HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Approval of Council Minutes
Meeting Date: May 23, 2011 Agenda Item Number: 2A
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Kim Young
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5232
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is a routine item to approve City Council minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2011, Work Session, April 25, 2011, Regular Meeting,
April 27, 2011, Work Session, and May 16, 2011, Public Hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A. April 18, 2011, Work Session
B. April 25, 2011, Regular Meeting
C. April 27, 2011, Work Session
D. May 16, 2011, Public Hearing
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Kim Young
Telephone: 541-682-5232
Staff E-Mail: Kim.A.Young@ci.eugene.or.us
\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110523\S1105232A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room—City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
April 18, 2011
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka,
Pat Farr.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling, Chris Pryor.
Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the April 18, 2011, City Council workshop to order.
The council was joined by John Barofsky, David Funk, Gerry Gaydos, and Jean Tate of the Meeting the
Challenge Task Force. Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Director David Hauser was also present.
Also present were Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Renee Grube, Eugene Police Chief
Pete Kerns, Planning and Development Department Director/Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary, Fire
and Emergency Services Chief Randy Groves, City Attorney Glenn Klein, Public Works Director Kurt
Corey, Central Services Director Kristi Hammitt and Finance Division staff Mia Cariaga, Pavel
Gubanikhin, Twyla Miller, and Larry Hill.
A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP:
Long-Term Financial Stability
At the request of City Manager Jon Ruiz, those present introduced themselves and discussed their
perception about where the City had been in regard to City budgets and finances for the last five years and
their feelings about that perception. City Manager Ruiz then provided some context for the discussion by
identifying factors affecting the budget. Those factors included the recession, a structural imbalance in
the budget, the City Council’s policy decision to absorb the library levy inside the General Fund, and
increases in the PERS system. He also reviewed the steps the City took the previous year to balance the
budget and indicated the goals for the next budget were essentially the same.
City Manager Ruiz solicited comments and questions.
Mayor Piercy advocated for the City to set goals for its job recruitment efforts.
Ms. Ortiz said she continued to receive requests for services from constituents. She asked if it was
possible to set a goal for a core level of service, acknowledge the City was “not there” yet, and celebrate
when the goal was achieved.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Cariaga suggested the multi-year financial plan addressed Ms. Ortiz’s questions by identifying
unfunded needs. Ten of the unfunded needs were highlighted as priorities to inform the council’s
discussion.
Mr. Farr wanted to be able to clearly articulate to constituents where the City spent its money so he could
explain the costs and tradeoffs involved.
Mr. Barofsky believed the City needed to address the condition of non-General Funds such as the
Ambulance Transport Fund. He also suggested that political feasibility had led the task force to rule some
funding options out, although they might be appropriate for the need. He thought each service had
different political and funding strategies attached, and believed the public would be willing to support
ambulance transport through a service district or some other creative funding mechanism.
Ms. Tate noted the role that the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption played in the construction of housing
near and in downtown, and pointed out that after the abatement period, such developments contributed
significantly to the tax base. She said that such public investments eventually did get paid back.
City Manager Ruiz then asked meeting participants to list their worst and best outcomes for the
discussion on 3” x 5” cards. Those present then shared their best and worst outcomes with the rest of the
group. Staff collected the cards at the conclusion of the exercise.
City Manager Ruiz called for a brief break. Ms. Tate left during the break.
Ms. Cariaga provided background on the Meeting the Challenge Task Force, which had been formed in
2009 to discuss a major new revenue source to fund general services. The task force discussed a
restaurant tax, a utility fee or monthly fee for service, and a personal income tax. The latter idea was
discarded because Ballot Measure 66 was on the ballot at the same time. She asked task force
participants to comment on the work of the task force.
Ms. Cariaga noted that other members of the task force included Merle Bottge, Jared Mason-Gere,
Gretchen Pierce, Michael Redding, and David Tam.
Mr. Gaydos expressed appreciation for the process and the staff support. He said the task force was
concerned about the economy and agreed a strong economy was an important part of any proposal. He
referred to the considerations listed on page 1-2 of the task force report and asked the council to review
them at a later time.
Mr. Gaydos said that the task force had focused on the restaurant tax. Members recognized the cost of
implementing such a tax. The task force had agreed it was important to work closely with the industry on
a restaurant tax. Eugene had tourist attractions and sports events that drew people from across the region
and they visited restaurants while in Eugene. He thought the recommendation was time-bound to some
extent and needed to be considered in the context of the recession. However, Mr. Gaydos believed the
task force still stood behind it.
Mr. Funk said the task force was aware a restaurant tax failed before but did not let that affect its thinking.
Given time, the task force believed a restaurant tax would be supported if the City offered the restaurants
help to implement the tax. He suggested a percentage of a restaurant tax’s yield could be dedicated both
to providing restaurants with electronic cash registers that helped to collect the tax and to a marketing
campaign that encouraged people to go out to eat. The task force believed that because Eugene was a
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 2
Work Session
County seat, many City services such as parks were used by non-residents. The task force wanted to find
a way to have non-residents contribute to the cost of such services.
Mr. Barofsky said the task force considered the political implications of different options under
discussion and took those considered untenable off the table. The task force took a personal income tax
off the table in early in the process. He said the mood of the community had changed to the degree that
the council was now proposing an income tax for schools. He interpreted that to mean that some of the
other discarded options should be re-examined.
Mr. Hauser acknowledged the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce was generally not supportive of
industry-specific taxes. He believed that political feasibility was a consideration for new revenues, and
that could conflict with another value, that of fairness.
Ms. Taylor liked the idea of taxing nonresidents who used City services. She asked if the task force had
considered an employment tax. She indicated her opposition to a restaurant tax. She did not think
Eugene was like Ashland. She said that Ashland had a stronger entertainment focus and was a smaller
city. People who went to Ashland were there on vacation and costs were less significant to people on
vacation. Most of Eugene’s restaurants served Eugene residents, and a restaurant tax might deter them
from going out to eat.
Ms. Taylor said the task force did not recommend a business license tax but it worked in Portland and
was a major source of income. She asked why such a tax would not work in Eugene. Mr. Barofsky said
staff indicated the business license tax would not yield the desired amount. He believed, however, that
such small taxes could add up and have an impact. He noted his own suggestion to double the annual $10
rental unit fee to raise revenue. Mr. Funk added that different businesses worked at different profit
margins and it was challenging to achieve parity in such a tax. He did not know how Portland
implemented its business tax.
Ms. Ortiz appreciated the work of the task force and said everything was taxed in California, the state she
came from. She expressed support for a restaurant tax because she did not think it would have much of
an impact on individuals but would capture revenue from nonresidents.
Mr. Farr asked how much discussion the committee had about the potential of creating an unlevel playing
field between restaurants inside and outside the community. Mr. Barofsky recalled it was a concern
raised during discussion of the gas tax and he anticipated it would be raised if the council proposed a
restaurant tax. He believed any funding source came with tradeoffs, however. He added the committee
agreed it was important to identify what the City would pay for with the money, and that it would be
useful if there was a nexus between the source of funding and the expenditures it paid for.
Mr. Farr recalled that in 1997 the council proposed a one percent utility tax for low-income housing and it
failed by a wide margin.
City Manager Ruiz said the council would not see any of the task force recommendations reflected in the
budget and staff was not asking the council to take action now or in the near term. He said he convened
the task force because the City had a responsibility to consider all its fiscal options.
City Manager Ruiz asked the group to discuss what sustainability in the budget meant to it from a policy
perspective.
Participants offered the following:
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 3
Work Session
A stable budget balanced revenue with expenditures but did not take into consideration all
unfunded or unmet needs, such as backlog of roads maintenance, ambulance fund, parking fund,
parks maintenance, building maintenance, planning and development issues—those costs would
be addressed in a sustainable budget over a reasonable period of time. Putting the budget onto a
path that allowed all those needs to be met would be sustainable. (Zelenka)
We go about budgeting backwards. Creating a sustainable budget was fundamentally different
than creating a stable budget. Need to reorder our thinking about budgeting process to achieve
sustainability. We make long-term commitments about services or organization size and then ask
how we can afford them. A sustainable budget means we ask first what we can afford, what we
can expect in terms of revenues, what are our highest priorities, and what can we achieve with the
funding available. (Clark)
Two ways of thinking about it—what do we want to be and what do we want to have and how do
we fund those things, or do we say this is how much money we have and how much can we fund.
(Zelenka)
How you work a business—you envision what you want and figure out how to get it. Would not
go the other way (look at what you have and what you can do with it) and expect to run a
business that is sustainable. (Funk)
Perhaps the answer was in the middle—what you want versus what you can get, because you
cannot always get what you want. (Farr)
Need to consider fire services and examine service district concept so users can support. Unsure
it would help or hurt bottom line, but think we need to have that conversation to see if that
approach was feasible. (Ortiz)
Believe the budget was a balance of what you can afford versus what you want, which is why we
use the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) analysis. Need to do the complete analysis and recognize there
are tradeoffs. (Piercy)
Particularly with finite resources—if you have finite resources and only funded police and fire,
not many people would want to live here. The reason we embraced the TBL approach was
because it made one think of aspects to issues beyond the dollars and cents aspect. (Zelenka)
City Manager Ruiz then asked the council how it would like to involve the Budget Committee in the
discussion for the next several months and beyond.
