that Mr. Ruiz employed in his position, such as the notion of using triple bottom-line assessments, and hoped he would endeavor to address such deficiencies in the future. Ms. Ortiz appreciated how Mr. Ruiz had looked "outside the box" with respect to the investigations into a new police facility and other matters. Mr. Pryor was glad to see that Mr. Ruiz possessed both the temperament and the skill set to succeed and prosper in his position. Mr. Pryor hoped that the levels of trust, communication and interaction between the City Manager, the staff and the council would continue to improve. Mr. Poling appreciated the relationships and the communications that Mr. Ruiz had developed during his tenure as City Manager and believed that his involvement in community issues such as downtown development and the City's budget had been highly admirable. Mr. Poling felt that the manner in which the City Manager's evaluation had been conducted had been very efficient in that it had employed a variety of information and feedback from City employees, the executive team and community members. Mr. Poling further noted that he appreciated that the evaluation process for Mr. Ruiz had been specifically based on issues related to the City Manager's office rather than on personal attacks or political agendas as Mr. Poling believed had been done in the past. Mr. Brown appreciated that Mr. Ruiz had been proactive in reaching out to various areas of the community and also how it appeared to be much easier than before to obtain information from the City staff. Ms. Solomon appreciated the work that Mr. Ruiz had done regarding the police facility as well as the fact that Mr. Ruiz and his staff had made significant headway regarding local transportation funding issues. Mr. Clark believed that certain areas of Mr. Ruiz’s communications could stand improvement but also wished to compliment Mr. Ruiz on his efforts to increase the quality of communication in the City's government on a number of levels. Mr. Clark noted that Mr. Ruiz had done an exceptional job at recognizing very important issues for the City and addressing them before they became significant problems. Mr. Ruiz felt that Eugene was a great community and appreciated the “talent-rich” staff for their efforts. Ms. Piercy recognized that Mr. Ruiz had addressed certain open space acquisition issues immediately upon assuming his duties as City Manager and had been very proactive with respect to matters related to the EPD and the City’s police auditor hiring process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Piercy asked Mr. Ruiz to set another set of goals for himself as the City Manager over the next year and further requested that he communicate those goals to the council. Ms. Piercy recognized Mr. Ruiz’s recommendation that the compensation discussion regarding his position be waived for the current year. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to accept the City Manager’s rec- ommendation and waive the compensation discussion this year. Ms. Piercy, responding to a comment from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the goal-setting language and the date certain regarding same as listed in the agenda item summary materials was not being included in the current motion. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Zelenka’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION – Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) Planning Director Lisa Gardner noted that the staff update to be presented regarding the ECLA process would emphasize a review of residential lands in order to establish the full set of information needed to determine the overall demand for land in the area. Associate Planner Jason Dedrick presented information regarding the ECLA process which he noted helped demonstrate and determine Eugene’s need for residential, employment, and public/semi-public land over the next 20 years. Mr. Dedrick briefly reviewed the baseline assumptions of the ECLA process. Mr. Dedrick reminded the council that the review of public/semi-public land needs data through the ECLA process had been presented to them in April of 2009. Mr. Dedrick commented that the figures demonstrating the employment redevelopment land need as demonstrated in his presentation materials were based on the forecasts of other cities for their redevelop- ment. He noted that this was primarily due to the City’s lack of extensive data regarding the redevelopment of lands for employment purposes. Mr. Dedrick noted that the City’s total employment land need for the next 20 years was approximately 900 acres, but noted that number was likely to be adjusted based on reviews of special land needs and the current available land supply. Mr. Dedrick briefly described the various components of the City’s residential redevelopment land needs determined through the ECLA process including the estimates for population growth and housing density in the area. Mr. Dedrick reported that the City’s total residential land need for the next 20 years was approximately 2,400 acres but noted that number was likely to be adjusted based on a review of the current available land supply. Mr. Dedrick noted that further information regarding the City’s land needs was expected to be presented to the council in September of 2009 in order for staff to make the final ECLA determinations by the end of the year. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that the City’s currently available supply of both residential and employment land would potentially be affected by infill compatibility standards reviews. Ms. Gardner anticipated that final recommendations regarding the infill compatibility standards would be presented to the council in November or December of 2009. Ms. Gardner, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that PSU population statistics recently adopted by Lane County had been used in the City’s ECLA process rather than “safe harbor” population statistics and that the joint elected officials from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County would be holding a public hearing on September 21 to discuss population statistics relating to land development in greater detail. Deputy City Attorney Emily Jerome commented that safe harbor population figures were used in the absence of any coordinated population forecasts from Lane County Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, noted that the number of bedrooms in residential dwellings had not been incorporated into the statistical analysis of the residential development land needs but did not rule out the use of such data as the ECLA process progressed. Mr. Clark asked if the staff presentations to the council regarding the ECLA process in September would include any discussion of restrictions placed on particular parcels of land. Mr. Dedrick answered that staff would be presenting further information on committed and protected lands which were considered separate from developable lands. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that further information regarding the infill compatibility standards could potentially affect some of the baseline assumptions of the ECLA process. Mr. Zelenka maintained that it might make more sense to initially assume flat employment growth with respect to the ECLA process rather than the 1.4% listed in the ECLA: Baseline Assumptions report. Ms. Taylor hoped staff would continue to consider the City’s sustainability goals and policies with respect to the land needs specified in the ECLA process and further hoped that staff would work to include input from the community advisory committee. Ms. Taylor hoped staff might also consider supply-side issues related to residential redevelopment lands. Mr. Dedrick responded that such analysis would be highly speculative in that it would need to consider how much redevelopment might occur in a given area. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that staff was requesting council to accept the information included in the ECONorthwest report included in the agenda item summary as the baseline assumptions for further investigations into the City’s land needs. Ms. Taylor noted that she would like to see a minority report to counter the ECONorthwest report and felt that the community advisory committee had been too heavily weighted with members of the business and land development community. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that staff was not necessarily seeking a formal adoption of the ECONorthwest report from the council but rather an indication as to whether or not the staff’s interpretation of the findings of the report seemed reasonable. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Pryor expressed that it was important for the ECLA data to be accurate, clear and justifiable with respect to the City’s future land needs. He noted that he was comfortable endorsing the current trajectory of the staff’s interpretations of the ECLA report but only with the caveat that staff continued to make those interpretations as reasonable and supportable as possible. Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, noted that staff was currently investigating the statutes whereby restricted lands might be classified as buildable and would return to the council with further information in that regard in September. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the discussion regarding the ECLA process be continued to a future work session meeting before taking any of the actions that had been proposed or recommended. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion. Mr. Ruiz commented that he would try and have staff present more information regarding the ECLA process to the council before their next break. Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 5 Work Session ATTACHMENT K M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Executive Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 22, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown. Mayor Kitty Piercy pursuant to ORS 192.6602(a), called an executive session of the Eugene City Council, to review and evaluate the performance of an employee, to order at 12:00 p.m. Ms. Piercy adjourned the executive session at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 22, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session ATTACHMENT L M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon July 27, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Chris Pryor, George Brown (via telephone), Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that the meeting had been moved to the McNutt Room because of a lack of air conditioning in the Council Chamber. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Paul Duchin, Highland Oaks Drive, Eugene, described a problem with water seeping into the daylight basement at his home. He said there was no leak on his side of the water meter and Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) took no responsibility for the water. He hired a contractor to install a drainage system that shielded his home from any additional water damage, regardless of the source, at a cost of $38,000, but even with the new system, water issues were still not resolved. In 2008, EWEB finally acknowledged that there was a leak for which they were responsible and repaired it, eliminating all water problems. He filed a claim with EWEB regarding the $38,000 cost of a new drainage system, but instead of making an offer to settle, EWEB was requiring him to go to court and the litigation would cost more than the drainage system. He was prevented by state statute from seeking legal fees or punitive damages. Appeals to the EWEB Board of Commissioners had been unsuccessful. He asked the council to intervene and urge EWEB to do the right thing. th Riley West, Eugene, owner of Riley’s Real Wood Furniture on West 11 Avenue, said he had only become th aware of plans for an EmX route down West 11 Avenue two months ago. He said his business could not afford to lose parking spaces if the street was widened for transit lanes, which would render the building unusable. He relied on the building and business to support his retirement. He visited other businesses th along West 11 Avenue to discuss EmX and now there were 100 businesses with petitions indicating they were opposed to using the street as a transit corridor. He distributed copies of a list of those businesses. th Ilona Koleszar, West 11 Avenue, Eugene, founding member of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT), spoke to the concept of a City-sponsored stakeholder group for the West Eugene EmX project. She said Lane Transit District (LTD) was planning a stakeholder group of two representatives each from the City Council, Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and LTD to meet in the spring of 2010 to make a recommendation regarding the locally preferred alternative. She urged the council to establish a stakeholder group that included representation from businesses in West Eugene along all of the potential EmX routes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2009 Page 1 th Lisa West, Eugene, owner of Riley’s Real Wood Furniture, expressed her concerns about West 11 Avenue as a transit corridor including the cost, disruption and displacement of small businesses and siting of the route. She said that the project manager from LTD had made contradictory statements regarding the type of transit service, first indicating that it would be an express service to move people across town and then th saying that people could use it to access businesses along West 11 Avenue. She questioned whether studies had been done to determine what effect there would be on congestion on that street. She said that 25 percent of the project costs would have to be paid by LTD at a time when it was also cutting services in the fixed route system due to financial shortfalls. Drix , High Street, Eugene, reported on his recent activities cleaning up the pit on Willamette Street to improve the appearance of a blemish on downtown, turning it into a beauty mark. He encouraged the council to incorporate the concept of “free” into the City’s budget. Lisa Arkin , Eugene, Oregon Toxics Alliance, distributed materials to the council and discussed air pollution related to the proposed Seneca biomass plant. She supported green business and green renewable energy, but had a growing concern with the Seneca proposal because of its location within the City limits and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods in West Eugene. She said the plant would produce nearly 500 tons of hazardous air pollutants, including carbon dioxide. She invited the council to join the American Lung Association, Oregon Toxics Alliance and Lane Regional Air Protection Agency to participate in a stakeholder process to be facilitated by the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss concerns regarding the Seneca proposal. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum. She thanked those who spoke and said she would be willing to contact EWEB regarding Mr. Duchin’s request. She called for comments from the council. Councilor Poling asked if a lawsuit had been filed in the Duchin case. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he did not know. Councilor Poling expressed concern with the City or council becoming involved in a legal matter and urged consultation with the city attorney before any action was taken. He said during a May work session with LTD the council was asked for feedback on formation of a stakeholders group and he felt there was some support on the council for an approach similar to the stakeholder process used for the Coburg Road project in which a wide range of community and neighborhood interests were represented. He hoped the council would strongly recommend that type of stakeholder group to LTD for the West Eugene EmX corridor. Councilor Clark thanked those who spoke. He agreed with Councilor Poling that LTD should establish a true stakeholders group that included all those who were interested in the project. Councilor Brown stated that he would also talk to EWEB on behalf of Mr. Duchin. He agreed with Councilor Poling regarding wide representation on the West Eugene EmX corridor stakeholders group. Council Ortiz cautioned that any contact with EWEB about the Duchin case should follow a consultation with Mr. Klein to assure there was no conflict. She was concerned with the lack of business involvement in the West Eugene EmX corridor to date and hoped that LTD would invite all affected stakeholders to be involved in the process, particularly business owners along the corridor and in downtown. Mayor Piercy recalled that LTD asked the council to determine what role it wished to have in the process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2009 Page 2 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of February 6-7, 2009, Goals Session; February 23, 2009, Executive Session; April 27, 2009, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7:0. 