HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes
Meeting Date: July 12, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A
Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2004, Work Session, June 14, 2004, Work Session and
June 14, 2004, City Council Meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A. May 24, 2004, Work Session
B. June 14, 2004, Work Session
C. June 14, 2004, City Council Meeting
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lynda Rose
Telephone: 682-5017
Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040712\S0407122A. doc
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
May 24, 2004
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
Mr. Pap6 thanked the Fire Department for its recognition of a University of Oregon student who had rescued
two people from a burning house and commended the student for quick action. He announced that he and
John Brown were sponsoring a river cleanup through the Delta Rotary Club and the Southtown Rotary Club
on June 5, 2004, and invited members to contact him if they were interested in participating.
Ms. Bettman commented that she had received several inquiries regarding the proposed expansion of a
church at 15th Avenue and Polk Street. She requested a background memorandum on the project describing
the application and requirements. She said of particular concern was the removal of trees prior to the
application process. She reported that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) had decided to alternate
the meeting venue between Eugene and Springfield and every other meeting would be held in the Bascom-
Tykeson Room at the Eugene Public Library. She asked the city manager to check its availability for the
June 10, 2004, MPC meeting.
Ms. Taylor expressed concern with conditions on Whitbeck Boulevard. She said that the Planning
Divisions's decision to permit development had been appealed and the council had denied the appeal. She
said that appellants had been assured that the City would provide oversight and there would be no damage;
however, there were problems with water runoff, erosion and destruction of the roadway. She asked for a
response from the city manager.
Ms. Taylor noted that the subject of "big box" stores was being discussed later in the meeting and asked if
the current application for the Wal-Mart superstore could be halted on the grounds of environmental effects
and transportation. She stated she had not yet received an accounting of expenditures from the parks bond
issue. She noted that the City would be receiving $9 million and asked that citizens be consuked about use
of the funds for projects such as purchase of the Amazon Creek headwaters.
Mr. Kelly asked for a moment to remember Henny Willis of The Register-Guard who died on May 21,
2004. He noted that Mr. Willis was a kind man and an insightful observer of state and local government.
Ms. Nathanson arrived at 5:35 p.m.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 1
Work Session
B. WORK SESSION: Housing Standards
City Manager Dennis Taylor noted that renewed interest in the issue of housing standards emerged from the
work of the West University Neighborhood Task Force and he introduced Marsha Miller of the Planning and
Development Department's Building and Permits Services Division to present the subject.
Ms. Miller used a slide presentation to highlight components of the agenda packet materials. She provided a
brief history of the Eugene Housing Code and listed the policy questions to be considered by the council:
· Should the City adopt local housing standards for rental properties?
· How would the program be funded?
· What would the scope of the housing code be?
· What properties would be exempted, if any?
Ms. Miller reported that there were between 30,000 and 33,000 total rental units in Eugene with a 5.3
percent vacancy rate. She said there were a number of existing state and local regulations that applied to
housing, as well as existing services related to housing. She provided an overview of the City of Corvallis
Housing Code and enforcement program, noting that all Oregon State University housing was provided on
campus, while that was not the case with the University of Oregon. She compared housing codes from
Portland, Medford, Corvallis, and Salem.
Ms. Miller described options available to the council, which included directing staff to develop a housing
code and program modeled on Corvallis, directing staff not to pursue a housing code in Eugene, or providing
direction on alternatives. She said that if the council decided to go forward with a code similar to that of
Corvallis, the estimated timeline was 45 to 60 days using existing staff with a cost for attorney fees of
between $1,000 and $2,000. She projected an implementation timeline of up to 12 months, staffing
requirements of 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalent), and a cost of $240,000 that included start-up expenses. She
estimated the cost of an ongoing program with two or three FTEs at $200,000 to $290,000. She also
provided the option of a phased implementation that could be initiated as soon as January 2005.
Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Miller for the overview and budget projections. He said that the State law related to
housing standards was not accessible to many renters because of the lack of a local enforcement mechanism
for those who could not afford an attorney. He referred to recent comments by John VanLandingham of the
Lane County Law and Advocacy Center that none of the State law's enforcement mechanisms were as good
as what was proposed in a Corvallis-style program. He said that using civil penalties instead of municipal
courts as the enforcement mechanism made sense. He supported housing standards in the Eugene Code and
a local enforcement mechanism that was funded on an ongoing basis by a small fee to owners.
Mr. Meisner stated his support for implementation of a housing program covering the four basic habitability
standards and liked the use of civil penalties rather than Municipal Court. He also supported a complaint-
driven program that was fee-based and hoped that staff would carefully review what fees should be assessed
based on program costs. He asked how rooms rented in owner-occupied homes with all residents sharing
bathroom and kitchen facilities would be classified. He said another situation was a single-family home that
was not owner-occupied and not rented as a single-family home; rather individual rooms were rented and
tenants were expected to share kitchen and bath facilities.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson expressed some concern with a phased implementation because neither the problem nor the
type of units to be covered had been clearly defined. She said the proposed phased approach would address
multi-family units first and she was not certain that those presented the greatest problem, which meant
assistance for tenants who needed it the most would be postponed until the second phase.
Ms. Nathanson questioned how the estimated start-up costs would be funded and asked about exemptions
for owner-occupied units, noting that other communities provided that exemption. Referring to Mr.
Meisner's example, she said that other programs levied a fee for the unit and an additional small fee per
bedroom. She encouraged councilors to read the informative report from a group that studied the issue of a
Eugene housing program five years earlier. Given that Eugene had three times the number of rental units,
she asked if Eugene's situation was comparable to or worse than Corvallis' situation. Ms. Miller replied
that she had no way to assess that and the lack of reliable data presented challenges to the discussion of a
housing code.
Mr. Pap~ said that he had contacted Corvallis Mayor Helen Berg to discuss the Corvallis program. He said
that Mayor Berg was supportive of the program and had estimated that of the 150 complaints processed
annually, one-half were resolved once the landlord was contacted about the problem. He said that Corvallis
left issues related to rental contract disputes to the court system. He suggested that Small Claims Court
could be used to process complaints under State law without the need to hire an attorney.
Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the two to three FTEs needed to operate an ongoing program. He said
the Corvallis program was handled through the Housing Department and functions were split among staff
and not assigned to a specific individual. Ms. Miller said that her understanding, based on discussions with
the Corvallis staff person who managed the program, was that three-quarters of his time was spent
answering calls, which numbered about 400 per year, resolving complaints and investigating those
complaints that could not be resolved in the early stages.
Mr. Pap~ suggested that instead of establishing positions to handle the program, complaints could be
addressed through contracted private dispute-resolution services, with the City collecting fees and providing
oversight.
Mr. Poling expressed concern with the start-up costs, establishing two to three FTEs, and classification of
owner-occupied units. He asked what types of costs were incurred by landlords and tenants through the
existing housing services such as Lane County Law and Advocacy Center and Associated Students of the
University of Oregon. Ms. Miller replied that those organizations did not charge for their services.
Mr. Poling asked if individual complainants would have to pay costs up front if a suit in Circuit Court was
instigated. He asked if arbitration and mediation for contract dispute resolution could be included to avoid
filing a court case. Ms. Miller replied that she would research how court costs were covered and that
arbitration and mediation services were options that the council could direct staff to explore.
Mr. Poling referred to form letters he had received from the Rental Owners Association of Lane County
voicing concerns that fees assessed to owners would increase the cost of housing and advocating that the
program be funded through fines and assessments, which he felt would leave the program in an unstable
funding position. He was in favor of moving the issue forward to the next step but was concerned about
how the start-up costs would be funded.
Ms. Bettman commented that without an enforcement mechanism, there was no way to inventory complaints
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 3
Work Session
and problems. She related that her first experience with the issue was during her first campaign for office
and she heard from many people during door-to-door visits that housing concerns were a top priority and
tenants felt helpless to deal with substandard housing. She said she supported moving the issue forward and
the ongoing costs attributable to the two or three FTEs could be minimized by eliminating outreach and
education and focusing on enforcement. She expressed concern that mediation was not an appropriate tool
to address habitability issues, using the example of defective plumbing that was either repaired or was not.
She appreciated the option of a phased implementation approach and noted that the six-month period
between the first and second phases was relatively short and should not be an issue. She asked how use of
civil penalties for enforcement of nuisance and unsafe building codes was functioning. Ms. Miller said the
civil penalty process worked well because it could be done administratively, a penalty could be assessed on a
daily basis when a condition continued, and it was a flexible and effective enforcement tool.
Ms. Taylor stated she was in favor of moving forward with an ordinance. She said a combination of fees
plus fines could support the program and just having the possibility of enforcement would reduce the
necessity. She did not feel the State law was adequate because of the enforcement difficulties and she would
support a phased approach.
Mayor Torrey said he was in favor of not using the Municipal Court for enforcement. He suggested that
staff contact the Corvallis program and ask what they would change if drafting an ordinance again; what
worked well and what should be done differently. He asked the city manager where he proposed to obtain
the start-up funding and said that the program should be initially understaffed and the need for additional
staff demonstrated.
Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct the city manager to create draft
ordinance language to create housing standards similar to Corvallis addressing
habitability needs; the ordinance language to include funding mechanisms and an
enforcement mechanism. Language should be brought, along with next steps, to the
council in a work session prior to summer break.
Mr. Kelly commented it would be desirable to have solid data to support the need for a housing ordinance,
but having only anecdotal information did not mean the problem was not real. He said that surveying
tenants could be problematic because they feared speaking out in any way that did not protect anonymity.
He related that the manager of the Corvallis housing program confirmed Ms. Taylor's point about less need
for enforcement once the possibility of enforcement existed. He asked staff to obtain feedback from the
Human Rights Commission staff on ordinance language before it advanced to public hearings.
Mr. Poling asked if the motion would give staff sufficient time to prepare the ordinance. Ms. Miller said
that if the code was modeled on the Corvallis code there would be enough time.
Mr. Poling agreed with a phased approach starting with multi-family units because of the time involved in
identifying single-family units. He referred to a letter from the chair of the Harlow Neighbors Association
reporting that the association had passed a motion on May 19, 2004, supporting the concept of City
enforcement for minimum housing standards similar to those proposed by the Eugene Citizens for Housing
Standards Coalition.
Mr. Pap~ asked if Corvallis used State law in the four areas of habitability. Ms. Miller said that was
correct.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ expressed the opinion that State law was sufficient and it was not necessary to attempt to improve
upon it. He asked that the draft ordinance language also be reviewed by the Housing Policy Board. He
commented that the program would usurp fees from the 90 to 95 percent of landlords who took care of their
units and considered habitability to be important and hoped that as the program was ongoing a lower fee per
unit and higher enforcement fines would be considered to target those landlords who were the perpetrators.
Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap6's suggestion that the program eventually become a complaint-driven,
fine-driven program. He said he would support the motion and appreciated the Mayor's suggestion to
contact Corvallis to determine what changes might be recommended. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's
remarks that mediation was not an appropriate enforcement tool. He asked if the City could enforce through
the courts if civil penalties were not effective in resolving a complaint. Ms. Miller said that currently the
City could place liens on properties when civil penalties reached a certain threshold. City Attorney Glenn
Klein said the ordinance could grant the City authority to do both an administrative civil penalty, as well as
go to Municipal Court.
Mr. Meisner asked that such language regarding enforcement authority be included in the ordinance.
Ms. Nathanson observed that the motion did not include a request for alternatives for the council to consider
regarding exemption. She said there were exemptions that would be appropriate for Eugene, such as
educational institutions that provided housing and owner-occupied shared housing. She asked staff to
provide more information on the program in East Lansing, Michigan, which offered the opportunity for
exemptions by neighborhood. She also asked for information on whether multi-year licenses would make the
program simpler and more efficient to administer and reduce costs and fees.
Ms. Bettman stated that she would support the motion and thanked the community coalition for their work
on the project.
Mayor Torrey thanked staff for their work and noted that the council's action would not adopt an ordinance,
only request that draft ordinance language be developed.
Mr. Kelly said he had suggested a work session before summer break because he did not anticipate a public
hearing until the fall and school was back in session.
Mr. Taylor said that the schedule and tasks would allow for a work session before summer break, reviews
and comments by all appropriate bodies, and conduct of the regular ordinance process in the fall.
The motion passed unanimously.
C. WORK SESSION: Banning/Controlling Location of"Big Box" Stores
Mr. Taylor introduced Planning and Development Executive Director Tom Coyle to outline the issues raised
in Background on "Big Box" Retailing provided as Attachment A to the agenda item summary.
Mr. Coyle emphasized that the document was a summary of the issues and not a scientific analysis or
economic study of the retail market in Eugene. He directed the council's attention to the section of the
document that addressed terminology and stressed the critical need to use consistent language when
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 5
Work Session
discussing regulation. He said that the discussion of Wal-Mart referred to a super center, which was
traditionally a mass merchandiser that expanded to add food service to its use. He said that a typical Wal-
Mart or Target would include 150,000 to 160,000 square feet and the recent application received from Wal-
Mart was for the addition of 60,000 square feet to the existing center. He said that summary included a
breakdown of public comments received on the Wal-Mart expansion sorted by areas of complaint:
competition with local business, wages and business practices, and land use-related issues of traffic and
aesthetics.
Mr. Coyle pointed out the potential consequences that should be considered if the solution to the issue was a
code amendment:
· The effect of creating a non-conformity for all retail buildings over 50,000 square feet.
· The effect of a size limitation associated with nodal development on a city-wide application.
· An absence of competition for uses and development in current in place as a result of a size limita-
tion.
· The precluding of redevelopment of existing sites if there is a size limitation.
· The relationship of a square footage limitation to the use of internal retail space.
Mr. Coyle concluded his remarks with the comment that staff recommended no action unless there were
compelling reasons why a size limitation would respond to the concerns associated with ;;big box" retailing.
Ms. Taylor expressed her disappointment that information was not provided about ordinances that existed in
other cities relating to ;;big box" retail. She said her intent in raising the issue was to protect local business,
local workers, and downtown and to address issues such as transportation. She said a moratorium on ;;big
box" stores was a starting point while the City considered options such as imposing conditions relating to
environment, transportation, living wage, local ownership and decision-makers, and the consequences of
abandoning a facility. She said the present application would have negative effects on the transportation
infrastructure and wetlands and hoped it could be stopped while the council examined regulation options.
Mr. Kelly said that while the problem had land use aspects, it was ultimately an economic development
policy and economic health issue. He stated that it was necessary to develop mechanisms for what type of
economic development would provide the most net positive gain to the community and noted that studies had
identified a net negative effect on local businesses of many ;;big box" stores; particularly the percent of
dollars spent that left the community immediately. He said other issues were the impact on the local labor
pool, public subsidies for employees, and efficient or inefficient use of commercial land. He commented that
many other communities had either banned or restricted ;;big box" retail. He did not think that a square
footage limitation was the only solution and gave as examples regulations that applied only to chains or
formula business and an impact analysis review of certain types of businesses.
Mr. Meisner said that ultimately residents made the difference by where they shopped and agreed that the
council needed to address the issue. He asked for additional information on how other communities had
approached the problem as well as a legal analysis of how those approaches and the ones discussed by the
council would work under Oregon law and judicial system. He said the issue was not one of land use and
size.
Mr. Pap6 remarked that land use and aesthetics issues should be separated from business operational issues,
which were much more complex. He expressed concern with the idea of the City trying to manipulate the
marketplace and agreed with Mr. Meisner that shoppers would ultimately make the decision. He said that if
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 6
Work Session
wages, benefits, and union labor were the issues, they were more appropriately addressed at the State or
national level instead of by the City of Eugene.
Ms. Nathanson agreed that the issue was bigger than Eugene and said that in studies of the fiscal impact of
large retail stores it appeared a major factor was some cities' pursuit of retail because they were dependent
on sales tax revenue and provided subsidies through land or tax incentives. She said those were not an issue
in Eugene and wondered whether preventing or limiting large-volume retailers in Eugene would result in
people driving farther to shop at that retailer in a neighboring community. She was dubious that restrictions
would accomplish what was intended, either to influence the ownership of businesses or reverse the trend of
consumerism.
Ms. Solomon concurred with comments from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson, particularly
about people voting with their pocketbooks. She stated she was a Wal-Mart shopper and had a right to
choose and shop for the lowest prices, including going to Wal-Mart, and it was not the role of the council to
take those choices away from citizens. Referring to earlier comments about %ig box" stores causing blight,
she noted that the Wal-Mart/Target complex on West 11th Avenue had generated a number of additional
local commercial and retail services in the vicinity.
Ms. Bettman said that there were two distinct and overlapping issues: the economic security and develop-
ment issue and the land use and growth issue. She said that over-commercialization did impact local
businesses. She indicated that the City's policies relating to densification and infill also applied to
businesses with respect to commercial property and parking. She stated that the City's efforts to attract jobs
should include a look at the type of development that actually reduced jobs and wages. She said that public
safety was impacted by a rise in shoplifting-related calls attributed to "big box" stores and when land was
used for commercial development that included a large amount of surface parking, it was taken out of the
inventory but not taxed in a way that created optimum revenue.
Referring to the issue of choice, Ms. Bettman said that a formula chain entity represented a false economy
because of the hidden costs related to subsidies. She said when a large regional attractor was created at the
edge of the city limits, the municipality paid for costs such as transportation, public safety, and planning and
subsidized the low-wage jobs through social services.
Mayor Torrey asked if the real reason was for the proposed restrictions was the low wage and benefits jobs
and if Wal-Mart agreed to pay a wage acceptable to the council, would objections to the expansion be
dropped. He questioned whether the same rules would be applied to local businesses and if not, there would
be legal ramifications. He said he did not believe that the Wal-Mart application already submitted could be
stopped and if there were potential negative impacts to transportation or wetlands, residents could file legal
challenges. He said preventing "big box" retail development in the community would simply result in that
development being located at the edge of the urban growth boundary (UGB) north of Eugene along Highway
99 and Eugene would still have to deal with transportation impacts. He said he was not opposed to a
council decision to address the issue as an ordinance, but was opposed to action that would stop the current
process, such as a moratorium, and would veto such action.
Ms. Taylor commented that "big box" retail sometimes caused the loss of other jobs, requiring a subsidy of
employees through social services. She said that efforts to improve downtown were affected by what
happened on the edge of town. She requested a moratorium to allow the council time to think about options.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the city manager to bring
back to the City Council as quickly as State statutes allow an ordinance to impose a
moratorium on accepting or processing applications for retail establishments in ex-
cess of 50,000 square feet.
Ms. Taylor said her purpose was to give the council time to think and discuss possibilities and the reasons
were to protect local jobs, local businesses, and downtown and to encourage businesses that kept money in
the community rather than businesses that caused more social service expenditures.
Mr. Kelly remarked that he would support the motion. He pointed out that a moratorium would not stop the
current Wal-Mart application as the law that applied was the law in effect the day the application was
submitted; its purpose was to prevent for a short period a potential mistake that could cost the community
economically and environmentally for 20 or 30 years while the alternatives were considered. He said the
reasons were threefold: 1) economic development and how the local economy was supported; 2) wage and
benefits issues; and 3) land use issues. He said that it might not be legally possible to distinguish between
national and local ownership, but other municipalities had been able to distinguish by using formula
business or chain business. He noted that other cities had agreed that preventing, limiting, or reviewing
further ;;big box" development was valuable, just as anti-trust laws existed to provide additional regulation
of businesses with dominant market power.
Mr. Meisner commented that he had supported the motion at the previous meeting, but was not going to
support it currently because the moratorium was based solely on square footage in excess of 50,000 square
feet and did not give notice to the city manager to prepare anything on any other grounds.
Ms. Bettman acknowledged that the moratorium was problematic and restrictive, but when the land use code
was updated there was not the political will to address issues related to %ig box" retail. She agreed with the
Mayor's comments regarding the many issues involved and said if the council wanted to fulfill its underlying
value of protecting local businesses and jobs and providing living wage jobs with benefits, that's what it
should be negotiating. She said it was important to see how chain stores functioned in and impacted the
community and she wanted the community to have a positive influence on the matter. She stated she would
support the motion because it would expedite the council's ability to look at the issue and suggested
referring it to the Mayor's Economic Development Committee for recommendations on criteria.
Ms. Nathanson stated she would not support a moratorium because it could prevent the expansion of local
businesses as well as %ig box" retail, which was the wrong message to send when the City was trying to
encourage economic recovery. She expressed concern about characterization of ~those jobs" and said
economic development should encourage manufacturing, not retail. She said that not all %ig box" stores
paid the same wage and had the same benefit structure and asked how those compared to the communities'
very small retailer and food service employers. She wondered whether the concerns were about wages,
ownership, or square footage and transportation and said too many things were being addressed with the
wrong solution.
Mr. Pap~ said that before a decision was made, more specific information on the actual impact of %ig box"
stores on the local should be obtained. He said that it was important to encourage the growth of existing
smaller businesses but he was not a protectionist and did not think they should be protected from competi-
tion. He said that minimum wage jobs offered employment opportunities to young people and students. He
stated he would not support the motion and requested more information that was empirically-based, not
attitudinally-based.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 8
Work Session
Mayor Torrey said that a survey conducted of local businesses last year regarding perceptions of the
business climate in Eugene listed the top four issues as:
· Simplify the permit process and dealings
· Relax, revise local government regulations
· Adopt pro-business policies
· Employ economic development strategies
Mayor Torrey said that implementing a moratorium without providing an opportunity for a legitimate
process that included a work session and public hearing was wrong and referred to previous action on
housing standards as the appropriate approach. He observed that the pressure appeared to be to stop Wal-
Mart and not pressure to stop 50,000 square foot buildings.