Useful to have the input of citizen members, who will be more helpful if they know where
council is going. (Piercy)
Hope citizens members could be brought up to speed. Always appreciate their input. Hope they
are aware of this conversation given their influence. Maybe it would be more beneficial to bring
the committee in to talk to the council on a more regular basis. (Ortiz)
The Budget Committee was a thoughtful group of people who give advice but do not make final
decisions. The committee’s approach varied greatly depending on its membership. The
committee gave the council some different perspectives. Think we meet far too much as the
Budget Committee already. (Taylor)
Budget Committee lay members had an opportunity to focus on a relatively narrow aspect of
what the City does, similar to Planning Commission, and appreciate that focus. They bring up
issues that councilors might not have time to consider. Appreciate the input of Mr. Barofsky and
past Budget Committee members such as Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Gaydos. (Farr)
Value Budget Committee—its added voices enhance the conversation and bring in other points of
view the council had not thought about. Plus the lay members could do leg work the council
could not do because of its work load, e.g., oversight of service improvement budgeting shift.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 4
Work Session
Think future budget will be a mix of efficiencies and revenues and perhaps lay members could
look into those areas in more depth. Committee adds to a more robust conversation. (Zelenka)
Agree with Mr. Zelenka about latter point. Structurally speaking, like and value committee, and
think it was good to have committee’s voices at the table before decisions were made. The
committee was a valuable voice of the citizenry. Perceive the lay members’ utility as more short-
term or medium-term value rather than long-term vision or community direction, which is what
this conversation is about. However, acknowledge example of Mr. Barofsky, who advocated for
long-term capital needs. Perhaps there was more value in involving the committee lay members
in the longer term discussion. (Clark)
No problem with individuals on committee but I do wish the composition of the committee was
more reflective of the entire community. Everyone on the committee lived in south Eugene and I
believe it would have more value if its members were more geographically diverse. (Clark)
Budget Committee lay members can bring public viewpoint to suggestions and recommendations.
Creating that kind of opportunity makes sense. Historically committee members have liked being
asked to do more regarding long-term strategies. (Piercy)
When I served on Budget Committee it had a subcommittee focused on how improvements to the
Capital Improvement Program. Such tasks were worthwhile for the committee members. (Clark)
Committee necessary but insufficient in conversation—like urban growth boundary conversation.
It was a broader conversation that called for another “Envision Eugene” sort of process. Such a
process could serve as a model for how the community made tough decisions. Want to avoid
community polarization. (Zelenka)
Recall that in past each councilor appointed a committee member, leading to more variety of
opinions. Could reconsider that approach. Remember, committee members were not elected and
were no more out in the community than councilors. (Taylor)
City Manager Ruiz indicated that the workshop was the beginning of a larger conversation. He
anticipated that staff would return with additional thoughts and recommendations. He thanked those who
participated.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 18, 2010 Page 5
Work Session
ATTACHMENT B
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber—City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
April 25, 2011
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Alan Zelenka, Pat Farr.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the April 25, 2011, regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to
order.
1. ACTION:
Resolution 5030 Honoring Eugene Police Officer Chris Kilcullen, His Service, and His
Sacrifice
Mayor Piercy expressed the council’s gratitude for the service of Eugene Police Officer Chris Kilcullen,
who lost his life in the line of duty on April 22. She also expressed the council’s sympathy for his loss to
his family, friends, colleagues, and Eugene residents. Mayor Piercy recommended that when residents
saw an officer, they express their sympathy for the loss of Officer Kilcullen and thank the officer for his
or her service. Such a gesture could mean a lot at such a time.
Mayor Piercy read the following resolution:
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Chris Kilcullen was hired as a Eugene Police Officer in March 1998. Some of his
notable achievements include the following:
1. He was a member of the Eugene Police Department Crisis Negotiation Team
since 2002. He was a very highly skilled negotiator and is credited with saving many lives.
2. He became a member of the Eugene Police Department Rapid Deployment Unit
in 2003, and earned an Advanced Certificate as a Certified Police Officer in 2004.
3. He was awarded Eugene Police Department Employee of the Month in May 2004
for having the highest activity level of any EPD patrol officer, based on the number of
investigations, arrests, traffic citations and field interviews completed. He was again awarded
Eugene Police Department Employee of the Month in June 2008.
4. He was a member of Special Operations and the Traffic Enforcement Unit since
2005.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 1
Regular Meeting
5. He helped develop the Crisis Intervention Team and had served on the Team
since 2008.
6. He received more than 85 commendations during his 12-year career at the
Eugene Police Department. Those commendations repeatedly cited Officer Kilcullen’s
exemplary professional demeanor and positive interactions with the public, even in the most
stressful circumstances. Many people who received traffic citations from Officer Kilcullen would
thank him and call the department to comment on his professional and positive approach.
B.
Chris Kilcullen was an outstanding Eugene Police officer and exemplary public servant.
He was a remarkably and unfailingly kind, cheerful, thoughtful, and giving person, with a smile that
brightened the day of anyone he encountered.
C.
In addition to his service as a police officer, Chris Kilcullen was a dedicated community
volunteer and devoted husband and father. His wife and two daughters were his greatest passion and he
adored and cherished the time, however short, he had with them.
D.
Officer Kilcullen’s tragic death in the line of duty reminds us of the inherent danger that
our police officers willingly face to protect the Eugene community. Police officers and other public
safety professionals courageously place the safety and welfare of community members above their own
every day.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1
. The City of Eugene is deeply saddened and mourns the loss of this fine officer.
Section 2
. The City of Eugene expresses its immeasurable gratitude to Officer Chris Kilcullen
and his family for his outstanding public service.
Section 3
. The City of Eugene hereby declares that Friday, April 29, 2011, is Officer Chris
Kilcullen Remembrance Day and encourages the community to share in expressions of support for
Officer Kilcullen, his family and the Eugene Police Department.
th
The foregoing Resolution adopted the 25 day of April, 2011.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to adopt Resolution 5030
honoring Eugene Police Officer Chris Kilcullen, his service, and his sacrifice.
Mayor Piercy called for a voice vote.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
City Manager Jon Ruiz acknowledged it had been a difficult time for the City organization but he was
proud of it for coming together. The organization wanted to remember and celebrate Officer Kilcullen’s
life in a thoughtful way that made his family and the community proud. City Manager Ruiz said police
officers grieved like everyone else. He urged residents to continue to express their love and support for
the members of the department.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 2
Regular Meeting
Councilor Poling said over his 30 years in law enforcement he had attended funeral services for several
officers, some of who were close friends. He noted he had worked with Officer Kilcullen’s father, John,
at the Lane County Sheriff’s Office. When such an attack occurred, it was a direct assault on the
community. The police were the community’s thin line of defense against crime. It took a special person
to do the work of a police officer and put their life on the line. Councilor Poling commended the officers
of the Eugene Police Department (EPD) for their ability to continue to provide excellent service at such a
time, and thanked Eugene Police Chief Pete Kerns and the department for their hard work. He also
expressed his sympathy to the Kilcullen family for tragic loss of Officer Kilcullen. He suggested people
give a wave, a tip of the hat, or a word of thanks to the next officer they saw. It would be appreciated.
Councilor Farr had no words other than words of prayer to offer to the Kilcullen family and the officers of
the EPD.
Councilor Zelenka expressed his heartfelt gratitude for Officer Kilcullen’s ultimate sacrifice. He
expressed his sympathy to the Kilcullen family and thanked the EPD officers who continually put their
lives on the line. He said that Officer Kilcullen would be missed.
Councilor Taylor expressed her sympathy and gratitude to the Kilcullen family and to the EPD.
Councilor Brown expressed his sorrow to the Kilcullen family. He had attended the vigil held for Officer
Kilcullen on April 24 and believed it demonstrated the community’s support for the EPD.
Councilor Clark called the loss of Officer Kilcullen a tragedy for the department, the City organization,
and the entire community. He had first met Officer Kilcullen at the Citizens Police Academy and was
struck by his unfailing kindness and gentle spirit. He was deeply saddened by his loss and would miss
Officer Kilcullen. He had also attended the April 24 vigil and recalled that Ms. Kilcullen had asked those
present to remember that all police officers were “just folks” who had families and felt tragedy and pain.
He suggested that the community could use the occasion as an opportunity to treat its officers better.
Councilor Clark asked staff to prepare a motion of support for an effort to rename a section of I-126 from
Main Street to I-5 in honor of Officer Kilcullen. He said the existing Oregon Department of
Transportation process for renaming a facility was lengthy and suggested the possibility that the City
could piggyback on a bill currently being considered by the State legislature to accomplish the goal.
Councilor Ortiz believed there was a little Chris Kilcullen in all EPD officers so the suggestion that
people be kind to all officers resonated with her. At Councilor Ortiz’s request, those present observed a
moment of silence in honor of Officer Kilcullen.
Mayor Piercy recognized Eugene Police Chief Kerns, who said it was an absolute privilege to serve the
community. He and the department appreciated the honor the council bestowed on Officer Kilcullen.
2. PUBLIC FORUM
Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She opened the forum.
Wayne Ford
, 85560 Svarverud Road, chair of the Homeless Action Coalition, presented the council with
a petition from Virgil, a homeless resident, asking the City to provide more spaces for people to camp
legally. The petition was signed by many residents and the request was endorsed by the EPD. Mr. Ford
expressed concern about the growing homeless population and his fear that reductions in State aid would
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 3
Regular Meeting
increase the number. He contrasted the cost of enforcement against the lesser cost of providing homeless
spaces and asked the council to hold a work session on the request. St. Vincent de Paul could provide 10
more spaces immediately.