3. ACTION: Appointments to Civilian Review Board Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Bernadette M. Conover to Position 6 on the Civilian Review Board, for a term beginning on Au- gust 1, 2009, and ending October 31, 2013. The motion passed, 7:0 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to appoint Marisa Men- doza to Position 7 on the Civilian Review Board, for a term beginning on August 1, 2009, and ending on October 31, 2012. Councilor Poling stated that he would not support the motion as he preferred another candidate whom he felt was better qualified because of his past work as a police officer and minister. He hoped that applicant Steven Broome could be retained on the Civilian Review Board (CRB) candidate list and given strong consideration when more appointments were made in the fall. Councilor Pryor said it was a difficult choice from among many qualified applicants. He would support the motion, but agreed that Mr. Broome was a highly qualified candidate. He hoped that all of the candidates who were part of the current pool would be carried forward to the appointment process in the fall unless they opted out. Councilor Ortiz agreed that all of the candidates who were interviewed were very qualified. She felt that Ms. Mendoza would bring some new perspectives to the CRB and would support her appointment, but also was impressed with Mr. Broome’s qualifications and hoped he would be a candidate for appointment to the CRB in the fall. Councilor Clark indicated that he would have supported Mr. Broome’s appointment to the CRB, but would vote in favor of Ms. Mendoza’s appointment. He felt several candidates, including Mr. Broome, were extremely well qualified. Councilor Zelenka said he was impressed by several of the candidates interviewed by the council. He would support Ms. Mendoza’s appointment and agreed with Councilor Pryor that the other candidates should automatically move forward to the next round of appointments unless they were no longer interested. The motion passed, 6:1; Councilor Poling voting no. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer’s Business License Tax and Repealing Section 3 of Ordinance No. 20337 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Council Bill 5004, an ordinance concerning motor vehicle fuel dealer’s business license tax. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2009 Page 3 Councilor Poling stated that he would support the motion. He stressed that it was not a new tax; it had been enacted several years ago with a sunset clause to allow the council to review the financial status of the City’s street maintenance program. Councilor Zelenka said he would support the motion because it was not an increase; it maintained the status quo. He said the initial reason for the sunset provision was anticipation of sufficient funding from the state to meet the City’s needs for Road Fund revenue. He said those funds were insufficient and uncertain and necessitated keeping the gas tax in place. Councilor Clark said he would vote in favor of the motion because it would change nothing and allow the City to continue to do the job of street maintenance. Mayor Piercy pointed out that there had been support from the public and no active opposition. The motion passed 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2009 Page 4 ATTACHMENT M M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 10, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS Proclamation: Eugene Firefighters Appreciation Week - Mayor Piercy read a proclamation declaring the week of August 23 to August 29, 2009, Eugene Firefighters Appreciation Week. She acknowledged that firefighters Bob Ritchey and Nathan Kunasek were present to receive a copy of the proclamation. The firefighters received a round of applause. City Manager Jon Ruiz noted that Captain Randall Groves was out of town and would have liked to have been present. He passed along Captain Groves’ heartfelt thanks to the firefighters. He commended the firefighters for their work, both in fire fighting and for fund raising efforts on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Albert Brahimaj , 958 Lawrence, #1, owner of two businesses in the downtown area, stated that his hot dog cart was being affected by “homeless street kids” begging for change. He said the young people would become hostile when people refused to give them money and because of this people did not want to get their money out to buy food from his business. He averred that he had worked too hard to get where he was and to have what he had to let “these little hooligans” affect his business. He said if they hung out in front of his store he had the recourse of calling the police, but he could not call the police when they were hanging out in front of his stand. He related that he had been assaulted on the previous Friday. He had called the police and the police had arrested three young people. He noted his intention to press charges. He said the three had been released from jail on the previous day. He observed that he was a pretty big guy and if he was getting beat up, what would happen to a “little old lady” in that situation. th Samantha Chirillo , 157 East 27 Avenue, #3, thanked the council for moving forward with the Police Auditor ordinance revisions. She surmised that those who had attended the committee meetings seemed satisfied with the results. She asked the council to continue supporting the roles of the Police Auditor and the Civilian Review Board (CRB). She noted that she had witnessed the tasering incident of May, 2008, and had recently participated in the investigation. It had become apparent to her that the Police Auditor and CRB played an important role in overseeing those kinds of investigations and giving feedback to the council MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting on them. She was concerned that the City was not suspending its use of tasers until they revised “how the police operations work.” She felt communication and non-violent means needed to be “#1” before any use of tasers. She averred that their misuse would not change the ways police operations happen and the relationship between the police and the community. She believed there was more work to be done in this area. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, observed that the Police Auditor ordinance changes were on the evening’s agenda. He believed that there had been a lot of complicated changes through the work of the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) and since then. He had been trying to follow the details of it and it was difficult and complicated. He averred that it would be a “healthier process” if, as the changes were made, there were periodic changes and some “level of effort” to discuss the details. He commented that he was lost. He understood that the PAORC had requested to be reconvened and this was not happening. He was interested in knowing why that request was “being ignored.” Mr. Vishanoff understood that the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) wanted to relocate to a property near the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) site. He was concerned that this would “open up a back door” in the Riverfront Research Park. He opined that there was not enough public discussion over whether that was a good idea. He noted that if one went to the Atrium Building and asked to see ORI plans and whether there would be a public hearing, the planning staff indicated that they did not know. He asserted that when staff did not know, the person requesting the information was required to pay $85 for staff to make a determina- tion whether a public hearing was needed and whether it was in compliance with the Riverfront Research Park master plan. He asked the council to ask the Planning Division to make a determination. Kimberly Gladen , 361 West Broadway, stated that she lived and worked in the downtown area and did not own a car. She believed that the downtown had a lot of potential but it had a “really bad problem” with security. She said there were a lot of people who were mentally ill in the downtown area. She attributed this to the last eight years of politics; a lot of programs had been eliminated. She averred that police would need to be trained to handle the mentally ill and homeless in a humane and kind way. She predicted that they would have a lot of wounded soldiers coming home from the war, which would increase the numbers of homeless and mentally ill people. She declared that these people were the “least of our brothers” and the most damaged people of society and damaging them further would not improve the situation. She believed that the problem with the downtown was directly related to the need to deal with these core social problems. She related that there was a person sleeping on Broadway in the old Rosewater Deli area until the mid- afternoon. She felt it was difficult for people to walk by and see that with their kids. She said seeing a police cruiser could make a person feel more secure or that there was a problem. She added that they would have to work harder to maintain a presence without adding to the carbon footprint of the force if the police facility moved across the river. She concluded by stressing that the downtown needed attention and the police needed to be more a part of the community. Tom Kamis , 856 Lincoln Street, #2, Ward 7, supported the retention and expansion of the parking exemption program. He related that he had received “amazing” feedback from customers and people who were downtown. He noted that someone had stressed the importance of asking the downtown businesses how they felt about the parking exemption. He wished to point out that there were only five businesses along the stretch in which the exemption was in place. He predicted it would take ten minutes to ask them. He said parking should be exempted in the downtown area. He opined that the City had opportunities to change the downtown core and the City Council had decided to “take away some development opportuni- ties.” He declared that the City had given up a big opportunity to have a lot of employers downtown when the City had “[done] away with that last possible build-up” of the downtown area. He did not think the City deserved any more money. He declared that if lack of funds was the issue that would keep the parking exemption from being in place for a longer period of time, the City Council would have to “learn to do without.” He underscored that the councilors were the City’s leaders and he believed that they should have MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting the vision to make the problems not happen. He opined that there was no reason to pay for parking downtown, noting that half of the businesses in the exemption zone were only open after 5 p.m. He asked the council what they were waiting for. He had seen more foot traffic since the exemption had been put into action. Mr. Kamis considered homeless youth downtown to be a big problem. He related that a 16-year-old had been assaulted by an inebriated man one week earlier and on August 7 he had walked out the back door of his business to discover a 40-year-old man “shooting up” a 14-year-old. He declared that there were always issues downtown and they needed another body there. He observed that if the City had funding for new police offices and a new city hall, it should have enough money to hire one more police officer. He added that Officer Tom Schulke was a great beat cop who knew all of the