Mr. Kelly explained that Ms. Taylor's motion did direct the city manager to bring back an ordinance to
impose a moratorium and the ordinance would be subject to the usual public input and public hearing
process, which was the same approach the council had taken with housing standards.
Mr. Kelly proposed a friendly amendment to add the language %taff should begin
investigation of possible long-term techniques related to economic issues, such as
impact analysis or formula business regulation, used in other cities." Ms. Taylor
accepted the amendment as the maker of the motion. Ms. Bettman accepted the
motion as the second.
Continuing, Mr. Kelly said a moratorium was a blunt, short-term and temporary solution that allowed time
for a more permanent solution to be crafted. He expressed discomfort with quoting the business climate
survey because of the 15 percent response rate.
Ms. Taylor remarked that her motion was the same as the one she had made at a previous meeting and was
prepared by Mr. Klein. She said all the moratorium did was to provide the council time to think, and if it
was possible to stop the current application, she would want to do that.
Ms. Nathanson declared that if the issue was fundamentally about economic development and concern for
local business, then the council should ask the Mayor's Economic Development Committee to discuss ways
to support local businesses, the possible impacts and unintended consequences.
Ms. Bettman said that she had raised aspects of the issue during economic development and land use
discussions and was responsible for the 50,000 square foot limitation in nodes and the 35,000 square foot
limitation of a footprint. She said whether the motion passed or failed, it was her intent to move to ask the
Mayor's Economic Development Committee to consider not just the economic development issues embedded
in %ig box" chain store development, but consider the land use issues as well with respect to efficient use of
land within the UGB and impacts on transportation, tax base, and service provision. She said that
neighboring communities also had small businesses to protect and grow.
Mr. Meisner thanked Mr. Kelly for his amendment to the motion and pointed out that the motion did direct
staff to develop an ordinance for a moratorium on accepting or processing application for retail establish-
ments in excess of 50,000 square feet. He asked to what extent such a moratorium, if enacted, would
restrict the council or tie its hands during the moratorium period. Mr. Klein responded that the moratorium
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 9
Work Session
would not tie the council's hand in any way; it would tie the Planning and Development Department's hands
with respect to accepting applications for a store proposed for more than 50,000 square feet.
Mr. Meisner asked if work on a permanent ordinance would need to be related to the problem identified in
the moratorium. Mr. Klein replied that the moratorium ordinance, when it returned to the council, would
have to identify the need and specify that the City was working on responding to the need.
Mr. Meisner asked whether size limitation based on square footage could be discarded in favor of other
factors if it was determined to be the wrong solution. Mr. Klein replied that it could be discarded during
deliberations that occur after passing the moratorium.
Mayor Torrey inquired whether a store that was 48,000 square feet would become non-conforming if it was
remodeled to 55,000 square feet. Mr. Coyle said that level of specificity would have to be called out in the
ordinance and under a permanent ordinance the store would be rendered non-conforming in that scenario.
He noted that some local grocery stores were engaged in expansions similar to the hypothetical figures.
Mayor Torrey requested that if the motion passed, the moratorium ordinance contain all of the implications,
positive and negative, so the public would be aware of the consequences.
Mr. Coyle raised the point that a supercenter of Wal-Mart's size would require a piece of property 18 to 20
acres and zoned commercially and he was not aware that such a parcel existed. He said the net effect of a
moratorium would be focused on redevelopment of existing sites and the project at 29th Avenue and
Willamette Street would be stopped.
Mr. Taylor commented that under Oregon law special notice was required to the Land Conservation and
Development Department as well as a specific ordinance outlining the rationale for the moratorium in
specific detail. Mr. Klein added that the ordinance would contain findings that responded to the require-
ments of State law, which included need and adverse effects, and the moratorium would be time-limited to
four or six months.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the moratorium would affect expansion of a manufacturer that also had retail in its
facility. Mr. Klein said the effect would depend on the definition of %ig box" retail.
The amended motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in
favor.
Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the city manager to include
in the charge of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee the specific tasks
of identifying the economic and land use transportation impacts of chain or volume
retailers in excess of 50,000 square feet and providing recommendations and crite-
ria to mitigate the impact to the council.
Mayor Torrey asked about the committee's current status. Mr. Coyle replied that the committee had held its
fourth meeting and was running somewhat behind schedule. He said the scope of the analysis requested in
Ms. Bettman's motion was complex and would require significant resources to compile the data necessary
for the committee to make an objective assessment.
Ms. Bettman commented that the committee was already examining overlapping issues such as the land
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 10
Work Session
inventory and jobs and a significant amount of research on the "big box" issue had been done in other
communities. She hoped that the committee would explore the usefulness of a community benefits
agreement that gave the City the ability to regulate development so it was consistent with community
standards.
Mr. Kelly said the council did not need to craft a solution immediately and the committee was an appropriate
body to assume the task.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Meisner requested permission to change his vote to aye on Ms. Taylor's
amended motion relating to the moratorium. There were no objections. The vote
on the motion was tied.
Mayor Torrey broke the tie by voting nay. The motion failed, 5:4; Ms. Taylor, Mr.
Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynn Taylor)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2004 Page 11
Work Session
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
June 14, 2004
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.
A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER
Mr. Poling noted a recent article and editorial in The Register-Guard referring to a paper reportedly
produced by City staff regarding the issue of a new hospital. He asked if there was a way for the council to
receive such papers when they were provided to the media as a part of a public information request so the
council was prepared to respond to questions. He had not seen the paper in question. City Manager Dennis
Taylor indicated he was not aware of the paper in question but would follow up. He suggested the
information referred to could have been drawn from many sources, including e-mail messages. He
acknowledged the appropriateness of ensuring that such documents were made available to the council when
requested by the media.
Mr. Poling referred to a letter the mayor and council had recently received from the Business Roundtable,
which represented a wide range of citizens. The letter included several recommendations regarding the
commercial and industrial buildable lands inventory. He asked what the follow-up would be given that there
were so many people of different political persuasions calling for a response. Mr. Taylor noted some of the
issues mentioned in the letter were being addressed in the Planning and Development Department work plan
and through the fiscal year 2005 budget, and indicated he would follow up.
Ms. Solomon arrived. She said that on June 5, the annual Bethel Celebration had occurred, and it was very
successful and a lot of fun. She reported that on Saturday, Bethel Community Park had opened near the
comer of Legacy Street and Barger Drive, and the opening ceremony was enjoyed by all who attended. She
thanked the voters for their support of the 1998 parks and open space bond, which made construction of the
park possible, and also thanked City staff for being responsive to the residents of that area.
Mr. Meisner concurred with the request of Mr. Poling regarding media information requests.
Mr. Meisner said he attended a June 11 meeting of the Passenger Rail Council in Portland, during which the
council discussed the time of service. An analysis indicated that Union Pacific was largely responsible for
most of the delays experienced by Amtrak. He had learned that Union Pacific, when it acquired Southern
Pacific, made staff reductions that led to some of the problems that were being experienced, and in addition
to recruiting new staff, Union Pacific was reconsidering its decision about whether to maintain the Eugene
yard.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 1
Work Session
Mr. Pap6 noted his request for financial information regarding the City's acquisition of the former Chiquita
site and said he had received some data. He requested additional information on the topic, such as what the
City owed the taxpayers in terms of its promises to the community that the acquisition would be a "wash."
Mr. Pap6 was pleased to see that the Parks and Open Space Division received national recognition from the
Public Relations Society of America for its newsletter, "Eugene Outdoors!"
Mr. Pap6 thanked resident John Brown, members of the Southtown Rotary Club, members of the Delta
Rotary Club, and employees of Pacific Continental Bank for their efforts in a recent riverbank cleanup.
Ms. Nathanson had no items.
Mr. Kelly referred to the letter from the Business Roundtable mentioned by Mr. Poling, and agreed that
given the breadth of community interest in the subject, it was important that the council address the topic of
the buildable lands inventory at some future time. He acknowledged that significant resources would be
required for that effort. He asked Mr. Taylor to discuss staff's initial reaction to the proposals contained in
the letter and to prepare a recommendation for proceeding.
Ms. Taylor continued to be concerned about the negative effects of increased densities in established
neighborhoods. She said she was awaiting more information about whether the contractor would take
responsibility for the damage done to Whitbeck Road, which was maintained by current residents. She
asked if the City had standards for people who buik in backyards or on flag lots, and if there were
restrictions on where windows could be located and the height of the building. She reiterated she believed
the City's policies were damaging established neighborhoods.
Ms. Taylor reported that Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority proposed to establish a program for
auxiliary power units for diesel trucks to avoid the problem of long-term truck idling. The agency was
working with Oregon State University to investigate the best of the units available, and then would request a
grant to train people to install them, and borrow money to buy them. She said she had information she
would leave in the council office.
Noting that the memorandum of agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) did not commit
the GSA to the actual construction of the federal courthouse, Ms. Bettman asked if an agreement could be
developed stipulating a connection between progress on the proposed transportation and other infrastructure
improvements and the progress on the courthouse project. She requested a memorandum updating the
council on the courthouse project and discussing how to create the desired connection.
Mr. Taylor spoke enthusiastically about several park openings that occurred the previous weekend,
including Gilbert Park, Bethel Community Park, and Trainsong Park. He thanked the mayor for his
attendance at the openings, the volunteers who worked on the celebrations, and staff of the Parks and Open
Space Division and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department.
Mayor Torrey noted the upcoming groundbreaking of RiverPlay, a new children's park at Skinner Butte
Park. He said the area Rotary Clubs had been raising additional funds for the park and in the fundraising
process he was asked how the park would be maintained. He asked Mr. Taylor to direct staff to prepare and
mail a one-page response regarding the topic.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adjust the City Manager's compensation,
placing him on Step 4 of the salary schedule, retroactive to his employment anniversary
date of April 14, 2004, and to increase the City Manager salary range on July 1, 2004, by
1.4 percent to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment.
Ms. Bettman explained that the percentage selected appeared to reflect a middle range of council sentiment
on the subject.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
B. WORK SESSION:
Region 2050 Status Report and Public Outreach
Senior Planner Allen Lowe of the Eugene Planning and Development Department introduced the item, noting
Mayor Torrey's and Mr. Kelly's participation on the Region 2050 Policy Board, which was composed of
two elected officials from several small Lane County cities as well as from the Lane County Board of
Commissioners. He said the effort was entering into a major public outreach phase. Mr. Lowe introduced
Region 2050 Project Manager Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments, who provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the Region 2050 effort and the public outreach that was being proposed.
Ms. Heinkel provided information on the geographic scope of the effort and the Region 2050 participants.
She reviewed the process, which included: 1) evaluation of alternative scenarios; 2) development of
preferred growth scenarios, and goals, objectives, and actions in areas such as land use, housing, transporta-
tion, and the economy; and 3) agreement on an integrated regional growth management strategy. The policy
board had recently completed work on three alternative scenarios to present to the public.
Ms. Heinkel reviewed the elements of three alternative regional growth scenarios, the Compact Urban
Growth scenario, Satellite Communities scenario, and the Rural Growth scenario. She anticipated the
ultimate result of the public outreach that followed was a scenario would be a hybrid of the three scenarios,
which would again be tested with the public.
