Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A-Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 13, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the July 21, 2004, Work session, July 26, 2004, Work Session, July 26, 2004, City Council Meeting, July 28, 2004, Work Session, August 9, 2004, Work Session, August 9, 2004, City Council Meeting, August 11, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. July 21, 2004, Work Session B. July 26, 2004, Work Session C. July 26, 2004, City Council Meeting D. July 28, 2004, Work Session E. August 9, 2004, Work Session F. August 9, 2004, City Council Meeting G. August 11, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040913\S0409132A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 21, 2004 12 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon. His Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: November 2004 Bond Issue Options City Manager Dennis Taylor said the item was a continuation of the council's discussion at its July 14, 2004, meeting regarding the proposed Civic Center, City Hall, and Community Safety facilities. He said that staff had developed responses to a number of issues that were raised at that meeting, as well as addressed a new option. He asked Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson to summarize the information in the packet. Mr. Carlson thanked City staff members Sue Cutsogeorge, Glen Svendsen, and Mike Penwell for the comprehensive work they had done in developing the information for the agenda packet within a short timeframe. He expressed appreciation for the council's previous direction on civic vision policy principles and on siting of the Civic Center facilities on City-owned land along 8th Avenue. He asked the council to provide direction on the next step for the Civic Center vision, particularly for the Community Safety Building and City Hall. Mr. Carlson briefly reviewed the options and noted that Option A would allow the City to build a new Community Safety Building that would meet current needs with internal financial resources. He noted that there was some risk associated with some of the resources and referred to details in the Agenda Item Summary. He said the new Option A+ was developed following comments by a number of councilors about the high cost of redeveloping the Lane County "butterfly" lot. He said the assumption was that Option A would be built and then the voters would be asked for a $6.79 million General Obligation (GO) bond measure to add space for growth, additional space for victims' services agencies, improvements to the Park Blocks and Civic Street improvements. Mr. Carlson said the primary difference between options A+ and B was the elimination of the purchase, demolition, and replacement of parking at the Lane County butterfly lot. He said that Option A+ did include improvements on the existing Farmers Market site on the northwest comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street. He said that preliminary discussions with the county administrator had indicated that was acceptable to the County. Mr. Carlson said that Option B would add more elements from the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee, particularly the butterfly lot. He said it would completely restore the northwest MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 1 Work Session comer of 8th Avenue and Oak Street as one of the Park Blocks. He indicated that the option would require asking voters for a $12.6 million bond measure. Mr. Carlson explained that Option C was included to show what a 20-year Community Safety facility, including Civic Center amenities and consolidation of all functions, would cost. Two financial strategies for Option C were provided; one strategy had a high level of internal funding and the other had minimal internal funding. Mr. Carlson concluded his review with Option D, which showed the cost of replacing all the functions in the existing City Hall and consolidation of other downtown City office uses, including two new buildings on current City-owned land. He said some additional internal funding was possible in that option based on future facility reserve contributions; however, the option would still result in a $70 million bond measure. Mr. Carlson said that all five options fit within the debt policy limits established by the Budget Committee, but Option D would leave the City with little debt capacity for several years. He said that staff recommended Option A+ and action had been tentatively scheduled for July 26, 2004, on a civic facility revenue measure should the council provide direction to proceed. Responding to issues that were raised since the July 14, 2004, meeting, Mr. Carlson said there were no designs for either the Community Safety Building or City Hall, but staff intent was to design the facilities with horizontal expansion capacity. Regarding the current City Hall building, he remarked that remodeling the fire station space for office use was not feasible due to the cost and the fact that it did not meet current seismic standards, although the Fire Marshal's space was usable. He said the existing police space could be remodeled for offices, particularly if use was intended for five years or less. He said that City Hall accounted for 52 percent of deficiencies in the last facilities report, while accounting for only 12 percent of space. Mr. Carlson commented that availability of the current Federal Building had been discussed with the General Services Administration (GSA) and GSA maintained the position that all space in the building was still needed for federal functions. The City remained interested in courtroom space at the Federal Building for the Municipal Court once the new Federal Courthouse was completed. The Federal Building did not meet current seismic standards, could not be used for police functions without substantial rehabilitation, and provided no secure parking currently on the site. Mr. Carlson reiterated that staff recommended the suggested motion be changed to reflect Option A+ instead of Option B and requested direction to prepare the appropriate resolution for the July 26, 2004, meeting. Mr. Poling observed that, ideally, Option D was the appropriate direction to plan for the future, but the cost was prohibitive and unlikely to be supported by taxpayers. He believed the City needed to move forward with a new Community Safety Building and supported Option A+ as the most realistic approach to achieving that goal. Ms. Solomon asked how much of Option A+ would be internally funded. Mr. Carlson replied that $29 million of a $36 million project would be internally funded. Ms. Solomon said the project would have considerable credibility if the City could contribute that amount. She said she had reflected on a number of reasons why Option D was desirable, but thought it was unlikely that most voters would support a new City Hall. She expressed strong MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 2 Work Session support for a new police facility, particularly combining support services through social services agencies with law enforcement functions. She said she was inclined to support Option A+. Mr. Meisner remarked that Option D was what the City needed, but he agreed that it was not feasible at the present time for the November ballot. He supported Option A+ and expressed hope that the education process for the public regarding the City's long-term facility requirements and the need for Option D would be undertaken promptly, regardless of what was placed on the November ballot. He noted that most people were familiar with the concept of spending more than a structure was worth for maintenance and City Hall was approaching that point. He agreed that the butterfly lot project could be done with other revenue sources such as urban renewal district or parking funds. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Mr. Meisner's comments. He said that past councils had recognized the limited lifespan of the current City Hall and worked with staff to develop long-range plans to meet facility needs and identify financing strategies. He congratulated the council and staff for moving in the right direction and said he could support options A+ through D and while Option D was the best choice to address long-term needs, the timing was poor and he would consider options A+ and B. Ms. Nathanson commented that she would like to implement the Civic Facilities Visioning Committee's recommendation, but recognized that it was not possible to accomplish it all at once or in one project. She felt that Option A+ would begin the process of continuing improvements to downtown and City facilities in a sensible way that conserved money and moved the City forward toward its vision. She stated her support for options A+, B, or others, but Option D was too ambitious. She expressed concern about the description of Option A+ and whether it would limit options for space occupied by other entities in the facility. Mr. Kelly commented that there was no question that City Hall needed to be replaced and all of the arguments for replacing police facilities also applied to replacement of City Hall general facilities. He said he could not support Option A+ because of concerns that future expansion might never occur and the building as planned only provided for space needs to 2018. He said he was apprehensive about the chance for any measure to win on the November ballot. He stated that if any measure was placed on the November ballot, it ought to be Option D. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not think any option should be placed on the ballot until 2006. She said she preferred Option B of those presented. She said that the public should be allowed to vote on the use of any internal funds for such projects. She encouraged the council to consider placing Option B on the ballot in 2006, with a different location instead of directly across 8th Avenue. Ms. Bettman declared she was pleased to see support for Option D as any other option was short- sighted because of the potential to prejudice future ballot measures and the fact that the City's need for expanded capacity would not be fully met. She urged the council to demonstrate leadership by educating the public about the need for new City Hall and police facilities. She said she did not feel there was support in the community for either Option A+ or B. Mayor Torrey said he would support Option D if a majority of the council supported it, but asked where the funding for a campaign for the ballot measure would be obtained. He said that no one in the community had come forward in support of a large bond measure. He commented that as a practical matter, a new police facility would need to be built so that police functions could be moved out of City Hall and into a secure facility that met the seismic code, and he therefore saw MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 3 Work Session the value of Option A+ as a first step if Option D did not pass, as it would allow the City to maintain all of the rest of the options. He said the public support about the use of internal funds to build a new police facility was clear as public safety was essential. Ms. Taylor remarked that the need for a new City Hall was not a unanimous opinion and she was not convinced that the current building could not be retrofitted. She asked for an external, independent, expert opinion on whether the building could be retrofitted. She said it was as important to protect the people in City Hall from an earthquake as it was to protect police personnel. She reiterated her position that citizens should be able to vote on the use of internal funds. Mr. Pap6 stated, in response to Ms. Taylor's comments, that the issue of retrofitting City Hall had been investigated in 1999 and the estimated cost at that time was approximately $8 million for seismic retrofitting that did not include additional space. With respect to a vote on the use of internal funds, he said that councilors were elected to represent citizens and at some point needed to show leadership, as they did with the public library bond measure. Referring to Option B and providing space for agency partners in a public service building, Mr. Pap~ asked why those parmers would not be charged rent or a rent equivalent. Mr. Carlson said the City's policy was to charge itself rent and the intent was the charge parmers a rental rate that would cover the cost of facility operations and maintenance. Mr. Kelly asked if lease-to-own calculations had been conducted for any of the options. Mr. Carlson said that staff had examined lease-to-own issues extensively. He said his recollection was that between $3 million and $4 millions dollars per year from general funds would be required to make lease-to-own payments on a police facility. Mr. Kelly asked for a more extensive analysis of the issue. He acknowledged the validity of Mayor Torrey's comments regarding funding for a campaign, but said there was some value to a campaign for complete replacement of City Hall. He said that such a campaign would be a different discussion with voters from those held previously about police buildings. He shared Ms. Taylor' s concerns about the negative perception of another measure for a police building and said that a broader conversation about the need to replace an inadequate facility could be helpful. He did not feel that Option A+ would pass because of current perceptions in the community about the Police Department. Mr. Carlson responded in support of Mayor Torrey's comments regarding reasons for constructing the police facility first. He said the Police Department was the largest user of space in City Hall and required a specialized facility that met enhanced seismic code standards. He said the other functions in City Hall were Municipal Court, the City Manager's Office, and Human Resource and Risk Services (HRRS). He said that all except Municipal Court could locate in generic office space. He said that Option A+ was a logical next step in the progression toward replacement of City Hall. Mr. Taylor commended the council and staff for their work since 2001 to begin the process with achievable goals, engaging the voters, identifying internal funding strategies, moving the Fire Station and some police functions, all while keeping the longer term goal of replacing City Hall as the vision. He hoped that the next logical step to bring City functions together and replace antiquated facilities could be taken. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Meisner said that if the motion to place Option D on the ballot was before the council he would vote for it, but not for the November 2004 ballot. He indicated that if the council wanted to present a consolidated package to the public it needed to start that process now and build support over the next two years. He commented that Option A+ made sense and required a minimum amount of support from the public, but he had mixed feelings because of the need to return in the future with another funding request. He urged the media to accurately represent the impact of Option A+ on the typical homeowner over the life of the bond measure. Ms. Bettman observed that it was obvious why the City preferred the incremental approach represented by Option A+, but it was "out of sync" with the community. She said she would not support any option except a modified version of Option D for a conjoined facility on the City Hall site that would combine all functions, current services, and victims' services and preserve the site across the street for a parking garage. She hoped that if the council was not prepared to support rebuilding City Hall in 2004, no action would be taken in order to conserve internal funds for two more years while working to bring the community up to the necessary level of understanding about the need to rebuild City Hall. She said that the entire package, with more internal funding, could then be placed on the November 2006 ballot. Ms. Nathanson asked for elaboration on the issue of parking and whether a parking structure could be located on the site across the street along with the police facility. She also asked whether building to capacity needs in 2018 would generate community opposition because of the short span of time before capacity needed to be expanded. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's question regarding parking, Mr. Carlson said that all options included the assumption that there would be a full layer of parking beneath each building. He said the police building would have secure parking beneath it and the area adjacent could be used for surface parking. Police Chief Bob Lehner said that Option A+ actually provided more options for the future than did Option D with respect to the Police Department aspect of building to meet 2018 needs. He said that as technology and the way police services were delivered changed, space needs could change. He illustrated his point with the precinct model of policing, which was not currently used by the City. He said that if a precinct model was used, space allocation as anticipated in Option A+ was sized well into the future beyond 2018 and a patrol capacity would be designed to be delivered somewhere other than that facility. He said that Option A+ could accommodate patrol needs through 2018, in addition to administration, investigation, and other support functions that would remain in that facility for the foreseeable long-term future. Mayor Torrey stated he could not support Ms. Bettman's proposal as housing police functions in a secure facility that met enhanced seismic standards was both a State and federal requirement and the City currently had no such facility available. He said that biggest cost overrun factor on large projects was inflation and the longer the City waited to construct a facility the more expensive it would become. Referring to Ms. Taylor's hope that the current City Hall could be remodeled, Mayor Torrey said that Option A+ provided that option, although he did not support remodeling because the cost was typically far greater than anticipated. He said that the City would have to deal with repercussions from the misconduct of two police officers regardless of whether a bond measure for a police facility was on the ballot and he had confidence that the City Manager, Police Chief, Police Commission, and City Council would address that separate issue in a straight forward manner and not use it as a reason not to proceed with a new facility. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly agreed with Chief Lehner that substations could be an attractive way to deliver services in the future, but commented that the City had struggled in past years to keep "storefront" satellite police facilities open. He did not feel that Option D eliminated the option of substations. He agreed with Mayor Torrey's remarks that the incidents of police officer misconduct was a separate matter, but was concerned that it was not separate in the voters' minds. He agreed with earlier comments regarding the difficulty of putting a City Hall replacement measure on the ballot in November 2004 and the suggestion that it be postponed until 2006. He asked whether police personnel could be temporarily located in a facility that did not meet seismic code requirements while a new facility was being built. Mike Penwell with Facilities Management replied that under Oregon law that was not possible. Mr. Taylor drew the council's attention to other finance measures scheduled for the ballot in 2006, specifically the possibility of a parks and open space bond issue and the library levy, and a tentatively scheduled discussion in 2008 about replacement of City Hall. He suggested that there was time to fully investigate the question of whether to renovate the current facility or move forward with a new facility and to have that conversation with the community well in advance of placing the issue on the ballot. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to direct staff to develop a bond measure for the November ballot based on the Civic Center Option A+, as described in new Attachment A. Ms. Bettman stated that she could not support the motion and was in favor of a modified Option D. She said that even if Option D failed in 2004, rebuilding City Hall was a new issue for the voters and the option could be returned to the ballot in 2006. She said that replacement of City Hall was the top capital project for the City and moving forward with Option A+ jeopardized the ability to rebuild City Hall in the future because internal funds would be exhausted. She said she preferred to have nothing on the ballot in 2004 in order to increase internal funds. She said she did not believe that $100,000 was necessary to campaign for Option D as there was not likely to be an organized opposition and if council members showed leadership by advocating for the measure and educating the community they could build momentum. She said there was no longer an urgent need to move personnel out of City Hall and no pressure to move forward immediately, allowing the opportunity to wait two years if necessary to increase internal funding. Mr. Pap~ referred to the recent parks and open space bond issue, which was well-publicized and well-received in the community, and noted that $70,000 was spent on that campaign. He agreed with Mayor Torrey's assessment of the estimated cost of $100,000 for a bond measure campaign. He asked if the project would be easier to finance if other agencies were paying market rate rents. Mr. Carlson said that charging agencies more rent would not generate a sufficient revenue stream to make up the difference of $6.79 million. Mr. Pap~ agreed that it was prudent to fully investigate a lease-to-own financing mechanism. He noted that Option D would use up to 98 percent of the City's bonding capacity. He asked how that would limit a parks and open space bond in two years. Mr. Carlson said the council would have to change the current policy established by the Budget Committee of one percent of real market value. He said the State law was three percent of real market value. Mr. Pap~ asked if changes to the policy would affect the City's bond rating. Finance and Court Services Director Cindi Hamm responded that the City's bond rating was very high because it was conservative with debt and the debt capacity policy was only one of the factors that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 6 Work Session determined the rating although changing it could have an affect and any change should be carefully considered. Ms. Nathanson remarked that changing the bond rating even slightly could cost several hundred thousand dollars. She contrasted options A+ and D by noting that the issues were what the City organization could afford and what the voters perceived they could afford. She said the City's uncertain revenue picture could send a mixed message if the voters were asked to fund a very large project and the City lost revenue for operations and was forced to lay off more staff. She expressed concern that Option D would expend voter goodwill and capacity to pay on one project. Ms. Taylor said she did not agree with the suggestion to combine the police facility with City Hall, but did agree that the initial pressure to move police personnel no longer existed. She also agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments about public perception regarding the Police Department and expressed confidence in Chief Lehner's ability to change that perception. She agreed that the parks measure should not be on the ballot at the same time as replacement of City Hall and suggested that the parks measure could pass in 2004, which would address improvements to the Park Blocks. She expressed the opinion that nothing related to a police facility should be placed on the ballot in 2004. Mr. Meisner remarked that measures should be placed on the ballot based on priorities, rather than opportunism and Option A+ represented opportunism. He said he also could not support Option D for the reasons he stated previously, but acknowledged current police needs and did not want to postpone addressing them indefinitely. He stated that whatever his vote was and whatever the council decided to place on the ballot he would campaign for and personally support. He expressed concern that Option A+ would not have the full support of the council and that in addition to the cost of a campaign there was the need for people to conduct it and he had not seen evidence of volunteers. He asked staff to investigate the lease-to-own strategy, although not for a 25-year building or the quality of building the City would construct. Mayor Torrey encouraged council members to support the motion. He stated he would support Option D, campaign for it, and raise funds if that was what the council decided, but cautioned that a campaign would require the active involvement of the council to be successful as there was not currently community support for a new City Hall. The community was aware that a new police facility had been the City's first priority for several years and it was time for the council move forward. Mr. Kelly complimented the council on the substantive discussion of the issues. He said he could not support the motion because of the reasons stated by Ms. Bettman and based on the City's polling and constituent feedback, which indicated the measure would fail. Mr. Kelly offered a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to create a work plan that would lead to a full City Hall replacement measure in 2006. Ms. Bettman provided the second. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was speaking at the concept level to avoid trying to identify specific details of Option D to be included and fine tune the steps to be taken. Mayor Torrey clarified that if the substitute motion passed Option A+ was no longer on the table. MiNUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Speaking to Mayor Torrey's comments, Ms. Bettman said the City's highest priority was to move police personnel out of the basement because it was explicitly unsafe, and that had been accomplished. The need to move remaining police personnel was no greater than the need to move other City staff and the public out of the building. She supported the substitute motion and a conjoined facility remained her preference. Mr. Pap~ asked if the information on operating and maintenance costs on page 24 of the Agenda Item Summary represented an incremental increase in costs or only the costs for new facilities, not taking into account a reduction for costs of the current facility. Mr. Carlson said the figures were gross because there was not currently a strategy for eliminating the operation and maintenance costs in existing City Hall, although that was the goal. Mr. Pap~ asked for estimated figures based on elimination of costs for the existing City Hall. He clarified that under State law, police personnel could be grandfathered into existing space, but any relocation would have to be to space that met seismic code requirements. Mr. Penwell agreed with that clarification. Mayor Torrey announced that in the event of a tie vote, he would vote against the motion. The substitute motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Pap~ commented that the public supported a partnership between the City and the County to build one facility to house police functions and encouraged the City to continue discussion with the County. Mr. Kelly noted that the County was in a financial situation that prevented it from collaborating on a new police facility and, while he understood the need for a new facility, he also understood the liability of placing what appeared to be the same measure for the third time on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson said the measure had new features such as combining certain types of community and social services to provide the best services to the public and she felt it was worth presenting to the voters. She remarked that the decision was a difficult one for her because she wanted it done right instead of fast and she was concerned that there was not enough council support for the measure to instill confidence in the community. Mr. Meisner stated he would reluctantly support the motion without high expectations and with the express commitment to help with the campaign. He asked what the deadline was for removing a measure from the ballot. He requested evidence in the form of names of community members who would conduct the campaign before he would vote in a final decision to put the measure on the ballot. Ms. Bettman remarked that while $28 million was internal funds, it was still funds from the taxpayers. She asked if the City would move forward with the police station using internal funds if the pieces related to amenities such as the Parks Block improvements, Civic Center improvements and additional space for agencies failed at the ballot. Mr. Taylor stated his hope that staff would receive direction to pursue Option A using existing resources. Ms. Bettman said that failure of the bond measure would be a clear message from the public that it did not want a new police station and questioned whether the City should proceed with internal funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey gave Mr. Meisner his commitment to raise funds and campaign on behalf of a bond measure. He agreed with Mr. Pap6's suggestion that the City and County work collaboratively and noted that the federal courthouse would present an opportunity. He felt that it was possible to communicate with the public in a timely matter on the November bond measure and achieve a positive outcome. Mr. Pap6 again urged the City and County to continue their discussions about co-location. Mr. Carlson noted that when the civic vision principles were adopted the previous week, the first principle was specifically changed to address consolidating City office functions, but he was not certain there was consensus on the council to consolidate City and County functions. Mr. Meisner pointed out that he requested the change to emphasize City consolidation because there was another policy that addressed parmerships and consolidation with other governments. Mr. Pap6 stated that he would raise funds and assist with a campaign if the council decided to place a measure on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson asserted her hope for a shared criminal justice building and acknowledged that the timing was not right for other governments to participate in the discussion. She asked if 15,000 additional square feet was adequate. Mr. Carlson said the number was based on analysis of the first floor functions that included public meeting spaces in addition to space for nonprofit agencies. Ms. Nathanson reiterated her hope that shared space was not limited only to nonprofit social service agencies if there were other entities interested in sharing space. She emphasized the need to begin working on new buildings and taking steps toward the future. Ms. Bettman observed that the issue of sharing space with the County had been kept alive by the Mayor and some members of the council, and there should be a definitive vote by the full council on that issue as not everyone supported it. Mr. Pap6 said he could support any of the options presented and would help pass whatever measure was placed on the ballot. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room---City Hall July 26, 2004 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap6, Betty Taylor. His Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling announced that he had attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony at Oakmont Park and the event was well-attended. He said he had also attended the dedication ceremony of the Fire Department's "burn to learn" facility. He said he was unable to attend the Police Academy graduation and congratulated all those who graduated. He noted that he would be unable to attend the July 28, 2004, City Council meeting and requested that any action on an independent external auditor and authorization of expenditures to support the Police Commission's review be postponed until he could be present. Mr. Meisner congratulated the recent Police Academy graduates. He noted that he would make every effort to be on time for the July 28, 2004, council meeting but was having surgery in the morning. Mr. Pap6 reported that at a recent League of Oregon Cities meeting staff had presented a program called Hometown Voices. He distributed information about the program and explained that it was designed to educate the community and involve a greater number of citizens in local government affairs. Mr. Kelly announced that the Human Rights Commission was sponsoring a Youth Forum to gather input from young people in the community about issues that were important to them. He said the forum was scheduled for Wednesday, July 28, 2004, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Bascom/Tykeson Conference Room at the Eugene Public Library. He commended staff for the interesting recruitment advertisement for board and commissions. Ms. Taylor questioned why a facilitator was hired for the Crest Drive-Storey Boulevard meeting and asked how much it would cost. She noted that staff was encouraged to hire a facilitator and asked by whom. She expressed surprise that a Peer Review Committee, composed of representatives from multiple City departments, had replaced the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) and asked if that was less expensive than a CIC. Mr. Taylor responded that a facilitator was hired at the suggestion of neighbors and the neighborhood association to attempt to mediate the situation and obtain information necessary to move forward with a discussion. He said the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 1 Work Session peer review process relied upon a reservoir of talent within the City to provide consultation to groups facing particular citizen involvement challenges. Ms. Taylor said she hoped the CIC would be revived. She requested clarification on the hours during which construction activities could occur, stating that she had been told both 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., including weekends. She suggested that at least one day on the weekend should be free of construction activities. She applauded "citizen academies" as a way to get people interested in and informed about government and consequently more involved. Ms. Bettman said it was her understanding that final action on a ballot measure would have to occur by August 9, 2004, in order for the measure to be on the ballot and in the Voters Pamphlet and therefore the council would have to provide that direction to staff at its July 28, 2004, meeting. She said that she planned to offer a motion to direct City staffto return with language at the August 9 meeting on the auditor issue on the amendment to the charter. Ms. Bettman said that residents of the Far West neighborhood expressed concern about the conditional use permit (CUP) for the Faith Center expansion and reported that the facility appeared to be more than a church and would include a school, convention center, and "park and ride" function. She said that neighbors hoped that a housing buffer could be preserved to provide protection from the expansion and uses that were incompatible with the neighborhood. She requested an expedited response from staff on whether it was legal to remove the houses and if the neighborhood had any recourse. She said the Faith Center had indicated it could not reconfigure how development occurred on the property because the City required placement of the gymnasium in a location that precluded maintaining a housing buffer. Ms. Bettman announced that the Police Commission was holding a public forum on August 5, 2004, to obtain feedback from the community on the police complaint process. She urged the broadest possible range of community involvement and said that additional forums would be held in September and October 2004. Mr. Kelly related that he was informed by City staff that construction activities were allowed from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week. Mr. Taylor thanked those who attended the ceremonies for Oakmont Park and the Fire Department facility. He announced that police forensic evidence and property control personnel had completed their move to the new facility. Mayor Torrey introduced Natalie Sonnenfeld, an incoming sophomore at Churchill High School, who won an opportunity to "shadow" the mayor for a day. He thanked staff for their swift response to concerns he had raised about overgrown grass and weeds at the Chevron gas station on Franklin Boulevard and complimented the owner for taking care of the problem. He also expressed concern about the possibility of fires in the South Hills because of hot, dry weather conditions. B. WORK SESSION: Annual Meeting with the Human Rights Commission Human Rights Commission members Sara Rich, Mo Young, Sheila Coats, Andrea Ortiz, Dwight Souers, Megan Thompson, and Hugh Massengill were present for the item MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Taylor underscored the importance of citizen involvement in government through participation on boards and commissions. He cited the joint meeting with the Human Rights Commission (HRC) as an example of the council's partnership with citizens. He introduced Human Rights Commission Chair Sara Rich and Vice Chair Mo Young to present the commission's report and work plan. Ms. Rich thanked the council for the opportunity to meet jointly and asked the other commissioners to introduce themselves. She directed the council's attention to the "Eugene Human Rights Program: Strength in Differences" containing the commission's annual report to the council for the period September 2003 through June 2004 and the proposed work plan for Fiscal Year 2005. She highlighted some of the commission's accomplishments, particularly responding to hate issues. She said the commission's doors were open to anyone who needed assistance and support to have a safer life in the community. She noted that Eugene's Human Rights Program received a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) award as a result of efforts following September 11, 2001. She said that the commission also distributed leaflets countering the spread of hate literature in Eugene. She praised the mayor for his responsiveness to groups that were threatened and felt vulnerable and commended the council for its leadership against hate. Ms. Rich related that the commission addressed in its work plan the need to accommodate emerging issues not anticipated when the plan was established. She gave examples of emerging issues during the past year such as the exclusion of singles from the FOOD for Lane County Dining Room, housing standards, the CLEAR Act, the downtown ordinance, and the Defense of Marriage Act. Ms. Young distributed information sheets on the Youth Forum on July 28, 2004. She said the commission hoped through the forum to develop a better understanding of what issues were important to youth and said a series of study circles and dialogues would be held in the fall, followed by an action forum. HRC member Sheila Coats reported on the Gender Identity Work Group. She thanked the mayor and the council for the opportunity to educate the community about gender identity. She said two workshops per month had been held over the past year and more presentations with churches, school districts, and businesses were planned. She noted that gender identity was removed from the human anti-discrimination ordinance in 2002 in order to allow additional time for the community to become better educated on the subject. She said that much progress had been made and the commission hoped to meet its education goals by the spring of 2005. A code revision to add gender identity to the ordinance would then be requested. She also thanked the city manager for initiating some of the round table discussions that were very informative. HRC member Andrea Ortiz addressed the commission's cooperative work with the Police Department. She reported that the HRC and Police Commission formed a joint task force to establish a policy for the use of Social Security numbers. She said that the new policy was already in use by the Police Department. She said the commission was also working with the Police Commission's Racial Profiling Task Force and on the review of the police complaint process. She observed that all of those issues related to working with communities of color and the commission would be requesting funds from the council to conduct community outreach on those issues and provide a consistent message and contact. She noted that the City had adopted a policy to accept the Matricula Consular (Mexican ID card) as a valid form of identification. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Rich discussed commission capacity. She said there were approximately 50 volunteers who contributed almost 4,000 hours annually to the commission's programs. She commended staff's efforts to maintain capacity when the commission lost a position and recognized the significant contributions of former HRC Chair James Dean, who volunteered 40 or more hours a week on commission activities. She said that the work plan included a "wish list" of those issues that could not be addressed because of limited capacity. She thanked the council for the budget and staff the commission did receive and asked for their consideration of a request for additional support to increase the commission's ability to reach out to grassroots organizations in the community. HRC member Dwight Souers described the activities of the Accessibility Committee, which is composed of five HRC members and five volunteers from the community. He said the committee functions as a "watchdog" to ensure that residents, regardless of disabilities, have access to all facilities within the community. He said that committee members advised Lane Transit District on accessibility issues, served on the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee, and worked with the City to ensure that new structures and modifications meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. He noted the recent installation of the first traffic signal for the visually impaired at Hilyard Street and 22nd Avenue and urged the council to expand the use of those signals. He said plans for the coming year included continuing with the Barrier Awareness Award for people and organizations in the community that paid special attention to accessibility. He thanked the city manager for hosting a very successful round table discussion with representatives from the disability community. A great deal of positive feedback was received and the committee planned to continue the event. Ms. Ortiz directed the council's attention to pages 21 through 24 of the annual report and the case statistics from the Human Rights Support System. She explained that the support system was part of the City's complaint process and volunteers provided advocacy and empowerment to people who had experienced discrimination and harassment. She said the program, in its 10th year, was preparing to add support for victims of domestic violence and would be working with Eugene School District 4J on its complaint process. She said the program was also looking at ways to assist the Police Commission and Police Department in their review of police complaint procedures. She praised the efforts of volunteers, staff, and the commission to make the most efficient possible use of program funds. Referring to stretched budget dollars, Ms. Rich displayed a new brochure that combined information from four separate documents in an informative, easy-to-read, and easily updated format. She said that the commission's presentation was concluded and asked for comments. Mr. Kelly stated that he had been the council's representative on the HRC for the past year and a half and it had been a privilege and pleasure to work with the commission and be part of its valuable service to the people of Eugene. He commended the commission and volunteers for their commitment and passion. Ms. Bettman expressed her appreciation to the commission and volunteers for their work and commitment to human rights. She acknowledged the thoroughness of the commission's report and asked what the City as an organization did best with respect to human rights and where it could improve, as well as what the community did best and how could it improve. Ms. Rich responded that what the City did best was open doors and build bridges by reaching out to the community. She commented that the commission was well supported by the council, staff, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 4 Work Session leadership and communication and coordination were good. She said that more people were needed to help with the work and the CIC had played a significant role in engaging the public. Mr. Pap6 echoed Mr. Kelly's commendation of the commission and its work and offered in contrast his recent experience in Idaho where a community there had to deal with an Aryan Nation march and its aftermath. He suggested to the community that it consider establishing a Human Rights Commission. Mr. Meisner expressed his thanks and appreciation to the commission. He noted that case statistics for the support system program appeared to be lower in 2004 and asked if the commission would prefer flexibility in the use of the staff member assigned specifically to case management. Human Rights Program Director Greg Rikhoff replied that since the position was added, the commission's staff had decreased by one position and the support system was managed flexibly by staff. Referring to the "wish list" on page 27 of the report, Mr. Meisner suggested that the commission should clarify its intent by referring to the topics as a "wish list" of activities instead of items that might be discussed at commission meetings. Mayor Torrey asked if the Accessibility Committee was involved in discussions with LTD about the impact of bus rapid transit (BRT) on accessibility of the downtown streets. Mr. Souers replied that a committee representative was now on LTD's Accessibility Committee and attending meetings. Mayor Torrey urged Mr. Souers to contact Chris Henry, the City staff person who was handling issues of BRT and accessibility on Willamette Street and 10* Avenue intersections. He said decisions would be made very soon and it was imperative that the Accessibility Committee be involved. Mayor Torrey noted that the HIV Alliance was requesting additional funding for its needle exchange program and there was little public support. He asked if the commission had worked with that organization or been contacted for assistance. Ms. Rich replied that the HIV Alliance had not sought help from the commission. Mayor Torrey suggested that an HRC staff member contact the alliance. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to approve the Human Rights Commission goals and work plan for FY 2005. Ms. Bettman said she supported the commission wholeheartedly and commended their ambitious goals and work plan. Mr. Kelly said he enthusiastically supported the commission's goals and work plan. He offered his perspective as a commission member on what the community could do to improve its human rights efforts. He said the community has a "blinders on" smugness about being a progressive, tolerant bastion in the Northwest and while that was tree in many aspects, there still existed very real issues of racism and discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, and other factors. He said the first step in addressing those problems was to acknowledge them. Mayor Torrey complimented the commission members for their hard work and participation in events throughout the community. He thanked Ms. Rich for chairing the commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap~ asked if the case statistics were lower because the community was doing better in those categories or the statistics misleading. Human Rights Program specialist Francisca Johnson responded that although the numbers were lower, many of the cases were complex and involved a number of people. She said that the program had developed a number of alliances and referred some cases to partner agencies for resolution. She expected the case numbers to increase once volunteers had completed their training and domestic violence cases were added. Mr. Pap~ stated his support for the HRC and its programs. Ms. Taylor said that she would support the motion. She noted that HRC programs provided assistance to people regardless of source of income and asked if that included prostitutes. Ms. Rich said that it absolutely did. Ms. Taylor asked if the commission had taken a position on a proposal to require people to have a card to access certain neighborhoods that had been established as prostitution-free zones. Mr. Rikhoff said the commission had taken a stand in opposition to that issue when it was raised several years ago. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Taylor mentioned that the council had previously discussed considering the items on the Consent Calendar when a work session was concluded earlier than anticipated, in order to save some time at the regular meeting. Mr. Meisner expressed concern with taking action at the work session without public notice. He noted that Consent Calendar Item 2C, related to eminent domain, was likely to generate public comment at the regular meeting. Mayor Torrey suggested that Item 2C be pulled and action taken on the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to approve items on the Consent Calendar for July 26, 2004, with the exception of Item 2C, Adoption of Resolution 4800. Mr. Kelly noted that he had submitted minutes corrections electronically. Ms. Bettman noted that she had submitted minutes corrections electronically. Mayor Torrey stated that he had reviewed all corrections and they were approved. The motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 2C passed unanimously. Mr. Poling raised the question of whether the school zone at Willakenzie School was still in effect as the school was no longer in operation and scheduled for demolition. Mr. Taylor said he would check on the status of the zone. Ms. Taylor commented that the intersection of Pearl Street and 8~ Avenue was very dangerous for pedestrians crossing to the west. Mr. Taylor agreed that the intersection was a problem. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 6 Work Session The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 7 Work Session ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall July 26, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap& COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Council President Bettman reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Cheryl O'Neill, 24347 High Pass Road, Junction City, assistant director of Womenspace women's shelter and coordinator of the Domestic Violence Council, spoke in support of collocating with the City in a Community Safety Center. She provided a copy of the grant her organization had received on which all of the partners were listed. She stressed that collocation had been a "part of the conversation" among victim services providers for some time. In response to a concern heard at the public hearing, she stated that collocation would not replace any of the other locations that services for domestic violence victims were provided. She underscored that the victim services provided in such a center would be for victims already involved in a criminal matter. David Sonnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, noted he had sent the council an email on July 15 regarding the unanimous opposition of the Whilamut Natural Area Citizen Planning Committee (WNACPC) to the proposed Agate Street extension. He read the motion into the record, as follows: "The Citizen Planning Committee for the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park opposes the proposed Agate Street extension and recommends that the Eugene City Council favor a Patterson Street extension into a proposed hospital site on the current Eugene Water & Electric Board property. Extending Agate Street would compromise the integrity of the Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park by impacting the open space river corridor and would potentially result in a subsequent conver- sion of Autzen Footbridge into a structure designed to carry regular motorized vehicle traffic." While he recognized the need for another access point, he maintained that the Agate Street extension was not the answer. He asked what the schedule for public input and public discussion was. He wished to know when the City would begin to schedule public hearings. Glen Love, 393 Ful Vue Drive, member of the WNACPC, commented that he noticed in the planning documents for the Riverfront Research Park a zoning change from open space to University-related research. He questioned whether a hospital with no intention of conducting research would fall under this MiNUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 1 Regular Meeting heading. He added that the Riverfront Research Park had failed to attract researchers after 20 years of trying. He thought it advisable to return to the Metro Plan to determine how to zone the land appropri- ately. He opined that most cities had shut themselves off from their rivers and Eugene had yet to cut itself off from all of the unique qualities of flora and fauna the river provided for the community. Tony McCown, 1960 Potter Street, introduced himself as the president-elect of the student body at Lane Community College (LCC). He spoke in support of housing standards for renters. He outlined some of the arguments brought up by the Rental Owners Association and the counter-arguments presented by Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, as follows: 1) The tenant can terminate tenancy or move - a threat to move was unlikely to cause a landlord to make the repair. 2) The tenant can sue the landlord for a court order - a tenant cannot sue in small claims court and would be required to hire an attorney. Most renters cannot afford an attorney. 3) The tenant can do repairs and deduct them from the rent - this forces a tenant to come up with the money for repairs up front. 4) The tenant can withhold rent - this puts the renter at risk of eviction and most evictions were for withholding rent. Mr. McCown looked forward to working with the City Council on this issue. Carmen Urbina, 788 Blackfoot Avenue, called the collocation of victims' services an exciting proposal, given that it would create partnerships with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and victim services such as Womenspace and Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS). She had participated many times in taking victims of both domestic violence and sexual assault from agency to agency to try and get their needs addressed. She thought this collaboration could provide victims with one place that would provide effective and compassionate services for them. She applauded the community and its leadership for considering such collocation in a Community Safety Building. Craig Opperman, 72-B Centennial Loop, Executive Director of Looking Glass, shared his excitement regarding Police Chief Bob Lehner's vision of community policing and police partnership. He felt collocation of service programs in a police facility represented a true opportunity. He related his experience with the Children's Receiving Center, a program he helped design. He said the center had been part of a campus which included law enforcement, child protective services, a shelter, a health center, and more. He stressed that the collocation of services had truly benefited the children. He was happy to see this kind of collaboration being discussed in Eugene. Elaine Walters, 210 West 37th Avenue, spoke in support of collocation of victim services providers in the Public Safety Center. She explained she was the interim director of Kids First Safe Alternative Centers, an agency that hoped to be a primary partner in the collaboration. She said Kids First provided supervi- sion for visits between children and non-custodial parents when domestic violence had happened. She shared that, though she had only worked in this capacity for several months, she had already witnessed numerous phone calls from potentially violent people. Having the center in proximity to the Police Department would truly benefit it as it would allow some people to connect appropriately with their children without being able to act out violently. She stated that the domestic violence service providers worked together, but having a centralized location would improve the victims' ability to access services. Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope Way, related that the Cal Young Neighborhood Association had recently held an emergency meeting of its executive board because residents were concerned about safety. He said MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 2 Regular Meeting an area was being developed but only had one access road. He stated that there was a pending develop- ment that could provide them with a second access road. He hoped he could come to a future City Council meeting and ask for help and support in finding a solution that would not only benefit the developer, but the citizens at large. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and asked for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Bettman thanked those who spoke at the Public Forum. Regarding development of a Commu- nity Safety Center, she thought the nuance of the bond measure would be lost on most of the public. She opined that it would have been more beneficial to the community had the non-profit service providers had advocated for a replacement of City Hall, which should be the highest priority. She asserted that such a center was a "fiscally short-sighted project." She said while she supported the services the agencies provided, she would not support this particular proposal. Councilor Bettman thanked the members of the WNACPC for speaking. She noted she had requested that staff provide some options other than Agate Street for hospital access and asked if staff had been able to find this information. She also asked that the timeline for public input be made available as soon as possible. She said the public needed opportunities to participate. Councilor Pap~ asked if it was known yet whether the access to the hospital would be an overpass or an "at grade" crossing. City Manager Dennis Taylor responded that the work session scheduled for September 22 would address the issues of access, cost, and timing, and would provide an update on the hospital issue. Councilor Pap~ appreciated the diversity on the council as to what direction the City should take as far as planning for a Civic Center. He said a new police facility was needed that was up to seismic and safety standards. Given that the most likely site for the new Civic Center building was on the present City Hall site, he thought it prudent to move the police out and into a "proper" facility first. He acknowledged the testimony in support of collocation and said it would help to get the bond measure passed. He hoped the service agencies would help to pass the measure. Councilor Taylor expressed admiration for the University students who were making a continued presence in support of housing standards enforcement. Councilor Taylor also thanked Mr. Sonnichsen and Mr. Love for trying to protect the river. She felt the placement of roads and buildings along the river would reduce access to it. Regarding the police station, Councilor Taylor thought it was the wrong time to place a bond measure on the ballot. Councilor Kelly commented that, because of the visibility of the issue on access to the proposed hospital, it would be beneficial to have information for the public as soon as possible. Mr. Taylor said he would work with Public Works Director Kurt Corey to provide the council with the latest information with regard to the work. Councilor Bettman commended the students working for housing standards for showing up in August. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Taylor affirmed that staff was working on access issues to the hospital area as well as barriers. Councilor Bettman asked if staff was soliciting options from other areas. Mr. Taylor responded that staff was working with the options adopted in the council work session. Mayor Torrey said he wanted a statement from Triad/McKenzie-Willamette Hospital clarifying what it was willing to accept regarding access routes. He stressed that if the hospital was not willing to accept the outcome of the discussions, there was no point in pursuing them. He added that this did not necessarily mean that the City had to accept what the hospital set forth either. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 16, 2004, Work Session - June 22, 2004, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - June 23, 2004, Work Session - June 28, 2004, Work Session - July 12, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4800 Authorizing the Institution of Proceedings in Eminent Domain for the Acquisition of Property Interests for Improvements to the Transpor- tation Infrastructure in the Vicinity of the new Federal Courthouse The Consent Calendar was approved during the earlier work session, with the exception of Item 2C. Councilor Bettman pulled Item 2C as she had questions regarding it. She noted that staff had answered one question during the break and she understood that the proposed project would help to extend 6m Avenue. She asked to what extent systems development charges (SDCs) would be used in financing the improvements. Michelle Cahill, Principal Civil Engineer for the Public Works Department, responded that there had been no discussion regarding the use of assessments to help finance the projects because it was slated to be funded by $1.6 million that Lane County agreed to give the City as its share of the federal road money. She felt there could be an SDC component to the project, but at this point the forthcoming federal money and the local share that had been identified would cover the improvements. Councilor Bettman registered her opposition to the resolution. She opposed the 6m Avenue extension, saying it would multiply safety issues for pedestrians and increase barriers to the connection of the downtown area to the river. She reiterated that the project should be funded by SDCs and, as it was a State road issue, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) should help to pay. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Ms. Cahill said the cost of the project included land acquisition and staff had an estimate on the land value. MiNUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Taylor said she would oppose the project. She echoed Councilor Bettman's concerns regarding the barrier a 6th Avenue extension would create. She also had qualms about the funding. She wished to remind everyone that federal money was still taxpayer money. Councilor Kelly agreed with Councilor Bettman that the County Road Fund money could be used for preservation projects. He urged staff to continue to look into utilizing SDCs for local matches. He said he would support the motion. Mayor Torrey acknowledged there would not be a tie but registered his support for the motion nonethe- less. He said the Government Services Administration (GSA) expected the City to proceed with this. Roll call vote; the motion to adopt Resolution 4800, authorizing the institution of pro- ceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition of property interests (Map 17-03-31-14 lot 200; Map 17-03-32-22 lots 1100, 1300, 1400; Map 17-03-32-23 lots 100, 200, 300, 500, 600, 700, 2400, 2600, 2700, 2900, 3002 and Map 17-03-32-24 lots 1600, 1601, and 1700) for the improvements to the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the new federal courthouse passed, 5:2; Councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Storage of Vehicles on Streets and Amending Section 5.135 of the Eugene Code, 1971 City Manager Dennis Taylor called this a straightforward amendment that provided vehicles a longer period of time to sit on a public street and identified specific ways the vehicles could be towed for failure to have proper registration. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak to the ordinance, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called on the council for comments. Councilor Bettman said she was prepared to support the ordinance. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Parking Enforcement Program Manager Kay Kronholm stated that staff did not anticipate that the change would affect vehicle camping. She noted that such camping was specifically addressed in Eugene Code 4.815. Councilor Kelly supported the ordinance. He asked if staff had made a distinction between a car or pick- up truck and a semi-truck or large motor home. Ms. Kronholm responded that semi-trucks were not allowed to park on the street between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. She said there was usually a small increase in motor home parking during the summer and occasionally boats were parked on the street. She explained that the process began with a warning which was usually effective. Councilor Poling asked if obviously disabled vehicles were covered by the ordinance. Ms. Kronholm replied that they were not, but that there were internal policies in place which, when initiated, called for a 72-hour warning with the possibility of an extension for such a vehicle to be moved. Once a vehicle was processed and tagged, the vehicles were the highest priority to tow. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner noted that abandoned vehicles were not uncommon in his neighborhood. He commended the department for being very responsive. In response to a question from Councilor Meisner, Ms. Kronholm affirmed that the process would remain complaint-driven. She added, regarding a second question, that she was uncertain whether chronic violators who merely moved their vehicles a few feet would not continue to get away with this behavior. Councilor Meisner conveyed his support for the ordinance. Councilor Pap6 asked if the ordinance would help deter semi-truck parking in the Ferry Street Bridge area. Ms. Kronholm replied that she was uncertain whether it would provide such deterrence. Councilor Pap6 recommended that staff pay particular attention to Brewer Street in his ward as it was a popular place for semi-trucks to park overnight. Mayor Torrey asked if there was any objection to taking action at the present meeting. Councilors indicated that they had no objections. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4878, an ordinance concerning the storage of vehicles. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Text, Chapter III, Section G, Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date And An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) by Adding New Tables and Maps Identifying Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Conveyance Systems in Chapter II; Amending Chapter IV Wastewater System Condition Assessment and Adopting Table 16a; Adding a New Chapter VI Amendment to the PFSP; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, file MA 04-01) Mr. Taylor asked Principal Planner for the Planning and Development Department Kurt Yeiter to speak to the ordinances. Mr. Yeiter explained that the findings were the same for both ordinances because the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities Plan were intertwined. He noted that a memorandum from Greg Mott, Planning Director for the City of Springfield, collected and addressed the testimony given at the recent public. He said legal counsel for all three jurisdictions had collaborated and agreed the ordinances should be adopted. Mr. Yeiter reported that the City of Springfield had adopted the ordinances by a unanimous vote on July 19 and the Lane Board of County Commissioners was scheduled to vote on them later in the month. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap~ pointed out that the total cost of the capital improvements was listed at $160 million on page 113 of the packet. He asked why there was a discrepancy from the original number presented before the council. Dave Jewett, legal counsel for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, responded that the cost for the improvements had not increased. He explained that Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) required the cost estimate to encompass all possible work. Because of this, the estimate involved additional work that would not be completed unless the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required it. He said efforts were being made to convince the DEQ that the additional work was unnecessary. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the Council adopt Council Bill 4876, amending the Metro Plan text. Councilor Bettman voiced her support for both motions, though not unconditionally. She believed the financing proposal to be better than what was in place, but felt some of the cost should be borne by SDCs. She reiterated her feelings that SDCs were "artificially low" to the ratepayers. Councilor Meisner conveyed his reluctant support for the motions. He recapped his previously stated concerns regarding MWMC, its contemplated 20-year plan, the cost of the plan, its specific choices, and, most of all, the lack of public knowledge about the process and the consequences of the process. He predicted "it" would "come back to bite us." Councilor Pap6 echoed Councilor Meisner's concerns, particularly the lack of public process. He agreed that the statutory process had been followed, but felt the lack of information on the cost of the 20-year project list did not allow the public to consider what the MWMC was setting forth in an educated way. He asked if approval of the two ordinances would prejudice taking on a parmership with the City of Coburg. Mr. Yeiter stated that the ordinances would not change the existing policy. City Attorney Glenn Klein agreed, adding that at this stage the result of a "yea" or "nay" vote would have an identical effect on the possibility of parmering with Coburg. Councilor Pap6 wanted to state for the record that the legislative intent was that, should efficiencies be found through partnership, the City of Eugene would be willing to parmer with Coburg on a wastewater facility. Mayor Torrey voiced his respect for what Councilor Meisner and Councilor Pap~ said regarding reaching out to the public. He said the frustration, however, lay in the fact that this was not a "sexy item" for the public. He remarked that as often as the MWMC tried to reach out and invite the public to speak to this, they had not been able to raise much interest in its long-term planning. He complimented the staff of the MWMC and the three jurisdictions who weighed in on the matter in their recent efforts to reach out to Coburg. Councilor Meisner clarified that he was not concerned with the number of people who testified on the item. He felt the communication to the public did not state in a clear fashion that the public hearings were about a double-digit percentage increase in wastewater rates. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Poling spoke as an MWMC commissioner. He related that the commission had debriefed the whole issue and understood that the information to the public had not been adequate. He conveyed the commission's desire to do a better job in the future in this respect. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4877, amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman remarked that it seemed that staff was already working on a partnership with the City of Coburg. She asked if the council had given the authority to staff to do so. Mr. Taylor responded that there had been talk of an interjurisdictional meeting of staff. He said there had been two meetings and a document on the expedited scope overview was being prepared for the council. Councilor Bettman reiterated her objection to staff moving forward on this without council authorization. She wished to clarify that staff started to move on this issue without a "decision point" at the City Council or the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) levels. She felt staffwas moving forward on a "monumen- tal issue" which would cost the ratepayers money. She expressed alarm at this. Councilor Nathanson stated that her understanding of the staff activity was that it was usual in that staff was conducting scoping activities prior to bringing information to the council. Mr. Taylor affirmed this. Mayor Torrey pointed out that this was becoming another agenda item. He recommended the council proceed with the agenda before it, as written. Mr. Taylor said the MWMC was generating a detailed memorandum to all three jurisdictions regarding the potential partnership with Coburg. 5. ACTION: Adoption of Resolution 4801 Calling a City Election on November 2, 2004, for the Pur- pose of Referring to the Legal Electors of the City of Eugene a Measure Authorizing the Issuance of a Maximum of $6,790,000 of General Obligation Bonds to Partially Fund the Civic Center Vision Project Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4801 call- ing a city election on November 2, 2004, for the purpose of referring to the legal electors of the City of Eugene a measure authorizing the issuance of a maximum of $6,790,000 of general obligation bonds to partially fund the Civic Center Vision Project. Councilor Taylor noted that the last sentence on page 229 of the agenda packet indicated that funding from the General Fund may need to be reallocated for operations and management of the new Community Safety Building. She asked why this was so, as the Eugene Police Department (EPD) would be vacating its City Hall location and this would create more space for City functions that were currently renting. She posited that the savings in rental expenditures would match the increased cost of the new structure. Mr. Carlson cited two issues in response: the current costs would increase given the larger size of the new MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting Community Safety Building; and the current costs of the City Hall would still be there. While it was possible the rental savings could offset the new costs, he said the savings would not likely be greater than the increased expenditures. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She opined that it was not the right time to place such a bond measure on the ballot. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Carlson explained that the $5.2 million in right-of- way revenues listed in the agenda item summary (AIS) was the franchise fee revenue that had been deferred revenue for several years. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Carlson assured her that the one percent allocated for public art in the new building was included in the total construction costs. Councilor Bettman asked what would happen should the bond pass and the at-risk revenue was not available. Mr. Carlson said it was hoped that the legal issues would be resolved by then. He stated that bonds would not be sold until there was a firm financing plan for the entire facility. Councilor Bettman then asked what staff would do should the revenue not be available. Mr. Carlson explained that staff would have to return to the council to determine whether to go forward or to backfill with another revenue source. Councilor Bettman asked what was planned, should the bond fail. Mr. Carlson responded that the current staff recommendation would be to proceed with the construction of a new basic police services building with existing resources. Councilor Bettman expressed her opposition to the motion. She called the bond measure short-sighted. She asserted this would build a police station with capacity for only ten years. She reiterated her preferred option that the bond measure finance both the police building and the Civic Building. Councilor Nathanson recalled that there had been a public meeting on this topic very recently. She supported the measure for the same reasons she had previously cited and declined to repeat them. She asked the City Manager to state once again the purpose of the bond in order to dispel any public confusion. She noted others had spoken as though the bond measure was only intended to pay for building a police station. Mr. Taylor stated that the bond was slated to pay for a 92,000 square foot building, including 77,000 square feet for housing the police services and 15,000 square feet for general office space to provide the opportunity for collocation of victims' services. He said it would also make improvements along 8th Avenue and would make the previously discussed improvements to the Park Blocks. He called it another step in the phased implementation of Civic Center vision, using the policy principles adopted at the last meeting. Councilor Nathanson underscored that the public was being asked for a relatively small amount of money in the perspective of what the entire project would cost and the money would pay for public amenities, for public improvements downtown, to make the downtown area greener, and to add a new approach for social services and public service. She felt it was a very different proposal from merely saying it was to build a police station. She called it an "incremental step to achieving everything we need." MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 9 Regular Meeting In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Carlson assured him that, should the bond fail, staff would come before the council to determine how to proceed. Councilor Kelly commented that from conversations with constituents it was clear that the public was not supportive of the bond measure. While he strongly supported the need for new facilities and the other components of the measure, he would oppose placing the measure on the ballot. He expressed concern that the measure only provided adequate space for the next ten years. He called it short-sighted. He acknowledged that the structure was planned with future expansion in mind but speculated that building codes could change in the interim and prevent this from happening. He was concerned regarding the legal risk of the telecommunications money and felt there should be a "Plan B" for financing the project. Councilor Meisner said this had been discussed at length during the previous week. He concurred with Councilor Bettman about how the whole vision and the whole set of needs could best be implemented. He supported the motions before the City Council and stated that he would campaign for the bond measure. He commented that he missed the days when the City Council would have a divided vote but then, once decided, would speak with one voice. Councilor Meisner shared the previously voiced frustrations regarding building for the needs of the year 2018. He was not persuaded that the building would be too small or too large and believed the measure before the council made sense. Councilor Pap6 also wished that the City could embark on the whole project. He stated that this would involve $70 million in a bond measure, which would push the City up against well-conceived and well- founded City policies with regard to bonding and debt incursion and would prevent the City from achieving other needed goals for some time. He felt it sensible to "bite it off in chunks" rather than to try to gain the whole project at once. He asked Chief Lehner to discuss how the building would be expanded in the future. Chief Lehner stated that the proposed size of the building was based on several assumptions, one of which was that the entire patrol operation would be staged out of this building. He said this may not be the model that the City of Eugene would move toward in the future. He thought that, should the City decide to move toward a precinct or substation model in terms of police patrol service delivery, the major growth aspect of the proposed building was potentially entirely mitigated. He underscored that he was not advocating for a precinct model for police services at this point in time. However, he said Eugene was poised at a unique point of population and service load where a precinct deployment model must be considered. In terms of sizing the building, he felt it was appropriate for the long-term future. He added that, should the City size the facility for 2028, it could ultimately rule out the option for service delivery through the precinct model in the future. Councilor Poling called it essential to include the social services agencies in the new Community Safety Building, as well as address the other concerns of the Civic Center vision. He believed approval of the bond measure to be a responsible action to take at this time as it was a small step to attain the vision. He related that he had spoken to constituents and heard they were not ready to pay for the entire Civic Center and Community Safety Building project. He felt that the bond measure indicated that the City was acting in good faith by using available funds and asking for additional funds to help with the social services and the basic beginning steps of the Civic Center vision. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mayor Torrey pointed out that all of the City Councilors had indicated that the City needed the new facilities, though some felt the bond measure in question was not the right approach. He noted that some felt that the recent conviction of two Eugene police officers would impact the vote. He opined that it would impact the vote regardless of whether the vote was on a measure for a portion of the vision or for the whole vision. He thought the proposed building made great planning sense as it allowed for flexibility and expandability. Mayor Torrey called the inclusion of victim services element a statement that the City recognized that something meaningful needed to be done to step forward to address some of the incidents that had happened, not because such incidents happened but because it was just the right thing to do. He expressed amazement regarding the number of people who had shown a willingness to help campaign on the behalf of this bond measure. Mayor Torrey recognized that some councilors would vote in opposition. He expressed hope that, should the motion pass, that no council members would oppose the motion in the public because individual points of view did not succeed in the present vote. Councilor Bettman hoped the bond measure would fail to be approved for the ballot. She advocated for planning for the ultimate replacement of all of the services that were in the City Hall and upgrading facilities. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Chief Lehner stressed that the precinct model would only encompass patrol deployment. He stated that there was, by no means, a commitment to that model at present. He would not recommend, at any point, the decentralization of the investigations unit, which was the primary partner for the victim services providers. He noted that some information had been provided to the council on how this model had worked in other cities, such as San Diego, California, and Mesa, Arizona. He explained that, typically, the type of collaboration housed in such a facility included law enforcement investigations staff, primary prosecution and advocacy staff from a district attorney's office, social service and victim service advocates for victims of domestic violence and child abuse. He asserted that the planned facility was adequately sized for such partnerships. Councilor Bettman asked if the Chief was suggesting that a victim of such a crime would not go to the nearest precinct but, rather, would have to go downtown to the centralized Community Safety Building. Chief Lehner replied that where the victim would go had to do with the victim's condition. He under- scored that the benefit of collocation was that the victim would not be bounced around from the Police Department to the District Attorney's Office and so on. He said properly choosing the parmers to collocate with community safety would result in the right group of victim advocate agencies being available, primarily those who dealt with domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault. Councilor Bettman also objected to only allocating $3 million to the victim services. She said the other $3.8 million was allocated to infrastructure improvements. She asserted that there were other funding sources for such improvements such as urban renewal funding, fees and assessments, and other kinds of capital funds. Councilor Nathanson remarked that the proposal was not what she had hoped or advocated for. She recognized, however, that hers were only one set of ideas out many good ideas brought by both staff and the City Council. She felt that, though it was not what she had proposed, she would support it because it was obvious that staff and its partners had come up with a progressive idea that fulfilled the objectives in MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 11 Regular Meeting creative and different ways. She thought Eugene was showing more creativity than most cities by investing in prevention in this manner. She predicted it would be a forthcoming crime prevention technique. She wished all of the people could reach a point at which they could affirm incremental change. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 4:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor, and Kelly voting in opposition. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to authorize the expenditure of not more than $10,000 from the General Fund Contingency account for neutral public in- formation related to the proposed measure for the November 2004 election; and to author- ize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund contingency account that are required to produce a voters pamphlet for the November 2004 election, estimated to be approxi- mately $25,000. Mary Walston, Council, Public And Government Affairs Manager for the Central Services Department, affirmed, in response to a question from Councilor Kelly, that candidates could purchase space for statements in the related voters pamphlet. Councilor Kelly said he would support the motion because he felt the City should do everything it could to inform the voters. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to appoint George Poling, Jim Torrey, and Cheryl O'Neill to the proponent committee for the measure. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey asked if there was any other council business for the good of the whole. Councilor Bettman asked to reaffirm that there would be time during the August 9 work session to discuss the charter amendment for the utilization of a performance auditor. Mr. Taylor replied that 30 minutes would be set aside for this at the work session. Councilor Bettman then asked if, should final action not be taken at the August 9 work session, the revised language could be ready for the work session of August 11 in order to place it on the ballot for November. Councilor Pap~ called a point of order. He noted that Councilor Bettman wanted to bring an issue back. He felt this was preempting the normal process. Mr. Taylor responded that a work session had been scheduled for July 28 on the issue of a charter amendment to deal with a performance audit, but three councilors were unable to attend. He explained that Councilor Poling had requested that no vote be taken until he could be available to vote. He stated that a full discussion was scheduled for July 28, the vote was scheduled for August 9, and staff would bring the final language before the council on August 11. This would be enough time to place it on the November ballot, should it be approved. Councilor Meisner said he would not be present for the meeting on August 9, but he would not request that the vote not be taken. Councilor Poling withdrew his request to postpone the vote on July 28. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting Mayor Torrey clarified that this was not an indication of agreement. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 26, 2004 Page 13 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall July 28, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Pap6. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling, Nancy Nathanson. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:03 p.m. A. WORK SESSION: Joint Meeting with Police Commission City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Tim Laue, Chair of the Police Commission. Mr. Laue expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak to the council. He said it had been his honor to serve as Chair for the Police Commission and noted that Andrea Ortiz was the Vice-Chair. He also thanked the staff person to the Police Commission, Jeannine Parisi, for her work and commended her for doing her "duty in the best traditions of public service." He introduced Commissioner John Brown, who had been with the Police Commission since its inception. He spoke glowingly of Mr. Brown's service to the commission and to the community. Mr. Brown thanked the council for the opportunity to speak to them. He provided an overview of Attachment B: Police Commission Annual Report FY 2003-2004. Councilor Solomon arrived. Mr. Brown highlighted the revised policies that resulted from the work of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team Policy Committee, from page 7 of the report. He noted that the work of the Social Security Number Task Force had culminated in one of the first policies in the nation to govern collection of such data. Mr. Brown discussed the 2003 Auditor's Report, which had identified several department deficiencies, and the resulting recommendations for improvements made by the Police Commission, from page 5 of the report. Ms. Taylor asked what the drug dog was trained to sniff out. Mr. Brown replied that the dog was trained to detect a variety of drugs, but was intended to search structures and cars and not people. Ms. Taylor wondered if the dog would be walked through town to find drugs. Mr. Brown assured her that the dog MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 1 Work Session was not brought in unless there was reasonable suspicion. Chief Lehner added that the same criteria used to determine the need for an officer search was required to deploy the dog. Ms. Taylor asked if the dog could discern between cat urine and methamphetamine. Chief Lehner responded that a well-trained dog could, but he was uncertain whether the Belgian Malinois, Kyra, deployed by the Eugene Police Department (EPD) had been trained to that degree. He explained that each substance required a little bit different training and certification and he did not know what level Kyra had achieved. In response to another question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz clarified that the difference between the Social Security Number collection before and after the task force had met was that now there was a policy, whereas before there had not been one. Mr. Brown added that the task force looked all over the United States for a policy to model the City's policy after and was unsuccessful. He reiterated that the City was now using a policy that clarified Social Security Numbers were voluntary information and a person stopped by the police was not required to provide that information to the detaining officer. In response to Mr. Meisner, Mr. Brown clarified that the uniform review had resulted from the inability to distinguish certain security company employees from EPD officers, particularly the University of Oregon campus police. He said the purpose of the review was to find a solution that made the EPD officers easily identifiable. He noted that there was not an ordinance in the community that prohibited other agencies from wearing similar uniforms. Mr. Meisner asked if the City had the authority to direct the University on its uniform policy. Mr. Brown responded that it was important to be sensitive to the issue and that discussions with the University were being held regarding such a policy. Mr. Pap~ thanked the Police Commission for its hard work. He related a story of being stopped by the police in Nevada and refusing to provide his Social Security Number on demand. As it could have resulted in an overnight stay in the town jail, he said he ultimately capitulated. He approved of having a policy that made such information voluntary. Mr. Pap6 asked Mr. Brown to elaborate on the downtown community policing project. Mr. Brown stated that the resource implications referred to on page 5 of the report correlated with the recommendation to restore funding for the second foot patrol officer for the downtown area. He reported that the discontinua- tion of the position had a profound and negative effect on policing in the downtown corridor. He said City contract requirements caused Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEl) to reduce its deployed security by 60 percent and the City replaced DEI security with a company that provided less coverage. He added that many of the recommendations in the plan were non-revenue related. Mr. Pap~ asked if people in the downtown area had been surveyed to determine if they felt more or less safe. Mr. Taylor replied that such a survey had not been conducted, but staff worked with DE1 and other stakeholders to improve the safety of the area. Ms. Ortiz stated that the commission intended to conduct some citizen outreach in the community to determine what the needs were. Mr. Brown added that the Saturday Market and the other representatives of the downtown community were unanimous that downtown safety was their primary issue. He related that another recommendation of the project had been to provide at least one officer in the downtown area with specialized training in mental health issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap6 agreed that public safety was a key component in the reinvigoration of the downtown area. Mr. Kelly echoed the comments of Mr. Pap& He complimented the commission on its work to develop the Social Security Number policy. He recognized that the commissioners had taken on a large work load and thanked them for their excellent work. Mr. Meisner, speaking as a member of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR), recommended that the Police Commission consider whether the City should pursue the revision of law to exempt security services from the Qualified Rehabilitation Providers Contract Law. He asked the commission to provide the CCIGR with guidance as to what sort of "tweaking" the current laws would need. Mr. Brown related that the Hult Center for the Performing Arts had found criteria for its security services that exempted it from the contract restrictions which had affected Library security and parking garage security and had a "hugely significant" effect on DEI. Ms. Ortiz reported on Attachment A: Police Commission FY2004-2005 Work Plan. Regarding the new social security number policy, she explained that a subcommittee made up of Carmen Urbina, Jeannine Parisi, and Angie Sifuentez was working on community outreach to help educate people on the new procedures. Ms. Ortiz underscored the necessity of developing uniform standards. She strongly felt that a Eugene police officer was not readily discernable from other security officers at a distance. Ms. Ortiz explained that most of the work was done through subcommittees and liaisons with commis- sioners participating at all levels. She said she was happy to do the work and enjoyed working to make the City more livable for all residents. Mr. Laue discussed the major components of the proposed work plan for the coming year, the complaint process and the exploration of civilian oversight models. He related that Chief Lehner had asked the commission to take a look at the complaint process from the civilian perspective. He called the recent wrongdoing of two officers the "elephant in the living room." He said the ability for the officers to continue their crimes while in uniform indicated the complaint process did not work. Victims did not report the abuse of power because they feared retribution. He explained that the contingency request was made because the community could not wait two years to resolve this issue. Mr. Laue said that one thing the commission had learned through its work was that public input should be ongoing. He reported that a forum had been held in June at the Erb Memorial Union on the University of Oregon campus and another one was scheduled in the Bascom/Tykeson Room at the Library for 7 p.m. on August 5, with more to be scheduled. He noted that he and Human Rights Commission Chair Sara Rich had spoken to the Neighborhood Leadership Council on the previous evening in order to let them know they were available to speak to neighborhood associations and also to encourage the neighborhood groups to sponsor forums. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the Police Com- mission FY05 Work Plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman conveyed her support for the motion. She appreciated the receptiveness of the Police Commission and the community organizations. She felt the assessment of police oversight needed to be accelerated as proposed in the work plan. Mr. Pap~ supported the motion. He asked if the Police Commission was involved in helping to formulate the recommendation for a new police services facility. Mr. Laue replied that it had not been involved with its latest iteration. He recalled that the commission had helped to determine the need for it four years earlier and noted that one of its members served on the Mayor's Civic Center Visioning Committee. Mr. Pap~ opined that the Police Commission should have a role in the look and the function of the proposed facility. He suggested the commission's work plan should be amended to include it. Mr. Laue commented that the City Council "had not been shy" about adding to the work plan in the past. Mr. Taylor thanked the Police Commission for the work it had done over the last year. He called the agenda "ambitious." He wished to be on record as supporting the contingency request. Mr. Kelly noted that the work plan included a September work session to discuss the issue of off-campus parties. He recommended that, should it result in a request for action, the student body be allowed to provide input. Mr. Kelly applauded the undertaking of a thorough review of the complaint process. He conveyed his support for the motion. Mr. Meisner remarked that the City Council did assign the Police Commission work with no qualms and the Police Commission, in mm, had no qualms about taking on issues as they arose. He noted that the Police Commission was the only citizen body that had a full-time staff person and was now asking for a .5 FTE staff person and to contract out some work. He asked if the work plan the Police Commission was undertaking was too large for a citizen volunteer body. Mr. Laue responded that the commission met to discuss the workload and the likely increase in meetings, and the commission had indicated a unanimous commitment to the work. Mr. Meisner said he would support the work plan. He encouraged the commissioners to come before the council to amend the work plan should it prove to be too great. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She felt the community had strongly indicated the need for such a review. She would not, however, support the second motion. Mayor Torrey expressed his support for the motion. He said the community expected this analysis to be conducted. He was concerned that the community could not wait as long as it would take the commission to complete the civilian review and asked the City Manager and Chief Lehner to bring something before the council with regard to how some changes in the department could be accomplished quickly. Mr. Taylor responded that staff would work to review and change administrative policy and was hoping bring this review before the council within the next three to six months. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to authorize expenditure of an amount not to exceed $70,000 to support the Police Commission's re- view of the internal affairs policies and procedures and civilian oversight models. Ms. Taylor opposed the contingency request. She reported that she had reviewed the budget of the Police Commission and the commission had spent $92,000, mostly for staff. She opined that if this would be the only job of the Police Commission, then the staff person could spend all of her time on it. She felt it fortunate that the City had hired a Police Chief who was already familiar with external reviews. She thought it would be possible to easily gather information with the aid of computers. She hoped the council would be kept informed on the commission's work on the issue. Ms. Bettman stated that the commission would be looking at three different aspects of the complaint process: the intake, the investigation, and the adjudication. She said research would be done on each one of those aspects and how different communities treat the processes. She believed the resources to be absolutely necessary because the project would involve an extraordinary effort above the commission's regular workload. Mr. Pap~ asked what the staffing levels were for the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Planning Commission. Ms. Ortiz responded that the HRC had 2.5 FTE staff for the program. Mr. Taylor said different planners acted as support staff to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pap6 felt the contingency request was appropriate and that the proposed work could lead to a further request because of the size of the project. Mr. Taylor said that in addition to the Police Commission study and staff's external review, there was a third element to the review. He explained that the department would continue its relationship with external auditor for internal affairs, Howell Lankford, who would provide a similar review in the next year. He added that, based on Mr. Lankford's most recent report, he had asked Chief Lehner to develop some interim reforms, particularly in the area of intake and investigations. He requested the council's support for the continuation of these three phases of the review. He felt no bigger issue confronted the department and the City at this time and stressed the importance of working through the issue and moving forward to put into practice the types of policies and procedures that would guarantee the support of the community. Ms. Solomon echoed Ms. Bettman's comments. She assured the council that the work would be "$70,000 well-spent." Mayor Torrey stressed the fact that some people felt they could not report abuses of power for fear of retribution was in itself abuse and must be remedied. Mr. Meisner highly recommended providing specialized outreach to the women's community. The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey thanked Mr. Laue, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Brown for participating in the work session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 5 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Independent External Auditor Mr. Taylor noted that Ms. Bettman proposed having a discussion on bringing in an independent external auditor at a work session in the last month. He asked Mary Walston, Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager for the Central Services Department, to speak on the issue as she had staffed the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC), from which the proposal had originated. Ms. Walston stated that this issue was considered by the CCRC in 2001, and had been among several recommendations made to the council in 2002. She related that the specific recommendation regarding the creation of an external auditor position had not been forwarded by the City Council to the November 2002 ballot. She added that the materials provided to the council were the same as those previously considered in July 2002. Further, she noted that subsequent to the preparation of materials for the meeting today, a motion had been circulated by Council Bettman with the intention to place this question on the November 2004 ballot. The proposed motion was at councilors' places. Ms. Bettman expressed her intention of placing the motion on the table. She suggested she would be willing to reconsider the motion when Mr. Poling was present to vote on it, should it prevail and should he so wish. She opined it would be unwise to assume that the recent misdeeds of police officers were not indicative of a chronic systemic problem within the organization. She remarked that the City was unable to look at its services and operations objectively and it would help to provide an independent mechanism of oversight. She felt this would help reestablish trust and accountability in the minds of the public. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the contentions of those who maintained that hiring an independent external auditor would change the form of government from the council/manager form to one in which the council had more power. She declared such an auditor had no policy-making authority, no implementation authority, and would only provide factual analysis which would inform decision-making. She opined that this would be a way to measure government service with the goal of better quality and more accountable government. Ms. Taylor supported placement of the issue on the ballot in order for the public to have an opportunity to vote on it. She felt that the previous city manager's opposition to it had contributed to the council's decision not to put it on the ballot. Mr. Pap~ thanked Ms. Walston for the information. He commented that it could be a good service for the organization to have an auditor, but such an auditor should report to the City Manager. He averred that the council only needed one employee at the table. Mr. Kelly remarked that there were cities that had the council/manager form of government and an independent external auditor who reported to the council and such a model did not have an ill effect. He felt an auditor who reported to the City Manager would be perceived by the public as an agent of the manager. He opined that having the auditor report to the elected officials would increase public confidence in local government. He supported placing the item in the hands of the voters. Mr. Meisner was less concerned that the establishment of an auditor would impact the structure of City government. He felt it made sense for the City of Portland to have an independent external auditor as it did not have a manager and its elected commissioners ran City bureaus. He countered the suggestion that the addition of such an auditor would restore faith and manifest trust in the government by pointing out MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 6 Work Session the Lane County had a performance auditor. He asked the council to consider the success rates of the County's bond measures and how the public perceived the County. Mr. Meisner thought it was premature to place this item on the ballot, given that the council had just held a discussion on the police review process and it had been stressed that the review would take a year. He felt the parameters of the auditor position were nebulous. He also suggested that the council should consider what it was going to cut or what new fee or tax it was going to propose to pay for such an auditor. He recognized there was the possibility that an independent auditor would find efficiencies. He noted that, as a result of such audits, some cities discovered more programs were needed and costs increased. Mr. Taylor shared his personal experience with performance auditing. He said the City had hired qualified auditors to look at specific areas. He predicted that an internal auditor would add approximately $120,000 annually to the City budget. He was uncertain how such an auditor would "stack up" against all of the other City's needs, such as the need for more police officers and more money for social services. He could not recommend placing this on the ballot in November. He thought the discussion to be worthy, but that it was premature to take action at the present meeting. Mayor Torrey recognized that some members of the council had been supportive of this for two years. He felt that what was pushing this item to the forefront was the conviction of two police officers. He stated that the police department of the City of Portland was the subject of much public scrutiny and criticism in the last year, although the City had an independent police review under its independent external auditor. He advised the council not to assume that having such an auditor would solve the problems of the City. He stressed that this was not a double-majority measure and did not need to be rushed onto the November ballot. He recommended that, should such a position be voted in, it should be made an elected position in order to be truly independent. He stated that, in the event of a tie, he would, as a courtesy to Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Poling, vote in support of the motion in order to provide them the opportunity to cast their votes. However, he would vote against it at the regular meeting, should the need arise. Ms. Bettman said she would not put the motion on the table should it be amended to be a "redundant auditor," which she asserted it would be if it were answerable to the City Manager. She quoted research which asserted that "an appointed auditor reporting to the legislative body has the fewest impairments upon independence." She though this form was the best option. Ms. Bettman agreed that an auditor identified problems. She alleged that, working with the City Manager, such problems would be solved prior to coming before the council. Regarding financing the position, Ms. Bettman asserted that an independent auditor would save money. She countered that the council should think about how much the credibility of the organization was worth. She noted that the EPD had put out an audit with the same information on it for three years and nothing had been done about it. Ms. Solomon opposed having such an auditor because she was not interested in establishment of another government position. She pointed out that the proposal itself planned for an oversight committee, which would require that the City pay for staffing it. She predicted such an auditor would, before long, need an assistant. She believed the independent contracts the City already had for performance audits were working. She opined that an independent external auditor would ultimately be a contract manager as it would not be possible for one person to have expertise in all of the areas of the City services. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 7 Work Session expressed reluctance to change the charter in this way and suggested that the money it would cost be spent on parks and police. As per the suggestion that an auditor would pay for itself by saving money, she questioned the wisdom of using savings in a department to pay for a position rather than paying for technological improvements or furthering the education of executives. Mr. Kelly was not surprised the City Manager did not support the idea. He predicted that some of the contract auditors for specific departments could be eliminated as the independent auditor could do that work. He opined that when staff wants a project the money is found, but if staff was opposed to something, the council heard that the City was in terrible fiscal shape. He thought staff had the creativity to find funding for such a position, should it be the will of the voters. Mr. Kelly disagreed that the discussion at the present meeting was brief and the suggestion it be placed on the ballot was premature. He underscored the many hours the CCRC and council had spent in discussion on the item two years earlier. He averred it made fiscal sense to piggyback the item on a ballot that was already underway. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Kelly. She said the CCRC was an "excellent group of people who worked really hard" and a lot of thought had gone into it. She felt the least the council could do would be to place it on the ballot. Regarding the expenditure of money, she commented that the council had "just casually spent $70,000," and reiterated that studies of other communities have indicated that such audits saved money in many instances. Mr. Pap~ opined that the trust issue could "go both ways," as the hiring of an independent auditor could suggest to the public that the City was not trustworthy. Regarding the three police audits, Mr. Pap~ asserted that it was the council's responsibility to be aware of such things and take action. Mr. Taylor clarified that the council or the manager could, at any time, make a request to initiate a performance audit. He believed there was a role for performance audits. He expressed concern regarding how many employees the legislative body wished to have. He thought erosion of the City council/manager form of government was problematic and would create undue tension without the requisite benefit to the organization and to the community. Mr. Taylor commented that frequently people said they did not trust the city manager or that they did not receive fair and objective information. He said this was an issue that undermined the whole profession he was part of. He noted he had worked in public service for 30 years. He emphasized that the whole cultural value of a city manager was based on provision of the best professional fair and objective information that he and staff could muster. He averred that, from his experience of the last year, the City had an "incredibly talented staff" who worked very hard to provide the council with information from which decisions could be made. He recalled the process sessions in which staff and the council had worked to improve the way information was provided. He felt the suggestion that he and staff were not providing fair and objective information and were not trustworthy undermined, more than anything, the confidence the public would have in government. Mayor Torrey pointed out that there would be a ballot in 2005 regardless of the outcome of this discus- sion, as enough signatures had been gathered to bring a tax issue before the voters. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman called it "juvenile" to frame the issue as one of trust. She asked what was wrong with more accountability. She reiterated her feeling that having such an auditor in place would increase the public's trust in the City. She surmised that the motion would not pass and said she would not place it on the table. Mr. Kelly resented the implication that interest in an auditor indicated a lack of trust in staff. He said external performance and auditors were employed "all of the time" in private business. Ms. Taylor also disagreed that the item had to do with trust. She did not think Mr. Taylor had the time to take an in-depth look at a department. She felt audits merely provided an outside look at internal functions. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall August 9, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Pap6. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Kelly shared, on behalf of Mr. Meisner, that the Amtrak Depot project was on schedule and on budget and that Amtrak had been slated to move into the renovated depot on August 8. He announced that the grand opening was scheduled for 10 a.m. on September 20 and would be attended by Congressman DeFazio and Amtrak representatives. He invited the Mayor and City Council to attend. Ms. Taylor said she had heard from citizens that they were asked to put in a written request if they wanted to know something about their neighborhood. She felt that regardless of whether it was a City, County, or State issue, staff should try and find the information for citizens. She noted that this request was related specifically to concerns expressed by some of her constituents that a half-way house was proposed to be built in their neighborhood. Ms. Taylor related that constituents were upset about the hours that people were allowed to do construc- tion work. She said she had been asked if the council could make a legislative change so that one weekend day was free from construction noise. She recommended having more concern forthe people who already live in a neighborhood than for people constructing new buildings in a neighborhood. Ms. Bettman announced that there was a neighborhood meeting scheduled for August 10 at the Wayne Morse Ranch for the City and residents of the Crest Drive area to discuss street improvements. She hoped that it would result in residents and staff collaborating to come up with a design that would be amenable to the neighborhood while increasing the safety of the streets. Ms. Bettman stated that she was waiting to hear whether or not there was an opportunity for the City to collaborate with the Faith Center and the neighbors so that the development could occur in a way that takes the neighborhood's issues into account. She noted that houses were going to be moved and called the issue "emergent." Ms. Bettman reported that the Police Commission had held a public forum at the library the previous week. She said at least 40 people attended and all were very forthcoming with their issues. She stated that it had been broadcast on Metro Television and was slated to be repeated on August 12. She announced that more forums, the purpose of which was to elicit public input on the police department's MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 1 Work Session complaint process, were scheduled for September 28 at Sheldon Community Center, September 30 at Petersen Barn, and October 6 at the Whiteaker Community Center. She thought it likely that another forum would be scheduled for the University and also one that would be conducted completely in Spanish. She thanked Clergy and Laity Concerned (CALC) for its help in sponsoring the recent forum. Mr. Poling thanked and congratulated the volunteers and staff that helped to make the second annual Multi-Cultural Festival at Sheldon Community Center. He said he and his wife had attended and it was a good event with good turn-out. He hoped it would become an annual tradition. Mr. Pap6 thanked staff for the copy of the newspaper article on Kurt Corey, director of the Public Works Department, who was recently honored for his work. Mr. Pap6 reported that he had attended, along with Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson and some of the staff, a presentation of a report conducted by Eco-Northwest which looked at what services were and were not provided to the River Road area, who provided them and what the services would cost if they were entirely undertaken by the City. He noted that the transition manager had been hired and was working and thanked the council for approving the allocation to create this position. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Pap6 presented a pile of garbage he had picked up during his morning run between the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) site and the Autzen Footbridge. He felt there were not enough garbage receptacles along that stretch of the bike path. He conveyed his plea to citizens to please respect the environment and pick up after themselves. City Manager Dennis Taylor said Mr. Pap6 provided a good segue for the celebration of the City's volunteers, scheduled for Sunday, August 15, at Alton Baker Park. He commented that, without the help of volunteers, the City could not get "half the work done" for the City. He stated that thousands of people donate their time to help pick up garbage in the streams, help in the library, and more. Mayor Torrey announced the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the temporary bridge over the Willamette River at 9:30 a.m. on the following day. He commended the work that went into the bridge, adding that trucks that have been routed through Bend and back to Oakridge will now be able to traverse the Interstate 5 corridor. Mayor Torrey complimented the Public Works Department on its work on Cai Young Road. He felt it was the fastest and most well-done work on an arterial he had ever witnessed. Continuing, Mayor Torrey recommended councilors take a tour of the former Washington School, the new school building at the Patterson School site and the two middle schools, Madison Middle School and Cal Young Middle School, currently being constructed. B. WORK SESSION: Economic Development Committee Recommendations Mr. Taylor was pleased to introduce the work of the Economic Development Committee (EDC). He commended the committee's hard work and thanked Jim Forbes for his work as chair and Kathy Smith, MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 2 Work Session who assumed the position of chair when Mr. Forbes left the community. He asked Tom Coyle, director of the Planning and Development Department (PDD), to provide the background on the committee's work. Mr. Coyle reiterated that the committee had been an "outfall" of a directive from the Mayor. He said the committee met eight times, beginning in March 2004 and concluding in July. Ms. Smith read the charge of the committee, from page 15 of the agenda packet. She said the report was not a comprehensive strategic economic development plan and the committee was mindful that there was more that could have been done, had there been more time. She highlighted the recommendations that were made. Regarding its first recommendation, Ms. Smith explained that the committee agreed there was a lack of agreement because the committee was uncertain what the true supply of commercial and industrial land in the city of Eugene consisted of. She advocated for the City Council to support a regional buildable lands analysis, consistent with State requirements. Regarding the second recommendation on land use codes, Ms. Smith asserted there was much room for improvement in the regulatory process. She conveyed the committee's reconanendation that Chapter 9 of the land use code be made simpler and reviewed annually. Ms. Smith said the third recommendation to fund an "ombudsman" whose role would be to assist in navigating through the permit process would help streamline the process. Regarding the fourth recommendation on the enterprise zone, Ms. Smith stated that the committee acknowledged that such a zone was not the tool to do everything. She shared the recommendati~, delineated on page 30 of the agenda packet. Ms. Smith presented the recommendations in support of existing tools, consisting of infrastructure and urban renewal. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to accept the report of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. Ms. Taylor supported the motion if 'accept' did not mean 'adopt.' She expressed her intention to move to thank the committee and to delay any action until after the conference on sustainable development scheduled for September 23ra. She commended the committee for its work. Ms. Taylor thought Ms. Smith's quote on page 74 of the agenda packet which asserted the report would "frame the debate" for the City Council and the community was appropriate. She agreed with comments made by Brian Obie in which he supported education as an industry with a capacity for growth. She also supported his recommendation that owners of vacant buildings make rental concessions in order to increase tenancy. Mr. Kelly remarked that it was clear from reading the minutes that the committee had worked through many issues in a short amount of time. He appreciated the discussion on principles and goals that would drive the recommendations. He thought that to be the "biggest vacuum" he saw in previous discussions. He appreciated that the committee had reached a 75 percent agreement, as it had been charged to do by council order. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pap6 thanked the committee for its work. He commented that the City had "been around and around" on the second recommendation. He asked if there was any sense from the committee as to how this would be accomplished. Ms. Smith replied that the committee had discussed the logistics of an annual review. Mr. Coyle commented that, in a perfect world, a piece of land use code would be adopted and it would be used for a period of time to determine its efficacy and then either revised or retained. He opined that the challenge in Eugene was that what was administrative and what was policy became longer in time. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Coyle affirmed that an annual review was part of land use code in cities in which he was previously employed. Mr. Taylor added that staff was beginning to incorporate such review as part of the process in a routine way. Mr. Pap6 appreciated the Addendum: The Drama of Compromise, written by committee member Don Kahle. Ms. Solomon lauded the report and the work of the committee. Ms. Bettman thanked the committee for the time they had put into the work. She said ithad done the "best with what it had to work with." She thought the recommendations were "recycled old tools." She had hoped that the committee would determine that a long-term committee should be formed to look at what the City's role in economic development should be and what the real opportunities were, instead of looking at one tool and "looking at it in a vacuum." She bemoaned that the committee had not been able to look at the cost benefit analysis of economic tools. She opined that the discussion had yet to happen in which the City considered what it could do with the resources the committee was asking for in these recommendations if they had been invested in economic development in other ways. She would have liked to have seen a definition of economic development "that the community would buy into." She reiterated her objection to the makeup of the committee, calling it representative of"only a small sliver of the population." Mr. Poling also commended the work of the committee. He hoped the City Council would take the recommendations and put them to use. He noted that two surveys, conducted in 2002 and 2004, indicated that constituents wanted the City to take an active role in economic development. He disagreed that the makeup of the committee was not diverse. He thoughtthe members were very representative of the diversity of the community. Mayor Torrey thanked all of the members of the committee. He noted that initially there was hesitatim on the part of the committee on whether it should proceed. He believed there were a number of recommenda- tions that the City Council could work with, but the council would only address the first one at its regular meeting following the work session. He stressed that the committee had given the City Council a "tremendous leg-up" by tackling the issues. He felt comfortable that the council had received great work from them. He expressed hope that the council would have the courage to move forward with it. He called the report the beginning and expressed hope that it would be put into action and not placed upon the shelf. Ms. Taylor expressed hope that the council would not "blindly adopt" the recommendations. She agreed with one committee member's suggestion that economic development focus in part on increasing family wage jobs and another committee member's suggestion that Eugene support its resource-related, medical business and government sector jobs. She supported adding agricultural work to this. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor agreed with the contention of one member that the current urban growth boundary (UGB) contributed to the environment and community livability. Ms. Bettman said she would vote to accept the report, but her vote was not an endorsement of the recommendations. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor said he and the Mayor met regularly to set time for the agenda and had set aside three work sessions between the present meeting and November to consider the recommendations contained in the report. He clarified that the attachment entitled Eugene City Council Revised Staff Motion; Economic Development Committee Recommendations, August 9, 2004 reflected advice from council. Ms. Taylor felt broad principles were needed prior to adoption of the recommendations. She agreed with the principles set forth on page 80 of the council agenda packet. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey strongly recommended the council consider and discuss all of the revised motions in order to fully understand them prior to voting on them. Mr. Kelly noted that the community had gone through a four-to-seven-year process to redo Chapter 9. He asserted the code had not been created in a vacuum, things had been added for a good policy reason or to achieve a particular end. He held no doubt there were provisions that ended up at odds with others, but felt the simplification of the code was a huge work task. He asked if the intent of the motion was to review the codes or to scrutinize future changes in land use code. Mr. Coyle responded that the department had been funded in the previous year's budget to undertake a review of the land use code. He related that he and City Planner Susan Muir wished to go through that process and look for redundancies in the code and elements that needed to be in policy guidelines rather than the code. He hoped to work with the Planning Commission in order to have something within the next four to six months to present to the City Council for consideration. Ms. Nathanson was pleased to support the recommendation. She recalled that she had asked the council to consider a performance or outcome-based code rather than a rules-based code. She asserted that the council had made the code more complicated. Ms. Taylor supported simplifying the code if it meant clarifying it but opposed if it created more loopholes for certain types of development. Ms. Smith, speaking on behalf of the committee, stated that the intent was to simplify and certainly not to form loopholes. Ms. Bettman asserted that the City had just completed ten years of land use code review. She felt that the PDD had already adopted the review as a work plan item. She did not see how this would improve the economic development policies of the City. She thought streamlining land use code would decrease regulation, which she opposed. She remarked that "more than just the developers" should be considered and the neighborhoods needed to be involved. She questioned opting to put the money in this way rather than creating an alternative path so that a developer could use a clear and objective code and a vehicle for MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 5 Work Session an alternative path to allow developers to be creative and intuitive. She noted that PDD had asserted it did not have money to develop this "alternative path." Mr. Pap6 asked what was meant by the provision of a framework for "bounded delegation." Mr. Coyle replied that certain activities, projects, or standards different from the code could be approved if a series of standards were prescribed at the front end. He called it a level of flexibility at the edges of the code. He asserted it would allow the person at the front counter a certain level of creativity. Mr. Pap6 supported simplifying the process. He cited a city in California wherein a procedure was set up so that everyone acting on a permit sat at a table together and worked the kinks out of the proposal. He felt this resulted in better submittals. Mayor Torrey liked the recommendation. He predicted that there was a lot of work to be done on it while the council was on break. He felt that what was needed, more than anything else, was the ability to provide predictability to the people who bring their businesses to Eugene. He said the standpoint of the small person who wanted to add something on in the backyard was that the process was frustrating and often it was simpler to build things without permits. He noted that people sometimes opined that the Mayor could build a brick fence and others could not, but the truth of it was that he had built his brick fence five years ago, prior to changes in the code that precluded the building of such walls. He thought companies who did not have the ability or finances to address some of the land use issues in Eugene fled to Springfield. He opined that the cleaner and more predictable the code could be made, the better off the community would be. Mr. Kelly agreed there was room for improvement in the current code. He recalled that he had attended several sessions at the recent American Planners Association conference on form-based codes and other non-Euclidean constructs. He said, given the opportunity, he would support this. He asserted, however, that the staff motion did not express these ideas. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Coyle opined the "alternate path" idea would not speak to any of the principles that were being set forth. He called it a major zoning administration question. He asserted that undertaking a performance-based zone at this time would be a complete overhaul of the code. Mr. Kelly expressed confusion at what the "alternate path" would do. Mr. Coyle replied that it would add 20 percent more predictability to the adjustment review process. Mr. Kelly requested a work session on the "alternate path," adding that he did not think the staff activity reflected the council's direction. Ms. Nathanson recognized that the council would not likely take action at the present work session. She wished to convey, nonetheless, her suggestion for a change in the wording of the second revised staff motion so that it would read, as follows: 2) Direct the City Manager to apply the principles noted under the Policy Issues section of this Agenda Item Summary to promote simplification of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Codeover time and to provide an annual review of the Code. Ms. Nathanson stressed that the annual review should be for the benefit of the public. She expressed hope that when a work session was scheduled it would be to discuss how to get it off the ground so that staff could begin working on it and not to discuss individual sections of the code and how they should be modified. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought evidence that the code was obstructing development to be anecdotal. She conjectured that the average citizen's point of view was that there was constant development and a lot of it. She asserted that the City of Eugene had one of the lowest turnaround times for permits and joked that a person could get a permit here faster than she could get an appointment with her doctor. She felt the motion as staff wrote it did not direct staff to return to the council, but rather directed staff to proceed. She opined this was a job for an independent auditor. She commented that there was much anecdotal evidence and perceptions and she alleged that no one had actually looked at the code in an unbiased way to determine how best to promote economic development that had been identified as desirable in this community. She agreed it was necessary to provide predictability to the developers and said residents of the community also needed to have predictability. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Coyle to clarify whether the $100,000 budget allocation was to be split between code changes and site-specific nodal development. He opined that the "alternative path" planning would increase efficiency in the permitting process by more than 20 percent. Mayor Torrey asked councilors to comment on the third revised staff motion, which would direct the City Manager to proceed with a service level adjustment to fund a business facilitator position in FY06. Ms. Bettman remarked that it was a budget issue. She questioned how the money, within the context of the broad range of options, would be best spent on this. She agreed there were some advantages, should the position be an ombudsman who would also be a facilitator for neighborhoods and residents and would represent them as aggressively as they do a developer. She felt the proposed position to be that of an advocate for the developers. Mr. Coyle disagreed with that statement. He underscored that the staff's role was to resolve the issues between neighborhoods and development. He stated that PDD did not only work for developers and the equality of treatment it provided to all parties was embedded in its charge. Ms. Solomon conveyed her support of the proposals presented by the committee. She strongly believed the committee was very diverse and representative of our community. She pointed out that the recom- mendations had been reached in a consensus manner. She said she was willing to move forward with the recommendations and give them a try. Mr. Kelly supported the idea of having the facilitator serve neighborhood groups. He cited the East Campus Development Plan as a work of both citizens and development toward a common good. Mr. Pap6 expressed his support. He hoped that the facilitator would not substitute for the core issues the City needed to address in the permitting process. Ms. Nathanson supported the recommendation. Ms. Taylor said she currently did not support the recommendation, but she wanted to think about it more. She thought an advocate was needed to protect individuals as well as neighborhood organizations. Mr. Poling voiced his support for the recommendation. He surmised from Mr. Coyle's words that the facilitator would help an applicant through all aspects of the process including working through any issues that could arise from neighborhood concerns. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Smith to speak to the intent of the committee regarding the facilitator position. Ms. Smith stated that the intent was not to advocate for developers. She felt more comfortable with the word 'applicant.' She related that the committee had discussed neighborhood groups and had posited that the position would embody fairness and help with how the code would be implemented. Ms. Bettman suggested that the motion come back with the embodiment of the intent of the committee. She said her support would be predicated on the language. She referred to the minutes and asked where the funding for the position would come from. She thought the applicant should contribute for the service and that taxpayers should not subsidize it. Mr. Kelly supported the value of the position and asked staff to provide the council with a range of alternatives to fund it. Mr. Taylor responded by saying that the City needed to do many things within PDD and within the General Fund and some of the service funds. He said the motion here would enable staff to build the decision package that could be considered by the PDD director and ultimately by City management. Ms. Nathanson said if the City was getting in the way of redevelopment of an existing site or the ultimate development of another site, then it was part of the problem and needed to be part of the solution. She stated that there was a substantial majority of Eugene citizens who believed the City should be involved with economic development. As such, she felt the recommendation to be entirely appropriate. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Coyle explained that in the conditional use permit (CUP) process it was the staff's role to work with the neighborhood, the developer, and the code for the best possible redevelopment of the site. He called it a balancing act. He commented that, as much as staff tried, it was impossible to identify all of the outcomes in a body of code prior to its implementation. Mr. Kelly commented that a decision package implied that it would come in the City Manager's draft budget. He felt that his request would not cause any delay. He reiterated that he was only asking staffto come back with funding options. Mr. Taylor responded that the implementation of the economic development committee's report would be a justification for a larger discussion with the Budget Committee as to funding options. He reiterated that the council would have three work sessions to fully discuss the recommendations. Mayor Torrey called for council comments on the recommendation to proceed with the application to establish an Enterprise Zone. Ms. Taylor thought such a zone would be very dangerous. She said State legislation would have to be changed before she would support an Enterprise Zone. Ms. Bettman quoted Mr. Sheehy who said Eugene's competition was global. She opined it made little sense since tax abatement was injuring school districts, the State's General Fund budget, the County budget, jails, the City's General Fund, etc. She would support such a zone only if it was extraordinarily strategically focused on properties that otherwise had obstacles such as infill and brownfields. She said, in light of her main objective of creating living wage jobs and a sustainable economy, the zone should have a sliding scale. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey spoke glowingly of an industry in western Eugene and said it was the largest taxpayer in Lane County. He thought the new Enterprise Zone could help small corporations start and grow in the area. Mr. Kelly asked if it would be possible, under State law, to cap how much tax revenue to forgive from a single applicant. Mr. Pap6 thought the zone, of all four recommendations, had the potential to do the most good. He was impressed by the way the "diverse committee" approached the issue and arrived at a unanimous recommendation. Mr. Poling commented that the City missed the opportunity to apply for the zone for two years. He wished to move this particular recommendation forward so that the application could be made in a timely manner when the application period was open. Ms. Bettman asked, regarding the industry Mayor Torrey spoke of, how much the City paid per job, how much the City paid in infrastructure, and how much the City was paying in services. She recalled the hearings in front of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in which the schools and utilities said they had the capacity for the industry. She felt the recent bond measures for more school buildings and the fact that the Eugene Water and Electric Board had drilled several test wells to be evidence that the capacity was not adequate. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman, adding that the population had increased and more police officers were needed as well. She recalled another business that had not paid a living wage and had left, she thought, without paying any taxes. She surmised that the people employed by the business had caused a further burden on the human service providers as a result of the low wages. Mr. Kelly thought the Enterprise Zone could be useful and appreciated the fine-tuning work the committee did on parameters. He thought the greenfield versus brownfield delineation was worth further considera- tion. He asked staff to provide an outline of what would happen next, should the council vote to apply for the zone. Mayor Torrey stated that the fifth recommendation would be the last item on the City Council regular agenda and that Councilor Meisner would be available by telephone for the vote. He thanked the committee for its work. The council gave the committee members a round of applause to demonstrate appreciation for their civic contribution. The meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT F MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber---City Hall August 9, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Gary Pap6. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Ron Farmer, 3330 Bardale Avenue, 2004 Chair of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, urged the council to fund a regional commercial/industrial lands study. He anticipated the local economy would continue to grow, helping the community to underwrite the costs of its quality of life. He suggested "right-sizing" the land supply was crucial, as a tilt too far to one extreme or another would threaten the local quality of life. Mr. Farmer called for smart and reasonable planning as a solution to achieving the needed balance. He said that planning must be based on facts with current and correct information, which was currently missing with regard to the land supply. Mr. Farmer asked the council to avoid politicizing the process and to hire an outside expert acceptable to all parties. He asked it not to qualify the process and not to burden it with criteria. He said there would be time to argue about how the information was used when the inventory was complete. Mayor Torrey noted that eight more people had signed up to speak for the Public Forum, and called on the Council President for a motion to extend the time for the item. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to extend the time for the Public Forum to 45 minutes and to encourage speakers to be brief. The motion passed, 6:1, Councilor Solomon voting no. Ed Weeks, no address given, Chair of the Research and Evaluation Committee for United Way of Lane County, discussed the results of United Way's recent biennial survey. The survey indicated clear evidence that typical, hard-working local families with median household incomes were facing a challenge meeting ordinary living expenses. He cited statistics from the survey in support of his remarks, and noted that families with children were even more heavily impacted. He suggested something was deeply wrong with a society that allowed such families to approach insolvency, and urged the council to always keep in mind the need to have a healthy economy. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 1 Regular Session Priscilla Gould, no address given, Executive Director of United Way, said the economy had a "huge" bearing on people's ability to support basic needs. Those most in need were most affected when good jobs and benefits were lost. Families suffer, and those most frail paid the price as the service system was stretched "beyond the breaking point." Ms. Gould applauded the council for paying attention to the economy, pointing out a strong vibrant economy was important to all, not just a concern of business. Beth Gerot, 1270 River Road, supported the council's adoption of the report of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. She said the committee's recommendation for a commercial/industrial study was an important step to determining whether the community could meet its future growth needs, be noted her ownership of a local business, which depended on other businesses. Wise land use decisions were critical to determining how growth occurred, and to the community's quality of life. As a member of the 4J School Board member, Ms. Gerot was aware of the relationship between a strong economy and strong schools that could provide educational programs to help students fill the jobs of tomorrow. Healthy and prosperous families send healthy students to school. She commended the City on its renewed commitment to economic development, and urged the council to accept the committee's recommenda- tions. Rick Duncan, 1850 Taylor Street, an appraiser and author of a previous lands study, urged the council to fund a new commercial/industrial lands study to provide the community with updated inventory information. He said many changes occurred since the last study was conducted, including the identifica- tion of wetlands and the removal of land from the inventory due to development. Mr. Duncan suggested the inventories were nothing more than data collection for the community's long-term planning processes. He called for other studies to help the community better understand its land inventory. Mr. Duncan said consensus was frequently difficult to reach in Eugene about such issues, and suggested a third-party approach would be useful. He submitted the State's proposed methodology for such studies for the council's background and suggested it be employed locally. Michelle Howard, 25371 Perkins Road, spoke in support of the establishment of a local enterprise zone. She shared the results of a study done by students in the Economics Department at the University of Oregon, which indicated such zones helped small companies to grow faster. She said the study was available online. Steve Dignam, 250 West Broadway, Suite 234, a member of the Lane County Planning Commission, shared information from a recent City staff presentation to the commission, at which City staff indicated it could not say if adoption of the Natural Resources Study would have an impact on the supply of commercial and industrial lands because it lacked factual data regarding that impact. He recommended that an inventory of those lands be done to assist in better land use planning. Milton Ohler, 111 7th Avenue, a commercial real estate broker, said he worked with companies that had trouble finding commercial and industrial sites, which suggested to him there was a lack of such sites. He suggested that some people were afraid of the results of such a study. He also advocated for a study of the community's industrial and commercial lands. Pat Hocken, President of the Lane Transit District (LTD) Board of Directors, expressed the board's support for the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. She spoke of the benefits of transit to the local business community, noting that local payroll taxes supported the majority of district operations. In addition, self-employed businesses owners contributed to the tax. Ms. Hocken said the creation and relocation of businesses to the Eugene-Springfield area would increase district MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session revenues, which could be used to expand services and leverage federal matching funds for various capital construction projects. LTD worked cooperatively with local transportation agencies to maintain the road infrastructure, which was also critical to the business community. Ms. Hocken suggested that targeted transit investments can assist in economic redevelopment, as demonstrated by Portland's light rail project. LTD investments could also serve as a catalyst for investment. She expressed appreciation to local businesses for their support through the payroll tax. She urged adoption of the committee's recommendations. Scott Purcell, 3425 Strathmore Place, commended the Mayor's committee for its work and its recom- mendations. As a business owner and a father, he supported adoption of the recommendations. He wanted to see those in the community now lacking opportunity to have the ability to secure a job. He advocated funding for the commercial/industrial lands survey. He called for an accurate inventory of those lands. Mr. Purcell said a strong economy was good for the people, and he trusted the council to be balanced in its approach. Corey Neu, 2344 L Street, vice president of the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed the associa- tion's support for the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. He specifically supported the recommendation for a commercial/industrial lands survey. He said such an analysis was critical. He said the committee's overall recommendations would improve the business climate. All the recommendations represented common ground and a high degree of committee consensus. He called for funding for such a commercial/industrial lands study, saying it would demon- strate the council's commitment to a strong economy and community quality of life. Jim Portland, 3311 Lakeside Drive, asked the council to support the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. He thanked the council for recognizing the community needed economic development. He thought the committee's recommendations were essential and represented what the community wanted as expressed through the City's annual survey. He cited some of those results, and asked the council to keep them in mind. He supported funding the proposed inventory of commercial and industrial lands. Amy Dufour, 746 East 194 Avenue, expressed her continued support for housing standards for rental housing as she believed the current system was inadequate and too costly and time-consuming for renters. She shared a memorandum from housing advocate John Van Landingham, one of those involved in creating the current system, identifying problems with that system. Virginia Starling, 3302 Storey Boulevard, questioned the signage throughout her neighborhood regarding the upcoming community meeting about the collector street proposal for the Crest Drive neighborhood, and asked why the meeting was open to the general public. She suggested that the Planning Division had hired a public relations firm to spread "propaganda" about the project. James Reed, 990 Crest Drive, questioned the hiring and cost of a public relations firm to facilitate the upcoming meeting between City staff and neighborhood residents regarding the Crest Drive neighborhood collector street proposal. Residents had not been consulted about the agenda for the meeting. Given the timing of the meeting, which he believed was to be held after the council went on break, he questioned whether any councilors would be in attendance. He asked that the streets in question be designated as local streets rather than collector streets. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session Cheryl Hunter, 5320 Hunter Way, discussed the recent sale of a parcel in the south hills that was acquired by a private developer after the City failed to acquire it for open space. She supported the City's acquisition of the property and said she had collected signatures in support of that effort. Ms. Hunter submitted copies of the signatures she had gathered. She urged the council's support of the acquisition, which was significant to the City's parks system was already used by area residents. It was also important for flood management and prevention purposes and contained valuable wildlife habitat. She said she would continue to meet with affected neighborhood associations to discuss how they could support the City's acquisition efforts. Paul Thompson, 2970 Chamelton Street, Chair of the Crest Drive Citizens Association, also noted the proposal to designate several streets in the Crest Drive neighborhood as collectors. He said the associa- tion recently discussed the topic again, and he conveyed the results of the vote taken at that time, which was to oppose the classification of any neighborhood street as a neighborhood collector. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, suggested a community forum be held to discuss street crossing issues on Franklin Boulevard he believed would result when Bus Rapid Transit was implemented. Mr. Vishanoff reiterated past concerns about the principles underlying the concept of"smart growth," which he dubbed social engineering. He said that the State planned to spend $50 million over the next 20 years to build "smart roads," which would include cameras and would supposedly be more efficient and safe. He did not accept that. He called Portland a poor model for growth, and suggested the council consult the web site "Take Back Wisconsin" for further information. He said that communities all across the country were repealing smart growth laws because of their concern that decisions were being made before issues got to hearings, which were "window dressing" while the United Nations made zoning decisions. Mr. Vishanoff noted former Councilor Pat Farr's concern that the costs of smart growth could drive low-income residents to other nearby communities, adding to traffic congestion and the particulate loads in those communities. Mr. Vishanoff also expressed concern about nanotechnology, indicating he had prepared information for the council to review. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, representing the Friends of Eugene, said he was previously opposed to the proposed commercial and industrial lands study, believing there was more need for the Natural Resources Study to be completed. However, as a result of participating in the "roundtable" process involving 16 community members representing disparate interests, he had changed his mind and now supported conducting the study. Mr. Matthews said the council was responsible for ensuring the study was done in an open and transparent way, with adequate public input and clear criteria that will allow the results to have community credibility. It was easy to have a study with credibility for the community it most benefited, but the community needed real data that could be used broadly and was not controversial. Mr. Matthews thought it possible to achieve that but he was unsure the council was ready to proceed at this time. Mr. Matthews said it was unnecessary or important to proceed with the remainder of the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development at this time, particularly those in regard to the Land Use Code, as it was his belief they were not "full and ripe" yet. Lauri Segal, 120 West Broadway, representing 1,000 Friends of Oregon, said she was not opposed to the commercial/industrial lands study going forward, but suggested that it was somewhat "manipulative" that MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 4 Regular Session the roundtable support of the inventory came forward in conjunction with the recommendations of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. She pointed out the roundtable also talked about taking a more broad view toward the community's natural resources than had been taken to date, but that was not included in the staff materials related to the commercial/industrial lands study. Ms. Segal said the council was also lacking information on the scope of work reviewed by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. She questioned why neither the Springfield or Eugene councils had requested a greater level of detail on the topic. Ms. Segal said the commissioners had not been informed about potential mechanisms to address any shortage in the land supply, as was mentioned in the council packet materials. Ms. Segal maintained that the Metro Partnership had informed the Board of County Commissioners that it would take the lead on the study, and she did not know what that meant. She thought all the information available on the topic should have been in the council's packet. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Bettman thanked those in attendance and hoped that staff had answers to the questions posed by the Crest Drive neighbors by the time of the community meeting. Regarding the proposed commercial/industrial lands study, Councilor Bettman suggested one justification for conducting such a study was the study previously done by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, which she believed was biased in terms of its assumptions and based on a narrow definition of what was developable. That was a concern to her. She believed the ultimate goal of the study's proponents was expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB). Councilor Bettman questioned whether the study would result in the goals cited by its proponents, such as job growth. She said no data had been presented to the council that linked the land inventory and the expansion of the UGB to better jobs, more jobs, addressing issues of poverty, or any of the social ills brought forward to justify the study. Councilor Taylor believed all residents wanted a healthy economy but differed about what that meant and about how to achieve it. Councilor Taylor noted that the Crest Drive meeting was not after the council's summer break and said she intended to attend it. She said she had asked why the facilitator was hired and had not yet received an answer. She questioned the purpose of the signage. Councilor Kelly asked staff to provide the council with the information provided by Ms. Dufour. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes June 28, 2004, City Council Meeting July 12, 2004, City Council Meeting July 14, 2004, City Council Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Findings and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adop- tion of Resolution 4806 Forming a Local Improvement District for Constructing Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters, Conduit, and Storm Water Drainage System on Santa Clara Avenue from River Road to Approximately 600 Feet West (Job #4108) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 5 Regular Session Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilors Bettman and Kelly noted that they had e-mailed proposed corrections to the minutes under consideration to the council via e-mail. Mayor Torrey deemed them accepted as submitted. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project Planning and Development Department staff member Richie Weinman p~esented the staff report. He said the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) reviewed the plans prior to forwarding the recommendations to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then recommended the plan the council. He reviewed the recommendations, which were to allow for the expenditure of district funds on projects other than the library and for the extension of the district's sunset date. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Randy Stender, 2898 Powderhorn Street, expressed support for the urban renewal plan and for the designation of 8th Avenue as a "Great Street." He noted his involvement in the local arts scene and emphasized the community's long-time support of the arts, as demonstrated by the successful drive to construct the Hult Center. Mr. Stender believed arts were a community priority and would assist in the revitalization of downtown Eugene. He said Eugene had done a good job nurturing the arts in downtown through its public and private investments in things such as the library and The Shedd. He suggested the missing element in the plan was a visual arts center, which was a key recommendation in the 1994 citizen- produced Arts Plan. Mr. Stender asked that such a center be made a City priority. Carolyn Kranzler, 2660 Crest da Ruta, Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts Steering Committee, expressed her support of the district and for the location of civic buildings such as new city hall on 84 Avenue. She said the community's cultural and historic centers were downtown and a civic center that reinforced that fact was needed. She supported the expanded area. She asked for the council's support, saying urban renewal revenues were an effective tool and should be used to support cultural development as well as government and other development. Ms. Kranzler advocated for a downtown visual arts center and the relocation of the Lane County Historic Museum to the butterfly parking lot, noting the proximity of that site to the Hult Center. She asked the council to consider redeveloping the site for that purpose as it would contribute to the feeling of the "Great Street." Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, representing Friends of Eugene, said he believed the plan was "not bad," but it was insufficiently inspirational for the community. He said Eugene should attempt to reach for more than what he termed "very much safe, pretty much business as usual" approach. He recalled the presentation given by Bob Stacy to the Friends of Eugene, during which Mr. Stacy discussed downtown as "node one." Mr. Matthews said that nothing in the plan really supported that. He said there were more objectives than the resources available could address, and while that created greater implemen- tation flexibility it did not provide the public with a clear idea of what would happen. Mr. Matthews said MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session the problem of apparently disinterested ownership of downtown properties was not addressed by the plan. However, he said "go ahead, move the plan forward," but he wanted the council to do more. Russ Brink, 214 East 304 Avenue, representing Downtown Eugene, Inc., noted his agency's submittal of written testimony on July 8. He said the board felt it was more important for the council to fulfill the objectives of the Downtown Plan than it was for it to approve the proposed amendments because the Urban Renewal Agency and the tools it had at its disposal were the most flexible and targeted funds the City had to support downtown redevelopment and densification of surface parking lots and public improvements in downtown, including public art. Mr. Brink asked the council to connect its vision for downtown to the agency's ability to achieve that vision. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, noted his long-time opposition to urban renewal, which he believed was synonymous with the destruction of"neat, old" buildings. He expressed concern about the potential of using district funds to underwrite the cost of security cameras in the district for security purposes. He advocated for plan specificity to avoid future surprises. He said that blanketing funding of security measures could create an Orwellian zone in downtown. Mr. Vishanoff suggested the City staff was not testing ideas for downtown with the community's residents but rather was looking to Portland for ideas. Mr. Vishanoff called for more City support for the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House and suggested the City take care of what it had downtown before attempting to create new urban settings from scratch. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for council questions. Councilor Bettman referred to Table 4 on page 14 of the Central Eugene Project (Downtown) Urban Renewal District Report and noted it did not differentiate between the fund sources. She said that much of the money was intended to fund transportation projects. She questioned whether the council would be able to fund other worthy projects such as arts center were it to "whittle away" at the funding by building transportation projects. She requested a breakdown of funds from all sources, including private sources. Referring to page 10 of the Urban Renewal Plan, Councilor Bettman requested information about the change in the value of the district's base. She asked how the value of the base could be eroded given the amount of improvement that occurred since 1968 and the fact the base was frozen. Sue Cutsogeorge of the Central Services Department said the original plan was written prior to the voters' passage of Ballot Measure 50 tax changes, which changed the assessments to less-than-real market value. The information before the council translated the frozen base from the pre-Measure 50 assessment method to the post- Measure 50 assessment method. The entire value of the district was converted, both the increment and the base. Councilor Bettman pointed out the assessed value had increased and did not appear to be subject to the same modifier. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the assessed value in the district had gone up as a result of growth over time since the plan was first written. The frozen base was static. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for the responses to earlier questions and the history of the district, which illustrated the successes of the district as well as its failures. Councilor Kelly found the establishment of a visual arts center and the potential of the relocation of the Historic Museum exciting concepts, and asked staff to reassure the council before adoption that the plan allowed for such projects to be funded. He also questioned how the council could "kick-start" a drive for a visual arts center in downtown, and asked staffto provide some information on that topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session Councilor Kelly noted the City's contributions to the renovations being done to the Shelton-McMurphey- Johnson House, which were being completed incrementally over a period of years. Councilor Kelly noted his previously expressed concerns about the proposed district expiration date and said nothing had been presented in testimony to change his mind. He preferred a 20-year, rather than a 25-year expiration date. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of council questions. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the notice required for Type II plan amendments, Mr. Weinman said that notice was provided to all property owners and affected taxing jurisdictions. He said that changing the district's indebtedness required both a public process and council action to approve the change. Councilor Bettman asked if the maximum-allowed $500,000 expenditure was an annual or one-time expenditure. Mr. Weinman indicated he would follow up. Councilor Bettman requested that staff prepare text that reduced that amount to $250,000 and indicate clearly it was per- annum. Mr. Weinman believed the text in question was taken from State law and indicated he would check with the City Attorney. Councilor Bettman shared Councilor Kelly's concerns about the expiration date for the district. She asked what justification existed if the district never sunsetted, given it had started in 1968 and was proposed to be extended for another 25 years. She requested an answer in writing. Councilor Kelly asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to discuss the downtown urban renewal line item that appeared on residents' property tax bills. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the reference in the staff response to questions (Attachment F) to "the division of tax" referred to the incremental value times the overlapping tax rate for the all the jurisdictions. There was also a line item for the downtown special levy. Councilor Kelly asked how the downtown district could receive $1.9 million from the division of tax and, from information shown on page 3 of Attachment F, forgo only $830,000. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that division of tax took into account all overlapping jurisdictions and bonded debt, and applied those tax rates, so the $1.9 million was the total for all taxing districts, not just Eugene's. 4. ACTION Applications for Two Low-Income Housing Tax Exemptions Resolution 4803 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for Property Located at 2640-2694 Edgewood Drive, Eugene, Oregon (Tax Lot 17-04-12-33- 0600). (Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation--Apple Orchard Development); and Resolution 4804 Approving a Low-Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption for a Portion of the Property Located at 150 Santa Clara Avenue (Tax Lot 17-04-11-43-00800). (St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County) Mr. Weinman noted that a third application submitted by Public Private Partnerships, Inc., had been withdrawn earlier that day by the applicant. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve Resolution 4803 approving a low-income rental housing property tax exemption for property located at 2640-2694 Edgewood Drive, Eugene, Oregon (Tax Lot 17-04-12-33- MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session 0600). (Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation--Apple Orchard Devel- opment) Councilor Bettman asked if the units envisioned to be built would always be low-income units. Mr. Weinman responded that in these cases, they would be low-income for at least 40 years, twice the time of the tax exemption because of the fact they were partially federally funded. If they ceased to be low- income, they would lose the exemption. Referring to the City's Housing Dispersal Policy, Councilor Bettman asked if staff considered each development or the entire area in question before it reached a determination of the percentage of low- income housing in an area. Mr. Weinman clarified that the policy was related to each development being considered. It regarded only the number of units in the specific development. Councilor Bettman asked if the Housing Policy Board (HPB) had considered revising the policy to take into account the fact that certain neighborhoods had more low-income housing than other neighborhoods. Mr. Weinman said the policy had been amended several times, and the HPB planned to review it again this fall. The policy took into consideration the number of low-income units in the census tract. Councilor Bettman suggested the HPB consider whether any particular area was underserved with such housing, given the need. Councilors Kelly and Poling determined from Mr. Weinman that the applicant representing Public Private Partnerships requested that the council not consider the application tonight because of his desire to revise the project and application and resubmit it to the HPB. Councilor Taylor asked what happened when residents ceased to be low-income; did they get to continue living in low-income housing? Mr. Weinman said in this case, yes. However, the vast majority of residents continue to be low-income. People tended to move once they could afford to, but were not kicked out immediately. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to approve Resolution 4804 approving a low-income rental housing property tax exemption for a portion of the prop- erty located at 150 Santa Clara Avenue (Tax Lot 17-04-11-43-00800). (St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County). Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break. 5. ACTION: Request for Funding for Commercial/Industrial Lands Study Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to direct he City Manager to provide $15,000 in contingency funds for the commercial/industrial lands study as rec- ommended on page 8 of the report of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Devdopment. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Councilor Bettman indicated her likely intent to move to table the motion to a time certain to allow for more council discussion about the scope of work and for the inclusion of the roundtable's recommenda- MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 9 Regular Session tions. She had concerns about the scope of work being proposed by Lane Metro Partnership Director Jack Roberts, such as his recommendation that the firm EcoNorthwest perform the study and that a technical advisory committee made up of public and private entities be formed to oversee the study. She noted that Mr. Roberts had suggested, in response to a question from Commissioner Bill Dwyer, that public funding was needed to ensure the study was not biased. Councilor Bettman opposed the participation of people representing private industry on the technical committee as she believed their presence would bias the study. Since all agreed on the need for the study to be credible, she thought the council should consider the scope of work to ensure that the study had the appearance of being factually unbiased. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap6, City Manager Taylor said the study was estimated to cost a total of $50,000 to $60,000. Councilor Pap6 expressed appreciation for the recommendations of Mr. Roberts but shared Councilor Bettman's concerns the study did not appear to be biased. He advocated for the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to ensure the individual conducting the study was not biased. Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle clarified that Eugene would not be responsible for the ultimate consultant contract, which was a multi-jurisdictional contract. Councilor Pap6 suggested the council could condition the City's participation in the study on an RFP. Mr. Coyle concurred. He said on occasion them was cause for a sole-source contract. He said the contract was relatively small, and to conduct a full bidding process for such a contract had its advantages and disadvantages. He had not analyzed that approach. Councilor Pap6 asked if staff had considered whether the study would be more acceptable to the public if it was overseen by local government rather than the Metro Partnership. Mr. Coyle likened the contract to the one the City had with the cattery, through which it did not dictate operational issues, but suggested that was a policy decision for the council. Councilor Pap6 wanted an unbiased study that was information-based, and said the community must perceive that was the case. Mr. Coyle noted that the State had established standards through the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) for how such studies must be conducted. That fact was key to the Mayor's committee's recommendation regarding the issue. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap6, City Manager Taylor indicated the Land Conservation and Development Commission's guidelines regarding such studies, provided by Mr. Duncan, would be made available to the council. Councilor Pap6 shared Councilor Bettman's interest in a council review of the scope of work. Councilor Kelly indicated his tentative support for the concept of tabling the motion to a date certain, suggesting a date in September, soon after the recess. He believed the council needed to have an understanding of what the study would consider. He wanted to review the scope of work and the other materials the Board of County Commissioners had already reviewed, as well as the information provided by Mr. Duncan. He agreed credibility was a key to the success of the proposed study. He noted that the Mayor's committee had suggested that study examine both vacant and underutilized land; while he agreed that was critical, and the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) called for communities to inventory substantially under-utilized land, that term was not defined in the OARs. He believed that Mr. Duncan, the author of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce's study, had implicitly defined "substantially underutilized" in a way that precluded the examination of much redevelopment potential. Councilor Kelly wanted a study that gave the council the facts about that issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Kelly suggested that, as recommended by the mayor's committee, the study look at the potential of parcel assembly. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the motion was not tabled, and suggested alternatively it be amended to call for the establishment of an RFP to be reviewed by the Metro Partnership's Board of Directors. He noted that all jurisdictions were represented on the board and that Councilor Kelly was his alternate on the board and would ensure a thorough evaluation of the RFP. He asked the council to avoid micromanaging the study. He believed the community knew how such a study could be done. Councilor Taylor favored tabling the motion to give the council the opportunity to develop criteria to guide the consultant. Councilor Poling pointed out that Eugene was only one of three jurisdictions participating in the study, and suggested that the council's motion regarding the issue be simple. He did not want to overcomplicate the issue and suggested the scope of the study be left to the Metro Partnership and the consultant ultimately hired. He wanted to proceed with the study following the State guidelines that govern the issue. Councilor Poling said Eugene's funding was crucial to completing the study. He believed the study was one small step to the road to the community's economic recovery; while no one thing would accomplish that alone. In addition, the study would assist the City in planning for the future for all land types. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to amend the motion as follows: "To provide $15,000 in contingency funds for the commercial/industrial lands study pend- ing an RPF approval by the Lane Metro Partnership Board." Mayor Torrey called for comments on the amendment. Councilor Kelly did not support the amendment. He said the dynamics of the board meetings he had attended did not lend themselves to the appropriate review of such a document. While he did not think the council should review the RFP, he did want to review the proposed scope of work in September. Councilor Bettman also opposed the amendment. She agreed with Councilor Kelly that it would be micromanaging to review an RFP, she believed the council could establish some guiding principles for the components of the study. Councilor Bettman was concerned about the fact a contractor had already been named as well as the expedited six-month process called for in the scope of work. She feared an expedited process would lead to an inadequate study. Councilor Bettman said there was no emergency or need for an expedited timeline, and there was time to inculcate the City's needs and requirements into the process. Councilor Bettman expressed hope the amendment was voted down and a work session held to review the scope of work that allowed the council to provide criteria to guide the study process. Councilor Solomon indicated support for the motion and thanked the mayor for his suggestion. She was concerned about attempts to discredit the Metro Partnership's Board of Directors or Mr. Roberts. She believed those individuals were working in the best interest of the whole county. Councilor Solomon said Springfield and Eugene had the same need to identify the amount of available land. She said Eugene was one member of a parmership. She believed the study represented the way local government should work together. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 11 Regular Session Councilor Nathanson said she tended not to support the amendment because she thought it very important the study have public respect and confidence. The lack of confidence expressed by councilors suggested to her the process was starting out wrong; that attitude would call into question all the conversations about the study's results. However, she was concerned that postponing action would lead to the council attempted to micromanage the study. She said that the Eugene council would be substituting its judgment for that of the professional managers and writing into the document the council's own needs and not considering the needs of its partner jurisdictions. Councilor Nathanson asked City Manager Taylor for input, and how the process could move forward if the council insisted on developing the study's criteria. City Manager Taylor said the council could postpone its decision and reschedule it for September. The council could review the relevant materials via e-mail before that time and take action, avoiding the need for a work session. If the council wanted to schedule a work session, it had time available on several dates. City Manager Taylor advised the council to pass the motion and work with the partnership on the details, or schedule the item for final action on September 13. Councilor Nathanson indicated she did not want a council work session and as she wished to avoid getting "deeper in the swamp" about the study scope, criteria, methodology, objectives, and desired outcomes, particularly in the absence of partner input. However, she wanted to find a solution that satisfied all the concerns expressed by councilors Bettman, Pap~, and Kelly. Councilor Taylor indicated her opposition to the motion. She agreed with Councilor Bettman that there was no emergency, and wanted the study to be done right. Councilor Bettman suggested a work session would address the last question asked by Councilor Nathanson, that of how to address the concerns expressed by councilors. Councilor Pap~ said that, like Councilor Nathanson, he did not want to micromanage the study. He asked Mr. Roberts about the role of EcoNorthwest and why the firm was not mentioned in the materials before the council. Mr. Coyle indicated the firm was a noted one that did such work, but the firm had not been granted the contract. Mr. Pap~ thought the stipulation in the amendment for an RFP and board review satisfied the concerns expressed by councilors and would also serve to keep the issue in the public eye. Councilor Bettman clarified that the information regarding EcoNorthwest was provided by Mr. Roberts to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Roberts had recommended to the board that the firm be hired. At the suggestion of Councilor Kelly, Mr. Coyle invited Mr. Roberts to address the council regarding the topic. Mr. Roberts indicated the rationale for his recommendation that EcoNorthwest be hired was to ensure there was no community perception that the partnership had conducted the study. He thought the study produced by Mr. Duncan was perceived as biased by some because of the chamber's sponsorship. He did not recommend that the council ask the partnership board to review the RFP as he did not think it appropriate role for the board. Mr. Roberts said his support for hiring EcoNorthwest was based on the wide experience of the firm's principle, Terry Moore, in conducting such studies. He said the partnership would not pick the contractor, as that was the role of the three jurisdictions. Mr. Roberts suggested the MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 12 Regular Session council approve the funding for the study and allow the staffs of the three jurisdictions to work out the details. Mr. Roberts corrected remarks previously offered by Laud Segal of 1,000 Friends of Oregon that Lane County was asked by the partnership to be the lead agency on the study; rather, the partnership asked the County to take the lead from an administrative standpoint. Councilor Bettman suggested that for the sake of equity, Ms. Segal be invited to speak. She perceived the Mayor's acceptance of Mr. Roberts' remarks as "unprecedented," and said if such an "unprecedented departure from protocol" was to be made, it be balanced. Responding to a question from Councilor Nathanson, City Manager Taylor indicated his belief staff could develop an administrative process regarding an RFP with the staff of the other jurisdictions party to the final contract. Speaking to Councilor Bettman's objection, Councilor Kelly recalled that the council's ground rules allowed a councilor to request that the chair allow a member of the audience to speak. He agreed it was appropriate to ask Ms. Segal to speak. Mr. Coyle invited Ms. Segal to address the council. Ms. Segal had no suggestions to offer on how the council could move forward. She noted the Springfield council had not yet addressed the issue. Ms. Segal believed the council needed to have the same information the County commissionersreviewed before acting. Without objection, Councilor Poling withdrew his amendment and Councilor Pap6 withdrew his second. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to amend the motion by add- ing the following text to the motion following the phrase "commercial and industrial lands study: "...and to direct the City Manager to work with the Lane County Administrator and the Springfield City Manager to determine the appropriate independent third-party who will conduct the survey." Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the amendment to the motion. Councilor Bettman continued to support a council work session on the study's scope of work. Speaking to the remarks of Mr. Roberts, she said she believed Mr. Duncan's study was biased not because of its sponsorship but because of its assumptions regarding the definitions of constrained land, shovel-ready land, and what costs were considered, for example. She said that unless the study considered all opportunities, its results would lack credibility. Councilor Kelly indicated support for the amendment. He endorsed the manager's proposal that the staff handle the issue administratively, and suggested the council could take final action on September 13. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 5:2, councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table the amended motion to September 29, 2004. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 13 Regular Session Mayor Torrey called for discussion on the amendment. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by changing the date to September 13, 2004. Councilor Kelly believed there was adequate time on September 13 to discuss the issue. Councilor Nathanson supported tabling the amended motion because she believed it demonstrated the councilors were negotiating in good faith, and because Springfield had yet to take action on the issue. She hoped the council had sufficient information and some options to consider when the September 13 discussion occurred. She reiterated her interest in a solution that was acceptable to all the parties involved, and one that gave the community the ability to start the study on the right foot. Councilor Pap~ did not like the delay being proposed but indicated he would support the motion for the reasons stated by Councilor Nathanson. With the reassurance that the council would have a full discussion and the ability to entertain amendments to the main motion on September 13, councilors Bettman and Taylor indicated acceptance of Councilor Kelly's amendment regarding the date as a friendly amendment to the motion to table. Councilor Poling said he would support the motion to table solely for the purpose of being able to offer a motion for reconsideration at the next meeting on August 11, 2004. Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment at the delay being proposed but acknowledged the concerns expressed by Councilor Nathanson. He agreed it would be better if the full council embraced the study and was able to move forward with enthusiasm. However, he was concerned that there was an attempt being made to "kill" the study. He hoped his concern was misplaced. Mayor Torrey noted that absent Councilor Scott Meisner indicated his support for approving the funding for the study, leading to the potential the motion could be reconsidered on August 11. He did not understand what was so complicated about the issue. Councilor Kelly noted his earlier submission of an alternative motion to the staff-suggested motion, and would have voted to move forward had that language been found acceptable. Speaking to the Mayor's earlier remarks that the community knew how to conduct such a study, Councilor Kelly said if the community knew how to do such a study, the chamber's study would have not "sat on a shelf." The base methodology of the study did not provide what many considered to be good data. Councilor Kelly noted the roundtable's support for the study as well as for the completion of the Natural Resources Study and upland wildlife habitat land study. He said that for some members of the roundtable, their support for the commercial/industrial lands support was contingent upon completion of the Natural Resources Study. He asked staff to return to the council on September 13 with a proposal regarding how the council could move forward with both the study and Natural Resources Study, including budget numbers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 14 Regular Session Councilor Taylor wanted the council to be better informed about the parameters of the study. She indicated support for the motion to table. Councilor Bettman asked what would happen if Springfield decided not to support funding for the study. Roll call vote; the amendment to table passed, 6:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 15 Regular Session ATTACHMENT G MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber---City Hall August 11, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. Poling. Mr. Poling indicated that following the work session on Housing Standards, he would move to reconsider a motion the council passed on August 9. A. Housing Standards The council was joined by Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle, Building and Permit Services Manager Marsha Miller, and Permit Review Manager Keli Osbom. Ms. Miller recalled the council's May 24 work session on housing standards, at which it provided further direction to staff to draft an ordinance similar to that of Corvallis, Oregon and to secure feedback on the draft from the Housing Policy Board (HPB) and Human Rights Commission staff. In addition, several questions were asked at the work session and responses were provided in the council packet. Ms. Miller reviewed the elements of the proposed ordinance that differed from the approach taken in Corvallis, noting that Eugene proposed using its existing civil penalties for enforcement and to direct appeals to a hearings official. The Corvallis ordinance referenced the State Landlord-Tenant Law, and Eugene staff included the applicability section inside the ordinance itself. Ms. Miller reported that the I-tPB reviewed the ordinance and voted 4:2 against moving forward with the ordinance; the board recommended that, if the council chose to go ahead with the ordinance, low-income housing should be exempted. A memorandum from HPB Chair John VanLandingham was included in the council packet summarizing that discussion. Ms. Miller reported that Human Rights Commission staff also reviewed the ordinance and had no objections. Ms. Miller sought further direction from the council regarding potential exemptions and whether to move forward with an ordinance for public hearing and budget proposals. She noted that the timing of such a program was an issue. She said the Corvallis ordinance included a sunset provision and the council might want to consider adding such a provision to the ordinance or establishing a review period. Ms. Miller indicated that at a minimum, staff believed that two to three full-time equivalent (FTE) positions were needed to operate the program. Staff recommended an initial program staff of two FTE, with an evaluation of the need for more staff to follow. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 1 Regular Session Ms. Taylor was pleased with the staff materials. She asked why complaints could not be filed by telephone. Ms. Miller said all nuisance and zoning complaints were currently taken in writing. In Corvallis, the tenant must submit information in writing indicating that the landlord had been notified. Ms. Taylor wanted to consider allowing people to file complaints via telephone. Ms. Taylor referred to the penalty section and suggested that, as Eugene's former ordinance called for, landlords found guilty of a violation be prohibited for a year from raising rents on any unit they owned. Ms. Taylor said a $10 annual fee per unit was not large and she did not see a problem having it added to the rents. She wanted to hold a public hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Meisner supported holding a public hearing on the ordinance. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's concern, he suggested staff prepare a simple, straightforward complaint form for residents to complete. Mr. Meisner noted a discrepancy between the ordinance and council packet materials in regard to single rooms inside a house. He indicated some preference for the ordinance language. Mr. Meisner noted a complaint-driven process was anticipated rather than an inspection-driven program. For that reason, he did not believe two FTEs were needed. Ms. Miller indicated the staff estimate of the needed FTEs was based on the Corvallis model. Mr. Meisner wanted to start with one FTE given that the City planned to phase the program in. He said the fee was predicated on the number of FTE, and he doubted that would ever be reduced once established. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he was unwilling to begin the program with inadequate resources. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded of the need. Mr. Pap6 discussed the HPB recommendation, noting his surprise at the vote, and speculating that it was based on certain members' belief that while substandard housing was a problem, it was low in price and filled a community need by housing those who would not otherwise be able to find housing. There was fear that rents would be raised when those units were improved to meet new standards. Members had also suggested that a $10 per unit fee could be used to build more low-income housing rather than support a housing standards program. Mr. Pap6 noted that Section 8 housing was inspected regularly and suggested that the council seriously consider the exemptions recommended by the HPB. Mr. Poling thanked the students from the University of Oregon who worked to bring the issue before the council. He concurred with staff regarding the phased implementation. He asked if the funds used to build the program could be returned to the General Fund at a later time from program revenues. City Manager Taylor indicated it depended on the start-up strategy used to fund the program. Mr. Poling asked about appeals past the Hearings Official level. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that further appeals would go to the Circuit Court. Mr. Poling wanted that to be clear to the public. Mr. Poling favored a sunset provision, and suggested it was an opportUnity to review the potential of scaling back the program and the program staffthat was needed, and to work through "bugs" in the ordinance. Mr. Poling supported Mr. Meisner's call for a simple complaint form but believed sufficient written documentation was needed for the City to initiate action on a complaint. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session Mr. Poling supported holding a public hearing on the topic. Mr. Kelly commended the staff work on the ordinance. He pointed out the ordinance was intended to allow people who live in Eugene live in habitable dwellings with electricity, heat, and weatherproofing. He thought those were basic needs and the ordinance represented important work. Mr. Kelly supported the staff recommendations and moving the ordinance to a public hearing. He suggested the hearing be held in October 2004, following the return of University of Oregon students. Mr. Kelly supported a phased implementation of the ordinance. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's concerns, Mr. Kelly believed that Section 8 units still needed to comply with the standards but pointed out to Mr. Pap6 they would be exempted from paying the fee under the proposed draft ordinance. With regard to the HPB discussion about substandard units meeting a need, Mr. Kelly said the council should not be encouraging the continuance of such substandard units. He said that while more Iow- income housing was needed, a $10 per unit fee would not realize sufficient funding for that purpose as it would only realize $200,000 a year. He did not think the issue needed to be one of"either or." Mr. Kelly pointed out a sunset was not needed for the council to review the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson believed the council discussed a solution to the problem before it discussed what the problem was. She asked how many other cities had such a program. Ms. Miller said staff had mainly worked with Corvallis at the direction of the council and had not done such an investigation. Ms. Nathanson was interested in more discussion about what units, if any, should be exempt from the fee. She did not want to exempt any units that should be included. Ms. Nathanson also questioned the need for two to three FTE for program start-up. She was concerned about the scale of the program, particularly because of other council budget decisions, such as its decision to reduce funding for land use enforcement for nuisance complaints, which often involved hazardous or stress situations that could lead to public safety issues and had a negative impact on residents' quality of life. While she wanted to do something, she questioned whether what was being proposed was at the correct scale. She asked how many calls the Corvallis program received. Ms. Miller indicated that Corvallis received 35 calls monthly. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether two to three staff would be needed to address approximately 80 calls monthly. She called for more empirical statistical data. Ms. Bettman shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner regarding the number of FTEs being proposed, and suggested the council revisit that issue once the program was underway. She believed the deterrent effect of the program would, over time, allow for a reduction in program staff. Ms. Bettman said that a member of the HPB she had spoken to indicated she would have liked to have seen a more far-reaching program, and for that reason did not support the ordinance. Ms. Bettman suggested the council include a provision in the ordinance that compelled landlords to provide information about the program and State Housing Standards to tenants as soon as they signed a rental agreement. She generally supported the staff recommendations and looked forward to the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the housing standards ordinance to a public hearing in October as per the staff rec- ommendation. Mayor Torrey called for comment on the motion. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He shared the concerns expressed by others about the number of FTEs and suggested the possibility that some of the staff be hired on a temporary basis so that the manager had the ability to adjust staff levels. Mr. Kelly wanted a thorough program accounting on an annual basis so that carryover revenues could be used to lower the fee in subsequent years. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's remarks about staffing. She believed that at the program's inception, there would be more complaints. Ms. Nathanson discussed the proposed phase approach, agreeing that was an appropriate approach, and asked what statistical evidence the City had of where people were encountering the most problems. She wanted to ensure the program helped those who needed it most and most quickly. She asked if the phased-in approach helped those most in need first. Ms. Miller said the City had no baseline experience with the program demand or about those who needed it at the current time. She believed from anecdotal evidence that there were more problems in single-family units than in apartment dwellings. That concerned Ms. Nathanson because the phased approach focused more on apartments. She reiterated her interest in getting help where it was most needed. Ms. Miller said the phasing was predicated on the elements of the program easiest to get up and running. Mr. Pap~ wanted to move the ordinance forward and indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling said the ordinance was intended to help the renters but also landlords, the vast majority of which were good landlords and attendant to the needs of their tenants. The ordinance was not intended as a punishment for community landlords, but was targeted at the few problems that exist. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Miller to consider Ms. Nathanson's points when determining how to phase in the program, as he suspected Ms. Miller was correct about the situation with single-family rental houses. He supported the motion and reiterated his interest in an examination of the FTE question. He agreed that temporary staffing should be examined. Speaking to the concerns voiced by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman recalled that the second phase of the program was to be accomplished within six months of the first phase. Ms. Bettman suggested the ordinance would "raise the threshold" for the community and eliminate substandard housing that lacked adequate heat and plumbing over the long term. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey thanked the students from the University of Oregon who took on the challenge of bringing the issue before the council. He cautioned them that their work was not over. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 4 Regular Session Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks about staffing, saying it was easy to upsize but notto downsize. He thought Ms. Taylor's points about temporary staffing were well-taken. Ms. Taylor did not support an ordinance sunset, saying a sunset was different from a council evaluation. She supported the current phasing plan and pointed out it would take more time to identify single-family rental housing stock. She hoped the University of Oregon students who raised the need for the ordinance found another worthy cause. Mr. Pap6 joined in the appreciation expressed to the students and staff. He thought a sunset provision would trigger a sufficient level of staff review. Mr. Pap6 opposed the $10 per unit fee proposal, preferring to have a lower fee initially. He concurred with the remarks of other councilors, saying that two FTE were far more than would be needed when the program was established. He suggested that the City outsource the service as it could be done by an outside firm. He wanted to look at that approach before the City hired new staff. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City also pursue changes in the State Landlord-Tenant Law. She asked the City Manager to inform the council of the process for prioritizing the issue for lobbying in the next State legislative session. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Miller to discuss a staff statement in the Agenda Item Summarythat many qualified families overpaying for housing would not benefit from an exemption to the ordinance. Ms. Miller said that the issue was raised at the HPB meeting. Members expressed concern that there were people eligible to be in low-income housing who overpaid for housing now because of a lack of affordable low-income housing units. If those units were exempted, that did not benefit those families. Ms. Nathanson clarified that the statement was less about the exemption than about the housing stock. Ms. Miller concurred. Mr. Kelly noted the Coalition for Eugene Housing Standards included other organizations than the University students, such as Centro LatinoAmericano. He thanked all those organizations. Mr. Kelly discussed the problems created by the illegal conversion of housing, such as single-family houses converted to multi-unit housing. The housing in question may be poorly built, and its systems not designed to handle multiple units. He asked if there was a way to identify such housing. Noting that staff had discussed the issue with University students, Ms. Miller said one of the results of having such a program was that it was likely the City would be called on to investigate situations where a unit was found to be not only substandard but illegal as well. She thought the City would encounter many such units, particularly in the University area. Mr. Taylor suggested that collection of that data would inform future council decisions regarding the scale and pricing of the service. Mr. Meisner said the City was exempting owner-occupied homes from the ordinance, but many marginally legal or illegally converted units involved owner-occupied homes. He cited room rentals as an example. He said staff would need to be very careful in its approach. He said the new State law requiring proof of permits on sale of a property may help in the long-term. Mr. Meisner expressed hope the City would keep records from areas such as the River Road/Santa Clara area, where students also lived. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 5 Regular Session Mr. Pap6 wanted the council to consider Section 8.4401 of the ordinance as it mentioned only a written rental agreement, saying it was his experience renters often entered into verbal agreements, and that was not addressed. Mr. Pap6 suggested Mr. Kelly's concerns about illegal housing conversions should already be addressed by the nuisance code. B. Reconsideration of August 9 Motion Mayor Torrey called on Mr. Poling. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the council's vote of August 9 postponing to September 13 action on the motion to ap- prove funding for the industrial and commercial lands study. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Mr. Kelly preferred to retain the original date for the proposed work session. He thought more informa- tion needed to be provided on such issues as who administered the study before the council could make a decision, and he was confident with that the council would be able to have a good discussion on September 13 and reach a near-majority outcome. He preferred that near-majority to a deadlocked council. Pointing out that the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development had emphasized the need for the study to have broad community support, Mr. Kelly said he concurred, and if the council pushed ahead at this time there would be a perception in some parts of the community that the study was not intended as a fact-gathering exercise, but rather as a political weapon. Mr. Kelly did not see a need for the council to revisit its August 9 discussion. He said the purpose of reconsideration as stated in Roberts Rules of Order was to allow a body to reconsider any hasty, ill- advised, or erroneous action, or to account for new information or changes in the situation. He asked Mr. Poling to explain in what way the August 9 6:1 vote represented haste or error. Ms. Taylor said community support required an informed community, and that took time. She said she had preferred to wait even longer than September 13. Mr. Pap6 believed there was broad support for the study itself and now the council was talking about the credibility of the study. He agreed the council needed to discuss how to accomplish the study so it was credible and acceptable across the community and lacked the biases that people read into the report don by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce report. He wanted to move forward. Mr. Meisner, who had not been present at the August 9 meeting but had viewed the meeting tape, supported the motion to reconsider, although he did not guarantee he would support the subsequent motion Mr. Poling planned to offer. He was concerned that scheduling the issue for a full work session would result in the council micromanaging the study "to death." Speaking to Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the reason for reconsideration, Ms. Nathanson said she had been okay with the tenor of Monday's discussion until the end, when the issue of the Natural Resources Study had been raised by Mr. Kelly. She supported Mr. Poling's motion because she was concerned that completion of the Natural Resources Study would become a quidpro quo for a vote on funding for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Nathanson wanted to vote on the commercial and industrial lands study and that issue alone. She would not support an approach that tied the funding to the completion of the Natural Resources Study. Other issues such as the criteria could be addressed separately. Ms. Bettman wanted the council to look at the study process to ensure it was unbiased and without a work session that would not happen. She thought there were issues to be discussed on which the council needed to provide input. If the council did not do that, she did not care when action occurred. Either way, she believed the council majority was "fast-tracking the issue" for "obvious" reasons; they hoped the data would be available from the study that would support moving forward with one endeavor or another before there was a change in the council's political make-up. Regarding the Natural Resources Study, Ms. Bettman believed Mr. Kelly was justified in raising the issue given the remarks of the roundtable, which supported the commercial and industrial study in conjunction with the completion of the natural resources inventory. She pointed out the local area was in compliance with State law in regard to commercial and industrial lands, but out of compliance in regard to natural resources. She believed the roundtable reached a sensible compromise. She thought completion of the Natural Resources Study was a relevant topic for the council to discuss when it discussed the commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Solomon disagreed that the council was "fast-tracking" the issue, pointing out the council had been discussing the topic for more than a year. She supported the motion Mr. Poling planned to offer, saying it addressed most of the concerns raised by councilors. She wanted to consider the issue today. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to call the question. The motion failed, 5:3, because it did not garner six votes of support; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Poling read from a letter from the Board of County Commissioners indicating its willingness to take a lead role on the study and describing the general nature of the study. The letter also requested the council's approval of the study funding. Mr. Poling believed the letter addressed many of the issues addressed by the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development and the members of the mundtable, as well as letters the council received from various interested citizens. He said the City continued to do business in 2004 with information from 1988. Eugene was just one of the "pieces of the puzzle," and it needed to work with Lane County and Spring- field to work on the study. Mayor Torrey said he had no objections to close or tie votes and believed the council should vote its convictions and move on. However, he was concerned about the lack of confidence the City Council had repeatedly shown in the City Manager. He said the motion that Mr. Poling planned to offer gave the manager responsibility for administering and issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP). He said the council could communicate to the manager what it wanted in the RFP. Mr. Kelly said he raised the issue of the roundtable's position on the Natural Resources Study only because the roundtable's letter was in the council packet and being used to justify funding the commercial and industrial lands study. He said the roundtable had not viewed the studies as directly linked, but considered the completion of the Natural Resources Study an important component of the commercial and MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session industrial lands study. Mr. Kelly said it was not a quidpro quo issue for him, but he wanted to have a staff recommendation on the issue by September 13. Mr. Kelly pointed out that a full work session was not contemplated as the issue was scheduled for action at the regular meeting on September 13. Mr. Pap6 believed that staffwould be able to develop a process that had community credibility. He did not want to micromanage that process as he did not think it appropriate. Mr. Pap6 said it appeared the input of the roundtable had been raised to the level of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development and he did not think that was appropriate; while the council discussed transparency and doing things in the open, it was his understanding those meetings were closed to the public. Ms. Bettman agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pap6 in regard to the roundtable but pointed out that roundtable's letter had been included in the packet as a rationale for funding the study. Ms. Bettman contended that the community did not want the commercial and industrial lands study. The Metropolitan Partnership originated the demand for the study. The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce wanted a study of commercial lands because it did not believe there were enough for large parcels for "malls, and things like that." Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Ms. Nathanson believed the community had asked for the study. While individual citizens may not know all the steps involved, statistically valid survey results indicated that a majority of residents believed the City of Eugene had a role to play in creating a healthy economy. Citizens who studied the issue of how to work toward a healthy economy suggested that completion of an inventory was an important step in knowing what land was available for jobs. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had still not seen a scope of work regarding the study, and he wanted to see that information before acting. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the results of the survey but pointed out the same survey indicated citizens believed there was sufficient industrial land available in Eugene. He agreed there was a need for the inventory, but did not believe that the community-at-large had voiced the need. Ms. Bettman did not think the majority of citizens knew what the inventory was. She believed it was a way to "commodify" raw land. The survey would open up farm and forest land to development. She believed that was the ultimate objective in moving forward with the study, and said that was not something the community had discussed. The motion to reconsider passed, 5:3. The motion to postpone action until September 13, 2004, failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the use of up to $15,000 in con- tingency funds for the commercial/industrial land study recommended on page 8 of the report of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee, contingent upon the City Man- ager's approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Lane County and the City of MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session Springfield that (1) addresses the selection of an independent contractor, and (2) ensures that the study is consistent with State requirements for such studies, including considera- tions of both vacant and significantly under-utilized lands. Mayor Torrey called for comments and questions on Mr. Poling's motion. Mr. Kelly referred to the letter from Mr. Green and asked if the City's money would be used to assess industrial lands in Lane County. Mayor Torrey suggested that question would be answered when the City Manager developed the RFP. Mr. Kelly believed the motion would preclude further council review. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's concern, Mr. Meisner suggested that the question of how Eugene's funding would be expended was addressed in the recommendation of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. Ms. Nathanson said she assumed Lane County would spend its own funding to assess industrial lands in Lane County. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion because she believed it addressed many of the concerns expressed by councilors on August 9. Mr. Poling said the study was very important. The information being used now was outdated. He believed the results of the study would help local companies to stay and expand in Eugene. He believed there was broad community support for the study. Ms. Taylor did not see a need for any hurry. She agreed with Ms. Bettman that the community had not expressed its support for the study as of yet. On the other hand, she had heard a great deal of community support for the Natural Resources Study. She did not think the council was expressing distrust of the manager by asking for more information. She suggested that the three chief executives from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County meet to develop discuss the criteria and scope of the study, and then the council could hold a work session. She wanted the council to make an informed decision in open session. Ms. Bettman said it was news to her that individual councilors could talk to the manager about the provisions in RFP, although she believed the council as a whole could. Ms. Bettman maintained the study already lacked credibility because it was being rushed and because the scope of work approved by the Board of County Commissioners included a technical advisory committee made up of private entities with business expertise to direct the research. She likened that to Vice President Dick Cheney calling on the energy industry for input into energy policy. Further, she said the process would lack public input. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Klein said the City Council could not direct the manager who to hire, but that did not preclude the councilors from offering input into the scope of work. With regard to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Pap~ said he did not think the community knew if it was out of compliance with State rules related to the 20-year land supply. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 9 Regular Session Mr. Kelly agreed that the study should be done but emphasized the need for credibility. He said that the motion did not speak to all his concerns. Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by adding "...The survey will draw upon existing data together with the on-the-ground verification of current uses and availability. This survey would also evaluate opportuni- ties for redevelopment and assembly of available parcels to determine how the use of existing land might be maximized." Mr. Kelly's motion to amend died for lack of a second. Ms. Nathanson was disturbed to hear that some councilors still believed that the Eugene council alone could craft an RFP given that it was one of three partners in the study. It was not a City of Eugene project. Ms. Nathanson said it did not appear the amount of funding being proposed did not appear "out of line" based on past experience. Mr. Taylor concurred. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Taylor to consider the two sentences mentioned by Mr. Kelly for inclusion in the RFP. Mr. Meisner said he was unwilling to see City funds used to study unincorporated areas of the community. Ms. Bettman repeated that the study would not be credible for the reasons she previously mentioned and because it would lack Eugene council scrutiny. She pointed out that parcel characteristics were proposed to be studied "as the budget allows," which also left considerable latitude. She repeated her complaints about the membership of the technical advisory committee. Ms. Taylor repeated that the council needed more time and discussion. She thought a regional study of commercial and industrial lands was in order and discussion of who paid for what was appropriate as what one jurisdiction did affected another. Mr. Poling said he brought forth the letter to tie together all the information the City had. Eugene was one of three agencies, and he did not believe the council needed to get into the details of the RFP. Mr. Kelly asked who would issue the contract. Mr. Taylor said that had yet to be decided. He indicated that, should the motion pass, he believed there was an opportunity for all concerned to review the RFP without the need for a work session. He presumed one of the three jurisdictions would be the contracting agency. Mr. Kelly asked if the Metro Partnership be the contracting agency. Mr. Taylor believed that was possible. Mr. Kelly averred that in that case, Mr. Poling had a conflict of interest because his wife worked for the Metro Partnership. City Attorney Klein indicated that since the money was pass-through money, there was no conflict. He clarified that given the motion involved an intergovernmental agreement between the three jurisdictions, one of the three jurisdictions would issue the contract. Ms. Nathanson also supported the text mentioned by Mr. Kelly and reinforced that point to Mr. Taylor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 10 Regular Session Mr. Poling accepted the two sentences in question as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Solomon concurred. The final motion read: Moved to approve the use of up to $15,000 in contingency funds for the commer- cial/industrial land study recommended on page 8 of the report of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee, contingent upon the City Manager's approval of an Intergov- ernmental Agreement with Lane County and the City of Springfield that (1) addresses the selection of an independent contractor, and (2) ensures that the study is consistent with State requirements for such studies, including considerations of both vacant and signifi- cantly under-utilized lands. The survey will draw upon existing data together with the on- the-ground verification of current uses and availability. This survey would also evaluate opportunities for redevelopment and assembly of available parcels to determine how the use of existing land might be maximized The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 11 Regular Session