young people by name. He wished that Officer Schulke could be cloned. th Eugene Drix , 307½ East 14 Avenue, Ward 3, reiterated his love for Eugene. He observed that the one thing a person learned in the University was that they did not know it all. He said kids downtown were “just youth” who were “tired of what the preachers say and tired of what their parents say.” He likened it to a “bubbling cauldron of life.” He was not certain what to do about it. He commented that he was friendly with everyone from the councilors to street people. He related that he knew a former architect with a family who now collected cans for a living and slept in doorways. He said everyone had to keep an eye out for their neighbor. He declared that Eugene was a world class town and that people in Portland were starting to copy Eugene. Justin McBurnett , 4105 Fox Hollow Road, voiced his support for the community, the City Council, and community members including the police. He cited a couple of examples of when he had been thankful for the police. He recognized that the police were a valuable asset to the community, but he was “befuddled” to imagine that people who would do a good job for the community would not support transparency “in a sense that would make the community feel at ease.” He related that his three-year-old son had witnessed an incident involving police gunfire and was now afraid to go outside by himself. He wanted his son to grow up and trust the police. He thought citizens should be able to utilize the traffic cameras or to use their own cameras to monitor the police. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called for comments from the councilors. th Councilor Clark thanked everyone for their testimony. He noted that his office was located on 8 Avenue and Willamette Street. He understood what the downtown business owners were talking about because he saw it every day. He believed their first priority should be to dramatically enhance public safety downtown. He felt the City had made good strides toward that by adding bicycle officers full-time downtown and making room in the budget to allow more officers. He noted that he had brought up at the Budget Committee, along with Councilor Brown, an idea on how to pay for more public safety. He said if the business owners had ideas on what more they could do, they should contact him. Councilor Solomon thanked the downtown business owners for coming down. She averred that “all the visioning in the world” would be moot if they did not address the public safety situation first. She noted that Police Chief Pete Kerns was in the audience and added that she hoped he had taken notes from the testimony given. She also requested that staff provide some background information regarding the potential ORI project. Councilor Ortiz also wanted to thank everyone for coming down. She believed that policing in the downtown area needed to be part of a bigger picture. She opined that the children on the mall were there because they were “throwaway kids.” She did not think it should be the charge of the City Council to take care of them, though she acknowledged that they were part of the problem. She asserted that it was part of MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting their charge in the community to take care of the people who were “our lesser brothers and sisters.” She said it was a challenge as a councilor to decide whether to spend more money on human services or on policing. She believed it was part of their charge to address the needs of those young people; they were the future and needed to have the opportunities to make productive citizens out of themselves. She remarked that it was hurtful to hear of these incidents involving the youth and it made her want to ask where their parents were. Councilor Clark agreed that there were a number of people downtown with no other place to go. He noted that Councilor Zelenka worked with the Safe & Sound program and Councilor Ortiz had worked with other programs that provided assistance. He wanted to be clear because the conversation so often steered toward the idea that the problem downtown was “just kids.” He said he was downtown every day and would bet anyone that the vast majority of people were over the age of 18. It was not kids causing problems, the problems were caused by predatory adults. He stressed that the public safety problem was due to people who came from other areas on purpose and to people who might have been from the area and were down there often. He declared that they should not talk about the problem as if it was only attributable to the youth. He said any of the officers that were downtown would substantiate this. He knew this because he talked to them every day. Mayor Piercy said they all knew the challenges that faced the downtown area and the City was working hard on the problems, as were the police officers in the area. She related that one thing they were trying to do as a strategy, was the Summer in the City program, which sought to fill up the downtown with good activity and positive energy. She agreed with Councilor Clark that the biggest trouble makers were not the young people. Mayor Piercy thanked Ms. Chirillo for speaking on behalf of the auditor ordinance revisions. She considered the revisions to be “one step further in a good direction.” She also wanted to thank Ms. Gladen for talking about both the potential of the downtown area and the challenges it faced. She expressed appreciation to the business owners in the downtown area and pledged to continue to do the best they could to support them in many ways, including parking. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - May 11, 2009, City Council Meeting - May 26, 2009, City Council Meeting - June 8, 2009, City Council Meeting - June 10, 2009, Work Session - June 15, 2009, Public Hearing - June 22, 2009, Work Session B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Acceptance of Products Associated with Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment Grant for Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Police Auditor; Amending Sections 2.450, 2.452, 2.454, 2.456 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing for an Effective Date for Implementation Mayor Piercy noted that the PAORC had made all of the meeting minutes available. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4998, an ordinance concerning the Police Auditor. Councilor Brown asked Police Auditor Mark Gissiner to confirm his recollection that the memorandum submitted to the council by Mr. Gissiner had indicated that he could not recall a case in Cincinatti in which an administrative investigation could not occur concurrently when it was appropriate to do so. Mr. Gissiner replied that the only time there was a consecutive issue had been instances when there were shots fired by police officers. He explained that in this case there was a criminal investigation first, followed by an administrative investigation. He recalled “one or two” times in which an officer was possibly being charged with criminal charges and the administrative case had been suspended until the criminal investigation was done. Councilor Brown did not think this had been much of an issue in Eugene either. Mr. Gissiner remarked that in the genesis of the auditor/police relationship there were some concerns about it, but they had gotten past this. Councilor Brown was amenable with all of the changes to the ordinance with the exception of the one regarding concurrency. He did not see the idea of a disagreement by the chief of police with the auditor having to go before a municipal court judge as a diminution of the auditor’s authority. He asked if the police chief in Cincinatti had ever disagreed with him regarding a concurrent investigation. Mr. Gissiner replied that he found it ironic that the issue of concurrency had been viewed as problematic more for the complainant than for the officer there and the argument in favor of consecutive versus concurrency in Eugene was more of a problem for the officer than for the complaint. It was unusual for him to see this couched in this way. He explained that because the complainant was not a trained observer, his or her version of events would be less likely to remain consistent throughout the process whereas a police officer was a trained observer and was much more likely to maintain consistency. He said in Eugene there was more concern about an officer being consistent through the process, which was the reverse of the situation in Cincinatti. Councilor Brown said he was a little concerned that the changes would present a diminution of the auditor’s power. Mr. Gissiner noted that the ordinance allowed the auditor to separately conduct an external investigation if he or she believed it was warranted. Councilor Ortiz was glad to be at this point in time, moving the revisions forward. She said if it did not work or problems arose, they could bring it back for further revision. Mayor Piercy explained that PAORC was not being reconvened because they had decided to wait until the new auditor was in place. Councilor Zelenka thanked the members of the PAORC for the hours they had contributed to the process and the “homework” associated with it. He noted that the committee had also heard a lot of public input and had held a public hearing. He believed that changes that were proposed closed loopholes, clarified rules, and made the office of the Police Auditor stronger. He averred that they were consistent with the two votes that the public had engaged in on the auditor ordinance. He supported the changes. Councilor Poling noted that in addition to the people that Councilor Zelenka had mentioned, there had also been a subcommittee of councilors that had worked on the final recommendation. He said they had discussed and reviewed the recommendations and had done some wordsmithing to “smooth it out.” He MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting believed this demonstrated the dedication and support to the Police Auditor position that the council possessed. Councilor Clark thanked the committee members for their work. He was glad they were finally done. He was happy that the ordinance was before the council. He observed that as they now had a nationally recognized police auditor and a much stronger ordinance in place. He felt this was the best opportunity they had “in a long time” to see successful police oversight. Councilor Zelenka took the opportunity to welcome Mr. Gissiner to the office of the Police Auditor. He said Mr. Gissiner had “hit the ground running.” He also wanted to thank Chief Kerns for the “great job” he had done in cooperating with both the past and present auditors. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT N M I N U T E S Eugene Urban Renewal Agency Executive Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 10, 2009 COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Brown. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Executive Session of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:18 p.m. A. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) The Eugene Urban Renewal Agency met in Executive Session to deliberate with persons designated by the agency to negotiate real property transactions. The Executive Session was held pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e). The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 1 Executive Session