Ms. Heinkel shared tables demonstrating examples of the evaluative criteria against which each element was
weighed for each of the three scenarios.
Mayor Torrey called for questions and comments.
Mr. Kelly, a member of the Region 2050 Policy Board, commended the Region 2050 effort and said the fact
the goals of the process had unanimous support from the elected officials of various Lane County communi-
ties was significant in itself.
Mr. Kelly underscored that the three alternative scenarios represented points on a continuum rather the end
of a continuum. The policy board was seeking a range. Referring to the evaluative information shared by
Ms. Heinkel, he said there was considerable technical data behind the tables that people could access.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 3
Work Session
Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Heinkel for the presentation. He expressed disappointment about the lack of
participation of the school districts and the Oregon Department of Education. Ms. Heinkel assured Mr.
Meisner that those parties were engaged in the process and would continue to be engaged. Mr. Meisner
wished they had been involved from the beginning.
Mr. Meisner hoped the regional planning effort had meaning. He pointed to the council's growth manage-
ment policies, and said the council used the policies to determine if what it was doing was consistent with the
policies, but did not consider how to actually implement the spirit of the policies.
Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner's latter comments. She questioned how much of the work that
resulted would supercede local policy, and how much would actually have meaning. Ms. Bettman noted the
resources going into the process and expressed skepticism that the process would result in anything that
would improve the livability of the southern Willamette Valley. In fact, she feared it would worsen
conditions by creating so much flexibility there would be very little regulation.
Ms. Bettman recommended that public outreach be very explicit in explaining that the results of moving
forward with the results of the process could result in the opportunity for individuals to circumvent existing
State land use laws.
Ms. Bettman asked how some of the things mentioned by Ms. Heinkel in her presentation would be enforced.
For example, if the region adopted the Compact Urban Growth scenario, how would development proposals
outside the rural areas be addressed? Governance was also an issue for her as it appeared the process was
moving toward a regional government with fewer and fewer elected officials, which she thought would
reduce accountability to the citizens.
Ms. Bettman questioned some of the assumptions behind the scenarios, such as how constraining the urban
growth boundary (UGB) would result in spillover development outside the UGB, as that did not take into
account how development occurred within the UGB. A community could have a UGB and still have low-
intensity development.
Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner about the lack of educational representation on the policy board. He
asked if the University of Oregon or Lane Community College were involved. Ms. Heinkel said staff had
met with University representatives and she had also taught a couple of classes on the topic, but she agreed
more needed to be done. Mr. Pap~ suggested the hospitals also should be involved to ensure adequate
planning was done to accommodate future health care needs.
Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lowe that the communities involved in the Region 2050 effort were within
the commute shed of Eugene-Springfield. Mr. Lowe said communities such as Deadwood and Alvadore
were represented on the policy board by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Heinkel said there
were some neighborhood association representatives who attended policy board meetings. She indicated that
more outreach would be done to the rural areas. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Heinkel the policy board's
meetings were largely held in the Eugene-Springfield area, a decision of the policy board.
Mr. Poling thought it important to stress to the public that the alternative growth scenarios were a tool for
discussion, and that the ultimate growth scenario was likely to be a hybrid. He said it should also be clear to
the public this was just a starting point. He suggested one result of the public outreach might be some
redefinition or narrowing of the project's goals.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 4
Work Session
Mr. Poling referred to the project objectives for jobs and the economy, one of which was to encourage
partnerships with local organizations, communities, and businesses. He urged Ms. Heinkel not to ~reinvent
the wheel." He pointed to the organizations such as the Metro Partnership, which was essentially doing
what the objective called for. He encouraged review of the goals and objectives to ensure they were not
duplicative of other efforts.
Ms. Nathanson was encouraged there was interest in a regional plan but she was also skeptical of the
outcome of the process. She anticipated there would be increasing pressure for development in the area
around Eugene-Springfield as the community filled in. She questioned if Eugene-Springfield could realize
its vision for land use, employment, and residential development if it relied on outlying communities to
modify their zoning codes. She asked if those communities would be willing to make the changes needed to
realize the vision. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the elected officials on the policy board adequately
represented the sentiments of their constituents. She said there was great resistance to change in the county.
Ms. Nathanson suggested that the transportation system was the key to the issue of growth. She pointed out
all the scenarios would result in more development outside Eugene-Springfield, and there was great
resistance from some to provide new transportation facilities. Some residents could live near their work, but
jobs were mobile and frequently residents had multiple transportation needs requiring them to use a car.
Residents value choice and the ability to move around.
Ms. Solomon noted the Region 2050 effort was purely voluntary, and she questioned whether, if the council
adopted its ultimate strategy, it would have to filter all its decisions through the strategy. She observed that
all three scenarios identified the Lane Community College Basin a growth area, but there had been
resistance to past development proposals in that area and they were not supported by local elected leaders.
Ms. Heinkel said the State's Regional Problem Solving Program gave jurisdictions increased flexibility but
did not give them latitude to act in a manner inconsistent with the statewide planning goals. All State
agencies and local participants must concur on the outcome. She said in November, staff would meet with
the Land Conservation and Development Commission to define how the effort would work to the benefit of
the regional partners.
Speaking to the issue of the Lane Community College Basin, Ms. Heinkel noted that under current
administrative rules, the basin could not be identified as an urban reserve area. If the City determined the
basin was a suitable area for growth, the process enabled Eugene to expand even if the area in question did
not meet the letter of rules. Ms. Solomon observed the process appeared to add more bureaucracy and
questioned whether there was some other way the project's goals could be accomplished.
Mr. Lowe said there was much left to decide in terms of how the process ultimately worked out. He recalled
that Eugene's Growth Management Study acknowledged the need for Eugene to interact with outlying
communities more, and the City's participation in the Region 2050 effort was an outgrowth of that
acknowledgment. He said no one really knew where the process was going, but there was general agreement
in the region about the need to discuss the implications of future growth. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the
process could fall apart, and it was possible nothing would happen. However, the conversation would have
occurred, and there would be more awareness about the implications of growth and even acknowledgment of
the need to continue the discussion. He suggested the effort was the beginning point of a larger effort that
could take 15 or 20 years to complete.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 5
Work Session
Ms. Taylor requested information about the cost of the project and the number of participants. Ms. Heinkel
did not have an exact number of participants. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that a single participant from
one small community was not representative of that community. She thought for all the county's communi-
ties to reach agreement on their goals would take a very long time to accomplish. Ms. Taylor believed a
logical outcome of the process could be that local agencies shared revenues and service responsibilities, but
did not want to have a regional government if that was a goal of the process. Mr. Lowe said the issue of
regional government was a question rather than a goal.
Mayor Torrey thought the Region 2050 process an improvement over the Growth Management Study
process because it involved other Lane County communities, and what Eugene did had an impact on those
communities. He noted that the policy board was discussing strategies rather than policies. He thought the
discussion was worthwhile given the interrelationships between communities and the impact that activities in
one community had on its neighboring communities. As an example, he cited the potential for Junction City
to allow different development patterns along Highway 99 than those Eugene preferred. He thought it best
that Eugene and Junction City have an opportunity to discuss that issue.
Mayor Torrey hoped the community got a better handle on its buildable lands inventory soon.
Mayor Torrey said the region needed to find a way to help the smaller communities address their infrastruc-
ture problems.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The
motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments and questions.
Mr. Kelly said he was also skeptical about the process but preferred to try it as opposed to not trying at all.
He said he would not support the project if he thought it would circumvent local policies or laws. The
policy board had not discussed the concept of a regional government, and he did not think there was support
on the policy board for the idea. He believed the Region 2050 recommendations could only be realized if the
local governments participating in the effort incorporated the recommendations into their local ordinances
and planning documents. He acknowledged a failure on the part of one community to adopt the recommen-
dations could be an issue.
Speaking to a concern expressed earlier by Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly clarified that the scenarios accounted
for development inside the UGBs in that an overall density inside each UGB was presumed in each scenario.
Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the transportation system was a critical issue. He expressed
concern to Ms. Heinkel about embarking on the public outreach effort without a substantive transportation
model.
Ms. Bettman agreed the dialogue was worthwhile, but questioned the cost of the process creating the
dialogue. She also believed that cost of implementing the agreed-upon strategy for individual jurisdictions
could be quite high. Ms. Bettman believed local governments had the tools they needed to ensure livability,
and it was up to the individual jurisdictions to determine if that was what they wanted to do. She did not
believe a voluntary program would be effective as there would be no enforcement mechanism to stop a
development that the affected jurisdiction desired. Ms. Bettman further objected that each scenario enabled
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 6
Work Session
the expansion of the UGB. The goals and objectives touched on the question on how services were funded,
and she was not aware of another funding tool outside of service districts.
Mr. Pap6 agreed with the mayor that it was important to have the conversation. He asked what was
envisioned in terms of the regional commuter service referred to in the Compact Urban Growth scenario.
Ms. Heinkel said that was not yet defined, and more would be known when the transportation modeling was
done. The scenario assumed a regional commuter services for the population level to be achieved..
Mr. Pap6 suggested that the formation of a regional area commission on transportation could be a useful
way to achieve some of the goals of the process.
Mr. Meisner distinguished between policies, strategies, and implementation steps, and noted that it was
relatively easy to adopt the Growth Management Study policies, but community resistance to much of the
policy implementation was high.
Mr. Meisner questioned the omission of towns such as Marcola and Harrisburg from the effort, emphasizing
the rapid growth in the latter community. He asked what the "market shed" for Eugene-Springfield actually
was.
Ms. Nathanson said several years ago she had been supportive of having a regional discussion about growth
for the reasons cited by Mayor Torrey. She thanked Mr. Lowe for pointing out that a venue for discussion
now existed and that the process was the start of a longer discussion.
Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Heinkel to prepare information for the council regarding the cost of the process
and the staff resource it required.
C. WORK SESSION:
Motor-Assisted Scooters on Off-Street Paths
Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Diane Bishop and Sergeant Derel Schulz joined the council for the item.
Ms. Bishop shared some illustrative examples of the vehicles in question, noting they came in different sizes
and shapes. She reported that under State law, operators of motor-assisted scooters must be 16 years of age
and older and must wear helmets. The vehicles are legal on City streets with speed limits of 25 miles or
lower. They can also be operated on streets with higher speed limits but must be driven in the bicycle lane.
They are prohibited on sidewalks, and may not be driven at speeds faster than 15 miles per hour. Ms.
Bishop said that motor-assisted scooters can also be ridden on paths, but State law provides for local control
over paths. Currently, City park rules preclude motorized vehicles on City park paths. Many other rules
that apply to bicycles also apply to motor-assisted scooters, such as signaling and having lights at night.