Mr. Ford asked councilors to help expand the program at no cost by reminding property owners that the
presence of campers near their property reduced theft and vandalism and to ask them to financially
support the program. He also asked the council to expand the church program. Mr. Ford suggested a
need for greater public awareness that homeowners could allow people to live in a vehicle or tent on their
property.
Ruth Duemler
, 1745 Fircrest Drive, agreed with the remarks of Mr. Ford. She shared the story of an
older resident living in his truck who became homeless because of a heart attack, and emphasized the
difficulty such individuals had finding a job in Eugene. Ms. Duemler requested that the City provide
portable toilets for the homeless. She also requested recycling be provided. She estimated the cost of
portable toilets at $50 and the cost of a recycling bin at $10. Ms. Duemler asked the council to contact
the State about preserving funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Marianne Malott
, 1133 Olive Street, #1215, said she received a Ford scholarship to attend the
University of Oregon because she had been able to take advantage of a legal camping space. She
advocated for expansion of the program, saying it provided people peace of mind. She was able to do her
homework in her space and would not have been able to achieve what she had without the space.
Jerry Smith
, 5041 Saxon Way, a homeless advocate, spoke of the impact of reductions in TANF funding
on local residents, predicting that 2,000 residents now on the program could lose eligibility and some
would die. He said that TANF was the only safety net for families with children. Mr. Smith suggested
the community was facing an emergency situation.
Bob Macherione
, 1994 Brewer Street, discussed his experience with the Code Enforcement staff about a
Sign Code violation on his property and suggested the action was in retaliation for a lawsuit he filed
against the City. He believed the Sign Code was intended to regulate commercial signage, not free
speech. As his sign was on private property and presented no public hazard, he did not think it was
subject to the Sign Code. Mr. Macherione interpreted the scope of the code to mean he could use the Sign
Code to complain anonymously about people’s bumper stickers. He questioned how the complainant in
his case could remain anonymous, particularly when the City enforced the code by complaint only.
Mark Robinowitz
, no address given, honored the workers in Japan at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear
Power Plant who sacrificed themselves to minimize nuclear contamination. He recalled the Chernobyl
disaster and its lingering effects and suggested the lessons of Chernobyl had not been heeded. Mr.
Robinowitz called on the City to ensure its long-terms plans were relevant and took into account limited
resources and actual demand. He advocated for planning for a future that was physically possible.
th
Eugene Drix
, 307-1/2 East 14 Avenue, thanked the audience for being at the meeting and the people at
home for watching. He acknowledged the many issues facing the community and believed that if people
worked together they would find a way to solve them. He discussed his experiences with gangs in his
neighborhood and said he refused to “buy into” the differences that such gangs encouraged. He attempted
to interact with gang members and be positive. He thought ultimately, the presence of such gangs would
make his neighbors more alert and connected.
Mark Callahan
, 3621 Mahlon Street, appealed to Mayor Piercy and the City Council to ask Hillary
Johnson and the organization “Strong Schools Eugene” to drop the lawsuit filed against him as a member
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 4
Regular Meeting
of the Voters’ Pamphlet Opponent Committee. He related that he had been one of three volunteers who
served on the committee and was the only one sued. Mr. Callahan suggested the lawsuit was directed
against him because of his campaign for a school board seat. He said the public needed honor and
integrity in its elections, not personal attacks on those with the courage to run for public office.
Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and called on the council for questions and comments. There were
none.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
B. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of March 9, 2011,
and March 16, 2011
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to approve the items on the
Consent Calendar. Roll call vote: The motion passed unanimously, 7:0
4. ACTION:
2011/12 Funding Allocations for Federal Community Development Block Grant and
HOME Investment Partnership Programs
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved to approve the One-Year Action
Plan for use of Federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds in
2011/12.
Councilor Poling determined from Stephanie Jennings of the Planning and Development Department that
the funding could be commingled in certain cases with similar funds allocated to other local governments,
but none of the projects in questions were supported by comingled funds
Councilor Zelenka determined from Ms. Jennings that the administrative costs listed in Attachment A in
the meeting packet represented administrative costs for both the program income and new funding, and
also included the costs of the audit.
Roll call vote: The motion passed unanimously, 7:0
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
Envision Eugene
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item. He recalled the history of the Envision Eugene process to this
point. The hearing was an opportunity to hear the public’s reaction to the proposed strategies and tactics
intended to guide Eugene’s growth over the next 20 years.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
th
Bob Cassidy
, 2401 East 27 Avenue, recommended that the document be revised to reflect the growth in
the percentage of senior citizens who would live in the community in 20 years. He asked the council to
consider, as it reviewed the document, what it did to prepare for the community of the future.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 5
Regular Meeting
Larry Reed
, 4251 Scenic Drive, advocated for the designation of more industrially zoned land to support
local business growth and quality jobs, particularly traded sector jobs. Traded sector firms competed in
regional and international markets and brought new money into the local economy. He favored adding
more industrial acres to support such firms and suggested that an expansion of 800 acres would be better
than the 400-500 acres proposed by City Manager Ruiz, which he also supported.
Jim Welch
, 2139 Centennial Plaza, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, submitted written
testimony on behalf of the association. He recommended that there be less regulation, less paperwork,
and fewer delays in the provision of infrastructure in the developing areas. He believed that the
community’s focus in land development should be on the local economy. He emphasized the importance
of industrial land development. Mr. Welch said the association supported City Manager Ruiz’s
recommendation for industrial acreage, which would provide more large industrial parcels necessary to
attract larger employers.
Deborah Smith
, 2982 Martinique Street, representing the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)
executive management team, reported that EWEB had delivered a letter of support for the
recommendations before the council earlier that day. Ms. Smith emphasized the importance of the
planning process to EWEB’s ability to deliver services in the future. The focus on flexibility and
adaptability, as described in Pillar 7, was critical to EWEB.
Ms. Smith spoke on her own behalf as a member of the Community Resource Group’s (CRG) Economic
Development Industrial Lands Committee in support of City Manager Ruiz’s recommendation to expand
the urban growth boundary (UGB) for industrial land. Such expansion would allow the City to assemble
a portfolio of sites for various needs. Ms. Smith noted the high priority placed on such land in the
Regional Prosperity Plan and suggested an even higher priority was the community’s need for new
family-wage jobs. She believed the lack of industrial land represented a crisis, and said an adequate
supply was a key strategy to attracting employers, for which competition was fierce.
Sue Prichard
, 2671 Emerald Street, expressed support for City Manager Ruiz’s recommendation to
increase the supply of industrial land because of its importance to job creation. She suggested it would
take a minimum of 400 industrially designated acres to meet the need and to accommodate the demand
for larger parcels. She believed the community should reuse land inside the UGB but that would not be
sufficient. She spoke of her work as a commercial real estate broker and offered three examples of
companies who looked for land in Eugene unsuccessfully and went elsewhere in Oregon. Ms. Prichard
agreed with Ms. Smith that the industrial lands supply represented a crisis, and asked the council to
support the manager’s recommendation.
th
Pat Hocken
, 338 West 11 Avenue, representing the League of Women Voters, expressed the league’s
support for the Envision Eugene community outreach process and the conceptual framework represented
by the Seven Pillars as a good first step toward improving and maintaining community livability. Ms.
Hocken expressed the league’s concern that many implementation details were still unknown and some of
the goals appeared to be incompatible with one another. She suggested any UGB expansion needed to be
accompanied by a realistic assessment of site suitability for new uses and of neighborhoods to ensure the
preservation of high-value farmland while also accounting for the draft recommendation to maintain
current single-family densities.
Ms. Hocken cautioned that the draft’s simultaneous support for 20-minute neighborhoods, transit corridor
development/redevelopment, multi-family housing, urban agriculture, and neighborhood support for
higher density development created an inherent tension in the draft with a potential for community
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 6
Regular Meeting
controversy. While Opportunity Siting (OS) might help, the league recommended the City consider a
pilot project to demonstrate the benefits and potential of the plan’s recommendations.
Ms. Hocken noted the league’s support for the inclusion of regional strategies related to economic
development and natural resources, and the concept of an industrial land trust to facilitate Brownfield
redevelopment. She submitted her written testimony.
th
Paul Conte
, 1461 West 10 Avenue, Chair of Westside-Jefferson Neighbors, noted the council’s receipt
of a letter in support of the Envision Eugene "neighborhood livability" pillar and of revitalizing the Infill
Compatibility Standards (ICS) and OS processes. The letter was signed by 65 neighborhood leaders and
endorsed by 13 neighborhood organizations. Signees included at least one representative from each
neighborhood organization, which Mr. Conte attributed to the importance residents attached to safe,
pleasant, livable, and stable neighborhoods. He suggested development pressures in neighborhoods like
the West University neighborhood were creating monocultures and such areas were in danger of being
future ghettos. Neighborhoods such as River Road and Santa Clara would be threatened by additional
development pressure for higher density when the economy improved. Mr. Conte asked the council to
consider and implement the recommendations of the ICS Task Team.
th
Deborah Healey
, 360 East 15 Avenue, advocated for recognition of the differences between multi-
family developments. She pointed out that some multi-family developments housed multiple related
individuals, or families, while some multi-family developments housed multiple unrelated adults. She
believed that to call both types “multi-family” housing misrepresented what the City was trying to
achieve in terms of low-income housing and housing affordability. Ms. Healey said that while students
might appear to be low-income, they often were not, as demonstrated by the cost of the housing they
occupied.
