Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/13/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall March 13, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor (via teleconference), Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council Work Session. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy reported that she traveled to Washington, D.C. with Councilor Bettman to lobby for projects such as the Wetlands Education Center, Delta Ponds, the Forest Legacy Program, and the West Bank Trail Extension. She then reported that she attended the opening ceremonies for the new walking and bike path in the Bethel neighborhood on March 13. Ms. Ortiz announced that she also attended the opening ceremonies for the walking and bath path, explaining that the path extends from Roosevelt to the American Red Cross and allowed for more accessibil- ity to the neighborhood park. She reported that the pedestrian crossing on Roosevelt was moving forward. She then announced that on Wednesday, March 15, the Mayor would be at the American Red Cross office, beginning at 7 p.m. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to staff for arranging the return of the free chamber concerts on Saturdays in the Atrium Building. Mr. Kelly reported that the Human Rights Commission held a special meeting on March 7 and voted 9:3 to postpone action to add the Gender Identity Code to the Eugene Anti-Discrimination Code. He noted that he voted with the minority on this issue. Mr. Kelly explained that an educational campaign, as recommended by the Lane Gender Task Force, would ensue. Finally, Mr. Kelly reported that the City/County Public Safety Task Force held a reunion the week of March 6, to inform members of the actions of the County Commissioners who were moving to place a ballot measure on the November election (an income rather than a sales tax initiative) to fund public safety services. He explained there would be a cap on the amount of tax that could be assessed. Mr. Poling reported that he recently attended the Lane Transit District (LTD) EmX Steering Committee meeting where it was noted that a prototype vehicle was currently at the Government Vehicle Testing Grounds in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He said vehicles would begin arriving in Lane County in August and LTD would undertake testing on the various routes from September through December, with actual service beginning on December 17. Mr. Poling also reported that work was currently underway in the University area, beginning with the Walnut Street Station, and would be completed in July 2006. He then stated that the Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission (MWMC) revealed that the first bid it received (from a local concern) on one of its major projects came in $2 million lower than what had been originally MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 1 Work Session projected. However, he noted that the bid has been challenged by the second lowest bidder. Mr. Poling explained that this project was one of many to upgrade to meet current codes. Ms. Taylor (via telephone from the NLC conference in Washington, DC) reported that she was attending meetings regarding immigration reform, long-term health care, No Child Left Behind, and big box stores. Mr. Pryor reported that he and Mayor Piercy attended a meeting with Santa Clara residents to discuss neighborhood and community parks. He reminded the council that the Santa Clara School has been demolished so there was interest in that particular property; however, any movement depends on the outcome of the zoning request. Mr. Pryor said that other available park land would also be pursued. He then reported that he attended the Centennial Celebration for Eugene Parks on Saturday, March 11, which th recognized the 100 anniversary of the donation of land that created Hendricks Park. Regarding the meeting Mr. Pryor attended in Santa Clara, Mr. Papé? said some of that group was on the Executive Committee of the Santa Clara Neighborhood Association and suggested that a collaborative effort may be worthwhile as discussions regarding park land move forward. He then displayed a picture of the official EmX vehicle. Mr. Papé? reported that he attended the recent the McKenzie River Watershed Council and received a tutorial on wetlands. He said it was revealed by two consultants that many individuals who want to enhance wetlands do not have the resources to move the process forward. Mr. Papé? said the council was looking for ways to assist those individuals. Ms. Solomon reported that she was a member of the Housing Policy Board and would chair a committee created to address manufactured housing park closures. She explained the committee would examine the City’s code with regard to the protection of tenants and would present a recommendation to the City Council by December. City Manager Dennis Taylor spoke about the regular City Council meeting schedule to begin at 7:30 p.m. He explained that in order to accommodate the large number of community members who were expected to testify regarding the East Broadway project, the following changes to the agenda were made: 1) the three public hearings related to that project have been combined into one; 2) two other unrelated items have been moved to the beginning of the meeting; and, 3) adoption of the resolution to approve the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority List has been rescheduled to the April 10 City Council meeting, in compliance with a request made by Mr. Pryor and others. City Manager Taylor also announced that the joint meeting between the City Council and the LTD Board of Directors would be held at 5:30 p.m., on June 12, at a location to be determined. B. Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106 (Police Auditor) Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston, acknowledged Tim Laue, Chair of the Police Commission, Jeannine Parisi, Police Commission Management Analyst, and Helen Towle, Human Resources Division manager, for their contribution to the Ad Hoc Committee formed at the direction of the City Council to provide recommendations on the recruitment and selection processes for the Police Auditor. She then reviewed the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), the recommendations as crafted by the committee, and the suggested motions. Ms. Walston also explained that the Police Commission requested that the council approve its work plan for March - July 2006. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 2 Work Session To revise a prior amendment acted on by the City Council related to this process, Mr. Kelly put forth the following motion: Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the position description for the Police Auditor revise the sentence amended at the City Council’s last meeting so that it reads as follows: Can- didates for this position may not have worked for the Eugene Police Department as an employee within the past 20 years. In addition, candidates should have no other prior relationship with the department that might create actual or perceived bias for or against the department or Eugene police officers. Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts and affiliations with the department. Mr. Kelly explained that the motion was necessary, as the amendment approved by the City Council prohibited both employment and contract with the Eugene Police Department (EPD) over the past 20 years. However, he said it was pointed out there was no database or paper file that allows the City to ascertain if, for example, an individual had a contract with the EPD 20 years ago. Additionally, Mr. Kelly said there was no distinction in the amendment between a contract to “wash police cars” and a contract to “consult on the operations of the department.” He said his motion retained the 20-year employment prohibition but moved the contract issue to a full disclosure situation. Additionally, the motion resolved the issue of actual or perceived bias. Ms. Ortiz stated that staff pointed out to the Ad Hoc Committee that it had narrowed the scope to such a degree that it was not looking at the “big picture” with regard to other possible applicants who would have a relationship in some capacity with the EPD, whether for or against it. Therefore, she voiced support for the motion. Ms. Piercy commented that all those serving on the committee concurred that the motion was appropriate. Mr. Pape? moved? to amend the motion to read as follows: Candidates would be required to disclose prior employment, contracts and affiliations with the department. The amendment died for lack of a second. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the amendment; however, due to her membership on the Ad Hoc Committee she said she would vote in favor of the motion. She noted that the motion asked the applicant to self-select and expressed dismay that qualified candidates would not be clear as to whether or not they were qualified and therefore would not move forward with the application process. Mr. Solomon asked for an explanation of “other prior relationships” with the department that might create actual or perceived bias. Ms. Walston explained that actual or perceived bias could be an issue if an applicant has held an attorney or a district attorney position with Lane County. She added that such an individual would most likely have had an association with the department that could be conceived as biased one way or another. The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Pape? in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Police Commission Work Plan for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2006. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to set the salary for the Police Auditor at Range 37 on the City of Eugene Exempt Salary Schedule. Ms. Solomon opined that Range 37 was high for a starting salary. Ms. Ortiz countered that Range 37 was a fair wage for the level of expertise that would be required for the position, which was a position that would meet with controversy on a regular basis within the community. Mr. Laue stated that the committee reviewed and discussed this issue thoroughly, including a comparison analysis of other municipalities. Additionally, the Police Commission weighed in that the position would be quite complex and, as there was a limited field of individuals who could meet the qualifications, Range 37 was appropriate. Mr. Poling pointed to Attachment C of the AIS which provides Police Auditor salary information in other jurisdictions across the United States. He said Range 37 was well within the median range of the agencies listed. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to provide the benefit package as outlined in Attachment C of the Agenda Item Summary. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the benefit package before the council was the basic package the City offered to its higher-level employees. Ms. Solomon asked if a moving allowance had been determined. Ms. Ortiz stated the Ad Hoc Committee did not act on that component and it would be revisited. Ms. Bettman stated that, depending on the applicant field, it may be appropriate to offer incentives. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $17,000 from the general fund contingency for the purpose of recruitment and selection expenses of the Police Audi- tor; the funds to be allocated to the Human Resources and Risk Services Department. Mayor Piercy commented that Attachment E details such expenditures. She confirmed that these expenses do not include hiring a professional recruiter. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to hold a specific public forum at the City Council meeting on April 10, 2006, to hear community comments on the auditor Candidate Profile. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly commented on the Draft Selection Process and referred to Page 29 of the agenda packet. He complimented the proposal and pointed to critical components: “Any city councilor who chooses to, may individually review all applications and provide input on applicants to be considered fur- ther/selected as a finalist; additionally, (re telephone interviews) the Ad Hoc Committee would outline the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and make it available to any City Councilor . . .” Mr. Kelly then pointed out that it was certainly appropriate for the Ad Hoc Committee make a recommenda- MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 4 Work Session tion as to who would be included in the community group to meet with candidates; however, he said that the City Council should also be invited to recommend individuals and ultimately validate such a list. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Police Auditor ensuring that the Police Auditor shall have a decisive role in the hiring, supervising, evaluating, or transferring of staff for the Auditor’s Office. Further; that the MOU shall be signed by both parties within two weeks of the Police Auditor’s hiring date. Ms. Bettman explained that the Police Auditor may not wish to terminate an individual; rather, he/she may want to transfer the individual out of that particular office. She then pointed out that a review of the Police Commission report, the background material for the ballot measure, and the rebuttal from the proponent committee in the Voter’s Pamphlet ascertained that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, and that the public was promised that the Auditor’s Office would be independent. She read the following from the pamphlet: Our Police Commission unanimously recommends an external review system that ensures structural independence by separating police review from the City Manager. She then read the following from the Charter Amendment: The auditor would be providing staff to the Civilian Review Board (CRB) and the CRB would review the function of the Auditor’s Office. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman pointed out that the auditor’s staff would ensure the independence of the office so it was essential that the auditor have some leverage with those employees. City Manager Taylor expressed support for the substance of the motion and said that he was willing to meet with the auditor to work out a reasonable accommodation, taking into account what the City Charter dictates, the existing personnel policies, and labor agreements. However, he voiced a concern with the language to “direct” the City Manager, and questioned what constitutes a “decisive” role. Additionally, City Manager Taylor suggested that a four-week timeline to craft and sign an MOU, rather than two weeks, may be more prudent in light of the fact that the auditor would face a significant learning curve as he/she becomes oriented to the position and the community. City Attorney Glen Klein commented that “decisive” could be interpreted in such a way that the auditor would make staffing decisions and the City Manager would be bound by those decisions, or, it could be interpreted that the auditor would have a significant role and therefore the City Manager would need to take into account the auditor’s recommendations. City Attorney Klein pointed out that in conformance with the City Charter, it was the City Manager who hires staff; however, the manager could take input from his/her department directors. He said that an MOU was not problematic but while the auditor’s role would be significant, it would not provide direction to the City Manager. Mr. Pryor expressed support for an MOU; however, he opined that “decisive” was not a commonly encouraged human resource term, as it could be interpreted in various ways. He stressed that caution must be exercised with components involving human resources, pointing to the significant number of court cases around employee relations. Mr. Pryor suggested that the language for the MOU be based upon clarity of the relationship between the City Manager and the auditor, and that a review of best practices would be a prudent step prior to any action taken by the council. Mr. Kelly said that council support of such an MOU should be viewed “philosophically” rather than legally. He opined that if the council philosophically directed the City Manager, it was appropriate as he was the council’s employee. Mr. Kelly said he would support the motion with the understanding that reasonable people could work out a reasonable process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon expressed uneasiness with the term “decisive.” She pointed out that the City Manager would certainly want the program to be successful and voiced confidence that he would work with the auditor in that vein and ensure that the auditor has the employees he/she determines were capable for the positions. Ms. Solomon opined that an MOU was not necessary at this point in the process. Ms. Taylor opined that “decisive” was a proper term and spoke to a recent editorial in The Register-Guard that stated that if the position was not independent it would be meaningless. She said she would support the motion. Mr. Papé? pointed out that from an employee’s standpoint, it must be clarified who the supervisor was and how that relationship was set up. He said he favors an MOU; however, the City has a charter that must be adhered to and it dictates that the City Manager makes the final decisions on hiring and firing of staff. Mr. Papé? opined that “decisive” would insinuate that the auditor would make such decisions and he therefore could not support the motion. He suggested that a consulting role would be more appropriate. In conclusion, Mr. Papé? pointed out that the language in the motion before the council was not? included in the ballot measure and therefore was not proper. City Attorney Klein stated that the City Manager had the authority and could choose to delegate hiring and/or firing decisions but that the City Council did not have the authority to require the City Manager to delegate a hiring/firing decision. He added that the City Council could certainly direct the City Manager to produce an MOU; however, it could not direct the City Manager to delegate his Charter power. City Manager Taylor stressed that he was supportive of the independent auditor position, that he wanted it to succeed and set a precedent for future auditors. He said, however, that he did not want to bind future city managers to an agreement that may or may not flourish in the future. City Manager Taylor indicated that an accommodation could be achieved in the spirit of the intent of the motion; however, he cautioned the City Council not to direct the City Manager to take an action that was inconsistent with the City Charter. City Manager Taylor then turned to the issue of transferring staff. He explained that should the auditor’s staff be organized, there were certain requirements as to how transfers occurred. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the staffing and funding of the positions would be resolved through the budget process. Finally, he opined that the supervision, hiring, termination, and transfers that would inform this discussion should be discussed with the auditor following his/her hire. Mayor Piercy suggested that the council not take action on this motion at this time; rather, that the language be sent back to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. Ms. Ortiz expressed support for the motion. She spoke to the timing of the signing of the MOU and offered the following friendly amendment. Ms. Ortiz, with acceptance by Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, suggested the MOU be signed within 30 days of the hire of the auditor. Ms. Bettman stated that independence was a crucial component of the auditor’s role as perceived by the community. She reiterated that all complaints would be received in the Auditor’s Office, which made it likely that staff would be involved in the intake of those complaints. Therefore, the auditor needs to have some leverage with those employees. Ms. Bettman opined that the functioning of the office could in fact be MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 6 Work Session undermined if it was not completely independent. She then spoke to the City Charter and said there have been conflicting interpretations of charter language in the past. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to amend the motion as follows: The Eugene City Council directs that the City Manager shall enter into a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU) with the Police Auditor outlining a specific joint decision-making relationship for hiring, supervising, evaluating, transferring, or terminating staff within the Auditor’s Office. Mr. Pryor explained that the suggested amendment would ensure that neither the City Manager nor the auditor would be able solely to hire, fire, or transfer staff. He voiced confidence that such a process would provide clarity and be successful. Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the amendment as it would not provide the auditor with leverage and it gives the auditor the input the City Manager wants to provide. She argued that “decisive” ensures that both parties agree prior to staffing decisions. Ms. Bettman said that the amendment leaves the decision-making up to the City Manager. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Attorney Klein replied that the City Manager must agree to a joint? partnership. He reiterated that the City Manager has the authority to hire and fire and unless the manager was willing to delegate all or a portion of that authority, a joint decision would not be in compli- ance with Section 16 of the City Charter. Mr. Papé? reiterated that the City Council? should have included appropriate language in the ballot measure if it wanted to have a truly independent staff in the Auditor’s Office. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the amendment under discussion; however, he said he prefers the language in the original motion as it provides a greater expression of what the relationship between the City Manager and the auditor would be. Ms. Bettman opined that the motion provides for accountability. The amendment failed: 2:6, with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Poling in favor. Mr. Pape? seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to propose a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to meet with the auditor following hire to draft an Memorandum of Under- standing (MOU) as to how the auditor’s staff would be hired, supervised, evaluated, trans- ferred, or terminated; further, to present the MOU to the City Council in draft form for its approval within 30days of that hire. Ms. Solomon expressed support for the substitute motion which she pointed out allows the City Man- ager and the auditor to craft a draft MOU as opposed to the council, who would not be working in those positions and therefore should not put forth parameters of that relationship. Ms. Bettman responded that the auditor would have no authority with the City Manager and cannot determine the text of the MOU. She said that the specifics of the MOU do not need to be reviewed by the council as such an exercise would be considered “micro-managing.” Ms. Bettman opined that her motion was clear in its intent. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 7 Work Session The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie, with Mr. Papé?, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor vot- ing in opposition; Mayor Piercy cast the a vote in opposition to the motion and the substi- tute motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mayor Piercy commented that if the language in the main motion was forwarded to the Ad Hoc Com- mittee, it could review all sides of the issue and forward revised compromise language that could be accepted by the full council. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Papé?, moved to amend the main motion and refer the lan- guage to the Ad Hoc Committee for further review. Ms. Bettman maintained that such an amendment was a delay tactic; that the discussion around this issue ensued at the council’s last work session. She noted that the Ad Hoc Committee did not include this issue as an agenda item. Ms. Bettman opined that her motion was a modification and a compromise from her original proposal that the City Manager delegate the responsibilities under discussion to the auditor. She urged the council not to postpone action but rather to make a decision on this issue at this time Mr. Pryor voiced support for the amendment. He pointed out that the discussion the council was now having indicated a lack of clarity around this issue and he opined that additional time and review would alleviate some of the confusion. Mr. Pryor added that he did not support a violation of the City Charter. Ms. Taylor stated it was an exercise in futility to forward the language to the Ad Hoc Committee. She echoed Ms. Bettman’s