Ms. Bishop said that the City had heard concerns from path users about the use of motor-assisted scooters
on city paths. Those concerns were that the vehicles traveled at high speeds, were too noisy, polluted too
much, and created additional congestion on paths that were already heavily used. Path users particularly
object to their use in natural areas. Many path users believe the scooters are inappropriate because the
paths were designed for bicycle and pedestrian use.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 7
Work Session
Speaking to the issues of noise and pollution, Ms. Bishop said residents also expressed concern about the
use of such vehicles in neighborhoods in general.
Ms. Bishop termed motor-assisted scooters the ;;new kids on the block" and said they were sometimes used
for alternative transportation and by those who preferred not to use a car.
Sgt. Schulz discussed the impact of motor-assisted scooters on off-street paths. He made the following
points:
· Education about newly adopted laws is the key to the issue both for the public and for law en-
forcement - local dealers were not required to provide the information to purchasers of the mo-
tor-assisted vehicles. Some were providing good information and some were not.
· The largest hurdle to enforcement is that it involves a violation that must be observed by a po-
lice officer before any enforcement can occur.
· The Eugene Police Department heard complaints related to noise on the paths and the speed at
which vehicles traveled on the paths.
· The laws in place adequately regulate the use of motor-assisted vehicles on the roadway; the de-
partment's major concern is regulation on City paths.
Sgt. Schulz said he did not think motor-assisted scooters were a fad. He believed they were here to stay, and
their ramifications needed to be addressed.
Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments.
Mr. Meisner preferred to see noise from motor-assisted scooters regulated on both streets and paths. He
said motor-assisted scooters were very loud. He said that helmets were seldom worn by the scooter
operators he saw, including children. He wanted the vehicles to be prohibited on all city paths, not just on
paths in parks. Regarding enforcement, he acknowledged the problem caused by the fact a violation was
involved.
Ms. Taylor said she requested the work session because of the many constituent contacts she received. She
thought the speed, noise, and, in some cases, odors from the vehicles were all problems. She was surprised
that an operator's license was not required to operate a motor-assisted scooter.
Ms. Taylor moved that the City Manager bring back an ordinance to the council ban-
ning motor-assisted scooters from all City bicycle paths and bicycle lanes.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the City Manager bring back an ordi-
nance banning motor-assisted scooters from all City bicycle paths.
Mr. Meisner objected that the motion did not ban the vehicles on the street and did not address noise.
Ms. Taylor said the vehicles in question were noisy and created a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians. They
should not be allowed on the City's paths.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 8
Work Session
Ms. Bettman said she would like to see an ordinance that included a number of optional provisions,
including provisions addressing the noise issue, on-street use of motor-assisted scooters, and other salient
issues as they arose in the council's discussion. She wanted to hear more from the public, noting that she
had not heard from any constituent objecting to the use of motor-assisted scooters in bike lanes on the
streets. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly accepted Ms. Bettman's suggestion as a friendly amendment.
Ms. Bettman said that the violations of a possible ordinance did not have to be a higher enforcement priority
than other violations. As long as people know there is an ordinance and they could receive a ticket, she
believed it would have some effect as a deterrent.
Mr. Pap6 did not oppose looking at the issue of motor-assisted scooters but did not want the council to limit
its consideration of noise issues, for example, to such vehicles alone. He also pointed out that some bicycles
were motorized, and he was capable of bringing his own non-motorized bicycle up to 20 to 25 miles per
hour on a bicycle path. Mr. Pap6 suggested if the community had a problem with vehicles speeding on
bicycle paths, perhaps speed limits on bicycle paths were needed.
Mr. Pap6 opposed banning motor-assisted scooters from on-street bicycle lanes as he thought that was
where they appropriately belonged.
Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pap& She expressed concern about what seemed to be anti-scooter
sentiment, pointing out that the council frequently discussed the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the
community, and motor-assisted scooters were an alternate transportation form that could help accomplish
that. She also noted Sgt. Schulz's remarks that the vehicles were here to stay. Ms. Solomon wanted the
council to be able to provide for the use of motor-assisted scooters in the community, and advocated for
taking a more %an do" attitude toward their use.
Mr. Kelly said he had heard from enough constituents to believe there were gaps in the State law that should
be addressed. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that the council needed options to consider. He did not think
any councilor was expressing opposition to motor-assisted scooters as such, but rather the council was
concerned about the impacts and the compatibility of such vehicles with other City path uses. He said that
he received complaints about the gas-powered scooters as opposed to the electric-powered scooters and
suggested that staff might want to distinguish between the two types when it considered options. He noted
that State law distinguished between motor-assisted scooters and motor-assisted bicycles, and he thought
those devices were very different from motor-assisted scooters in terms of their noise and pollution impact.
Mr. Kelly requested that staff return with a draft ordinance that did not restrict the ability of people to use
motorized devices for basic mobility due to a disability.
Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, Mr. Kelly said he walked and bicycled frequently on the City's paths,
and was not anti-scooter when the scooter was on a roadway, but when he was out for a quiet walk having
such a vehicle coming up behind him at 20 miles per hour was not a pleasant experience.
Ms. Nathanson said if scooters became a popular alternative form of commuting, that could be a good thing.
However, she acknowledged that residents were increasingly unhappy with the competition for use of the
City's multi-use paths. Ms. Nathanson did not want to create an ordinance that made distinctions based on
the characteristics of the vehicle involved, and advocated for a focus on impact. She pointed out that the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 9
Work Session
council could not anticipate all the rapid technological advances that might occur in such vehicles. Where
possible, she wanted to focus on what the council was attempting to achieve.
Mr. Poling supported the motion because he wanted to open up a dialogue on the subject. He believed the
focus of the City's effort needed to be on education and enforcement, particularly education of parents given
the scooters were heavily used by children, frequently without helmets. He said the draft ordinance should
be broad enough to encompass devices such as motor-powered skateboards. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson
about the need to focus on impact. He said there were legitimate reasons for the use of the scooters, and a
discussion about that needed to occur.
Mr. Meisner supported the motion, which he considered sufficiently broad to address the issue that had been
raised. He believed the noise issue needed to be addressed more broadly; he pointed out the City's noise
ordinance addressed structural noise but not vehicular noise. He thought that was a gap, and called for a
~noise ordinance with teeth." He looked forward to the options presented to the council.
Mayor Torrey determined from Sgt. Schulz that the minimum age for the use of such scooters was 16, and
the parent was liable for the violation of allowing the minor to operate the vehicle. The penalty for the
violation averaged $90. Failure to wear a helmet was $25.
Mayor Torrey asked if the City was liable for a collision that occurred on its multi-use paths between the
rider of an uninsured scooter and another individual. Ms. Bishop believed that the rider or parent of the
rider would have liability.
Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments, Sgt. Schulz noted that there were some statutes that address noise
from vehicles but they were specific to motor vehicles and did not include motor scooters.
Ms. Taylor said she was also concerned about the safety of pedestrians.
Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Bishop that the only community she was aware of that had passed laws
limiting scooters on paths was Corvallis. A Portland representative indicated to her that Portland had not
experienced any issues with them yet.
Mr. Pap~ emphasized the need to focus on outcomes and to act broadly. He determined from the maker of
the motion and the second that the motion did not preclude consideration of other motorized vehicles, such as
motorized skateboards.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 10
Work Session
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 11
Work Session
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Regular Meeting
Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall
June 14, 2004
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David
Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon.
His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. He
noted that Councilor Solomon was excused for the first part of the meeting.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum.
Gary Nauta, 2300 Oakmont Way, #201, President of the International Alliance of Fire Fighters Local 851,
shared information on union bargaining regarding the proposal to privatize fire service at the Eugene
Airport. He related that he had met on June 4 with the bargaining team in a ~last-ditch effort" to attempt a
possible remedy to the issue, but the meeting lasted 20 minutes and the City's proposal was completely
~unfeasible." He asserted the City was unwilling to consider other options and the two units remained at an
impasse. He said bargaining was otherwise complete, with the exception of a few unanswered questions.
The only question for the council was whether it would allow the City Manager to continue on the path
toward privatization of this service.
Mr. Nauta continued to believe this was a policy issue and not an issue on which the City Manager should
have the unilateral capacity to decide. He stated he failed to understand how the council, as elected officials,
would not intervene on this issue. He stressed the importance of the council taking a stand and sending a
clear message to the City Manager that privatization of the fire and emergency medical services (EMS) at
the airport was a damaging and unsafe business practice. He underscored that no taxpayer money would be
saved by such a change and questioned the wisdom of placing the traveling public at a greater risk in these
times of heightened security.
R. Kris Millegan, 39830 McKenzie Highway, Springfield, said he was coordinator of a Eugene event that
was part of a world-wide movement to legalize marijuana. He asked under what authority the City of
Eugene could supercede the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights and prohibit his right to
use cannabis. He also questioned the right of the City to arrest, charge, incarcerate, and cause financial loss
to a person for possession of marijuana. He called marijuana a ~gifl from nature's God." He asserted that
cannabis possession statutes were ~void admissio" and that that elected officials could be held personally
liable for wrongful arrest. He noted that the prohibition of alcohol had required a constitutional amendment.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 1
Regular Meeting
He said civil rights were inalienable and should not be denied. He provided his testimony in writing.
Councilor Solomon arrived.
Mayor Torrey, noting that 20 people had signed up for the Public Forum, asked for a motion to extend the
time allotted for it.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to limit the time
of each speaker to two minutes so that all speakers could have a chance to
be heard. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1 (Councilor Taylor voting
no).
Bill Dwyer, 125 East 8th Avenue, Lane County Commissioner, opposed the privatization of fire and EMS
services at the Eugene Airport. He did not find the proposal to be in the public interest. He said the job of
elected officials was to balance responsibilities and weigh all factors related to the issues before them. He
held great respect for the professional firefighters and police and how they placed their lives on the line for
citizens on a regular basis. He acknowledged there was a great investment in their training and the salaries
of the personnel at the airport were paid for by the airlines and, as a result, the passengers. Mr. Dwyer said
if he thought paying people less or having people who were not as well-trained do this job would result in
lower fares, it might interest him more. He opined that everyone knew this would not happen.
Mr. Dwyer asked why the City would choose to save money for the airlines at the expense of losing
professional service. He called it an ~ill thought-out attempt to institutionalize poverty at the government's
expense." He asked who picks up the cost of health and retirement benefits when the private sector
abandons them. He stated that the burden fell on the shoulders of government. He reiterated that privatiza-
tion of the essential service benefited the airlines, while it shifted more financial responsibility for people
without adequate health benefits or adequate salary on the taxpayers. In closing, he asked the council to
consider the effect this had on employee morale, labor relations, and human relationships.
Peter Sorenson, PO Box 10836, Lane County Commissioner, thanked the City Council and the Mayor for
the work they do. He asserted that landing fees should pay for both the regular EMS and fire service as well
as the Air Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) services and property taxes should not and do not pay for those
expenses. He stated that ARFF was required by federal mandate. He felt a person should feel protected at
the airport just as anywhere else. He said whether a public service should be privatized was a policy issue
to be determined by the Mayor and City Council.