Ms. Healey liked the concept of compact urban development but believed the community could learn
from the West University neighborhood. She agreed with Mr. Conte that it was a monoculture in terms of
both residents and housing types. She called for measures to protect what was left in the neighborhood,
including its historic houses, historic trees, the Millrace, and Amazon Creek. She believed that those
measures needed to repair the fabric of the neighborhood and to encourage livability. She asked that
Envision Eugene take into account varying neighborhoods and be informed by her neighborhood’s
experience.
Gary Wildish
, 2424 Quince Street, expressed support for the manager’s recommendations. He agreed
with the remarks of Mr. Reed that the recommendation might be on the low end of the need. He said
much of the existing industrial acreage was in small parcels and included constraints that had to be
mitigated. He recommended that the City have a portfolio of industrial sites of varying sizes to
accommodate business expansion and relocation.
Anne Marie Mehlum
, no address given, concurred with City Manager Ruiz’s recommendation for
increasing the supply of industrial land. She termed it a balanced and moderate approach worthy of the
council’s support. She said the recommendation provided an opportunity for the local businesses to grow.
Marcia Edwards
, 1635 Adkins Road, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed
support for the manager’s recommendation to expand the UGB to accommodate more industrial land. If
the redevelopment of existing land was a viable strategy, it would have already happened. Brownfield
mitigation was costly and could not compete with land in other markets. She suggested the City
financially support the mitigation of such sites to make them available in the future. However, it was not
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 7
Regular Meeting
currently an option for now, or reasonable or practical to expect companies to use Brownfields inside the
UGB as a source of industrial land given the alternatives that were available in other communities.
Laura Potter
, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, expressed
support for the manager’s recommendation to expand the UGB to accommodate additional industrial
land. The issue was a high priority for the chamber. She related that the community recently lost more
than 500 jobs, including family-wage jobs, due to the loss of large employers. Those losses coincided
with the economic downturn. Ms. Potter reported that averages wages in Lane County were on the
decline and emphasized the importance of high-wage, family-wage jobs to the health of the community.
Such jobs kept young families in the Eugene and kept schools open. They enabled the City to maintain
its livability. She concurred that the City should create a portfolio of sites.
Ed McMahon
, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County, agreed that the industrial
land supply had reached the crisis point. He expressed support for City Manager Ruiz’s recommendation
to increase the supply and emphasized that it was based on actual data.
Phil Farrington
, 1160 Monroe Street, supported the manager’s recommendation to expand the UGB for
industrial purposes. He believed that the community’s legacy of livability depended on paying attention
to fundamentals such as employment opportunities and job creation. Eugene needed to ensure there were
opportunities for economic growth. The recommendation would add a modest number of sites of varying
sizes to the inventory.
Will Shaver
, 2494 Portland Street, believed a long-term solution to homelessness was needed and
suggested that increasing the industrial land supply was one such long-term solution. He said it was
critical to add employment opportunities to the community. Infill development had not worked for those
who had tried to do so locally. He was aware of local employers who had tried to expand their operations
and had done so on a piecemeal basis, spreading their businesses across the community, resulting in
higher transportation costs and more damaged goods. Mr. Shaver believed the manager’s
recommendation was reasonable. He advocated for local jobs, which led to local taxes.
Tom Slocum
, 1950 Graham Drive, supported the manager’s recommendations for the UGB expansion to
accommodate industrial uses. He noted the examples offered by others about the challenge of locating a
new industrial business in Eugene. He was concerned that Eugene’s growth was so slow that it would not
have the jobs needed to make the community viable and there would not be sufficient tax revenues to
support the community’s needs and desires. He was also very concerned about the industrial land supply,
and agreed with Mr. Reed that perhaps more acreage was needed.
Brent McClure
, 3015 Walnut Street, the chair of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce’s Economic
Development Committee, said the committee supported the manager’s recommendation to expand the
UGB for industrial uses. The lack of large parcels was an obstacle for many companies seeking to locate
in Eugene.
Carolyn Jacobs
, 2040 Agate Street, recalled the council’s establishment of the ICS Project and reported
that since that time 700 young people had moved into 10 new projects in her neighborhood. Lot
aggregation had resulted in enormous buildings with minimal setbacks next to single-family houses.
Open spaces were nonexistent, and parties spilled into the street. Ms. Jacobs said her neighborhood could
not survive development based on the sole guiding principle of the developer’s bottom line. Neighbors
were being driven out of their walkable neighborhood and were desperate to sustain it.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 8
Regular Meeting
Ms. Jacobs further reported that the City was currently in the midst of permitting a multi-family project
near her home that would occupy a full quarter block, be 42 feet high, and have a five-foot setback on the
property line it shared with a single-family house. Ms. Jacobs said without standards, a neighborhood
that should be a resource for the University of Oregon and the City would be “thrown away.” She said
the current code rewarded developers of such large projects for eliminating amenities such as open space.
She believed the City had things backwards in comparison to cities such as Portland. She believed it was
crucial that the council take up the recommendations of the ICS Task Team because it was not sustainable
to drive out long-term residents invested in the neighborhood and replace them with a young transient
population.
Tom Halferty
, 4510 Manzanita Street, suggested the Civic Stadium site represented an opportunity for a
20-minute neighborhood. He also advocated for the preservation of farmland if the UGB was expanded.
Kevin Matthews
, PO Box 1588, Eugene, president of the organization “Friends of Eugene,” advocated
for an increase in the proposed housing mix and opposed the proposal to expand the UGB. He did not
think such actions represented sufficient change. Mr. Matthews suggested that the process was being run
in such a way that “paid representatives” of the development industry had the last word.
Pamela Miller
, 1959 Harris Street, urged the council to provide ongoing staffing to the ICS Task Team
so it could continue to work on standards that allowed for infill development to be accommodated in a
way that supported neighborhood quality of life. Infill measures should recognize neighborhood
differences and ensure that density increases occurred in a visionary way rather than be overlaid on
neighborhoods in a “one size fits all” manner. She expressed concern about the high-density development
occurring in the South University Neighborhood. The City was doing nothing to encourage diversity of
housing to ensure there would be rental and owner-occupied housing for young single and married
people.
Ms. Miller also questioned how the City was addressing the needs of retired people. She suggested that
the presence of well-designed complexes could persuade older residents to give up their large homes to
young families while allowing them to remain in their neighborhoods. She feared otherwise, those
residents would leave the neighborhood and their houses would be converted to multi-family
developments serving unrelated adults. She feared such unintended consequences from failure to
adequately plan for a meaningful, workable, large multi-family zoned area. She hoped such planning
occurred in the future.
Louisa Hamachek
, 366 Clark Street, Chair of the Whiteaker Community Council, wanted Eugene to
prepare for “new times.” She maintained that ecologically and economically, the world was heading
toward radical change. She wanted Eugene to prepare for a world without electricity and automobiles.
Ms. Hamachek advocated for greater density in neighborhoods and for food production in neighborhoods
everywhere possible, including on rooftops. She advocated for the formation of associations with area
farmers who could bring their food to market in Eugene via horse and wagon. She wanted to see stables
and accommodations for horses. She called for the river to be redeveloped with small local industries that
could employ the river for their energy supply using new turbine technology. Ms. Hamachek also
supported Brownfield mitigation and reuse.
Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
Civic Stadium
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 9
Regular Meeting
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Beth Bonamici
, 2769 Emerald Street, questioned how the City could acquire Civic Stadium when its
budget included fee increases in the library, delays in the opening of Amazon pools, and delayed facility
maintenance. All those activities contributed to the well-being of Eugene residents. She supported the
YMCA’s proposal for the Civic Stadium, which would not require public funding and would provided
needed community services at a time when City-funded recreation services were being cut back. She
urged the City to spend no money on proposals to renovate Civic Stadium.
Richard Pettigrew
, 4147 East Amazon Drive, Executive Director of the Archaeological Legacy Institute,
advocated for the preservation of Civic Stadium. He believed the stadium would only become more
valued and treasured with time, and people of the future would admire the community for saving it.
st
W. Scott Bartlett
, 1445 East 21 Avenue, reviewed the recent history surrounding Civic Stadium and
acknowledged that 4J School District was selling the property because it needed money to educate the
community’s children. He opposed the Fred Meyer development proposal for the Civic Stadium property
and expressed his support for either the YMCA or Save Civic Stadium (SCS) proposals.
th
Bob Barber
, 881 East 38 Avenue, spoke on behalf of his daughter Ramona Barber. He reported that
she had written a letter to the Staples Learning Foundation asking it to support SCS in its effort to
preserve Civic Stadium, and the foundation subsequently gave SCS $5,000. He read Ms. Barber’s letter
to the foundation. He conveyed to the council Ms. Barber’s hope that the City could bring the YMCA
and SCS proposals together.
Derrick Johnson
, 1665 Fairmount Boulevard, urged the City to buy Civic Stadium for a public-private
partnership as proposed by SCS. He believed the stadium had the potential to serve the community into
the future and spoke of the excitement that professional soccer could engender in the community. He also
believed that the partnership would result in the creation of more sports fields, which were currently
insufficient in number to meet demand. Mr. Johnson said the Civic Stadium site contained sufficient land
for the YMCA as well as a field house. The stadium could be a cornerstone for community activities and
an opportunity for economic development and community building.
