Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 12, 2010 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2009, Work Session, January 27, 2010, Work Session, February 8, 2010, Regular Meeting, February 10, 2010, Work Session, February 17, 2010, Work Session, February 24, 2010, Work Session and February 26, 2010, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.December 16, 2009, Work Session B.January 27, 2010, Work Session C.February 8, 2010, Regular Meeting D.February 10, 2010, Work Session E.February 17, 2010, Work Session F.February 24, 2010, Work Session G.February 26, 2010, Joint Elected Officials Meeting FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100412\S1004123A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon December 16, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling Ms. Piercy called the meeting to order at 12:00 pm A. WORK SESSION – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Piercy thanked Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Pete Kerns for his press conference earlier that morning to address property crime reduction strategies in the area. Ms. Piercy wished everyone a safe and happy holiday season. Ms. Piercy offered statements in support of the University of Oregon's football team. Ms. Piercy mentioned that Sandy Halonen had recently retired from the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) and congratulated her for her efforts to create housing opportunities in the community as well as her ongoing work on local skate park planning. Ms. Piercy noted she had attended a dinner in recognition of White Bird’s CAHOOTS (Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets) program and its work to improve mental health treatment services in the community. Ms. Piercy noted recent events at Cesar Chavez Elementary School in recognition of International Human Rights day on December 10, 2009. She noted a recent "cutting carbs" community workshop sponsored by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to discuss carbon emission reduction strategies. Ms. Piercy noted she had recently spoken at the Network Charter School as part of its ongoing discussion series on how to be a good neighbor. She commented that a groundbreaking ceremony for a new veterinary facility for low-income community members on Highway 99 had taken place recently. Ms. Piercy noted she would soon be traveling to Corvallis to collect on a wager with Mayor Charles Tomlinson whereby he would wear an Oregon Ducks shirt at the next meeting of the Corvallis City Council. She commented she would be participating in an EPD ride-along on December 17, 2009. Mr. Clark congratulated the Sheldon High School and Marist Catholic High School football teams for their recent victories. He commended Chief Kerns for his press conference earlier that morning and also for his comments regarding improved downtown policing strategies. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Clark reported he had recently met with Mr. Zelenka and Police Auditor Mark Gissiner as part of their ongoing supervisory duties. He noted he had made a presentation to the Eugene Chamber of Commerce's Local Government Affairs Council (LCAC) on December 4, regarding the City's downtown parking strategies. Mr. Clark commented on his attendance at the Joint Elected Officials and the Beltline Steering Committee meetings on December 7. He believed the Beltline Steering Committee was drawing closer to potential solutions to development challenges being faced in the Beltline/Delta Highway area. He encouraged the Council members to visit the ODOT website for further information in that regard. Mr. Clark stated he had recently met with Kidsports Executive Director Bev Smith on December 10 to discuss a range of issues affecting both their organization and children in the community. He noted he had attended the Police Commission meeting on December 10, and noted there had been very productive discussions on a number of issues. He noted that the Police Commission’s work plan appeared to be proceeding on schedule. Mr. Pryor voiced his appreciation for Chief Kerns’ recent press conference and his corresponding efforts to address property crime in the community. He felt Chief Kerns work on the matter had been proactive and represented an important step forward for the City. Mr. Pryor noted he had attended the Housing Policy Board meeting and reported that the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process to issue RFP's was on schedule. He noted he had attended the recent Joint Elected Officials meeting regarding Fire/EMS services and believed that all parties involved were methodically working toward a difficult solution to several challenges. Mr. Pryor reported he would be serving as LCOG Chair beginning in January of 2010. He noted that City of Coburg Mayor Judith Volta had been appointed as vice-chair of that group. Ms. Taylor noted the recent productions of "White Christmas" staged by Actors Cabaret of Eugene and the Oregon Festival of American Music. She reported that the City's committee on street assessments consisting of herself, Mr. Brown and Ms. Solomon had recently met to discuss the strategies for that group. Ms. Ortiz noted her attendance at the most recent Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) meeting and hoped that that group would continue to work to improve its communication skills. She noted that the City's Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) committee would meet later in the afternoon to discuss legislative priorities for the next year. Ms. Ortiz reported she had attended the recent International Human Rights Day festivities on December 10 and believed the events had been received positively by the community. She stated she had attended a meeting of skate park representatives and noted that they were working in conjunction with the local Rotary Club chapter as part of their fundraising efforts. Ms. Ortiz noted she had recently participated in a community outreach event with Mayor Piercy at the Grocery Outlet on River Road. She stated that City Manager Jon Ruiz had attended a recent meeting of Trainsong neighborhood representatives. Mr. Brown noted he had also attended the recent JEO meeting concerning the consolidation of the Springfield and Eugene Fire/EMS departments and felt that while the financial benefits seemed impressive there were still several important governance issues to discuss surrounding the matter. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon arrived to the meeting at 12:14 p.m. Mr. Brown noted he had attended a meeting of the McKenzie Watershed Council on December 10 and reported on several recent developments regarding local water sources. He further maintained that the McKenzie Watershed Council had been utilizing its funding very wisely. Mr. Brown noted he had recently met with Lane Community College President Mary Spilde and had been happy to learn that LCC had recently begun providing increased housing opportunities to its students. Ms. Solomon reported her attendance at a recent Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission where that group had provided updates on a number of its construction projects. Ms. Solomon noted that many of those projects had come in under budget. Mr. Poling noted he had attended a recent Travel Lane County Board of Directors meeting and reported that May Kruger had been appointed to that group. He noted from that meeting that the Cuthbert Amphitheater had been recognized by Pollstar magazine as one of the top 100 entertainment centers in the world. Mr. Poling commended the coaches and staff for the Sheldon High School and Marist Catholic High School athletic teams for their recent accomplishments. Mr. Zelenka commended Chief Kerns for his recent steps to address property crime in the community. He maintained that the proposed consolidation of the Springfield and Eugene Fire/EMS departments represented significant potential savings with regard to the eliminations of redundancies that might result from such a strategy. Mr. Zelenka noted he had recently attended the City's Climate and Energy Action Plan workshop sessions and had also presented a report to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) regarding the same. Mr. Poling anticipated that air travel on and around December 31 would be difficult due to the large number of people who were expected to travel to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. Ms. Ruiz noted that Seda Collier had received the City's Human Rights award for her contribution to local transgender issues. He noted that Financial Analyst Lacey Risdal would be presenting information to the council on the recent prosperity summit at a later council work session. Mr. Ruiz noted his attendance at a recent Eugene Symphony performance. He noted that the Symphony continued to be an extremely important part of the City's longstanding commitment to the arts. He noted that January 8, 2010, would be Finance Director Dee Ann Raile's last day with the City. He commended Ms. Raile for her many years of service to the organization and to the community at-large. Ms. Taylor noted that the City Club of Eugene would be welcoming artists from the Eugene Opera’s production of The Marriage of Figaro at their December 18 meeting. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that staff would present information from the recent prosperity summit to the council at a later work session meeting. B. WORK SESSION - Eugene Police Department Taser Policy Police Commission Chair Tamara Miller provided background information regarding the EPD Taser Policy and further noted that a future council work session would be devoted to Taser policy revisions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Miller provided a brief overview on the history and development of EPD Taser use practices and policies as listed in the agenda item summary materials. She stated that the EPD had concluded in its reports that Tasers could indeed be used successfully and responsibly in the community. She further noted that the initial Taser pilot training procedures also included training in a number of additional crisis intervention and conflict de-escalation techniques. Ms. Miller noted that former EPD Chief Robert Lehner had utilized the minority and majority reports from the pilot Taser project to craft the current formal EPD policy. Police Commission Use of Force Committee Chair Joe Alsup noted that the Use of Force Committee had reviewed Taser policies from several other similar communities and found that those policies were generally not as long or as detailed as the one that had ultimately been drafted for use by the EPD. Mr. Alsup provided an overview of the current EPD Taser policy and noted that it incorporated: 1) the use of verbal warnings in order to assess level of immediate credible threat; and 2) a description of the nature of the authorized uses for Taser deployment. He noted that the authorized uses for Tasers as described in the current policy continued to elicit the most discussion from the Use of Force Committee and Police Commission members. He further noted that the specific Taser use practices would also be discussed at an extended Use of Force Committee meeting later that evening. Mr. Alsup briefly described several of the "after care" elements of the EPD's Taser policy. Mr. Alsup noted that the Use of Force Committee had suggested revisions to the EPD's Taser policy that would require all officers carrying Tasers to undergo 40 hours of crisis intervention training. Ms. Miller directed the council members to the Materials Reference Sheet which listed a number of sources that had been reviewed in the Use of Force Committee's examinations of the current EPD Taser policy. Ms. Piercy reminded the council that the staff presentation regarding EPD Taser policy was intended only to provide information and not to request or recommend any specific policy revisions. Mr. Clark noted his recent research regarding the medical condition known as "excited delirium" and asked if that condition had been referenced in the Use of Force Committee's policy discussions. Ms. Miller responded that the symptoms of excited delirium, while not an officially recognized medical diagnosis, constituted a medical emergency under the provisions of the current EPD Taser policy. Mr. Alsup, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that council members were welcome to email him or Ms. Miller with any other questions they might have regarding the current EPD Taser policy. Ms. Miller noted that the council member were welcome to attend Use of Force Committee meetings in the future. Mr. Alsup, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the Denver, Colorado, police Taser policy, and policies from various other municipalities, had provided very useful information to the Use of Force Committee. Mr. Zelenka noted he had attended the most recent Use of Force Committee and appreciated the high level of conversation within that group. He looked forward to reading the committee's final recommendations to Chief Kerns regarding the EPD Taser policy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Alsup noted that the Use of Force Committee was expected to finalize its recommendations and present them at the Police Commission's January or February meeting. Mr. Zelenka requested a copy of the current EPD Taser policy as well as the materials and statistics that had been reviewed by the Use of Force Committee as they developed their Taser policy recommendations. Ms. Piercy, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, noted that the current work session was intended only to provide information regarding the EPD's Taser policy and not as a forum for policy discussions on that policy. Mr. Alsup, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the Use of Force Committee had considered a recommendation to ban the use of Tasers for purposes of crowd control at public protests and also for incidents of static resistance. Mr. Alsup, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the EPD officers who used Tasers had received specific first aid training regarding the proper manner in which to remove the barbs from a Tasered individual. Ms. Miller noted that the Police Commission and the Use of Force Committee continued to review the crowd control restrictions of the EPD Taser policy. Ms. Taylor asked if all of the EPD officers who had been issued Tasers and trained in their use had actually been Tasered themselves as part of their training. Mr. Alsup responded that such a practice was not part of the EPD's Taser training practices but that some EPD officers had actually traveled out-of-state in order to subject themselves to the effects of a Taser discharge. Ms. Miller, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that the barbs used in a Taser discharge did not leave a lasting wound on the Tasered individual. Mr. Brown referenced his own research into the use of Tasers and asked if the Police Commission and Use of Force Committee had reviewed similar information. Mr. Brown advocated for the continued development of clear and responsible guidelines regarding the EPD's use of Tasers as an effective law enforcement tool. Ms. Miller, responding to a comment from Mr. Brown, briefly described the dedicated crisis intervention team training used by municipalities such as Memphis, Tennessee, and how such training had addressed the continued use of Tasers in that community. Mr. Alsup noted that Chief Kerns had initiated a practice whereby EPD officers would undergo Taser training three times per year instead of just once a year. C. WORK SESSION – Office of the Police Auditor Police Auditor Mark Gissiner presented a report to the council regarding the current state of his position and office. Mr. Gissiner thanked Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Clark for their efforts to meet with him on a regular basis. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Gissiner recognized that police relations were a very important issue not only to the council but to the community at large. He briefly described how his position had developed since he assumed it approximately six months ago. Mr. Gissiner noted that while his recent communications with the council had primarily focused on elements relating to the Ian Van Ornum case, he had also become significantly concerned with clarifying the nature and working definitions of Community Impact Cases (CIC) for the benefit of the council. Mr. Gissiner proceeded to provide from his presentation materials a definition of CIC's as well as a brief overview of the police auditor's role in the investigation and adjudication of CIC's. He clarified that certain elements of the auditor's role were not specified in the Eugene Code but rather were protocols that had been negotiated as part of the EPD collective bargaining environment. Mr. Gissiner provided a brief overview of the Civilian Review Board's (CRB) role and responsibilities with respect to CIC's. He referenced the Ian Van Ornum case and recognized that the public had been somewhat frustrated by the amount of information that they had received and their inability to have input into the decision-making process surrounding that case. He noted that such factors had influenced the CRB's role with respect to CIC investigations and had resulted in the utilization of three separate CRB meetings to review CIC's. Mr. Gissiner noted there had been a certain amount of confusion for the public regarding the manner in which the CRB discussed closed cases in public meetings. He proceeded to describe in greater detail the CRB's role surrounding closed cases. Mr. Gissiner noted that while the CRB could require the City to reopen investigations surrounding closed cases and could also provide recommendations regarding closed cases, it was important to understand in both CIC's and closed cases that "only the hiring authority or the hiring authority's designee may impose discipline" upon sworn EPD officers. Mr. Gissiner emphasized that only the City Manager or the Chief of the EPD could make disciplinary decisions and impose discipline upon sworn officers and that the Mayor, the Police Auditor, the City Council members, and the CRB members could not. Mr. Gissiner believed it was important to clarify any misunderstandings in the community surrounding the proper disciplinary authority over EPD officers. Mr. Gissiner briefly described how he expected to maintain avenues of communication with various areas of the community and also provided information on how he planned to be involved with the City Council, various community meetings and local media outlets. Mr. Gissiner briefly described a number of organizational challenges that his office currently faced. He hoped that previous misconceptions regarding the nature of the police auditor's budget had been sufficiently addressed. He hoped that his office would be able to present more detailed budget information to the council in late December or early January. Mr. Gissner recognized that the discussions and reviews performed by the CRB had a tremendous impact on the community. He briefly discussed his office's interactions with the various levels of police services and noted that he had consistently found the EPD to be very cooperative and transparent at all levels. Mr. Gissiner briefly described the various future challenges faced by the police auditor's office. He elaborated that it was often difficult to strike an adequate balance between the public's need for transparency and the parameters of existing public records laws. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Gissiner maintained it would be very important to conduct effective training of CRB members in order to maintain the collective credibility of that body. He hoped that the role of the police auditor's office with respect to risk claims and the City's Risk Management division would become more formalized in the future. Mr. Gissiner emphasized that it was important to recognize that events requiring the police auditor's attention would still occur no matter what system of precautionary measures were enacted. Mr. Gissiner, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, noted that he would provide more detailed information regarding the police auditor's budget, as well as cuts to that budget that had recently been proposed by the City Manager, during a later council work session. He noted that the proposed cuts were only a first step towards the development of effective and efficient strategies for his office. Mr. Ruiz clarified that he had not formally proposed a $50,000 cut to the police auditor's budget, but rather, had requested that all City departments including the police auditor examine their budgets in order to determine where various cost savings might be implemented. Mr. Brown briefly listed the reasons why he believed that the most recent Tasering incident should have been classified as a CIC. Mr. Gissiner responded to Mr. Brown's comments and noted that the difficult decision to not classify that incident as a CIC had been primarily made out of a desire to respect the cultural sensitivities and the personal wishes of the persons that had been most directly affected by the incident. Mr. Brown indicated he had disagreed with Mr. Gissiner's assessment but ultimately respected the decision of the auditor. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Gissiner's previous comments indicating that more frequent updates from the auditor to the City Council would be helpful. Mr. Zelenka commented on two neighborhood meetings in his ward that Mr. Gissiner had attended and noted that the public had been very pleased with Mr. Gissiner's work thus far. Mr. Gissiner, responding to concerns raised by Mr. Zelenka regarding potential budget cuts to the police auditor's office, noted it was too soon to know how exactly any such cuts would affect his office specifically or police oversight strategies in general. Mr. Zelenka noted recent large risk claims faced by the City of Portland and agreed that it was important that the police auditor's office formalize its relationship and procedures with Eugene's Risk Management division. Mr. Gissiner, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about how the council members might assist the police auditor's office, suggested that it might be advisable to create a series of executive session protocols so that he might be able to provide more appropriate levels of information to the council, particularly with respect to critical incident reports. Ms. Taylor hoped that Mr. Gissiner would provide the same level of care and detail that Mr. Ruiz did in keeping the council informed of significant events involving all areas of the EPD. She asked if Mr. Gissiner would consider reducing his hours as part of a budget reduction strategy for his office. Mr. Gissiner responded that he would not be willing to consider such an option. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Piercy thanked Mr. Gissiner for his presentation and for his work during his tenure as the City's police auditor. She hoped he would continue his efforts to reach out to broader sections of the community. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 12:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 16, 2009 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon January 27, 2010 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Alan Zelenka participated by telephone. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She thanked everyone for voting on the recent ballot measures. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Public Safety Issues Mr. Ruiz stated that the Eugene Counts public input process had been undertaken and both downtown and downtown public safety had cropped up as recurring themes. He felt this pointed to the need to focus some resources “in that direction.” He thought improving the downtown would also increase the number of jobs in that area. He hoped that the council would move forward on the recommendations. Executive Director of the Planning and Development Department Susan Muir reviewed the first slide in a PowerPoint presentation on Downtown Public Safety, which highlighted the Core Strategies. Hard copies of the PowerPoint slides were provided to everyone present. She stated that the primary focus of the present discussion was on the strategy related to public safety. Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Pete Kerns listed some of the task team members. He said one of the first things the task team had done had been to identify the things that needed to be changed and what parts of the situation contributed to the present state of the downtown area. He related that a big component lay in the lack of accountability in that there were not enough police officers or jail beds or other services. He observed that the illegal and unpleasant behavior was upsetting people who would come downtown to conduct business or spend time there. He said the task team had come up with more than 40 strategies worthy of consideration. He noted that they had received input from a wide array of people. In calling other municipalities across the country for information on how they had handled similar situations, they had been repeatedly referred to the City of Portland. He related that they had contacted Portland and made a field trip there. Chief Kerns stated that the council packets included both short-term and long-term strategies. He said the short-term strategies were those that they were already working on. He explained that there were a number of existing resources they could coordinate better, such as improving the lines of communication with the Department of Youth Services. He noted that there already existed closed-circuit cameras, owned by private businesses for their own security purposes, and the EPD could take greater advantage of those. He said EPD was in the process of taking an inventory of these resources. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 1 Work Session Chief Kerns related that a number of communities had restricted the sales of fortified wine and malt liquor. He explained that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) could make a change administratively that would enable the City Council to pass an ordinance that would prohibit the sale of such products. He said those communities that had passed such ordinances had seen a reduction in admissions to detox centers and emergency rooms as a result. Continuing, Chief Kerns explained that they did not have a way to understand behavior crime currently. He said it would not be a huge expense to set up software that would track these types of crimes. He noted that the EPD was working on a way to enhance its crime enforcement strategies. Ms. Muir stated that, based on the Portland model, they were putting forth the concept of assessing fees on vacant buildings. They planned to develop this idea and bring something back for the council’s consideration. She said a map of the downtown district was included in the council packets so that the councilors could review it and potentially consider doing something different with the boundary. She related that they were also working with Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) in partnership to come up with continued and enhanced ways of providing their services. Chief Kerns said a report was forthcoming in the fall on the effectiveness of the Downtown Safety Ordinance that would analyze what systematically was working and what was not. He stated that among other things, they would examine if the boundary was the right one and whether it was worthy of continuing or enhancing. Ms. Muir started a review of long-term strategies. Chief Kerns reiterated that the lack of accountability and jail space made it difficult to change some behaviors. He recommended adding ten jail beds as a long-term strategy. He also related that there was a type of facility used in a number of communities called “wet housing.” He explained that it was an intermediate housing opportunity for people who would not be appropriately placed in the Eugene Mission or the Buckley House and that would save money by preventing emergency room visits. He stated that this would provide a safe place for someone with an alcohol or substance abuse issue. He noted that there was not an estimated cost because there were different models that they could utilize. Continuing, Chief Kerns highlighted the long-term strategy of creating downtown work crews as part of sentencing for low-level crimes. Ms. Muir discussed the long-term strategy of including more seasonal and consistent lighting. Chief Kerns stated that the long-term strategy to improve policing would require the addition of nine Full Time Equivalent (FTE) police officers and also support staff. Ms. Muir added that they also saw enhancement of the Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS) in the downtown area as a long-term strategy. Ms. Muir said the items in the recommendation would cost a total of $2 million in ongoing funds and $200,000 in one-time costs. She added that the costs for some things, such as the “wet beds,” were as yet unknown. Mayor Piercy asked if there would be a better way to address the lack of clean-up outside of bars as one short-term solution. Regarding behavior crimes, she commented that some people have ceased to report MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 2 Work Session them because they do not think they will get a response. She suggested that they define for people that reporting them let the department know that the crimes were happening. Mayor Piercy also expressed appreciation for the conversation on fees to vacant building owners. She strongly encouraged a cooperative approach, rather than a regulatory approach. She agreed that even if a building was empty, it still needed to look good. Mr. Clark thanked everyone for the work they were doing to remedy the situation. He was glad to see that they were taking “badly needed innovative steps” to create more accountability for crime in the downtown area. He agreed with the Mayor regarding assessment of a fee on empty buildings. He had never been a fan of the idea that the City should assess a fee to someone who could not seem to get business going well enough to fill a building. Regarding the OLCC and special district issues, Mr. Clark wondered if there were any existing districts that could suffice. Chief Kerns responded that the first step would be to find out if OLCC was willing to grant Eugene the administrative authority to make such an ordinance. He said they would study the behaviors to determine where the best district would be. Mr. Clark asked how long they wanted to study this. Chief Kerns replied that it would be good to have something in place by summer. Mr. Clark asked if there was a specific reason the Volunteers in Policing were not being considered to help in enforcement of some kinds of things. Chief Kerns explained that in Oregon only law enforcement officers were allowed to enforce the laws. He said some volunteers could write parking citations for handicapped parking-space violations, but this would not address the problems they were trying to address. Continuing, Mr. Clark noted that Judge Wayne Allen had come before the Police Commission at its last meeting and stated that he could use an additional ten jail beds right now. He related that Judge Allen had indicated that he was letting people go at present who should be going to jail. He asked if ten beds would be an adequate number in order to do extra work to do a better job. Chief Kerns replied that it was not adequate, but it was feasible. He thought that if those jail beds were used carefully, it could change the behavior in the downtown area. Mr. Clark supported moving the strategies forward. He averred that they would have a positive effect. Ms. Taylor asked if they kept records of complaints that were called in to the EPD if there was no response. Chief Kerns replied that they did not. He said if they could implement the third strategy, which sought to increase and implement automated behavior crime reporting and cameras, they would be able to develop a system internally that could do this. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Chief Kerns affirmed that volunteers could do the work it took to record calls. Ms. Taylor thought it was important to let people know that the calls were being recorded. Ms. Taylor asked if the Chief was considering hiring the new officers to patrol in the downtown area or did he intend to dispatch more experienced officers there. Chief Kerns replied that he would deploy more experienced officers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked where the people who had been excluded from the downtown area were going. Chief Kerns responded that they could only track the behavior and not the people. He said some crimes, if they were aggressive in enforcing them, did not repeat anywhere else. He explained that those crimes required certain environmental conditions to happen in a certain place, but behavioral crimes were not subject to environmental conditions because there were so many opportunities to engage in them in the downtown area. He averred that to be effective in reducing behavior crimes, they had to have enough officers to fluidly move where the behavior was happening. Ms. Taylor asked if any of the jail beds would be used for people who were not dangerous. Chief Kerns responded that there were so few jail beds that almost all of them had high risk offenders in them. He said the jail beds that the City leased were for defendants convicted of violent crimes. He added that there were no jail beds for non-violent offenders currently, though this could change with the opening of the Springfield jail. Ms. Taylor thought the idea of “wet beds” would be attractive to some people. She asked if this was a punishment. Chief Kerns replied that it was an alternative to the emergency room and other more expensive services. He said only a unique, discreet group of people would qualify for it. Mayor Piercy echoed this, noting that there were significant savings for services in case-managed apartments directed at people with substance abuse issues. Mr. Poling agreed that “wet beds” were a good idea. He felt it would provide a safe out and would allow the funds to be invested in rehabilitation services that could help a person to get out of that type of situation. Regarding adding jail beds, he asked if the $420,000 that they were estimated to cost had come from the County. Chief Kerns affirmed that this was the County’s cost estimate. Mr. Poling asked if the chief had entered into preliminary conversations with the City of Springfield regarding jail beds. Chief Kerns responded that the Municipal Court had discussed this with Springfield and it was not yet known whether the beds there would represent any significant savings. Mr. Poling noted that the Lane County Sheriff’s Office used to keep a record of its calls for 90 days and asked if the EPD did this type of thing. Chief Kerns replied that they did not. He added that some crimes were not even recorded. Mr. Poling asked the chief to elaborate regarding the City’s interaction with the OLCC. Chief Kerns said the City could not regulate the sales of alcohol; only OLCC had that authority. He explained that the OLCC would write an administrative rule that would enable Eugene to have an ordinance to prohibit the sale of certain types of beverages in certain areas of town. In response to follow-up questions from Mr. Poling, the chief explained that staff was currently discussing possible changes with OLCC. He noted that the City of Portland had been granted an administrative rule and it was considered a “success story.” Mr. Poling remarked that the Downtown Exclusion Ordinance was going to sunset soon. Chief Kerns confirmed this. He said he would report back to the council on its effectiveness in the fall. Continuing, Mr. Poling commented that CAHOOTS did a great deal for the community and was an organization that did not receive enough recognition for the job that it did. He wondered whether CAHOOTS had a way of breaking down the amount of activity or crime they responded to in the downtown area currently. He requested this information, if it was available. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Ortiz appreciated all the work that the committee had done. She noted that they had been a diverse group of people. She agreed that CAHOOTS did a lot of work. She believed that if CAHOOTS had more resources, it could provide more services. She recalled that the Whiteaker Neighborhood had experienced issues related to the sales of malt liquor during the previous summer and the EPD had engaged in a pilot project with the markets there and the markets had discontinued the sale of these fortified alcohol products. Chief Kerns responded that there was no data on this yet. Ms. Ortiz suggested that they may want to pursue such an ordinance for the Highway 99 corridor, because it was also afflicted with issues related to such sales. She indicated her support for all of the recommendations. She added that she supported the “wet bed” idea. She averred that it would be valuable to the community to have this type of shelter with wrap-around services in the area. Mr. Brown asked if the suggested expansion of the other security services would include giving them citation authority. Chief Kerns responded that it would not do that; rather it would encourage them to collect information and report crimes and, where appropriate, they could interrupt crimes. Mr. Brown agreed that fortified wine was a detriment. He said grocery stores throughout the area sold such products, but they also sold other wines and microbrews with a higher alcohol content. While he was sympathetic to the idea, he felt it would be “a little tricky.” Mr. Zelenka thanked everyone who had worked on the item, and especially the task team members and the chief. He supported the short-term actions. He asked if there could be a citywide ban on fortified wine and malt liquors. Chief Kerns did not yet know what OLCC could permit. Mr. Zelenka did not want to push problems into areas where the fortified wines were not banned. Mr. Zelenka asked Chief Kerns to elaborate on the short-term item that included closed-circuit cameras. Chief Kerns said the City of Eugene already had some cameras in parks to monitor places where crime occurred. He explained that this would allow businesses and police to install cameras in places where crime was happening. He added that the presence of cameras served to deter crime and other communities had found it to be one of the most successful components in crime reduction. Mr. Zelenka asked if the estimated $100,000 was intended for cameras. Chief Kerns replied that the money would add cameras and a way for staff to monitor them. Mr. Zelenka asked how many cameras this would add. Chief Kerns said this would pay for a few initially, though they might be able to apply for grants and businesses could potentially supply some. Mr. Zelenka remarked that this item gave him pause. He also was not comfortable with the idea of assessing fees to vacant buildings. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Muir explained that the item regarding DEI was intended to state that there was a partnership in the district boundary and that they anticipated DEI continuing to be a “big player at the table.” She said they wanted to ensure they were using the money that came in from the district in the best way. She noted, in response to a follow-up question, that the district took in approximately $250,000 per year. Mr. Zelenka asked what portion of that came from the City and Ms. Muir indicated that she did not have that information with her but would get it. She noted that not all City facilities paid the fees; only a few did. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked how the council would bring amendments to the Exclusion Zone Ordinance. Chief Kerns replied that staff still needed to do the analysis, which included conferring with the Municipal Court judge, officers that worked downtown, and downtown businesses. Ms. Solomon asked if automated behavior crime reporting would involve telephone or electronic reporting. Chief Kerns replied that they needed to buy some hardware so that crimes could be reported immediately and also the software that would allow people to report crimes online, as well as volunteers to receive those reports over the telephone. Ms. Solomon asked if there was a better way to provide services without using volunteers. She said she would be willing to pay a stipend to volunteers or other people to help the department. Chief Kerns responded that the program in Portland hired retired police officers to serve as security personnel. Ms. Solomon liked the idea of creating downtown work crews for criminals. She was wondering if that could be moved to the list of short-term strategies. She also noted that one of the categories of focus for the effort to make downtown better included the aspects of the physical environment. She did not feel that much in the strategies addressed that. Chief Kerns replied that improved lighting and coordinating security and law enforcement services in the downtown area along with the added police officers would improve the physical environment. Ms. Muir added that improving cleanliness would play a big part in improving the environment. Ms. Solomon asked if all of the recommendations had come from the committee. Chief Kerns responded that they were the strategies that received the most votes at one of the last meetings. Ms. Solomon requested to see “what fell off the list.” Chief Kerns clarified that the list represented what the executive team had taken from the top 15 items that the task team had presented them with. Ms. Solomon had been impressed by the Eugene Advocates campaign and asked to what degree they had incorporated input from them into the document. Chief Kerns said he was familiar with their positions and they had informed his input into the discussion, but they did not gather the emails and share them with everyone on the team. Mr. Pryor said he was impressed with the work. He considered what he had heard so far to be indicative of broad support on the part of the council for the strategies. Regarding fortified beverages, he hoped that they could work exceptions or waivers into it so that they did not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” He agreed with the intent of it. He acknowledged the desire to put some of these things into place before summer, but underscored that things with price tags would have to go before the Budget Committee. He said he would be willing to support all of the things that did not have a price tag or could be fundable within the resources already available. He believed that there were things on the list that they could do relatively easily. Mr. Pryor agreed that “wet beds” were beneficial, as long as they were implemented the right way and they were not just a “flop house.” He thought this would be something they could do, especially if it reduced costs by reducing emergency room visits and jail bed use. He also supported the use of cameras, adding that they could be effective if used in the right way. Mayor Piercy asked if they had garnered youth input. Chief Kerns replied that a Department of Youth Services counselor had attended every meeting and she had brought a client who provided good input. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 6 Work Session noted that a representative of Looking Glass had also been present. Mayor Piercy remarked that the youth in the downtown area were a varied group and should not be lumped into one. Mr. Clark understood the importance of the use of cameras and automated technologies, but he wanted to express his concern about the “Big Brotheresque” feeling that it gave him. He wanted to move forward but wanted to check back and make sure that the tool was being used effectively and that it was doing what it was supposed to do. He also wanted to ensure that they had the appropriate measurements and restrictions in place so that it would not be misused. Mr. Clark remarked that the council had discussed the importance of strategic communications. He related that he understood, from talking with officers in the downtown area, that Portland had cracked down last summer and then people had come from Portland to Eugene in response to this. He said as they rolled out the short-term steps, he wanted to see a communications plan so that they let people know that the City was taking the situation seriously and was making a serious effort to reduce crime downtown. Mr. Clark also asked if there were any measurement tools built into it so that they would know what measure of success they would achieve. Chief Kerns replied that the automated behavior crime reporting and cameras coupled with the crime measurement instruments they already had would help measure the success. Ms. Muir added that when staff looked at developing each of the strategies, they had included ideas on how they could start looking at measurements. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Clark, Chief Kerns stated that establishing an umbrella organization would be the first phase of a many-phase evolution. He said it was there that they would identify the measurements and how they could collect them. He added that Portland was tracking how many instances of graffiti were reported and when they were cleaned up, litter they picked up including needles, and the number of behavior crimes they saw, among other things. Ms. Ortiz asked if the work crews to clean up downtown could be brought forward, if there were resources for it. Mr. Ruiz responded that there was money in the Council Contingency Fund, but it would be preferable to ensure that they built ongoing funding into the budget for it. Ms. Ortiz expressed an interest to move this to the short-term list. Municipal Court Administrator Jeff Perry stated that they had spoken with Lane County Corrections about the concept of a community service program in the downtown area. He related that they were confident the project could be created quickly. Ms. Ortiz asked if the downtown area had experienced an increase in the level of crimes that would qualify for programs within the Department of Justice, such as the Weed and Seed program. She noted that the Weed and Seed program had been very successful in the Bethel area. Chief Kerns agreed to look into it. Mr. Brown agreed that automated crime reporting was a good idea. In response to questions regarding DEI, Ms. Muir indicated that she would provide a memorandum outlining the cost of the services and who paid what portions of it. Mr. Zelenka asked for more detail regarding how cameras would be deployed; how they would be used and by whom? MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Zelenka asked if all of the nine officers that were being requested would be exclusively for the downtown area. Chief Kerns replied that the EPD wanted to draw up a district for them to work in that they felt would address the problems that they wanted to address. He thought the district should be larger than the current Downtown Exclusion Zone. Mr. Zelenka supported having it move more toward the University area. He added that he was glad to see CAHOOTS included in the list. He commended the service for its good work. Ms. Muir stated that page 89 of the council packet included the recommendations from the task team. She pointed out several that had been carried through, noting that staff had tried to create a practical plan for each item brought forward. Mr. Zelenka was not certain he fully understood the implications of including funding options for the long- term strategies in the manager’s proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 budget, as the suggested motion stated. He asked what was meant by this. Mr. Ruiz responded that the discussion would be continued at the February 10 work session on all of the downtown area. He said they would bring more specific information on the funding options to that meeting, along with a specific recommendation. Mr. Zelenka said his vote for the long-term strategies was to get a better understanding of the costs and how the City could pay for them, including the tradeoffs they would be making. Ms. Taylor echoed Mr. Zelenka’s concern regarding the second part of the motion. She expressed concern that any ordinance restricting the sale of fortified liquor might affect the ability to purchase port wine or sherry and wondered how exceptions would be included. Chief Kerns said they would look at examples of how other communities handled it. Ms. Taylor thought that having parole and probation services spread out over several buildings would help reduce the concentration of clients in the area. Mayor Piercy agreed with Mr. Clark regarding communication. She said it was important to communicate to the public about what they were doing and to communicate to possible offenders about what would be happening in the community. She thought this would specifically affect some of the predators in the downtown area. She remarked that once these strategies had been implemented she thought they should have a report card that delineated the strategies and how effective they had been. She added her feeling that the City should connect to the County’s efforts. She also wanted to retain flexibility for officer assignments and did not want increased presence to be limited only to the downtown area. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to implement the short-term strategies and item 9 from the long-term strategies, a strategy to create downtown work crews and probation involving clean up of the downtown area, and to include funding options for the long-term strategies in the manager’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2011. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 8 Work Session Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 27, 2010 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 8, 2010 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Mat Beecher , 1331 Acorn Park Street, Councilor Pryor’s Ward, spoke as a representative of the Human Rights Commission (HRC). He read a letter, submitted to the council, into the record. The letter strongly urged the City to issue a statement that underscored that the University of Oregon students from China that had been involved in the recent Tasing incident were not at fault. The letter also commended the actions Chief Pete Kerns had taken to reach out and make amends. He recommended that the incident be used to improve cultural competency. Eli Volem , 2695 Madison Street, said he worked for Earth Advantage Institute and he was testifying in regard to the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) that was before the council. He explained that Earth Advantage Institute was a non-profit provider and verifier for several green building programs. He said the institute had been working with the project team to “pave the way” to achieve Leading in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. He stated that he was present to validate the fact that the project was well on its way to LEED certification. He noted that his role would be as a LEED green rater for the building, which was unique to the “LEED for homes” rating system in that the person physically attended the site throughout development to ascertain that green building measures were being employed. He underscored that there were added costs to building to LEED standards. He predicted that the building would meet LEED gold standards and possibly platinum. He felt the building had the opportunity to be a landmark in Eugene. He said the northwest was known by the rest of the country as a green building hub. He also noted that the project was using local designers, energy analysts, and contractors. th Paul Dustrud , 30 West 17 Avenue, stated that he was also speaking on behalf of Dan Neal for the “hopefully” LEED-certified project. He said he was trying to help support the local economy by designing with wood, noting that the project would be five stories of wood over one story of concrete. He listed some of the strong design points, such as the unique system they would be utilizing for indoor air quality and the heat recovery systems. He also noted that they had added a “30s retro look” and balconies that looked out at the Coburg hills. He asked that the project be granted the MUPTE. Dan Neal , 1361 Pearl Street, also spoke on behalf of the project that was applying for the MUPTE. He declared that they could not build the project to LEED standards without the exemption. He thought that approval of the project would “resonate harmoniously” with the community. He asked them to approve the project not just because it would create jobs in the community, but because there were two visions for the property: the proposed project or a possible fraternity. He noted that construction of the latter would mean the City would not generate any tax revenue from it. He underscored that the property would generate approximately $80,000 in tax revenue annually after ten years. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 1 Regular Meeting noted that it would also generate approximately $200,000 in Systems Development Charges (SDCs) as soon as th construction began. He believed the project would also increase safety along the East 13 Avenue corridor. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She thanked the representatives of the HRC for their statement in regard to the Chinese students and she expressed appreciation for the chief’s statement that the students had not done anything wrong. Councilor Clark also thanked those who spoke. He underscored that the students had done nothing wrong and needed to know that the council recognized this. Councilor Pryor said sometimes regrettable incidents occurred. He called the Tasing incident very important. He said he was happy to stress that the students had done nothing wrong. Mayor Piercy also thanked the HRC. She noted that the Asian-American community had requested a written official statement. She said she had written that letter and was in the process of having it translated. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 23, 2009, Work Session - December 14, 2009, Work Session - December 14, 2009, City Council Meeting B. Approval to Tentative Working Agenda C. Resolution 4999 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for the Property Located at 2984, 2986, 2988 Oak Street, Eugene, Oregon (ShelterCare/Applicant) D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of December 16, 2009 Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar was approved by a unanimous vote, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Ratification of Unanimous Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous Actions on Legislative Policy from January 27, 2010 Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to ratify the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the January 27, 2010, IGR Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those Intergovernmental Relations Committee meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, stated that House Bill (HB) 3608 had not received a unanimous vote to support or oppose. She explained that the bill would establish tax credits for the transport of woody biomass and would also direct the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to study the siting of biomass facilities and to report back to the Legislature in 2011. She related that Councilor Taylor had moved to oppose the bill and the motion failed, 2:1. She noted that a similar bill had come up in the 2009 session. She noted that in 2009 the bill had come before the council because the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had also had a 2:1 vote and the motion to oppose it had failed, 5:2, at the council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 2 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on HB3608. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to amend the motion by substituting a Priority 2 Oppose position for the bill. Councilor Taylor explained that she was generally opposed to tax exemptions and she was not certain the biomass facility was a good thing. Councilor Brown thought the bill sought to subsidize the cost of doing business. Councilor Ortiz asked if other energy resources received credit for transporting resources. Ms. Wilson responded that they did not in this manner. Councilor Ortiz said in concept she supported the bill but she would like to have more information about the issue around woody biomass. She indicated she could support monitoring the bill. Councilor Zelenka understood that 97 or 98 percent of woody biomass in the forest after timber was harvested was burned. He averred that it was not a matter of whether or not it went into the atmosphere, it was a matter of whether or not there was a beneficial use that could be derived from burning it. He considered this to be a renewable resource. He stated that the woody biomass, when burned to produce energy, was burned under more controlled circumstances and with greatly reduced emissions. He supported the bill in order to move this valuable energy resource forward by supporting the transport of it. Councilor Poling concurred. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in support. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Brown, and Ortiz voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Annexed Properties from the Willakenzie Rural Fire Protection District, the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District, and from the Santa Clara Water District. City Manager Jon Ruiz recapped the action item before the council. He said 11 properties were being withdrawn from service districts. Councilor Clark observed that these annexations were chipping away at the tax base for some popular things, such as the River Road Park and Recreation District. He was wondering if any staff were working on a transition plan or a way to ensure that those services were maintained for those residents of that area. Mr. Ruiz responded that he did not know the answer to that question but he would look into it. Mayor Piercy commented that this was not a new issue. Councilor Ortiz related that she had sat in on a work session of the County Commissioners about a white paper that had been done in 2005 regarding this. She thought the County was “stepping up” and owning their part of that community. She noted that City services such as fire and police protection were provided to that area, without questioning which properties were in the City and which were in the County. She felt there was some desire on the commissioners’ part to do some innovative things. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 3 Regular Meeting Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5020, withdrawing territories from the Willakenzie Rural Fire protection District, the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District, and from the Santa Clara Water District. Roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 5. ACTION: Ordinance Prohibiting Smoking Outside City-Owned Buildings Providing Services to Children and Amending Section 6.230 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Mr. Ruiz summarized the ordinance before the council, which would extend the prohibition of smoking to the street curb in front of City-owned buildings. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 5021, an ordinance prohibiting smoking outside City-owned buildings providing services to children. Mayor Piercy considered this a step toward making it safer around the buildings. She noted that they had received a number of requests to add more to it. She supported having a discussion on making the parks smoke-free. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Resolution 5000 Approving a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for Residential Property Located at th 740 East 13 Avenue (First LEED, LLC) Mr. Ruiz reiterated the items of information regarding the MUPTE proposal that had been brought forth during the Public Forum. He noted that the West University Neighborhood (WUN) had submitted letters indicating their support for the MUPTE. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 5000, approving a th Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption for residential property located at 740 East 13 Avenue (First LEED, LLC). Mayor Piercy called the testimony given during the Public Forum a great presentation. She said the MUPTE was in an area they had established for this purpose, met goals they had set, and had the possibility of being certified LEED platinum. She underscored that the project had the neighborhood’s approval and would be good for the economy. She intended to support it, if necessary. Councilor Taylor commented that if the building was going to be constructed on West Broadway, she would support it. She felt that housing in the University area would be built anyway, whether or not it was granted a tax exemption. She said the City needed the tax money and she did not favor tax exemptions. Councilor Poling supported the tax exemption. He acknowledged that the cost to construct a building to LEED standards was exorbitant. He commented that this was one of the first MUPTE proposals not built as a “glorified dormitory.” He pointed out that the project was proposed to be mixed-use, with commercial on the ground floor and upscale residential above it. He noted that on the grading for the MUPTE application the applicant had scored 150 points, when normally an applicant that reached 100 points would have met the threshold. He felt that the City should be proud to have this project in the community; it was what they strove for and it would have LEED certification. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka also thought it was a nice development. He believed they should provide incentives for developers to build to LEED standards, but he did not think the MUPTE was the right mechanism. He agreed with the sentiment expressed that such housing would be built without the subsidy. He could not justify the MUPTE in the face of the budget deficit and intended to oppose the motion. Councilor Brown observed that the project had met two requirements, in that the proposal was over the 100 point threshold for community benefit and the neighborhood supported it. He also felt the project was better because of the commercial on the ground floor. He supported having another work session on the MUPTE zone near the University in the future. He commented that it was hard to come from a Budget Committee meeting the previous week and “just give away $75,000.” He said he would support the MUPTE. Councilor Solomon reminded her colleagues that the exemption was for ten years, but only applied to the improvements. The owner still paid taxes on the property in the interim. She strongly felt that the MUPTE projects that they had approved were of a better and stronger quality than the projects that had been built without the MUPTE exemptions. Mayor Piercy indicated her willingness to discuss the MUPTE boundaries again, but for the present the area was currently designated for MUPTE projects and the project met all qualifications. She agreed that something would be built on the property no matter what, but she would prefer to have it built to LEED standards. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2010 Page 5 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon February 10, 2010 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Poling, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that Committee Reports and Items of Interest would occur at the end of the meeting, time permitting, as Mr. Poling would need to leave the meeting early and wished to be present for as much of the downtown projects discussion as possible. She expressed her appreciation to City Manager Jon Ruiz and staff for their responsiveness to the council’s direction and providing a holistic approach to public safety and development in downtown. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Projects – Tools Mr. Ruiz stated that the suggested motion provided to the council had been revised to incorporate issues raised by Mr. Zelenka relating to purchasing cameras and providing an analysis of general obligation bonds and a local option levy. He used a slide presentation to provide an overview of strategies to foster a vibrant downtown and boost the local economy. He noted that parking would be discussed in a separate work session. He summarized the projects and funding mechanisms reflected in the suggested motion. Mr. Ruiz explained that the funding proposal would not affect the City’s base allocation to the Human Services Commission (HSC) and would include an additional $500,000 allocation for downtown safety net services. He emphasized that use of urban renewal funds would be limited to safety, the Lane Community College (LCC) project, the Farmers’ Market and Veterans’ Affairs clinic. The Urban Renewal Agency Board would approve each project, expenditures would be reviewed annually by a community panel and the urban renewal district would end after projects were completed. He reviewed the future work sessions scheduled to address specific strategies and projects and stressed that the council’s action on the suggested motion would direct staff to prepare materials for a future work session on the urban renewal district; it would not initiate action on the district. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to: 1. Regarding the Downtown Safety Initiative: a. Use $100,000 of one-time existing urban renewal dollars to purchase and install additional lighting downtown and $100,000 of one-time dollars (half from telecomm and half from existing urban renewal) to purchase auto- mated behavior crime reporting software and cameras, but only after the council approves the manager’s plan for number, location, use and on- MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 1 Work Session going costs of the cameras, after considering the cameras’ expected effec- tiveness in deterring crime; b. Pursue use of Springfield jail beds in exchange for Springfield’s use of Eu- gene’s Fire Training Center; c. Include in the manager’s proposed FY11 budget $500,000 of one-time dol- lars for the Human Services Commission, and re-purpose $500,000 of the City’s HSC contribution for partial funding of the downtown safety initia- tive, including additional services like Cahoots; d. Present to the Urban Renewal Agency Board for its review a proposed amendment to the downtown urban renewal plan that would 1) restrict the use of tax increment funds and increase the spending limit to pay for (i) the Broadway Place Garage debt, thereby freeing up funds for additional po- lice officers downtown, and (ii) three other projects specified in this motion below, and 2) terminate the downtown urban renewal district as soon as the projects are paid for or sufficient funds are collected to fund those projects; e. Bring back to the council this spring a proposed ordinance requiring vacant properties to pay Downtown Service District fees; and f. Work with Downtown Eugene, Inc. and the Chamber of Commerce on partnerships and other funding strategies with a goal of achieving $350,000 in revenue. 2. Include for the proposed downtown Lane Community College development at th 10 and Charnelton $8 million as part of a proposed urban renewal plan amendment. 3. Include as part of a proposed urban plan amendment an additional $500,000 for improvements to the Park Blocks to enhance that area for the Farmer’s Market. 4. If the VA pursues PeaceHealth’s Willamette Street site for a new VA Clinic, include the VA Clinic as part of a proposed urban renewal plan amendment. 5. Pursue additional grant opportunities for steam conversion and electric vehicle charging stations. 6. Present to the council, at the same time that the manager brings forward a draft amendment to the urban renewal plan, an analysis of both a local option levy and a general obligations bond, instead of tax increment financing, to fund the specified projects. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to make Items 1.a through 1.f separate motions. The vote on the motion to separate was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Brown, Ortiz and Zelenka voting yes, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor and Clark voting no. Ms. Piercy cast a vote in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Item 1.a MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion with postponement of the camera acquisition. Mr. Brown said he would support the motion but had serious concerns about surveillance cameras and would need specific information about their locations and targets. Mr. Clark said he was willing to support the motion, but concurred with Mr. Brown that additional information was needed before installation of cameras was approved. Mr. Zelenka also expressed concerns with the installation of cameras, which was the reason he proposed the additional language requiring council approval of the manager’s implementation plan. Ms. Solomon asked if the motion would allow the police chief to proceed with purchasing the automated behavior crime reporting software prior to the council’s final approval of a plan for camera installation. Mr. Ruiz said that the motion would not prevent acquision of the software. Item 1.a was unanimously approved, 8:0. Item 1.b Ms. Ortiz asked if the agreement with Springfield would include a sunset provision to provide periodic review of the arrangement to assure it remained consistent with the council’s intent and met the City’s needs. Mr. Ruiz replied that the intent was to provide an ongoing jail bed capacity and if another means for doing that arose in the future the arrangement with Springfield could be revisited. Mr. Poling expressed some concern about making the language so restrictive that jail beds could be obtained only through an exchange with Springfield for use of the Fire Training Center. Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to add the words “to include” as follows: “Pursue use of Springfield jail beds to include in exchange for Springfield’s use of Eugene’s Fire Training Center;” Mr. Clark accepted the amendment. Mr. Zelenka asked the City Manager to clarify what the word “pursue” meant and whether that included presenting the agreement with Springfield to the council for approval. Mr. Ruiz replied that he understood pursue to mean coordinate and negotiate with Springfield an arrangement that would exchange Springfield’s use of the training facility for Eugene’s use of Springfield jail beds through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA). Mr. Zelenka said the term “pursue” meant to him that the manager would investigate and negotiate an IGA, but not execute one. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the council did not wish the manager to be able to execute an IGA without returning to the council for approval the motion would need to be amended to indicate that intent. Mr. Zelenka said he supported the concept, but wanted to see any agreement with Springfield before it was executed. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to revise the language to direct the man- ager to explore an arrangement with Springfield and bring the information back to the council. Mr. Clark declined to accept the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to require the manager to bring an agreement with Springfield for the use of jail beds back to the council for approval. Mr. Pryor asked if the amendment would impinge on the manager’s usual and typical authority to enter into contracts or IGAs. Mr. Klein explained that the City Manager or his designee was authorized to negotiate and execute contracts consistent with the appropriation of funds without approval of the council. He said IGAs that came before the council were typically those involving the sale of real estate or governmental powers. Mr. Pryor said his interest was in knowing what terms and conditions were in the IGA once it was executed, rather than approving the IGA prior to execution. Mr. Ruiz affirmed that the council would be informed about any arrangements that were made with Springfield. Mr. Brown stated that the council should approve any arrangements with Springfield before they were finalized. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that other jurisdictions already used the training facility and the City had many such arrangements in place. It could become very burdensome for the City to do business if the council wanted to approve every contract and IGA in advance. Mr. Brown perceived the arrangement with Springfield as very different from other IGAs and contracts. Mr. Clark pointed out that the municipal court administrator and a judge recently revised the City’s agreement with Lane County for jail beds, as they had that authority. He saw the IGA with Springfield as a comparable arrangement. Ms. Ortiz said she would be satisfied with a memorandum explaining the terms and conditions of the IGA once it was executed. Mr. Brown objected to including Item 1.b in the motion if the council was not able to approve it. Mr. Ruiz explained that the item was part of the comprehensive package of strategies and staff recommendations for financing those strategies. If the council did not wish to use Springfield jail beds this was the opportunity to make that known; otherwise, the motion would indicate the council’s interest in pursuing that strategy and authorize staff to make that happen operationally. Mr. Pryor said the item was in the motion so the council could make a decision at the policy level about whether an arrangement with Springfield was an appropriate strategy and funding mechanism to pursue. He said the details of the arrangement were operational and he did not want to be involved in those, only informed once they were in place. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Ruiz said if Springfield declined to enter into an arrange- ment staff would have to explore other options for jail beds and return to the council with other proposals. He said the intent was to negotiate with Springfield for use of jail beds through an exchange of services instead of an exchange of funds. Mr. Zelenka said his concern was that the cost of the jail beds was unknown. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that the cost was included in the price for the complete package of downtown safety strategies. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor objected to making a hasty policy decision without further discussion. The motion to amend failed 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown voting yes. Item 1.b was approved 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown voting no. Mr. Zelenka commented that there should be a motion at the end of the approval process that addressed the overall cost of the package of strategies. Item 1.c In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Ruiz explained that the current allocation to HSC was $1.8 million; an additional $500,000 would be added to that amount in FY11 and in FY12 and beyond the allocation would remain $1.8 million, with the option to allocate additional dollars. Item 1.c passed unanimously, 8:0. Item 1.d Mr. Klein clarified that approving Item 1.d did not automatically approve including the Lane Community College, Veterans’ Affairs clinic or Park Blocks projects; those would be approved separately in items 2, 3 and 4. He suggested adding Item 6 to the end of Item 1.d. Ms. Piercy determined there were no objections to including Item 6 in Item 1.d. Mr. Clark said he wanted to understand the specific impacts on other districts, agencies and jurisdictions. He asked if the language related to future disposition of the urban renewal district represented obligating a future city council. Mr. Klein said if the motion passed the council would be presented with a draft urban renewal plan amendment that would include language limiting the expenditure of funds to certain projects and once funds were accumulated to pay for those projects tax increment funding would cease. He said a future council would have the legal authority to amend the plan, as had been done in the past, although it would be difficult if the proposed language was included in the plan because a major amendment would be required. Mr. Brown said there was no such thing as “supposed immutability” of an urban renewal plan and the current plan had been changed many times. He said future councils, advised by future staff, would be free to amend the plan and there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. He said the plan had been in existence for 42 years and could go on forever. He had concerns with the projects identified in items 2, 3 and 4. He pointed out that several communities were competing for the clinic and the Veterans’ Affairs would be leasing, not buying a facility. He said the City had many ways to facilitate a clinic, but urban renewal should not be one of them. Ms. Taylor commented that previous councils had voted to terminate urban renewal and it was easy for a future council to change that decision and expand the district, increase the debt limit and change the purpose. She did not think urban renewal was the right way to fund projects and the council should first decide if it wanted to support the items in the package, and then decide how to fund them. She urged that MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 5 Work Session the urban renewal district be terminated now so the City could take advantage of the benefits of increased property values. Mr. Zelenka agreed that future councils could change urban renewal plans at will and the council’s action was only stating intent, but would not have certainty. He liked the idea of a community review panel. He felt the major public safety issue in Eugene was property crime and wondered if that could be addressed along with downtown safety. He felt that dedicating nine police officers to downtown was too much without directing any of that effort to property crime. Mr. Zelenka moved to amend Item 1.d as follows: “…(i) Broadway Place Garage debt, thereby freeing up funds for additional police officers downtown and half for property crime, and…” The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Solomon determined from staff that the urban renewal district was scheduled to sunset in 2024, but a proposal to amend the plan could result in an earlier termination date. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Brown, called for the question. The motion failed for lack of a two-thirds majority, 5:3; Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor vot- ing no. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone discussion and action on items 1.d through 5 until the February 22, 2010, council work session. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Poling left the meeting at 1:06 p.m. Mr. Brown objected to postponing the discussion. He felt the deadline for placing something on the May ballot would be missed and was concerned that the issue of urban renewal would result in an acrimonious disagreement with Lane Community College caught in the middle. He felt there were other tools for financing downtown revitalization and regretted that he was unable to discuss them until February 22. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Brown. Ms. Ortiz observed that there was a lot of work yet to be done and cautioned against creating divisiveness in the community with inflammatory remarks. Mr. Pryor applauded staff’s efforts to present a comprehensive package that included terminating the urban renewal district within a reasonable timeframe. He could not worry about what a future council might do and wanted discussions to focus on the issues at-hand without becoming acrimonious and divisive. He agreed the urban renewal district should come to an end; the question was when and how to do that. He looked forward to a productive discussion at the next work session. Ms. Piercy said the question was whether the council wished to pursue projects that the community had identified as important. She pointed out that the package of strategies reflected what the community wanted and how those could be funded. She hoped to see a productive discussion of outcomes and the tools to achieve them. She urged the council to seek ways to come to agreement on how to meet the community’s expectations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commended the proposed projects as good for the community and downtown. He hoped the council would not pursue a funding mechanism that caused disagreements, which was why he had proposed an analysis of other funding mechanisms that might be more widely supported on the council. He suggested adding a motion to address a cap on the overall cost of the downtown safety initiative. He noted that projects related to a pocket park and downtown public safety station were not included in the strategies and he would work with staff to incorporate those before the next work session. B. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Taylor congratulated Mr. Ruiz on his decision that the Farmers’ Market and Saturday Market no longer were required to pay for the use of space downtown. She received an orientation and tour of the Workforce Partnership facility and was impressed with the services offered. She expressed concern with the fees charged neighborhoods to appeal land use decisions and felt there should be no cost for filing an appeal. She requested information on why the fees were being charged. Ms. Ortiz reported that an air-monitoring station had been installed in the vicinity of Petersen Barn and commended the City for its partnership with Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). She said LRAPA board members had agreed to a board retreat to enhance collaboration among members. Mr. Zelenka announced that a Walnut Station meeting was scheduled on February 10, at the Laurelwood Golf Course meeting room, and the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens would hold a potluck on February 18. He attended a joint meeting of the Sustainability and Planning commissions. He said there was an excellent discussion and more joint meetings were being planned. Mr. Brown reported on the Citizen Review Board (CRB) meeting at which the tasing of a Chinese student was discussed. He said the CRB was unanimous in its disagreement with Police Chief Pete Kerns' disposition of the case. He thanked everyone in the community who was involved in creating the CRB and the police auditor’s office. He announced that the Police Commission would hold its next meeting at the Sheldon Community Center on February 11. Mr. Clark attended a Cal Young Neighborhood Association meeting and congratulated the new officers who were elected. He also attended the Chamber of Commerce economic forecast and found it very informative. He extended condolences to the family of Ed Ragozzino and noted his many contributions to the community, particularly his advocacy for construction of the Hult Center. He felt that some portion of the Hult Center should be named in his honor. Ms. Piercy said she had sent a letter of condolence to the Ragozzino family on the council’s behalf expressing appreciation for his contributions and sympathy over his death. She also attended the CRB meeting and was pleased with their thoughtful deliberations, which fulfilled the community’s intent for police oversight. She reported that she and Mr. Ruiz would attend a national salute to veterans in Roseburg on February 12. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 7 Work Session Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon February 17, 2010 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Brown, Betty Taylor. Alan Zelenka participated by telephone. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. City Manager Jon Ruiz asked City Attorney Emily Jerome to speak about an item that had come up during the previous evening’s meeting regarding Civic Stadium. Ms. Jerome stated that at present there was no plan for Civic Stadium that would bring an action before the City Council. She said it was possible that eventually the council could be asked to consider a change in designation for the property. Since no action was imminent, the councilors did not need to worry about ex parte contacts. She advised them to consider whether the actions they would take or things they would say could cause people to believe they were biased and that it would be difficult for them to entertain other ideas. She stressed that as long as they could remain open-minded and as long as opinions expressed at a public hearing did not “pin [them] in a corner” in that way, they would be legally able to testify. Ms. Ortiz had understood the Mayor’s comments to be around whether or not the councilors wanted to participate in the conversation about Civic Stadium and whether the City would be involved in the process or not. She did not want to give direction to the 4J School Board. Ms. Jerome said this was appropriate, adding that councilors could express opinions as long as they could maintain an open mind. Mayor Piercy recalled that the discussion was on whether the council should take up Civic Stadium as a topic in a meeting and also whether a councilor would want to testify at the school board meeting scheduled for that evening. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen if one did put oneself in a corner. Ms. Jerome replied that a councilor that did so should ask to be recused from a future decision-making process. She said the time to do so would be when asked to disclose ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest, and should one not be forthcoming about this, and should a challenge to a decision later be raised, this could compromise the decision and cause it to be thrown out. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Jerome said it was possible to indicate that though a person had expressed opinions in the past, he or she felt they could still remain open-minded in the decision-making process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Piercy noted that Mr. Poling and Mr. Zelenka were not present, but could be joining the meeting by telephone. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Projects – Parking Director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Susan Muir thanked Mr. Clark, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Pryor for serving on a subcommittee to work on the parking issue. She acknowledged that the council had heard a lot about the downtown strategies and what they were trying to do to foster a vibrant downtown and to boost the local economy. She listed the four strategies: attraction amenities, parking, safety, and job redevelopment. She said this was the opportunity to gain feedback on parking. She asked Parking Services Manager Jeff Petry to speak about the item. Mr. Zelenka joined the meeting by telephone. Mr. Petry reviewed the issue of parking with PowerPoint, hard copies of which were provided to everyone present. He discussed the four free-parking options and the costs associated with them. He highlighted ways that free parking could be paid for. He noted that providing a credit card payment option for parking meters made them more convenient and people tended to stay in the metered parking longer. He said the City of Boulder, Colorado, had a pay by cell phone feature. Regarding the rebranding of parking, he stated that Portland had done so with success, having created a Smart Park logo that gave a clear indication of where to park conveniently. He thought Eugene could do a similar rebranding and provided a suggested example, called Epark. He related that another concept was to just spread the word about the existing parking program. He said many people did not know about it. Mr. Clark appreciated all of the work that had gone into this. He felt they had a lot of good decision points on the table. He had been working on this issue for a while. He thought that to be able to say that they had some meter-free parking downtown would be an integral part of revitalizing the downtown core. He declared that this would indicate to people that the downtown area was open for business. He had originally proposed the idea of having just the downtown safety zone as a free-parking area, which was the second of the four free-parking options. He said he would be amenable to doing only this or even a smaller area; he just wanted to try this for a year or two to determine what kind of effect it would have. He was generally not in support of first hour and weekend free-parking options for the downtown parking garages as a way to fund free parking. He felt free parking in the garages was an integral part of some of the success they had experienced, especially with the Saturday Market and the Farmers’ Market. He would absolutely be willing to look at either limiting the area or increasing the number of meters around the University. His reason for the latter was that the meters were always full in the campus area. He also would be in favor of lessening the amount that was transferred from the parking fund to the General Fund, because he thought the investment was worth it to make downtown more inviting. Ms. Taylor considered free parking to be the best investment. She said business people she had talked to thought the City should try it. She asked what savings the City would net from the removal of meters. Mr. Petry responded that if they eliminated the meters it would not create a large positive impact, because there would still be many meters in the University area. He explained that the meter maintenance program was one person, , the program cost $100,000 annually and the meter collection was through a contract that cost $36,000. He surmised that approximately half would no longer be used if the meters were eliminated completely from the downtown area. He said the parking enforcement program cost $740,000 for MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 2 Work Session enforcement and $410,000 for adjudication, but he would estimate that 75 percent of the tickets were written on campus. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Petry stated that the meters had been taken out in 1971 or 1972 and had been restored in 1991. Ms. Taylor recalled how welcome she had felt when she had seen the signs that said “Welcome to Downtown, Park Free.” She felt that some people in the downtown area worried that the Fifth Street Market could compete better because it had three-hour free parking. She thought downtown would benefit from having free three-hour parking. Mayor Piercy requested a more complete matrix of the savings and losses associated with a reduction in meters and an increase in free parking. She noted that if the parking was changed to a time limit, there would still be a need for parking enforcement. Ms. Ortiz was not completely convinced that parking was something that needed to change in the downtown area. She had spoken with downtown business owners and they indicated support for looking into parking for a window of time. She remarked that they were talking about a lot of revenue that would be a challenge to replace. She said with all of the building they would hopefully be bringing on-line, she would want parking to turn over. She did not think she could support a broad brush permanent change, but she would consider looking at it for a short period, perhaps two years. She added that she would not want to change the first-hour free/weekends free parking rules for the parking garages. As for increasing the metered parking in the University area, she indicated that she would not want people who owned their houses to have to pay to park in front of them. Mr. Pryor commented that the best possible outcome would be a revitalized, improved, growing downtown area. He did not think this was the primary way to get there, but he felt it was a step in the right direction. He said all of the elements of the downtown situation were interrelated. He observed that the consequence for taking paid parking out of the downtown area was budgetary and they would have to determine where to get the money they would lose. He asked what they would do to replace the lost money; would they have been able to pay for additional police patrols in the downtown area and might not be able to now. He wanted to figure out a way to pursue this strategy without having unintended consequences. Mr. Zelenka asked what the results had been of the pilot program for free parking in the downtown area. Mr. Petry responded that the pilot, conducted in the summer, had put more cars on the street. He said he had observed that some employee-owned cars were in the free-parking spaces. Mr. Zelenka commented that it seemed to him to be a free-parking program for employees downtown. He said the situation downtown was complex and parking was just a small part of it. He favored doing the development and safety items first. He averred that paid parking was not the cause of the decline of the downtown area and the free parking program would not have much impact on the downtown area. He referred to the PowerPoint slide How Could We Pay for It, and asked for further explanation of three of the bullet points. Mr. Petry said the campus parking district was defined as Mill Street and east of there. He stated that there were places that meters had not been installed that were within a few blocks of the campus area because they were in front of multi-family housing. He related that they were looking at the possibility of adding more meters on the west side of campus and there were locations on the east side as well, associated with the arena parking district which would come into play on September 1. He added that the revenue in the campus area largely came out of the nine-month school year. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka did not think it made sense to hurt the campus commercial area to pay for downtown parking. He hoped the council would hear input from the campus businesses on what they thought about this proposal, should it gain traction. He asked what the impacts of this change would be. Mr. Petry replied that they had not looked into this yet. Mr. Zelenka said students were on tight budgets and charging them more would push more cars out into the neighborhoods, which was something they were trying to avoid in that neighborhood. He felt that they should call this the “park cost-shifting program.” He took issue with all seven of the bullet points on that slide, commenting that he did not think any of them were good ideas. He liked the concept of branding, noting that he looked for the Smart Park logos when he went to Portland. Ms. Solomon asked what happened to the concept of changing to angled parking. Mr. Petry responded that the challenge of angled parking in that area was that with the number of curb cuts and driveway cutouts not much would be gained in parking spaces. Ms. Solomon supported giving the free-parking program a try. She remarked that it was compelling that a lot of things had happened in the downtown area since the advent of paid parking. To her it did seem like it had contributed to the downturn in that area. She was willing to support a two-year pilot program. Mayor Piercy commented that the perception of friendliness was important during this time that they were trying to improve the downtown area. She considered it to be one element among several, including public safety and increased business activity. She said they needed to consider budgetary implications but they also needed to make an investment in the downtown area. She supported rebranding parking with a vivid and easily identifiable logo. She also supported investing in the meters with more convenient payment methods available. She agreed that the City needed to make people more aware of the parking offers that were available. She added that she did not know what they could do to make the parking garages more visible and more “fun” but she felt there was power in making something appear more inviting. Mr. Clark agreed that free parking would not be a “silver bullet,” but he felt it was an important part of the solution. He predicted that if free parking proved effective, it would help to increase public safety by increasing the number of people downtown and this could, in turn, increase business, which could increase property values in the downtown area, which could resolve revenue issues caused by free parking. He underscored that the basis of the pilot, like the use of tax increment financing, was to try to invest in what they wanted to occur. Mr. Clark asked how many employees parked in metered parking spaces before the summer pilot had been put in place. Mr. Petry replied that they had not tracked this. Mr. Clark observed that an increase in employees using the free parking had been included in the report and asked how they would know this if they did not know how many parked there in the first place. Mr. Petry explained that parking enforcement officers had observed City parking permits in some cars parked there. Mr. Clark did not think it was effective or accurate to say that there was an increase in employee parking there when this had not been tracked previously. He said having time-limited parking would have the same effect that meters would have on how long employees would be able to park in a parking spot. Ms. Taylor attributed the business level of the Fifth Street Market to the free parking that was available there. While she knew that free parking would not fix the downtown problems, it seemed to her that places thth with free parking did well. She related that there were meters on 16 Avenue south of 11 Avenue. She MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 4 Work Session averred that they were “always empty” and if the meters were removed, people could park there and walk downtown. She opined that the more people that were downtown, the safer it would be, and free parking thth would bring more people downtown. She also wondered if they could consider narrowing 6 and 7 Avenues in the downtown area in order to add parking spaces. Mr. Zelenka believed that if there was free parking in the downtown area, employees would park free. He had not seen any evidence that indicated that free parking would help the downtown area. He remarked that if he was going to spend $650,000 downtown, it would be related to helping increase development and improving downtown safety. He added that he liked the concepts Mr. Petry had highlighted on the slide Other Parking Improvements. Mr. Zelenka signed off at 12:49 p.m. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Ruiz said staff would bring back options for the council to consider relating to the downtown area and consideration of the financial implications would be part of the budget process. B. WORK SESSION: Lane Transit District Service Reductions Mayor Piercy considered a reduction of Lane Transit District (LTD) services to be “extraordinarily vexing.” She felt that reducing services was the wrong direction for the community to be moving. LTD Board Chair Mike Eyster thanked the council for the opportunity to address this item with them. He noted the presence of LTD staff member Andy Vobora, LTD General Manager Mark Pangborn, and LTD Board Vice President Greg Evans. He recalled that one year earlier, LTD had been facing service cuts but had received one-time funding through the Stimulus Bill which had provided a one-year reprieve. Mr. Vobora provided an overview of the reasons for the proposed cuts. He said the challenge in their budget had come from the transit payroll tax, which had deteriorated to a negative 12 percent growth rate. He stated that LTD had experienced a 20-point shift in payroll tax revenue which had created a budget shift that was hard to absorb. He related that as they looked at solutions on the revenue side, they could control fares and had been more aggressive with that in more recent years. He showed a chart that delineated the costs of LTD fares among its peer groups, which indicated that LTD was in the middle. He said increases in fares were hard for people to absorb and they wanted to be sensitive to this, though the business community wanted people to pay their fair share. He observed that LTD could resolve its budget issue by doubling fares, but most likely it would lose a great deal of its ridership, which would be counterproductive. Mr. Vobora said the state did not provide much funding, except for para-transit. At the federal level, the reauthorization of the money had not happened yet, but if it did it would provide one-time money again for an ongoing problem. Regarding expenses, Mr. Vobora related that LTD had 70 administrative employees and approximately 250 employees who were union members. He noted that the contract would be up for renegotiation and they intended to work with the union representatives to manage personnel costs as best they could. He said some administrative savings were being found through wage freezes, unpaid furloughs, and in leaving vacant positions open. He stated that the materials and services budget was not large and was dominated by fuel costs. On the capital side, they had delayed projects as much as possible. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Vobora stated that 83 percent of LTD’s dollars went to put buses on the streets and LTD could not capture much in the way of savings from the other 17 percent. He said most of the ridership happened along the main corridors and they wanted to maintain that service. He related that they also wanted to maintain an urban route frequency of 60 minutes. He noted that LTD had to meet Title 6 requirements. He provided a map of routes and noted that LTD would still maintain a good level of coverage. Mr. Vobora said LTD had a goal of saving $3 million, with $2.6 million recouped in service cuts. He pointed out that the budget gap was $6 million and LTD was taking this in “two bites.” He stated that core routes would continue to be run seven days a week, from 6:30 a.m. to 10:45 p.m. He noted that some districts were cutting weekend service and shortening hours to meet budget gaps. Continuing, Mr. Vobora reiterated that service would still be adequate for the corridors, though at current service levels people were sometimes left at stops during the busy travel times. He said they had done their best to attack the lower productivity segments of routes. Mr. Vobora highlighted the public outreach process in which LTD had engaged, which included public forums and participating in public activities, such as the Spanish mass at a local church. Mayor Piercy likened losing transit routes at this time to “putting the engine in reverse.” People had expressed concern to her about increasing fares. She had also heard people wondering if there was a way for LTD to diversify its funds and whether people were being invoiced for the transit tax. Mr. Vobora clarified that the Department of Revenue was the taxing authority and passed the revenue along to them. He related that years earlier LTD had an intern who had done some research and tracked down the records of some people who had not paid the tax. Mayor Piercy said they needed to find a way across jurisdictions to gain unified support to talk to Congress in order to be a stronger voice in letting them know what was missing in funding. Mr. Eyster remarked that LTD was fortunate that its board vice president, Greg Evans, was very active in the national organization. Mr. Evans said Mr. Eyster would be going on the United Front lobbying trip. He averred that the more people who spoke up on behalf of LTD, the better. He stated that he would be attending the American Public Transit Association (APTA) legislative conference in Washington, D.C. shortly after the United Front trip. He noted that he served on a couple of committees, the Transit Board Members Committee and as the Region 6 Representative for the United States. He said they would be stressing to legislators that they needed operations relief and some creative ways to encourage local and state governments to make it worthwhile to invest in transit operations. He pointed to the goals of reducing carbon emissions and reducing traffic congestion, but the incentives to do that with public transit were not there. He related that APTA was trying to suggest creative solutions in order to get more people out of cars and onto buses and to increase investment in transit. He felt they were in a unique position at present. He noted that Senator Harry Reid had sought to make cuts in the Surface Transportation legislation. He underscored that whatever support they could get from their jurisdictional partners would help LTD in its lobbying efforts. Ms. Taylor asked what kinds of transit alternatives were available. Mr. Vobora responded that if someone lived in a neighborhood where a route had been eliminated they might not have an alternative. He said the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 6 Work Session alternatives included potential carpooling, bicycling to buses and then putting the bicycle on the rack on the bus and, for seniors and people with disabilities, there was the Ride Source service. Ms. Taylor ascertained that Ride Source was a more expensive service. Mr. Vobora said it was hard to calculate whether Ride Source costs would increase, but if they observed a substantial increase in a certain area they would likely reinstate a bus route there. Mr. Eyster stated that for some routes that were cut, LTD was adding service. He asked Mr. Vobora to speak about this. Mr. Vobora said one thing that had received a lot of comment had been the Breeze service, which was slated to be eliminated. He explained that its elimination would provide five percent savings in the budget and it was believed that there was enough capacity using the EmX and adding a little bit of service to other routes. Ms. Taylor commented that bus service was an important way for some people to get to work. She expressed concern that people would not be able to get to work. Mr. Pryor thanked the LTD representatives for coming before the council. He remarked that many people did not realize how spoiled the community was by the great transit system Eugene had. He said LTD was reducing service to what a lot of cities would consider good service. He noted that he was serving on the committee that was studying EmX corridors for West Eugene. He related that a part of their discussion had been on the cost of delivering passengers via EmX versus the cost per local route. He asked Mr. Vobora if the cost reductions associated with the EmX, once the infrastructure was in, would help with the dilemma. Mr. Vobora confirmed that it would. He said buses in traffic were slowed down and to maintain service levels meant adding buses, which added cost. He commented that the “back of the napkin” estimate seemed to indicate that a passenger on the EmX, cost approximately half as much as a passenger on a regular route. Mr. Pryor asked when LTD would be rolling out its service cuts. Mr. Eyster replied that the first round, to be voted upon later that day, was scheduled to be rolled out in June, and the other cuts, which the Board had yet to act on, were tentatively scheduled for the fall and January, 2011. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the outreach in which LTD had engaged. She was pleased to see that the Bethel and downtown areas would not incur large cuts to their service. Regarding Ride Source, she asked if there was a reimbursement component for it. Mr. Vobora confirmed that there was some reimbursement from the state through the cigarette tax, but the bulk of the cost came from LTD’s General Fund. He said most of the Medicare-covered trips utilized taxis. Ms. Ortiz observed that if there was only capacity for two wheelchairs, this could create problems for routes that were near care facilities or places that were foster homes. She asked what would be the answer for those passengers. Mr. Vobora responded that as with any passenger, if the bus was full a person could get passed by. He explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) said the service had to make reasonable accommodations and if a person in a wheelchair was passed a second time, LTD would dispatch a vehicle to pick them up. He noted that they had not had to do that very often. He said the other thing to look to was to increase the capacity of the buses. Mr. Eyster stated that from a board perspective, this was one of the hardest decisions. He related that he had heard testimony from a woman who had used the bus to go to the hospital when she was having a heart attack. He said they regularly encountered people who accessed their medicine, their employment, and their medical care with transit. He explained that they sometimes had to decide between routes with a smaller MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 7 Work Session number of riders, many of whom were very dependent, versus a route with a lot of riders. He likened it to having to pick between one’s children. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the work they were doing and hoped that LTD would be able to add services back. Mr. Eyster said adding services back would be their goal. Mr. Eyster stated that because federal funds were used in bus purchases, they knew that the federal expectation for life expectancy for a bus was 12 years. He said LTD maintained and ran its buses for 17 years on average. Mr. Brown asked what criteria were used for cutting routes. Mr. Eyster said he could provide a broad overview answer. He reiterated that what they knew was that they had a $6 million problem that had to be fixed over the course of two years. He underscored that the goal of LTD was to maintain the long-term viability of the system. Mr. Vobora highlighted examples of routes and ridership and how they had tried to weigh the needs of riders and bus routes in trying to impact the system the least. Ms. Ortiz asked how capacity on the bus was determined. Mr. Vobora explained that there was a white line on the bus that could not be crossed for safety reasons and once buses were full to that point, no more riders would be admitted until some debarked. Ms. Ortiz expressed appreciation for the bus the University had contracted to take young people from the downtown area to King’s Row housing late at night. Mr. Vobora affirmed that the funding of the service had just been renewed and he expressed appreciation for these kinds of partnerships. Mayor Piercy stressed the importance of speaking with a united voice in support of transit. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 17, 2010 Page 8 Work Session ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon February 24, 2010 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, George Brown, Betty Taylor. 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 Ms. Piercy reported the Asian Celebration was wonderful, was well attended and provided an opportunity to all of the cultural representations in our community. She presented the Soroptimist Ruby Award to Lorraine Kerwood for her work with NextStep Recycling. She met with several mayors in Albany on the electric cable charging station issues. She and Mr. Brown participated in the Mayor’s One-on-One at the Kiva. One woman who worked at the Enterprise downtown office liked working and shopping downtown. Another woman spoke about the need for better lighting in the city, particularly in the Norkenzie/Gilham area. Ms. Piercy had attended the Willamette High School jazz concert. She and City Manager Ruiz would be joining local partners on the annual United Front trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with the Congressional delegation regarding local priorities. Ms. Taylor had an orientation with the Workforce Partnership board and had begun attending meetings. She also had an orientation with the McKenzie Watershed Council director. She had attended the Asian Celebration. Ms. Ortiz announced Project Homeless Connect was scheduled for March 18, 2010, at the Lane County Fairgrounds. She encouraged councilors to attend the NAACP fund raising dinner at Valley River Center. A health screening would be held in the Bethel community to help children enroll in the Oregon Health Plan. She thought the joint meeting with the City Council and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had been informative and time well spent. Mr. Pryor concurred with Ms. Ortiz’s comments on EWEB. He had attended the Asian Celebration which was a great event. The City had a good representation from the Eugene Police Department (EPD), Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and other City departments. The LCOG board meeting was scheduled for/February 25, 2010, at EWEB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka attended the Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Association meeting and potluck. Fairmount Neighbors would meet on March 10. He said Project Homeless Connect was still looking for volunteers and donations. Ms. Solomon attended a Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission meeting where a presentation on the completion of capital projects, all of which were under budget, was given. She attended a Human Services Commission (HSC) meeting where a presentation was given on compression, its impact on municipalities, and how it influenced decisions on ballot measures. She noted the Public Works Department had received grant funding for seismic upgrades at Fire Station 8, which would complete seismic upgrades to all of the stations in Eugene. She had attended the Asian Celebration and commented it had grown significantly over the years. The Oregon Logging Conference would take place at the Lane County Fairgrounds this weekend. Mr. Brown attended the Police Commission Use of Force Committee’s meeting where the Taser policy review occurred. The final report was completed at yesterday’s committee meeting and would be forwarded to the commission. He attended the One-on-One with the Mayor at the Kiva. Not many people stopped and talked with them, but those who did were interesting and it was worthwhile. He spoke with a woman who had visited Haiti several times who suggested Eugene could have a sister city relationship with a Haitian city. Mr. Clark said the Public Outreach Committee of the Police Commission had suggested holding commission meetings on the road and the February 11, 2010, commission meeting was held at Sheldon Community Center. There was a robust discussion on the policy review process and protocol. A speaker provided information for the upcoming hate crimes panel that would be held in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) in March. Police Chief Pete Kerns reported on EPD activities and suggestions for small, internal changes that would make the system better and help the department be more responsive. The Use of Force Committee provided a report. He and Ms. Taylor met with and supervised the Police Auditor on February 16, 2010. A question that arose from that meeting was how often the auditor should attend City Council meetings and report to the council. Mr. Clark suggested the auditor should make three formal reports during the year, as well as up to three reports on specific issues or incidents, for a total of six reports annually. He thought the EWEB meeting had been very instructive. Ms. Taylor asserted she had been the biggest booster of sister cities on the council for many years. There were four sister cities, and there had been an effort in the past to establish a relationship with a Mexican city. However, the program had never received adequate funding to support the existing cities and cautioned against adding more cities without additional funding. Ms. Ortiz would also like to see a city in Mexico added to the sister city program, but understood funding was a challenge. She reported that Eugene Fire and EMS Chief Randy Groves and City of Springfield Fire and Life Safety Chief Dennis Murphy were recently recognized by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Mr. Ruiz encouraged councilors to attend the rail summit scheduled for March 9, 2010. He attended the Asian Celebration and thanked staff who participated in the event. He planned to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 2 Work Session attend the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) event. He said the City was in full budget mode. B. WORK SESSION: Homeless Camping Ms. Ortiz had been contacted by a community member who was concerned about how the Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) regarding people sleeping in their cars was written. She said this was an ongoing situation that needed to be revisited annually. She said it was the council’s responsibility to tweak the system to help a few people who did not have a place to live have a better quality of life. Richie Weinman, Community Development Division (CDD), and Lt. Pete Desphande, EPD, provided an overview of homelessness in Eugene. Mr. Weinman reported 3,971 homeless people were counted in Lane County and 2,541 people were unsheltered during the one night homeless count on January 27, 2010. Eugene had been confronted with illegal camping issues for decades, and had worked to find a balance between the needs of the community’s most vulnerable residents and the health and safety concerns of property owners and tenants. The current program included a contract with St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) to manage the City’s legal spaces for which the City paid $89,000 for a staff person to manage the spaces, the cost of portable restrooms and garbage pick-up at legal camping locations. Mr. Desphande said the issue with EPD was one of balancing compassion and enforcement. He reviewed the current protocols for enforcement action, which was complaint-driven. When EPD received a complaint, staff contacted SVDP staff, who effectively dealt with the situations that arose. If SVDP staff could not resolve issues, EPD was contacted. EPD then made contact with the people and generally resolved the issue. Citations were rarely issued. While the system was not perfect, the program was successful. He had been contacted by agencies in other states who were interested in the partnership between the City and SVDP. Mr. Clark appreciated Mr. Weinman’s characterization that enforcement in the past had been adversarial and unsatisfactory. Mr. Clark recently had a complaint from a constituent regarding a situation that lasted a considerable length of time before the campers could be helped. He appreciated the newer model and the compassionate look, and hoped the City would be as responsive as possible. He was interested in finding answers by being creative and perhaps being more accommodating with restrictions on private property for people who wanted to be a part of the solution. Mr. Weinman explained that in the past, the police were more aggressive with enforcement of the camping laws which resulted in police spending time on this issue at the expense of other enforcement needs, greater anger and stress on the streets among homeless people, and no greater success at reducing homelessness. When the ordinance was adopted in 1998, it contained provisions for on-street camping and camping in other locations, with the intent of allowing MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 3 Work Session neighbors to help each other. The existing ordinance permitted a business, public agency or church to have up to three campers on their property if sanitation was provided. One camper per property owner was permitted. If the council wanted to allow more than one camper per property owner, an ordinance change was required. Mr. Clark asked for information on how the ordinance could be tweaked to make it more helpful and provide the community with more tools to enable them to help their neighbors. Ms. Ortiz asked how the council could encourage more organizations to sign up for the spaces that were monitored by SVDP. She cautioned about relaxing the ordinance and creating enforcement challenges for EPD. She suggested the Police Commission could be asked to review the ordinance. Mr. Weinman said the challenge was getting more spaces. Willing organizations could contact him at 541-682-5533 or SVDP at 541-687-5820. Ms. Piercy stated the council’s goals had been to get people into permanent housing through affordable housing projects and other strategies, as well as preventing people from becoming homeless. She asked if there was a role for the HRC to reach out to identify additional camping sites. She noted Looking Glass was interested in acquiring a housing site on West Seventh Avenue which needed upgrades to receive the necessary City permits. She asked if the City could work collaboratively with local partners to assist Looking Glass. Mr. Pryor appreciated the efforts to be evenhanded in addressing homeless camping issues. It was helpful to recognize both a condition and a behavior were being addressed, and that recognition would impact what action was taken. Most of the complaints he received were not about the condition of homelessness but rather people’s behavior. When the condition was confused with the behavior, the brush became broad and painted many people unintentionally. While it was important to be compassionate about a condition many people had no control over, it was also important to be thoughtful and deliberate about unacceptable behaviors. Many of the behaviors were being committed by people who did have homes. He agreed that finding homes or shelter for people could be life-changing and was a goal for which the council should strive. Mr. Zelenka stated the model the City was currently using worked better than it used to. SVDP did great work. He commented that having 4,000 community members homeless was too high. Mr. Weinman, responding to a question, explained the national best practice model was to move people from homelessness into permanent housing with supportive services, noting the shelter system was the most expensive service with the worst outcomes for the amount of money spent. He added the cost of subsidizing housing was beyond the capability of local and state governments, and needed to come from the federal government. Pearl Wolfe, Lane County HSC, responded to questions related to the one night homeless count. She said of the 3,971 people counted, 1,411 were in some kind of a shelter and receiving some type of services in the community. There were more people getting some kind of rental assistance for emergency shelter, and mortgage assistance for the prevention of homelessness than in the past. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 4 Work Session Twenty-three sites were added to the count this year. A total of 92 organizations and over 100 volunteers and staff conducted the count. She was deeply troubled by the number of chronically homeless people in the community. Through the Egan Warming Center and Project Homeless Connect, the depth of the problem had become more apparent. During the past year, 11,513 households were homeless sometime during the year, some for one day. Ms. Piercy thanked everyone for their work on this issue. Mr. Brown emphasized the need for affordable housing, and asked about the current efforts. Mr. Weinman stated an SVDP housing project was under construction on West Eleventh Avenue and Hayes Street, and a project would soon be underway at the former Willakenzie School site. He asserted the City Council should be proud of itself for its long term support of subsidized housing. Council and staff did the best they could with the resources available. In response to a question from Councilor Taylor, Mr. Weinman said he understood that EWEB was the most proactive utility company in the area in terms of providing energy assistance for low income households. Mr. Zelenka commended Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Weinman for their work, noting they are among the best in the country at what they do, and are recognized as such. C. WORK SESSION: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Lisa Gardner and Jason Dedrick, of the Planning Division, provided an update on the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA), specifically progress toward the final land need determination in April, 2010, as well as an overview of the approach to early community conversations on the next phase of the project, determining a Eugene-only urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Gardner offered a PowerPoint presentation entitledEnvision Eugene: Finding the Path to our Futureand distributed a document entitled Envision Eugene Conceptual Time Line. Ms. Gardner explained staff was working with Bob Chadwick who was helping to form a foundation for the ECLA work which would be an integral part of how staff and the public communicated with each other. During the next several months, one-on-ones and community listening sessions and ongoing conversations would take place. Ms. Piercy emphasized the importance of engaging with the Lane County Planning Commission early in the process. Ms. Gardner acknowledged the technical analysis included a lengthy period of coordinating with partner agencies including EWEB, state agencies, school districts, and Lane County. Staff could provide updates to the council via memorandum or with another meeting. She reviewed the timeline for interviews of community members. As directed by the City Council in December 2009, the council would take action to accept the land needed for Eugene for a 20-year period in April 2010. She reviewed the six guiding principles that would be used to frame the conversations with community members. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pryor opined building flexibility into the process and providing changing variables was critical to its success. Part of the contentiousness around the process was related to the assumptions people made about the intent of the process. It was important to be as accurate as possible with things that required precision. Both the process used and peoples’ reaction to the product were equally important. Ms. Piercy stressed that the council was dealing with an opportunity to do things differently, to look into the future and do the best job it could. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 24, 2010 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT G MINUTES OF THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL, EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, AND LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2010 A joint elected officials meeting with the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County was held in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Friday, February 26, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Mayor Sid Leiken welcomed everyone to Springfield City Hall and opened the meeting of the Springfield City Council. Mayor Kitty Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene City Council and wished Springfield a happy birthday. Commissioner Bill Fleenor opened the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Present from Springfield were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Hillary Wylie, Terri Leezer, Dave Ralston, Fred Simmons, and Joe Pishioneri. Councilor Christine Lundberg was absent. Springfield City Manager Gino Grimaldi and other Springfield staff were also present. Present from Eugene were Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilors Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, George Poling (12:43pm), George Brown, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, and Chris Pryor. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz and other Eugene staff were also present. Present from Lane County were Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, Rob Handy (12:05p.m.), and Faye Stewart. Commissioner Pete Sorenson was absent. Lane County Administrator Jeff Spartz and other Lane County staff were also present. I. Adjustments to Agenda Commissioner Stewart asked if Item IV b could be moved up with Item II. All agreed to the change. II. Economic Development – Follow-up to the Economic Summit. Eugene City Manager Ruiz presented this item. Mr. Ruiz said a PowerPoint would be presented followed by discussion on this subject. The administrators were hoping the elected officials could provide some approval on a couple of things. He referred to Attachment B in the agenda packet under this item. This attachment had been presented to the elected officials at a previous meeting and included the Regional Economic Development Strategies and Tactics. He referred to strategy 4, Land and Physical Infrastructure, Tactic 2. The County had discussed the item and had possibly taken action on it recently. The administrators recommended the item be removed from this document. Mr. Ruiz said the administrators’ recommendation would be to confirm Attachment B with the removal of Tactic 2. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 2 of 13 Mr. Ruiz referred to Attachment A in the agenda packet, a draft document that came out of the Regional Prosperity Summit. The administrators would ask the elected officials to approve this draft document so the JEO Economic Development Task Force and staff could move forward and begin implementation. Commissioner Dwyer asked if there was something related to the item removed that was illustrated in the report in Attachment A. Mr. Ruiz said there was one item that he would discuss later that might have some relevance. He would point it out when he came to that part of the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said a Regional Prosperity Summit was held in Eugene last November which was well attended. A lot of input was received from that summit. He reviewed the Goal from the summit “By 2020, create 20,000 net new jobs in the chosen economic opportunity areas; reduce the local unemployment rate to, or below, the state average; and increase the average wage to, or above, the state average.” The economic development subcommittee formed of elected officials came up with basic principles on which to base economic prosperity: Healthy Living; Smart Growth; Be Prepared; Local Independence; and Regional Identity. He discussed those principles briefly. Mr. Ruiz referred to the Economic Development Strategies from the PowerPoint: (1) Growing Local Opportunities; (2) Creative Economy, including partnerships with the University of Oregon and Lane Community College; (3) Talent for Tomorrow; (4) Basic Needs of Business, such as infrastructure; (5) Live the Good Life, and (6) Key Industries. He further discussed how the region could continue to support the development of sectors that had built a strong economic foundation for our community and at the same time develop our innovative culture to support the emerging opportunities within our local economy. Those were the overall strategies the elected officials had seen before. More detail was within the document. Mr. Ruiz discussed some of the things that came out of the summit which were included in Attachment 1, pages 7 - 9. One of the themes was networking, such as creating a Birth to Three network for businesses just starting up and providing mentorships and support. Another common theme was to create a business assistance center to provide resources for businesses wanting to locate, expand, or receive support. Mr. Ruiz said one of the things talked about a lot was insuring we had a talented work force. To do this, it was important to improve the basic and applied skills of young people in the region as they prepared to enter the workforce. This effort must begin with school readiness for kindergarten, ensure high school graduation, include vocational/technical training, internships and mentorships, and provide paths to higher education. Another focus was to create a regional economic identity, capitalizing on assets that would identify the region as a significant economic center. New investment coming to the region would be an important complement to the growth of local business in providing for the region’s future economic health. This could include developing and February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 3 of 13 sustaining business expansions, and the attraction and retention of programs with an emphasis on traded-sector companies. The cities of Eugene and Springfield should continue and enhance their efforts to promote downtown vitality through development and redevelopment. The third item under this section, to inventory and assess adequacy of industrial land availability in support of expansion, attraction and retention in conjunction with comprehensive land assessment processes, was tied to the current land assessment occurring in both cities. This item could be affected by the removal of tactic 2 of Attachment B. The last focus was creating a Regional Prosperity Council to act as the guiding coalition for the implementation of the regional strategy. This council would be a decision making body, but not a jurisdictional body, made up of elected officials, appointed officials, and business members. Mayor Piercy said she considered this an important moment for the joint elected officials. A lot of these things had been discussed before, and now was the time to take action to move forward. She noted that Commissioner Fleenor told her that the goal of creating 20,000 jobs would now be 35,000, since 15,000 jobs had already been lost. This was an opportunity to replace those jobs with jobs that paid more and set the community up for a better future. She was concerned that Birth to Three would object to the use of that name for a business support, so suggested changing the name. She assumed that the business assistance center would act as an incubator. Mr. Ruiz said that could show up in a couple of different places in the document. There were places in Attachment B that talked about entrepreneurial infrastructure, partnerships, and opportunities. Part of that network could be the incubator space. Mayor Piercy asked if the schools had been brought into this discussion. Mr. Ruiz said not formally. Mayor Piercy said her only concern was how this could take the region beyond what it already had, such as the Metro Partnership which went out to bring businesses into the community. She would want to know what would be done differently with this and what would be the added value. Councilor Zelenka said he liked some of the information, but felt like he was reading a rehash of what was already being done. There seemed to be a disconnect in discussions in Eugene about the next economy, and getting positioned for the green economy. There was nothing about the Eugene Mayor’s sustainability efforts. This was not as much a vision document as it was an economic development tool document. He was disappointed that it didn’t go far enough. Commissioner Fleenor said there should be a commencement date regarding creation of new jobs by 2020. He was happy with the process and with the outcomes, and now it was time to get to work. They needed to implement this. Although it was not a perfect document, it was a living document that could be improved. He suggested the name Inception to Success instead of Birth to Three. He was pleased and now it was time to roll up their sleeves and get to the business of creating jobs. Councilor Ortiz said the part she felt didn’t connect was the education piece. This was an opportunity for Eugene to say what was important for them. The community already had a regional identity, but it February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 4 of 13 would be a question of how to encourage people to want to bring jobs here. She was curious about how to address the basic skills of young people when the budgets for the schools were in trouble. Councilor Pryor said there were still things that could be worked on, but this was a great document. The Regional Prosperity Council could continue that work. It was important that the team be made up of all the elected officials. The educational component was important. The last time they had gone through this, one of the areas that was critically involved was a network with the community colleges. That system was still in place and could easily be reinvigorated. They could learn from what had been done before¸ but they needed to be careful of the steps taken during these tough economic times. Things were going to be different when the economy improved. Councilor Wylie said it was painful to see businesses in the downtown areas closing and suffering. She would like a segment in the plan to bring in a team with resources to resuscitate a business that was starting to fail. It would be difficult to create new jobs when the existing jobs were failing. If they had a system, they could send in a team to analyze the situation. Councilor Clark said this may not be a perfect plan for all, but was a very good plan. It was not just a Eugene plan, but a regional plan and respected the jurisdictional differences. He appreciated the chance to serve on the subcommittee and the hard work of everyone at the summit. This gave them a roadmap to begin and could be adjusted as they went. He was anxious to get moving and to act. Councilor Taylor said she was concerned when they talked about attracting new business because she wanted to sustain the homegrown businesses. The businesses were good, the focus should be on them, and those which were in trouble should be assisted. She was skeptical about creating 20,000 new jobs. There should be jobs for the people here, but quality of life would suffer if too many people were attracted to the area. Before creating a Prosperity Council, she wanted to be clear what that group would do that no one else was currently doing. Once a group was created, it was difficult to remove it. Commissioner Dwyer said he was a proven skeptic. A well-run business had assistance from other sources such as the bank. Smart people could produce things competitively and would succeed. The international market was the competition and it had low or no environmental, labor, or wage standards, and national companies were rewarded for working with them. Policies were totally wrong. When things were tight, costs needed to be cut back. It was good to do something. The community had a great future and he was optimistic. He discussed technology advances. He thanked staff for their efforts. Commissioner Fleenor said from listening to the others comments, there was some interest in moving forward even though the document was not perfect. Entrepreneurs didn’t quit after their first failure. He would like to see this move forward. He asked Mayor Leiken what the process was to move forward, such as a motion. Mayor Leiken said there were still several folks waiting to speak. There were three suggested motions in the packet for the elected officials to consider. Councilor Pryor said he agreed they should move forward. For this body of policy makers, part of what had slowed their progress in the past was coming to a consensus of policy. As they moved down February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 5 of 13 the road to economic recovery, they needed to determine whether or not there was a way to reach a collaborative agreement on the policies for economic strategies, such as whether the economy needed an influx of dollars in and out, or if it could be self-sustaining by moving the same dollars around within the area. That issue had not been agreed upon in the past. The policy makers needed to make those decisions. Councilor Poling arrived. (12:43pm) Mayor Piercy reminded the group that one thing the joint elected officials could do was to leverage their mutual abilities to move their communities forward. They had come to the conclusion that they could continue to do things their own way or try to do better during these hard times by working together. They had done well in that effort. Some homegrown businesses would grow so big they would go out of town and others would come in. How those things were leveraged could be to the community’s advantage as part of the discussion. Travel Lane County (TLC) had done a lot of work in determining what made the community attractive so she felt that could be removed from this work plan. TLC and Lane Community College (LCC) belonged to the community and it was poised to become the green job center and a place to move the economy forward. As the body of joint elected officials, they needed to look at what the region had and leverage it to their advantage. Those things were already there in terms of what could be done together. She reiterated that her only concern was that the group would rewrite what was already being done. Their work needed to be scaled in a way that moved the community forward. Commissioner Handy said he was happy to support the two cities moving forward with their plans. He referred to the Metro Plan Work Plan which was in the agenda packet as Item IV a, and IV b. It included Lane County’s proposal for economic development for small cities. He acknowledged Mike McKenzie-Bahr for his work on this issue. The commissioners were looking for ways to move forward. There were 14 or 15 economic development entities in Lane County. He questioned creating another group when they could perhaps merge with an existing entity. He asked if they would be looking for new funding for the new group. Mr. Ruiz said they had not come up with a solution until they knew if the elected officials wanted to move forward. If the joint elected officials supported moving forward, the administrators would put it into action. They needed to define what that meant. Commissioner Handy urged the elected officials to look at ways to do that. He agreed with Councilor Ortiz about the education component. This document didn’t address educational issues. The community needed healthy young people turning into taxpayers and contributing to the community. The County was interested in the priority of how to protect farmlands and resource lands. A couple of decades ago, the region was producing 50-60 percent of its own food and now was only producing about three percent. The figure should be somewhere closer to 30 percent. He noted the amount of money that was being spent that went out of the region for food that could be spent locally. He didn’t see anything binding in this document, but a lot of aspirational things. He would be supporting this with a couple of amendments. Mayor Leiken said he agreed with Mayor Piercy about Travel Lane County. When he had the opportunity to sit as interim director of Lane Metro Partnership, a consultant had said that every city February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 6 of 13 claimed to have ‘quality of life.’ Having an identity would be the key. It was fine for each of the cities to have an identity, but the region needed to have an identity that would attract others. TLC was instrumental in that aspect. He referred to the Prosperity Council and noted that other communities had ambassadors, which could assist when companies wanted to expand or locate to the region. Many companies were concerned about confidentiality when businesses wanted to come in to the region. He referred to an example where a business chose not to site in a city that didn’t guard confidentiality. Councilor Clark said he agreed with Commissioner Handy about this being aspirational. He was willing to make a motion to move this forward. COUNCILOR CLARK MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WRITTEN AND RE-CONFIRM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2009 JEO MEETING; AND DIRECT THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE AND STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN. COMMISSIONER DWYER ADDED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ITEM 4, TACTIC 2, FROM THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES. COMMISSIONER FLEENOR MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO CHANGE BIRTH TO THREE TO INCEPTION TO SUCCESS. COUNCILOR CLARK ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. THE MOTION WAS . SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FLEENOR Councilor Zelenka asked what was new in this document compared to what had already been done. Mr. Ruiz named a few items. He said he had heard that it was important to add value as they moved forward. Staff would then return to the elected officials to sort it out. Mr. Zelenka said the tools were good, but he didn’t feel it went forward with the vision directed by the elected officials. COUNCILOR ZELENKA MOVED TO MODIFY THE DOCUMENTS TO INCORPORATE ALL THAT WAS IN THE SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES AND INCORPORATING THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. COUNCILOR TAYLOR SECONDED COUNCILOR ZELENKA’S MOTION. Councilor Wylie said she still had an issue with business assistance and would like that to be addressed. There were a lot of things the cities could do to assist. There should be a COORDINATION OF RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS TO GET BUSINESSES STARTED AND KEEP THEM RUNNING. COUNCILOR ZELENKA SAID HE WOULD ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 7 of 13 Commissioner Fleenor noted the motions and amendments on the table. He said this was a living document and could be brought back to amend later. He would prefer to go back with the first motion (Option 1) and make any modifications at the next meeting. Option 2 could also work, but there was a lot of back and forth on this right now. Councilor Pishioneri reiterated that organizations like Travel Lane County had supported many of the businesses in this area. Creating jobs had been discussed, but the cities and County couldn’t create jobs. That was up to the private sector. Government could support the development of jobs, and the elected officials could act as ambassadors to help them. He thought this was a good plan and very thoughtful. He supported the plan. Commissioner Fleenor asked for a restatement of the substituted motion. Councilor Clark said this was a larger scope document and was not meant to be that descriptive. If Councilor Zelenka would like to throw out his motion and receive further information regarding the sustainable business initiative, he would take that as a friendly amendment. Mayor Piercy said if it was handled that way, it would all be in the first motion. Councilor Clark said he would take all of Councilor Zelenka’s suggestions as friendly amendments. COUNCILOR ZELENKA WITHDREW HIS MOTION. THE WITHDRAWAL WAS SECONDED. Councilor Pryor agreed with the suggestion to go back to the first motion with the amendments. RESTATEMENT OF THE MOTION:TO APPROVE THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WRITTEN AND RE-CONFIRM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2009 JEO MEETING; AND DIRECT THE JOINT ELECTED OFFICIALS’ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE AND STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN; AND TO REMOVE ITEM 4, TACTIC 2 FROM THE REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES (FRIENDLY AMENDMENT); AND TO CHANGE BIRTH TO THREE TO INCEPTION TO SUCCESS (FRIENDLY AMENDMENT); AND TO INCORPORATE ALL THAT WAS IN THE SUSTAINABLE INITIATIVES (FRIENDLY AMENDMENT); AND PROVIDE A COORDINATION OF RESOURCES AND PROGRAMS TO GET BUSINESSES STARTED AND KEEP THEM RUNNING (FRIENDLY AMENDMENT). Councilor Taylor asked if the Eugene City Council could vote on this if they were not in Eugene. Mr. Ruiz said it was not a binding vote, but provided guidance to staff. It was an advisory vote. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 16 IN FAVOR AND 1 OPPOSED. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 8 of 13 III. IV b - Lane County’s Proposal for Economic Development with Small Cities Mayor Leiken said this item had been moved to this part of the meeting per Commissioner Stewart’s request. Community and Economic Development Manager Mike McKenzie-Bahr said this memo addressed how the County would be taking a piece of the economic development plan and immediately implementing it by hiring a contract person to move forward. The contract person would be starting on April 5. He noted Councilor Zelenka’s reference to renewable energy, which would be included in the County’s plan as well. He thanked the joint elected officials for their action on the economic development plan. Councilor Taylor left at 1:05 p.m. Councilor Fleenor confirmed that no further action was required on this by the County. IV. Animal Control Lane County Administrator Jeff Spartz presented this item. The current facility that housed Lane County Animal Services (LCAS) and the Eugene Spay/Neuter Clinic was built in the late 1970s, and was at the end of its useful life. Commissioner Dwyer had helped to shepherd the original facility from its inception to development and could answer additional questions. The County had identified that it would cost about $8 million to replace the facility. They thought it would be appropriate for the joint elected officials and others in the community to look at this in a broader perspective for the total needs for animal services in the community, and the alternatives to meet those needs. Those alternatives could include private sector partnerships with the public sector. Lane County Health and Human Services Assistant Director Karen Gaffney presented a PowerPoint and provided additional information on this topic. She said Animal Services had been moved to the Health and Human Services Department. Ms. Gaffney said the three jurisdictions had a long history of working together with this facility to make a big difference for the animals of the community. Animals resonated with the public and they cared deeply for animals, and for protecting citizens from dangerous animals. The community standards had evolved significantly since the partnership began thirty years ago regarding euthanasia, spaying and neutering animals, and saving adoptable animals. Those standards created a need for a different type of facility. Ms. Gaffney said the different jurisdictions participated in the animal facility in different ways. Lane County Animal Services did the licensing for Lane County and the City of Eugene. Springfield did its own licensing and code enforcement. Animal care and sheltering for all three jurisdictions was provided by Lane County, as were adoptions of the animals. Those services had provided an important adjunct to the Greenhill Humane Society. The way these services differed was that Greenhill was focused on people who needed to relinquish their animals. Lane County did not provide those types of services. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 9 of 13 Ms. Gaffney referred to information in the PowerPoint regarding licensing sales from 2004 to the current date. She noted the increase in 2004 and 2005, which was largely due to the implementation of rabies reporting on licensing. There was a renewed push over the last year-and-a-half which pushed those numbers up again. The figures were for Eugene and unincorporated Lane County. Councilor Ralston asked when the dog ownership per household limit was increased from two to three in Eugene. Ms. Gaffney said it was last August. Councilor Ralston noted an increase in 2009, and thought it might be from that change. Ms. Gaffney said they had canvassed to promote licensing in 2009, so that may have contributed more to the increase. She referred to a chart in the PowerPoint showing the number of dogs entering the shelter from all three jurisdictions. Those numbers were going down, which was intentional. The focus was that if the sale of licenses increased, dogs went home without going into the shelter. They also charged the officers in the field to work with people to find out what type of resources they needed to care for their animal. Last fiscal year, about half of the animals at the shelter were from Eugene, about a quarter from the County, and about 19 percent from Springfield. She referred to information regarding the field calls, citations and number of abuse and neglect cases in FY09. Councilor Poling asked if they had the breakdown of how many were in Eugene and how many in the County. Ms. Gaffney said she had those figures at her office, but not in the PowerPoint. She said she could get that information for him. She referred to the chart on Live Release Rate, a tool used at shelters to get a euthanasia rate. Lane County had an overall rate of over 94 percent, which was very good for an open- door shelter such as Lane County. Greenhill was a closed-door shelter that could turn away dogs that had significant health or behavioral problems. Ms. Gaffney discussed issues with the current facility: aging and too small, inadequate segregation in lobby and animal areas, not supportive of animal evaluations or adoption processes and inefficient for maintenance and workflow. She displayed photos of the facility and noted some improvements that had been made, including signage. Ms. Gaffney described the kenneling at the current facility that had been designed 30 years ago, and how designs for kennels had changed since that time. She said the policy questions for today were how the costs of a new facility might be shared publicly and privately, how best to leverage the LCAS and Greenhill sites, and if there were opportunities to better serve the public through code changes, licensing, etc. The County Administrator had convened a small group made up of representatives from all three jurisdictions to focus on what it would take to finance and operate a new shelter. A report would be issued from that group on some of the options regarding financing. Mayor Leiken asked if every County in Oregon provided animal services. Ms. Gaffney said she had not contacted all counties, but she believed that most provided dog control. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 10 of 13 Commissioner Dwyer said Ms. Gaffney had done an excellent job. What made the program work was the dedication of the people to the mission at-hand. He said there were a lot of politics involved in building the current facility. He did what he had to do to make it happen, and that was what it would take to make this work today. He felt a different model was needed other than the Tri-Agency model. There were places and land available for a new facility which the County already owned. There were tremendous opportunities with the private sector that needed to be explored. Ms. Gaffney was asking the elected officials to explore the different models and the financing options. He noted that he and Commissioner Stewart used their own funds several years ago to have an architect from Denver come to Lane County. He felt the City of Eugene needed their own entrance for the spay/neuter clinic. There were other things they could do in the near future to alleviate some of the issues. The Board was committed to fixing animal regulation. He thanked Commissioner Fleenor for his assistance with this even before he was on the Board. Commissioner Fleenor had a background in veterinary medicine and had been a tremendous help. He would like the joint elected officials to work together for the common good. There wasn’t anything they couldn’t do collectively if they were committed. Commissioner Fleenor thanked Commissioner Dwyer for his comments. Pets were very important to their owners and when the subject of animals was discussed, citizens came out to speak in large numbers. He said he spoke with Mayor Piercy and Mr. Ruiz a few weeks ago and asked that this topic be added to today’s agenda. He felt this meeting could be the forum in which they launched a subcommittee to work together with the County to try to develop this community vision, rather than the County packaging something they presented to the cities. The purpose of this on the agenda was to see if there was interest. Commissioner Handy said Lane County received many phone calls regarding animals. There was a lot of passion from the community on this subject. The three jurisdictions had some challenging areas to face in the next 20 to 30 years, but he felt this was one area which needed a common vision. There were some revenue-generating opportunities worth looking into. Cost was a driver, but in the interest of the public, it was important for the jurisdictions to find the funding. Ms. Gaffney could attend the City Council meetings for Eugene and Springfield to discuss this further. It came down to the accountability to the public sector involved in these support services. This was a great area in which to come together. Councilor Ralston asked what Greenhill did differently than the County, and how the County could partner with them. Ms. Gaffney said they did partner together in some ways now, and there might be other opportunities to explore. Greenhill did some spay and neutering, as did the County, but their focus was adopting animals out to families. Greenhill didn’t do any of the animal control function. The County worked with Greenhill on feral cats now, and could partner with them on community education. The animals that came into the County’s care were stray and homeless and the County did adopt those out to the public. Some of them were transferred to Greenhill. Councilor Ralston said that could be a way to continue to partner. He pointed out that the Springfield City Council sent a letter to State representatives asking that the State of Oregon create a license plate February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 11 of 13 in which the proceeds would benefit animal welfare. That would be an opportunity for animal lovers to buy a license plate, generating funds that could funnel back to the local level. Councilor Poling said he would like to further investigate the non-profit/public partnership, giving both organizations the opportunity to save some money. He didn’t want to get too bogged down in a community vision process. This was something that needed to be addressed soon. He and his wife had been doing volunteer work for an animal rescue support group for the past few years, and had visited many animal shelters in Oregon and Washington that were fine facilities. He suggested looking at those facilities when considering a new facility in Lane County. There were a lot of people in the community that would likely step forward to support this effort. He would like to hear more during a work session. He wasn’t aware that the City of Springfield had suggested the license plate, and he thought it was a good idea. He would like to continue the discussion on this subject. Councilor Simmons said he had met with Ms. Gaffney in September and he noted that Springfield had a cost issue so it needed to proceed carefully. There was a perception difference. Springfield had an attitude of containment and movement to the shelter, and Eugene had a more open process of getting the animal taken care of and adopted. He noted his past experience as an animal control officer and some of the dangerous animals he encountered. He was supportive of this, but it would be important to balance the differences between the jurisdictions. His predecessor, Councilor John Woodrow, would have been very supportive of this effort. He wanted to be sure this was looked at seriously. Commissioner Fleenor said LCAS was not a no-kill facility. They recognized that some animals had to be euthanized. One of the things they were looking for was standardization of codes within the jurisdictions. They would also ask for permission to work with the cities to canvas the jurisdictions to get more licensing. License fees could possibly help in putting forth a levy. Building a new facility could take longer than taking some of these other steps. Councilor Pryor said he agreed with finding ways to partner for a solution. Operationally, some things could be done now, but the challenging issue was regarding the building. He agreed that the facility was at the end of its useful life, but he noted that Eugene’s city hall and street lights were also at the end of their useful lives. Eugene had deferred maintenance on an entire infrastructure, so this was not a unique problem. The jurisdictions needed to find ways to get out of all of the challenges. This building was something that was used regularly by the public and needed to be addressed soon. Councilor Zelenka said he liked the idea of a partnership and he also like the license plate idea. A couple of years ago, Eugene talked about what would happen if animal services were not provided, and those outcomes were much worse. He asked how the original building had been funded. Ms. Gaffney said she was not sure. She had documentation of how the three jurisdictions divided the land, but not of the construction cost. Councilor Zelenka asked if this project would be right for stimulus funding. Ms. Gaffney said she hadn’t seen an opportunity for this type of project through stimulus funding. They had looked at other possible grants, which were challenging for the public sector to receive. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 12 of 13 They didn’t qualify for some grants because their euthanasia rates were low. In doing research of shelters, they found that there was a lot of participation from private organizations and individuals. Councilor Clark asked about the revenue-sharing formula with the City of Eugene for licensing. Ms. Gaffney said the contract with the City of Eugene had a base of general funds that came to LCAS. LCAS kept 100 percent of the licensing revenue up to a cap that was recently raised by $100,000 (total of about $260,000). Any licensing revenue above that amount went back to the City of Eugene. Councilor Clark asked if changing that formula would affect how many dogs were licensed. Ms. Gaffney said increasing it by $100,000 was critical because it gave LCAS the opportunity to let the public know that 100 percent of the license fee went towards animal services. Until last year, LCAS had never come close to that cap, but last year they had. Being able to sell more licenses and use that revenue to support animal services had made a big difference to the services they could provide. Councilor Clark asked if raising the cap increased revenue. Ms. Gaffney said it did. It provided an incentive to the County. Councilor Wylie said there were gas taxes for roads and alcohol and drug taxes for treatment. She asked about a nickel a bag tax on dry dog food. It could be a state initiative. Pet owners wouldn’t mind spending the extra nickel for additional services. Ms. Gaffney said that idea had been raised in the past. Commissioner Fleenor said that had been tried, but met with resistance. It was a good idea. A Lane County Animal Regulatory Authority (LCARA) task force looked at that as a possible revenue source and heard from lobbyists all the way from Washington D.C., in opposition. Mayor Piercy said she was willing to look at short-term solutions, and was amendable to looking more broadly at all animal services. She felt this had to be in the context of everything else that needed attention, and prioritized. She appreciated today’s conversation because it was a good illustration of the jurisdictions working together, but these conversations were two-way streets. The larger conversation was about purviews and responsibilities on all fronts. Because of the shortfalls in funding, the jurisdictions had to look at things differently and carefully. There were areas in which the County was no longer able to provide services, and cities had to step up to cover those services. She thought the license plate was a great idea. She agreed with private/public partnership. They needed to look together at cross-jurisdictional goals and the order of these projects. Councilor Poling said if they had a work session on this subject, he would like to see the breakdown of the enforcement ordinances in Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. Commissioner Fleenor asked if this could go to each City Council for a work session first, then report back to the full JEO. February 26, 2010 Joint Elected Officials Meeting City of Springfield City of Eugene Lane County Page 13 of 13 Councilor Ortiz said it would be good to have a broader conversation about this before getting down to the specifics. She said both the Parks and Library foundations used public-private partnerships and she liked that idea, similar to the Birth to Three concept from the economic development discussion. She would like that to be part of the conversation. Mr. Spartz left the meeting at 1:54 p.m. Mayor Leiken said Springfield would discuss whether to have a work session on this topic during its next Agenda Review meeting. Commissioner Fleenor discussed the Secure Rural Schools funding to the County. Mayor Piercy said there were many issues on the table that had a need. V. IV a - Update on Metro Plan Work Plan Mayor Leiken asked if there was time to discuss Item IV a. Mr. Grimaldi said it was there for the elected officials’ information. There was no need for further discussion. VI. Adjournment – 1:55 p.m. Mayor Leiken adjourned the Springfield City Council. Mayor Piercy adjourned the Eugene City Council. Commissioner Fleenor adjourned the Lane County Commissioners. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa City Recorder ______________________ Sidney W. Leiken Mayor Attest: ____________________City Recorder