Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A - Approval of MinutesEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: July 26, 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 June 16, 2004, Work Session, June 22, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting, June 23, 2004, Work Session, June 28, 2004, Work Session and July 12, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. June 16, 2004, Work Session B. June 22, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting C. June 23, 2004, Work Session D. June 28, 2004, Work Session E. July 12, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040726\S0407262A. doc MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 16, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap& His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Recommendations on a Eugene Civic Center Vision Mayor Torrey thanked the members of the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee for their service on the committee. City Manager Dennis Taylor said it was his pleasure to formally present the vision adopted by unanimous consent of the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee. He related that what would be presented was the vision that the committee came up with for recommendation as well as the policies that inform the committee members. He asked Eric Gunderson from WBGS Architecture and Planning, PC, to present the report. Mr. Gunderson reported that the committee had done a great deal of work in the four months it had met, including review of the results of the design charette, identification of partnerships that could be formed in the Civic Center, estimation of space needs of all of the partners represented on the committee, and a review of alternative locations. The committee developed a set of major policy principles to guide it and the principles formed the basis of the adopted recommendation to the council. He said the members prepared a conceptual drawing to illustrate how those principles might be applied downtown. He stated that the committee also looked at how the buildings could be sequenced and looked at financing options for how the work could be accomplished. Mr. Gunderson summarized the policy principles, which sought to provide better government services and have a major impact to the downtown area, and highlighted them. He discussed the consolidation of government functions. He noted that government facilities were scattered in a wide variety of buildings over a multitude of sites. He underscored that consolidation was a key guiding principle as committee members wished to increase efficiency and service and to be able to provide citizens %ne-stop shopping." Mr. Gunderson noted that the designation of 8th Avenue as a ~Great Street" was a key goal of the Downtown Plan. He pointed out, on the illustration in Attachment B: Mayor's Civic Facilities Visioning Committee; MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Report and Recommendations, the suggested redevelopment of 8th Avenue with street trees, repaving, possible widening, as the connector between the downtown and the courthouse district. Continuing, Mr. Gunderson related that the enhancement of public open spaces had been a consistent feature of many of the ideas that had arisen from the design charette. He said the park block area would be connected via 8th Avenue to the courthouse area, dubbed "Cannery Square." Mr. Gunderson reported that the committee had considered the development of partnerships between entities such as the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Lane County Sheriff's Office (LCSO). The suggestion had been made that the Shedd Auditorium, run by the Oregon Festival of American Music (OFAM) could be approached to partner in the development of an adjacent parking garage. Mr. Gunderson gave a brief overview of the latter three principles, which included public safety services, the provision of adequate parking, and the utilization of cost-effective development approaches. Glen Svendsen, Division Manager for the Central Services Department Facilities Division, introduced the six members of the committee who were present. Mr. Taylor said it had been his honor to have served as chair of the committee and that he hoped to receive direction from the City Council on how to proceed. Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly commented that there was a "lot to like" in the vision and he expressed appreciation for the hard work the committee had contributed. He approved of the collaboration and the collocation that was being considered as it indicated to citizens that the City sought to be more efficient. He thought a 20-year or 16- year horizon was too short and questioned whether, through the natural growth of the community and services, the space needs might not be adequate in that span of time. He acknowledged, however, that the council had before it policy principles and not a motion to endorse a specific strategy. Mr. Svendsen said the policy principles would be guiding the development of more specific plans further on. Mr. Kelly asked staff to affirm that the action sought was only approval of the policy principles. Mr. Svendsen responded that the policy principles were the basis for future plans. Mr. Kelly expressed dissatisfaction with this response. He felt the council needed to have a clear idea of whether the vote at the present work session would set strategies in motion. In response to another question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Svendsen stated that the 1 O-year time horizon resulted from the council's direction to staff to make the horizon shorter than 20 years. He added that, though projecting longer than 20 years was difficult, the entire project would more likely have a 50-year horizon. He noted that one concept of the project was to develop buildings that could be added on to. Referring to page 5, Ms. Taylor commented that the assumption was that only timing and financing were yet to be determined. She approved of the policy principles, though felt hesitant about collocation. She did not think that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), for instance, would want to collocate with the City as it already had its headquarters. She supported Option 2 because she wanted more public input prior to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 2 Work Session proceeding with any plans. She thought input from charette participants had not been adequately consid- ered. Mr. Meisner conveyed his appreciation for the committee and its members. He said that prior to collaborat- ing with other government entities he wished to ensure that the government functions that were in the Atrium Building and the Pearl Street Public Works building, among others, were consolidated into the new civic center. Mr. Meisner wished to find all means possible for the City to make a substantial down payment toward a civic center. He wanted to guarantee to the public that the City was paying for the project in the most efficient way possible and in a way that minimized the need for new public revenues to the greatest extent possible. He welcomed more public input, but thought it should be focused on specific points in order to facilitate effective commentary. Mr. Poling also thanked the committee for its work. He noted that the Oregon Department of Transporta- tion (ODOT) projected out 25 years and asked if there was a ~magic number" staff was looking for. Mr. Poling stated, in addressing the policy principles, that this was a good example of how the City could show efficiency in government. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City needed to house its own functions before partnering or collocating with other government entities, though he thought some consolidation could save the City money. He felt the civic center would be a tool to redevelop the entire downtown area. Mr. Poling interpreted Option 1 to indicate that the policy principles would guide planning. He called it a tool to be used for the next step. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Svendsen stated that the language regarding parking intended that it be located in the vicinity of the civic center and not specifically in the building itself. Ms. Nathanson felt the criminal justice system did not work as a system. She said when she saw public safety services included in the building and that there were possibilities for partnerships, she felt it important to look at the possibility of a criminal justice or public safety services center in which there would be collaboration for provision of services. She thought some State services could be located at a shared facility. She did not think that between now and November 2004 there would be adequate time to explore collaboration between entities such as the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), Springfield, and Lane County on such a consolidation of services. She thought short-term collaborations would work. Ms. Bettman also thanked the committee and the participants in the initial charette. She asked if the committee had an opportunity to view the tape of the City Council discussion of the civic center. Mr. Taylor replied that they had not done so. Ms. Bettman said her highest priority was to have a rebuilt City Hall and Police Station. She also agreed with Mr. Meisner that the City should do its best to minimize the need for public revenues. Ms. Bettman felt the action the council was about to take was very significant and should not be taken lightly. She liked the vision generally and liked the policies generally, but questioned the underlying assumptions of the first and fifth policy principles. She noted there had been disagreement among the council on whether or not to collocate. For instance, while she supported the inclusion of the EPD station, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 3 Work Session she was uncertain as to whether the LCSO should locate there. She commented that, should other government agencies, such as the LCSO, collocate in the new civic center, other buildings would be left vacant in the downtown area. She questioned whether that assumption had been substantiated with data. Mayor Torrey emphasized that the action would only approve of the policy principles. His intent, should the motion pass, was to ensure that staff knew that it did not have permission to move on anything prior to bringing it back to the City Council. He also noted that any funding would be subject to the public hearing processes. He felt no councilors had said the intent of this was %ad" but he had heard some councilors comment on pieces of it. He stressed that the question before the council was whether, in general, conceptually, did the council support the direction the vision had suggested the City should take. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see the potential expansion of the buildings diagrammed. He also expressed concern that the potential for residential development on 8th Avenue would be eliminated by this document. He liked the concentration of civic facilities, but felt some residential development would enhance the area. He suggested there be another policy principle that took this into consideration. Mr. Kelly felt the discussion on collocation could be premature, as it needed to be ~fleshed out." Ms. Taylor opined that the comments indicated more thinking on the subject was needed. She reiterated that more public comment was needed as well. Ms. Taylor supported the idea of a criminal justice center, but felt it may be too soon to approach the idea on a ballot measure. Ms. Nathanson commented that the space should primarily be for the public and, therefore, it should not be interpreted that consolidation of City services should not include such things as records storage to the exclusion of more necessary public services. Ms. Nathanson disagreed that 8th Avenue could be a ~dead" street. She did feel that measures should be taken to orient buildings so that, when closed, the downtown blocks on the street did not feel intimidating and people felt free to walk between the downtown area and the river after dark. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor stated that a proposal would be brought before the council in July to address the community safety provisions with a financing plan that could include components that improved the parks or components of the ~Great Street." He welcomed council input for this in the July work session. Mr. Svendsen added that several financing options would be brought before the council. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments. Ms. Bettman liked the vision, but thought it would not pass at the ballot box. She felt this would lose ground. She opined that it had not been orchestrated in such a way that would enable a win. She recom- mended that the City determine whether or not it would consolidate with Lane County, because this made a big difference in the size of the building, what it looked like, and what it would cost. She noted the County had not had good luck with bond measures. She suggested that telecommunications tax fund could be dedicated to the two facilities so that the money went toward the vision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to accept the report and hold a public hearing prior to adopting the policy principles. Mayor Torrey suggested the public hearing be scheduled for July 12. Ms. Taylor conveyed her support for the motion. Mr. Kelly liked the siting along 8th Avenue and thought the amount and location of parking was appropriate, the restoration of the northwest Park Block, and he hoped that Farmer's Market people would be at the table to discuss what they though should happen. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. She asked that the public hearing be more specific. She suggested collaboration and collocation should be part of the hearing topic. Mayor Torrey recommended giving specific elements of the vision to the public and asking citizens to comment on them. Ms. Nathanson said the public hearing would be more valuable if it asked the public what the civic center meant to them, whether they wanted to consolidate, and how they felt the vision for 8th Avenue should proceed. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion. He felt it was narrowing the focus too much and that the question that needed to be asked whether they, over the course of the next 20 years, wanted to plan for a civic center. He thought they should be asked %ig questions," such as whether they wanted to share quarters with other jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon opined that the motion in the packet would have been completely appropriate. However, she indicated she would support the motion on the table. Mr. Poling supported the motion. Ms. Taylor hoped charette participants would participate in the public hearing. Mr. Kelly asked if a display ad for the public hearing with bulleted questions for consideration could be placed in The Register-Guard. Ms. Solomon pointed out that there had been a public process to date which included input from citizen committee members and the design charette. She felt this was a redundant action that said to the public ~we did not hear what we wanted to hear." Ms. Nathanson commented that often people do not become involved until they feel encroached upon. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Hospital Property Update Mr. Taylor called attention to the letter from the Chief Executive Officer of McKenzie-Willamette Hospital indicating the hospital's preference for the EWEB site. He asked Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle to speak on the item. Mr. Coyle reported that representatives of EWEB, McKenzie-Willamette Hospital, and the City of Eugene had met on an ongoing basis to address many of the issues associated with the development opportunity on the EWEB site. He noted the issues, some of which relate to development issues, zoning and land use issues, and transportation issues. He said three critical components for the development opportunity had emerged. One of these was time, as the hospital felt a strong need to expedite relocation. Another issue was cost, predominantly a buyer and seller issue. He related that the third element was the issue of access as it was critical to the function of the hospital. He stated that the proposal for the access had been the extension of Patterson Street with an underpass to the EWEB property and the extension of Agate Street north of the Riverfront Research Park accessing from the south. The third access point, from 4th or 5th avenues did not need improvement. Mr. Coyle stated that subsequent to City Council direction on the access proposal, staff would develop a cost estimate and a budgeting plan for the review of the council. He added that the City would speak to its partners on shared costs. For the present meeting, he said access would be the primary issue. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work that the City staff and staff-members from EWEB and McKenzie-Willamette Hospital had done. He did not think the recommended motion indicated that the City was thinking in terms of shared cost. He felt it said the City would pay for it. Mr. Taylor cited a number of funding mechanisms such as opportunities for State and federal grants, County Road Funds, Stormwater User Fees, and the Urban Renewal District, among others. He explained that, should the City Council approve the suggested motion, staff would return with strategies for financing the transportation facilities for council consideration. City Attorney Glenn Klein suggested adding to the end of the motion the following: ~... assuming that a financing plan is prepared by staff and brought back before the council for approval." Mr. Kelly shared his remaining concern, that of the precise routing from Agate Street to the hospital site. He said he would be more comfortable looking at a more recent map for this. Mr. Taylor assured him that the most recent map of the area would be used by the designing engineers. Ms. Bettman averred that more options should have been brought before the council. She said the Senate of the University of Oregon was on record as being unanimously opposed the alignment of Agate Street. She urged the council, given that this could be an issue and that timing was important, to consider another overpass closer to the other one. She opined the option before the council guaranteed opposition and suggested the language of the motion provide more flexibility. Ms. Nathanson expressed her willingness to support moving forward on location of a hospital in the downtown area of Eugene. Noting that the hospital was not the only entity investing in the area, she asked which option for access was helpful or not helpful on the ability of the other properties to be redeveloped. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Coyle responded that looped access to the EWEB property would assist in opening access to the downtown property. He said the improvement would ;;cure" the access problems created by the railroad tracks. Ms. Nathanson commented that she was always interested in opportunities to achieve multiple objectives. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the expense to taxpayers. She also opposed any further degradation of the river front. She reiterated her unhappiness with work done to the bike path by the Riverfront Research Park and the underpass that had been built there. Mr. Meisner asked to what degree transportation improvements for the hospital would undo transportation improvements to the courthouse area. He commented that he had heard some willingness on the part of the council to do so. Mark Schoening, City Engineer, stated that the improvements aligned with the two projects would be complementary. He said the courthouse improvements would change a little in the Patterson Street underpass. Mayor Torrey hoped the motion would include the two streets the hospital had asked for as well as an alternative for the Agate Street access if that would help the City Council toward affirming the improve- ments. He stressed that he did not want the City Council to risk its top policy objective of the year, that of siting a hospital, and that he did not want the hospital to relocate in Glenwood or Springfield. He was anxious to give staff the opportunity to continue the negotiations and anxious to hear how McKenzie- Willamette/Triad Hospital responded. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the City Man- ager to inform McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center that the City is will- ing to undertake construction of two transportation projects if Triad con- structs at the EWEB site a hospital with a value not less than $85 million. The exact new route from Agate Street to provide access to the property from the east will be determined through further discussions between the City, Triad, and the University of Oregon and brought back to the City Council for approval and a financing plan will be prepared and brought back to the City Council for approval. Mr. Kelly voiced his support for the motion. He recognized that the access would likely need a component north of the railroad tracks. He commented that there was no perfect solution when siting something like this in the middle of a City. Ms. Bettman clarified that the motion assumed agreement on the Patterson Street overpass. She advocated for expeditious planning for the financial component. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the motion did not fully encapsulate the proposed access improve- ments. Mr. Klein said the council could indicate its support for the Patterson Street overpass with nods of the head, adding that the motion meant to inform the hospital of the intent of the City and did not specifically initiate any projects. The councilors indicated their agreement that the Patterson Street overpass be included in the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson thought there should be collaboration between the University of Oregon and the City, as the University would benefit from this development as well. Mr. Klein said a timeline would be different depending on whether the route through the Riverfront Research Park was altered, as such a change would require a further land use process. He stated that staff would present two timelines. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 16, 2004 Page 8 Work Session MINUTES JOINT MEETING OF THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EUGENE CITY COUNCIL SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 22, 2004 6 p.m. Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall Commissioner Bobby Green presided, with commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, and Don Hampton present. Eugene Mayor James D. Torrey presided, with councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, George Poling, and Betty Taylor present. Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken presided, with councilors Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Christine Lundberg, and John Woodrow present. Staff Present: City Manager Dennis Taylor, Jim Carlson, Lynda Rose, Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene; Greg Mott, Cynthia Pappas, Meg Kiernan, Bill Grile, City of Springfield; Susan Smith; Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Mayor Leiken called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Commissioner Green called the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners to order. 1. WORK SESSION: Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services, Chapter ¥ Glossary; and Amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a Functional Plan of the Metro Plan. Springfield Planning Manager Greg Mott explained that there were two amendments to be considered because any amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Section of the Metro Plan required a similar amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). He referred to his memorandum of June 4, 2004, and attachments, which provided a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments. He briefly reviewed the information provided and indicated that the request for the amendments was initiated by the Springfield City Council on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) because of the current lack of information in the Public Facilities Element of the Metro Plan regarding requirements for sanitary sewer public treatment and collection facilities. He said not all facilities were in the Metro Plan and PFSP and the proposal was to include those facilities on the respective maps. Mr. Mott pointed out in the attachments to his memorandum a letter from the Lane County Home Builders Association and responses from Springfield City Attorney Meg Kiernan and CH2M Hill. He MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Work Session June 22, 2004 Page 1 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield distributed another letter from the home builders association to the planning commissions addressing the same issues. He stated that the Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene planning commissions were unanimous in forwarding recommendations to adopt the ordinances to amend the Metro Plan and the PFSP. He commented that while the ordinances were packaged separately, it was acceptable to amend both plans with a single ordinance. Councilor Ballew asked if the fact that two of the three jurisdictions had not adopted the PFSP would impact the ordinances. Mr. Mott replied that it would not present a problem as the rule did not obligate communities to adopt the PFSP to have a project for a facilities treatment plant improvement identified in it. MWMC Manager Susie Smith added that the information being incorporated was very basic and on a large scale; as MWMC refined its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each year changes would occur in the CIP that would not require amendments to the Metro Plan or PFSP. Commissioner Green asked what the intended outcome of the work session and public hearing was. Mr. Mott said the purpose was to identify all of the issues and questions related to the amendments in order to take action at a later date. Commissioner Green asked what would happen if, after the public hearing, jurisdictions agreed to the amendments to the plans but had issues with the funding mechanism. Ms. Smith replied that the amendments did not address the financing mechanism or fees; it only provided rough cost estimates for the project sites. She said the issue of how projects were funded would be addressed through the normal procedures that jurisdictions used for user rates and budget adoption. Councilor Kelly asked when the Eugene City Council was scheduled to take action on the amendments. Assistance City Manager Jim Carlson replied that action was tentatively scheduled for July 26, 2004. Mayor Leiken asked how much more staff time would be required to address changes to federal rules. Ms. Smith said the PFSP was part of ongoing planning work and would minimize the need for additional staff time and maintenance costs by determining how existing facilities could be retrofitted and improved, instead of building new facilities that would add staff, operation, and maintenance costs. She said there would be some increase in staff over time, but those would be offset by the efficiencies gained in plant operations. Mayor Torrey asked if the PSFP would need to be amended if the jurisdictions agreed to extend sanitary sewer services to Coburg. Mr. Mott replied that the PSFP and Metro Plan would require amendments. Ms. Smith said that currently service extensions outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB) were limited to the airport and areas that had been declared a public health hazard and that Metro Plan policy would have to be amended to include an additional community. Commissioner Morrison asked what the timeline would be for amendments to include Coburg. Mr. Mott said the process would be same as for the current amendments and that process was initiated in February 2004. Ms. Smith said that there would likely be additional steps required to evaluate issues such as cost and benefit, engineering, environmental factors, and governance that could take somewhat longer than the typical amendment process. She said that Mayor Leiken had recently directed staff to begin framing what an evaluation of the issue of including Coburg would entail. Mr. Mott added that another component was the fact that the Metro Plan did not include the City of Coburg and how that would affect the fundamental principles of the plan. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Work Session June 22, 2004 Page 2 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Commissioner Dwyer observed that the various plans were intended to provide a framework for urban and rural development. He commented that a regional wastewater facility necessary to address new regulatory standards was intended to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses. He said that 2,000 people worked in Coburg and lived throughout Lane County and he encouraged the jurisdictions to find a way to extend service to Coburg if it was determined to be feasible and logical to do so. He said that State funding was available to study the issue, but in order to access it there had to be some indication from jurisdictions that they were willing to proceed if the results of an evaluation were positive. He encouraged inclusion of a statement of intent in the PSFP. Ms. Smith replied that feedback from all three jurisdictions indicated an interest in studying the issue more closely to determine what was feasible. Commissioner Dwyer said that Coburg was at a crucial point and the Department of Environmental Quality had just declared the area north of Coburg through Linn County a groundwater-sensitive area because of nitrates and other factors. He said it was important to let Coburg know if the jurisdictions were willing to be partners. Councilor Bettman asked if the findings included with the ordinances distributed to the Eugene City Council were identical to the findings provided to the other two bodies. Mr. Mott replied that they were the same. Councilor Bettman said her understanding was that Coburg wished to conduct an initial study of the issues and was interested in support from the other jurisdictions that they were willing to evaluate the feasibility; Coburg was not requesting a plan amendment. She expressed her concern about the financial implications because Coburg did not have SDCs (system development charges), which was what encouraged businesses to locate there. She said that unless there were federal or state funds available to assist Coburg to replace the capacity that it was in deficit of, she could not understand how service could be extended without the other jurisdictions subsidizing that infrastructure. Councilor Ballew echoed Councilor Bettman's remarks and emphasized that the impacts to Eugene and Springfield need to be clearly understood before a commitment to extend service to Coburg was made. Mayor Torrey suggested that it would be helpful if the City of Coburg would put in writing those issues to which they wanted responses from the jurisdictions. Councilor Fitch commented that Springfield directed its executive to begin framing the evaluation process and asked if Lane County and Eugene were providing the same direction to their staff. Commissioner Dwyer and Mayor Torrey indicated that the Lane County and Eugene executives had been asked to develop information on the issues to be addressed and resources required. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m: 12004~j'ointlelected officials~j'eoO40622ws, doc MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Work Session June 22, 2004 Page 3 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield MINUTES JOINT MEETING OF THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS EUGENE CITY COUNCIL SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION June 22, 2004 7 p.m. Library Meeting Room, Springfield City Hall Commissioner Bobby Green presided, with commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, and Don Hampton present. Eugene Mayor James D. Torrey presided, with councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, George Poling, and Betty Taylor present. Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken presided, with councilors Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Christine Lundberg, and John Woodrow present. Staff Present: City Manager Dennis Taylor, Jim Carlson, Lynda Rose, City of Eugene; Greg Mott, Cynthia Pappas, Meg Kiernan, Bill Grile, City of Springfield; Susan Smith; Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Mayor Leiken called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Commissioner Green called the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners to order. 1. Recognition of Afro Cultural Technical Scientific Olympics Medal Winners from Lane County Schools Commissioner Green said that recognition of Afro Cultural Technical Scientific Olympics (ACTSO) medal winners was part of a continuing effort by all three jurisdictions to demonstrate unified partnership and support for the young people who participated in the ACTSO program. He introduced Marilyn Mays, President of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who would be accompanying the medal winners to the national competition in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania along with other chaperones. Commissioner Green explained that ACTSO was a year-round academic program that allowed participants to further their talents in the arts and sciences. Medals were awarded locally in several different categories; local winners went on to compete at the national level with other medalists from across the country. He expressed his appreciation to the local elected officials for their recognition of ACTSO participants and their achievements. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Regular Session June 22, 2004 Page 1 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Commissioner Green, Mayor Torrey, and Mayor Leiken presented proclamations to medal winners residing within their respective jurisdictions. Commissioner Green asked Y~h~ StubbY, medalist in vocal music, to conclude the ceremony by performing an a cappella rendition of the song she sang in the competition, entitled ~What About the Children." 2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance to Amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services, Chapter ¥ Glossary; and an Ordinance to Amend the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a Functional Plan of the Metro Plan. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing for the Eugene City Council. Commissioner Green opened the public hearing for the Lane Board of County Commissioners and read the ordinance titles for the second time. Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas read the ordinance titles for the second time on behalf of the City of Springfield. Springfield Planning Manager Greg Mott provided an overview of the amendments to the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). He said the PFSP amendment proposed additions to several tables, two new maps, and a new amendment process for additions or deletions. He included for the record a staff report that included all of the proposed text amendments to both plans, findings generated by previous public hearings before the Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene planning commissions. He noted that all three planning commissions forwarded affirmative recommendations to their respective elected officials in support of the proposed amendments. Mr. Matt pointed out a change to the proposed amendment as reviewed by the planning commissions that appeared as a footnote on page 2 of the staff report. He said the change added the phrase %r discharge" to proposed new policy G.9 of the Metro Plan. He said the text was inadvertently omitted and adding it back had been determined by legal counsel to not constitute a substantial change. Mr. Matt summarized that the amendments were determined to be consistent with particular requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660 Division 11 regarding what was required to be included in public facilities plans. Springfield City Attorney Meg Kiernan noted a clerical error on page 53 of Attachment 1 of the staff report in paragraph B. 1. She asked that the word %ubstantively" be inserted between the words ~adopt" and ~identical" in the last sentence of the paragraph in order to be consistent with Article 4. Mayor Leiken called for testimony. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Regular Session June 22, 2004 Page 2 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, represented the Lane County Home Builders Association. She provided copies of and introduced for the record the following documents: · June 22, 2004, letter from the Home Builders Association to the local elected officials · May 27, 2004, memorandum from Dave Jewett, attorney for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), Meg Kiernan, Springfield City Attorney, and Jerome Lidz, Eugene City Attorney to interested parties · June 22, 2004, letter from Bill Kloos to the joint elected officials · June 21, 2004, Springfield City Council agenda · City of Springfield motion to dismiss Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) No. 2004-090 · Calendar Section from the The Register-Guard issue of June 22, 2004 Ms. Cuellar said that the home builders association had never opposed the construction of infrastructure in the area or presented an obstacle to it. She said it was not the goal of the association to be an obstacle to wastewater, but it did have process issues. She said there were two concerns with the proposed amendments: inadequate public involvement and lack of clarification about the relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP because the process had been bifurcated, with PFSP amendments going to elected officials from MWMC and the Metro Plan amendments following the land use process through planning commissions. Mike Hudson, 91069 North Willamette, Coburg, spoke as the Coburg City Manager, and stated that the City of Coburg understood the implications of its request to have services extended and it expected to pay its way. He said that businesses had relocated to Coburg because of the creation of an enterprise zone to provide tax incentives; however, the enterprise zone no longer existed. He said that Coburg did have system development charges (SDC) in place but those did not include sewers because there was no sewer system. He related that an urban renewal district encompassing 25 percent of the City was in place, and along with a planned local improvement district (LID), could provide funds for a sewer system. He said that Coburg's participation in the United Front effort to secure federal funding for local projects was likely to obtain funds as well and other jurisdictions were not being requested or expected to help with the costs. He encouraged an evaluation to determine the benefits to all entities of extending service to Coburg and thanked the jurisdictions for their willingness to enter into discussions of the matter. There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing for the Springfield City Council. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing for the Eugene City Council Commissioner Green closed the public hearing for the Lane County Board of Commissioners Councilor Bettman asked if the federal grant in the amount of several million dollars was for the study to extend services to Coburg. Mr. Hudson replied that the funds were for construction; Coburg had assurance from the State that it would provide funding for the study and Coburg would cover any difference between the cost and funds available from the State. He said that approximately $4 million in federal funds was anticipated and the amount of $200,000 from the State had been mentioned, although the cost of the study would be dependent on discussions among the jurisdictions to identify issues to be addressed. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Regular Session June 22, 2004 Page 3 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield Councilor Meisner noted for the record that the study of potentially extending services to Coburg look comprehensively at the entire planning window for MWMC with respect to the possible inclusion of other jurisdictions or areas outside of the current Metro Plan boundaries. Councilor Kelly said it was his understanding that Coburg was the only jurisdiction likely to be geographically close enough to make a connection feasible. He asked staff to respond to the questions raised by Ms. Cuellar during her testimony regarding the bifurcated processes for the two plans. Councilor Bettman asked for clarification of the process as $200,000 for the study did not seem like much and the ability to expand the scope of the study to include issues relevant to Eugene would be limited. Mr. Taylor replied that executives from the three jurisdictions would meet and determine how the project would be presented to their respective governing bodies. Ms. Pappas added that the intent was to initiate a joint conversation among jurisdiction about the study process, not to begin the study, and then present that information to the jurisdictions for approval to proceed with a study. Councilor Bettman requested that Mr. Taylor provide the Eugene City Council with an assessment of the impact on resources in the Planning Department when he reported back on the proposed study. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Morrison moved, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, to schedule the ordinances for a third reading and possible deliberation before the Lane County Board of Commissioners on August 3, 2004, with August 10, 2004, as a back up date. The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Green adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 7:50 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) m: 12004~j'ointlelected officials ~j'eoO40622rs. doc MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials - Regular Session June 22, 2004 Page 4 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 23, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Papd. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Service Delivery City Manager Dennis Taylor explained that the work session was held at the request of the City Council. He asked the councilors to consider the mission of the airport: "To support quality airport facilities and services that meet community's needs and expectations for air service in a safe, secure, and cost-effective manner." He noted that most were familiar with the issues at hand that had been raised in collective bargaining with the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). He asked Public Works Director Kurt Corey to speak about Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) service delivery. Mr. Corey provided a PowerPoint presentation on the ARFF service. He stated that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stipulated the provision of ARFF services. He said Eugene was only served by regional jets and could be classified as an Index A airport. However, Eugene chose to maintain its ARFF services under the Index B requirements. He noted that this meant Eugene had two vehicles and the according staff, instead of one. The presentation included ARFF cost comparisons, a graph of increased landing fees in the City of Eugene, and a comparison of landing fees, i.e. landed weight rates, among others. Mr. Corey related that a diminished economy and the effects of the tragic events of September 11,2001, resulted in the loss of the 737 planes United Airlines had previously flown in and out of the airport. He added that the transition to regional jets, coupled with the loss of seats in and out of the airport, had reduced landing fee revenues and caused fees to be increased dramatically. He shared staff's belief that landing fees needed to remain just above $2 per 1,000 pounds, but currently the airport faced an increase to $2.87 per 1,000. He felt this would impact the airlines using the airport negatively and could cause a further loss of service. Mr. Corey called attention to a letter, included in the council packet, written to the Airport Administration from Steve Dwiggins of SkyWest Airlines and dated February 13, 2003, highlighting the airline's concerns with increasing costs, particularly the cost of ARFF services. Mr. Taylor added three final points: MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 1 Work Session · Public safety comes first and would not be compromised when evaluating cost-savings proce- dures; · Keeping the airport viable was an important priority as it was a vital asset to the region's econ- omy; · Council support was necessary to continue the City Manager's ability to continue to run City operations as efficiently as possible. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to affirm that the City Man- ager has the authority to determine the best service delivery system for pro- viding ARFF service at the Eugene Airport. Ms. Bettman voiced her opposition to the motion. She opposed privatizing public safety services. She opined the move to privatize ARFF services would result in a reduction in the level of emergency services available to citizens and area residents using the airport. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City would still provide back-up service to the airport, which would require the City to equip and train firefighters responding to emergencies at the airport. She also felt the amount of money in question was not %verwhelming" and, additionally, the projected savings had not been substantiated. Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by add- ing a second sentence reading, as follows: ~It is, however, the sense of the City Council that public safety ser- vices, including but not limited to ARFF service at the Eugene Airport, should not be privatized or contracted out." Mr. Meisner specified that he did not contest the authority of the City Manager, but that the City had made conscious decisions that had driven costs up. He noted that the City had decided to double the necessary equipment and staff. He related that he called a couple of the airports listed in the presentation for comparison and they were not staffed at the level Eugene had. He called this comparing ~apples to oranges" and suggested a comparison of half to the whole was inappropriate. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for Mr. Meisner's amendment. He stated that when it came to public safety, police and fire were the face of the City for most of its citizens. Mr. Kelly reiterated that it had been troubling that, during the discussion of regionalization of the airport, a different picture of the airport had been painted for the council. He noted, too, that the letter from SkyWest was 1-1/2 years old. Mr. Poling supported the amendment. He felt the issue was the provision of the authority to the City Manager to determine the best delivery of any service in any system in the City. He felt public safety was of primary importance. He felt the council and staff had reached a common ground in the amended motion. Mr. Pap6 asked for more clarification of the indexing system. Mr. Corey repeated that it was tied to the size of the aircraft utilizing a facility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 2 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Taylor said ARFF services in Billings, Montana were provided by city employees represented by the Teamsters Union. He explained that it was an example of cross-utilization. Mr. Pap6 opined that safety services would become a regional question, should a regional airport district be formed. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Fire Chief Tom Tallon said to retain the status of an indexed airport, the City had to maintain ARFF services. Should ARFF services be somewhere other than the airport, planes would be instructed to land elsewhere. He stated that firefighters were cross-trained and rotated through ARFF-required fire safety services. Mr. Pap6 asked if there would be a change in how fire emergencies were handled should ARFF services be privatized. Chief Tallon noted that the City of Medford contracted with a private fire service. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that Mr. Poling was a retired public safety provider and that she was a long-time union member. She related that she was troubled by the cost comparison of ARFF services to other cities. She asked what the downside of proposing some policies to govern the cost of the service. Mr. Taylor said the City did benchmark and look at best practices. He stated that cross-utilization was the predominant way ARFF services were adequately provided and landed weight costs kept down. Ms. Nathanson asked why the services had not been made more cost-effective to date. Mr. Taylor responded that the scheduled work session on the item had created a chilling effect on bargaining. Sharon Rudnick of the City Attorney's Office stated that nothing in State collective bargaining laws prevented the City Council from directing an outcome of a collective bargaining issue. However, she felt concerned about the impact on progress that the policy question created. She said that the collective bargaining process worked because of the necessity for compromise. She suggested that the situation wherein the costs at the airport had been a part of the bargaining for quite a while and one party chose to invoke the political process had fostered an environment in which the party could posture rather than negotiate. Ms. Rudnick said the outcome of this was no longer dependent on the good faith participation in the process or the bad things that could happen if an agreement was not reached. She believed the timing of this discussion would create an impact on the ability of the City to manage its collective bargaining processes. Ms. Nathanson agreed that, in general, critical public safety jobs should be performed by public employees. She opposed having this discussion while the collective bargaining process was underway. She interpreted the City Charter to direct such discussion to be held in executive session only. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment. She supported directing the City Manager not to privatize services. She disagreed that this was a charter matter, stating that whether or not a City service should be privatized was a policy matter and was subject to the authority of the City Council. Ms. Solomon asked if the attorney had seen the amended motion. She opined that the amendment did not seem to be an improvement as it still neutralized the City Manager. She was compelled by the figures provided by Mr. Corey, stating that the City was clearly %ut of synch" with other cities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 3 Work Session City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that Mr. Meisner's motion fell within the City Council's power. He did not read the motion as a direction to the City Manager as to what the manager could or could not do. Ms. Bettman said that the issue had been raised before the Budget Committee and this was why the council had been ~dragged into the middle of it." Ms. Bettman expressed concern that, should an emergency truly arise, the fire fighters from the City would be put at risk by having to work with people they had not trained with and also who had less training. She stressed that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had not been asked to cut costs and noted that the City was on record for saying that public safety was a top priority. Mayor Torrey called for a motion to extend time. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the time for discus- sion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey stated that he had supported the fire fighters in his 13 years of service as mayor. He supported paying them well and providing the best benefits for them. He commended union president Gary Nauta for the work he was doing to represent the union. He could not agree, however, that it was in the best interest of the City to diminish the capacity of the City Manager to negotiate with the bargaining units. He urged the City Council not to micro-manage the City Manager. He stressed that Police and Fire services were held in high esteem and would never be privatized. He added that there was an opportunity for binding arbitration. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman that the political process was invoked and the collective bargaining was tainted by staff's ~ill-advised" decision to ask the Budget Committee to %ndorse" the privatization during the budget process. He pointed out that the airport doubled the required staffing and equipment. He asked staff to provide completely accurate comparisons between airports. He felt the sum numbers were not completely representative of the services provided by the airport. Ms. Nathanson reiterated that an executive session was necessary in order to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the discussion un- til it could be held in an executive session. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Mr. Pap~, Ms. Solomon, and Ms. Nathanson voting in favor, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Meisner voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted in favor of tabling the item and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency at 12:50 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Review and Approval of Sale Terms for the Oregon Research Institute-Sears Building Mr. Taylor asked Denny Braud of the Planning and Development Department's Development Division to speak to the council on the deal points and negotiations for the sale of the Sears property to the Oregon Research Institute (ORI). Mr. Braud explained that a summary of the final terms and conditions were included in the agenda packet. He said the selection and recommendation of the ORI project was based on some significant contributions that the project made to the downtown area. He stated that the project was a ;;rare combination" of desirable dense downtown development, quality jobs, and sustainable development. He suggested the council look back on the original purchase of the property in 1993 and consider the return on the investment. He noted the acquisition included the quarter block where the Sears building was and the half block on which the new library was built. The property had been purchased for approximately $900,000, the current value of the land alone was $1.5 million, and the City had realized two new developments: the library and the potential development of a new ORI building. Kelly Saito, Gerding-Eadland Development Company, explained that his company was a private develop- ment company that specialized in mixed-use urban development. He listed some of the projects of this sort with which the company had been involved. He called the proposed development for ORI a unique opportunity for the City and predicted it would bring 300 high-paying jobs into the downtown area. Henry Fitzgibbons of Soderstrom Architects, PC, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed preliminary design for the ORI building. He stressed that ORI specifically chose the downtown area because it believed it would provide a positive impact to area. He said the proximity to the Lane Transit District (LTD) was beneficial to the people who act as human subjects for the research conducted by ORI. He stated that the intention was to build an ;;elite gold" or ;;platinum" building and to incorporate green building elements in the construction. Mr. Pap6 indicated that he had a potential conflict of interest as his son worked for Gerding-Easland Development Company, though not on this specific project. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to authorize the Agency Di- rector to (1) sell the Sears building property to the Oregon Research Insti- tute at a purchase price of $400,000, less the cost of any environmental as- sessment, up to $35,000, and (2) direct the Agency Director to bring back to the agency for the June 28 meeting a Supplemental Budget #3 item to in- clude authorization for the demolition and other costs anticipated by the Summary of Terms attached to the AlS. Ms. Bettman voiced her support for the motion. She commented that, in the past, there had been incidences wherein the City had worked with a private entity and ended up with the %hort end of the stick." She asked if there was a possibility that the project could fall through after the building was demolished and before the next building was constructed. Mr. Braud reassured the council that there was a penalty should the contract fall through such that ORI would be required to reimburse all costs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor indicated her enthusiastic support for the motion. She felt this would induce more retailers to move downtown. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Braud stated that, initially, ORI would provide 300 jobs. Mr. Meisner asked staff to provide more information on how the minimum of parking needs requested would be addressed. He commented that he did not like the preliminary design of the building. He opined it did not create a pedestrian-friendly street scene. He wondered if some of the windowless walls could be moved to the second floor. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern that the City was providing $750,000 in support and this did not, in the eyes of the public, necessarily indicate the City was working fairly in the public trust. Based on this, he could not support the deal. Mr. Kelly agreed with previous comments in support of the motion. He applauded the intention to utilize green building techniques. Regarding Mr. Pap6's concerns, he said that other than the environmental assessment, this project contained identical numbers to those presented the previous year in the request for funding proposal (RFP) process and the council had endorsed it at the time. Ms. Nathanson expressed disappointment in how the City was managing the site and the sale. She had hoped a park would be developed across the street from the library. Nonetheless, she looked forward to the development of the Sears building site. Mr. Poling, though he shared Mr. Pap6's concerns, felt it was better to bring 300 to 500 jobs into the downtown area than to have an "eyesore sitting vacant for another 15 years." Mayor Torrey remarked that if the City Council unanimously approved the design before it, it "would not be representing the City." He supported the creation of a critical mass of people in the downtown area. He said businesses will follow the people and he believed it was a great venture for the City. Ms. Solomon asked if there was truly sufficient parking available. Mr. Braud affirmed there was. Ms. Solomon opined that the design should include a pitched roof. Mr. Fitzgibbons responded that it was a unique building in that it was almost all office space, which made for a repetition of a ten-foot module. This created a need for a long ribbon of horizontal sun shades. He felt the building would ultimately be "stunning" in terms of its '~touchability and color." He added that there would be windows on the first level. He thought there was potential for more fenestration on the roof. Ms. Taylor asked if people would be coming and going in the evening. Mr. Braud replied that they would. Ms. Taylor commented that many subsidies had been provided without obvious benefits and this project had obvious benefits. In response to Mr. Pap6, Mr. Fitzgibbons explained that LEED stood for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap6 expressed disappointment that the information provided to the council did not more clearly indicate that the proposal included a $750,000 subsidy for the project. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 23, 2004 Page 7 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 28, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. As his Honor Mayor James D. Torrey was unable to attend the meeting in person to act as chair, City Council President Bonny Bettman called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Torrey joined the meeting via speakerphone. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Poling announced he had attended the 30th "Scanniversary" celebration at PSC Scanners on June 25 and, on behalf of the mayor, declared Saturday, June 26, 2004, to be "Scanniversary Day." Ms. Taylor asked if the Planning Division informed people seeking permits for homes about the potential that they could use pervious materials for driveway surfaces. Ms. Taylor said a recent article in The Register-Guard stated that upgrades to collector streets were paid for by the City but she did not think that was true in the case of the two streets referred to in the article, Crest Drive and Friendly Street. Those residents would have to pay for the improvements because the street was not being widened. Ms. Taylor called the council's attention to a recent article by Jerry Dietholm regarding the proposed McKenzie-Willamette Hospital site. Noting that the Springfield City Council was contemplating changes to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to accommodate the construction of a new PeaceHealth hospital, Mr. Kelly requested copies of any such amendments. Ms. Nathanson discussed progress on a local multi-agency effort to increase use of the earned income tax credit, indicating that use of this credit was up. She said that considerable publicity was done and fliers were provided to the community through schools and social service agencies. Final numbers were not yet in, but the council would be receiving a report from the head of the Tax Aid Program. Ms. Nathanson said the effort was well worth it. She hoped the effort was sustained in coming years, indicating more outreach to local college students was needed. She thanked the council for its assistance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap~ announced the groundbreaking for the Bus Rapid Transit route on Franklin Boulevard occurring on July 1 at 9:30 a.m. He also announced the July 2 opening ceremonies for the new police forensics building on 2nd Avenue and Garfield Street. Mr. Pap~ reiterated his request for a memorandum regarding the expenses related to the Chiquita site. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated such a memorandum was forthcoming. Mayor Torrey said he toured the ~Big Dig" in Boston and learned that the project was budgeted to cost $2.8 billion but the costs had climbed to $12.8 billion. He said he had secured a video tape of what was planned for the land vacated by relocating the roadway underground that he would share with the council when he returned to Eugene. Mayor Torrey invited the council to join him at the Mayor's Fitness Walk, occurring on July 4. City Manager Taylor noted the council's receipt of the construction closeout information for the library, which indicated $100,000 was left over in the construction budget. He commended those responsible for bringing the vision of a new City library to fruition. Mr. Pap~ acknowledged the wonderful events occurring as part of the annual Bach Festival, the presence of some very talented German performers in Eugene participating in the festival, and encouraged councilors and residents to participate when they could. Ms. Bettman joined in Mr. Papa's remarks and noted the many local performers also taking part in the festival. B. ACTION: Ratification of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Fiscal Year 2004-05 Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program The council was joined for the item by Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffler. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to ratify the fiscal year 2004-05 Metro- politan Wastewater Management Commission Regional Wastewater Program Budget and Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Pap~ wanted to pull the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) from the operating budget and postpone action on it until later in the evening, when the council had the opportunity to consider the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's (MWMC) Facilities Plan, as he assumed there was overlap between the two items. In response to questions from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Ruffler confirmed that the budget before the council included portions of the CIP drawn from the 20-year project list included in the Facilities Plan. He further confirmed that adoption of the motion on the table constituted adoption of the first year of the 20-year plan. Mr. Ruffler believed the two actions were interrelated and the council would have to send the budget back to the MWMC with an explanation of what it wanted changed. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that the budget MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session served a different function than the Facilities Plan. The budget authorized the expenditure of funds; if the Facilities Plan was not adopted, he questioned whether it made sense to proceed with adopting the first year of the CIP. MWMC General Manager Susie Smith indicated the CIP for fiscal year 2005 was an integrated mix of projects, both those underway and those in the planning stages. If the CIP was not funded, projects underway would come to a stop, and MWMC staff would come to work on July 1 unable to pay bills or do any work. She said the MWMC, Lane Board of County Commissioners, and the Springfield City Council had all adopted the same budget, and Eugene's failure to do so would trigger a dispute resolution process between the various parties. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the MWMC had not done a good job in regard to outreach about the extensive project list included in the CIP, and he wanted to see more outreach. He said he did not know if the CIP was ~good, bad, or indifferent" but wanted outside verification of its value by an independent evaluator. He was disappointed the plan had come to the council in %uch a rush." Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. While he acknowledged Mr. Papa's concerns, he pointed out the City was the fourth party to take action on the budget. He was comforted by the fact that Lane County and Springfield had already examined and approved the budget prior to Eugene taking action. With regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Pap~ about the 20-year plan, Mr. Kelly suggested the council approve the first year of projects to allow MWMC to proceed now, with the understanding it could object to the list later. He thought it unlikely the MWMC would embark on any projects while the list was in dispute resolution. Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Smith for her response to questions. He supported the motion but said that should not be interpreted as support for the Facilities Plan. While he agreed with Mr. Kelly that Eugene was only one of several jurisdictions approving the budget, he had to be able to tell his constituents that every effort had been made to ensure the double-digit rate increase represented the most cost-effective and efficient 20- year CIP. He wanted them to be well-informed, but doubted that was the case given the lack of outreach. Ms. Bettman also supported the motion. She had some problems with the proposed rate increase because much of the increase contributed to offsetting the cost of new development to support new growth. She thought the financing mechanism very flawed. However, she believed the systems development charge methodology was better than what existed now, which was a bigger subsidy from ratepayers for new development. Ms. Bettman said she was not able to judge what facilities were the most needed, and was not willing to second-guess the commission in that regard. Mr. Pap~ asked Mr. Poling, the City's representative to the MWMC, to speak to the issue. Mr. Poling concurred with the remarks and Ms. Smith and Mr. Kelly. He said the budget before the council was needed to fund ongoing projects and it did not authorize any new projects past the first year of the CIP. Mr. Pap~ asked if the CIP included projects that would be ongoing into the next fiscal year. Ms. Smith said yes. The amount of funding allowed the commission to provide for contractual obligations for work that would span multiple years. Much of the construction work would happen in the following fiscal year. She did not know the precise budget number for those projects as staff was still in the process of developing MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session estimates. Mr. Ruffler said the proposed CIP for fiscal year 2005 had a mix of projects. They included projects to be completed in the fiscal year and the initiation of project design. That was a standard procedure given the length of time it took to complete projects. Mr. Pap6 asked if the council's failure to adopt the Facilities Plan would cause the MWMC hold off on those projects until it received final approval. Mr. Ruffler believed the council could give its representatives to the MWMC that direction. Mr. Pap6 said he did not have the informational or knowledge basis to be able to justify the rate and systems development charge increases being proposed. He said he had not talked to all the other elected officials from the other jurisdictions. He maintained they shared his concern but did not believe they had the ability to stop the process. He said at some point the council must have the courage to tell the MWMC it had not done a good job with regard to the public outreach that occurred. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Examination of Potential Changes to Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Concerning Special Districts Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle joined the council for the item. He reported that Springfield had initiated an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to allow for the possibility of special districts to provide urban-level services; the details of the amendment were overviewed in a memorandum included in the packet that was prepared by Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff, dated May 5, 2004, and entitled Scope of Work: Metro Plan Text Amendment Related to Urban Services Delivery. Mr. Coyle noted questions that had arisen about the issue of funding and distributed the e-mail response that had been sent out. He reviewed the questions and answers. 1. What are cost, time, and resource differences between a Metro Plan amendment initiated by a single jurisdiction and an amendment processed by LCOG? Mr. Coyle said there would be no significant difference between the costs of the two processes. 2. Will LCOG be using regional funds for this effbrt? Mr. Coyle said that LCOG had assured the City that no funds from the Planning Division's annual contribution to LCOG would be used to process the amendment. 3. Has the Lane Board of County Commissioners discussed this topic since May? Mr. Coyle said that the commissioners had not discussed the issue, but hoped to by early fall. Mr. Coyle called attention to an intended motion prepared by staff for Ms. Bettman. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Coyle thanked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter for their contribu- tions to the materials provided to the council. Ms. Bettman clarified that the first question actually referred to the difference in the process for an amendment initiated solely by just one jurisdiction. She was also concerned about cost, and noted that Commissioner Bobby Green, among others, had requested information about that subject, but she had yet to see it. Ms. Bettman said her interest in holding the work session was because Springfield's proposal represented a fundamental change to the Metro Plan. She termed it the ~mother of all policy issues." Ms. Bettman said the amendment spoke to the underlying premises behind who had the authority to provide services and levy taxes. In the spirit of home rule, Ms. Bettman said she did not object to Springfield pursuing a site-specific amendment to the Metro Plan. She did not object if Springfield wanted to pursue the ability to create special districts to provide its citizens with public safety services, but did not want Eugene to be pulled along in the process by default. She wanted the council to weigh in on the issue sooner rather than later. Ms. Bettman called the council's attention to the ambitious work program associated with the amendment, which did not provide for input from the council until nearly the end of the process. Mr. Kelly agreed what was contemplated by Springfield represented a very fundamental change to the Metro Plan. He said that he concurred with Metro Plan policies stating that cities were the logical provider of urban services, although he could see economies of scale that might be realized from the formation of countywide service districts overseen by the Board of County Commissioners. That could provide greater public accountability than a small district board. However, like Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly did not object to Springfield moving on alone. Mr. Kelly underscored the council's previous direction regarding the topic as reflected in its approval of the Planning Division's work program, when it deleted special districts as a priority. He indicated he would offer the motion prepared for Ms. Bettman to the body with some slight modifications. Mr. Kelly said that given that Eugene would be part of the amendment process in any case, he did not want to spend City money until it was necessary to do so. Mr. Meisner said that sometimes solutions are contemplated without complete consideration of all the ramifications involved. He sympathized with Springfield's interest in pursuing the issue given its interest in forming a fire district. However, he believed what Springfield contemplated, if not site-specific, was a fundamental shift in the Metro Plan, which was a reflection of Senate Bill 100. The proposal was a contradiction of statewide planning rules. While he understood the budget crisis impelling the proposal, Mr. Meisner called for caution. He pointed out that the City required annexation as a condition of development in the River Road/Santa Clara area, which was premised on the City's Urban Services Agreement with the County, which was premised on Metro Plan policy. He feared that if the community did not proceed with caution, the City's actions in that area could be called into question. Mr. Pap~ anticipated the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would soon be considering significant changes to State planning laws to bring them up to date. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Papd wanted to see more flexibility in the Metro Plan. Because of the difficulty of revising the Metro Plan, Mr. Papd thought different approaches to service delivery needed to be considered. He pointed to the Tualatin Fire District as an example of regional service delivery he would like the local community to be able to replicate. At this time, the Metro Plan did not allow for that, and the community was further constrained by the financial limits imposed by past ballot measure such as Ballot Measure 5 and Ballot Measures 47/50. Mayor Torrey suggested a subcommittee of the local elected officials be brought together to discuss the topic. He did not want to break up the local land use compact if that could be avoided, but thought Springfield had legitimate concerns that needed to be addressed. He did not think it was necessary for the amendment process to take so long. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager not to expend City funds or staff time and resources for an LCOG study of the use of special districts to pro- vide urban services or for processing a Metro Plan amendment initiated by the City of Springfield or Lane County regarding special districts. This motion would not prohibit rea- sonable use of staff time to review and consult with staff of Lane County and Springfield on these matters. Furthermore, any proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that while his motion spoke to the staff resources expended by Eugene staff, it did not preclude Springfield staff from picking up the telephone and asking Eugene staff a question. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Papd's long-time interest in the formation of a fire district but pointed out a council majority did not share that interest. Mr. Kelly also acknowledged that the DLCD intended to review Senate Bill 100 and consider possible changes, but that was a two- to three-year process. He thought it was premature to make amendments to the Metro Plan in anticipation of the outcome of that process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner to change the word %hould" to %hall" in the last sentence of the motion. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the motion should be revised to provide either Springfield or Lane County with the authority to initiate a site-specific amendment. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor regarding the intent of the motion, Ms. Bettman said the intent of the motion was to narrow the City's scope of involvement in the study to be conducted by LCOG and initiated by Springfield. Ms. Bettman welcomed Commissioner Bobby Green to the meeting. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the motion was restrictive and unfriendly to Eugene's partners in the land use compact. He continued to advocate for sufficient flexibility in the Metro Plan that ensured most urban services were provided by cities but did not foreclose the possibility of other approaches. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that, through the motion, the council would be sending a message that did not reflect its intent. She said if it was council's intent that it did not want to pursue such changes for Eugene, she wished to state it differently. Ms. Nathanson suggested a motion directing the manager not to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 6 Work Session make expenditures in a way that was inconsistent with the council's previous direction in regard to the Planning Division work program. She believed the motion on the floor could be interpreted as being non- cooperative. Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He suggested the council accomplish what it wished to accomplish and not attempt to dictate to Lane County or Springfield what they do. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Springfield could initiate any Metro Plan amendments it wished to. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's concerns, he invited alternate wording. He said he included the last sentence in the motion to indicate it was the sense of the council that proposed amendments should be specific to Springfield. Mr. Lidz determined that Mr. Kelly was not attempting to limit the scope of the amendments offered by Springfield. Mr. Kelly said that Springfield could proceed as it wished. Ms. Bettman said the motion she initially suggested was much broader in intent. It had suggested Springfield could move forward in its best interest but Eugene was not interested in changing the policies in the Metro Plan at this time. She thought Eugene would be a better partner to indicate it was not interested in a fundamental change in the way services were provided before Springfield went through an expensive and time-consuming amendments process. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the Springfield City Council recently gave its legal counsel direction to examine the question of opting out of the Metro Plan altogether. She asked what would happen if Springfield moved forward with that while the community was going through the amendments process. She reiterated that the responsible thing to do was to provide input early in the process. If Eugene was not to weigh in on the topic at this time, Ms. Bettman suggested the council propose a broader time line for the process that provided for more public input and for the elected officials to have input into the scope of work. The existing time line did not allow for that. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She did not want to spend tax money on the effort. However, she did not think the last sentence in the motion was needed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by striking the last sen- tence. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her preference for different language in the motion. She suggested the following alternative wording: Move to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan policy amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Ms. Nathanson declined to offer her text as an amendment to the amendment to the motion, preferring rather to vote the motion down. Mr. Kelly endorsed the concepts in Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion. He indicated opposition to the amendment because it did not communicate that the council was not interested in a Metro Plan policy change that applied to Eugene's actions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman also opposed the amendment because it removed the element of the motion that addressed how such a policy change would address Eugene. Otherwise, the motion was redundant in terms of what the council had done in regard to the Planning Division's work program and neutralized the intent of the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papd, and Mr. Meisner voting yes. With the concurrence of Ms. Taylor, the second to the motion, Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the City Manager to inform Springfield and Lane County that Eugene is not interested in pursu- ing a Metro Plan amendment for the use of special districts applicable to Eugene at this time. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that he would interpret the motion as minimizing the City's staff time and money spent on the issue of special districts. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the purpose of the motion, City Manager Taylor said the discussion helped clarify the council's position when it approved the Planning Division's work plan. It also gave direction to staff about the sense of the council as it applied to the degree of coordination and interest in the topic of special districts as they related to any solutions concerning Eugene. He thought the motion was helpful. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, although he questioned the inclusion of the phrase ~at this time" as the motion was merely a %napshot in time," and it seemed to cloud the issue somewhat. Mr. Papd said his vote for the Planning Division's priorities was not a vote for forgoing other projects not on the highest priority list. That included an examination of special districts. He did not think the council was uninterested in the question. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Papd thought now was an appropriate time for a break with regard to the %ommand language" governing local land use policies, and the break would help future councils by allowing them to consider other cost-effective service delivery options without going through a lengthy Metro Plan amendment process. Those options might include solutions other than service districts. He noted that the work proposed to be done was to be paid for out of Springfield and Lane County's contracts with the Lane Council of Governments. Mr. Papd said he was unable to support the motion. Ms. Bettman said that at both the Metropolitan Policy Committee and Joint Elected Officials meetings, Springfield and LCOG staff requested direction about the topic from the three jurisdictions. It was her perception the item was moving forward without any body outside Springfield taking definitive action. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a qualitative difference between the council ~informing" and the council ~directing" the manager. Mr. Taylor did not think so; he interpreted both as conveying the sense of the council's direction. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor how he would interpret the motion in terms of Mr. Papd's issue MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session regarding the Planning Division work program and allocation of funds. Was it implicit in the motion that the council was not interested in the expenditure of resources outside an occasional staff response to a question? She asked City Manager Taylor how he would implement the motion. City Manager Taylor recalled the council's discussion about the Planning Division work program, which he believed allowed for staff work on non-priority items as needed, and the council's work session on special districts as a means to deliver fire and emergency services, at which it agreed to revisit the idea after a year had passed. He did not interpret the motion as being so restrictive it would preclude staff from responding to the council's direction from the work session on fire and emergency services. That effort did not involve Planning Division staff and did not affect the division's work program priorities. He believed it was unlikely staff would do additional work on the subject of special districts as the City had higher priorities and a council majority had expressed no interest in going forward. Ms. Bettman noted the motion specifically mentioned special districts as opposed to changes to Metro Plan policy, which dictated that cities would provide urban services. Mr. Coyle concurred with the comments of City Manager Taylor. He said the City would continue to work with the other jurisdictions on administra- tive issues such as ways to simplify processes. There was no specific work program item related to special districts outside that related to the interest expressed by Springfield and the item related to the fire district question. Ms. Bettman said the Springfield-proposed amendment dealt specifically with the policy governing urban service delivery, and asked that the motion be amended to mention the policies governing urban service delivery. Ms. Nathanson concurred, and offered the following: Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to inform the City Manager and ask the manager to inform Lane County and the City of Springfield that Eugene is not interested in pursuing a Metro Plan amendment regard- ing special districts or urban service delivery alternatives at this time. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion and thanked Ms. Nathanson for rewording the motion. Ms. Solomon indicated she would be unable to support the motion as amended because it precluded the City Council from pursuing other alternative or creative service delivery methods. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, he said nothing in the motion prevented the council from having a great idea for an urban service delivery alternative and beginning to explore the idea. It merely informed the current process initiated by the City of Springfield. Mr. Kelly thought the amendment being contemplated was premature given the DLCD's review, and that it was dangerous to invite such broad changes to the Metro Plan. He believed that Springfield would want to know what Eugene supported before it proposed an amendment to the other jurisdictions that Eugene could not vote for. The motion made it more likely Springfield would craft an amendment that was focused on Springfield's needs and that could be supported by Eugene. Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager Taylor that the motion did not preclude the manager from offering suggestions for process improvements to the council. Mr. Pap~ said if the council wanted an alternative service delivery system, it would have to seek a Metro Plan amendment. He wanted to see the amendment from Springfield go forward, and hoped it was MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 9 Work Session sufficiently broad to allow for flexibility in Eugene in how urban services were delivered. Mr. Meisner did not think Springfield contemplated an amendment that was sufficiently broad to accomplish what Mr. Papd had discussed. He suggested that in order for Mr. Papd to accomplish his goals, he would need to propose a second amendment and get the council's support. Mr. Meisner said the amendment being proposed was intended to allow Springfield to accomplish the proposal for annexation to the Willakenzie Fire District that had been denied by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Lidz that the State would review any Metro Plan amendments for consistency with statewide goals. Ms. Bettman said the question before the council was who provided the urban services the City was now providing. In times of tight budgets, service districts allowed for the creation of another layer of government able to levy taxes, so it was another way to increase taxes. She said that the fact the municipalities were the provider of urban services was consistent with State land use goals and she believed was the most appropriate way for such services to be provided. Ms. Bettman said if the community expressed a desire for a regional government or overlapping layers of government, the council should move to institute an inclusive and broad-based public outreach process. She said the Springfield proposal represented a unilateral decision by one jurisdiction which, by virtue of existing laws, would drive other jurisdictions along with it unless the Eugene council made a definitive statement at this time. Ms. Bettman said the City should let Springfield and Lane County know where it stood on the issue. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Pap6 and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2004 Page 10 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 12, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Torrey announced that Ms. Solomon would not be present for the work session. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Kelly requested follow-up on request for the results of the Eugene area neighborhood analysis being conducted by Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department. Ms. Taylor clarified her information request related to pervious driveway surfaces, and whether the Permit and Information Services Division proactively notified citizens of the possibility such surfaces could be installed when they sought a building permit. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about Qwest's attempt to refer a challenge to the City's two- percent telecommunications tax to the voters, City Manager Dennis Taylor said the City Council would receive a fact sheet in the next packet providing them with accurate information on the tax. He said that the City was precluded from becoming involved in advocacy for or against ballot measures. Ms. Taylor said the City needed to inform people that the tax had been in effect for a long time and about its purposes. Ms. Taylor said she received many calls from constituents regarding recent incidents of tree removal in the community, and reiterated her previously expressed conviction that the City needed stronger tree protections. She hoped the council took up the issue sometime soon. Ms. Taylor said that she received a complaint that the City failed to maintain the trees they had planted on Oak Street. The person asked if the City was obliged to maintain the trees, and was also concerned about people breaking off branches from the trees. Ms. Taylor said she received also a complaint from a constituent who had been put on hold when she called the City and never received an answer to her inquiry. She thought it important residents receive an answer to their inquiries whether they call the correct department or not. Ms. Taylor suggested that if staff had to MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 1 Work Session redirect a telephone call to another department, they take the responsibility of calling the citizen back to ensure the individual making the inquiry received an answer. Ms. Bettman alerted the council that at its last meeting, the Police Commission decided its work program item related to the complaint process was so important members were willing to commit whatever time it took to have a recommendation by September 2005. She anticipated more and longer meetings, and said it was possible the council would receive a contingency fund request for more staffing. Referring to a recent article in The Register-Guard, which suggested the possibility the City would go to the taxpayers for money to underwrite the costs of judgments reached against it, Ms. Bettman expressed dismay about the idea. She believed the council needed to ensure there was accountability and oversight in the organization, and she felt to achieve that, the council needed to revisit the issue of referring the question of an independent external auditor to the voters. She said she intended to request a work session on the topic and hoped one could be held on July 28. Ms. Bettman said that if the council had to go to the taxpayers to seek money to underwrite the cost of judgments, it was important to assure the voters there would be a level of oversight in the future that would avoid such situations. Mr. Poling had no items. Mr. Meisner had no items. Mr. Pap6 suggested the council discuss how the organization handled risk management from a policy standpoint. He advocated for a work session on that topic. Mr. Pap6 thanked Mr. Taylor for the information he had provided to the council regarding the costs incurred by the City for the acquisition of the Chiquita and AutoCraft sites. He hoped the City was able to recover its investments in those sites soon. Mr. Pap6 was happy to see that construction activity had commenced on the portion of the Chiquita site that had been purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA). Mr. Taylor reported that the GSA was working on its construction headquarters and on staging agreements with the City. Work would begin in earnest soon. Mr. Pap6 said he received several complaints from constituents in his ward that, as a result of new fence standards adopted in the Land Use Code update, they were being contacted by the City and required to lower their back and side yard fences when located on a street frontage and to set them back from the road. In some cases, those residents had purchased their properties with the fences already installed. Mr. Pap6 called for council review of those standards. Ms. Nathanson said that the problem cited by Mr. Pap6 was an example of an oversight in the Land Use Code. The code failed to distinguish between comer lots and other lots. She said City staff was aware of the problem. Ms. Nathanson said the purpose of the standard was to avoid continuous walls along a street, but by definition, if one yard on a street was a side yard and the other yards were front yards, there could be a single parcel with a fence. She did not know if the City was going to able to address that housekeeping change soon, although it seemed small and fixable to her. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said the telecommunications fee was merely the cost of companies doing business in Eugene and she wanted to update the information on the tax that was reviewed by the Council Committee on Telecommunications some years back. She said the information indicated that Eugene's fees were not out of line with other jurisdictions nor was its fee higher than typical. Eugene's fees were about average among those charged. Ms. Nathanson requested assistance with a constituent complaint regarding the roundabouts on Terry Street, where cars were leaving the road and going onto private property. Public Works staff had indicated that there was insufficient time to gauge the success of such roundabouts, but if the City had information about two accidents already, she suggested there were other incidents the City had not heard about. She requested follow-up outside the response that there was nothing to be done. Mr. Taylor said the City was working on a solution, which might involve the removal of the roundabout in question. Mr. Taylor said that the article in The Register-Guard regarding what direction the City might take in regard to paying for the costs of judgments not yet arrived at was very speculative. Staff had not proposed such a remedy at this time. He said that staff would continue to keep the council apprized of the progress of litigation. Mr. Taylor endorsed the work session proposed by Mr. Pap& Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the information on the telecommunications fee provided to the council by Franchise Manager Pam Berrian and suggested the information needed to be shared with the public more than with the council. He asked the manager what options the council had for informing the public about the origin of the fee, what other communities had done, and how Eugene compared to those other communities. Mr. Kelly requested follow-up on a statement in a recent article in The Register-Guard indicating that there was no money for art in the new police forensics building. Mayor Torrey noted his participation in the official opening of the Sheldon Village affordable housing project, which he termed a wonderful project. He noted that the project was initially opposed by the neighbors, but he had yet to receive a complaint about it. Mayor Torrey said his major concern with the fence issue was that the City appeared to treat residents differently. Some residents in his area living on comer lots were told to take their fences down, while others on comer lots with similar fences were not contacted at all. Mayor Torrey determined there was sufficient council support to hold a work session on the question of referring an external auditor to the voters on July 28. Referring to a recent Cal Young Neighborhood newsletter, Mayor Torrey objected to allowing City newsletters to become the voice of a single individual. He asked what regulations governed what was included in such newsletters. He asked who elected people in such organizations, and the residency requirements. Mr. Taylor indicated he would follow-up. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Policy and Procedures to Name City-Owned Facilities Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She said the item was a brief review of the City's policies regarding the renaming of City facilities and amenities, followed by council discussion of whether to refine those policies. She said the City lacked a single procedure or guideline regarding the naming of facilities. Most City facilities were named for their geographic location, such as Amazon Community Center. Other facilities were named after people, such as Celeste Campbell Senior Center, or for themes, such as the States Ball Park. Ms. Walston noted that the Library Division of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and the Parks and Open Space Division of the Public Works Department both had policies and procedures in place for naming facilities and amenities in association with a monetary gift and termed that ~naming in recognition." She cited the Hult Center and Jacobs Gallery as examples. It was less clear how facilities should be named in the absence of a monetary gift, which she termed ~naming in commemoration." She cited the Knickerbocker Bridge as an example. Ms. Walston suggested that the council focus its energies on naming in commemoration. Ms. Walston called the council's attention to the materials prepared for the item, which contained examples of the policies used by other cities. She briefly reviewed some of those policies. Ms. Walston recommended that the council direct staff to return with a draft policy in 90 days. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Walston said the City's policies related to naming in recognition had no dollar threshold related to the total cost of a facility. Ms. Taylor thought the amount involved should be sizable, such as the third of the cost of a facility. Ms. Taylor believed a person ought to be deceased or at least out of office to be honored by having a facility named after them. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the staff work. He asked staff to review what Eugene had done in terms of naming City facilities after people in the past 15 years, and for what reasons. He noted that the naming opportunities in the library were based on the donor paying the actual cost of the item or amenity to which the name was assigned. Mr. Meisner recalled that seven years ago, the council had directed that the 3rd/4th Connector be renamed and that had not occurred, and he questioned what use establishing a policy was if the council's direction was not to be implemented. Mr. Kelly said that naming a facility in someone's honor could provide very important individual recognition and could be controversial as well. He thought there was value in having a formal, written policy. Referring to Mr. Meisner's information request, Mr. Kelly said he would be interested in the information but he did not feel bound by what happened in the past in light of the lack of a written policy, and did not think the council needed to revisit already-named facilities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the staff materials. He felt most comfortable with the policies of Santa Monica as a model for proceeding. Mr. Kelly noted Ms. Walston's suggestion for an ad hoc committee as the public participation element of a City process, and said he preferred not to create a new committee. He noted that in Santa Monica, staff studied such proposals and referred them to a standing committee related to the service area in question, if appropriate. Then the proposal was forwarded to the council, and a public input opportunity occurred at that time. Mr. Kelly thought some of the naming proposals the City Council would consider would be very routine while others would be high profile, but he believed the vast majority of the proposals could be addressed by the council on a Consent Calendar. Mr. Kelly requested a written policy of never naming a facility for a business. Mr. Pap6 agreed with many of Mr. Kelly's remarks. He also liked the Santa Monica policy as well as the Honolulu model. He wanted a process that was consistent and could be applied to all situations. Mr. Pap6 believed it appropriate to name facilities for living people who had left office. He thought a process that involved community input was needed. Mr. Poling appreciated the distinction between naming in commemoration and naming in recognition. He also liked the Santa Monica policy, although he thought it needed tweaking. Mr. Poling wanted to have something in place that the City could apply to each situation, regardless of the facility or the group making the proposal. Ms. Bettman agreed with the staff recommendation that a policy related to the naming of City facilities be established. She wanted to see two policies established, one regarding naming in commemoration and one regarding to naming in recognition. She also wanted criteria to be established for naming in recognition, and endorsed Ms. Taylor's suggestion for a dollar threshold for naming in commemoration. Ms. Bettman called for a neutral policy that could not be used for political expediency. Ms. Taylor thought there should be a distinction between naming and renaming a facility. She thought there should be some compelling reason to rename something. Ms. Taylor suggested the renaming of City facilities be precluded except for the Amazon Headwaters, which could be named for the benefactor who purchased it and presented it to the City. Mr. Taylor liked the distinctions drawn by Ms. Walston and thought they should be clearly defined. He felt it important that the council give staff direction now to guide those who wished to propose names for City facilities in the future. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for monetary thresholds. He thought that would add to the consistency of the process. He said that the final decision on facility names should be the purview of the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Ms. Taylor regarding the need to distinguish between naming and renaming. He pointed out that the council was talking about out-of-the-ordinary naming opportunities. He wanted the policy to reflect that fact in some way. Mr. Kelly also agreed about the need to distinguish between facility naming and renaming. He thought there would be times when it was appropriate to rename facilities, but thought there should be a separate policy addressing that issue that included criteria or a clear explanation of why the facility was named as it was initially. Mr. Kelly thought there might be value in adding some guidelines for naming in recognition. He believed that past controversies had involved the naming of entire facilities rather than the naming of individual components of a structure, such as had occurred at the library. He cited the Hult Center as an example. Mr. Taylor suggested a possible fourth distinction to consider, that of a council-approved named gift. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to de- velop a naming and renaming policy for City-owned facilities. Ms. Taylor did not think such a policy would be employed very often. She advocated for renaming the University Park wading pool after Howard Bonnett, former Budget Committee member, in recognition of his work to keep the pool funded. Ms. Walston said she thought under current Parks and Open Space guidelines, this type of naming may not require City Council action. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. He said such a policy would highlight the issue for the public. He frequently received questions from people about the origin of facility names such as neighbor- hood parks, and requested information on the process used to name neighborhood parks in regard to who made the decision and what opportunity existed for public input. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Taylor that the motion would not impact current fund-raising activities at the Hayes Garden. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). C. WORK SESSION Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments The URA was joined for the item by Richie Weinman and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Taylor reminded the council that Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) had reviewed the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan and proposed several amendments, which Mr. Weinman was present to discuss. Mr. Weinman recalled the City Council's initiation of a multi-step process to implement the vision for a Greater Downtown Eugene. As one of those steps, the council had formed the ERAC. He said the ERAC MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 6 Work Session reviewed the plan very carefully over the course of four meetings. The ERAC did not recommend a change in the district's indebtedness or boundary, but had recommended the life of the district be extended to 2029, with reviews in 2009 and 2019. Mr. Weinman reported that a public hearing on the item was scheduled for August 9, with action scheduled for September 13, 2004. Mr. Weinman responded to questions previously asked by Mr. Kelly. He confirmed the amendment process for this district plan would be the same as for the Riverfront Plan. He confirmed the district contained 70 acres. He said the shaded area shown on the map appeared to show Broadway was still closed to traffic, and he would attempt to correct the error. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly was happy to see the plan included language that gave the council authority over any projects costing $250,000 or more. He expressed concern about the expiration date recommended by the ERAC. He understood the desire to build up the increment, but wanted a reasonable time frame for returning the properties in the district to the tax rolls. He was reluctant to extend the district's life past 20 years. Mr. Weinman clarified that the current plan expired in 2009, and the ERAC's recommendation would extend the plan 20 years beyond that date. Mr. Kelly continued to be concerned about the length of time involved. Mr. Weinman said the ERAC discussed the issue at some length, and agreed the proposed expiration date gave the development community and the City more certainty. He said the expiration date was the council's purview. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the expiration date. Referring to page 37 of the meeting packet, item 5, he expressed concern that the list of public space improvements did not appear to allow for the construction of facilities such as the improvements desired for the Parks Blocks to serve Saturday Market. He suggested the text preceding the list be revised to read ~Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to..." Mr. Weinman agreed. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 1300 of the plan, ~Duration and Validity of Approved Plan." She asked why staff proposed to strike the text in that section stipulating the need for a public hearing when the plan review occurred. Mr. Weinman explained that any changes proposed to the plan would require the passage of an ordinance, and that process included a requirement for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman suggested that the text be revised to reflect that fact. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the council decided against amending the plan, it would not require a public hearing. He asked if the council wanted a public hearing for any review, regardless of the action it decided to take; if so, the text should be retained. Ms. Bettman thought a public hearing gave the public an opportunity to review the plan and determine how well it was working. She said she would advocate for its retention. Referring to page 96 of the meeting packet, Ms. Bettman requested an explanation of the amounts budgeted for ~assistance." Mr. Weinman indicated he would follow-up. Referring to page 90, Ms. Bettman asked why the City was using 1989 assessment data. Mr. Weinman indicated it was difficult to get the information and it required considerable staff time to do so. He said the issue came down to whether the information provided value to the council's decision-making process. Ms. Bettman thought it would be useful information. Staff was citing the value ratio as a means to support the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 7 Work Session economic conditions that exist, and she noted the considerable amount of construction that occurred since 1989 and said she would like to see the real numbers. Ms. Bettman noted that the council was talking about putting forward a library operations levy. While she acknowledged there were many projects in the plan that would be good for downtown, she pointed out that the money diverted by the district in 2004-2005 equaled $830,000 that, if left in the General Fund, could be used for library operations. Mr. Pap~ advocated for as many public hearings as possible in conjunction with urban renewal to get information to the public, given the controversial nature of the subject. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Weinman said boundary expansion could be considered after 2009 but the district was fairly small and could be expanded by only 20 percent (3-1/2 blocks). Ms. Taylor asked if the tax base remained the same if the district's life was extended. Mr. Weinman said yes. Ms. Taylor noted a statement in the staff materials that local government would receive the benefits from the improvements in the district when the district ended, but that would not happen if the district never ended. Ms. Taylor noted her continued opposition to urban renewal. She said the City should be clear about where the money for the district comes from, as it was her belief that it did not come from taxes assessed inside the district. Mr. Weinman clarified that only the properties inside the district paid the increment. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the issue was somewhat more complicated. With the grandfathered plan, there was a special levy for the downtown district that everyone in the community paid. In terms of general tax increment, there was no clear answer to the question, although staff had attempted to find one. He suggested that Financial Services Director Sue Cutsogeorge be asked to explain the issue in greater detail. Ms. Taylor wanted to have something to distribute at the public hearing that showed the cost of urban renewal, the source of the money, and what it could be used for otherwise. She did not think the City was ~quite open" with that information, asserting that if it was the public would be opposed to urban renewal. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the complexity of urban renewal. He said he also received questions about the levy line item that appeared on residents' tax bills and suggested that Ms. Cutsogeorge be prepared to address that question at the public hearing. Mr. Kelly referred to page 34 of the meeting packet and the points related to access and circulation, noting the first two bullets discussed improved transportation access into downtown while the fifth bullet, related to alternative modes, called for the continued provision of access for those use. He asked that the fifth bullet point be revised to call for improved access for alternative modes. Ms. Bettman said a past council had made a wise decision to dedicate the money in the downtown urban district to the construction of the new library. She reiterated that if the council ended the district, if would have $830,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005 and $870,000 in fiscal year 2005-2006 to help operate the library. She said it would be difficult to convince her that continuing the district was a good idea. Ms. Bettman noted the council's receipt of a memorandum from Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI), which advocated for urban renewal funding to redevelop buildings for new uses and increased density. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 8 Work Session the buildings to which DE1 referred were privately held properties. She asked if DE1 was recommending those property owners be given money to demolish those buildings or if it was recommending that the City purchase those buildings. Mr. Weinman was not sure of DEI's intent. He said that Eugene and other cities have, in the past, purchased such buildings using district funds or assisted private owners with financing loans. The district could also provide loans for interior and exterior improvements. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Weinman that no grants to private property owners were contemplated in the plan. Mr. Meisner requested additional information on expiration options, asking if the district must be in place a minimum or maximum number of years, and implications of a district that expired in five years, ten years, fifteen years, or twenty years. He asked if a five-year expiration date would be sufficient to pay off the library and accomplish some projects. Mr. Weinman said he would follow-up, although he noted that the district was in place until 2009 and, if ended before that, would probably place the City in default on its bonds. Mr. Pap6 requested information on all the projects that the downtown district supported. He also requested current information on the size of the tax base and on the increment retained by the district. Ms. Taylor asked staff to prepare a list of the buildings that were demolished downtown because of urban renewal, and the cost of installing and dismantling the pedestrian mall. Mr. Weinman said he would do what he could in terms of securing that information. Ms. Taylor recalled that the council decided to terminate the district in 2009 when it directed the district's revenues to the construction of the new library. She determined from Mr. Weinman that a future council could terminate the district at any time. The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 9 Work Session