Scott McClary
, 3366 Agate Street, Board of Directors of the YMCA, asked the council to recognize
what the 4J process provided to the community and what a successful response by the YMCA would
contribute to the site. He said YMCA was a remarkable place where children could recreate safely and
develop social skills. It was an asset to the community at large and to 4J in particular. Mr. McClary said
further delay would have a detrimental effect on the YMCA project. He asked the council to allow the 4J
process to move forward.
Erik Gunderson
, 72 West Broadway, advocated for the YMCA project. He commended the YMCA for
its work in the community and for its impact as a family gathering place. The YMCA had touched the
lives of thousands of Eugene residents. He said YMCA had not been able to partner successfully with
SCS but had been able to partner with the University of Oregon on a proposal that combined student
housing and a new YMCA facility. The housing made the project work financially. He said the proposal
supported the community’s land use goals, would bring new customers to south Eugene businesses,
would result in local transportation improvements, and would take advantage of the transit system. The
YMCA could continue to provide existing services and would create a community of University students
with a focus on fitness as Y membership would be included in the rent.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 10
Regular Meeting
Kathy Lynn
, 2036 Willamette Street, suggested the City should buy or lease the Civic Stadium property
and then determine the uses for the site. The City was best positioned to ensure the development
achieved its goals for mixed-use development and integrated land use and transportation. The City could
also bring in other partners to contribute to the financial viability of the site. That could include the
YMCA. She said the site’s potential for recreation uses should be explored. She asked that any decisions
related to the future of the stadium take into account the planning occurring through Envision Eugene.
Josh Skov
, 2036 Willamette Street, said redevelopment of Civic Stadium would follow the pillars and
strategies of Envision Eugene only if the City played a key role in the effort, with a central focus on land
use and transportation. He believed that role was justified by the size and location of the site in question
as well as by its historic significance and proximity to a transportation corridor. He asked the council to
consider how the strategies of Envision Eugene related to integrated land use and transportation fit with
the site. Those strategies called for transportation options in addition to the car. Mixed-use along transit
corridors, 20-minute neighborhoods, compatible infill development, and higher density opportunity sites
were strategies intended to foster walking and bicycling as key features of livable, sustainable
neighborhoods. Uses that demanded the provision of large amounts of parking were not likely to be
consistent with those strategies, ICS, and OS, as well as the community’s growth management policies
and Climate & Energy Action Plan. Mr. Skov asked the council to do what it could to ensure that the
principles of Envision Eugene informed whatever development occurred on the site.
Lauren Doxsee
, 2136 McMillan Street, discussed her involvement with SCS and her hope that the
stadium could be redeveloped as proposed by SCS to accommodate local youth soccer teams and other
sports teams. Currently, teams were backed up waiting for fields. She also hoped to involve the YMCA
in the proposal because of the potential of indoor soccer.
Pat Walsh
, 941 Oak Street, representing Vox Public Relations, spoke of behalf of Dr. Joe Womack,
President of Northwest Christian University (NCU), who was unable to be present. Dr. Womack asked
Mr. Walsh to convey NCU’s support for the SCS proposal. The proposal would result in the creation of
fields that could be employed by college, club, and youth soccer teams. He said that NCU was interested
in employing the facility as its athletic home. The location and planned renovations would provide
NCU’s soccer program with the best facilities of any National Association of Intercollegiate Athlete
(NAIA) school in the northwest. NCU supported the proposal not only because of the benefit to NCU
students but because of the benefit to the entire community.
Joe Blakely
, 4035 Donald Street, Apartment C, supported the SCS proposal. He provided some history
of the stadium, which was built through a community effort. He believed that community effort was
embodied in the SCS proposal. He asked the council to find a way to save the SCS and maintain it in
recreational use.
th
Dennis Hebert
, 850 East 38 Avenue, a member of SCS, advocated for the preservation of the stadium as
a community gathering place. He asked the City Council to participate in SCS’ effort to preserve the
stadium for community use. He described the SCS proposal to turn the stadium into an athletic facility,
some of the benefits of the proposal, and noted that many groups had expressed interest in using the
facility, including a professional soccer team. He reported that Travel Lane County was reviewing SCS’
estimates of the facility’s economic impact and he would share its report when available. He anticipated
that the proposal would bring jobs to the community both during and after construction. Mr. Hebert did
not think the area could support or wanted a mixed-use residential/commercial development. He noted
the role the City would play in development approvals and suggested that for that reason it had a financial
stake in the school district’s decision.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 11
Regular Meeting
th
Jonathan Brandt
, 57 West 20 Avenue, vice president of SCS, reviewed the funding proposal for the
project components. He emphasized that the SCS wished to partner with the YMCA. He believed there
were many potential investors and little financial risk to the City.
Carlos Barrera
, 2470 Olive Street, expressed concern about the impact of a new Fred Meyer grocery
store on the Civic Stadium site, which he feared would threaten already existing businesses in the
neighborhood and result in a net loss of jobs. While he liked the YMCA proposal, he believed the loss of
the stadium would be a tragedy. He suggested that the YMCA’s proposal for four-story buildings would
provoke appeals that resulted in years of delay. Perhaps the development would be lost altogether,
leaving a big hole. He supported the SCS proposal, particularly its soccer element. He believed it would
bring in tourist dollars from outside the community and improve the neighborhood.
Christine Thompson
, 2195 Olive Street, a board member of SCS, advocated for the City to play a role in
the future of Civic Stadium because of its role in land use approvals and its responsibility for community
development and transportation planning. She believed the SCS proposal offered unique opportunities to
the community. She noted the many plans and policies that decision makers would have to weigh in
making a decision about the site and the considerations that would affect their decision. Ms. Thompson
asked the City Council to take the initiative in finding a solution to the future of Civic Stadium.
Pat Skipper
, 921 Snell Street, a board member of SCS, encouraged the council to support the SCS
proposal. She believed the City had an interest in maintaining Civic Stadium as a recreational facility.
She suggested the long-term economic benefits of professional sports, tourism, entertainment events, and
recreation outweighed the short-term gains of construction and retail jobs. She said the components of
the two organizations’ proposal could be merged to provide fitness and family recreation opportunities.
Ms. Skipper reiterated NCU’s interest in using the facility. She believed other sports leagues would seek
to use the facility as well. She suggested the council weigh the cost of participating with the two
organizations against the cost and delay associated with private development.
Joyce Berm
, 2440 Charnelton Street, advocated for the SCS proposal. She recommended that the City
buy or lease the Civic Stadium property for community use. The City could lead in the restoration of
Civic Stadium. She believed there was room on the site for the YMCA and SCS as well as other
commercial entities, but such proposals took time to realize. She feared that the YMCA proposal would
not only result in the demolition of the stadium but would also eliminate desirable open space. She
believed there was time for the City to act if the council had the courage to do so.
Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Brown, moved that the council hear the
remaining public testimony and postpone the final two items to April 27. Roll call vote:
the motion passed unanimously.
Dennis Casady
, 1312 Lincoln Street, urged the City to work with SCS to preserve the stadium. He
acknowledged the site was not in the list of projects to be funded through the Parks and Open Space Bond
but he believed that was because it was not available at that time. He pointed out the Arlie property,
recently purchased by the City for a park, was not listed either. Mr. Casady noted the many public
historic structures lost to demolition and the fact many of the remaining historic structures were privately
owned. He advocated for preservation of the stadium because Eugene lacked historic structures. He
believed the SCS proposal represented an opportunity for Eugene to save a publicly owned historic
structure.
Scott Landfield
, 2425 Willamette Street, commended City Manager Ruiz and his ability to bring
different parties together. He wanted to see the YMCA and SCS collaborate on the site. He believed
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 12
Regular Meeting
there were many residents who would like to invest in the proposal. He said the City decision would
determine the fate of Civic Stadium. He did not want to give his neighborhood away to out-of-town
developers.
Mike Roberts
, 1919 Myers Road, discussed how the proposed “Civic Village” concept suggested for the
site by Master Development fit within the framework of the Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene. The
proposal provided economic opportunities through new jobs; provided affordable housing for all income
levels; provided services needed for the neighborhood to become a 20-minute neighborhood; promoted
compact urban development and efficient transportation options with a mix of uses in close proximity;
protected and enhanced neighborhood livability through the use of transition areas between uses and the
existing residential uses; protected and enhanced local resources by precluding the need for UGB
expansion; and created a pilot opportunity to test the implementation of Envision Eugene.
Steve Master
, 835 East Park Street, said his proposal for the redevelopment of Civic Stadium included
the provision of a public space, connectivity, and jobs for the entire community. He suggested if the
council wished to hear the voices of the people, it would put the issue out for a vote. He proposed to
move Civic Stadium to another nearby location to preserve the structure and provide the community with
an economic development opportunity.
rd
David Zupan
, 870 West 23 Avenue, supported the preservation of Civic Stadium, which he termed an
endangered legacy from the New Deal. He said the stadium was built by the Works Progress
Administration and one of many projects designed to lift the country out of the Great Depression by
providing work as well as by reflecting the language that Franklin Roosevelt used to keep the country
united. He called on the council to support the project which provided the greatest benefit for most
citizens. Mr. Zupan believed that a combined SCS and YMCA project would serve the greatest public
good. He also endorsed earlier requests for more homeless camping spaces and portable toilets for the
homeless.
th
Jon Lauch
, 715 West 4 Avenue, 4J School District Facilities Director, reviewed the timeline for the
school district’s decision regarding Civic Stadium.
th
Greg Giesy
, 42 West 19 Avenue, FAN Board member, urged the City to partner with SCS to preserve
Civic Stadium. He believed other proposals for the site, if built, would worsen existing traffic conditions
in the neighborhood. Mr. Giesy said if the west wall of Civic Stadium was demolished it would allow
noise to travel up College Hill into the neighborhood. In addition, the City would have to manage the
water runoff coming off College Hill. He believed City involvement was the only way to get SCS and the
YMCA to come together for a good solution.
