HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/11/11 MeetingMINUTES
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber —City Hall
777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon
April 11, 2011
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, Pat Farr.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the April 11, 2011, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to
order.
1. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She opened the forum.
Mike Cetto, 1521 Copping Street, suggested that Eugene had reached a size that justified permit parking
as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He advocated for better air quality in Eugene and increased
air quality monitoring at street level, particularly around the downtown Lane Transit District station. He
also called for Lane Transit District to burn cleaner fuels. He noted the temperature inversions
experienced locally, which exacerbated pollution problems.
Andrew Fisher, PO Box 5003, Eugene, Chair of the City's Historic Review Board (HRB), recommended
that the City explore the option of renovating City Hall. He noted the HRB's interest in promoting the
preservation of local Modern -era buildings such as City Hall. He expressed concern about the potential
that City Hall could be demolished and called on the council to create a forum that allowed the HRB to
participate in any discussions about the future of City Hall. Historic preservation was not an obstacle to
development but could inform and guide development. Mr. Fisher said that the cost of renovation might
be prohibitive but he believed the possibility should be examined.
Eugene Drix, 307 -1/2 East 14` Avenue, suggested there was not much difference between "there" and
"here." He was with the council "here," as were the people watching at home, who were also "there."
He said people all want to get "there," but when they get "there," "it's here." He said he sought new ways
to meet the future, which would be "here" soon. Drix recalled the recent Arbor Day Celebration in the
West University Neighborhood and said the neighborhood had created a beautiful "there." He suggested
"it was how we all look at the there" that was how "we are all together." He said a new City Hall would
be "here" when it was done. It would be "our forum" and he hoped "we would all be here." He said that
"here" and "there" were actually the same, and the more people realized that, the more connected they
would be and able to realize future visions.
Moshe Immerman, 2990 -1/2 Washington Street, requested that the council ask the Lane Regional Air
Protection Agency (LRAPA) to report back about the costs of monitoring air -borne radiation locally. He
also requested that the council write a letter to President Barack Obama, the Oregon congressional
delegation, and the nation's science advisors to ask them to begin phasing out nuclear power. Mr.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 1
Regular Meeting
Immerman was particularly interested in seeing the commercial component of the Price - Anderson Act
eliminated. He urged the council to investigate the act, which largely indemnified the nuclear industry
from damages and placed the burden on the taxpayer. He also maintained that the media was not
reporting "near- misses" in the commercial nuclear industry, and monitoring had been cut by Congress
because of shut downs caused by "extreme near -miss events." Mr. Immerman called for a realistic
examination of the seismic risk to nuclear facilities. He provided information regarding the Price -
Anderson Act to the council.
Elizabeth Remeni, 3441 Storey Boulevard, said the majority of homeowners had opposed the Crest
Drive street improvement project without success. She understood that as a result of recent code changes,
the City was no longer going to charge citizens to pay for improvements to individual streets. She asked
that the property owners affected by the project be relieved of those costs, which were averaging $10,000
to $13,000 per property.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and thanked those who spoke. In response to Mr. Fisher's
testimony, Mayor Piercy said the council had not yet made a decision to raze the building. The council
had determined that either renovation or construction would occur on the existing City Hall site. She
endorsed the idea of involving the HRB in the decision, and suggested the City could also consult with
the University of Oregon's Department of Allied Arts and Architecture.
Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments.
Speaking to Ms. Remeni's testimony, Councilor Taylor said it was not true that people would have to pay
street assessments. The City Council had revised the ordinance governing street assessments somewhat
but the charter did not allow its action to be retroactive. She said from now on, residents living on dead
end streets and cul -de -sacs adjacent to a street improvement project would have to share in the costs.
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
- January 26, 2011, Work Session
- February 8, 2011, Joint Elected Officials Meeting
- February 9, 2011, Work Session
- February 14, 2011, Work Session
- February 16, 2011, Work Session
- February 22, 2011, Public Hearing
- February 23, 2011, Work Session
- February 28, 2011, Work Session
- February 28, 2011, Regular Meeting
- March 14, 2011, Work Session
- March 14, 2011, Regular Meeting
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of March 31, 2011
D. Timeline for City Council Employee Performance Reviews for 2011
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to approve the items on the
Consent Calendar.