Jill Simmons, 2381 Dale Avenue, president of the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA) Chapter
1, said she represented 900 classified employees and served as a Zone 4 State Director for OSEA and
represented 26 chapters in the state of Oregon. She spoke to the City Manager's proposal to privatize
ARFF services at the airport. She related that she had experienced similar issues with the school district as
the district had instructed management to explore outsourcing some food service and custodial positions,
affecting approximately 170 living wage jobs. She stated that contract language had been entered into
requiring that a task force of management and workers be formed to explore all options to meet needs of
management and workers and maintain the same high quality and standard the community had come to
depend upon. She said, because this process was used, the school district had made the %orrect" choice for
the community and continued to enjoy a high quality work force of employees who were invested in schools.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Regarding the recommendation for privatization of ARFF services, Ms. Simmons predicted that such
privatization would reduce dramatically the level of fire and emergency service at the airport and the low-
paid contract employees would have minimal training and be unable to fight structure fires, vehicle fires,
wild land, and grass fires. She asserted the contract employees would also have little or no training to
provide emergency services. She stated that Eugene firefighters were highly-skilled professionals with
training in hazardous materials, weapons, mass destruction, confined spaces, and technical rescue.
Bob Bussel, 3054 Grand Cayman Drive, spoke as the director of Labor, Education, and Research Center at
the University of Oregon and as a citizen concerned about the security of the community. He said it was
clear the private contractors who were profit-oriented had incentive to keep expenses down and one method
of doing so was by providing less extensive training. He asked if, in the wake of the tragic events of
September 11,2001, the City wanted workers at the airport who were less qualified to handle emergency
situations. He noted that after September 11,2001, the federal government determined that baggage
screeners should be government rather than private employees for just this reason. Private contractors also
save money by paying less in wages and benefits.
Mr. Bussel asked if the City wanted to risk having workers receive experience with the private contractor
and subsequently leave in search of employment that paid better wages and offered better benefits. He asked
if the community really wanted to take family-wage jobs and downgrade them as private contractors
invariably do. He questioned whether this was the signal the City wanted to send as a matter of public
policy and an expression of what the community valued. He felt that the City was prepared to displace
committed, highly skilled employees and replace them with lower paid, less-qualified people. He asked the
council to let the firefighters continue to perform the needed public service.
Robert Ackerman, 186 Harvey Drive, State Representative of District 13, spoke on the airport privatiza-
tion issue. He said public safety had always been a major reason for municipal organization and the citizens
have never compromised on this. The post-September 11 environment required that the City maintain the
highest level of public diligence and he asserted the privatization of ARFF services at the airport would
seriously compromise this. He called it ironic that, in the event of a real emergency, the private fire
contractor would have to call the Eugene Fire and EMS as a back-up. Ultimately, he said, this would
subsidize the private contractor, and he wondered how this was factored into the bid.
Mr. Ackerman predicted this action would also set a precedent of other public safety functions. He felt that
opposition to privatization of police services warranted opposition to the privatization of airport fire
services. He thought it "amazing" that the community paid so little attention to the cost of public buildings
and commented that "we easily digest" other large expenses, such as $120 million for a new basketball
stadium, $350 million for Sacred Heart Hospital, and $75 million for the new courthouse. Mr. Ackerman
asserted the cost of airport fire services should be viewed in the context of these enormous costs.
Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, conveyed his agreement with the former speaker.
Mr. Miller said he attended some graduation ceremonies at the University of Oregon. He announced he was
running for a seat on the school board for School District 4J.
Gary Gillespie, 790 East 23rd Avenue, opposed contracting out fire and rescue services at the airport. He
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 3
Regular Meeting
underscored that not every plane would crash, nor would every passenger experience a medical emergency;
but in such an instance, the service was there. He called the service ~insurance" against tragedy. He did not
think that fares would be lowered should landing fees be lowered. He asked which elected or appointed
official wanted to be the first person to have to step before the press and the public and explain what went
wrong when something did happen, why it went wrong, and why the services that could have been provided
were not there.
Zach Vishanoff, Patterson Street, expressed his concern about nanotechnology. He said he provided
information on alleged hazards of nanotechnology to the council in writing.
Mr. Vishanoff conveyed his concern regarding the proximity of the railroad tracks to the potential hospital
site. He hoped there would be a public hearing on this. He felt it had been difficult to speak at the public
hearing on the hospital's certificate of need.
Mr. Vishanoff asked if the privatization of fire services at the airport was a part of %mart Growth." He
thought there was much in the idea of %mart Growth" that was not being brought to light.
In closing, Mr. Vishanoff asserted that the former Condon School could be razed and asked that it be
designated a historic building instead.
Ken Martz, 3077 Willakenzie Road, related that the Monaco company jet had dropped a wheel off the
tarmac in January 2004. Airport fire services had arrived quickly and had leveled the aircraft and prevented
a large and potentially dangerous fuel spill from occurring. He stated that the aircraft had been pulled back
onto the tarmac without incident. He attributed this to the skill of the ARFF personnel at the airport and
stated that they expected this same level of safety and service to continue.
Mike Blomm~, 1634 Lorane Highway, director for Monaco Coach Corporation, stated that the company
had a large investment at the airport. He related that the company wished to be assured that the airport fire
department training, coverage, and support would not be diminished in the future. He questioned whether a
contractor's crew would have been as attentive to or as able to handle the incident related by Mr. Martz.
Major Dafoe, 93370 Highway 99 North, Junction City, owner of the Oregon Horse Center, commented that
the City was working with the McDougal brothers on annexing and trading a large piece of farm land behind
his property to build houses and a City park. He predicted future residents of such a development could
decide that they did not want a horse facility in their neighborhood and he could be evicted from the area.
He said his center was booked for 49 weekends of the current year and was a huge success. He said it
provided activities for young people and brought people to the community who paid for hotel rooms and ate
at restaurants. Major Dafoe stated that he had devoted much of his life and his money in the venture and
asked that the council consider keeping it rural.
¥icki L. Walker, PO Box 10314, State Senator for District 7, recalled that the Eugene firefighters had
received a letter from then City Managerpro tern Jim Carlson in March 2003, that said that airport finances
were in dire straits and the airport was at risk of losing airlines if there was not a substantial reduction of
expenses and lower landing fees charged to airlines. On January 21, 2004, the City Council met in a work
session to discuss the concept of a regional airport. At that time, Airport Manager Bob Noble and Public
Works Director Kurt Corey were both optimistic about the future of the airport, particularly the financial
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 4
Regular Meeting
picture. She did not know why the airport would choose to privatize ARFF services as it would not be in the
best interest of the public nor the eight family-wage jobs it provided the community. She underscored that
this change saved money for the airlines and did not benefit the taxpayer in any way.
Gary Henry, PO Box 2592, provided a packet of information in writing to the council. He related he had
the option to buy property adjacent to the Eugene Airport outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). He
proposed that the council consider bringing the property inside of the UGB for future development. He
suggested that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) could move there. He asserted the properties in
this area were currently being neglected and the change would "clean up" the area around the UGB.
Phil Barnhart, 182 Sunset Drive, State Representative for District 11, considered the possible privatization
of fire and emergency services an important policy issue as it involved an essential service for public safety
at the Eugene Airport. He asserted that maintaining current services at the airport was in the best economic
interest of the facility as well as a perception of lower safety standards could make people disinclined to
utilize the local airport. He encouraged the council to act to prevent privatization and maintain the growth
of the airport and its contribution to the local economy.
Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, president of the Friends of Eugene, doubted the Eugene Airport could
provide a critical mass for a robust independent fire service contractor.
Mr. Matthews opposed limiting testimony to two minutes as most people came with three minutes of
prepared testimony. He thanked Councilor Taylor for her opposition to the limit.
Mr. Matthews asked that Item (D), concerning a road right-of-way issue, be removed from the Consent
Calendar and discussed in greater detail. He asserted the transportation infrastructure planning in the
courthouse area was not right because there had been and continued to be systematic misrepresentation of
public testimony. He alleged that staff had dismissed 17 pieces of testimony without giving it consideration.
Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, called the recent election results a "legal left-wing takeover" of City
government. He advocated for City Councilors to be voted into office citywide instead of by ward.
Ron Teninty, 999 Brookside Drive, a 37-year representative of the Teamsters Union, shared that he had
dealt with the issue of privatization in many venues. He said the reason privatization worked was that it
"got the job done more cheaply" and the reason the job was done more cheaply was that it paid workers less.
He asked the council to consider the long-term effect on morale of sending a message to employees that their
jobs were up for bid any time and all of the time. He stressed that the value would no longer be placed on
the quality of the work of an employee and this would degrade services.
Floyd Prozanski, PO Box 11511, State Senator, provided Bill Dwyer's comments in writing as a favor to
his fellow colleague. He agreed with Mr. Dwyer that first responder services should never be privatized.
He called it a "commitment with the community" to ensure the services were there. He reiterated that, in the
event of a catastrophe that a contractor could not take care of, Eugene Fire and EMS would be called, and
there would have to be cross-training to make this work. He felt such training with a private contractor
would be unfeasible.
Mr. Prozanski registered his opposition to the use of motorized vehicles on the bike paths as they posed a
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 5
Regular Meeting
safety hazard.
Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called on the council for comments.
Councilor Taylor apologized for the two-minute limit on Public Forum testimony. She reiterated her
opposition to the privatization issue. She felt the evening's testimony to be very compelling.
Regarding testimony on agricultural land, Councilor Taylor conveyed her firm belief that it should stay
zoned for agricultural use, as that type of land was needed.
Councilor Pap6 noted, with interest, the level of attention the privatization issue had brought to the
foreground. He stated that when the City of Eugene had tried to raise interest in regionalizing the airport in
order to gain more support from the surrounding area for it, no one stepped forward. He said the City paid
from the General Fund into an Airport Marketing Fund. He suggested, given the level of interest in the
airport, the creation of a special district be reinvestigated. He felt it unfair that the promotion of the airport
should only fall on the backs of the taxpayers of Eugene.
Councilor Bettman apologized for the shortened time for testimony. She added that this had been a part of
council process rules adopted by a majority vote and it was important to adhere to the rules. She encour-
aged all those who testified to submit their testimony via email to the council. She stressed that it would all
be read.
Councilor Bettman stated that the City paid a lot for the training of its fire and first responders. She
believed that the public needed to be able to trust that, in the event of disaster, those would be the profes-
sionals that would respond. She looked forward to the work session on the item.
Councilor Bettman commented that there was inequity in how properties were brought or not brought into
the UGB. She said she would address this further in the next discussion.
Councilor Solomon indicated she would address Mr. Dafoe's concerns in the course of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilor Kelly thanked all of the people for testifying. He felt the testimony regarding privatization had
made a number of compelling points.
Councilor Kelly also thanked Mr. Dafoe. He felt Mr. Dafoe raised a legitimate concern and that people
moving into a potential subdivision next to Mr. Dafoe's horse center could take offense at the odor.