Lonnie McCullough
, 1350 Charnelton Street, #6, emphasized the importance that the City partner with
SCS to preserve Civic Stadium and continue to make it available to the community. He said the proposal
would result in a community recreation center in the heart of community. He suggested that the City
could use the proposal as an opportunity to expand the Amazon Community Center. Mr. McCullough
believed the design could be refined to meet the needs of the City’s Library, Recreation, and Cultural
Services Department as well as the uses already identified. He asked that the council authorize City
Manager Ruiz to move forward with the acquisition using funds from the Parks and Open Space bond.
Becki Hawk
, 2030 McLean Boulevard, supported the acquisition of the Civic Stadium site using money
from the Parks and Open Space bond. She believed preservation of the stadium was in the best interest of
the neighborhood. She found the Fred Meyer proposal the least appropriate and believed the apartments
included in the project would add to local traffic problems. The area was already well-served with
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 13
Regular Meeting
grocery stores and apartment complexes. She supported the YMCA and was disappointed it was
unwilling to work with SCS because she thought there was room for both uses on the site. She thought
the City’s partnership with SCS could trigger other sources of financial support. The end result could be
preservation of the stadium and a new home for the YMCA. She suggested Fred Meyer could consider
the current YMCA location for a store and apartments.
Tom Halferty
, 4510 Manzanita Street, discussed how the SCS proposal meshed with the Seven Pillars of
Envision Eugene with emphasis on the pillar related to economic opportunities for all community
members. He tied increased tourism opportunities to the “pod” of fields that would be created by the SCS
proposal.
Tom Brandt
, 37056 Boiler Creek Road, Springfield, discussed his success with past efforts that were at
first opposed but later turned out to be successful, such as Saturday Market. He expressed support for the
SCS proposal as a life apprenticeship learning center.
th
Earl Erb
, 981 West 8 Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Professional Developmental Football League,
which hoped to expand to Oregon and wanted to play games at a redeveloped Civic Stadium. He
described the scope of the league, which planned an expansion team in Eugene next year. He said the
stadium would provide affordable opportunities for families to view football games as well as job
opportunities for local college football players who had not been drafted by other pro leagues.
Yodin Bocahaliv
, 4989 Hunters View Drive, was present to represent the local soccer community,
particularly youth. He emphasized the need for sports fields to accommodate soccer teams and spoke of
the difficulty of finding fields. He believed that Civic Stadium could fill some of that demand. He said
his club and Kidsports would love to rent the facility and he believed it could accommodate tournaments
and high school sports events.
Kevin Matthews
, PO Box 1588, Eugene, advocated for the City to partner with SCS to preserve Civic
Stadium. He feared that the Fred Meyer proposal would damage the small businesses in south Eugene.
He believed the site could accommodate both the stadium and the YMCA.
Carlis Nixon
, 1556 Wilson Court, expressed support for the SCS proposal because it would make the
facility available to all citizens for recreational activities. She opposed the Fred Meyer proposal because
the area had sufficient shopping and “we don’t need or want” a business indistinguishable from others.
She believed whatever occurred on the site should have a “unique Eugene” flavor. Ms. Nixon found the
area “charmingly authentic” and called on the council to assist in its preservation.
nd
Sheryl Engerbert-Scott
, 1065 East 22 Avenue, did not want to lose Civic Stadium in order to get a new
YMCA. Eugene needed recreational facilities. She believed the City had neglected recreational sports.
Her children struggled for playing fields. Eugene had doubled in size since she was a child but had not
kept up with the demand for organized sports. Ms. Engerbert-Scott said the stadium had the potential for
other uses. She suggested it could be place for young people to meet safely; for example, the stadium
could house an outdoor evening theater where children could go.
Beverly Smith
, 2150 Onyx Street, executive director of Kidsports, said there were many local children
looking for places to practice and play safely. She asked the council to help preserve open space for
recreational use, particularly given the budget cuts facing the school districts and limiting their ability to
provide after-school activities for youth. A centrally located indoor sports facility would do wonders to
help her organization meet the needs of local youth and their families.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 14
Regular Meeting
Brandon Spencer-Hartle
, 795 Willamette Street, #203, representing the Historic Preservation League of
Oregon, noted that the stadium was nominated for recognition on his organization’s “Most Endangered
Places List.” He expected an announcement in May. He asked the council to keep in mind that “this
place matters.”
Phil Carrol
l, 1054 Van Buren Street, urged the council to work toward the preservation of Civic
Stadium. He suggested that history was less about places and objects and more about the stories that were
told. He suggested the process was about binding the past to the future and capitalizing on a community
investment and continuing the “wonderful story.” Mr. Carroll acknowledged that the future of Civic
Stadium was not a council decision, but he believed that was true only in the narrowest administrative
sense. He wanted the council to take on an educational role and “teach by example” and “do the right
thing.”
Mark Callahan
, 3621 Mahlon Avenue, advocated for the SCS proposal. He spoke of his history with the
stadium, where he spent many hours with his late grandfather watching the Eugene Emeralds play
baseball. All he had of that time was his memories. He believed Civic Stadium was part of the local
culture and suggested the intangible benefits of keeping the stadium intact outweighed other short-term
financial considerations. Mr. Callahan said residents wanted to share the history and mystique of the
stadium with their children in the future.
Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing.
7. ACTION:
Adoption of an Ordinance Concerning a Four-Year Income Tax for Schools; Adding
Sections 2.2000 to 2.2038 to the Eugene Code, 1971
This item was postponed to April 27, 2011.
8. ACTION:
Adoption of Resolution 5029 Amending Resolution No. 4281 Providing an Additional Way
for Property Owners Subject to a Crest Drive Area Street Improvement Project Assessment
to Qualify for the Street Subsidy Program
This item was postponed to April 27, 2011.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2011 Page 15
Regular Meeting
ATTACHMENT C
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
McNutt Room—City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
April 27, 2011
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Pat Farr.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the April 27, 2011, work session of the Eugene City Council to
order.
A. ACTION:
Adoption of 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
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to adopt Council Bill 5046 regarding a four-
year income tax for schools, adding sections 2.2000 to 2.2038 to the Eugene Code, 1971;
and providing a sunset date.
Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Section 2.0026 by adding the
following sentence: “However, nothing in the rules may require an employer to withhold
wages for this income tax.”
Mr. Clark indicated his intent in offering the motion was to ensure that an employer could, but was not
required, to withhold wages for the income tax.
Ms. Ortiz determined from Finance Director Sue Cutsogeorge that staff was in discussions with the City
of Portland about the potential that agency would administer the tax.
Mr. Zelenka noted criticism that the City did not know the cost of administering the tax, which he did not
think was true. He asked Ms. Cutsogeorge if she was aware of anything that made her question the City’s
original cost estimates. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no.
Mayor Piercy indicated the proponents of the tax were informed by the City of Portland the cost to
administer the tax could be five percent of the amount collected. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that figure was
based on the experience of Multnomah County, and Eugene’s experience may be different. She added
that in addition to those costs, there would be other activities Eugene staff would undertake to administer
the tax.
Responding to a question from Mr. Brown about whether Multnomah County required employer
withholding, Ms. Cutsogeorge said Multnomah County, the City of Portland, and the benefitting schools
had to withhold, and other withholding was optional. There were few Multnomah County employers who
chose to withhold the tax. Mr. Brown did not think withholding would be a burden for most employers
given the function was routine and computerized.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 1
Work Session
Mr. Brown observed some of the cost of the tax was presented as avoidance and evasion, and he
questioned whether those represented true costs. He believed the council, through adjustments to the
rates, had eliminated most of the evasion and avoidance potential in the tax.
Mr. Farr said at level of five percent, the cost of administering the tax through Multnomah County was
$1.2 million. He determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that those administrative costs were included in the
estimate of gross revenues that would not go to the schools ($7 million) because of tax evasion,
avoidance, or exemption. The net amount that would go to schools was $16.8 million.
Ms. Taylor asked what difference the amendment made. Mr. Klein said the amendment guaranteed that
the City Manager could not authorize rules to require employers to withhold. Ms. Taylor asked who
benefited from the amendment. Mr. Klein suggested that both employers and City staff benefited. He
noted that the ordinance still allowed for voluntary withholding.
Mr. Clark suggested that because addresses could be located inside the Eugene city limits but the
residents living at them were not subject to the tax, it would be burdensome to require employers to
withhold.
Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, City Manager Ruiz confirmed that it was not his intent to
require employer withholding.
The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend Section 3 by adding the following
sentence: “It is the intent of the City Council that the sunset shall not be extended or
repealed unless approved by the voters.”
Mr. Zelenka believed the addition of the sentence created an additional political hurdle for a future City
Council when it contemplated the extension of the tax. Mayor Piercy supported Mr. Zelenka’s intent.