Councilor Poling pulled Item B.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Roll call vote: The motion to approve the Consent Calendar without Item B passed
unanimously, 8:0
Responding to a question from Councilor Poling about the timing of a work session on the City's gas tax,
City Manager Jon Ruiz indicated he would provide a date soon.
Roll call vote: The motion to approve Item B passed unanimously, 8:0
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Concerning Low- Income Property Tax Exemptions and Amending Sections
2.916, 2.920, 2.938, 2.939, and 2.940 of the Eugene Code
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item, saying that the proposed ordinance would extend both of
Eugene's low- income housing property tax exemption programs by ten years. He recalled that the
council adopted both programs in 1990 to facilitate development of affordable housing for low - income
residents. The proposed ordinance included a provision that allowed recipients to reapply for the 20 -year
low- income rental housing property exemption after the initial 20 -year period had expired; as in the past,
a separate council action would be required for the actual exemption. Becky Wheeler, Community
Development Division, was also present for the item.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Richard Herman, 275 West 8`" Avenue, Executive Director of Metropolitan Affordable Housing
(Metro), thanked the City Council for its support for affordable housing and emphasized the importance
of low- income housing, particularly to residents with special needs. He reported that Metro would soon
break ground on Willakenzie Crossing, an affordable housing development with 40 units of low - income
family housing and 16 units dedicated to those with developmental disabilities that was constructed on a
property landbanked by the City. Mr. Herman supported the proposed ordinance and said that such
property tax exemptions were critical in the construction of such developments and in keeping rents
affordable.
Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
Councilor Pryor, a member of the Housing Policy Board, emphasized the importance of local community
support for affordable housing projects to help secure fielding.
Councilor Ortiz commended the programs involved and the foresight of earlier councils that adopted
policies that ensured such housing was dispersed around the community rather than concentrated in a
single area.
Councilor Poling asked Ms. Wheeler to provide the council with written information about the number of
properties coming to the end of their exemption periods, the number of properties exempted, and the total
amount of property taxes exempted.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 3
Regular Meeting
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Concerning a Four -Year Income Tax for Schools; Adding Sections 2.2000 to
2.2038 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing a Sunset Date
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item. He said action on the ordinance, which established an income
tax for schools, was scheduled for April 25, 2011. He reminded the council that the ordinance would only
become effective if the voters approved Ballot Measure 21 -82 in a May 2011 election.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Roxie Cuellar, PO Box 668, Yachats, Campaign Manager for the organization Citizens for Jobs and
Schools, expressed concern that the provisions laid out in Section 2.2006 of the ordinance would be
complex to implement because there was no easy way for employers to know which employees were City
residents subject to the tax. She referred to Section 2.2012 and suggested that it should be revised with
the addition of criteria governing the basis on which City staff would determine a person was subject to
the tax. She suggested the City consider requiring the mailing of tax form along with the instructions.
She also found the sunset clause to be ambiguous.
Mark Callahan, 3621 Mahlon Avenue, opposed the ordinance because it would require only a majority
vote of the council, rather than voter approval, to modify the ordinance. He was concerned that by
proposing the ordinance additions, the council was "putting the cart before the horse" given the vote on
the proposed tax was a month away and was a highly contested issue. Mr. Callahan concluded by
quoting Article 8, Section 8, Subsection 1 of the Oregon Constitution, which spoke to the requirement
that the Oregon State Legislature, not the City of Eugene, provide adequate and equitable funding for the
educational system.
Larry Lewin, 2145 Lincoln Street, discussed the growth in class room size he had experienced
throughout his teaching career in Eugene. He emphasized the importance of smaller class sizes to
learning. He was concerned about the children in the city's districts, particularly his two grandchildren.