Councilor Meisner thanked all those who spoke about privatization of City services. He had been gratified
that when he requested the work session on the policy issue, his colleagues had to hold it. He concurred with
the remarks of Mr. Prozanski. He appreciated Ms. Walker's testimony regarding the more favorable
financial picture of the airport that had been painted when the issue of creating a special district was raised.
Mayor Torrey noted the work session on privatization of fire services was scheduled for June 23.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 6
Regular Meeting
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- February 10, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
- May 10, 2004, Work Session
- May 10, 2004, City Council Meeting
- May 12, 2004, Work Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Approval of HOME Investment Partnerships Program Funding for Low-Income
Housing Projects
D. Resolution 4790 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the
Acquisition of Property Interests for Improvements to the Transportation Infrastruc-
ture in the Vicinity of the New Federal Courthouse
E. Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment to Swap Residential Land Inside and Outside the
Urban Growth Boundary and Add 77 Additional Acres to the Urban Growth Bound-
ary for a Community Park for Santa Clara
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Con-
sent Calendar.
City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated that Item (D) had been removed and placed on the agenda for July 26
for further discussion.
Councilor Kelly submitted corrections to the minutes via email. Mayor Torrey deemed them, without
objection, approved.
Councilor Solomon pulled Item (E). Councilors Bettman and Taylor indicated their intention to pull that
item as well.
Councilor Bettman noted her submission of corrections to the minutes. Mayor Torrey deemed them
accepted as submitted.
Councilor Poling said he had previously submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Torrey deemed them,
without objection, approved.
Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of items (D)
and (E) passed unanimously, 8:0.
Councilor Solomon sympathized with Mr. Dafoe. She opined that the City had run the horses out of town.
She asserted he was providing a great service. She supported the proposal for the land exchange but
advocated for building in language into any agreement that would address some of the concerns he had
expressed.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 7
Regular Meeting
City Attorney Glenn Klein stated that the process had not passed the point at which it could not be revised.
He said the council was merely initiating a planning process, a process in which Mr. Dafoe could partici-
pate, and the process would include public hearings. He added that if, after the process, all concerns had not
been addressed the council could vote it down.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to amend with a
substitute motion to direct the City Manager to return to the council with a
resolution to purchase the 77 acres, identified for a community park in
Santa Clara, at fair market value and to include the provision of exercising
eminent domain if necessary.
Speaking to the motion, Councilor Bettman said the one major criterion for purchasing the property was that
there was a willing seller. She asserted the process had moved far from having a willing seller. She felt
%ver-more resources" were being committed to the negotiation of an %xtraordinary, unprecedented deal
with one developer." She asserted that this move had not been a part of the initial directive to the Parks and
Open Space Division.
Councilor Kelly commented that he was aware of the imbalance in park facilities in the community. He
strongly wanted to see a community park developed in Santa Clara. He thought the situation had become
more complex. He expressed concern that the City was negotiating from a position of a disadvantage. He
supported the amendment and recommended that the City make a straight offer for acquisition of the 77
acres. He added that, given that it would benefit the community and that no one would lose their home, he
was not entirely opposed to exercising eminent domain.
Councilor Solomon disagreed that the issue was complex or that the City was disadvantaged in any way.
She could not imagine a better deal for the City as it was proposed that the City would swap land that was
not viable for housing for land that was viable and was also getting 77 acres for a park. She commented
that whatever profit was gained and who gained it had nothing to do with the council's decision.
Councilor Meisner earnestly supported development of a park in Santa Clara. He felt the current incarna-
tion of the deal had become much more complicated as the City was adding to the UGB substantially in
return for 77 acres of park land and the opportunity to purchase Moon Mountain property. He asked if
there were other parcels in the Santa Clara area that might have willing sellers.
Andrea Riner, Planning Manager for the Parks and Open Spaces Division, stated that the parcel in question
was the ideal site for a park of this proposed size.
Councilor Meisner liked the concept, but wanted to look at all of the options. He asked how the acreage fit
into the work of the Region 2050 effort. He asked how the council could look at such things in a compre-
hensive way, adding that he did not expect the response at the present meeting.
Councilor Pap~ agreed that the park was needed, but recalled that the transaction was to trade some
property and change the UGB. He asked how it had become more complex. Ms. Riner responded that one
complexity was the council's requirement that more protections be added to the Laurel Hill Valley site. She
said the division moved forward on negotiations to acquire the property. She clarified that 100 acres were
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 8
Regular Meeting
being acquired and 30 more acres were being donated as a conservation easement.
Councilor Pap6 noted that the main motion did not include much initial outlay of public money. He asked
where funding would come from to pay for the amended motion. Ms. Riner responded that it would come
from the 1998 bond measure for park land acquisition.
In response to another question from Councilor Pap~, Ms. Riner stated that, should the City pursue the
eminent domain purchase of the 77-acre property, it would cost in excess of $3.5 million and approximately
$2 million for the 100-acre purchase.
Councilor Pap~ said he would not support the amendment.
Councilor Nathanson commented that the motion on the table represented a ~major change in direction."
She opposed making such a change until staff could provide detailed information on the pros and cons of
taking this new direction. She expressed concern regarding what would happen to the land in the south hills.
She was not willing to support the motion until it was studied further.
Councilor Taylor felt this was not an appropriate item for the Consent Calendar. She also did not think it
was appropriate for staff to have spent so much time on the item. She commented that she needed more
information on the pros and cons of the deal to base a decision upon and reiterated her concern regarding
removal of agricultural lands.
Mayor Torrey stated that the council did instruct staff to bring back a proposal and staff had done so. He
felt Mr. Dafoe had made a valid point and he supported the inclusion of language that would address his
concerns. He said, through the council's content discussion, legislative intent would be determined. He
surmised that, should the amendment pass, the City would have acquired 77 acres outside of the UGB and
would not be able to develop the infrastructure for the park.
Mr. Klein affirmed this. He said a Metro Plan amendment would still have to be passed in order to develop
the land.
Mayor Torrey remarked that there was benefit in having a community discussion on this. He called it a
"tremendously needed" park development. He indicated he would vote against the amendment in the event
of a tie.
Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to add at the end of the mo-
tion the following language:
~... and to initiate the necessary Metro Plan amendment to include the
77 acres within the urban growth boundary."
Councilor Bettman accepted the friendly amendment.
In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Riner said the reason there was only funding for 19
acres and not 40 acres at this time was that the money had been dedicated for such a purchase ten years ago
and the land costs had increased.
Councilor Kelly had no problem with the profit the developer made on the swap, but was concerned with the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 9
Regular Meeting
total cost and benefit to the community. He related that Laurel Hill residents were very nervous about this
deal. He recalled presentation provided to the council in November, which had indicated that more public
meetings would be held, but this had not happened. Regarding Mr. Dafoe's concern, he was uncertain how
his situation would be mitigated once 100 houses were built in the area. He recommended the motion be
brought back as a straight acquisition of the 77 acres for the park.
Councilor Meisner said he was prepared to support the amendment based upon what he had heard.
However, he felt many questions had been raised.
Councilor Meisner, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to postpone fur-
ther discussion of the item until July 12.
Councilor Nathanson asked if the delay would benefit or hurt the City in the property acquisition. Mr.
Taylor replied that it did not make it better. He expressed his preference for the council to agree with the
recommended negotiation. He felt holding the item delayed the acquisition. Councilor Nathanson asked
staff to provide information on how this was affecting the assessed value.
Councilor Bettman asked if there were other unwilling sellers. She noted that originally a 40-acre park was
being sought, and now the proposal included 77 acres and the acquisition of Moon Mountain as well. She
felt there should be a comparison to what other opportunities were available and also with the changed
criteria. She wanted to know the cost of staff resources invested on this item to date, and how much more
the cost was projected to be.
Councilor Taylor asked what the property was currently worth. She also wondered why the City was not
pursuing a purchase of 40 acres as had been originally planned.
In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mayor Torrey recommended submitting questions via email.
Councilor Pap~ expressed concern about the credibility of the City organization. He felt the City ~moved all
over the map" in its decisions. Mr. Taylor responded that it was an important community decision and more
information would benefit the decision process.
Roll call vote; the motion to table passed, 6:2; Councilors Bettman and
Solomon voting in opposition.
Mayor Torrey called for a ten-minute break. The City Council reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
2004 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project
List
Peter Ruffler, Public Works Wastewater Division director, noted that Metropolitan Wastewater Manage-
ment Commission (MWMC) members were available to respond to questions.
Mr. Ruffler explained that the MWMC was comprised of members representing the three jurisdictions. He
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 10
Regular Meeting
said the City of Springfield had held a public hearing on the facility plan and project list on May 17 and had
adopted the plan on the same day and the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a work session on the
facilities plan and project list on May 19, a public hearing on June 9, and were scheduled to take action on
June 23.
Mr. Ruffler requested that the following be entered into the record:
· A letter from Michael Kortinhoff, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) manager, water
quality permit section, addressed to the Lane County Board of Commissioners regarding the
MWMC facilities plan;
· A memorandum from MWMC member Susie Smith and himself to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on peak wastewater flows in response to the public hearing held before the
commissioners;
· A letter from Dave Jewett, attorney for the MWMC, Meg Kieran, attorney for the City of
Springfield, and Jerome Lidz, City Attorney for Eugene, on the subject of MWMC processes,
dated May 27, 2004;
· A letter from Matt Noesan, project manager, and Mark Lazwell, of CH2M Hill, on the subject
of MWMC systems development charge (SDC) methodology;
· A memorandum from Ms. Smith and himself to the Mayor and City Council on the council as-
signment response to request for information on MWMC public involvement notification activi-
ties;
· Examples of project allocations, MWMC SDC update prepared by CH2M Hill on June 14,
2004;
· Typical costs for residents wastewater utility rate and SDC survey prepared by Eugene, Spring-
field, and CH2M Hill;.
· An email response from Mr. Jewett, MWMC legal counsel, to Roxie Cuellar, president of the
Homebuilders Association of Lane County, providing answers to questions submitted by her;
· The contractual agreement between the MWMC and CH2M Hill, consultant technical services
to the update of the MWMC facilities plan and redesign work.
Mr. Ruffler noted that the Lane Board of County Commissioners held the record open until June 16 at 5
p.m., and he encouraged the City Council to do the same.
Given the lack of time for staff to respond to questions, Councilor Kelly asked how council questions would
be addressed. Mr. Taylor suggested the councilors submit questions by email, with copies to all councilors,
and staff would answer the questions also providing copies to all councilors.
Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing.
Anne Ballew, 225 5th Street, Springfield, chair of the MWMC, said there was a need for a new facilities
plan as it was 27 years old and the facility itself was 20 years old. The commission, made up of elected and
appointed citizens from the cities of Springfield and Eugene and from Lane County, saw a need to evaluate
the whole plan. She related that the commission's consultant, CH2M Hill, and staff had worked diligently to
produce the plan, designed to meet new national pollution discharge elimination system requirements. She
noted the new elements the facility was required to address, the ammonia, the temperature of effluent in the
warmer part of the year, and a status quo on discharged solid waste. Additionally, she said the plan had to
improve the ability to handle stream flow increases in wet weather periods and accommodate future
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 11
Regular Meeting
population increases and possible businesses that would settle here.