Mr. Farr determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that the added sentence would not legally bind
future councils.
Mr. Brown concurred with Mr. Zelenka. He said people were spreading false fears that a future council
would decide to extend the tax indefinitely without referring it to the ballot. He pointed out the council
could have done that already but had chosen not to do so. He had a difficult time believing that a future
council would extend the tax without referring it to the voters. Mr. Brown suggested that voters could ask
those campaigning for council office if they would extend the tax unilaterally or refer it to the ballot. He
speculated the answer would be that they would refer it to the ballot.
Mr. Clark supported the amendment as clarifying the intent of the council. He acknowledged future
councilors were not bound by the action. Speaking to Mr. Brown’s remarks, Mr. Clark said he did not
think it was a false fear that a future council would not allow the sunset to expire. He pointed to the
example of the City’s gas tax, which was intended to expire but which had been extended by a council
majority.
Mr. Zelenka recalled that the council had included a sunset clause in the gas tax in the event the State
fixed the transportation funding problem, and when the State did not do so the City was forced to make
the tax permanent.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 2
Work Session
Mayor Piercy observed that the proposed tax was modeled on the Multnomah County tax, which had
sunsetted after four years.
The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy solicited comments on the main motion.
Mr. Clark said while the quality of schools meant a great deal to him, he opposed the motion. He recalled
his preference for taking action to assist the schools in the fall following the completion of the legislative
session. He did not think the measure was an effective way to help the schools and thought the tax could
potentially harm the schools. He said it could harm the economy and families.
Mr. Farr emphasized the fact that despite the amendment just passed, the council could not stop a future
council from extending the tax. He said residents had fears that the council would change things that past
councils had done and even things that voters had voted upon. He had concerns about the lack of firm
information about the costs of administration of the tax. Mr. Farr had also preferred taking action in
November, which would have given staff more time to clarify the details of the tax. He questioned
adding to the income tax burden of residents when they already paid some of the highest income tax rates
in the country.
Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Farr about the timing of the issue. He continued to have questions about the
mechanics of the tax that staff had been too burdened with work to determine. He also continued to
believe the tax was unfair because of the fact that many students lived outside the city limits and their
families would not be subject to the tax. In addition, some Eugene residents were inside the Junction City
School District and it made no sense to tax those residents for Eugene schools. The tax would not fix the
problem, would be a temporary stop-gap, and it was possible passage of the tax would make it easier for
the State to avoid addressing the problem. He also questioned the emergency nature of the problem given
how long it had been in existence.
Mr. Zelenka averred Oregon had high income taxes because it lacked a sales tax. He said no tax was
perfect. However, he believed the proposed tax was workable and it accomplished what the council was
trying to accomplish. He concurred that education funding was a State responsibility but the State had
failed to solve the problem and did not appear to have a plan to do so. Mr. Zelenka declared “enough is
enough.” He did not want to see shorter school years or larger class sizes. He believed the structure of
the tax was fair and equitable. It was not fair to require those below the poverty line to pay more, and the
ordinance removed the burden from those residents and placed it on those who could afford it.
Speaking to the gas tax mentioned by Mr. Clark, Mr. Brown pointed out the council agreed to extend it
unanimously. He believed the most unfair thing would be to not pass the ordinance because it would
increase classroom sizes and shorten the school years. He believed the system was reaching a crisis point,
as evidenced by the loss of 100 teachers and 10 school days and increased class sizes. Mr. Brown
emphasized the difference that smaller class sizes made to education.
Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown about the importance of quality schools and about the
consequences of fewer school days and larger classes. However, the council was only considering one
side of the balance sheet. He believed the solution was cost control, and that was a legislative function.
He said if local school districts could do more to control their costs, such as the cost of PERS and
employee compensation, he believed Eugene would have world class schools. However, that was not the
case. Because of that, he did not think the council should try to solve the schools’ funding problem. It
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 3
Work Session
might have good intentions, but it could do something that harmed the schools by continuing the existing
governance and funding structure.
Mr. Pryor did not think anyone was comfortable with the proposed tax. He said it would be great if the
school funding problem could be fixed in a different way, but that was not going to happen. The
legislature had failed to act for 20 years. He did not necessarily like the proposed tax but supported it
because he did not want to harm kids. He said the school districts needed to reinvent themselves in
significant ways. The tax was a way to buy time for that process. He would have preferred to wait for the
November ballot, but the proponents wanted the measure on the May ballot and he was willing to
accommodate them. Mr. Pryor supported the motion but did not see the tax as the ultimate fix.
Ms. Taylor said the temporary tax was all the community had. She said teachers could not do their jobs
in the conditions they faced. She also emphasized the importance of a healthy, well-funded education
system to the economy. She believed the community was facing an emergency and while it was not ideal,
the tax was a partial temporary solution.
Mayor Piercy said the tax was designed to preclude some of the damage from proposed reductions. She
pointed out that there an oversight committee to ensure that the funds were spent appropriately. There
was transparency and accountability built into the tax.
The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Farr voting no.
B. WORK SESSION:
Adoption of Resolution 5029 Amending Resolution 4281 Providing an Additional Way for
Property Owners Subject to a Crest Drive Area Street Improvement Project Assessment to
Qualify for the Street Subsidy Program
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to adopt Resolution 5029 amending
Resolution 4281 providing an additional way for property owners subject to the Crest
Drive Area street improvement project assessment to qualify for the Street Subsidy
Program.
Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Klein explained that resolution allowed those affected by
the Crest Drive Area street improvement project and who had experienced a change in economic status to
apply for the program. The council would be changing the rules of the program for residents subject to
the Crest Drive assessment.
Ms. Ortiz indicated her opposition to the motion because it changed the program rules for a targeted
group and the benefits had not been available to residents of her ward similarly impacted by road
improvement projects.
Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, City Engineer Mark Schoening explained that the resolution
would not change the allocation of project costs but would reduce the assessment for those who qualified,
which increased the City’s share. The funding to reduce the assessment came from the Low-Income
Subsidy Fund. Mr. Poling asked if the money in that fund could be directed to other projects. Mr.
Schoening did not know. He noted that the fund was established in 1991 for the purpose of subsidizing
assessment projects and now contained about $35,000. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr.
Poling, Mr. Schoening did not recall that any money being added to the fund since its establishment. Mr.
Poling asked if the amount of money in the fund would be increased after the Crest Drive project was
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 4
Work Session
paid off. Mr. Schoening acknowledged that staff had not discussed that question. Mr. Poling was
concerned about that as he expected other projects would require such subsidies.
Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz about changing the program rules and indicated his opposition to the
motion.
Mr. Clark shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Poling but he also acknowledged greater
job volatility in the community. He was generally in favor of adjusting the criteria to account for a
person’s current economic status. However, he was challenged by the fact the resolution appeared to
address one area of the community and a single project. Mr. Clark indicated he could support the motion
if changed to read “. . . for property owners subject to any future street improvement project assessment
to qualify for the Street Subsidy Program.” Mr. Klein indicated that would require another resolution
because there were no other street assessment projects where income as of April 11, 2011, was an
important factor. If the council chose that approach, it needed to direct staff to produce another
resolution, which would result in further delay to the Crest Drive assessments. He indicated the council
would act on the actual assessments once applications for the subsidy had been approved.
Mr. Clark said he was unsure about his position on the motion given his concern about changing the rules
as proposed and his concern about the affected residents.
Mr. Zelenka suggested the council could adjust the dates for future street assessment projects to
accomplish what Mr. Clark wanted to see happen. Mr. Schoening indicated that City policy would have
to be changed to accomplish that. Mr. Zelenka recalled that the council had recently changed the code to
increase the categories of those who could defer street assessments, which he suggested was also
changing the rules in midstream. He did not see much difference between that action and what the
council was considering now.
Mr. Zelenka thanked Ms. Taylor for bringing the issue up because it was a real issue for many residents
who had lost their jobs.
Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Schoening that 24 people affected by the Crest Drive project had qualified
for the subsidy for a total of $171,000. Mr. Farr determined from Mr. Schoening that there was no
difference between the project in question and the Elmira Street project in terms of the project assessment
structure. Some residents on Elmira qualified for the low-income subsidy while others financed the
improvement through the City. Mr. Schoening acknowledged those residents’ financial situations could
have changed in the meantime.
Mr. Pryor thought the City’s basic policy was a good one. He agreed that it was not usually a good thing
to change the rules in mid-stream because it created an appearance of inconsistency, but believed that
extraordinary economic circumstances justified the resolution in this instance. He would want more
discussion if additional changes were to occur.
Ms. Taylor said the proposal merely required the City to consider current, not past income. She
advocated for additional discussion of the subject.
The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Pryor, and Mr.
Brown voting yes; Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Clark, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Poling voting no. Mayor
Piercy cast a vote of support and the motion passed a final vote of 5:4.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 5
Work Session
C. WORK SESSION:
Ward Redistricting
Mr. Clark stated his company worked closely with a company that created what he termed the “national
gold standard” for redistricting software. He had not been involved in any conversations about the City’s
redistricting process and would not profit if the City chose to employ that software.
City Manager’s Office Division Manager Keli Osborn joined the council for the item. She sought
direction from the council regarding oversight of the ward redistricting process and feedback on the
timeline, which was included in the meeting packet as Attachment D, 2011 Ward Redistricting--Timeline.