One would soon enter kindergarten, and he was concerned about her class size as it affected her ability to
learn. His grandson was in fifth grade and would soon experience another furlough day. He said such
days were a concern that would be addressed by the proposed income tax.
Sarah Case, 2525 Charnelton Street, thanked the council for referring Ballot Measure 21 -82 to the May
ballot. She addressed the issue of constitutionality raised by Mr. Callahan, saying a local option levy
funded 20 percent of school operations, so the community was already supplementing State funding. Ms.
Case said many parents were concerned by the potential loss of valued programs, larger classes, and
teacher layoffs. Such factors made it difficult for children to thrive. Ms. Case commended those who put
forth the measure and said the number of people who supported the measure was growing.
Ian McNeely, 2288 Potter Street, also thanked the council and voiced support for the ordinance. He
provided some history of "how we got here," which he attributed to the "meltdown on Wall Street" and
the State's tax structure, which did not produce sufficient funding and left the State disproportionately
dependent on the income tax. The problem was not caused locally but no one from outside the
community was going to help. He acknowledged that the measure was not perfect as class sizes would
still be too large and the school year too short. However, passage of the measure would keep the schools
going and demonstrate what the community was "all about."
Carey Hancock, 2660 Spring Boulevard, spoke in support of Ballot Measure 21 -82. She said she had to
hire math tutors for her children because of large class sizes they experienced in Eugene schools. She had
MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 4
Regular Meeting
paid more in one month to the tutor than most people would pay in taxes in one year if the tax passed.
She emphasized the importance of adequately funding for public schools to economic development. She
said as a business owner, it was not a burden to her to determine if her employees lived in Eugene. She
strongly supported the measure.
Hillary Johnson, 2865 Emerald Street, Strong Schools Eugene Campaign Chair, expressed support for
the proposed school income tax and thanked the council for referring a measure to the voters. She
emphasized that such a tax had been employed in Multnomah County and it was not a new concept. She
reviewed some of the reductions that would occur if the measure did not pass.
Lisa Fragala, 30 Ash Street, thanked the council for its leadership in referring Ballot Measure 21 -82 to
the voters. She was a second -grade teacher in the 4J district who believed the measure was desperately
needed. She said class size made a significant difference. She noted the many roles she already played as
a teacher and anticipated she could also be a physical education and music teacher next year. Ms. Fragala
said the measure was about strong schools and community jobs. She suggested the Oregon
unemployment rate would look better if educators were not taking such a "hard hit." She believed the
community supported the ballot measure.
Kate McCarthy, 2243 Kincaid Street, supported Ballot Measure 21 -82. She said that strong schools
were vital to the health of the community and to business recruitment. Good schools were beneficial to
all residents, even if one did not have children in the schools or sent their children to private schools. She
feared that additional reductions could impel more people to send their children to private school, which
would further deteriorate the schools and the community.
Keith Eddins, 1970 Columbia Street, Treasurer of Strong Schools Eugene, spoke in support of Measure
21 -82, which would help his daughter and all Eugene school children deal with the impact of the
continuing failure of the State to fund education. He believed opponents to the measure were offering
hypothetical and hyperbolic arguments against it. For example, the opponents had suggesting the tax was
not temporary because the council could extend the tax at any time because it was adopted through an
ordinance. He pointed out that Portland had ended its tax, which was also adopted through ordinance.
The opponents also suggested the State would fix the funding problem but the State had no money to do
so. He did not want to wait for the State to act because he did not think it would.
Kirsten Haugin, 1436 East 22 Avenue, thanked the council for putting the measure on the ballot and
the City staff for its hard work putting the measure together. She supported Ballot Measure 21 -82
because schools were the cornerstone of a strong community. She said local schools were "on the brink"
because of a continual lack of funding. Teachers did what they could to overcome the lack of funding.
Ms. Haugin believed people needed to get past the idea that if they had money in their pocket it was good
for them; sometimes it was better to give money to the community. She feared that if the measure did not
pass, schools with the ability to fund raise would succeed while other schools would fail, leaving some
behind, and more parents would send their children to private schools. Ms. Haugin was concerned about
what happened to the community when the schools were not strong enough to serve as its "bedrock."
Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
Councilor Zelenka thanked those who spoke and emphasized his support for the income tax for schools.
He acknowledged that school funding was a State responsibility but the State had "failed us" and "enough
was enough." He believed the positive impacts of the tax were clear and its cost was modest. The
income tax would be temporary and would sunset in four years. He believed the tax was also good for the
economy.
MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 5
Regular Meeting
Responding to a question from Councilor Clark about the points made by Ms. Cuellar in regard to Section
2.2012, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that ordinance included a definition of "residence" and there
would be administrative rules that governed the ordinance's implementation. Those rules were subject to
public continent, and if there was a dispute about a residency, there would be an appeals process.
Councilor Clark asked when the administrative rules would be prepared. City Attorney Klein anticipated
the rules would be developed over the next two to three months when more was known about what entity
would administer the tax. Councilor Clark asked about progress in that regard. Finance Manager Sue
Cutsogeorge said staff had met with City of Portland staff to discuss the potential of Portland
administering the tax. Councilor Clark asked how much that would cost. Ms. Cutsogeorge did not yet
know. Councilor Clark asked if the costs of administration would be known before the election. Ms.
Cutsogeorge did not think so.
Councilor Clark referred to Section 2.006 of the ordinance, which spoke to the issue of residency. He
asked if the City would compel Eugene employers to determine the residency of its employees and if
there would be a reporting function for those employers. City Attorney Klein indicated that no decision
had been made in that regard. Staff had discussed a structure that would enable voluntary withholding on
the part of an employer if an employee wished for it. Councilor Clark asked if it would be mandatory for
an employer to provide that option. City Attorney Klein did not know. He requested council direction in
that regard. Councilor Clark did not support the idea.
Councilor Poling observed that Section 3 of the ordinance called for the ordinance to be sunsetted, but a
future council could vote to extend it. City Attorney Klein concurred. The council could change the
ordinance and the voters could refer that decision. Councilor Poling recommended that the council
amend the ordinance to stipulate the sunset could not be extended without the vote of the community.
Mr. Klein pointed out a future council could amend the ordinance to eliminate that provision. He
concurred with a statement from Councilor Poling that there was no way to stop a future council from
extending the tax in the absence of a charter amendment.
Councilor Brown asserted that the concern about a future council extending the ordinance was a "fake
issue." A council majority could have already imposed an income tax for the schools without a vote.
Instead, the council decided to refer the measure due to its importance. Councilor Brown guaranteed that
no future council would extend the ordinance without a vote. He suggested that to do so would be to
commit political suicide.
Councilor Taylor agreed that the tax would be a temporary one. The voters would decide. She said a
democracy depended on educated citizens, and she did not think Eugene students were getting a good
education. She emphasized the importance of small class sizes to a good education and optimum
teaching. Larger class sizes did not work. She thought it was crucial to address that issue in particular.
She agreed that the jobs involved were also important. Better employers would not want to locate in
Eugene without a good education system.
Councilor Farr agreed with testimony suggesting that Oregon was overly dependent on the income tax.
He said that the income tax added to volatility and finding uncertainty. He suggested a sales tax would
have more of a lasting effect. He did not believe that an income tax proposal would fix the school
funding problem. He determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that Portland was willing to administer the tax.
Councilor Zelenka determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that she did not anticipate that the costs of
administering the tax would be much greater than previous estimates.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 6
Regular Meeting
Councilor Zelenka asked that ordinance be amended to include a provision that the sunset would not be
removed from the ordinance without a public vote. He also asked the City Attorney to examine the sunset
clause to ensure that it was four years and there was no ambiguity about the time period involved. He
acknowledged that the council's actions could not bind future councils.
Councilor Zelenka believed that mandatory withholding was a good idea.