Ms. Ballew reported that numerous opportunities for public involvement had been provided. She stated that
the commission had spent many hours reviewing the document before the council. She recommended the
council adopt the MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-Year Project List.
Walt Myer, 3982 Brae Burn Drive, citizen appointee to the MWMC and Eugene resident, stated that the
City had a responsibility to plan, build, and operate wastewater treatment facilities so that wastewater
discharged into the river was clean and protected the river. He asserted the facilities plan laid out such a
plan. He shared that he worked for an environmental engineering firm that worked in many of the counties
in Oregon. He assured the council that the plan before it was the right plan and met important goals. He
said it would allow the City to protect the river and would plan for growth. He underscored that the plan
maximized existing investment. Many of the improvements were retrofits and fixes of facilities. He urged
support for the plan.
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, expressed his uncertainty as to whether this was the right plan for the
area. He related that the public hearings were held at 7:30 a.m. and were not well attended. He felt this
hampered public input.
Mr. Biggs thought the gravel facility north of Beltline Road, rumored to be closing, could be utilized as a
bio-swale which would reduce the temperature and act as another filter. He recommended the council
oppose the plan.
Joshua Skov, 2089 Garfield Street, said he was a member of the SDC committee, a citizen of Eugene, and a
business owner. He noted his comments would address both items subject to public hearings. He stated that
the proposed facility would protect the quality of life in that it addressed continued population growth. He
underscored that the MWMC had met its charge as it had done %xcellent work" in engaging a number of
constituencies. If some views had not prevailed, it was not due to lack of representation. He called the
SDCs low by any current standard and said every comparable community in Oregon had higher SDCs. He
attributed the lack of higher SDCs to the past good work of the MWMC. He felt the current SDCs to be
abnormally low and, as such, they provided poor context for comparison to the proposed changes to the
SDC methodology. He supported ~getting on with the improvements."
Judy Volta, 91070 South Willamette Street, Mayor of Coburg, spoke in support of the MWMC 20-Year
Project List. She noted that Coburg had a population of 2,000, but employed 3,500. She related that it was
one of the last cities of its size in the state that did not have its own wastewater system. Industries ran on
septic systems. She said Coburg had recently been declared a regional groundwater management area due to
nitrate contamination. She shared that Coburg had participated in the annual United Front lobbying trip to
Washington, DC, and its representatives were asked if the area was working as a region to solve the
problem. Ms. Volta stated that, out of necessity, Coburg was working on a stand-alone wastewater facility.
She conveyed the desire of Coburg to work with the region to resolve wastewater issues. She said assurance
had been received from the Governor's Economic Revitalization Team that it would look for funding for a
feasibility study to look into the possibilities and whether it would be a good idea for Coburg be a part of the
MWMC. She asked the council to allow this discussion to take place. She emphasized that Coburg was
willing to pay its way and was projected to only raise the amount of effluent by one percent.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 12
Regular Meeting
Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, representing the Lane County Home Builders Association, submitted
testimony in writing. She alleged the facilities plan was tied too closely to SDCs. She predicted the addition
of Coburg would affect the project list and, as such, thought a decision should be deferred until it was
known whether Coburg would join. She thought the SDC issue could be settled without the facilities plan.
She asserted the public had not adequately weighed in on the plan and urged the City Council to call for
more public examination of it. Ms. Cuellar asserted that the community was only just getting involved.
Mike Hudson, 2760 Chuckanut Street, spoke as the City administrator for Coburg. He echoed the
comments of Ms. Volta, and reiterated the desire of Coburg to be a part of a new facility. He suggested that
Coburg could hold back its flow during peak hours if necessary. He said it was ecologically and economi-
cally appropriate for a partnership. He stressed that Coburg had no interest in "punching a hole" in the
urban growth boundary (UGB). He noted that the community of Turner had successfully formed a regional
wastewater district with the City of Salem.
Terry Couuolly, 1401 Willamette Street, Chamber of Commerce, asserted that the MWMC Facilities Plan
and 20-Year Project List were very complex and technical. He said, post review of the plan, the chamber
was uncertain whether the plan was too much, too little, or too soon. As such, the chamber did not support
or oppose the project list, but was not indifferent to it as the $144 million price tag was the type of
infrastructure expense that warranted the attention of the chamber and of the public. He listed questions that
could illustrate items needing explanation before the public, as follows:
· How often does the region currently fail to meet 100 percent peak wet weather flow treatment
and would any of those occurrences have required a capacity expansion anywhere near the
magnitude of the 102 million gallons per day called for by the MWMC Facilities Plan?
· Is DEQ requiring the MWMC to build to the worst case scenario that may never occur and, if
so, have those assumptions been challenged?
· In terms of capacity size and system performance relative to population and total number of us-
ers, does the MWMC plan exceed, do less than, or be on par with what other communities were
having to do?
Mr. Connelly related the chamber's request that the council get as much information as it needed to make an
informed decision, given that the plan represented a substantial investment.
Craig Costello, 481 Ventura Street, expressed great respect for the MWMC Facilities Plan and hope that
Coburg could be a partner in it.
Phil Barnhart, 182 Sunset Drive, State Representative for House District 11, spoke in support of Coburg's
position on the issue of the potential expansion of the MWMC to include it. He called Coburg an "economic
engine" for the area with people moving back and forth over the "artificial boundaries" created by
government all of the time. He urged the city councils of Eugene and Springfield and the Lane Board of
County Commissioners to consider an expansion, over the course of this project, to include the City of
Coburg. He felt a pipeline between Coburg and Eugene would not be a difficult undertaking and would
ultimately provide cost savings.
Diana Aberuathey, 2620 Oak Street, expressed appreciation for the councilors' service to the community.
She averred there may not be adequate protection of the water quality of the Willamette River. She urged
support for the plan before the council. A great deal of money had already been spent in determining
technical options, costing them out, and selecting the best of them. She called the process efficient and
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 13
Regular Meeting
effective and said the staff members, with input from citizen advisors, had selected the least cost alternative
that would meet the new federal guide lines. She commented that, while some complain of the high cost of
the proposed infrastructure, the health of the river was priceless. Ms. Abernathey termed it shocking to
consider that the City would plan to violate the discharge permit and pay the fines. She called this "highly
irresponsible stewardship." She stated that, due to a history of effective and forward-thinking planning of
infrastructure, the current SDC rates were among the lowest in the State. She underscored that the best plan
had been identified and any "foot-dragging" would only result in a greater cost to the public.
Steve Greenwood, 2169 Essex Lane, introduced himself as a former State regulator and a member of the
Willamette Restoration Initiative Board of Directors and a public policy consultant. He echoed the last
speaker's sentiments and underscored that all of the effluent eventually went into the river. He stated that
much of the Willamette River had very poor quality as defined by DEQ standards, with some areas of the
main stem violating the levels for temperature, bacteria, and mercury levels. He stated that significant
regulatory changes had taken place since 1977 and it was time to update the MWMC Facilities Plan.
Regarding the cost, he agreed that $144 million sounded like a lot of money, but emphasized that it was in
line with what other communities were spending. He added that, as a professional in the field, he found the
staff and organization of the MWMC was one that tried to reduce their costs as much as possible.
Camilla Pratt, 120 Westbrook Way, explained that she had served on a citizen advisory committee for the
Wet Weather Flow Management Plan for two years. She related that the committee had studied many
aspects of the plan and, in addition to meeting the requirements of State and Federal agencies, the committee
was concerned with the fairness of the plan, including its ability to be understood by various customer
classes and its ability to be administered effectively. She stated that the plan, completed in 2001, had been
adopted by the MWMC and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Since then, she said several more years of
careful investigation and analysis had been invested in other aspects of the MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-
Year Project List. She called it the obligation and responsibility of Eugene to ensure a high quality water
resource for the needs of all downstream users.
Larry Gunn, 32555 Beymer Road, spoke in support of the MWMC Facilities Plan. He opined that the cost
seemed reasonable and that it seemed the time was right for the council to endorse the plan. He recom-
mended doing the work now and not in the future when it would cost more.
Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing.
Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep the
record open until June 16 at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed
unanimously, 8:0.
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed Modifications to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Regional
Wastewater System Development Charge Methodology and Rates
Resolution 4791 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Methodology For Regional
Wastewater System; Amending Resolution No. 4740; and Repealing Resolution No. 4776; and
Resolution 4792 Adopting Amended Systems Development Charge Rates for Regional Waste-
water System and Amending Resolution No. 4740
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 14
Regular Meeting
Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing.
Anne Ballew, 225 5th Street, speaking on behalf of the MWMC, explained that the commission had
convened a citizen advisory committee, hired a consultant, and held open public meetings in late 2003 and
2004 to arrive at an equitable and well-reasoned method for charging growth for its share in capacity
increases in the system. She reported that the SDC methodology before the council was the consensus
outcome of the advisory committee's work. She stated that the SDCs would not pay for all capacity, but the
cost would be constant as what growth did not pay would become the burden of ratepayers. She said the
current permit expired in 2006 and the region needed to demonstrate compliance with new treatment
requirements. She reiterated that delay would increase construction costs and delay in adoption of the
revised SDC methodology placed additional costs on the shoulders of existing ratepayers.
Walt Meyer, 3987 Brae Burn Drive, stated that the MWMC Facilities Plan naturally led into the
development of the SDC methodology. He related that the MWMC hired legal counsel and financial
consultants to determine whether the changes were legal and were accurate. He said the MWMC continued
its relationship with its engineering advice so that it was assured that the legal and technical pieces melded
together in the development of the SDCs. He stressed that the MWMC had the responsibility to come up
with the appropriate balance between services fees, paid by existing users, and SDCs, which were a
mechanism to pay for growth. He conveyed his confidence in the resulting proposed methodology.
Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Lane County Home Builders Association, provided a 25-page letter from
the association's attorney and a 20-page letter from herself. She asked that the record be left open as she
had two boxes of further testimony to submit. She alleged that the MWMC wanted to go to court over the
SDC methodology.
Ms. Cuellar said the problems with the new methodology were that it had never been done before in the
State and it had no numbers attached to it. She asserted that 18 months ago, a group had discussed how to
clarify the existing State statutes to reduce the number of misunderstandings that occur between the
development community and jurisdictions and to reduce the number of resulting lawsuits. She related that
she asked for two clarifications, one of which was to prevent jurisdictions from doing the ;;double-billing"
that she alleged the MWMC methodology would have done, and the other had to do with the improvement
fee methodology. The latter clarification was added to the statute. She asserted that the methodology was
not based on the project list as the MWMC had indicated it did not think it needed to be so based. She
asserted that this was illegal. She cited Senate Bill 939. She opined that the MWMC was not willing to sit
down and work things out.
Councilor Pap6, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to keep the record
open until June 16 at 5 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Coun-
cilor Bettman voting in opposition.
Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 15
Regular Meeting
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 16
Regular Meeting