She referred the council to Attachment E, 2011 Ward Redistricting—Criteria for Drawing Eugene Ward
Boundaries. She recommended that the criteria be discussed further by the council and tested with the
community in May 2011 through an interested parties list, a Web survey, and a drop-in forum. Following
that, staff would return to the council in June with draft criteria to guide drawing of the boundaries.
Ms. Osborn called the council’s attention to Attachment C, 2011 Ward Redistricting—Process
Alternatives, which outlined the oversight and public process options.
Ms. Osborn noted that Jason Dedrick, Sarah Zaleski, and Laura Hammond of the Planning and
Development Department would assist in the process, and the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
could serve a consultative role. She reported as part of the public outreach process, Pat Hocken of the
League of Women Voters as well as a representative of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB)
were present, and the City had also reached out to many other organizations.
Ms. Osborn called the council’s attention to Attachment B, a ward map showing the locations of the
residences of current councilors and Eugene Water & Electric Board commissioners. She also called
attention to Attachment A, which provided demographic information about each ward.
In regard to the first request for direction, the council unanimously concurred that that it would oversee
the ward redistricting process rather than establish a separate committee. Councilors also concurred with
the timeline, with some objection from Ms. Taylor because of her belief the process should be completed
in August so potential candidates would know what ward they were in and what council seats they should
run for before September 8. Mr. Poling wanted to have the process completed by the time the council
went on its summer recess if that was possible.
Mr. Farr expressed interest in knowing why Portland State University’s population figures were different
from the population figures provided for this work session. For example, he recalled that PSU had
projected a lower population for Ward 3 while the 2010 US Census data for Eugene showed an increase
compared to some wards. Ms. Osborn reminded the council that staff had cautioned in February that the
PSU figures were preliminary and that Ward 3 included group housing situations that were not fully
reflected in those numbers. She said for the purpose of the US Census, college students who lived in
Eugene were counted as Eugene residents though they may not always be registered as Eugene voters,
which might also add to the discrepancy. Mr. Farr expressed concern that Ward 3 as currently established
could have a lower percentage of voters than other wards, for example Ward 6. Ms. Osborn reminded the
council that redistricting also was intended to provide equal protection under the law to residents, and that
included persons of all ages and non-voters.
Ms. Ortiz asked staff to assist the councilors with their outreach to the community.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 6
Work Session
Mayor Piercy recommended that groups with interest in the process contact Ms. Osborn. Ms. Osborn
noted that interested residents could also consult the City’s Web site, which included a link to information
about the redistricting process.
Mr. Clark wanted the outcome of the council’s efforts to be put out for public comment.
Speaking to Mr. Farr’s remarks, Mr. Clark believed the City was legally obligated to use US Census
Bureau figures. He noted that the bureau would adjust census numbers for only three reasons. Following
the 2000 census, the bureau granted only 39 appeals for adjustments in the entire country.
Also speaking to Mr. Farr’s remarks, Mr. Zelenka added that as many as 3,500 people in Ward 3 had
perhaps not been counted in PSU figures, which added to the discrepancy between counts that Mr. Farr
had mentioned.
The council briefly discussed the timeframes for the State and County processes. , Ms. Osborn pledged
that staff would work as quickly as possible to get as much done as possible by the August recess, but she
cautioned that it can be difficult to get on the council agenda, summer could be a challenging time for
public involvement, and coordination with the State and County may be desirable, so she was reluctant to
offer guarantees. She would continue to seek council feedback when possible.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to designate the Eugene City Council as the
review and decision-making body for ward redistricting criteria, scenarios, and process.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the work session at 1:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 27, 2011 Page 7
Work Session
ATTACHMENT D
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber—City Hall
777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon
May 16, 2011
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the May 16, 2011, public hearing of the Eugene City Council to
order.
1. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Establishing the S-HBS Historic Brunner-Schmitz House Special Area Zone
and Amending the Eugene Zoning Map
City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced the topic, stating that the public hearing concerned a zone change
establishing a Historic Special Area Zone for the Brunner-Schmitz House and property on a .44 acre
parcel at 1410 River Road. The zone would allow limited commercial and residential uses on the
property. He reported that the Eugene Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of
the application.
Associate Planner Steven Ochs explained that the application concerned a house recently designated as a
Historic Landmark. The property owner subsequently applied for a Special Area Zone, which allowed
uses that contributed to the historic preservation of the property. The proposed uses for the property were
limited to residential and commercial uses, including general office and restaurant uses.
Mayor Piercy called on the council for conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. There were none.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the
public hearing.
Councilor Brown determined from Mr. Ochs that the existing zone and current historic designation
limited the property to residential uses, including R-2, Medium-Density Residential. Mr. Ochs said that
the development under the R-2 zoning could be in conflict with the historic designation. He further
clarified that the property owner sought the zone; the City was not requiring it. Councilor Brown asked
what the property owner intended to do with the property. Mr. Ochs believed an accounting office was
planned in the short term but it was possible a restaurant could eventually be located on the site.
Councilor Brown asked if the property’s zoning could be changed to commercial. Mr. Ochs said no, as
the property was designated medium-density residential in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2011 Page 1
Public Hearing
Area Plan (Metro Plan). It would require a Metro Plan amendment or a planned unit development
application and approval to permit commercial uses similar to those the property owner was requesting.
Councilor Brown noted that the ordinance spoke to the provision of special treatment and protection for
the property so that the uses permitted and the restrictions imposed would preserve the landmark’s
defining historic features and allow for their rehabilitation. He asked if that could occur without the
ordinance. Mr. Ochs said yes. The owner could retain the current zoning but would need to retain the
building in its existing state or could build a multi-family development on the site.
Councilor Brown suggested the ordinance was necessary for the property to be used commercially. Mr.
Ochs indicated there were other options, but the option in question required the retention of the house’s
historic features.
Responding to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Ochs confirmed that the house would have to stay
intact to retain its historic designation. The property owner must go through an approval process for any
alterations to be made. Councilor Ortiz asked if the site could accommodate additional businesses or
multi-family development. Mr. Ochs said yes, but the new zone would restrict additional new
development to a duplex, which would also need to go through the alterations approval process.
Councilor Ortiz was pleased to see the owner take advantage of the zone, which she hoped would keep
the historic house intact for a long time.
Mayor Piercy determined no councilor objected to closing the public record. She closed the public record
for the application.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
A Special Ordinance Granting an Exemption to the Application of Section 6.200 of the
Eugene Code, 1971 (Ordinances to Renew Five-Year Exception to Application for
Controlled Ecological Burning)
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item, reporting that the West Eugene Wetlands Program had a long
history of using controlled burns to manage and restore wetland habitat. The City had employed
controlled burns in west Eugene since 1986. The program had sought a series of five-year exemptions to
the City’s ban on open burning to accomplish the burns; the most recent exemption expired in December
2010 and staff was seeking another exemption through the proposed ordinance. City Manager Ruiz said
such burns allowed the City and its partners in the program to control non-native plant species and protect
and restore native plant habitats. In addition, it provided the Eugene Fire & EMS Department with
practice in fire training.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, she closed the public hearing
and called on the council for questions and comments.
Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Natural Areas Restoration Supervisor Trevor Taylor
described the ecological benefits of fire to the wetlands habitat that the City was trying to protect and
restore. Councilor Zelenka asked how many acres were proposed to be burned. Mr. Taylor responded
that the program proposed a maximum of 250 acres per year within the city limits and 75 acres outside
the city limits and inside UGB; historically, however, the program had never succeeded in burning that
many acres. Under the last exemption, the most acreage burned in single year was about 125 acres
because of weather restrictions on burns.
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2011 Page 2
Public Hearing
Councilor Zelenka asked how the program controlled the risk of such a burn getting out of control. Mr.
Taylor said all prescribed burns were done in partnership with other agencies, including all the land
managers in west Eugene, including The Nature Conservancy, City of Eugene, Army Corps of Engineers,
and the Bureau of Land Management. They combined their resources to accomplish the burns. The
Oregon Department of Forestry was also involved. There was a detailed plan for each burn identifying all
resources required, including people and equipment. There were also extensive backup plans.
Councilor Zelenka asked how the acres burned by the program compared to the acres burned for grass
seed production. Mr. Taylor said the program’s burns were much smaller and the methods used were
different to reduce the impact of the burn. He did not know how the acreage compared.
Councilor Zelenka indicated support for the ordinance.
Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy about the air monitoring that occurred during controlled
burns and what citizens could do if they felt a negative effect from a controlled burn, Mr. Taylor noted
that the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) regulated such burns. The program worked
closely with LRAPA staff on the day of the burn to ensure weather conditions were appropriate. Staff
took weather readings every 15 minutes throughout the burn to monitor conditions, and tracked the
direction of the smoke plume. Mr. Taylor further reported that the City provided notice to residents living
within a half-mile of the burn. Citizens could contact the City for more information or to let City staff
know of smoke incursions near them.
Councilor Brown determined from Mr. Taylor that the burning that occurred was staggered and did not
occur all at once, and that the City attempted to burn each parcel once every five years.
Councilor Ortiz confirmed with Mr. Taylor that the City used the City Fire & EMS Department to
oversee its burns. Responding to a follow-up question from Councilor Ortiz, Mr. Taylor also confirmed
that controlled burns were a multi-jurisdictional effort. The Nature Conservancy contracted with private
fire suppression entities while the public agencies in the partnership had their own fire fighting resources
and backup.
There being no further questions, Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 16, 2011 Page 3
Public Hearing