Councilor Clark emphasized that the ordinance before the council was not a charter amendment. It was
an ordinance that could be amended or changed at any time by any council at any time no matter. City
Attorney Klein concurred. A future council could change any part of the ordinance even if it had a sunset
ordinance that attempted to preclude that action.
Councilor Zelenka wanted to make it as politically difficult as possible for a future council to change the
ordinance and thought his suggested revision would accomplish that.
Councilor Ortiz acknowledged the council could not bind the actions of future councils. While she would
have preferred the tax be in place for a longer time period to better solve the school funding problem,
Councilor Ortiz was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted.
Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the proposed ballot measure would not fix the school funding problem.
The ordinance was an attempt to mitigate local reductions while the State worked through the funding
issue. She supported both the ordinance and the State's efforts.
City Attorney Klein indicated he would prepare amendments to the ordinance reflecting the input of
councilors Clark and Zelenka, and asked that requests for additional changes be provided to him before
the council took action.
Councilor Farr recalled his past service on the council and noted that many of that council's actions had
been changed.
5. ACTION:
Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non - Unanimous IGR Actions from
March 16, 2011
Intergovernmental Relations Director Brenda Wilson was present for the item. The council discussed the
bills that had not received unanimous support from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental
Relations (CCIGR). Ms. Wilson noted the first bill of concern, Senate Bill 845, had died and would not
receive further consideration by the State legislature.
House Bill 3167
Ms. Wilson reviewed the bill, which would eliminate the discount for partial or full payment of property
taxes on or before November 15. She said had the bill already been in place, the City would have
received an additional $2.5 million in property taxes in fiscal year 2010. She reported that City staff had
recommended that the City take a Priority 1, Support position on the bill, and a committee majority
instead took a Priority 3, Oppose position on the bill.
Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the bill.
MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 7
Regular Meeting
Councilor Clark supported the committee recommendation but he acknowledged why staff supported the
legislation in question. It was reasonable to seek mechanisms that allowed the City to realize more
money without raising property tax rates. It seemed like an easy fix, but Councilor Clark considered it a
back -door tax increase. The bill changed the rules in the middle of the game and affected the timing of
how people paid their taxes. The proposed change took away the discount for people who paid their
property taxes early and eliminated their ability to save a little money in return for paying in a timely way
upfront.
Councilor Zelenka asked the purpose of the discount. Ms. Wilson responded that the original policy
purpose of the discount was to provide government entities, particularly smaller cities, with cash flow, by
giving residents an incentive to pay their taxes early. She did not think the original legislation was
intended to provide a benefit for citizens.
Councilor Zelenka supported the proposed legislation because of the funding shortfall faced by State and
local government.
Councilor Clark pointed out that local government would have gotten more money if the discount was not
in force but local taxpayers would have had to pay that much more.
Councilor Pryor believed there were arguments in support of both sides. He said that the discount for
early cash payment of property taxes had been in force for a long time and Oregon residents were used to
it. However, given the relatively small amounts involved for most people and the shortfalls faced by
State and local government, he was willing to support the bill.
Councilor Farr determined from Ms. Wilson that there was no corresponding senate bill. The bill had
been put forward by the House Interim Revenue Committee chaired by Representative Phil Barnhart and
had enjoyed a hearing. Ms. Wilson believed that the co- chairs of the committee both favored the concept.
Because the bill was a Revenue Committee bill, it was not subject to the same deadlines as other bills.
City Manager Ruiz indicated that the legislation was a significant funding issue for the City. He pointed
out that the bill merely asked people to pay their taxes. He expressed cautious optimistic about the City's
budget but said there was still some financial uncertainty that lay ahead. He recommended the council
support the original staff position of Priority 1, Support.
Councilor Taylor believed if the law was changed no one would pay their property taxes early. She
determined that Ms. Wilson that there was still benefit to early payment, and the bill was drafted to
change the payment dates for property taxes to make half the tax bill due on November 15 and the other
half due on May 15. Governments would be receiving half of the taxes owed rather than a third.
