Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: April 10, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2006, Work Session, February 13, 2006, City Council Meeting, February 15, 2006, Work Session, February 22, 2006, Work Session, February 27, 2006, Work Session, February 27, 2006, City Council Meeting, March 8, 2006, Workshop, March 13, 2006, Work Session, and March 15, 2006, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.February 8, 2006, Work Session B.February 13, 2006 City Council Meeting C.February 15, 2006, Work Session D.February 22, 2006, Work Session E.February 27, 2006, Work Session F.February 27, 2006, City Council Meeting G.March 8, 2006, Workshop H.March 13, 2006, Work Session I.March 15, 2006 Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060410\S0604102A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 8, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/28 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/21 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 3/30 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 8, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pyror. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORKSHOP: Update on 2008 Olympic Trials The council was joined by Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Angel Jones, who recalled the council’s direction to her to attempt to secure the trials for Eugene. Mayor Piercy recognized Ms. Jones for her work in bringing the trials to Eugene, and those present applauded the efforts of Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones noted the relationship of the trials to the community’s work on health-related issues, such as youth obesity. She also suggested the trials would touch everything the City did with regard to service delivery and could help shape the future with regard to operational models between the City and its intergovernmental and private partners and models for collaboration, commitment, and involvement. Ms. Jones, a member of the Bid Presentation Committee, introduced the chair of the committee, Oregon Track Club President Greg Irwin, University of Oregon (UO) Associate Athletic Director and Track and Field Head Coach Vin Lananna, and USA Track and Field Chief Executive Officer Craig Masback. Mr. Irwin congratulated Ms. Jones on her role in bringing the trials to Eugene. He said she had been instrumental in the bid process and very valuable in securing the event. Mr. Irwin introduced other members of the Bid Presentation Committee present: Tom Jordan and Barbara Kousky of Northwest Events Management; Michael Riley, Assistant Athletic Director/Track Operations, UO Track and Field; Kari Westlund of the Convention and Visitors Association of Lane County (CVALCO); Jan Oliver of the UO; and Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green. Mr. Lananna said that the University was thrilled to host the event. He hoped the event represented the renaissance of track and field in Eugene which would spread throughout the region and country. Mr. Lananna highlighted the partnerships emphasized in the bid presentation process and suggested they were key to the success of the bid. He noted the contributions of Rudy Chapa, former UO runner, who stressed the mystique of track and field at Hayward Field to USA Track and Field. The council viewed a short video about Hayward Field that was prepared as part of the bid effort. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Masback noted the competitive nature of the bid process, emphasizing that the choice of Eugene was not a “slam dunk.” Eugene had been selected because its presentation highlighted that the event would be a cultural and community event and the objectives outlined were in line with the objectives of his organization, which was involved in the anti-obesity movement. USA Track and Field operated a program called “Be a Champion,” through which it sent athletes to schools across the country to discuss the importance of a healthy lifestyle. Mr. Masback said that Ms. Jones’ presentation stimulated some thinking on the part of USA Track and Field to use the leadership that Eugene showed in environmental issues and highlight that throughout the trials, much as had been done in Helsinki, Finland, when that city hosted the World Track and Field Championships and highlighted its green initiative. Mr. Masback said the trials were now far larger and more complex than when he participated in them 26 years ago in Eugene, as demonstrated by increased media attendance and increased viewers around the world. He believed that Eugene was capable of putting on the event correctly and said it had significant upside potential. There would be eight nights of live competition shown on national television and around the world, and viewers would see images of Eugene, Lane County, and Oregon. Along with great athletes, viewers would see a beautiful venue. Community and arts events would be highlighted, as well as the welcoming of families coming to Eugene to view their family members competing. Mr. Masback said the stakes for Eugene and USA Track and Field were high because the 2008 Olympic Games were being held in China, and that fact would draw additional international attention to the trials. Track and field would be at the center of attention, and the team that dominated events in Beijing would be the team selected in Eugene. Mr. Masback thanked the council for its support of the event and for future such events. Mr. Irwin anticipated 17,000 spectators would view the trials daily, bringing in many people from outside of Eugene and Springfield. He said 30,000 room nights would be needed, and the trials could generate more than $300,000 in room tax revenues, with a direct benefit to the City’s Cultural Services Subfund. An overall economic impact of approximately $18 million was expected. Mr. Irwin said there were many partners in the process, including corporate sponsors, the UO, the City of Eugene, Lane County, and CVALCO. Those partnerships were essential to the success of the trials and he believed they established a framework for future events in Eugene. Mr. Irwin again commended Ms. Jones for her representation of the City and said she would be an important liaison for the committee. Mayor Piercy thanked the presenters and said she was both proud and a little bit scared. She agreed that the stakes were high but the opportunity was a great one for the community and the region. Mayor Piercy said that the council talked about sustainability frequently and the things that Mr. Masback mentioned with regard to highlighting Eugene’s green record seemed to be “so much us.” She thought the event gave residents the opportunity to share Eugene with the rest of the world. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly thanked all those involved in bringing the event to Eugene. He was happy about the trials coming to Eugene. He said the event was exciting and significant for the community in terms of connections and opportunities. Mr. Kelly asked about opportunities for cross-promotion of other events. Ms. Jones said the entertainment committee would calendar other events with the goal of increasing room night stays. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly asked if there were any new hotel projects planned. Ms. Westlund responded that there had been some new hotel projects announced, including a Holiday Inn in the Gateway area. There were rumors of other projects that would provide rooms not included in the bid process. She did not anticipate housing would be a problem because many of the seats would be filled by local residents. There were also rooms available in neighboring communities. Eugene would work with those communities to make sure that visitors had easy access to the event. Mr. Kelly suggested the event could be an educational opportunity about track and field and said perhaps the committee could provide guidebooks about track and field for distribution in the schools and to residents like himself who knew nothing about track and field before arriving in Eugene. Mr. Masback said that a curriculum that crossed many subject matters could be developed. There was also cultural history attached to track and field. He thought there was an educational component that would serve to promote the event. He said that there had been progress in getting fans to understand what was going on, including internal event broadcasts and brochures. He said The Register-Guard traditionally did a good job in covering the Prefontaine Classic and thought it would do a good job with the trials as well. Mr. Papé also thanked those involved in bringing the event to Eugene. Mr. Papé determined from Ms. Westlund that a new Holiday Inn would be constructed on the site of the former Quality Inn, for a net addition of about 40 rooms. Those rooms were accounted for in the bid. Ms. Westlund confirmed that athletes would be housed at the Hilton Hotel and the media would be primarily housed at Gateway. She noted that the bid requirements called for a minimum of two 350-room hotels. Eugene’s largest hotel had 272 rooms. The hospitality industry had been very cooperative in helping the bid committee meet the requirements. Ms. Westlund acknowledged another large hotel would be useful. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Masback said USA Track and Field was a not-for-profit organization based in Indianapolis, Indiana, and was a product of the Amateur Sports Act, passed in 1978. The organization had about 100,000 members across the country. It created the rules for track and field. The organization certified records and sanctioned 5,000 races and events each year. It collaborated with the U.S. Olympic Committee and had responsibility for putting on the trials, working with local organizing committees to actually stage the event. USA Track and Field received no government funding. Revenues were from memberships, sanctions, merchandise sales, and corporate sponsorships. Mr. Papé suggested that, although it was not an Olympic event, the trials include a twilight mile race for “old time’s sake.” Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Kousky said that the UO would set aside rooms to be used by athletes and spectators. The new Living Learning Center would be used to house athletes. Ms. Taylor asked how the event could be made more environmentally friendly. Mr. Masback invited suggestions. He said that the event in Helsinki included recyclable serving items and a stand at the athletes dining hall with information about environmental issues. He thought a good blue print existed from that event. Ms. Taylor suggested that the event could highlight locally grown organic foods. Mr. Masback believed that was a suggestion appropriately directed at the UO, but indicated he would support it. Ms. Taylor liked the emphasis the organization placed on education about health. She determined from Mr. Masback that the event would include the Olympic qualifier for the 20 kilometer walk for men and women. That event took place on public streets and was accessible to the community. Mr. Masback pledged to bring the athletes who would participate in the games to town on a regular basis to visit the schools through the “Be a Champion” program. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling thanked the committee members and asked them to keep up the good work. He acknowledged the County’s pledge of Room Tax dollars to support the event and noted the fact the City would also be asked to make a financial contribution. He asked the City Manager to propose funds in the upcoming budget for fiscal year 2007 to support the event. Mayor Piercy thanked the presenters again. B. WORK SESSION: East Broadway Development Update The council was joined for the item by Nan Laurence of the Planning Division, Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services, and Mike Sullivan of Development Services. Planning and Development Director Susan Muir was also present. Ms. Laurence shared a PowerPoint presentation on the East Broadway Development Project proposal that highlighted the project’s consistency with adopted policies, identified the parties to the project (Gerding/Edlen Developers, Whole Foods, the City, The Shedd, and Oregon Central Credit Union), outlined the current and projected site ownerships, and illustrated the proposed land transaction. The presentation further identified the need for parking in the area and highlighted the elements of the proposed public parking garage associated with the project to meet that demand and to encourage further private develop- ment in the area. The construction of the public parking garage was a condition of the agreement between the developer and Whole Foods. The developer was committed to building the parking facility for a fixed dollar amount. Ms. Laurence noted the options for the parking garage prepared for the council’s consideration, and recommended Option 4, a larger garage with added commercial spaces. Ms. Cutsogeorge reviewed the projected costs of the four options outlined by staff. She said staff identified a funding strategy for Option 4 that allowed for the City’s participation if the council chose to move forward. Because the project was in the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, the majority of costs would be borne by the district, with the remainder to be made up from other City sources. She confirmed that the project qualified for district funding. There were two main funding sources in the district: 1) borrowing, which would be backed by urban renewal revenues; and 2) the cash on hand at the time the purchase was made. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the benefit of the strategy was that it took advantage of the tax revenues generated by the private development on the site to pay for a portion of the garage costs over time. Those dollars would not be available if the project did not occur. Borrowing would require all projected and existing increment but would leave sufficient money to operate the district. Because McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic chose an alternative site, the dollars the council set aside for the purchase of the riparian area at the Eugene Water & Electric Board site could be used for the garage project. The total urban renewal contribution would be $5.5 million. Ms. Cutsogeorge identified the three sources of City funding: 1) Stormwater Fund, 2) Library Debt Service Fund, and 3) Facilities Reserve. The district would reimburse the City over time, contingent on the development that occurred, the sale of properties owned by the district, or an increase in property values in the district. The total City contribution was $2.5 million. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated that staff would review the cash situation and bonding capacity as the purchase date neared and return to the council with any adjustment in the strategy. She said staff was also examining an alternative financing strategy that involved the use of a $2 million grant the City recently received from the Housing and Urban Development Department to mitigate brownfield conditions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 4 Work Session th Ms. Laurence shared slides of 8 Avenue, reminding the council it was a designated “Great Street” where people would want to be. The City was implementing the Downtown Plan on a project-by-project basis. She said the Whole Foods project was consistent with the vision and policies outlined in the Downtown Plan. Ms. Laurence noted the action requested of the council, which was to direct the City Manager to negotiate a land transaction agreement, a development agreement and related legal documents, and to bring all the aforementioned documents to the council for final approval. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly thought the project was exciting and wanted it to happen. He thought a parking garage would benefit The Shedd’s continued growth as well. He said the store could be built as an outright use on the site in question; the question before the council today was the degree of City participation in the project. Mr. Kelly suggested another work session be scheduled, given the complexity of the topic. Mr. Kelly suggested the City needed to get out in front of the issue of downtown green space. He overviewed a proposal for a “green ribbon” connecting the Park Blocks downtown to the river. That proposal would require subgrade parking on the site. Ms. Laurence said staff discussed an enhanced th sidewalk along 8 Avenue using existing right-of-way to create a green walk. Mr. Kelly wanted more council discussion of the subject. Ms. Ortiz was glad that Mr. Kelly raised the point that the business in question was an outright use. She was concerned about the City providing staff assistance to a particular business when there were other smaller businesses that could also use City help. She had reservations about the City helping some, but not all, businesses. Ms. Bettman did not think the council had adequate time for discussion and agreed that a second work session was needed. She wanted to see a range of options rather than a single option. She was not convinced the proposal was the best investment for the money. Ms. Bettman commended Whole Foods for including embedded parking within its infrastructure. Ms. Bettman concurred with the remarks of Ms. Ortiz, saying that the business in question could go through the normal development process without City assistance. Ms. Bettman said there were several things she would like to see before she could support the project. The first was financial participation from the County and the General Services Administration (GSA) for the project. She did not want to use any City funds outside the district. She believed there were higher priorities for the money; for example, the City could still purchase the riparian area if EWEB decided to move, and the Library Debt Service Fund could be used to offset the library levy. Ms. Bettman wanted to see the parking consolidated and that there be no publicly funded commercial spaces provided. She suggested that the remainder of the City-owned property at the site be sold and the money used to fund the parking structure. Ms. Bettman said the City should share the cost of the utility upgrade with the developer as being commensurate with the benefit offered to the developer. Ms. Bettman believed that if a public parking structure that met a public need was proposed, there should be a competitive bidding process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor agreed that the business could locate without City assistance and she did not see reason to assist Whole Foods. She did not think there was a great need for a new source of organic foods as there was abundance of such foods. She suggested that a local organic foods store could locate at the site. She questioned the size of the grocery store being proposed, as it was rather large to serve downtown residents. Ms. Taylor was opposed to spending money on the project unless there was public need and desire for a parking structure. She thought it was great that Whole Foods was providing its own parking but questioned why the City had to suddenly decide it must build a parking structure. She suggested the City could accommodate The Shedd’s desire to add a music school by exchanging City property in a separate transaction. She also requested another work session as well as a public hearing. Ms. Taylor said even if she thought the proposal was wonderful she would want to wait and see what happened with the Oregon Research Institute. She suggested the City put more thought into how it used that space downtown and consider other uses. Mr. Papé was excited about the project and its implications for downtown. He hoped the council did not “blow it,” as it had a short window of opportunity to determine how downtown looked in the future. He feared that if the council missed the window, conditions in the downtown would continue as they were. Mr. Papé hoped the City moved forward with the project to the degree finances were available. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Bettman that the development should be commended for the proposed parking. Mr. Papé asked about other potential projects in the district. Mr. Sullivan said there was a lot of discussion about potential redevelopment on various properties but no clear indication of what would happen. The financial analysis did not take into account any increment generated by those uses. City Manager Taylor indicated that staff hoped the development could be a catalyst for further development of the type envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé about the use of the Library Debt Service Fund, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that the money was originally from the General Fund and not part of the urban renewal financing for the library. Mr. Papé asked if the City could condition the use of money from the Facilities Reserve on repayment from the Urban Renewal District. Ms. Cutsogeorge indicated that was staff’s intent and would be included in the materials the council saw on February 22. Mr. Sullivan added that it was possible the sale of City property could generate some funds for that purpose. Mr. Papé asked if systems development charge revenues could be used on the project. Public Works Director Kurt Corey said no. Mr. Papé asked if the City considered building a pedestrian structure off the northeast corner of the parking structure across Mill Street to serve the federal courthouse. Mr. Sullivan said the idea had come up. The City owned the corner across the street and there would be an elevator in that garage that would obviate the need for a ramp. Mr. Papé suggested that a pedestrian structure could spur federal financial participation. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to negotiate a land transaction between property owned by the City and property owned by The Shedd Institute for the Arts, LLC for the purpose of participating in the Whole Foods Development Project, and to bring back final terms for council approval. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon said the council heard a compelling argument that there was a need for more parking downtown. The council spent considerable money to create an environment that attracted this type of project. She hoped the council moved forward and did not stall the process. She said the project was consistent with previous council discussions and established downtown goals in terms of making downtown more accessible and desirable for people to visit. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Solomon that the need for additional parking had been established. The question was whether there would be economies of scale or value to be realized by building a public parking garage in conjunction with the Whole Foods development. He thought the answer to the question was yes and that considerable savings would be realized through the partnership and coordination of construction. He believed the partnership would be advantageous to all parties involved and would save public money. Mr. Pryor thought the financing package intriguing and creative and was persuaded to look on it favorably because the City contribution represented the least amount of out-of-pocket cash. He was supportive of the project and thought it would benefit downtown. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon and Mr. Papé. He said the proposal represented a window of opportunity for the council to address some long-established, but unaccomplished, City visions and goals for downtown. He agreed with Mr. Pryor about the financing package. The project would cost the City something but it would have a benefit. He said the proposal was not just about an individual development but about what the City had envisioned for that part of town for many years. Regarding the potential of County and federal involvement in the parking structure, Mr. Poling pointed out that many people would use the facility, not just those going to the County or federal offices. He would not blame the County for not being receptive to the City’s overtures for funding given the council’s recent interactions with the Board of County Commissioners. He thought some bad choices had been made with regard to how the City dealt with the County, and opportunities to work together had been lost. He said if there was anything he could do to “extend a hand across the bridge” or work with the federal government, he would do it. Mr. Poling also agreed the demand for parking had been proven and he consistently heard complaints about a lack of parking in downtown. He thought the project worthwhile and pointed out the motion merely started a process that would require final council approval. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Kelly it was likely another work session would be needed. Mr. Kelly said he supported the project and expected to support the City’s participation if City policies were satisfied and its interests were met. He did not think the proposal inconsistent with the concept of the City helping small businesses, and invited proposals from local small businesses either individually or in consortia. He noted that he had to leave the meeting at the scheduled ending time and asked that action be postponed if he had to leave. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed land transaction and requested a written answer to the question of whether, when the exchange was done, the City would own part of the northern half block. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor indicated it would be useful if the council could take action that day, given that the motion merely started the process. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion until February 22, 2006. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting no; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Papé, and Ms. Bettman voting yes; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy stated that the motion was still on the table and given that the meeting was approaching its scheduled ending time, she asked for a motion to extend the meeting. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Papé and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Bettman said she could have supported the motion in the PowerPoint presentation (direct the City Manager to negotiate a land transaction and to bring back final terms for council approval). She indicated her support for the equitable exchange of land between the City and The Shedd and would be happy to proceed with that. However, the motion implied it was a facilitative move to participating in the Whole Foods development, and it was her opinion that the council “hadn’t gotten there yet.” Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment that deleted the words in the motion following “The Shedd Institute for the Arts, LCC.” Otherwise, she would have to vote against the motion because the council had not yet adequately discussed the issues involved. Mr. Kelly left the meeting. City Manager Taylor said his concern about delay was specifically related to the possibility that land could be exchanged without a tie to the more specific development proposal, leading to the loss of all potential tax revenue from that property. Ms. Solomon declined to accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman maintained that, given expected population growth in the valley, to approach such proposals from a “position of desperation” was a mistake. She said the City could afford to take the time to establish whether there was a public benefit. She could support the transaction knowing there was the possibility for development, but would not “rubber-stamp” the proposal until the council saw the details. Ms. Taylor wished to honor Mr. Kelly’s request for postponement. Mr. Papé concurred. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to table the item to February 13, 2006. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 7:0. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 13, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/9 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/28 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/28 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 3/29 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 13, 2006 7:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pyror. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS On behalf of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) Commissioners, Commission President Sandra Bishop presented several plastic water pitchers to the council. She was pleased that the council had chosen to use EWEB water rather than bottled water, and said that EWEB was offering the pitchers to other public bodies for use during meetings. Ms. Bishop said the council would be drinking the best water in the world. Organic Style magazine deemed Eugene’s water the best in the United States. She noted that EWEB was working closely with Mayor Piercy on her Sustainable Business Initiative and that use of the water pitchers was one small step toward a more sustainable community; it would take many such small steps for all to move to sustainability. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to EWEB for the pitchers. 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She noted that 30 people signed up for the public forum, and called for a motion from the council regarding the allocation of time. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to limit the public forum to 60 min- utes and encourage speakers to be as brief as possible. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6;2; Councilor Solomon and Councilor Ortiz voting no. rd Steve Barnes , 491 East 53 Avenue, presented the council with a letter with 1,000 signatures opposing the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) plan to require Sheldon and South Eugene high school students to travel to Medford, Grants Pass, and Roseburg, to participate in games. For reasons of safety, academics, and fiscal accountability, he believed the proposal made no sense. He noted that school buses had no seat belts. Students would be pulled out of school for unnecessary, day-long road trips. With regard to fiscal accountability, he said the cost for busing South Eugene students would be $30,000. Mr. Barnes asked the council to make a statement in opposition to the OSAA proposal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting th Megan Mosely , 313 East 8 Avenue, a downtown business owner, commended the council on its approval of the East Broadway Development Project and concurred with statements made by supportive councilors that the development was a partnership and not a City subsidy. Ms. Mosley said that Whole Foods was a good employer with a record of positive community partnership. She said there was a need for parking and she thought the courthouse developments would increase that need. Speaking to the West Broadway project, she thought it another opportunity to reinvest in the community and revitalize downtown. She agreed more information was needed but suggested the project be viewed in a positive light until there was a need to do otherwise. Mary Hoover , 3355 Delta Highway, opposed the hospital development being proposed by the McKenzie- Willamette Medical Clinic on a portion of the River Ridge golf course. Ms. Hoover said if the clinic’s plans went forward, the result would be two hospitals in proximity on one side of the Willamette River, and a terrorist attack or natural disaster would mean those in the southwest and west did not have access to the hospitals. She asserted that the City had sufficient land in the Riverfront Research District to offer the hospital. Ms. Hoover noted current traffic conditions in the area and thought that proposed road improve- ments to facilitate the hospital were in the distant future. She suggested the council either vote no on the proposal or refer the decision to the voters of Eugene. She acknowledged that tax revenues would be lost if the hospital did not locate somewhere in Eugene, but she just did not think it was a good plan. She did not think that PeaceHealth’s current proposal for emergency services at its Hilyard campus would be adequate for southwest area residents. Orval Etter , 3080 Potter Street, referred to a statement he previously submitted regarding a 40-year partnership between the City and the Amateur Music Makers. He expressed hope that the Atrium Building would be available in the future for amateur music making. He noted Eugene’s recently adopted motto of World’s Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors and suggested it “covered a lot of ground.” If the council believed in truth in advertising, he suggested what was stated on the Web page meant that the community should be vigilant in preserving its cultural and recreational resources. Carolyn Burckelheider , 2017 Elk Drive, noted the location of the Atrium and the many open spaces on the ground floor where Mr. Etter gathered his amateur musicians for concerts. She praised Mr. Etter and noted his many community contributions. She asked that Mr. Etter be given a place to play in the Atrium. Bill Northrup , 939 Laurelhurst Drive, said that the work of the Gender Identity Work Group had “gone underground” and people were being shut out of the process. He referred to the Human Rights Commission discussions about private meetings between individuals and said he had been told he could not participate as the meetings were private and nothing was being decided. Since code language revisions were being discussed with City Attorney Glenn Klein’s oversight, he questioned whether staff could truthfully state that Oregon’s Public Open Meetings law was being followed. Mr. Northrup feared that the process would go so quickly that the public would have no time to respond. He said that the commission had already decided it did not need to hold another public forum on special revisions and may hold a special meeting to get its recommendations to the council more quickly. He did not know what the amended proposal would be and thus could not respond. Mr. Northrup asked the council to direct the Human Rights Commission to hold public discussions and to direct staff to ensure that any questions directed to the attorney are answered in public. He suggested that open deliberations would lead to greater mutual understanding. Celeste Ulrich , 3355 North Delta Highway, urged the council to take its time with regard to the new location of the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic, which she considered critical. She expressed MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting disappointment in what she considered an endorsement of the site by the City Manager and Mayor Piercy. She supported the remarks of Ms. Hoover. Rich Hazel , 2603 Moon Mountain Drive, referred to proposals to add ramps to I-5 at Franklin Boulevard. He said that it appeared there was no opportunity to add the ramps because the bridge was a discrete project and would be constructed before a new interchange could be done. Mr. Hazel maintained there were “engineering constraints, social issues, and natural area points” that were barriers to the construction of ramps. He said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) indicated there was no State transporta- tion system problem the interchange would solve. He noted that a council work session on the project and partnering with ODOT was scheduled. He said that if a Glenwood interchange project was wanted, that should be clearly stated. He asked the council to keep in mind the original objective of the proposed ramps, and to preserve tax dollars for those projects that needed to be completed. Carlos Barrera , 2470 Olive Street, asked the council to fully fund the proposed Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan. He spoke to the value of parks and open space as an important resource for Eugene residents and said if the council did not supply, them no one would. As co-chair of the Friendly Area Neighborhood, Mr. Barrera asked the council to maintain the College Hill Reservoir as an open space. He said that EWEB, which owned the site, was considering fencing off the reservoir, which he asserted was one of the few “all weather playgrounds” in the city and a valuable resource for all residents of Eugene. He invited the council to look into the situation and attempt to influence EWEB to work with the residents to keep the reservoir open. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene, shared recently garnered information about peak oil and the status of world oil supplies. He suggested that the City discuss what it could do in regard to climate change. He did not think the City’s rhetoric was matched by its actions, as evidenced by Lane Transit District’s plans to build a Bus Rapid Transit route next to new City-owned parking garages. He maintained that Whole Foods had “driven under” three natural food businesses in three states with predatory business practices. He said that Whole Foods was not supportive of unions and work place democracy and it was not sustainable to bring foods from other countries to Eugene. Mr. Rabinowitz suggested the land planned for Whole Foods and garages be used for urban agricultural given future oil shortages and the need for local food supplies. He did not think the East Broadway Development Project was a sustainable development either. Mr. Rabinowitz pointed out that the Oregon Supreme Court upheld restrictions on big box development and he believed any serious effort at sustainability would include such restrictions. Nancy Hansen , 4870 Hillside Drive, noted the gender identity work being done by the Human Rights Commission and asserted that the commission was shutting out the community from those discussions. Only a select few were participating in the meetings. She said the City Attorney's Office was sharing opinions with those participants but those opinions were not available to the public. She said that two commissioners had been meeting with a group of about six people over a period of months. Ms. Hansen acknowledged the probable legality of what was occurring but suggested it violated the spirit of the law. She asked the mayor how the process was collaborative, and asked that the council consider the thoughts of the public, who hoped it was open and collaborative. Virginia Pearson , 2765 Almaden Street, echoed the remarks of Mr. Northup and Ms. Hansen. She asked that the council look into how the commission was handling the gender identity proposal. She asserted that the Human Rights Commission was violating the public trust by allowing commissioners to meet with former members of the Gender Identity Work Group. People asked to be allowed to participate in meetings that were held to discuss code amendments but were told the meetings were private. She agreed with Ms. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Hansen that the meetings violated the spirit of the law. She quoted from the Oregon Public Meetings law, which cautioned against the use of committees to circumvent the letter of the law and a section about committing to the spirit of the law. Jessica Spaulding , 120 Aberdeen Street, discussed her participation in the LEAD (Leadership, Education, Adventure, Directions) Program, which served low-income teens aged 12-17 in Eugene and Springfield. She said the program provided teens with age-appropriate and safe, supervised activities, including outdoor adventure activities and community service. The program valued diversity and welcomed those of all abilities, races, and sexual orientation. Ms. Spaulding said that teens have few opportunities to build leadership skills and LEAD provided those opportunities. Becca Purkey , 28844 Meadowview Road, Junction City, also discussed the LEAD Program, and the changes that LEAD had made in her life. She shared that she used to get into fights on an almost daily basis at school and home and her mom was ready to throw her out of the house. She was smoking, drinking, and doing drugs, and she hated the person she had become. LEAD helped her change that. Ms. Purkey said LEAD kept her out of fights and people called her for advice. She and her mother had grown to be best friends. She no longer smoked, drank, or did drugs. She had not thought of suicide since she began to participate in LEAD, and she now loved herself. She was more outgoing and sensitive than most people she knew, and enjoyed being around people a lot more. Her father, who died four years ago, would be proud of the person she had become, and that alone was worth living for. Madge Rafferty , 532 Olive Street, founder and executive director of the LEAD Program, said that she and her colleagues were present to try to persuade the council to open a teen center, and would continue to attend council meetings to encourage the achievement of that goal and share updates on their work with the County on the subject. She said census numbers indicated that about ten percent of the population was teenagers. Eugene was listed as one of America’s most livable communities, but when the LEAD teens put out the idea of having such a center they were told it was impossible. She pointed out that communities much smaller than Eugene had such centers. She noted the teens’ advocacy at the recent Town Hall on the mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative. She said that those without a voice in government who often paid taxes were a part of the equation of sustainability. Teens were referred to as the problem downtown; she thought the problem was the lack of activities for teens. Maya Rios , 882 Almaden Street, a Churchill student, spoke on behalf of a project to create a teen center for at-risk kids in downtown Eugene. She said prevention was always more cost-effective than intervention. She said the Downtown Safety Council recently heard complaints about teen behavior in downtown and the center would give kids somewhere to go. She thought the proposed redevelopment plans for downtown made the time right for a teen center downtown. th Mary Ellen Locke , 1130 West 25 Avenue, an active member of the Friendly Area Neighbors (FAN), said FAN wanted to work with the City and EWEB to maintain access to College Hill Reservoir. She said that there were many talented people wishing to volunteer to address the historic preservation possibilities of the College Hill Reservoir system. She suggested that the City work with EWEB to create an open space agreement for the College Hill Reservoir. She requested the City’s assistance in the matter. Rick Grosscup , 2540 Lincoln Street, a member of the executive committee of FAN and co-chair of FAN’s “College Hill Reservoir Safety Advisory Task Force,” said that EWEB staff asserted there was a security issue with all its reservoirs and cited an Oregon Revised Statute in support of a proposal to fence the College Hill Reservoir. He maintained that EWEB staff was wrong and the reservoir did not need to be fenced because of an exception included in 1990 legislation. He maintained that fences were irrelevant to MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting the security issues. He met with EWEB several times to provide feedback, and the commissioners had invited solutions from the neighbors. Mr. Grosscup said that staff was less receptive to the neighborhood’s proposals. He believed that closing the reservoir would have a profound impact on the community. Mr. Grosscup asserted that issues that affected neighborhood, such as open space and the unique historic character of the site, mandated City involvement in the issue. He noted that EWEB commissioners would hear a proposal from EWEB staff in April, so time was of the essence. Mr. Grosscup acknowledged that it would be helpful if he understood the relationship between EWEB and the City with regard to the ownership and management of the property in question. David Sonnichsen , 2435 Skyline Boulevard, noted that Oregon Transportation Commission member Randy Papé stated at the February 2006 Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting that public opposition to ramps at I-5 influenced ODOT against the idea. More would be known after the council discussion. He said the Walnut Station Study referred to Franklin Boulevard as a gateway to the City. However, he believed the University of Oregon’s plans for its property on Franklin Boulevard did not create a gateway but rather another downtown “all to itself.” He noted the recent staff presentation regarding the Whole Foods development, during which staff referred to that as a gateway. He suggested the result would be that Franklin Boulevard was a “gateway to a gateway.” Mr. Sonnichsen suggested the new bridge at Franklin Boulevard without pillars in the river could be a beautiful new gateway between Eugene and Springfield but he did not think it could be beautiful if it had ramps attached to it. He noted the many people who would visit Eugene and use the Prefontaine Trail during the 2008 Olympic Trials and suggested a new bridge with ramps would sully that area, which he believed should be protected. nd Jana Jackson , 1012 East 22 Avenue, suggested that it would be useful if the City Council and mayor listened to the people of Eugene. She attended a recent workshop on violence and youth, and heard a suggestion that youth be listened to so they knew they were heard. Ms. Jackson suggested the council do the same. She said that the council should respect the will of the voters, and cited as a classic example of a lack of respect the council’s actions with regard to the West Eugene Parkway. She pointed out that residents voted for the parkway twice and against an expensive advisory study and the council acted in opposition to that. The result was that people did not feel heard and became frustrated. She asked why the community’s youth should follow the law, given that example. She cited the Santa Clara sewer assessment issue and City’s foreclosure on a home, which she found abusive and an example of why people questioned why they should follow the law if the City did not. Ms. Jackson referred to the City’s Land Use Code, which allowed passive “yeses” to prevail in the case of the South Eugene Historic District and rewarded people’s ignorance and passivity. The code did not reward those residents who fought hard to protect their investments in their homes. She said “no means no.” Molly Dobbs , 1125 Jackson Street, asserted that the parking structure being proposed for the Whole Foods development was “not in line with the vision of downtown.” She wanted the City to extend the Parks Blocks to create a connection to the river. She shared a proposal to create underground parking based on the Salem Civic Center. Ms. Dobbs asked the City to meet with the students and consider alternatives to the proposed garage. She believed the site of the proposed Whole Foods development was a perfect site to start the Parks Blocks extension and live up to the City’s logo regarding the arts and outdoors. Mark Gillem , 1799 Fairmount Boulevard, Ms. Dobbs’ professor, advocated for the proposal put forth by Ms. Dobbs, which met many of the City’s goals for downtown, including the connection for the waterfront MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting and an increase in downtown parks space. He said the proposed parking structure would “stand in the way” of connecting the Parks Blocks to the river. The students had put much thought into how parking could be accommodated. He offered suggestions for underground parking at a cost of about $27,000 per space. Approximately 100 to 250 spaces could be accommodated. Mr. Gilham said there was a real need for an integrated parks system, which he believed the connection would help to create. Amanda Pecretu, 1157 Monroe Street, Apartment B, expressed support for Ms. Dobbs’ proposal, saying that people found parks and open space valuable to Eugene’s quality of life. The Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan identified the area downtown as statistically underserved by parks and advocated for planning for park needs prior to need. The plan also emphasized the importance of neighbor- hood parks to mixed-use areas. Her design studio was willing to work with the City on design alternatives that accommodated Whole Foods and the public good. Jen Evans , 1591 High Street, #1, shared examples of the type of parking the students were advocating for and asked the City to work with the design studio. Mayor Piercy noted that time for the Public Forum had expired. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to hear the remainder of those who signed up to speak in the Public Forum and to extend time for the meeting if necessary. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Papé, Councilor Poling, Councilor Solomon, and Councilor Pryor voting no, and Councilor Taylor, Councilor Kelly, Councilor Bettman, and Councilor Ortiz voting yes. The mayor cast a vote in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ken Avery , 2648 Harris Street, also a member of the design studio, emphasized that there were alternatives to the parking design put forth by Whole Foods that accomplished the same goals. He suggested a mixed- use development that included housing was one such approach and would result in a better gateway to downtown than a parking structure. He believed such an approach could increase land values. th Laurie Segal , 1210 East 29 Place, brought the recent annexation of the River Ridge property into the City of Eugene to the council’s attention. She said she attempted to follow the process, which she characterized as “relatively fast,” given the staff report was issued January 3, 2006, and the commission hearing occurred a month later on February 2, 2006. Ms. Segal had asked the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission to extend the time for public comment so more information could be submitted in the record, but the boundary commission declined to do so and approved the annexation. Ms. Segal said her research brought several documents to light that raised interesting questions. She hoped the council could respond and there might be some discussion about the issue. One document was an irrevocable petition for public improvements filed in March 1988 that stated it accompanied the land and was effective for 20 years. A determination of the need to execute an annexation agreement was filed in May 1988; that was pursuant to a zone change ordinance adopted by the County that required, pursuant to the zone change approval, annexation. Ms. Segal said in May 1988, a conditional use permit was approved by the City of Eugene for the site. She did not understand why the City took that action if the property was outside the city limits. Following that, another conditional use permit for a golf course application was approved in 1988. Later in 1988, a site review agreement was filed and approved. In November the same year, there was an expedited request for a community water system. The expectation was that services would be extended at the cost of the land owner. Ms. Segal believed the irrevocable petition was still valid and said she “hoped this could be addressed.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Zach Vishanoff , a resident of Patterson Street, suggested the President of the University of Oregon, as a member of the board of directors of Umqua Bank, serving with a member of the Guistina family, which proposed the Whole Foods development, would have more influence over the development than the council. He said the site in question already contained housing and a 24-hour business. There were people living and working in downtown, but they were not the type of people the City Council wanted downtown. He said that homeless people used the 24-hour restaurant at night because it was the only place that was open. He suggested that the mayor hold her monthly one-on-one at the restaurant. He asserted that the homeless who patronized the restaurant were out of work because of the no-bid contract for the garage. Mr. Vishanoff opposed a no-bid contract and wanted an open bid process. Ali Emami , 2321 Augusta Street, thanked the mayor, council, and staff for taking the time to work on the downtown development issue. He noted the location of his properties and said he had been doing business in downtown for the last 20 years. His businesses were vandalized daily. He believed the proposed East Broadway development was important to downtown and such an opportunity did not come around every day. He called the proposal a “ray of light” for Eugene downtown development. He thought it would be more constructive if Opus 5, the developers, and the City provided detailed information about the plan to the public and property owners to reveal the importance of the plan to Eugene and its residents. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, asked the City to extend the public comment time for the Walnut Station mixed-use development public forum and notify the public that comment was being requested. Mr. Biggs complained that the City repealed a plan that contained land use policies and substituted another plan with few or no policies, which took away the rights of citizens. Mr. Biggs then spoke to the issue of the River Ridge annexation. He said that he had done some research and discovered an annexation agreement between the City and the property owner (#AA 88-2). The agreement included a condition stating that if the property was rezoned for commercial or industrial uses, the property or area to be annexed must be contiguous to the central incorporated area of the city of Eugene at the time of the proposed annexation. He interpreted that as meaning that the area to be annexed could not merely be contiguous to the portion of the city surrounded by unincorporated territory. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, Eugene, representing the Friends of Eugene, expressed appreciation for the council’s acquisition of a parks and open space bond measure on the November 2006 ballot. It gave citizens the opportunity to vote on whether it wished to make that commitment. He was grateful to have the chance to vote in favor of the measure. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She thanked the representatives of LEAD and the representatives of the University of Oregon design studio for their comments, suggesting that they were doing the kind of work the council desired from citizens. Councilor Kelly thanked those who spoke. He addressed the remarks of Mr. Etter regarding the Atrium’s closure to the amateur music groups. He said that information provided by staff indicated that it would cost too much money to open the building. He thought the music group represented a community asset and asked City Manager Dennis Taylor to prepare a memorandum with a proposal for how the building could be reopened. City Manager Dennis Taylor determined that Councilor Kelly did not object to suggestions for other locations. Speaking to the comments of Mr. Northup and others who raised concerns about the gender identity issue, Councilor Kelly said the Human Rights Commission held no secret meetings. Each meeting had a published agenda, a minutes recorder, and an opportunity for public comment. There were two public forums on the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting topic at which dozens of comments were received. It was routine for the commissioners to meet with constituents regarding proposals of a variety of natures. However, no decisions were made at these meetings. Anything the commission did with regard to gender identity would be done in public and the matter would come to the council for public deliberation and action. Councilor Bettman suggested the information uncovered by Ms. Segal was relevant to the decision made by the Boundary Commission and asked what the significance of that information was and if it had been available to the Boundary Commission. City Manager Taylor indicated he would have to confirm that information. Councilor Bettman asked if the information could be made available by the Wednesday work session. City Manager Taylor said he would make every attempt to find out. Councilor Ortiz expressed appreciation to those who spoke, particularly the representatives of LEAD. She did not know what the council could do with regard to the OSAA decision, but offered her personal assistance if it was needed. Councilor Ortiz agreed the decision was not a good one. In response to comments about the hospital location, Councilor Ortiz clarified that the council had no control over where hospitals go. The City could not proscribe their locations. Councilor Papé also thanked those who spoke and said he did not recall having such a diverse group of speakers in terms of issues. He commended the representatives of LEAD for their heart-rending testimony. Councilor Papé agreed with Councilor Kelly about the open nature of the meetings of the Human Rights Commission but he did not think that was the complaint made; rather, those offering testimony complained about private meetings. He said the appearance of impropriety sometimes called into question the results, and asked for a memorandum about the topic and the involvement of staff and the City Attorney’s Office. Councilor Papé referred to the College Hill Reservoir issue and asked if the City could work with EWEB to maintain access to the five-acre site, which was valuable open space. He asked if the City could find out what it could do. Councilor Taylor also thanked those who spoke. She thought the City Council would regret the slogan it adopted for Eugene as the “Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors” because it was hypocritical. She indicated support for Mr. Orval’s efforts because of his contributions to the community. Councilor Taylor hoped the council could use its influence with EWEB to keep the reservoir open to the public. Councilor Taylor said the City was fortunate to have the University of Oregon and University students prepared to help with design ideas for downtown. She hoped the City would listen to the students and not say it was too late for their input. Councilor Taylor noted her long-time advocacy for a teen center and said one was needed downtown for young people to gather. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 21, 2005, Process Session MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting - December 14, 2005, Work Session - January 9, 2006, Work Session - January 9, 2006, City Council Meeting - January 18, 2006, Work Session - January 23, 2006, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of 2006 City Council Priority Issues Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman indicated that she submitted corrections to the minutes via e-mail. She pulled Item C. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections accepted. Councilor Taylor also wished to pull Item C and referred to the December 14 work session and asked for permission to submit corrections at a later date. There was no objection. Councilor Papé pulled Item B. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item A on the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. Referring to Item B, Tentative Working Agenda, Councilor Papé recalled that the council had been told it would have a work session on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building standards, but it was not on the schedule. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up, but noted that the staff involved in that effort was the same staff involved with addressing the council priority of planning for a new city hall complex. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Item B passed unanimously, 8:0. Referring to Item C, City Council Priority Issues, Councilor Bettman indicated she could not support Goal 3 as worded in the document. A hospital could locate in Eugene if it followed all the legal processes, she said, but her difficulty with the goal was that the development process would be expedited by the City. She believed that there were issues not being addressed due to the haste of the process. She believed that, based on medical considerations, there were sites not in Eugene that were far superior to the one being considered. She said the criterion important to her was that one could move a child from the emergency room to surgery without recourse to a helicopter. She did not think the City should expedite the process or guarantee an outcome. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt Goal 3. Councilor Kelly suggested a motion to divide would be in order but indicated willingness to vote if that was acknowledged. City Attorney Jerome Lidz concurred. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Councilor Bettman and Councilor Taylor voting no. Roll call vote; the amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Used Merchandise Dealers, and Amending Sections 4.989 and 4.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4916, an ordinance concerning used merchandise dealers. Councilor Papé expressed appreciation for Attachment C and determined from City Manager Taylor that the department would absorb the expense. The council could consider an expanded proposal in the fiscal year 2007 budget if it did not fund the program as proposed. Councilor Papé acknowledged that he was likely the only councilor with a concern about the issue. Councilor Bettman supported the motion, noting she received a request from a constituent related to antique stores, and her interpretation of the ordinance was that they were not included. In response, Detective Bob Holland said he spoke to antique dealer Penny Dolan, and the regulated property identified would exclude a major part of her concern, which was furniture, antiques and knickknacks. The department’s concern was about the buying and selling of jewelry. Ms. Dolan seemed satisfied with that answer. Councilor Ortiz determined from Captain Elvia Williams that Lane County would take action on February 15, followed by action by Springfield. Councilor Ortiz indicated support for the ordinance. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Captain Williams indicated the City would pay the administrative costs of the system and Lane County and Springfield would pay for their own detectives. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy called for a brief meeting break. 5. ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Improvements Consisting of Alley Paving Located in the West University Neighborhood Generally Bounded by Willamette Street, th 19 Avenue, Kincaid Street, and Franklin Boulevard; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date (Contract 2005-30, 2005-29, and 2005-28) (Job #4172, 4309, and 4310) Principal Civil Engineer Paul Klope was present to answer questions. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to approve the Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations of the Hearings Official of February 6, 2006. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Councilor Pryor said he reviewed the issue carefully and believed he could support the findings with the provision there were ways for the owner-occupied properties to address the costs of the assessment in some fashion. Councilor Bettman said the proposal was consistent with the City’s assessment policies, with which she did not agree, so she would vote against the motion. She questioned what other neighborhoods the City would MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting identify to improve alley access after this, and said that such an assessment could be devastating to the average homeowner. Councilor Papé was supportive of efforts to improve City alleys and he was happy to start in west Eugene. He referred to the soft costs referred to in the minutes and asked if the 28.5 percentage for engineering fees cited was accurate. Mr. Klope did not know where that figure came from. The project was charged the actual costs of staff time. He believed that the concerns cited by residents with regard to costs were based on the fact that City engineering costs included overhead as well as benefit costs. Councilor Papé said he would like the City to do such a project using private companies and compare that to the City’s costs as he frequently heard complaints about the City’s higher costs. Councilor Papé said he was also concerned about the perception of “bait and switch” in the costs as evidenced by the minutes. He thought that created a breach in the public trust. Mr. Klope noted the earlier estimates were done prior to the design. Councilor Papé acknowledged that but thought it a poor practice. City Manager Taylor called Councilor Papé’s attention to a table comparing the City’s charge out rates with private rates, showing the City’s rates were lower. Councilor Taylor indicated she would vote against the motion because she did not think the City’s assessment system was fair and many did not want the proposed improvements. Even with ten years to pay, the assessments were a significant amount of money for many residents. City Manager Taylor noted the ordinance had an immediate effective date, requiring six affirmative votes to proceed. There would be additional costs associated with any delay. Councilor Pryor determined that it was City policy to assess for 100 percent of the costs of sidewalks. Councilor Kelly recalled the work done by a subcommittee of the City Council, which had developed the system after a great deal of study. That did not preclude future changes. He pointed out, however, that while the Garden Club was a nonprofit organization, so was PeaceHealth. Mayor Piercy suggested there may be communication issues as representatives of a church she spoke to believe the church was exempt from the assessment, which was not the case. Councilor Taylor responded to Councilor Kelly, saying that said the Garden Club did not make money and PeaceHealth did. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Roll call vote; Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the council adopt Council Bill 4914, an ordinance levying assessments for improvements to alleyes in the West University neighborhood. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Tay- lor and Bettman voting no. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; and Adopting a Severability Clause MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4914, an ordinance repealing the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Councilor Solomon objected to the lack of a project list in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan, the impacts to the residential and commercial lands inventories, and said the action should not be taken without consideration of that. She did not understand why the plan was on a fast track, and said it appeared the City was attempting to avoid making a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), “end-gaming” the Metro Plan. She said she would vote no on the motion. Councilor Pryor agreed with the need for a lands inventory, but he supported the PROS Plan with the provision that there was still an “800-pound gorilla in the room,” that of the available land supply. He said the council’s next tasks should be a review of the project list and an inventory of land. That would be a crucial part of the discussion for him. Councilor Papé said the decision was difficult for him. He appreciated the work of the advisory committee that worked on the plan, which was a good product. He did not know what happened between that time and the time the plan reached the council. He could not move ahead with a plan that called for the removal of 13,000 acres without affecting the buildable commercial, residential, and industrial lands supply. He preferred to postpone action to a date certain to address those issues. Councilor Poling determined from Mr. Lidz that in the absence of action on item 6, there was no plan. Councilor Poling was also reluctant to support the motion and was reluctant to support the next motion as well. The City proposed to remove property from an unknown buildable lands supply. He favored tabling action to a time certain so the council could examine the lands supply and the residential lands supply completed by the Lane Council of Governments. The fact that the projects list was removed from the plan was a concern for him, and he noted an upcoming decision on the part of the State related to that topic that would be rendered in eight days. Councilor Bettman supported both motions. Speaking to the issue of the land supply, she thought the City could assume that most parks land to be acquired would be designated as either public or residential lands. She said there were variables to the residential land supply that regarded living units the community needed within a certain time to respond to growth as well as acres. She suggested the issue of density was more relevant to the issue of how much growth the community could accommodate than acreage. Councilor Bettman asserted that the same people “fighting for large buildable lots” and no maximum lot size were also arguing that the community needed more developable land within the urban growth boundary. She said if the City wanted to use its land supply more efficiently and accommodate more units it must address the density issue and maximum lot size. Councilor Kelly said the PROS plan was a plan of strategies. He asked those considering opposing the plan on account of the land supply issue to have the discussion in the context of the project list rather than the plan. Councilor Kelly noted a good point that was raised by Roxie Cuellar of the Lane County Homebuilders Association in her e-mail communication to the council. He had not realized that parks were an outright MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 12 Regular Meeting permitted use in R-1 Low-Density Residential zones. He agreed a proactive land supply discussion was needed, and urged that it be done the right way. Councilor Kelly noted the Planning Commission, a group with diverse views, was working on some good ideas about opportunity siting tied with density allocation. He suggested the council let those ideas come forward before the land supply discussion so the council could have a more fruitful discussion. He maintained the City was in compliance with State law with regard to the land supply at this time. Councilor Kelly recalled that the most recent periodic review study presumed that parks would be developed, and took that amount out of the land supply; page 28 of the study indicated that it assumed 32 percent of residential land would be used for parks and other nonresidential uses. Councilor Pryor said the discussion pointed out that the real issue before the council was that of the land supply. That was why he was willing to support the plan, as it was a side discussion to the real discussion. He was committed to having a real discussion about the land supply in a thoughtful and coordinated way, using real facts and data on which to base a decision. He had been unaware of the pending court decision but did not have enough information about the timing of that decision to table the motion at this time. City Manager Taylor echoed the comments of Councilor Kelly and Councilor Pryor. He said if the issue was land use, the plan should not be delayed. Staff recommended the proposed direction based on council direction, and a project discussion was scheduled for the next work session. He said a discussion of land use could occur at another time. He thought it would be regrettable to hold the plan hostage to that discussion. Councilor Papé appreciated the discussion but believed it was wrong to take the issue of the impact of parks on the land supply in isolation. He did not support the motion. He said that in 1989, the City established a ratio for parks that called for 2.7 acres of parks per 1,000 residents; that had increased in the proposed plan to 20 acres per 1,000 residents. He thought that to move ahead tonight was a mistake. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Poling voting no. 6. ACTION: Resolution 4858 Adopting a New Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4858 adopt- ing a new Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) and provid- ing an effective date. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to amend the motion by adding the words “and a project list” after the parenthetical reference to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Councilor Kelly believed the amendment would make the motion impossible to pass given the fact the project list was not before the council. He said staff had articulated a good reason for adopting the two documents separately, and while he was anxious to get to discussion of the project list, he believed there was a convincing argument to adopt the list separately. He opposed the amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 13 Regular Meeting City Manager Taylor noted that the project list would be considered by the council in a work session in two weeks. Councilor Bettman opposed the motion as preempting a future council discussion. Councilor Poling said he offered the amendment in an attempt to avoid litigation and to respond to those in the community who did not think the council should adopt the plan without a project list. He thought the project list should be part of the plan. Mr. Lidz noted that the project list was not before the council and he was unclear as to the intent of the motion. Was it to adopt a project list or to postpone action? Councilor Poling said that the project list existed but had not been finalized and he thought both the plan and project list should be adopted concur- rently. Mr. Lidz did not see how the council could adopt a project list that it did not have before it. Councilor Poling clarified that the intent of his motion was to include the project list in the PROS Plan. He asked for guidance on how to accomplish that intent. Mr. Lidz indicated the motion would have to be tabled for that to occur. Councilor Poling withdrew his motion with the consent of his second, Councilor Papé. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to postpone action until April 10, 2006. Councilor Papé supported the motion. He said legal counsel indicated to him that he believed the plan was likely to survive a legal challenge but that would come at a cost. He asked the council to consider the costs of any litigation and to support the motion. City Manager Taylor expressed concern that the council had repealed the existing ordinance establishing a comprehensive parks plan and could potentially leave nothing in its place until it developed the best legal strategy in regard to the project list. He asked the council to consider if that was the policy it wanted to leave the voters of the city with on the same night that it forwarded a strategy for placing on parks acquisition measure on the ballot. Councilor Pryor said he liked the idea of including the project list into the plan but had previously not thought it feasible. It now appeared it might be. He was willing to explore that possibility, but thought the manager’s point about a lack of an ordinance was well-taken. He suggested the council postpone the adoption of the plan until it had a project list in hand and on February 14, as a member of the prevailing side, he could move to reconsider the ordinance adopted as part of item 5. He acknowledged that was a complicated approach. Councilor Bettman did not find the threat of a lawsuit by the Lane County Homebuilders Association to be sufficient reason to postpone action. She asserted the subtext of the threat, like the Goal 5 and other land use and zoning issues, was to use every possible means to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). People were trying to use a popular initiative with a lot of community input to leverage the expansion of the UGB. She pointed out the manager followed the council’s directive in returning with the plan as he had. Councilor Bettman said she had some issues with the project list, particularly as it regarded the systems development charge (SDC). She was surprised that people were so willing to include the project list in the plan because it committed the City to $220 million if projects, escalating the SDC. She questioned that MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 14 Regular Meeting there was so much enthusiasm on the part of some for including the project list in the plan. She opposed the motion. Councilor Kelly believed the City was likely to face legal action with or without a project list, now or later in April. He expressed appreciation to Councilor Pryor for attempting to find a way through the situation but thought the threat of litigation would still exist. Mayor Piercy said if necessary, she would vote to move forward with the plan. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion to postpone action was a 4:4 tie; councilors Kelly, Taylor, Bettman, and Ortiz voting yes, and councilors Papé, Poling, Solomon, and Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Resolution 4858 passed 5:3; councilors Papé, Solomon, and Poling voting no. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2006 Page 15 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 15, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/15 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/28 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/28 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 15, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Memorandum of Understanding Between McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center and the City of Eugene City Manager Dennis Taylor, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, and Glenn Klein of the City Attorney’s Office were present for the item. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to sign the Memo- randum of Understanding. Mr. Pryor declared a conflict of interest due to his wife’s employment with the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. He left the meeting table and did not participate in the discussion or decision. Ms. Taylor noted that she sent an e-mail to the manager on January 29 indicating she had problems with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) but had not received a reply. She discussed her concerns about the MOU, asking if the City position funded by McKenzie-Willamette (Section 5) would be a temporary employee, and if the City could find someone well-qualified willing to take a temporary job. Ms. Muir said it was likely the City would use an in-house employee and backfill those duties with a temporary employee. Much would depend on the work load and other assignments that were in place when the application was received. Ms. Taylor suggested the result might be that other assignments may not be completed or would not be done by well-qualified staff. Ms. Muir did not think so. She said the City had minimum standards every application must meet and would ensure that the application did so. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen to the temporary employee after the project was completed. Ms. Muir said the person hired would be made aware of the status of the job. Ms. Taylor suggested that a highly qualified planner would be unlikely to take a temporary job. Ms. Muir indicated the successful applicant would have to meet the job qualifications established by the City. Ms. Taylor asked who would pay for the cost of the City’s work with McKenzie-Willamette on identifying potential funded sources for any needed transportation improvements (Section 8). Ms. Muir indicated that could be covered by application fees or the funding for the temporary Planning Division position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Taylor referred to Section 9 of the MOU and asked what role the City had in developing additional funding resources for transportation funding. Ms. Muir said that task would typically happen in any development application. The City would collaborate with this or any applicant on such an effort. Mr. Klein added that it did not commit the City to providing any resources; it merely committed the City to talking to the hospital about possible funding sources. The City would lend the hospital its expertise regarding any available funding sources. That would eventually lead to another agreement the council would review in the future. Ms. Taylor referred to Section 10 of the MOU, which indicated the City would support the applicant’s certificate of need. She asked why the City would do so, and what resources would be used. City Manager Taylor indicated that the City had provided support for certificate of need applications for both McKenzie- Willamette to relocate in Eugene and PeaceHealth at its Hilyard Street campus to ensure the community had good health care resources. Ms. Taylor thought it questionable for the City to be lobbying for McKenzie- Willamette Medical Clinic. Mr. Kelly said it was well-known he was “far from crazy” about this location for the hospital. However, at present, the location under consideration was the only one. He wanted to work with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic on the proposal as long as it did not involve the incentives the council had previously discussed providing to a hospital that located within 2-1/2 miles of the city center. Mr. Kelly referred to the e-mails to other councilors he sent out the previous day regarding proposed revisions to the draft MOU, and noted they had been incorporated in the MOU. He had wanted the MOU to be clear that any transportation projects associated with the hospital went through the same process as other transportation projects, and Section 9 had been revised to reflect that. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion to state the changes in the draft at the councilors’ places would be included in the MOU. The amendment to the mo- tion passed, 5:0 (Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Papé not having yet arrived). Ms. Bettman asked why the County’s cooperation would be required for changes to property within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Muir said that prior to any annexation, the County would need to be party to the process. Ms. Bettman recalled that the annexation had been approved. Ms. Muir explained that the draft was prepared before the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission annexation hearing and the section included because the annexation had a delayed effective date and was not yet in force. Mr. Klein added that a site-specific amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan) inside the UGB and outside the city limits must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and City Council. Once the annexation took effect, only the City would act. Ms. Bettman asked what the MOU did beyond what the City was legally obligated to provide to the applicant. Mr. Klein said the MOU established the intent of the medical center in regard to the size and type of hospital contemplated. It discussed the Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design (LEED) certification. It outlined some, but not all steps, necessary before construction could commence. It committed the medical center to funding the staff resources necessary to expedite the development review. It indicated the City would consult on transportation funding resources. There was no legal obligation for the City to do so. In regard to the City’s commitments, it provided for the expedited review based on funding from the medical center. City Manager Dennis Taylor added that the council had been clear to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic about the level of incentives a hospital locating outside the preferred area could expect. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested that Section 6 in the MOU committed the City to enabling site preparation by December 1, which was approximately six months. Ms. Muir clarified that McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic was committing to an application submission time line that allowed for the deadline to be met. The City would be processing the applications that allowed the clinic to proceed, but that did not commit the City to the outcome of the application review. Ms. Bettman said the deadline was not a problem unless it interfered with the public’s ability to participate in decision-making points or the City’s thoroughness in the development review. Ms. Bettman maintained that there were issues that had been “glossed over” during the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission hearing, such as an agreement signed by the Planning Director in the past that was still in effect. She had not received an answer to her question of the significance of that document, which should have been addressed before the boundary commission. She suggested that in this case, the use of the word ‘expedite’ meant “steamroll.” Ms. Ortiz arrived. Mr. Poling said that the use of the word ‘expedite’ did not imply the City would truncate its public processes. Ms. Muir concurred. Mr. Poling asked about the status of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). He said there was a major public concerns about the access to and egress from the development site. He asked how the transportation improvements needed to State facilities would be paid for, adding that the City did not have the money and the funding would have to come from another source. Ms. Muir indicated that the TIA would examine those issues. Mr. Klein added that the council would have the TIA before it when it considered the Metro Plan amendment and could evaluate the solutions being proposed at that time and reject or accept them. Mr. Papé arrived. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that staff was contemplating an ordinance that approved the Metro Plan amendment and stipulated that if the hospital was not constructed by a date certain, the designation and zoning would revert. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend Section 5 of the MOU to add a third sentence that read “McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center will not object to the City making the approvals of the Metro Plan amendment, zone change, and conditional use permit con- tingent upon the construction of the hospital described in paragraph 1, and having the ap- provals be automatically rescinded in the event the hospital is not constructed.” Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the property owner objected. Mr. Klein said the City still had the authority to act. The ordinance would make it impossible for the property to be used for another use. Mr. Kelly concurred with the amendment being offered, saying it would preclude the potential of undesirable commercial development if the hospital was not built. The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Papé voting no. Ms. Bettman moved to amend the motion by changing Level 3 to Level 2. The motion failed to receive a second. Ms. Bettman explained her interest in the motion was to ensure that the city had a Level 2 hospital. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor agreed to second Ms. Bettman’s amendment. Ms. Bettman said she had not discussed the issue with McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic but had heard early in the process that if the City wanted a higher trauma level, the hospital would be willing to provide it. She thought the City had little leverage in the discussion and should at least insist on a Level 2 trauma center. Ms. Ortiz could not support the motion. She said the City did not need to be prescriptive and tell the organization what it should do in order to give it what it needed to locate in Eugene. If those who staffed the organization believed it was necessary, they could request a higher level through the Trauma Site Survey when audited. City Manager Taylor indicated that amendment proposed by Ms. Bettman was not acceptable to the hospital. Mr. Poling asked the level rating of the hospital proposed to be on the Eugene Water & Electric Board site. City Manager Taylor believed it was the same as was being proposed. Ms. Bettman said the hospital could build a Level 4 facility if it wanted. The MOU before the council addressed what the City would do for the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center, and she thought the MOU should also discuss what the McKenzie-Willamette Medical Clinic would do for the City. In the context of negotiations, she thought the City should ask for what it needed. She maintained the hospital was asking for special consideration, and in exchange for that special consideration, the City Council should levy that to benefit the public it served. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor did not think it appropriate for the City to devote staff resources to expedite the development review. She believed the public would object. She maintained that even if the hospital paid the extra staff costs, “something would get shoved out the way,” given that the council continually heard about resource shortfalls in the Planning Division. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion. She said any entity was welcome to apply for development under the current code and receive what the City provided to all entities. In this case, she thought the City should remain neutral. She believed the MOU implied a certain approval and an extraordinary commitment on the part of the City, and she thought the City should remain neutral in the issue. Ms. Bettman believed there were other locations for the hospital under consideration that would better serve the medical needs of the community. That might not result in increased tax revenue to the City, and might not mean babies born to Eugene residents had a Eugene birth certificate, but comprehensive emergency services would be available to the most people. The motion passed, 5:0:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: I-5/Franklin Interchange The council was joined for the item by Lisa Gardner of the Public Works Transportation Division and Tom Boyatt of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Intergovernmental Relations Manager Jason Heuser was also present for the item. Ms. Gardner introduced the item, noting that Mr. Boyatt would overview the process to date, summarize the public involvement, and describe ODOT’s assessment of the project status. Mr. Boyatt introduced Jay Lee and Tim Burchart of ODOT, who were also present for the item, as well as Sam Sessions of CH2M Hill. Mr. Boyatt reviewed the Community Dialogue undertaken by ODOT to assess the public sentiment regarding the proposed I-5/Franklin Interchange, which included several opportunities for public input. He said that input was not uniform in nature as some offering testimony were opposed, some were in support, and others supported an alternative. Mr. Boyatt said that it did not appear there was an actual transporta- tion problem at this interchange that would be solved by the addition of ramps, and the State system would not appear to benefit. He said that ODOT believed it needed to focus on the need that existed on the State highway; the cost of maintaining that system would be about $500 million annually over 20 years. The Regional Transportation Program included a constrained list of projects that were tied to future projected revenue, and the list was about $400 million short of funding. Continuing, Mr. Boyatt reiterated that ODOT did not see a State transportation problem and preferred to work on other alternatives to congestion. He said that it appeared there was community interest in pursuing other connections at Franklin Boulevard and I-5, and ODOT wanted to respect that as well. He acknowl- edged there was a federal earmark that would allow the project to go to the next step. He asked that the Eugene-Springfield community recognize that the project was more of a community development project than a State highway project. Ms. Gardner said the Community Dialogue had been initiated to address safety, access, and circulation issues in the area in question. The study area had included I-5 at Franklin and the Glendwood/I-5 interchange because of the functional interrelationships of those interchanges. The region requested and received $400,000 to continue refinement planning in the area. While ODOT had concluded there may not be a specific State transportation problem, there was community interest in moving forward with the study process to further assess whether there were access, circulation, and safety issues to be addressed. Staff recommended the council move forward with the refinement planning process, which would provide an opportunity to complete the assessment and determine future needs. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Gardner did not think ODOT’s response took away the possibility of ramps but enlarged the scope of what would be examined. Mr. Boyatt said the City had a funding source and the benefit of a year-long Community Dialogue. He believed that construction of such an interchange would be a community decision. He added that the language in the federal earmark was broad enough to allow the community to look at both the Glenwood and Franklin intersections. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Boyatt said that it would be difficult for ODOT to prioritize an investment in ramps above other State system priorities. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner said she understood there was some flexibility in how the earmarked funds were used within a defined area. However, the funding could not be used for improvements to the Beltline. Mr. Heuser said that the earmark must have a relationship to the area that was the subject of the Community Dialogue; otherwise, it would invalidate the earmark. It was his experience that such money would unlikely to be reprogrammed by Congress for improvements to Beltline. Ms. Ortiz asked when ODOT would be looking at the Beltline/I-5 area. Mr. Boyatt said that there was a commitment to start refinement planning for that project in fiscal year 2007, and there was $1 million in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work related to the project. There was funding planned for the next STIP cycle. Mr. Boyatt said the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and Lane County had established additional funding for that project as a major priority. He anticipated a proposal to add money for the Environmental Impact Statement work as well. He hoped the refinement planning would identify the biggest problems along the corridor so the NEPA process could be focused on that. Ms. Solomon expressed disappointment that ODOT was not interested in the interchange, which she thought was an important interchange that had significant safety issues. She wanted to continue to study the issue and get out ahead of the problems so if the City decided against ramps if could identify other alternatives and be prepared to act when money became available. She did not think the proposed federal match was unreasonable and suggested the amount was a value when compared to the costs of the new City Hall. Ms. Solomon asked if Springfield would provide part of the needed match money for the federal grant. Ms. Gardner believed that Springfield would be prepared to participate equally in the match, and the Springfield City Council would meet to discuss the proposal soon. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the manner in which Mr. Boyatt framed the discussion; he believed the issue of local benefit was worth considering. He liked the idea of expanding the scope of the examination to look at other alternatives. He thought the amount Eugene would be asked to spend was worthwhile in terms of its benefits. He would encourage the Springfield City Council to support the proposal as well. Mr. Papé believed that the issue had returned in the form it had because of the way the community had handled the West Eugene Parkway. He said that ODOT wanted to see substantial community support for the proposed improvements before proceeding. He also supported expanding the examination to include other alternatives and shared the interest of other councilors in knowing Springfield’s level of support. Springfield staff member Nick Arnis declined to speculate as to what the Springfield council would do. Mr. Papé wanted to keep the process moving forward. He said if ODOT would take a greater interest in the project if the study concluded there was a significant impact on the State system. Mr. Boyatt said that the NEPA process required that a transportation project have an identified problem, a purpose and need, and a preferred alternative or solution to the problem. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT, in its review of the regional travel demand model, found an increase in local trips on the interstate, which was not the State’s preference. He suggested that a community-driven project might come out of the study. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Lee indicated that there was a project team tasked with ensuring any decision made at I-5 and Franklin could be adapted to the new bridge. There would be an opportunity to make the connection as the bridge would not be built in such a way that a ramp could not be attached at some time in the future. The issue of how many lanes were built on I-5 was undecided. She did not think the study would impact those issues. Mr. Boyatt said the study would potentially inform ODOT as to how wide I-5 would be, and if there were other improvements needed at the off ramps at 126 and 105. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Papé believed the study should proceed and the City should take advantage of the federal earmark. Mr. Kelly thanked ODOT and City staff. He referred to the signage around I-5 and the Franklin interchange and said it was challenging, to say the least. He asked if ODOT could work with the two local jurisdictions on a project to improve signage. Ms. Lee indicated that ODOT would be happy to partner on such a project. Mr. Kelly thought that was a very positive thing. Mr. Kelly said he continued to believe a full interchange at I-5/Franklin was a good thing in the abstract and for that reason he had been willing to study the issue. However, the process had gone beyond the abstract and it was now clear, for example, that the interchange could not be constructed with the replacement bridge. He was also concerned about the loss of access to residents in the lower Laurel Hill Valley. He said that the estimated costs had given him sticker shock. Any study that went forward should consider what was doable, and he did not think the ramps were doable. He also noted considerable community opposition to the project and wished to constrain what was studied to some degree. Mr. Poling thanked ODOT staff for its honesty about the need for the project. He liked the idea of exploring possibilities for improvements to the ramps already in place. He thought the fact the study was not limited to adding new ramps were a positive thing. Mr. Poling asked what would happen if one jurisdiction did not want to proceed. Ms. Gardner said whatever jurisdiction supported the proposal would have to determine if the cost was worth doing the study alone. . Mr. Poling suggested the $20,000 cost was a worthwhile investment. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Gardner that a portion of the match could be provided through end-kind services. Ms. Gardner was unsure of that amount. She noted that ODOT had indicated it might co-manage the project and provide funding. The value of staff resources was included within the $20,000 match. Ms. Bettman said that it appeared there were several different types of ramps were still being discussed and asked if bridge ramps were “off the table.” Ms. Gardner clarified that ODOT had not found a clear transportation problem to solve for the State highway need but she did not think anything was “off the table.” The refinement planning process would frame what was examined and identify next steps. Ms. Bettman said the motion mentioned both I-5 at Glenwood and I-5 at Franklin, and all the options related to Franklin included the elevated bridge ramps. Mr. Boyatt indicated there were one or two diamond folded ramps that did not cross the river but had an impact on adjacent property. Ms. Bettman indicated she could support an examination of the I-5/Glenwood interchange in terms of improved access and egress and converting that area into more of a gateway to the community. She acknowledged it was a distance from Franklin Boulevard where the city limits commenced but the cost differential between the two areas was huge and the money more effectively spent on that area than on bridge ramps at Franklin Boulevard. However, she was not sure given that vague wording in the materials and the lack of a shared understanding among councilors as to the nature of the project. She pointed out that Glenwood/I-5 intersection was under Springfield’s jurisdiction and she did not recall a time when Springfield had offered to pay a cash match for a Eugene project. Mr. Boyatt clarified that I-5 was the demarcation between Eugene and Springfield, so half of the Glenwood interchange was in Eugene. Ms. Bettman asked what staff envisioned would result from adoption of the staff-prepared motion. Ms. Gardner said staff envisioned an examination of a broad geographic area to look at access and circulation for the two cities. Staff did not want to limit the examination. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Sessions noted that approximately two-thirds and as much as 80 percent of the vehicles traveling from either the Glenwood or Franklin interchange were traveling to and from Eugene. He said that whether the actual concrete was in the City’s jurisdiction, the destinations people were traveling to have overwhelmingly been Eugene destinations. Ms. Taylor asked why the City should study a problem that did not exist. She questioned what had been spent on the issue to date. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT had spent about $180,000 on the process. Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Boyatt would say the money was spent for nothing. Mr. Boyatt said he would not say that. He thought it was important to explore community questions when they arose. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Gardner said the City had a Congressional earmark of $400,000 that required a ten-percent match. Staff was recommending the City pay half of the ten percent and that Springfield pay the other half. Ms. Taylor wanted to know if the study could be limited to the Glenwood interchange. Ms. Gardner did not know, pointing out that Eugene was the first of the three jurisdictions that would consider the issue. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would likely vote against the motion as she did not want to waste taxpayer money, no matter the source. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend time for the item by five minutes. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the continued study of the I-5 at Franklin interchange (including I-5 at Glenwood) with a refinement planning process, with a financial contribution for the local match of federal funds up to $20,000. Ms. Ortiz said that she found it amazing that the City could not use the federal earmark to address the actual transportation problems that existed. She said that $400,000 was a lot of money to study improvements that the community might not be affordable down the road. Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Lee for her remarks about collaboration on signage and hoped that City staff followed up. Mr. Kelly thought it reasonable to say there were no State issues involved, but there were local transporta- tion issues as well as community development issues for the council to consider. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to add a sentence that said “The refinement planning process shall not include consideration of additional ramps across the Willamette River.” Mr. Kelly said the motion would still allow for consideration of both interchanges and could even include an examination of a new structure at I-5 and Franklin Boulevard that did not affect the river. Mr. Poling did not want to limit the study but based on the community input ODOT received he would support the amendment. The amendment to the motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Papé voting no. Mr. Papé advocated for a study of signage throughout the State system. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Papé clarified with Mr. Sessions that the figures he had offered were specific to traffic traveling to Eugene, not to Springfield. Mr. Papé said the State might not have identified a problem to the State system but that did not mean there were no local problems at the Franklin and Glenwood interchanges. He thought there were many safety issues that existed in the area in question. Ms. Taylor moved to give priority in the study to environment, aesthetic, and cost factors, as well as neighborhood impacts. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Strategies for Long-Term Financial Stability for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation Public Works Director Kurt Corey and Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill of the Financial Services Division were present for them item. Mr. Corey reminded the council of its September 26 work session on the topic, during which it discussed the three elements of road funding in Eugene (operations and mainte- nance, capital preservation, and new construction). At that time, he had reported that a $586,000 shortfall existed in the operational budget, which was projected to grow to $800,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2007 and $2 million in FY08. He attributed the shortfall to the fact the service was funded through the State gas tax and Lane County Road Fund. The gas tax had not increased in ten years and revenues from the Road Fund had steadily decreased. The capital preservation budget continued to be about $4.7 million short annually, although some progress had been made. The deferred maintenance backlog was now in excess of $100 million. Mr. Corey indicated that additional efficiency gains sufficient to fill the gaps were not possible. Mr. Corey reviewed a series of strategies for the long-term financial stability of transportation funding. They included street lighting fees; a total or partial shift of funding for street trees and median maintenance to the Stormwater Fund and other City funds; and establishment of a transportation system maintenance fee (TSMF). He said that attachments B and D in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) provided additional history on the TSMF. He also called attention to the staff memorandum prepared as Attachment A in response to questions regarding the City’s current list of street projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in 50 percent of the funding for the street trees/median main- tenance program from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Solomon believed there was a reasonable nexus between street trees, which must be watered, and the City’s stormwater system. Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of the motion on the Stormwater Fund, and if an increase in the monthly stormwater fee would be needed to address that impact. Mr. Corey said that residents would pay about 50 cents more each month. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she could support the motion if the council would raise the stormwater fee to support other important programs. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to increase the stormwater fees $1 monthly for the average bill. There was no second. Ms. Taylor indicated that due to the failure of her amendment, she would vote against the motion. Ms. Bettman asked how much of the Street Tree Program budget was devoted to planting trees and how much was devoted to cutting them down. Mr. Corey responded that he could not give exact figures, but the cost of removing trees was a small part of the budget; the vast majority was spent on tree maintenance. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against all the motions prepared by staff. She said that when one looked at past CIPs, one saw “big expensive projects” where the funding sources changed over time from dedicated funds to flexible funds, such as Surface Transportation Program or County Road Funds. She cited Chad Drive as an example. Other examples were projects that were not in the CIP but came forward nonetheless. Millions in flexible funding had been spent on new capital projects when it could have been spent on operations, preservation, and maintenance. Ms. Bettman believed the staff proposal was for an extraordinarily expensive road program. Mr. Kelly said the memorandum prepared by staff regarding the CIP was interesting but it did not answer the questions he had asked on September 26, which were reflected on page 8 of the minutes of the September 26 meeting. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Kelly said that because street tree maintenance was, in the distant past, not in the Road Fund, he could contemplate the shift being proposed. He clarified that implicit in the motion was that the stormwater fee would be increased to cover the increase in costs, and the motion spoke only to the 50 funding. Any additional changes would require council action. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling suggested that rather than “nickel and dime” residents, the City reconsider and repackage the TSMF, including the 50 stormwater fee increase, and send it to the voters for approval. Mr. Corey said the answer depended on the council’s collective philosophy about how to provide services. He said there was no reason the cost could not be rolled in the TSMF, which would then need to be about $6.5 million annually. The down side was that there were those who feel strongly the concept of the TSMF was okay but only if it was used to address the backlog of maintenance and if the work was contracted out. He thought a TSMF would be best, but staff was trying to identify different services provided through the fund and strategies to fund them. City Manager Taylor said that all the mechanisms under consideration were in play in other communities. Mr. Poling wanted to find permanent funding for the Street Lighting Program but noted the unpopularity of fees imposed without a vote. He asked about what public processes existed or if the City would merely implement the fees without input. Mr. Corey said that utility rates and fees are set through an administrative process but that could be appealed. Mayor Piercy said it was clear the council would not complete its discussion and asked for feedback from the manager and council. City Manager Taylor suggested the council meet one-half early the following Wednesday and continue the discussion. Mr. Papé objected, saying that the topic was not particularly MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 10 Work Session urgent and another work session could be scheduled. Mr. Kelly agreed. City Manager Taylor said he would work with the mayor to schedule the topic, and cautioned the council that meant some other scheduled work session items would slip. Ms. Taylor advocated for the resumption of two-hour work sessions to allow the council to complete its work. She continued to hope the City received an additional source of revenue for the General Fund so that such things as street lights could be paid for from that source. Mr. Papé suggested the council consider adding a work session on the third Monday. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Oritz, moved to table the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 22, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/13 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/28 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/28 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 3/30 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 22, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pyror. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Update—East Broadway City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council it had a narrow window to take advantage of the partnership contemplated in the materials before the council. He noted the work sessions that occurred to this point and asked the council to consider directing staff to move forward. Nan Laurence of the Planning Division noted a public hearing was scheduled for March 13 regarding the competitive bidding process for the parking garage associated with the Whole Foods development. She said the agreement before the council was consistent with the Downtown Plan, created an active place people wanted to come to, and made good financial sense. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which laid out the terms of the land transaction. She called the council’s attention to a map of the area mounted on the McNutt Room wall, which illustrated the properties in question and showed the current tax lot configuration, proposed tax lot exchange, and proposed site configuration. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment B of the AIS, the Development Agreement between the City, Broadway High Associates, and Gerding/Edlen Developers, and reviewed highlights of the agreement. Ms. Laurence previewed the public input process. Ms. Laurence indicated that following permit application and review, construction was anticipated to start in May, with completion of the City garage and Whole Foods Store in one year. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment C of the AIS, the Financial Strategy, and indicated that staff was available to answer questions. Ms. Laurence requested that the council authorize the City Manager to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Urban Renewal District so the district could participate in the garage purchase and can reimburse the City for funds that might be needed from the Facilities Reserve. Ms. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting Laurence called attention to the draft motions in the AIS. Approval of the motions would allow the integrated design concept to go forward. Ms. Laurence reviewed upcoming decision points in the process, which included the supplemental budget appropriation and public hearing on the competitive bidding process, both scheduled for March 13. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Papé declared a conflict of interest due to his son’s employment with Gerding/Edlen Developers and left the council table. Ms. Bettman said the motions moved the project forward, and she believed a public hearing on the bidding exemption for the parking garage was required before the council took action. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the East Broadway proposal decisions package be postponed until the next available work session after a public hearing is held but within the procedural requirements of Eugene Code Section 2.1425 and applicable State law. Ms. Bettman said she raised the issue of the competitive bid process several times, and the previous evening the council received a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office referencing the applicable provision in the City Code. She disagreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to move forward at this time. She did not think the council should take action until a public hearing occurred about the proposal to exempt the parking garage from the competitive bidding process. A vote on the motions before the council presupposed the outcome of that hearing. Ms. Bettman perceived the council’s role as being that of a legislative check on the administration of the City and to act on behalf of the public interest. She did not think the council acted in the public interest by taking action before the hearing. She thought that insulted the public. Going through the public process would substantiate the information the council needed to create findings to support a conclusion the project should go forward. Regarding the legality of taking action at this time, Mr. Klein said there was a series of actions that must be approved by the council for the parking garage project to go forward. The council must hold a public hearing and act on a supplemental budget for both the City and Urban Renewal Agency, and at some point in the future would consider the alley vacation as well. The development agreement would not be signed until after March 13, and by then the council would have acted on the supplemental budget and held the public hearing on the competitive bidding process. Even then, the project did not go forward unless the council exercised its discretion to approve the alley vacation. The council could legally take action today on the motions in the AIS. However, the council did not have to act today. Mr. Kelly believed the project had upsides and downsides and the upsides appeared to significantly outweigh the downsides. However, he believed that the council needed to act with integrity and should postpone action on the motion until after the public hearing, as he did not know what would be said at the hearing. The public parking garage was linked to the Whole Foods project, and to act today would signal the public that the council did not care what it had to say. He thought that was inappropriate. Speaking to Mr. Klein’s remarks, Mr. Kelly suggested that it would be close to malfeasance of the council’s duty to decline to act on the alley vacation if the development agreement was already approved and the project underway. He supported the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly asked the manager “who was asleep at the switch?” He said the project had been in the works for months and the issue of the requirements for the noncompetitive bid had been raised more than once. He found it painful that staff identified a major legal requirement that was not being met the night before the council was scheduled to take action. Ms. Taylor suggested that the morality of the situation was more important than the legality. She thought the public should be involved in any City decision regarding the development. Taking action at this time would eliminate other possibilities, such as the proposal forwarded by the University of Oregon class for connecting the Parks Blocks to the river. She thought the council was making big decisions without public involvement as people did not know what was going on. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that it would be silly to stop the alley vacation so far into the process. Ms. Taylor said she would be out of town at a National League of Cities committee meeting on March 13 and asked that action on the competitive bid issue be postponed. She preferred that the hearing be postponed until after the council break. She said that the council should not take action at the public hearing and allow the public to make comments following the hearing so they could respond to what was said. Mr. Klein clarified that the council would not be taking action at the public hearing, but at the work session following the hearing. Mr. Poling thought the Whole Foods project worthwhile whether it included a City-owned parking garage built without a competitive bid or not. He believed the issue before the council was the public process and the order in which action occurred. He agreed the public hearing should be held before the council took action and encouraged the council to follow the letter of the law to avoid future litigation. Mr. Pryor asked what effect a delay would have on the project. Ms. Laurence said that staff worked closely with the developers, who established time lines for the project within its agreement with Whole Foods. She thought there was a possibility that the City’s participation could be threatened by delay. Ms. Laurence believed the developers were seeking City support for the integrated concept. Mr. Pryor did not think the delay created by the public hearing was significant and suggested it would allow time for the community to voice its support for the project. He was concerned about the public perception of acting now, but wanted to ensure that the motion was not a way to drag out the process. He supported it with the expectation that the council would act on the issue immediately after the public hearing. With regard to the exemption, Mr. Pryor said he had recently been through that process and was not concerned about it, as it was not intended to circumvent bargaining or legal requirements. It was a means to find cost savings through partnerships, which, in his experience, worked. However, he voiced support for the motion because he wanted to hear from the public. Ms. Ortiz also supported the motion. She shared Mr. Kelly’s concern about the legal issue related to the exemption and was frustrated that the issue was raised by a councilor doing her homework instead of by staff. She also supported the project and thought it doable. She said she was “just a very simple person who wanted to come here and work” and wanted to do so in a timely fashion, but when she had to work backwards, she did not think it boded well for the community. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. Mr. Kelly underscored the fact that the motion called for action at the work session following the public hearing, which he thought appropriate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting City Manager Taylor asked if he should postpone action on the supplemental budget that would enable the City to go forward with the process. Mr. Kelly suggested that the supplemental budget hearing occur as scheduled and the council could vote to adopt it on March 15. City Manager Taylor indicated that was the course of action he would follow. Mr. Poling said the council needed to consider the point of the public hearing, which was the competitive bidding exemption, not the merits of the Whole Foods project. Ms. Taylor wanted to hold a public hearing on the project. She asked if the maker of the amendment would accept a friendly amendment to hold a hearing on the project. Ms. Bettman declined to accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor did not think a day and a half was enough time to consider testimony on the issue. Ms. Bettman said that for people to speak to the issue of the competitive bid process, they would need the findings. She said that information needed to be available as soon as possible as widely as possible in a format the average citizen could understand. Mayor Piercy said the council was open to hearing from the public on the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0; Ms. Taylor moved to hold a public hearing on the parking garage project and whether it was the best use of City money. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed agreement with Broadway High Associates and expressed appreciation to staff for incorporating the suggestions made by the council. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed agreement with The Shedd and said the agreement appeared to lack any requirement for delivery of the site to the developer. Ms. Laurence indicated such a section would be included. Mr. Kelly noted the City’s long-time goal of having a grocery store in downtown and said he received a call that morning from Rick Wright of Market of Choice, who indicated in response to a question that he had never been contacted by the City about the possibility of locating a store downtown. He asked why. He believed it was an omission for staff not to have made the contact. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that frequently, such developments were created by a particular opportunity, but the opportunity before the council presented itself recently. City Manager Taylor said that the work City staff does downtown resulted either from specific request for proposals, such as for the Sears site, or when the City had interest in a particular parcel or particular partnership. He said that if the council considered the opportunities that had occupied the City over the last year, they generally came about as the result of a specific development proposal. The City did not generally solicit competition for specific retail uses, absent such a public/private partnership. Ms. Bettman referred to the development agreement and said that there were no parameters in the agreement that penalized the developer for failure to follow established deadlines. She would like to see such parameters included. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Ms. Bettman recalled a problem with a past parking garage where surfacing problems were addressed by the City rather than the responsible contractor; she suggested the agreement needed a section that protected the City once it took ownership of the garage. Ms. Bettman requested a detailed memorandum regarding the reimbursement for debt. Ms. Bettman noted that she had not received the original parking study to see the changes made by staff. Mr. Kelly acknowledged City Manager Taylor’s comments about why Market of Choice was not contacted to site a store downtown, but said he was disappointed. In his opinion, planning should be proactive, and when the council established a priority around a particular type of development, staff should be soliciting businesses for that development. Ms. Bettman asserted that the Downtown Plan boundaries had been expanded considerably, which made it impossible to compare the past and current studies. She said the area north of the Amtrak Station was now rdth part of the study. The City recently completed the 3/4 Connector in that area and the facility lacked on- street parking. If that was in the downtown area, which needed parking, she questioned why the City “wasted” the right-of-way where on-street parking could have been located. She thought it would have been useful to have such on-street parking. She asked why the City did not include on-street parking when it could. Ms. Laurence said the 2002 study and revised study appeared to have the same study boundaries, although there were three different zones in the study. She could not speak to the issue of why on-street rdth parking was not included on the 3/4 Connector. Ms. Bettman recalled that cover letter accompanying the study indicated staff took into account a broader area, and looked forward to seeing the original studies. Mr. Papé returned to the council table. B. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY WORK SESSION: Downtown Update—East Broadway Because of actions taken in regard to the previous agenda item, this item was not addressed. C. WORK SESSION: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106 (Police Auditor) The council was joined by Government and Public Affairs Manager Mary Walston, staff to the Police Auditor Recruitment and Selection Committee. The committee included Mayor Piercy, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon, and Police Commission Chair Tim Laue. Ms. Walston called the council’s attention to the AIS, which included a series of recommendations prepared by the committee. ? The auditor should be an “at will” employee. ? Compensation should be set at a range between 35-37. ? The committee recommended the council allocate funds from the General Fund Contingency to cover the costs of recruitment. ? The committee recommended that four public forums be held to solicit input on the candidate pro- file. Mayor Piercy solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Ortiz said she wanted the City to do the recruiting for the position rather than a headhunter. She did not think the City needed to spend any additional money given the limited number of available candidates and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting the media attention the issue received. She thought the process could be both transparent and local and could produce quality applicants. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the position description for the police auditor dated February 2, 2006, and use that as the basis for recruitment and selection of the position. Referring to the section entitled “Supervision Received and Exercised” in Attachment A, the draft position description, Ms. Bettman objected to the recommendation that the council or its designee supervise the position, as it was so broadly worded “the designee” could be interpreted to mean the City Manager. She wanted to remove the phrase “or its designee.” Alternatively, she suggested the committee return with a description of a potential designee and general supervision for the council’s consideration. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by deleting the phrase “or its designee.” After a brief discussion about including or deleting the phrase, with Mr. Pryor pointing out it was merely in the position description, Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz agreed to remove the phrase as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that legal counsel maintained that the City Manager Taylor would hire, fire, and supervise the auditor’s staff, which she felt would undermine the authority of the auditor to oversee staff, as employees’ loyalty would be to the City Manager rather than the auditor. She did not think that was consistent with what the public expected when it voted for the City to establish the auditor position. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by ending the first sen- tence in the last paragraph on page 36 after “training,” eliminating the remainder of the sen- tence, and replacing it with the following: “Responsibilities include hiring and evaluating auditor office staff consistent with City of Eugene procedural requirements.” Mr. Kelly believed the committee was creating a challenge for the auditor through the organization being proposed. He did not think it necessary for the City Manager to supervise the auditor’s staff and thought it would be an awkward arrangement. Responding to a request for comment from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor said he was seeking a reasonable accommodation that was consistent with the charter and also met the spirit of what the council was trying to achieve. He asked the council to keep in mind such things as collective bargaining, liability issues, and some of the other obligations that the charter clearly identified as the responsibilities of the City Manager. He thought something could be worked out with the auditor’s office that would provide conceptual clarity while preserving the charter provisions regarding subordinate employees. Mr. Kelly asked for more information. City Manager Taylor declined to speak hypothetically, but there were certain issues that accrued to employees that were larger than their day-to-day supervision and the mission they may have. That was the reason, for instance, that Court employees were still under the supervision of the City Manager rather than the Municipal Court presiding judge. Mr. Kelly said he wished City Manager Taylor could speak hypothetically. City Manager Taylor said that he was speaking to what the charter provided and thought it consistent with what the voters adopted. Mr. Kelly said his bottom-line goal was to ensure that the auditor’s office was as successful and as smooth- running as possible. He supported the amendment, recognizing there was time before the auditor was hired to discuss the issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting Mr. Pryor said he understood that people were seeking independent oversight of the Eugene Police Department. He did not support the amendment because he was concerned that it was beginning to drift away from the charter. There were existing, workable models for organizations where supervision was under one jurisdiction and employees were under another. He was also reluctant to create a parallel government structure to the one in place. He wanted to work toward collaboration and partnership, not separation. He was fully supportive of the independent auditor and believed that independence could be accomplished with the committee’s proposal. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks about parallel government. He determined from City Manager Taylor that the Court employees were hired by the City and supervised by the court administrator. Judges also participate in their supervision in a way that recognized legal requirements and charter restrictions. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about placing the extra burden of supervision on the auditor, who would have a lot of other work to do. She preferred an approach that was consistent with the way other City employees were hired. She said when an employee was hired one expected them to do their job, regardless of who their supervisor was. She said the auditor would be involved in personnel matters and would provide input, but a focus on supervision would take away from the focus of the job. Ms. Bettman maintained the committee’s proposal would undermine the independence of the auditor’s office. The spirit of the ballot measure was to have an auditor independent of the manager’s authority. The recommendation placed the City Manager’s administration in the office of the auditor and removed the auditor’s ability to manage his or her own staff. She suggested that its adoption would handicap the auditor’s office because professionals considering applying for the position would believe the City was setting them up to fail, and would not even apply for the position. Ms. Taylor said the whole purpose of the ballot measure was independence and independence of administra- tion. Some people were worried because the administration has been the City Manager, the Chief of Police, and the police hierarchy, and the idea was to have something independent. Independence required that the auditor hire his or her own staff. She did not think that would take much time. The amendment to the motion failed, 3:5; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly referred to the position description and asked committee members if they evaluated the qualifica- tions against those required by other cities. He asked how many people could meet those qualifications. Mr. Laue pointed out the position spoke of having “knowledge of.” He said the committee worked from other position descriptions from other communities. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about other requirements that spoke to the fact a candidate must have no “recent” background or affiliations with the Eugene Police Department. Ms. Solomon asked how one determined what sort of background or affiliation would hamper an individual’s ability to serve. Mr. Kelly suggested that the City Council would look at an individual’s job history, and if it included employment with the department or service as a consultant, they would be eliminated from further consideration. He added that was no reflection on an individual’s personal character but was a way to clearly establish the position’s independence. Ms. Solomon did not support removal of the word. She did not think people should be penalized for their service to the community. Mr. Kelly did not think people were being penalized; they would merely not be hired for the position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion by striking the word “re- cent.” City Attorney Jerome Lidz suggested that if Mr. Kelly’s intent was to disqualify everyone who had ever worked for the Police Department, all text in the motion after “department” should also be deleted. Mr. Kelly accepted the clarification. Mr. Papé did not support the amendment because he considered it to be discriminatory for reasons he did not consider legitimate. Mr. Poling also did not support the amendment. He questioned why the City would eliminate those with experience and expertise from the pool of candidates. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at his colleagues’ reaction. It was his understanding from the Police Commission discussion that this issue touched on how wide the net of exclusions should be cast. He recalled that one proposal excluded anyone who had ever done law enforcement in the state of Oregon. He said the council needed to think about the community’s reaction if the council appointed a former police officer to the position of police auditor. He believed the community would object. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Kelly. She underscored that the issue was about external police review, and while Eugene police officers do a wonderful job and could be viable, good candidates for the position, the transparency of process the council was trying to accomplish was important. Mr. Pryor said the amendment referred to recent background and affiliation, and he questioned what that meant in terms of time frame. What did affiliation mean? Did that eliminate those who were consultants to the department? He could support excluding people employed by the department but needed more information about what recent background and affiliation meant in terms of its exclusionary element. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Laue to comment. Mr. Laue said the commission discussed the four options the council also saw. The commission’s preferred option was the option the council was now considering. The commission discussed excluding people with prior law enforcement experience and agreed that there may have been someone hired by the Eugene Police Department 20 years ago who worked for the department for a few years and then went onto have a stellar career in another field. The commission did not think excluding such candidates was appropriate. Mr. Laue reminded the council that it would select the auditor, and he anticipated that those who got beyond a certain point in the hiring process would undergo a background investigation. Ms. Taylor said it was inconceivable to her that the council would hire someone who had worked for the police to be the auditor because she believed it would be impossible for them to be neutral. Mr. Poling asked if the motion excluded a person who had been a cadet with the department. He did not think it made sense. Mr. Kelly rephrased the text for his amendment, saying that candidates for the position may not have any employment, past employment by, or past contracts with the City of Eugene Police Department in the prior 20 years. Ms. Ortiz, the second to the motion, accepted the revised text. Ms. Bettman asked that the motion be expanded to include the Lane County Sheriff’s Department and the City of Springfield as those departments worked closely with the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Kelly MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting declined to accept the suggestion as a friendly amendment and recommended the committee consider Ms. Bettman’s request. Mr. Poling believed the amendment and Ms. Bettman’s suggestion would exclude those with previous law enforcement within Lane County and the State of Oregon, which limited the pool of candidates who met the requirements outlined in the job description. Mr. Papé expressed appreciation for the remarks of Mr. Laue and Mr. Poling. He said making a judgment on the basis of one’s past affiliation was classifying someone and assuming they could not be unbiased or fair in the position. He thought it was discriminatory like categorizing people by race and he was offended by it. Speaking to Mr. Papé’s point, Mr. Kelly disagreed that the council would be classifying an individual; the public would do that. He maintained that hiring a former Eugene police officer would undermine the council’s credibility with the very people it was working hard to gain the trust of. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bett- man, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the amended motion was unanimous, 8:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to implement the police auditor and civilian review board oversight program in a manner that is consistent with the Police Commission recommendation of July 25, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $17,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the Human Resources and Risk Services Department in Fiscal Year 2006 for the purpose of recruitment and selection of the Police Auditor. Ms. Bettman said it appeared the motion put the division in charge of recruiting and selecting the auditor. She needed more information before she could vote on it. Ms. Solomon, with the consent of her second, withdrew the motion. Regarding compensation, Ms. Bettman said she could accept the higher range recommended, but wanted to offer a signing bonus and moving allowance to the successful candidate, who would be “inventing the wheel.” Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 27, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Joyce Ogden MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060227m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 03/07 jo Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/20 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/20 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/4 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT E M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 27, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. City Council President Jennifer Solomon announced that the Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy was out of town and proceeded to call the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Ms. Solomon reported that she attended the recent meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens. She noted that Police Chief Robert Lehner spoke to the residents. Ms. Ortiz announced that the annual pesticide spray would take place at the Union Pacific Railroad Yard on February 28 and March 1 (date approximate). Mr. Kelly reported on the February meeting of the Human Rights Commission (HRC). He said it discussed issues related to homelessness, The Register-Guard birth announcement policy, and the letter from the Lane Gender Task Force requesting that the commission not move the Gender Identity Code forward at this time. Rather, it asked that a comprehensive educational plan be implemented. Mr. Kelly said a special meeting of the HRC would be held on March 7 to discuss and act on the task force’s recommendation. Mr. Kelly then turned to the recent meeting of the Region 2050 Policy Board and reported that a preliminary draft of the technical analyses and input from community meetings was presented. Mr. Kelly explained that the draft would be forwarded to each jurisdiction and the Board of County Commissioners for review. City Manager Taylor noted that the report would be presented to the City Council on April 19. Mr. Kelly announced that the next meeting of the board would be April 26. Mr. Papé? reported that he and Mayor Piercy attended the recent Fire Department’s Awards and Ceremony Event and noted his pride in the Fire Department’s heroic works. He then turned to the Lane Council of Government (LCOG) February meeting and reported that an economic expert suggested a regional needs and issues inventory process ensue to set priorities for the area’s communities with regard to their special government grant needs. However, he noted that Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County did not concur that such a process was necessary, as the United Front was moving forward. Mr. Papé? said that the smaller communities were interested in such a process and would provide a report to the larger jurisdictions regarding its necessity. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson noted that historically such a process was handled through the development portion of Planning and Development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Papé? then reported on a suggestion which came out of the LCOG Board meeting that there may be some overlap within standing committees, including the Lane Metro Partnership, the Lane Economic Committee, and the Lane Economic Advisory Committee. He said that consolidation of one or more of these committees may occur. Ms. Taylor reported that the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Board continued to struggle with the issue of odors filtering out of industries into the community. She then referred to a previous set of minutes which noted that the council was to discuss “stormwater” in relationship to development in February or March. City Manager Dennis Taylor reported that that item was an assignment to staff at this point and would be brought to the council on March 13. Ms. Taylor reminded staff that the council requested a discussion on the implementation of a “naming” policy. She asked that the City Manager arrange for a way in which such a discussion can be held. Mr. Pryor reported that on recent activities of the Lane County Metro Partnership, noting the openings of the Royal Caribbean and Williams offices scheduled to occur in April. He shared that there was a discussion around the decrease in “leads” throughout the state, as the type of land and property requests being received were not currently available. Mr. Pryor explained that these requests were very specific with regard to needs, properties, and infrastructures. He moved on to agenda items which included new member orientation and the 2006 Work Plan. Mr. Pryor reminded the council that the five targeted industries for the Lane County Metro Partnership were recreational vehicles and equipment, natural resources and specialties, life technology, customer service “back-office,” and software. Mr. Pryor proceeded to report on the February Human Services Commission meeting, which included a report on the budget and the fact that community need was increasing whereas the funds were not adequate for that need. Mr. Pryor said that discussions to stabilize funding have begun. In conclusion, Mr. Pryor said that the Enterprise Zone Committee conducted its last meeting and adopted its final set of standards. He spoke highly of the process and complimented the members of the committee for their exemplary efforts. Mr. Poling reported that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Group distributed Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and purchased equipment for the 20-year facility upgrade at a cost of $144 million. He said the majority of the work would be completed at the front end of the project as many of the upgrades were the result of more rigid standards. Mr. Poling concluded that an authorization of expenditure for a computer program to monitor the entire project has been approved. Mr. Pape? took the floor once again to explain the inter-relationship between the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He said that the MPC was established by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County as a problem-solving body; the MPO was an organization designated by the governor, which subsequently delegated most of its authority in regard to transportation planning to the MPC. However, members of the LCOG Board had recently expressed concerns that responsibilities with regard to planning for roads and streets have become muddled and have discussed reassuming that responsibility. Mr. Kelly pointed out that MPO, while appointed by the governor, exists mainly because of fact the Eugene-Springfield area was a Transportation Management Area (TMA) and must adhere to federal law requirements; additionally, some of its statutes dictate that both Lane Transit District (LTD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) be “at the table” which was problematic for the LCOG Board unless it was somehow restructured. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 2 Work Session B. Strategies for Long-Term Financial Stability for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the successful actions implemented by the City Council to close some of the gaps in the Pavement Preservation Program and its recognition of the growing concern in the mainte- nance/operation of the Streets Program. Public Works Executive Director Kurt Corey referred to discussions of previous council work sessions around the funding of the $2 million annual deficit in the Operations and Maintenance Budget portion of the Road Fund and the $4.5 million annual deficit in the Capital Preservation/Transportation Funding. He said that the recommendations put before the council on February 15 to 1) address the operations and maintenance shortfall through the combination of shifting the cost of the existing services to other funds and establishing one or more new fees for services to underwrite the difference, and to 2) address the capital preservation backlog have been crafted by staff through a series of options to be considered by the council. The council, by consensus, agreed to consider each option as a separate motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in a portion of the funding for the Street Trees/Median Maintenance Program (total program costs of approximately $1,310,000) from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund, with the remainder of the program funding to be provided from other city fees or funds. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to shift the funding to the General Fund, rather than the Stormwater Fund. The amendment failed due to a lack of a second. Mr. Kelly commented that since the Street Tree Funding was not included in the Road Fund in the past, he understood the logic to remove the funding. He said he would support the motion; however, he clarified with staff that the motion only spoke to one-half of the funding, and concluded that a proposal would need to be brought back to the council with regard to the balance of the funding. Mr. Pape? stated he supported the motion and pointed out that stormwater has significantly improved and been contained by street trees, vegetation, and medians. He said that any increase to the stormwater fees must be discussed independently of this proposed option. Mr. Corey pointed out that the Stormwater Program was currently operating at the minimum level to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirement, together with add-ons that have been implemented in the past few years. Mr. Pape? stressed that the entire issue was complex and must be reviewed in detail by the council. Mr. Corey said that staff can provide council with an overview of modifications that have been made over the past few years to the Stormwater Fund since the major reductions were taken. City Manager Taylor added that such a discussion would ensue as part of the Budget Committee’s consideration if the motion passes. Mr. Corey pointed out that a stormwater rate increase can be set as an administrative action without council approval. Mr. Pape? reiterated that a review of the stormwater fees should ensue at the council level prior to any increase in those fees. Mr. Pryor concurred with Mr. Pape? that a discussion should ensue prior to any increase in stormwater fees. He said he supported the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated she opposed the motion due to the fact that the stormwater fees would not be raised sufficiently; consequently, another component of the Stormwater Program would be negatively impacted. She pointed out that the Road Fund was funded by the General Fund in the past; hence, her amendment. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion be quite specific. He said his interpretation of the motion was that a draft FY07 budget would in fact be brought to the Budget Committee on April 24 to increase the stormwater fee at approximately six to seven percent. Mr. Kelly concurred that the stormwater issue was quite complex and recalled that an extensive review undertaken two years ago resulted in service reductions to avoid an increase in the fees. He said that all the historical information around this issue would be helpful to the council. City Manager Taylor explained that the motion put before the council took one-half of the funding gap and transferred it to the Stormwater Program, which would increase its fees in a corresponding way to present a balanced budget to the Budget Committee. He further explained that if the council approved the motion, it would be in addition to the increases it approved at the January session, at the time the review of the permit requirements and stream corridor acquisition ensued. Mr. Pape? pointed out that the stormwater fee was raised by 30 cents for the Stormwater Acquisition Program on January 23. He said the council may choose to decrease that program in the amount of $180,000, rather than increase the stormwater fee. Mr. Corey pointed out that the fees for utility rates were typically adjusted once per year. He explained that the action taken by the council on January 23 was a direction to adjust fees the next time they were increased--typically in July—to accommodate the additional acquisition program. Additionally, he said that the council acted in Fall 2005 to direct staff to add the necessary component to meet the increasing NPDES stormwater permit discharge requirements. He said those directions would act together in a rate increase proposal in the spring or early summer. Mr. Pape? stated he would support the motion, but not in anticipation of a significant increase in the stormwater fee. Based on the above discussion, Mr. Kelly stated he would not now support the motion as he did not want to put at risk all the work that has been done around stormwater acquisition. The motion passed 4:3, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Taylor in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a Eugene Livability Fee (ELF) to fund programs that en- hance community livability and transportation alternatives, including funding for the street trees/median maintenance program. Mr. Poling stated he would not support the motion as it would be perceived by the community as a “nickel and dime” approach. Rather, he suggested that an uncomplicated system such as the Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) be instituted, which would be fair and equitable and clearly define how the fee would be expended. He stressed that the business community and neighborhood associations needed to be included in the process to ensure that it was in fact fair and equitable. Mr. Poling noted that the community wants the pavement maintenance brought up to par. Mr. Pape? opined that the motion was a property tax in disguise. Mr. Corey explained that the motion would implement a fee for a particular service provided through the Road Fund and it would be a policy decision as to whether or not to offer the service. He said if the overriding concern was whether it was a tax, it could be revised so that it would not be perceived as a tax. Mr. Corey pointed out there were a list of services provided through the Road Fund that the revenues cannot adequately provide. He explained that an MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session individual assessment to cover this type of service could be a per service charge or something more sophisticated. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the motion put before the council was a creative funding strategy; however, as a citizen he did not favor such a plan. Rather, he said he favored a system such as the TSMF with specific oversight. Mr. Kelly commented that one fee after another was not the manner in which to fund general purpose government services. He said the broader-based the fee, the broader-based the tax. Mr. Kelly reminded staff that he supported the TSMF initially and would support it in the future if it were brought to the council in a similar fashion. Mr. Kelly said he opposed the motion due to its narrowness. He then clarified that the previous TSMF was $4 annually. The motion failed unanimously. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a citywide Street Lighting Fee to fund the operation, main- tenance and enhancement of the City’s street lighting system along arterial, collector, and neighborhood streets. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many constituents requested a mechanism to pay for street lights in their neighborhoods. She voiced hope that residents could be granted the opportunity; however, she said that she could not support the motion as a separate action. City Manager Taylor urged the council to consider this motion, pointing out that it has a reasonable relationship to the day-to-day issues the city needed to address to make the lights appropriate, expand as neighborhood interest warranted, and retract as deemed prudent. Additionally, he pointed out that due to the escalating costs of energy, this motion may have special value to the community. Mr. Kelly said he was under the impression there was a program to fund street lights for neighborhoods that expressed an interest. Mr. Corey replied there was a small amount of money available for spot street lighting; however, he spoke to the bigger funding issue of ongoing energy costs. Mr. Kelly pointed out that energy costs were a reality in other City operations as well and therefore he could not support the motion. Mr. Poling turned to page 23 of the council meeting packet and asked staff to provide the current annual cost of the arterial collector/neighborhood street lighting, how much of an increase would be required, and how would it be applied. Mr. Corey replied that the current annual cost was approximately $800,000, and that slightly more than half was for the arterial collector system and slightly less than half was for the neighborhood system, funded by the Road Operating Fund. He said the analysis describes different scenarios in how the moneys could be collected, one being a per utility service charge of approximately 60 cents per month for an individual service user who benefits from the Arterial Collector System; approxi- mately 50 cents per month if there was desire to have a residential neighborhood street lighting; and an estimated cost of 29 cents per month for collection. In response to a question from Mr. Pape?, Mr. Corey explained there was an “opt in” and “opt out” alternative for most of the systems that were in place. He said that if the motion moved forward, staff would develop operating policies and procedures to address preferences on a “several-block” basis. Assistant City Manager Carlson added that the City received a six percent contribution in lieu of tax on gross revenues to the utilities. He explained that the moneys paid for utilities would be subject to the six-percent contribution MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session as well and the revenues were deposited into the General Fund. Mr. Pape? stated he supports the motion at its face value but may offer objections when the proposal was put before the council. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the community paid property taxes for City services and said she did not approve of a plan whereby a constituent paid for every service he or she used. Mr. Kelly stated he could not support the motion due to the narrowness of it. He said that he understood the challenge; however, as the property tax cannot be utilized as in the past and if the Road Fund must be relieved of the funding of street lights, the funding should be part of the TSMF. Mr. Pape? asked if street lights were provided in all areas of Eugene. Mr. Corey said some neighborhoods have them and some do not, and explained that the installation of lighting was a condition of new develop- ment. He said that the spot-type method and a local improvement district could be options to install street lighting in neighborhoods. Mr. Corey believed one of the advantages of the motion would be a more fair and equitable lighting service for the community. City Attorney Jerry Lidz pointed out that the difference between a local improvement district approach and the street lighting fee was the district approach would include only the installation and the City would be responsible for the operating and maintenance costs. The motion failed 6:1, with Mr. Pape? voting in support. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for reestablishing the previously repealed Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) to address not only the projected ongoing operating deficit in Road Fund street op- erations and maintenance, but also to generate additional revenue to address the remaining annual funding gaps in the pavement and off-street bike path preservation programs. Ms. Taylor opined that $5 per month was a lot of money to some people. She suggested that the council review some of the options rejected by the previous Budget Subcommittee. Ms. Taylor noted for example the excise tax that the subcommittee rejected. Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill remarked that an excise tax was a tax on a sale or a specific sales tax on a variety of things. He stressed that such a tax would not be based on property value but on a sale or transaction other than property. Ms. Taylor opined that the council should review the Parking Lot Tax and the Fuel Distribution Tax rejected by the subcom- mittee. She stressed there were other sources of revenue that need to be considered. Mr. Kelly concurred that a general tax restructuring would be a prudent step for the council. However, he said that if such a process was not to occur, the TSMF was the least negative option. Mr. Kelly pointed out that TSMF was tied to the impact on transportation and therefore businesses would pay more than residents. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, City Manager Taylor replied that staff can present options to the council of varying levels of a TSMF which would then be adopted by ordinance. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the original TSMF, as it provided a clear scientific methodology in how the rates were calculated. He pointed out that although the fee was focused on the curb-to-curb component, it also included a five-percent portion for off-street bike path preservation. Mr. Kelly said he could support a similar methodology but would not support the changed methodology that was presented to the council in 2004 as it dramatically shifted the share-paid from large businesses to homeowners. Mr. Pryor said he preferred that if the TSMF was implemented, the funds be dedicated solely to that use. Additionally, that the rate structure be carefully reviewed to ensure that it was equitable. He commented there were the operational components that need to be addressed which cannot be funded in other ways and MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 6 Work Session which can be tackled by the TSMF. Mr. Pryor suggested that with regard to the capital components, the City should begin a creative discussion to address those components separately. Mr. Poling reiterated that the TSMF must be uncomplicated so the community would have a clear understanding of what it would be expected to pay. He noted that he voted to repeal the TSMF when it came before the council in 2002 as he was under the impression that the County was willing to work with the City on some of these issues. Mr. Poling said he commented at the time that if such a partnership did not move forward, he would be willing to support a resurrection of the TSMF. He opined that it may be prudent to ask the public to vote on this issue. Mr. Pape? stated he voted to retain TSMF in 2000 and 2002 and he was in favor of considering it once again only if the council has the political will to follow through regardless of the pressure that would be present from other jurisdictions. City Manager Taylor remarked that discussions regarding this and other options present before the council have already begun with the Budget Committee. Mr. Corey added there was a fairly intense and well-developed public outreach process to ensure that all constituents understood the TSMF proposal in 2002, and that some form of public outreach would need to ensue for the proposals that were being considered. Mr. Pape? asked how the community could provide input to develop the TSMF. Mr. Corey explained that the previous outreach did include input for the development of the ordinance. City Manager Taylor added that should the council adopt the motion under consideration, staff could develop specific strategies and timelines for the council to consider. Mr. Pape? voiced his concurrence with the comments expressed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pryor around this option and further suggested a “sunset” component as a prudent step. Mr. Corey stressed that the proposals under consideration only begin to decrease the backlog and over a period of 10 years, the current $100 + million backlog would only be partially erased. However, he concurred that a sunset clause could be effective to the overall strategy with the understanding that other measures would need to be implemented at some point. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Taylor said that when the decision was made to rescind the TSMF, it was with the hope there would be a solution provided by the County. However, he pointed out that not only was there no solution, the City was now in jeopardy of losing partnership payments. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue of pavement preservation was the most frequently mentioned topic when he met with citizen groups. City Manager Taylor remarked that $11 million of pavement preservation would have been contracted out the summer the TSMF was rescinded. He concluded that there was now more support from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Eugene Water & Electric Board due to the legitimate efforts of the City to seek other solutions. Ms. Solomon offered her support for the TSMF. However, she stressed that it must be clearly identified so the councilors can defend the fee to their constituents. Ms. Solomon said she was uncomfortable that the proposal was removed from the “curb-to-curb” focus; however, she commented that if the percentages were dedicated to the particular items identified, it would keep the City accountable. Mr. Corey remarked that the original ordinance passed by the council in 2000 was the same ordinance considered in 2002; however, the methodology was reviewed based on a more sophisticated traffic model than was available in 2000. In fact, he noted that it revealed a different split between the commercial and residential assessments than was estimated in 2000 which resulted in a decrease in fees for the commercial side. Mr. Corey pointed out that the policy issue before the council was adoption of the ordinance and the methodology would be developed subsequent to that action and could change annually based upon traffic generation conditions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Ortiz asked if there was a mechanism which can be implemented for streets that have never been paved. In other words, if there was a non-collector street that was solely for neighborhood traffic and has never been improved, would there be an opportunity to have a separate matrix for those streets. Mr. Corey responded that the proposal under consideration referred solely to the “maintainable” transportation system in place and improvements to streets not brought up to standard, the TSMF, under current policy, could not fund. He said that design standards throughout neighborhoods were a sidebar to this discussion. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many of her constituents would be paying for services that they would not receive. She stressed that the process must be equitable to her constituents and should include a mechanism to address their issues. Mr. Corey responded that other municipalities which have street maintenance assessments in place have used the idea of a portion of that money to offset the cost of upgrading streets to an acceptable standard. Ms. Ortiz said she was in general support of the motion but stressed it not be complex in nature. Ms. Taylor said that Public Works did an excellent job of convincing residents there was a problem with the operations, maintenance, and preservation of the city’s transportation service system. She noted that a general obligation bond had not been heretofore considered. Ms. Taylor opined that a vehicle registration fee would be more equitable. She pointed out that most of the residents in Lane County live in an urban area and opined that such a fee would be successful. Ms. Taylor noted that if the statewide laws could be changed, the City could move a fee forward which would be equitable to all wards. Mr. Kelly conceded that the TSMF was a policy issue; however, he said it was also a policy question as to who would pay the TSMF. He said that his support was contingent on having a clear and fair methodology. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Taylor in opposition. C. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss joined the council for the item. She stated that the plan being considered contained information to guide implementational projects related to Parks, Recreation and Open Space. She said the information includes project timing, cost estimates, maintenance costs, growth allocation percentages, as well as associated maps identifying location of projects. Ms. Weiss shared that the relationship between the plan and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) was that the PROS Plan was a policy document whereas the project and priority plan before the council was an action document and provides for specific projects. She said that if adopted, the plan would be inserted into the PROS as an appendix. Ms. Weiss explained that the projects were in direct response to a comprehensive public outreach process. She then outlined the following components included in the Agenda Item Summary: ? Financial Assumptions ? Project Prioritization ? Project List Updates ? Systems Development Charge (SDC) Growth Allocation Percentages – Updated Tables 3 and 4 distributed Ms. Weiss concluded her presentation with the statement that the plan was intended to be living document that can be amended in response to future funding opportunities and community priorities. Additionally, the cost estimates would change to correspond to inflationary fluctuations. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor pointed out that possible future acquisitions were not included in the plan and said she was pleased that staff recognized this as a living document. She then turned to the Introduction on page 7 and asked for an explanation of “The feasibility of acquiring farmland”. Ms. Weiss explained there were two projects identified to farmland connections: 1) a greenbelt that would go around the northern side of the city and 2) a working farm as a public open space. Ms. Taylor turned to page 4, Table 1 and asked for an explanation of “Acquire Amazon Park in holdings along Hilyard Street.” Ms. Weiss explained there were some properties north of Hilyard Community Center and south of Roosevelt Middle School which the City may be interested in acquiring. Ms. Taylor then turned to staff’s notation of “Kincaid Park.” She said that area was not considered a park. Ms. Weiss stated it was considered a park in the City’s inventory and that staff was considering adding additional features to it. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Upgrade to Tugman Park.” Ms. Weiss said there have been some improvements made to the play areas; however, additional play area improvements were planned. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Frank Kinney Park.” Ms. Weiss said there was a Phase II to that plan, primarily trail improvement and stormwater improvements. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Upgrade Milton Park.” Ms. Weiss said there was a Phase II plan for improvements to that park. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Improving access to Kincaid and Milton Parks.” Ms. Weiss explained the map of those areas illustrates that primarily to the east of Kincaid Park, there was a neighborhood not well served by parks; therefore, some easier connection to reach that park was in the plan. Mr. Kelly stated he was supportive of the plan before the council. Mr. Kelly referred to the $6 million costs for the first year if the $20 million bond was successful. He questioned the $8 million per year for the remaining years. Ms. Weiss said she would respond fully to that question in writing; however, she noted that the $8 million estimate was projected on future bond measures and potential SDC increases. Mr. Kelly asked that a chart be provided to the council beginning with current conditions and how much each funding source can generate per year to ascertain the trend. He then turned to the information regarding SDCs and said that SDC changes can only be implemented on approved projects and requested that when the plan was adopted, staff ascertain what was included for Park SDCs. Mr. Pryor said he supported the plan as a “projected” list and asked if there would be a process for a rates committee and public hearings to arrive at a final list that was much more refined based on actual figures rather than projections. Ms. Weiss responded that the growth allocation percentages would not change significantly; however, how they were applied was to be determined. Mr. Pape? questioned how the “projected” project list and the prioritization result in an equitable geographic plan. Ms. Weiss explained that the revised Table 4 identifies capital costs by planning area which reflects the acquisition development totals for each area and the priority ratings. She explained that the plan strives to provide service to all areas of Eugene and that some new acquisition was targeted for the Willakenzie area. Mr. Pape? voiced a concern that as the plan moves forward, it should be equitable to all areas. He then turned to Page 3, Post Projects and Priorities for Programs and Services – Develop a resource manage- ment plan for existing and new parks. He asked if “resource” has a specific meaning in that concept. Ms. Weiss responded that the word was used to refer to management plans for the City’s existing resources. Ms. Weiss noted that there were funding strategies identified in the PROS that were not currently included in the Project List. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Ortiz moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor to direct the City Manager to hold a public hear- ing on the PROS Project and Priority Plan on March 13, 2006. Ms. Taylor turned to page 7, Table 1, and asked for an explanation of “Acquire Additional Amazon Headwaters Properties.” Ms. Weiss said the location was not specifically identified. Ms. Taylor asked if it was possible to add properties that were not currently for sale to the Project List. Ms. Weiss replied that specific parcels have not been identified and, by keeping them general, there was flexibility to target or not target individual properties. Ms. Taylor turned to page 3, Table 2, and asked for an explanation of “Public Information – Marketing Director for Parks.” Ms. Weiss replied that that component would not be funded by the Parks Bond and a Marketing Director has been hired and can be removed from the list. Recreation Division Manager Renee Grube further explained that the Marketing Director position had been vacant for five years and it was deemed necessary to bring it back as the City relies on the public’s understanding of what services were available within the community. Ms. Taylor said that she hoped Parks funds would not be spent for sidewalks that should be dedicated to land acquisition. Ms. Weiss explained that such expenditures would not occur through a parks bond; however, she pointed out that when a park was developed, the City was required to bring such an area up to accessibility standards, which included the installation of sidewalks. Mr. Kelly turned to page 4, Table 1, Civic Stadium. He pointed out that the stadium was an extraordinary community asset, currently owned by 4J School District, and that it has been dropped in priority from 2 to 5. Mr. Kelly said that the stadium was in threat of being demolished and voiced concern that the City would not consider it a high priority in possible discussions with 4J over such action. Ms. Weiss responded that the “living document” comes into action for such a situation. She added that if there was an imminent threat, the priority should indeed be raised. Mr. Kelly asked staff to research the feasibility of the loss of the stadium and advise if an amendment should be added to the motion to adopt the plan. Mr. Pape? questioned why the Amazon Headwaters property was listed as a citywide project, rather than a south Eugene property. Ms. Weiss explained there was some judgment exercised as to what project was “citywide” and in general, the ridgeline trail was considered “citywide” and the Amazon Headwaters Property was viewed as a component of the ridgeline trail. Mr. Pape? asked staff to provide a matrix of a five-year projection, including assumptions, as to what would be developed in all areas of town to ascertain equitability for all areas. Mr. Poling was mindful that although there was support from the council for the plan, there was a lot of work that still needs to be done, including the critical community input. City Manager Taylor confirmed that the plan was scheduled for council action on April 10, following the Public Hearing to be held on March 13. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: February 27, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006Central Services Department\City Council\cc060227m2.