Speaking to the remarks of Councilor Pryor, Councilor Taylor observed that even small amounts were
challenging for some residents to afford.
Councilor Farr agreed a few dollars could mean a lot to some residents. However, he favored the
legislation because of the original intent behind the discount.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to support the CCIGR position
of Priority 3, Oppose on House Bill 3167. The motion failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor,
Poling, and Clark voting yes.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 8
Regular Meeting
Mayor Piercy polled the council on its support for the staff recommendation of Priority 1, Support on
House Bill 3167. By a vote of 6:2, with councilors Poling and Clark indicating opposition, the council
supported the staff recommendation.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to ratify the Council Committee
on Intergovernmental Relations' ( CCIGR) unanimous actions on bills and approval of
staff recommendations in the March 16, 2011, IGR Bill Reports for bills not pulled for
discussion at CCIGR meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal
Agency.
6. ACTION:
Adoption of Resolution 1059, Authorizing Tax Increment Bonds for Projects Described in
the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan
City Manager Ruiz reported the resolution provided authorization for the Urban Renewal Agency to
borrow money to fulfill a commitment to Lane Community College to provide it with an $8 million grant
for its downtown campus project. The resolution also allowed the agency to refinance the parking bonds
currently being paid from tax increment funds to achieve interest savings. The resolution provided the
agency director with the ability to make pledges that restricted future policy choices for the downtown
district. The restrictions were consistent with current council direction regarding project funding.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to adopt Resolution 1059,
authorizing tax increment bonds for projects described in the Downtown Urban Renewal
District Plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency Council and reconvened the meeting
of the City Council.
7. ACTION:
Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and
Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving and Constructing Curbs,
Sidewalks, Medians, Street Lights, Stormwater Drainage, and Water Quality Facilities on
Crest Drive from Blanton Road to Lincoln Street, Storey Boulevard from Crest Drive to
Lorane Highway and Friendly Street from Lorane Highway to 28`" Avenue; and providing
an Immediate Effective Date (Contract 2009 -30) (Job #4546)
Public Works Director Kurt Corey and City Engineer Mark Schoening were present for the item.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to (a) direct the City Manager
to bring back to the council an amendment to Resolution 4281 that would use as an
additional qualifier for the street subsidy program for the Crest Drive Assessments a
person's income on April 11, 2011, to determine annual income, instead of using 2010
income; and (b) postpone action on the assessment ordinance until after the council
approves the amendment to the resolution, property owners have an opportunity to apply
for the subsidy, and the ordinance is revised to reflect any new subsidy approvals.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 9
Regular Meeting
Councilor Clark determined from City Attorney Klein that the motion would apply only to the Crest
Drive assessment. City Attorney Klein did not think the motion established a legal precedent for any
other assessment project.
Councilor Taylor wished the motion could set a precedent. She said that many of those affected by the
project had no jobs or health insurance because of the recession, and she thought the City should take
those factors into account.
Councilor Poling determined from Mr. Schoening that the City had already passed ordinances levying the
assessments for the Maple - Elmira and Chad Drive projects. Councilor Poling asked if passage of the
motion would require the assessment to be calculated. Mr. Schoening said yes. The project would
increase in cost because of the additional people who qualified for the subsidy, the additional effort
required to amend the resolution, and the cost of borrowing. Councilor Poling recalled that the process
was several years old at this point. Mr. Schoening concurred.
Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, City Attorney Klein indicated the two parts of the
motion were interconnected in that the City Council could not adopt the ordinance until it determined who
qualified for the subsidy. He anticipated that it would be two to four months before the council could act
on the ordinance. Councilor Zelenka determined from Mr. Schoening the cost of delay was $1,300
monthly, which would be divided between the City and the assessments.
Councilor Zelenka conceded the action would cost some money but he believed it would also provide a
benefit to Eugene residents who had lost their jobs because of the recession.
Roll call vote: The motion passed, 6:2; councilors Ortiz and Poling voting no.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES — Eugene City Council April 11, 2011 Page 10
Regular Meeting