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Ruth #33 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/10/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 3/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 3/21 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT F M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall February 27, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pyror. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. City Council President Jennifer Solomon called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy and Councilor Bonny Bettman were in Washington, DC, as part of the United Front lobbying effort. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Councilor Solomon reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Carol Berg Caldwell , 84474 Parkway, Pleasant Hill, lauded the work of Leadership, Adventure, Education, and Direction (LEAD), a non-profit organization for teenagers. She referred to an article in The Eugene Weekly about a recent fundraiser sponsored by LEAD to help build a downtown teen center. She averred that a community teen center dovetailed with two significant issues that Eugene faced: 1) improved public safety and 2) the revitalization of the downtown mall. Regarding public safety, she related that LEAD members hoped for a well-run, viable teen center so that young people will choose meaningful skill building, art, and community-oriented activities rather than drugs. She also felt that larger stores would look more favorably on a community that backed a responsible productive teen center and would be more likely to open outlets in the downtown area. She thought shoppers feared the young people who hang out downtown. She opined that the system and government often catered to business interests while turning a blind eye to those who “live on the edge.” She asked the council to consider, in its deliberations regarding mall development, securing a space for a teen center. She said it was in the best interest of all of the community. Tamara Torrence , 1845 Villard Street, asked the council to do whatever it could within its power to address the ruling on the City youth activities levy. She wanted to ensure funding for the young people of the city of Eugene at the same level it had been funded since the levy was first enacted. She underscored that 24,000 young people benefited from the levy, which funded music, physical education, sports, drama, counselors, librarians, and nurses. She said the program and people funded by the levy were “priceless to our children.” She reminded the council that since the passage of Ballot Measure 5, public schools in the state of Oregon had suffered. She related that Oregon has the second highest class sizes in the country and its school year is nearly three weeks shorter than the national average. She said employers demand an educated workforce and used a good public school system as a recruiting tool to attract employees. Her husband had been recruited to work at the University of Oregon in this manner. She felt employers could no MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 1 City Council Meeting longer tout local public education as a benefit of living in the City of Eugene. She asked the City Council to stand up for the city’s children. Jennifer Geller , 2069 Olive Street, stated that she has two children in School District 4J and is a member of Stand for Children. She asked the City to appeal the repeal of the levy. She said the State was currently funding education at $428 less per student than it did in 1992. She felt the funding limit had come at a time when schools were asked to do more and when fixed costs continued to increase. She hoped the community would continue to work on adequate funding because the public education system was essential for young people, the economy, and society at large. She urged the council to exhaust all legal options available before a “radical anti-tax individuals” sacrifice the public good for their personal benefit. She asked the City, if it chose not to appeal the recent rulings, to pursue other options available, such as referring a different kind of levy to the voters so that the local school districts could continue to provide excellent education for the community’s children. Betsy Boyd , 2190 Washington Street, asked the City to appeal the tax court decision that found the categorization method for 20-67 unconstitutional. She also wished to thank the City for initially placing the levy on the ballot. She explained that she participated with the original group of parents that worked to ask the City Council to do so. Ms. Boyd said she also served as a member of the School District 4J Budget Committee. She related that those who had been involved with the campaign believed the tax court judge made a mistake in saying that all services when delivered within a school take on the character of education. She underscored that the activity levy clearly kept close track of services, such as sports, music, physical education, library, counselors, school nurses and costs associated with maintaining gymnasiums and facilities. She averred that those activities were separate from core curricular instructional time, funded under the State school funding formula. She said the recent repeal by the courts clearly thwarted the will of the voters. She reminded the council that leadership for the levy had come from parents and city officials. She averred that the community still relied upon its leadership to make sure the community stayed strong and provided its youth with access to a range of activities that would otherwise be unavailable to them. th Jasper Freedom , 972 West 4 Avenue, a fifth grader at the Family School, spoke on behalf of LEAD. He stated LEAD’s mission to develop the leadership skills of low-income teens, empowering them to address community problems and change the world. Through LEAD, young people were taught leadership skills, public speaking, and how to have fun in the outdoors. He said LEAD also worked to enhance self- confidence and self-esteem within teens, teens that often had few positive role models outside of LEAD. He underscored that young people in the LEAD program were in school, were not in the juvenile justice system, and were committed to live within the law. He related that former members of LEAD, which began in 1998, were now high school graduates who were attending college or working in the community. He stated that LEAD was growing and wished to be able to support more teens, but it needed the support of the community in order to do so. He reported that LEAD cost nearly $100,000 in 2005 and served 47 teens. He pointed out, as a point of comparison, that it cost approximately $50,000 per year to house one juvenile offender. He stressed that it was much cheaper to fund LEAD for teens that it was to put young people in jail. In closing, he stated that LEAD gave him the self-confidence to speak to the council and to “be who I am.” He promised the council that LEAD representatives would return for the next council meeting and would continue to testify until they had a teen center. Jessica Spaulding , 120 Aberdeen Street, said she had been involved with LEAD for two seasons. She shared that LEAD recently received two anonymous donations totaling $15,000 to help finance a teen center. She related that two of the teens, with the support of two staff members, held the first of an ongoing series of trainings called “Empowering Teens,” which 30 people attended. She said LEAD had been invited to give a presentation on building a teen center to the Northwest Regional Conference of the Human Service Education Association in April. She noted that the presentation would be given by two teen coordinators MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 2 City Council Meeting and two staff. Members of LEAD were also invited to the national conference of the same organization. She stated that LEAD conducted its fourth annual “Plant-a-Thon” fundraiser, planting 2,100 trees at Camp Harlow, adding that the event would be held in another part of Lane County in 2007. Patience Murray , 38965 Dexter Oaks #6, said she was 13-year-old who joined LEAD in September 2005. She related that prior to joining LEAD, she was depressed and suicidal. She suffered from social phobias, including a fear of going to school. She related that after joining LEAD she decided to stop being depressed. She said LEAD was teaching her to be herself and make a difference in the world. She stated that some young people grew up with LEAD and the program made a big difference to them and to her. She averred that LEAD changed lives and she hoped that it would change many other lives. She thanked the council for letting her speak. Will Ross , 60 North Adams, also representing LEAD, asked the council for the chance to prove that the organization could be successful and a positive contributor the community’s environment. He asked, on behalf of LEAD, for the use of the vacant downtown fire station at City Hall for a teen center. He acknowledged concern for the safety of the community’s teens and agreed with that concern. He felt the teens were “no more special” and in need of safety than City employees, who were all in the City Hall building. He realized that there were risk management issues but said that LEAD was confident it could reach a “place of agreement.” He said the center would not be a drop-in center, but would include an intake process including parent signatures and screening. He stressed that LEAD had strict rules for participation, including compliance with all laws such as truancy, smoking, and substance abuse. He said the unoccupied space would provide an open recreation area, rest rooms, activity rooms, and areas where LEAD teens could do homework and get mentoring. He opined that LEAD could not have designed a better space than the vacant fire station. He remarked that the City provided unsupervised skate parks and hoped that the City would see that the center could work out. He said LEAD would pay its own utilities, janitorial costs, and any other costs incurred by its occupancy. He stated that no youth would loiter in the open courtyard, adding that even if they did, it would be a great way for youth and the Eugene Police Department to come closer. He commented that LEAD was so confident in its program that it was willing to move in with the police department. He asked the council to consider how many other youth groups would be willing to have the police as a neighbor. He said this was a rare chance to help the youth of the community without any cost, and asked the City Council to give favorable consideration to LEAD’s request. Krystine Watkins , 1049 Barstow Avenue, stated that she was a LEAD graduate and had been an active member of LEAD for eight years. She averred that LEAD developed her potential as a leader and helped her achieve her goals. She related that when she joined LEAD she had an intense social anxiety disorder and a fear of public speaking. She said LEAD helped her rise above her fears and develop her potential. She transitioned from being a LEAD teen to a volunteer and then to a staff member as of last August, becoming assistant director of LEAD. She said growing its leadership from within LEAD’s own ranks was consistent with LEAD’s mission to be an organization by and for low-income teens. She observed from the teens who spoke that they demonstrated a lot of great potential. She shared her vision for LEAD, which was to make it a national program. Toward this end, she related that she was documenting the LEAD curriculum so that it could be replicated in satellite areas across the United States. Requests for start-up information had come from more than a few locations in the United States and Canada. She was pursuing the means to do this through her educational goals. She said she was currently applying for the Family and Human Services major, with minors in non-profit management and Spanish at the University of Oregon. She added that part of what she was doing in her attempt to duplicate the program and make it national was to fundraise. She said she was working on creating an endowment fund to sustain the LEAD program and help to afford the teen center. She reiterated that the teen center would be a vital community resource. In her studies, she had seen common denominators among the program participants, including the connection between boredom and negative peer culture which influenced youth crime and other community problems. She averred that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 3 City Council Meeting teens in LEAD would be active members in the teen center and would have a positive influence on teens not actively enrolled in LEAD. While she recognized that cost was an issue, she did not believe it was any longer an option not to have a teen center. John Brown , 101 East Broadway, commented that he had been upstaged by the youth group. He said he could not speak as eloquently as them. While he had not intended on speaking on behalf of LEAD, he urged the councilors to give their support to the organization. He thought the group had “it together,” and needed to be given a chance. Mr. Brown stated that as president of the Cal Young Neighborhood Association, he was present to testify on behalf of public safety. He said burglaries in his neighborhood, and likely throughout the City, were occurring in such record numbers that apathy had risen to a level at which people were no longer reporting them. He related that people thought it was pointless to report these crimes because no one would come, no one would take a report, and nothing would happen. He reported that his business partner had his vehicle broken into twice in the span of 48 hours and had to re-key five buildings as a result. He said that he spoke to a neighbor who had been burglarized twice over the course of three days. He recalled that Councilor Papé’s car was broken into last year and the only thing not taken was his council packet. He averred that it was a citywide problem. He said in a community where one had to steal three cars before being incarcer- ated, it was time to address the issue. He commented that the City could build all the parks and facilities it pleased, but it did no good if citizens were not safe. Vicky Scheuerell , 65 North Lawrence Street, shared her outrage at the repeal of the youth activities levy. She said she was part of the original group who worked the phone banks to pass the levy. She related that she talked to very few people who were against the levy. She shared her recent experience canvassing people to educate them about why funding was needed. She stated that most people did not need this education as they already knew that the community needed more school funding. She urged the council to look at the situation and to understand that the voters passed the levy. She stressed that the people who did not want the levy were in the minority. She asked the council to do what they could to further the appeal. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, opposed Item D on the Consent Calendar, an extension of the completion date for a project that qualified for the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE), calling it a tax break stolen from the university neighborhood. He alleged that the neighborhood had not been given the opportunity to have a discourse on the issue. Mr. Vishanoff alleged that the governor was working, through his staff, on mixed-use development in the Fairmount Neighborhood. He thought the council should rule out eminent domain proceedings in that neighborhood for “Phil Knight, Frohnmayer, or our governor.” He asserted that the media should be covering this story, but likely did not understand the issue. th Drix , 307-½ East 14 Avenue, wished to remind everyone that Eugene was a community and the “best city and town in the State of Oregon and the U.S.” He thought the solutions to the City’s problems should be very simple. He said there was a hole in the center of Eugene, a “hole with a soul” in the center of Eugene and Eugene needed to come up with a goal to fill the hole. He believed that everyone working together, those watching on Metro Television included, with the combined spirit and intelligence of the community could come up with some ideas for the center of our town that would be based on “human connection,” teens, seniors, “ramblers,” “geeks,” and everyone. He proclaimed that Eugene could inspire the world. nd Jana Jackson , 1012 East 22 Avenue, stated that she was a candidate for City Council Ward 3. She advocated for getting the City back to basics and funding core services first. She was disturbed to hear the Public Works Director discuss the potential of special fees to fix roads and lights. She averred that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 4 City Council Meeting reason cities incorporate was to have roads and infrastructure, public safety, and education. Those were the things she wished to “bring back” and fund first. She said whatever money was left over she would choose to fund other social services and the arts. Ms. Jackson also congratulated the LEAD members, calling them fantastic. She added that she agreed with Mr. Brown regarding the need for money for public safety. Continuing, Ms. Jackson noted that Item C in the Consent Calendar was the adoption of Revised Neighbor- hood Association Charters and asked that the council “vote it down.” She said the South University Neighborhood Association, of which she was a member, experienced trouble with a lack of transparency. She related that the charter had been modified to allow board meetings, which were supposed to be public, to occur over the internet and via conference calls. She averred that not all members had access to the technology and, given that inclusiveness and being open to the public was important, she opposed adoption of the revised charter. Councilor Solomon closed the Public Forum. Mr. Kelly thanked those who spoke. He was impressed by the work of the LEAD program. He noted that a lot of detailed thinking had gone into the LEAD presentation and asked the City Manager what it would take to convene an initial meeting between relevant staff and LEAD members. He asked for a memorandum on the results of the meeting, should it be held. City Manager Dennis Taylor said scheduling such a meeting was possible. He related that he had a conversation with the Executive Director of Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) Angel Jones regarding the recreation aspects of the LEAD presentation. He thought it was certainly possible to bring in a Facilities Committee member to address some of the proposals they had heard. He remarked that he was impressed with the presentations given at this meeting and the February 13 City Council meeting. Regarding neighborhood charters, Mr. Kelly averred that neighborhood associations often had email conversations regarding emerging issues and this was nothing extraordinary. He said there were five charters up for review on the Consent Calendar. He acknowledged that two neighborhood associations passed a revised charter to formalize the practice of communicating via email. Councilor Ortiz thanked the youth from LEAD for speaking to the council. She said it was easy to make good choices when good choices were laid out, but it was harder to make good choices when such choices were not laid out clearly. She lauded the work of the group. Councilor Ortiz asked if the City Manager had been in contact with the school districts regarding the ruling on the levy. City Manager Taylor responded that he spoke with both superintendents immediately after the ruling and they all agreed that the ruling should be appealed. He said they were working on the details of both the impacts of it and the legal basis for an appeal. He believed there would be information for the council in the next packet. Councilor Ortiz said it puzzled her that someone would put energy into something that hurt the community’s children. She was saddened that people would work to overturn something the community obviously voted for and supported. Councilor Poling congratulated the representatives of LEAD, adding that he was proud of LEAD partici- pants and that they should keep up the good work. He noted, regarding the Youth Activity Levy, that he was going to ask the same questions Councilor Ortiz asked. Whether he agreed with the judge’s ruling, the MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 5 City Council Meeting fact remained that more than 70 percent of the voters approved the levy. He felt the City owed it to the voters to respect their will and appeal that decision. He called youth one of “the best renewable resources” the community has. He underscored that today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders. He found the state level of funding for education to be an embarrassment. He supported doing whatever it took to help youth obtain an education that would enable them to compete in the world. Councilor Pryor was pleased to hear a specific recommendation from LEAD. He said if it was possible to make something happen, he was a huge supporter of youth and teen centers and the City should try to see if a teen center could be created. Regarding public safety, Councilor Pryor agreed it was a core service. He stated that the City should never forget the fact that it was in the business of providing certain core services and public safety should be at the top of the list. He said he wanted “to move heaven and earth” to see if ways could be found to provide that level of core service to the satisfaction of the people living in the community. Councilor Pryor reminded the council that he also worked hard to pass the school levy. He said the relationship between the City and the school districts with regard to the community’s children was the same. He underscored that the basic concept of the levy had not been ruled invalid. He wanted to try every option to ensure the 24,000 young people in this community were taken care of. Councilor Papé commended the LEAD youth for the good job done on the public speaking. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 5, 2006, State of the City Address - January 23, 2006, Work Session - January 25, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Revised Neighborhood Association Charters D. Adoption of Resolution 4859 Extending the Completion Date for Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution No. 4816, as Amended Under Resolution No. 4824. (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein) Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor pulled Item D. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item D was approved with a unanimous vote, 7:0. Councilor Taylor reiterated her objection to the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) for the proposed apartment building. She asserted that the developers should pay property taxes on the improve- ments, adding that she did not believe the project benefited the City. Councilor Kelly recalled that he supported the project when it was initially proposed. He did not believe a delay in construction should be a reason to discontinue the MUPTE. Councilor Papé asked if there was a time limit, within the law, in the allowance of extensions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 6 City Council Meeting Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman reported that the project developers expected to begin construc- tion by the summer construction season. He thought the project could be completed by January 2007, but Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Von Klein did not want to be pressured by that deadline given the nature of construction work. He said though the law would allow them to return and ask for further extensions, they did not expect to do so. In response to another question from Councilor Papé, Mr. Weinman said the State statute expired in 2012 and Mr. Carmichael and Mr. Von Klein could technically ask for extensions until then, but reiterated that he did not believe they would do so. City Attorney Jerry Lidz added that the council was not required to grant them extensions, including the one before the council at present. Councilor Papé commented that his concern was based on the possibility that a developer could make it a practice to ask for extensions. Councilor Solomon called for the vote. Roll call vote; Consent Calendar Item D passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- February 27, 2006 Page 7 City Council Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 8, 2006—Workshop TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/28 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/4 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/4 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 4/5 Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT G M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Workshop Conference Room #1—Eugene Fire and Emergency Medical Services Building nd 1705 West 2 Avenue—Eugene, Oregon March 8, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. A. WORKSHOP: City Council Priority Issue—City Hall Complex Mayor Kitty Piercy called the workshop of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined for the item by Thomas Hacker, Jonah Cohen, and Dana Ing of Thomas Hacker Architects; Ellen Teninty of T ‘N T Consultants; Doug Macy and Ken Pirie of Walker Macy; Dave Wilson and Rick Rehfeldt of McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie; and Kyle Brown of J. D. White Company. Police Chief Robert Lehner, Nan Laurence of the Planning Division, and Glen Svendsen and Mike Penwell of the Facilities Division were also present. Mr. Cohen reviewed the agenda for the workshop. 1. Introduction—Road map, Schedule, Phase 1 Refresher, Defining the Problem 2. Preliminary Space Needs 3. Site Evaluation Criteria 4. Public Involvement 5. Forum Preview There were no questions about the agenda. 1. Introduction—Road map, Schedule, Phase 1 Refresher, Defining the Problem Mr. Cohen reviewed the Phase 2 schedule. Mr. Cohen called attention to the project values identified by the council and indicated the consultants would take them forward into the public input process. 1. Exercise fiscal responsibility 2. Produce government efficiency 3. Be user-friendly 4. Embody environmental stewardship 5. Enhance downtown 6. Inspire civic pride 7. Maximize the use of City Hall public spaces by the public and their access to government and its representatives 8. Strive for simplicity MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 1 Work Shop 9. Plan for the future Mr. Cohen noted the points of agreement among councilors voiced at a previous workshop: 1) the project should incorporate meaningful, sustainable design goals; 2) the project should accommodate growth over a 25-30 year period; 3) departments should be consolidated to the greatest practical extent; 4) the Downtown Plan should be consulted; 5) some public amenities should be included; 6) there should be public parking within a few blocks and access to public transportation; and 7) the council should consider sites other than the current city hall site. He further noted less than unanimous agreement among councilors that the current site was the appropriate location for a new city hall and that the existing city hall should likely be replaced. There was no unanimity about the question of whether the project should support the Great Street concept, co-location of non-city hall functions, and whether police patrol functions should be part of a consolidated city hall. Mr. Cohen noted the council’s interest in having public input on the inclusion of non-city hall functions, the criteria for site selection and ultimately the chosen site, the inclusion of police patrol in a consolidated model, and whether the current structure should be renovated, expanded, or replaced. Mr. Cohen provided an overview of the problems that led to the study, which included dispersed services, energy consumption, security and safety issues. With regard to seismic safety, Mr. Cohen said that when the current building was designed in the 1960s, it met the codes of that time. Since that time, scientists believed the area was likely to experience a much larger earthquake and codes had been adjusted accord- ingly. If the council chose to remodel the existing building, Mr. Cohen emphasized the consultants would be able to deal with the earthquake and seismic issues in the most cost-effective way possible, relative to other program goals for the project. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Cohen discussed the issue of civic presence and connectivity, saying the council needed to ask itself what facilities that represent municipal government should be, and what level of civic presence and connection should they provide. 2. Preliminary Space Needs Mr. Cohen reviewed the methodology used by the consultants to arrive at a picture of how government was conducted in Eugene. A report would be produced that was based on demonstrated need, efficiencies, and precedents established by other municipal government projects. The report would also discuss growth needs. Mr. Cohen shared a bubble diagram showing preliminary City space needs by program area that reflected desired relationships in a new facility. He said that parking needs had not been fully considered much to this point but at least 200 spaces were needed. Councilors asked questions clarifying the information illustrated by the bubble diagram. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 2 Work Shop Mr. Cohen shared four consolidation options related to police functions. Option A was a one-building, full consolidation option; Option B was a campus model with police functions in a separate wing; Option C had police functions separate and within walking distance of a consolidated city hall; and Option D showed police functions remote from city hall. He called attention to a list of considerations relative to each option; those considerations included civic presence, public safety presence, access to internal affairs, public oversight of police activities, efficiency of staff communication, response time, essential services structure, sufficient lot size to accommodate programming, capacity for expansion, cost of land, cost of structured versus surface parking, and construction costs. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the meaning of the reference to public oversight of police activities, Mr. Cohen acknowledged the meaning was not clear and further discussion might be warranted. The consultants were aware it was an issue and wanted to introduce it as a consideration. Ms. Teninty facilitated the discussion for the remainder of the meeting. She solicited questions. Mr. Kelly asked if any of the options could work with a precinct or centralized model. Mr. Cohen said yes; that decision was independent of the physical implications of the model. Mr. Kelly suggested that in the case of Option D, the size of the patrol building would differ depending on the number of precincts. Mr. Cohen agreed, but suggested such a precinct approach, if adopted, would be implemented over time and could be anticipated in the design. Mr. Kelly expressed interest in how Police Chief Robert Lehner felt about the different models and their relationship to a precinct design. He requested a memorandum from Chief Lehner on the topic prior to the next workshop on April 26. Ms. Taylor asked if a separate building near City Hall containing both patrol functions and administration was an option. Mr. Cohen said it was not included in the options but could be added. Ms. Taylor requested feedback from Chief Lehner on the idea. Mr. Papé agreed it was important to get the input of the chief and the department about the options. He asked if Chief Lehner felt it was important to be closer to the City Manager’s Office or closer to the patrol function. Mr. Cohen said there was a strong connection between police administration and other City Hall administrative functions, and that was taken into account. If administration was too far away from City Hall, that could be an issue. Mr. Papé suggested that was the reason the option put forth by Ms. Taylor was not listed. Mr. Cohen agreed. Mr. Wilson said the chief wanted to be near the City Manager's Office but felt comfortable with the commanders being associated with their respective patrol functions. He said his firm could look at the adjacency relationships created by a nearby facility. One option not investigated was locating all police functions outside of downtown. Chief Lehner said the relationship between police administrative functions and the remainder of City Hall were stronger and more direct than the administration’s relationship with the line staff. He did not personally direct operations, but rather set the policies carried out by Command staff that affected operations. With regard to a separate building, as long as the administrative function was close to City Hall, it did not matter if it was in a separate building. The one place there were interrelationships between the future precinct model and the options was in terms of sizing. The time frame of the discussion did not affect that issue significantly. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 3 Work Shop Mr. Kelly said his question was somewhat broader; he was also asking the chief’s position on which of the four options he preferred and why. Chief Lehner said any option would work for the department to deliver police services; the most efficient approaches appeared to be options B, C, and D. All three were better than Option A. He believed the best balance between cost, benefit, and relationship on a broad scale was represented by Option B. Mr. Pryor saw a tradeoff between the public interface and internal access in each of the options; Option C appeared to create the best balance, without creating a negative balance between internal and external access. Mr. Papé determined from Mr. Cohen that the options had not been weighted and that the consultants saw that as a task for the council. Ms. Bettman asked if the consultants had looked at the cost of travel time for patrol staff to reach the location of police administration. Mr. Wilson said yes; he pointed out that with regard to travel, the patrol officers would be in the field already. There would be some travel required for commanders to meet with the chief, and one of those individuals was already not in the downtown area now. Mr. Papé determined from Mr. Cohen the consultants assumed the Forensics Unit would remain in its current location. Mr. Papé did not want the fact the unit was housed in its own building now to influence the outcome of the issue. Ms. Bettman recalled that the Forensics Unit was to be housed separately on a temporary basis and then reunited with other police functions once consolidation of those services occurred. She questioned the assumption that the function would stay in the building in which it was currently housed, as the building was built to accommodate other uses once consolidation occurred. Mr. Wilson said at the outset the consultants considered the facility and determined that forensics was a function commonly located away from the police headquarters location. Its relocation could be explored, but it was a function which did not need to be located downtown. Mr. Papé thought the Forensics Unit should be reflected on the bubble diagram. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about how the options could be narrowed into an option that would be forwarded to the voters in the form of a bond measure, Mr. Cohen hoped to narrow down the options as the public process moved forward. During the summer, the consultants would test a few models with the public and potentially, there might be multiple approaches for the voters to consider. Ms. Bettman recalled that the schedule called for the council to make a decision on an option in April. She asked how multiple options could be offered to the community if the council chose one in April. Mr. Cohen anticipated that the council would choose the option that made the most sense and then the consultants would apply the program to the other variables, the site options and the fate of the existing building. The options before the council addressed the programming element of the issue. Ms. Teninty anticipated a multi- year planning process and said the decisions the council would be making would describe the process to the degree conceptual designs could be created. At that time, the council could begin to discuss the issues of financing and phasing. Ms. Bettman thought once the council made its decision in April it should no longer pretend there would be multiple options for the public to consider. Ms. Teninty clarified that there would no longer be multiple options on how to structure police services. There would be multiple options regarding phasing, financing, and what should be built first. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 4 Work Shop Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Cohen the public would consider the options at a forum later in the month and there would be input for the council to consider in April. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé about including the Forensics Unit and Property Control in a bubble diagram. Mr. Kelly said neither the public nor council wanted to be told one thing one year and a different thing another year. When the council discussed the Forensics Unit and Property Control functions it heard a clear message from staff that the need for space existed and the department could not wait for a police building. It was now implied the building housing those functions would become part of the Public Works campus. It was confusing and disconcerting to him that the council was now being given a different message than it had originally heard. Ms. Teninty asked the council if the considerations listed by the consultants were the correct considerations. Ms. Bettman asked what was meant by “essential services structure.” Mr. Wilson said the code mandated a higher level of structural resistance for public safety providers to allow them to provide emergency response after an emergency event. Ms. Bettman suggested that government decision makers should also be able to operate in an emergency because they were just as important as public safety providers. She thought the considerations seemed subjective. Mr. Wilson said the consultants were responding to the minimum requirements in the code. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultants have yet not estimated the costs of meeting those requirements. Mr. Kelly left the meeting. There was brief council discussion of the meaning of the consideration “public oversight of police activities.” Councilors acknowledged that the consideration was different from the external auditor function and accepted a suggestion from Mr. Wilson to supplant “oversight” with “awareness” to make that clear. Ms. Taylor wanted to replace the word “awareness” with the word “integration.” Ms. Teninty listed the suggestion separately. Councilors agreed there was value to keeping the consideration. Ms. Bettman suggested that where the consultants had identified City Hall and other related functions, it should footnote that it included the Police Auditor’s Office. She believed that it was an administrative function that would have to communicate with other City administrative functions. Mayor Piercy questioned whether the presence of police in City Hall added to the perception of public safety. Ms. Bettman believed that it did. Ms. Ortiz found the presence of police cars in her neighborhood a cause for alarm. Mr. Papé said he liked having a police presence in the area. Ms. Teninty indicated she would note different positions on the part of councilors. Ms. Bettman found the rankings for the considerations to be relatively subjective in the light of supportive analysis. For example, with regard to the cost of land, the City owned land downtown and did not own land outside downtown, but that was ranked as negative. She found it misleading information. She acknowl- edged, in response to a question from Ms. Teninty, that the considerations were generally those the council had in mind but she believed the rankings were discretionary. Mr. Papé asked how other communities of similar size to Eugene, such as Boulder, Colorado, and Salem, Oregon, operated their police functions, and suggested that research be done in that regard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Shop Mr. Cohen said that when the consultants shared the considerations with the public, it would not include the rankings and would solicit feedback on the issue. He did not anticipate universal agreement on the rankings. Ms. Teninty asked the council what further information it needed before the April meeting. Mayor Piercy anticipated that the council would weigh the considerations against one another to reach a decision. She said that some considerations may be a higher priority for some councilors. Ms. Teninty suggested that might be a discussion that required a separate meeting. Mr. Pryor suggested the public forums would provide the council with some direction regarding the community’s values as they related to the considerations. He wanted a summary of that information prior to the council’s April meeting. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s concerns, Ms. Wilson said that the consultant team debated about whether to rank the considerations and decided to include them to stimulate a conversation about the values that existed. He concurred they were subjective. Mr. Wilson agreed some revision might be needed, but the construction cost related to a location downtown was objectively greater, particularly if structured parking was required. That drove the ranking before the council. He said the consultant team could attach a number to that consideration if desired by the council. The council took a brief break. 3. Site Evaluation Criteria Mr. Wilson provided a brief overview of the preliminary site selection screening process, anticipating the outcome would be the identification of five or six sites for further examination. Mr. Wilson shared some density models for the City Hall Complex Master Plan. Mr. Hacker called attention to the preliminary and Level Two site evaluation criteria developed by the consultant team. He invited additions and indicated that the public would also be asked to comment on the criteria. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wilson said the consultant team agreed to focus on sites that seemed viable inside the boundaries of the Downtown Plan area. Ms. Laurence reviewed the boundaries of the plan area. Ms. Bettman suggested that the consultant team review the criteria to eliminate those not related to a downtown location given that decision had been made. Mr. Hacker concurred. 4. Public Involvement Ms. Teninty provided an overview of the proposed public involvement plan, emphasizing the use of the values-based decision model. She noted the goals associated with the public participation spectrum and various associated outreach tools. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 6 Work Shop Ms. Teninty summarized the results of the interviews she had conducted regarding public involvement, noting recommendations for additional avenues for public input other than the forums and the inclusion of an “unprogrammed voice,” which she interpreted as surveys and other arbitrary ways to seek opinions from those who do not generally attend hearings or forums. She said she also heard recommendations the council not seek input on decisions that had already been made, and a focus on the need for council leadership in this area. People expressed a desire that the council reach unanimity in as many areas as possible to build public support for the project, and a desire that the relationship of the project to other plans be made clear. People wanted the values of the project to be identified in many categories. Continuing, Ms. Teninty said there was support voiced for sustainability in the broadest, non-experimental sense. Skepticism was voiced about options that retained the current city hall building, but people were willing to consider all information before a final decision was made. She indicated she would provide a summary of the citizen interviews to the council and a list of those interviewed. Ms. Teninty noted the suggestions for additions and changes to the project values from those interviewed and asked the council if it was interested in carrying any forward. Suggested Additions: ? Safety ? Aesthetics ? Well-being of the work force ? Transparency Suggested Changes: ? #2 Facilitate government efficiency ? #8 Strive for focus ? #7 Rewrite Ms. Teninty clarified that “transparency” referred to transparency of the process surrounding the project. The council agreed that the consultant team would rewrite #7 of the project values to reflect the input that had been received in regard to the need for city hall to be reflect inclusivity and access to government as well as welcoming to the public and a place where people could meet their friends before going to an event. Ms. Bettman suggested the wording “maximizes or supports public access to the public’s representatives and city government.” 5. Forum Preview Ms. Teninty reported that people could sign up to participate in the forum at www.eugenecityhall.com. The forum was scheduled to occur on March 23 from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at First United Methodist Church. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Shop Ms. Teninty previewed the agenda for the upcoming community forum. Councilors asked questions clarifying the information to be presented and offered suggestions for changes, including a suggestion from Ms. Bettman for the addition of an open-ended question regarding the public’s criteria for selecting a model and elimination of the small group sessions. Speaking to the latter suggestion, Ms. Teninty indicated the consultant team would attempt to minimize the use of small groups but would use some small group formats in order to hear from more people. She said that participants would also fill out surveys at the end of the event and could express their thoughts through that instrument. Mr. Hacker expressed support for not showing the public the criteria but rather asking them an open-ended question regarding what they thought important in a site. Ms. Bettman suggested that it was not necessary to solicit public comment on the project values as those would be used by the council and she did not envision a productive discussion would ensue. She thought input on the other two major topics was more needed. Mayor Piercy suggested that starting with a discussion of values would help engage people and they could use the values as a filter for the other decisions they would be asked to make. Ms. Taylor concurred with the remarks of Ms. Bettman with regard to the value of an open-ended question and the elimination of the small group sessions. Ms. Teninty suggested the consultant team refer to the project values in the opening remarks and solicit written feedback on them. There was council concurrence. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Shop Mayor Piercy said she wanted to know what was most important to people with regard to a new city hall, and what would make a difference to them to influence them to support a new city hall. The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2006 Page 9 Work Shop NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 13, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Joyce Ogden MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060313m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: C Drive 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/23 jo Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/4 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/4 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff _______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = City Council Work Session March 13, 2006 Page 0 ATTACHMENT H M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 13, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor (via teleconference), Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council Work Session. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy reported that she traveled to Washington, D.C. with Councilor Bettman to lobby for projects such as the Wetlands Education Center, Delta Ponds, the Forest Legacy Program, and the West Bank Trail Extension. She then reported that she attended the opening ceremonies for the new walking and bike path in the Bethel neighborhood on March 13. Ms. Ortiz announced that she also attended the opening ceremonies for the walking and bath path, explaining that the path extends from Roosevelt to the American Red Cross and allowed for more accessibil- ity to the neighborhood park. She reported that the pedestrian crossing on Roosevelt was moving forward. She then announced that on Wednesday, March 15, the Mayor would be at the American Red Cross office, beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to staff for arranging the return of the free chamber concerts on Saturdays in the Atrium Building. Mr. Kelly reported that the Human Rights Commission held a special meeting on March 7 and voted 9:3 to postpone action to add the Gender Identity Code to the Eugene Anti-Discrimination Code. He noted that he voted with the minority on this issue. Mr. Kelly explained that an educational campaign, as recommended by the Lane Gender Task Force, would ensue. Finally, Mr. Kelly reported that the City/County Public Safety Task Force held a reunion the week of March 6, to inform members of the actions of the County Commissioners who were moving to place a ballot measure on the November election (an income rather than a sales tax initiative) to fund public safety services. He explained there would be a cap on the amount of tax that could be assessed. Mr. Poling reported that he recently attended the Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Steering Committee meeting where it was noted that a prototype vehicle was currently at the Government Vehicle Testing Grounds in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He said vehicles would begin arriving in Lane County in August and LTD would undertake testing on the various routes from September through December, with actual service beginning on December 17. Mr. Poling also reported that work was currently underway in the University area, beginning with the Walnut Street Station, and would be completed in July 2006. He then stated that the Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission (MWMC) revealed that the first bid it received MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 1 Work Session (from a local concern) on one of its major projects came in $2 million lower than what had been originally projected. However, he noted that the bid has been challenged by the second lowest bidder. Mr. Poling explained that this project was one of many to upgrade to meet current codes. Ms. Taylor (via telephone from the NLC conference in Washington, DC) reported that she was attending meetings regarding immigration reform, long-term health care, No Child Left Behind, and big box stores. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Mayor Piercy attended a meeting with Santa Clara residents to discuss neighborhood and community parks. He reminded the council that the Santa Clara School has been demolished so there was interest in that particular property; however, any movement depends on the outcome of the zoning request. Mr. Pryor said that other available park land would also be pursued. He then reported that he attended the Centennial Celebration for Eugene Parks on Saturday, March 11, which th recognized the 100 anniversary of the donation of land that created Hendricks Park. Regarding the meeting Mr. Pryor attended in Santa Clara, Mr. Papé? said some of that group was on the Executive Committee of the Santa Clara Neighborhood Association and suggested that a collaborative effort may be worthwhile as discussions regarding park land move forward. He then displayed a picture of the official EmX vehicle. Mr. Papé? reported that he attended the recent the McKenzie River Watershed Council and received a tutorial on wetlands. He said it was revealed by two consultants that many individuals who want to enhance wetlands do not have the resources to move the process forward. Mr. Papé? said the council was looking for ways to assist those individuals. Ms. Solomon reported that she was a member of the Housing Policy Board and would chair a committee created to address manufactured housing park closures. She explained the committee would examine the City’s code with regard to the protection of tenants and would present a recommendation to the City Council by December. City Manager Dennis Taylor spoke about the regular City Council meeting schedule to begin at 7:30 p.m. He explained that in order to accommodate the large number of community members who were expected to testify regarding the East Broadway project, the following changes to the agenda were made: 1) the three public hearings related to that project have been combined into one; 2) two other unrelated items have been moved to the beginning of the meeting; and, 3) adoption of the resolution to approve the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority List has been rescheduled to the April 10 City Council meeting, in compliance with a request made by Mr. Pryor and others. City Manager Taylor also announced that the joint meeting between the City Council and the LTD Board of Directors would be held at 5:30 p.m., on June 12, at a location to be determined. B. Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106 (Police Auditor) Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston, acknowledged Tim Laue, Chair of the Police Commission, Jeannine Parisi, Police Commission Management Analyst, and Helen Towle, Human Resources Division manager, for their contribution to the Ad Hoc Committee formed at the direction of the City Council to provide recommendations on the recruitment and selection processes for the Police Auditor. She then reviewed the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), the recommendations as crafted by the committee, and the suggested motions. Ms. Walston also explained that the Police Commission requested that the council approve its work plan for March - July 2006. To revise a prior amendment acted on by the City Council related to this process, Mr. Kelly put forth the following motion: MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the position description for the Police Auditor revise the sentence amended at the City Council’s last meeting so that it reads as follows: Can- didates for this position may not have worked for the Eugene Police Department as an employee within the past 20 years. In addition, candidates should have no other prior relationship with the department that might create actual or perceived bias for or against the department or Eugene police officers. Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts and affiliations with the department. Mr. Kelly explained that the motion was necessary, as the amendment approved by the City Council prohibited both employment and contract with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) over the past 20 years. However, he said it was pointed out there was no database or paper file that allows the City to ascertain if, for example, an individual had a contract with the EPD 20 years ago. Additionally, Mr. Kelly said there was no distinction in the amendment between a contract to “wash police cars” and a contract to “consult on the operations of the department.” He said his motion retained the 20-year employment prohibition but moved the contract issue to a full disclosure situation. Additionally, the motion resolved the issue of actual or perceived bias. Ms. Ortiz stated that staff pointed out to the Ad Hoc Committee that it had narrowed the scope to such a degree that it was not looking at the “big picture” with regard to other possible applicants who would have a relationship in some capacity with the EPD, whether for or against it. Therefore, she voiced support for the motion. Ms. Piercy commented that all those serving on the committee concurred that the motion was appropriate. Mr. Pape? moved? to amend the motion to read as follows: Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts and affiliations with the department. The amendment died for lack of a second. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the amendment; however, due to her membership on the Ad Hoc Committee she said she would vote in favor of the motion. She noted that the motion asked the applicant to self-select and expressed dismay that qualified candidates would not be clear as to whether or not they were qualified and therefore would not move forward with the application process. Mr. Solomon asked for an explanation of “other prior relationships” with the department that might create actual or perceived bias. Ms. Walston explained that actual or perceived bias could be an issue if an applicant has held an attorney or a district attorney position with Lane County. She added that such an individual would most likely have had an association with the department that could be conceived as biased one way or another. The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Pape? in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Police Commission Work Plan for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2006. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to set the salary for the Police Auditor at Range 37 on the City of Eugene Exempt Salary Schedule. Ms. Solomon opined that Range 37 was high for a starting salary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz countered that Range 37 was a fair wage for the level of expertise that would be required for the position, which was a position that would meet with controversy on a regular basis within the community. Mr. Laue stated that the committee reviewed and discussed this issue thoroughly, including a comparison analysis of other municipalities. Additionally, the Police Commission weighed in that the position would be quite complex and, as there was a limited field of individuals who could meet the qualifications, Range 37 was appropriate. Mr. Poling pointed to Attachment C of the AIS which provides Police Auditor salary information in other jurisdictions across the United States. He said Range 37 was well within the median range of the agencies listed. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to provide the benefit package as outlined in Attachment C of the Agenda Item Summary. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the benefit package before the council was the basic package the City offered to its higher-level employees. Ms. Solomon asked if a moving allowance had been determined. Ms. Ortiz stated the Ad Hoc Committee did not act on that component and it would be revisited. Ms. Bettman stated that, depending on the applicant field, it may be appropriate to offer incentives. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $17,000 from the general fund contingency for the purpose of recruitment and selection expenses of the Police Audi- tor; the funds to be allocated to the Human Resources and Risk Services Department. Mayor Piercy commented that Attachment E details such expenditures. She confirmed that these expenses do not include hiring a professional recruiter. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to hold a specific public forum at the City Council meeting on April 10, 2006, to hear community comments on the auditor Candidate Profile. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly commented on the Draft Selection Process and referred to Page 29 of the agenda packet. He complimented the proposal and pointed to critical components: “Any city councilor who chooses to, may individually review all applications and provide input on applicants to be considered fur- ther/selected as a finalist; additionally, (re telephone interviews) the Ad Hoc Committee would outline the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and make it available to any City Councilor . . .” Mr. Kelly then pointed out that it was certainly appropriate for the Ad Hoc Committee make a recommenda- tion as to who would be included in the community group to meet with candidates; however, he said that the City Council should also be invited to recommend individuals and ultimately validate such a list. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Police Auditor ensuring that the Police Auditor shall have a decisive role in the hiring, supervising, evaluating, or transferring of MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 4 Work Session staff for the Auditor’s Office. Further; that the MOU shall be signed by both parties within two weeks of the Police Auditor’s hiring date. Ms. Bettman explained that the Police Auditor may not wish to terminate an individual; rather, he/she may want to transfer the individual out of that particular office. She then pointed out that a review of the Police Commission report, the background material for the ballot measure, and the rebuttal from the proponent committee in the Voter’s Pamphlet ascertained that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, and that the public was promised that the Auditor’s Office would be independent. She read the following from the pamphlet: Our Police Commission unanimously recommends an external review system that ensures structural independence by separating police review from the City Manager. She then read the following from the Charter Amendment: The auditor would be providing staff to the Civilian Review Board (CRB) and the CRB would review the function of the Auditor’s Office. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman pointed out that the auditor’s staff would ensure the independence of the office so it was essential that the auditor have some leverage with those employees. City Manager Taylor expressed support for the substance of the motion and said that he was willing to meet with the auditor to work out a reasonable accommodation, taking into account what the City Charter dictates, the existing personnel policies, and labor agreements. However, he voiced a concern with the language to “direct” the City Manager, and questioned what constitutes a “decisive” role. Additionally, City Manager Taylor suggested that a four-week timeline to craft and sign an MOU, rather than two weeks, may be more prudent in light of the fact that the auditor would face a significant learning curve as he/she becomes oriented to the position and the community. City Attorney Glen Klein commented that “decisive” could be interpreted in such a way that the auditor would make staffing decisions and the City Manager would be bound by those decisions, or, it could be interpreted that the auditor would have a significant role and therefore the City Manager would need to take into account the auditor’s recommendations. City Attorney Klein pointed out that in conformance with the City Charter, it was the City Manager who hires staff; however, the manager could take input from his/her department directors. He said that an MOU was not problematic but while the auditor’s role would be significant, it would not provide direction to the City Manager. Mr. Pryor expressed support for an MOU; however, he opined that “decisive” was not a commonly encouraged human resource term, as it could be interpreted in various ways. He stressed that caution must be exercised with components involving human resources, pointing to the significant number of court cases around employee relations. Mr. Pryor suggested that the language for the MOU be based upon clarity of the relationship between the City Manager and the auditor, and that a review of best practices would be a prudent step prior to any action taken by the council. Mr. Kelly said that council support of such an MOU should be viewed “philosophically” rather than legally. He opined that if the council philosophically directed the City Manager, it was appropriate as he was the council’s employee. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion with the understanding that reasonable people could work out a reasonable process. Ms. Solomon expressed uneasiness with the term “decisive.” She pointed out that the City Manager would certainly want the program to be successful and voiced confidence that he would work with the auditor in that vein and ensure that the auditor has the employees he/she determines were capable for the positions. Ms. Solomon opined that an MOU was not necessary at this point in the process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor opined that “decisive” was a proper term and spoke to a recent editorial in The Register-Guard that stated that if the position was not independent it would be meaningless. She said she would support the motion. Mr. Papé? pointed out that from an employee’s standpoint, it must be clarified who the supervisor was and how that relationship was set up. He said he favors an MOU; however, the City has a charter that must be adhered to and it dictates that the City Manager makes the final decisions on hiring and firing of staff. Mr. Papé? opined that “decisive” would insinuate that the auditor would make such decisions and he therefore could not support the motion. He suggested that a consulting role would be more appropriate. In conclusion, Mr. Papé? pointed out that the language in the motion before the council was not? included in the ballot measure and therefore was not proper. City Attorney Klein stated that the City Manager had the authority and could choose to delegate hiring and/or firing decisions but that the City Council did not have the authority to require the City Manager to delegate a hiring/firing decision. He added that the City Council could certainly direct the City Manager to produce an MOU; however, it could not direct the City Manager to delegate his Charter power. City Manager Taylor stressed that he was supportive of the independent auditor position, that he wanted it to succeed and set a precedent for future auditors. He said, however, that he did not want to bind future city managers to an agreement that may or may not flourish in the future. City Manager Taylor indicated that an accommodation could be achieved in the spirit of the intent of the motion; however, he cautioned the City Council not to direct the City Manager to take an action that was inconsistent with the City Charter. City Manager Taylor then turned to the issue of transferring staff. He explained that should the auditor’s staff be organized, there were certain requirements as to how transfers occurred. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the staffing and funding of the positions would be resolved through the budget process. Finally, he opined that the supervision, hiring, termination, and transfers that would inform this discussion should be discussed with the auditor following his/her hire. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council not take action on this motion at this time; rather, that the language be sent back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. Ms. Ortiz expressed support for the motion. She spoke to the timing of the signing of the MOU and offered the following friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz, with acceptance by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggested the MOU be signed within 30 days of the hire of the auditor. Ms. Bettman stated that independence was a crucial component of the auditor’s role as perceived by the community. She reiterated that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, which made it likely that staff would be involved in the intake of those complaints. Therefore, the auditor needs to have some leverage with those employees. Ms. Bettman opined that the functioning of the office could in fact be undermined if it was not completely independent. She then spoke to the City Charter and said there have been conflicting interpretations of charter language in the past. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion as follows: The Eugene City Council directs that the City Manager shall enter into a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU) with the Police Auditor outlining a specific joint decision-making relationship for hiring, supervising, evaluating, transferring, or terminating staff within the Auditor’s Office. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor explained that the suggested amendment would ensure that neither the City Manager nor the auditor would be able solely to hire, fire, or transfer staff. He voiced confidence that such a process would provide clarity and be successful. Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the amendment as it would not provide the auditor with leverage and it gives the auditor the input the City Manager wants to provide. She argued that “decisive” ensures that both parties agree prior to staffing decisions. Ms. Bettman said that the amendment leaves the decision-making up to the City Manager. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Attorney Klein replied that the City Manager must agree to a joint? partnership. He reiterated that the City Manager has the authority to hire and fire and unless the manager was willing to delegate all or a portion of that authority, a joint decision would not be in compli- ance with Section 16 of the City Charter. Mr. Papé? reiterated that the City Council? should have included appropriate language in the ballot measure if it wanted to have a truly independent staff in the Auditor’s Office. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the amendment under discussion; however, he said he prefers the language in the original motion as it provides a greater expression of what the relationship between the City Manager and the auditor would be. Ms. Bettman opined that the motion provides for accountability. The amendment failed: 2:6, with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Poling in favor. Mr. Pape? seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to propose a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to meet with the auditor following hire to draft an Memorandum of Under- standing (MOU) as to how the auditor’s staff would be hired, supervised, evaluated, trans- ferred, or terminated; further, to present the MOU to the City Council in draft form for its approval within 30days of that hire. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the substitute motion which she pointed out allows the City Man- ager and the auditor to craft a draft MOU as opposed to the council, who would not be working in those positions and therefore should not put forth parameters of that relationship. Ms. Bettman responded that the auditor would have no authority with the City Manager and cannot determine the text of the MOU. She said that the specifics of the MOU do not need to be reviewed by the council as such an exercise would be considered “micro-managing.” Ms. Bettman opined that her motion was clear in its intent. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie, with Mr. Papé?, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor vot- ing in opposition; Mayor Piercy cast the a vote in opposition to the motion and the substi- tute motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy commented that if the language in the main motion was forwarded to the Ad Hoc Com- mittee, it could review all sides of the issue and forward revised compromise language that could be accepted by the full council. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Papé?, moved to amend the main motion and refer the lan- guage to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman maintained that such an amendment was a delay tactic; that the discussion around this issue ensued at the council’s last work session. She noted that the Ad Hoc Committee did not include this issue as an agenda item. Ms. Bettman opined that her motion was a modification and a compromise from her original proposal that the City Manager delegate the responsibilities under discussion to the auditor. She urged the council not to postpone action but rather to make a decision on this issue at this time Mr. Pryor voiced support for the amendment. He pointed out that the discussion the council was now having indicated a lack of clarity around this issue and he opined that additional time and review would alleviate some of the confusion. Mr. Pryor added that he did not support a violation of the City Charter. Ms. Taylor stated it was an exercise in futility to forward the language to the Ad Hoc Committee. She echoed Ms. Bettman’s comment that a decision should be made by the full council at this time. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie, with Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé?, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in favor of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Ortiz announced that the Ad Hoc Committee has completed its charge with the exception of a review of the MOU issue; however, she said it was willing to continue if the council deems it necessary. Ms. Bettman stated that at a certain point, the decisions around the auditor process would need to be made in a more council-oriented manner. She spoke to the recruitment process and expressed hope that résumés could be forwarded to the city electronically. Additionally, she stated that other than Human Resources staff screening for basic qualifications, additional screening should ensue with the outside consultant and as many councilors as possible. C. Stormwater Development Standards Public Works Development Review Manager Peggy Keppler introduced Therese Walch and Mark Schoening, who were available to assist with questions from the City Council. She then proceeded to review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and provided the following PowerPoint presentation on the Stormwater Development Standards: ? Policy and Regulatory Framework ? Development Advisory Committee ? Public Outreach ? Planning Commission ? Changes to Land Use Code ? Design Manual ? 9.6790 Destination ? 9.6791 Pollution Reduction ? 9.6792 Flow Controls Impervious Area Reduction ? 9.6793 Oil Control ? 9.6794 Source Control ? Next Steps MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hear- ing on the ordinance concerning stormwater provisions on April 10, 2006. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work put forth by staff. He commented that the City was overdue for the implementation of such standards, pointing out that the cities of Portland and Springfield have already put such standards in place. Mr. Kelly said he was pleased that staff was basing its standards on the City of Portland manual. He opined, however, that the language in the proposed ordinance was unclear other than to say that standards would benefit stormwater. Mr. Kelly recognized that a comprehensive manual has been created; however, he suggested that any additional information included in the ordinance would be helpful. He pointed to a statement in the summary that the department advisory committee (DAC) recommendation requires capturing treatment of 80 percent of the average annual runoff volume for new and significant redevelop- ment. Mr. Kelly said he thought that recommendation was a significant goal, and if it was, in fact, embodied in the ordinance he was unaware of such language. City Attorney Klein responded that a section could be added that makes explicit what was implicit, that the City Manager shall adopt through the Administrative Rule-making process a manual which shall provide for the following objectives. Mr. Kelly indicated such an addition would be helpful to the process. Ms. Bettman questioned what area of the city constituted 500 feet. Ms. Walch replied that the 500 feet threshold was approximately at Martin Drive, which was located at the end of east and west Amazon drives, in South Eugene. Ms. Bettman then questioned the flow control provisions which state that after develop- ment, the rate of flow needs to match the pre-site development if discharging into a headwater tributary. Ms. Walch said that development would not be required to comply with the flow control provisions below Martin Drive. She explained that the provisions were meant to address the sensitive headwater tributaries and that additional flows from new development could adversely affect them. Such an effect was not apparent in the channelized waterways of the lower water elevations. However, Ms. Walch said that the pollution reduction, oil controls and source controls would all apply citywide. Ms. Bettman questioned if single-family homes were exempt from the standards. Ms. Keppler replied that one- or two-family homes were exempt from the requirements; however, a residential subdivision would be subject to the 3,000 square feet standard. She added that the current lots of record for residential develop- ment were exempt. Ms. Keppler also noted that the City was targeting commercial and industrial develop- ment over 3,000 square feet. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the threat was in single-family homes in the South Hills area of Eugene. Mr. Papé? stated that an air shed was difficult to gage; whereas, the stormwater drainage could be gauged and therefore controlled. He asked if there were measurements for outflow at certain points in the area to ascertain improvement of the quality of substreams over time. Ms. Keppler responded that such measure- ments were part of the MPDS permit. Ms. Walch added that staff would provide a report within two weeks on water quality as requested by Mr. Papé? at a previous work session. She said that regular monitoring did ensue as part of a requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, both in the Willamette River and the Amazon Creek. Ms. Walch added that monitoring did occur at subcreeks on an as-needed basis only and that the routine monitoring was appropriate and representative. Ms. Walch revealed that the permit application renewal was due in 2008. Mr. Papé? referred “pervious concrete” and asked if that? component was being pushed where appropriate. Ms. Keppler responded that pervious concrete and asphalt were reduction techniques available to the developer. In response to another question from Mr. Papé?, Ms. Keppler replied that staff was reviewing MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 9 Work Session incentives through SDC and user fees to encourage people to implement above-and-beyond standards. Mr. Papé? opined that all the standards should be integrated; additionally, encouragement to developers and homeowners to upgrade appropriately should be given. Ms. Keppler stated that additional information would be provided at the public hearing as part of the staff presentation on this issue. She said that as the code was currently written, the developer could pick and choose any one technique over another. Ms. Keppler explained that as one works through the simplified method for providing treatment facilities, the first step staff reviewed was the entire pervious area and would remove all the area of pervious pavements. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Manager Taylor replied that staff was not currently looking at integration over several departments with regard to stormwater standards for building and development. Mr. Papé? suggested that?? an integrated approach would be a prudent step. City Attorney Klein remarked that another element of the Stormwater Program was the Water Quality Protected Waterways which would be presented to the City Council later in the year. He said that it was a Public Works project but PUD was involved to ensure that any and all opportunities were taken into account and that a collaborative effort moves forward. Ms. Keppler added there was an option in the manual for harvesting and using rainwater and that the Public Works Department was working in unison with the Planning and Building Department to ensure a connection between the two departments. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to work in a collaborative manner across departments. He expressed surprise that single-family homes and duplexes were exempt from the standards unless they were part of a new PUD or subdivision. Mr. Kelly said there would be many “one-at-a-time” house constructions in the future and asked for an explanation of why that exemption was included in the draft ordinance. Additionally, he questioned the exemption of lots in the existing PUDs. He spoke to the largest PUD in the city, East Ridge and Laurel Hill Valley, which include 200 lots of record that were not yet built and all of which were above 500 feet. Mr. Kelly said to exempt all that development from the regulations was a concern. Mr. Kelly turned to the Flood Control Design and the Storm and Water Quality Design standards. He asked if they were related to five-year and 10-year storm events. Ms. Keppler replied that the flood control events were anywhere from five- to 25-year storm events and staff measures the level of risk on a certain facility. She said that a local street, less than 40 acres, was a five-year storm event; an arterial street was a 10-year storm event and consistent with current practices for designing for destination. With regard to the storm and water quality event, Ms. Keppler explained that staff attempted to catch 80 percent of the water events observed over one year. She said the size was listed in the manual. In response to Mr. Kelly’s final question, Ms. Keppler replied that the draft manual was available online. Mr. Kelly requested that the website address to review that manual be included in the AIS for the upcoming public hearing. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Keppler replied that the NPDES Permit has listed a number of the best management practices (BMPs) to improve water quality within the Eugene area. She added that annually, as staff reports back on the permit, steps were taken to list accumulatively what improvements have been made in the Stormwater Program since 1994. Ms. Keppler said that the next step would be a monitoring exercise and a report of the pollutants. Ms. Walch added that there was a great deal of water quality measuring which needed to be done to ascertain how effective each facility was. Therefore, she explained that the City established the goal to ascertain how much of the rainfall was being captured and treated. Ms. Walch noted that an analysis of the long-term rainfall record was less costly. Mayor Piercy stated that it benefited the community when staff implements goaled and benchmarks. Ms. Walch indicated that staff would need to establish a baseline water pollutant loading and receding water ways when the MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 10 Work Session NPDES stormwater permit was up for renewal in 2008. Additionally, staff must become more conscious in its measurements of the effectiveness of all the programs. Mr. Papé? concurred with Mayor Piercy’s remarks and said that measurements and? goals were critical in the event that existing properties need to improve the runoff situation or improve the rainwater capture in existing areas. The motion passed unanimously. (Note: Ms. Taylor was not connected via telephone for this vote.) The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 11 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 15, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 3/16 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/4 b Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/4 ky Returned to Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 4/5 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT I M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 15, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Update—East Broadway Development Projects Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Planner Nan Laurence, and Glenn Klein of the City Attorney’s Office were present for the item. Planning Director Susan Muir and Sue Cutsogeorge of Financial Services were also available to answer questions. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4862 granting an exemp- tion from competitive selection requirements for a personal services contract relating to de- veloper services and developer’s selection of a general contractor for construction of a pub- lic parking facility; and approving findings related thereto. Mr. Papé declared a conflict of interest due to his son’s employment with Gerding/Edlen, the developer for the proposed project. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Taylor noted that she viewed a DVD of the public hearing of March 13, which she was unable to attend. She expressed regret that she missed the hearing and that it had been scheduled at a time when she was unable to attend. She protested the haste with which the hearing was set, which she said occurred to meet to the needs of the developer rather than the citizens. She objected to taking action so soon after the hearing, which did not give councilors time for reflection or to receive additional comments. Ms. Taylor believed the council was proceeding on false or unproven assumptions related to the need, location, and timing of the parking garage. She believed the proposal precluded other alternatives, such as providing support for the Farmers Market, for which the council voiced support in the past and which had come up in testimony at the public hearing. Ms. Laurence responded to questions asked by Ms. Bettman following the hearing. Regarding the question of how much parking the new federal courthouse required, Ms. Laurence said that 240 people would be work at the courthouse but only 70 spaces would be provided, most of them secured and not available to the general public. It was anticipated that most of the courthouse employees would park in the garage. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Regarding whether the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) signed off on the access and egress, th Ms. Laurence said ODOT approved a signal at the corner of 8 Avenue and Mill Street, which was where access was proposed to occur. Regarding the potential for building on the Lane County-owned butterfly parking lot, Ms. Laurence said it appeared the structure could be built upon, but pointed out that the block in question was not within the Urban Renewal District. Regarding the competitive bidding for subcontractors and whether savings would be passed on to the City, Ms. Laurence said the developer indicated willingness to consider that and it could be further negotiated. Regarding whether there was a need to increase debt capacity in the district, Ms. Laurence said there was not. The garage project was the first significant expenditure to count against the district’s indebtedness. Regarding the debt to be paid back to the district, Ms. Laurence said that staff anticipated the district’s growth would produce revenues, allowing it to pay back funds to the degree there were excess future funds available. If the district was unable to pay those costs, the City’s Facilities Reserve would pay the costs of the garage project or the council would determine another way to pay the debt. Ms. Bettman said Whole Foods was a business that was welcome to locate anywhere in Eugene. However, she found the two most egregious elements of the proposal to be the exemption from the competitive bidding process and what she termed a “subsidy” to Whole Foods, which she believed placed other businesses that did not have the City building them a parking garage at a disadvantage. With regard to the motion on the floor, Ms. Bettman found the findings to be clichéd and the reasons cited for the exemption to be inadequate and unsubstantiated. She said the findings lacked a cost analysis and relied on the developer’s word that the City would save money and realize a benefit. Ms. Bettman said that “sweetheart deals” such as the one being considered used to be illegal, but now the City could “cram them through” on the slimmest of pretexts. Even if the council supported the project, Ms. Bettman did not think the council should abrogate its responsibility to the public by approving the exemption. She pointed out the developers intended to do competitive bidding for subcontractors to save money, and she questioned why the City would not do the same. Ms. Bettman said as long as the council was willing to spend $11.5 million on the project without adequate substantiation of the public benefit, staff did not have to count the costs; it merely had to count the council votes. Ms. Bettman referred to the requirement that the findings be published statewide to give other construction companies the option of testifying about the issue of public costs savings. She asked about the nature of the publication, and how anyone could challenge the project on basis of costs when the findings did not include information about cost. Mr. Klein said the notice was published in the Daily Journal of Commerce two weeks before the public hearing, which was a common practice. It was also published in The Register- Guard. Anyone interested in the findings could contact the City. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation to all those who offered testimony to the council on March 13 and for the civility they demonstrated. He said it was what democracy was about. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Bettman that there were two issues that needed to be addressed, one of which was the bidding exemption. He said that such an exemption was allowed in State law, and he questioned how it could be an egregious process if allowed under State law. In this case, he thought the approach was MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 2 Work Session reasonable. He had experience with such contracts and found them to save money and work well. He was pleased that the subcontractor work would be bid. Regarding the suggestion that the parking garage was a subsidy to Whole Foods, Mr. Pryor disagreed. He said Whole Foods was building its own parking facility, and the City garage was being built to help support development in the east end of downtown. He believed that helping downtown was a good thing. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said it was true that the statute allowed the exemption, but there were specific criteria in the governing statute, and in her opinion the findings failed to meet the State criteria. Staff failed to prove the proposal benefited the public or justified the exemption. She did not support the resolution and hoped it was voted down in favor of designing and locating a garage that fit the public’s interest as opposed to the developer’s interest, and putting it out for competitive bids. Ms. Taylor wondered why the project depended on City action if the City’s contribution was not considered to be a subsidy? Mr. Klein responded to Ms. Bettman’s comments, saying he had not prepared the findings but a lawyer familiar with the State statute had prepared the findings, and believed they were in compliance with State law. Ms. Taylor asked the council to do what was right rather than what it could “get through by loopholes.” The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into land transaction agreement between property owned by the City and property owned by The Shedd Institute for the Arts, LLC, for the purposes of participating in the East Broadway Development Projects, in substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in At- tachment B. Ms. Ortiz did not perceive the issue in terms of black and white. She said she read extensively on the topic and discussed it with many people, several of who were rude to her. She said it was easier for those who had strong feelings one way or another to make decisions. She was torn between positions on many issues. However, the council gave direction to the City Manager to go forward with the land exchange and he had carried out its direction. She supported the staff recommendation and noted that if this was political suicide, then “so be it.” She could not base her decision today on her next career move. Ms. Ortiz said she could not find anything in the proposal that made her think it was bad for Eugene. She said this was “not the end of the free world as we know it.” Mr. Kelly said the decision was a difficult one for him and he had thoroughly reviewed the testimony and attended several community meetings on the project. He said every project had potential advantages and disadvantages, and at this point he believed the proposal had more advantages. Whole Foods would pay for its own parking and there was value in a public garage on the east end of downtown to support development such as The Shedd and the courthouse. He would not support the proposal if he thought it would give one dollar to Whole Foods. Mr. Kelly believed the public dollars were being used for a good purpose. Mr. Kelly thought the downtown area was not as bad as some believed, but it had a long way to go to be the center of the city. Downtown needed to be revitalized as a means to give Eugene a sense of community. A MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 3 Work Session successful downtown includes magnet destinations, and that means some people will drive to get there. The library was another magnet and he believed there were more to come. Regarding the issue of parking, Mr. Kelly suggested a successful downtown was a mixture of too much and too little parking. He did not think the garage felt “out of balance” in that regard. Regarding the issue of the competitive bids, Mr. Kelly pointed out the two structures would share connections and ramps, and he believed the construction project would be much messier if two contractors were involved. Ms. Taylor believed this was a sad day for Eugene. She wanted The Shedd and its music school to succeed and had initially supported the land exchange, but she did not think the matter was urgent. She was convinced by the eloquent testimony of many citizens that Whole Foods was not a good thing for Eugene. Eugene needed food security in the form of local foods. Whole Foods would bring more people to downtown driving cars. She would not vote for anything that would help Whole Foods locate in the downtown. Ms. Bettman said she initially supported the expansion of The Shedd’s music school but was told at that time it did not involve any subsidies to Whole Foods. She said unlike other councilors, she had not met with representatives of the Guistina Family, so she had not known of “this blatant subsidy.” She opposed the motion because it was predicated on the entire development. Ms. Bettman maintained that the council was suggesting the parking garage would result in downtown revitalization but she had heard that message before. The City built five parking garages that were not at full capacity. The City had limited resources and there were many plans worthy of the funding spent on the project. Ms. Bettman believed the council was taking the proposal on faith. Ms. Bettman maintained that shoppers at Whole Foods would use the parking provided by the City. She said that the Whole Foods Web site made it clear that it was a policy of Whole Foods to locate only where close-by parking was abundant. She further maintained that “other, independent” researchers had done studies that indicated Whole Foods would require “a lot more” than the 240 spaces planned. She indicated that she would address the issue of the funding sources for the project, as she believed there were higher priorities for those funds. Ms. Taylor believed Ms. Bettman made good points about the higher priorities for the money involved; for example, she believed it could be invested in the street preservation or the arts. Just that morning The Register-Guard ran an article about the Eugene Opera having to lay off staff. The opera was in trouble while Eugene claimed to be a great city for the arts and outdoors. She thought that the opera would be a good place to invest public money. She thought the City should be investing first in Oregon Research Institute, which she believed was a local, sustainable business. Ms. Taylor saw no demonstrated need for the project. Noting it was not likely she would have to cast a vote on the issue, Mayor Piercy discussed her position. She said she had weighed the pros and cons of the issue and wanted to stand up in support of her colleagues who endorsed the project because she believed they had deliberated in the same manner. She thought their conclusion was the right decision. She said this was just one project and there was much left to be done in downtown and many more decisions facing the council. Mayor Piercy believed the council owed the community a larger, broader, deeper conversation about downtown. She acknowledged the existing Downtown Plan but suggested the community had changed since 2002 and there might be a different vision of where the downtown should be going. She invited all who were concerned to participate. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy expressed pleasure in the civic interest shown in the downtown by the community and residents’ desire to participate in the public process. Mr. Kelly said he previously raised the need for a work session to look proactively at downtown green space, with which the mayor concurred. He asked that Assistant City Manager Carlson attempt to schedule such a session. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Development Agreement with Broadway & High Associates and Gerding/Edlen Develop- ment Company for the public garage as part of the East Broadway Development Projects, in substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in Attachment C. The Devel- opment Agreement shall include a maximum payment to Broadway & High Associates and Gerding/Edlen Development Company for the garage construction of $7 million. Mr. Kelly clarified that the version the council was voting on was at members’ places and reflected changes agreed to by the council on February 22. Assistant City Manager Carlson further clarified that the version at councilors’ places was labeled Attachment B but should be considered Attachment C for the purposes of the motion. Mayor Piercy referred to page 269 of the packet and asked the source of the $475,000 in the Library Bond Debt Service. Assistant City Manager Carlson said that was General Fund money put aside in 1999 in a reserve fund as a portion of the reserves for the library construction project. The money was not taken from the Library Fund or the local option levy. There was no general obligation bond for the library. It was not library operations money. Staff was proposing to move the funding in question from one reserve to another. The City was coming to the end of the funding for the Library project and had adequate remaining reserves in the Urban Renewal Fund to protect the City from any kind of default in the Library Construction Bonds. He indicated that $400,000 would go into a reserve for the loan related to the parking structure, and $75,000 would be used to underwrite the financing for the loan. Ms. Bettman explained for the public’s benefit that the project would cost $11.5 million. Of that, $8.035 was intended for the construction of the garage, about $1 million would be used for the site itself, and about $2.5 million would be spent on financing for the bonds to provide the funding for the garage. Speaking to the public process, Ms. Bettman said public participation had been phenomenal, even after the public was overlooked in the planning process. The project was about to be approved when the City acknowledged a hearing was needed for the bid exemption. The council and organization were forced to hold a public hearing, or the project would have gone through without public input. Ms. Bettman said it was nice to hear people say they wanted a broader public process, but she was aware of projects being proposed that did not have a public process, and if there was no legal requirement for a public hearing, none would occur. Ms. Bettman noted a council majority that did not include her recently allocated funding for the public process to plan for the replacement of City Hall, and now the council proposed to take an option off the table by “rushing” this project through before that process started. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to sign an In- tergovernmental Agreement between the City of Eugene and the Urban Renewal Agency in substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in Attachment E. Ms. Bettman reminded all present about the source of urban renewal funds and maintained it was being redirected from essential services. She termed the amount being redirected to urban renewal throughout the state of Oregon “scandalous.” She said that the council was considering the funding “in a vacuum.” Mr. Kelly said that the council often spoke of the success of downtown Portland and wanting to emulate it. He pointed out that much of what had been accomplished in Portland was done through urban renewal districts. Ms. Bettman did not find the situations in Eugene and Portland were comparable; she asserted that Portland invested its urban renewal dollars in housing instead, which she found an appropriate use of the money. It created the demand for retail. That was not what the City was doing. In addition, she maintained that Portland developments had embedded parking and created their own parking. Portland also had design standards, which Eugene lacked. Ms. Bettman believed the circulating street car also contributed to the success of downtown Portland. Eugene was unable to get a similar project going. Ms. Bettman concluded that one could not state that urban renewal “created the renaissance in Portland” because it was not true. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council consider what urban renewal had done locally in terms of destroying downtown. She had long been opposed to urban renewal because it diverted money from schools and was too easy to use. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. B. ACTION: Resolution 4861 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006 Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4861 adopting a Supple- mental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. Ms. Bettman asserted that there was a proposal to use the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) Grant and Section 108 loan funding for the project. She maintained that the source of that money was Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which was supposed to be used to alleviate poverty and homelessness. She assured the council that when it discussed its council goal of alleviating homelessness, it would hear from staff there was no money to do so. At a time when CDBG funds were already expected to decline, staff intended to take money meant to create resources for homeless people and youth and divert it to build a parking garage. She found that unsupportable. Ms. Bettman said that the crux of the issue for her was that the City never had the money to do the things she believed would be good for the city or to fund solutions to chronic problems, such as homelessness and the need for youth services. However, “all of a sudden” the City had the money for this project. She said in order to fund the garage the council was taking money from the Library Fund, General Fund, and Stormwa- ter Fund, and was eliminating the reserves it had to create a riparian strip in downtown. Ms. Bettman predicted the council would face a backlash from the public which, for the next ten years, would vote down any bond measure the council put forward. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Assistant City Manager Carlson clarified that the current proposal in the motion did not include the use of the BEDI grant or the Section 180 loan that would be backed by CDBG dollars. The current proposal used other sources, primarily urban renewal funds, both existing and those expected to be generated by the development. Ms. Bettman maintained that there was a proposal in the AIS for the use of the funds. Assistant City Manager Carlson said that staff would have to return for separate council authorization for the use of those funds. Mr. Kelly responded to the statements made by Ms. Bettman. He said nothing in the proposal employed BEDI grant dollars or Section 108 funding. Assistant City Manager Carlson concurred. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Assistant City Manager Carlson that the council would have to approve the use of those funds on a project-by-project basis. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council and Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, of which Ms. Bettman was a member, previously passed the application for the grant and Section 108 funds. Mr. Kelly clarified that the CDBG funds were not the source for the Section 108 loans, merely one of the sources of security for such loans. Assistant City Manager Carlson concurred. He said the loan was ultimately backed by CDBG money, but there was no intent to ever use CDBG moneys to actually pay back the Section 108 loans. Mr. Kelly said if the council heard a proposal for the use of the BEDI grant or Section 108 funds, he would expect to see how those would be covered by something other than CDBG money. Assistant City Manager Carlson agreed that would be the case. Ms. Taylor was not reassured that authorization for the funds would come back to the council because then it would be too committed to the project to stop it in the future. She said “it was just playing with words.” The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Piercy closed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. C. ACTION: Downtown Update—East Broadway Development Projects Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Eugene and the Urban Renewal Agency in substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in Attachment A, Intergovern- mental Agreement. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. D. ACTION: Resolution 1038 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30, 2006 Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 1038 adopting a Supple- mental Budget; making appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 7 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 12:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 8 Work Session