comment that a decision should be made by the full council at this time. The vote on the amendment was a 4:4 tie, with Ms. Solomon, Mr. Papé?, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor, and Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in favor of the amendment and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Ortiz announced that the Ad Hoc Committee has completed its charge with the exception of a review of the MOU issue; however, she said it was willing to continue if the council deems it necessary. Ms. Bettman stated that at a certain point, the decisions around the auditor process would need to be made in a more council-oriented manner. She spoke to the recruitment process and expressed hope that résumés could be forwarded to the city electronically. Additionally, she stated that other than Human Resources staff screening for basic qualifications, additional screening should ensue with the outside consultant and as many councilors as possible. C. Stormwater Development Standards Public Works Development Review Manager Peggy Keppler introduced Therese Walch and Mark Schoening, who were available to assist with questions from the City Council. She then proceeded to review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and provided the following PowerPoint presentation on the Stormwater Development Standards: MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 8 Work Session ? Policy and Regulatory Framework ? Development Advisory Committee ? Public Outreach ? Planning Commission ? Changes to Land Use Code ? Design Manual ? 9.6790 Destination ? 9.6791 Pollution Reduction ? 9.6792 Flow Controls Impervious Area Reduction ? 9.6793 Oil Control ? 9.6794 Source Control ? Next Steps Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hear- ing on the ordinance concerning stormwater provisions on April 10, 2006. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the work put forth by staff. He commented that the City was overdue for the implementation of such standards, pointing out that the cities of Portland and Springfield have already put such standards in place. Mr. Kelly said he was pleased that staff was basing its standards on the City of Portland manual. He opined, however, that the language in the proposed ordinance was unclear as to what standards would do regarding new development, other than to say that standards would benefit stormwater. Mr. Kelly recognized that a comprehensive manual has been created; however, he suggested that any additional information included in the ordinance would be helpful. He pointed to a statement in the summary that the department advisory committee (DAC) recommendation requires capturing treatment of 80 percent of the average annual runoff volume for new and significant redevelopment. Mr. Kelly said he thought that recommendation was a significant goal, and if it was, in fact, embodied in the ordinance he was unaware of such language. City Attorney Klein responded that a section could be added that makes explicit what was implicit, that the City Manager shall adopt through the Administrative Rule-making process a manual which shall provide for the following objectives. Mr. Kelly indicated such an addition would be helpful to the process. Ms. Bettman questioned what area of the city constituted 500 feet. Ms. Walch replied that the 500 feet threshold was approximately at Martin Drive, which was located at the end of east and west Amazon drives, in South Eugene. Ms. Bettman then questioned the flow control provisions which state that after develop- ment, the rate of flow needs to match the pre-site development if discharging into a headwater tributary. Ms. Walch said that development would not be required to comply with the flow control provisions below Martin Drive. She explained that the provisions were meant to address the sensitive headwater tributaries and that additional flows from new development could adversely affect them. Such an effect was not apparent in the channelized waterways of the lower water elevations. However, Ms. Walch said that the pollution reduction, oil controls and source controls would all apply citywide. Ms. Bettman questioned if single-family homes were exempt from the standards. Ms. Keppler replied that one- or two-family homes were exempt from the requirements; however, a residential subdivision would be subject to the 3,000 square feet standard. She added that the current lots of record for residential develop- ment were exempt. Ms. Keppler also noted that the City was targeting commercial and industrial develop- MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 9 Work Session ment over 3,000 square feet. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the threat was in single-family homes in the South Hills area of Eugene. Mr. Papé? stated that an air shed was difficult to gage; whereas, the stormwater drainage could be gauged and therefore controlled. He asked if there were measurements for outflow at certain points in the area to ascertain improvement of the quality of substreams over time. Ms. Keppler responded that such measure- ments were part of the MPDS permit. Ms. Walch added that staff would provide a report within two weeks on water quality as requested by Mr. Papé? at a previous work session. She said that regular monitoring did ensue as part of a requirement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, both in the Willamette River and the Amazon Creek. Ms. Walch added that monitoring did occur at subcreeks on an as-needed basis only and that the routine monitoring was appropriate and representative. Ms. Walch revealed that the permit application renewal was due in 2008. Mr. Papé? referred “pervious concrete” and asked if that? component was being pushed where appropriate. Ms. Keppler responded that pervious concrete and asphalt were reduction techniques available to the developer. In response to another question from Mr. Papé?, Ms. Keppler replied that staff was reviewing incentives through SDC and user fees to encourage people to implement above-and-beyond standards. Mr. Papé? opined that all the standards should be integrated; additionally, encouragement to developers and homeowners to upgrade appropriately should be given. Ms. Keppler stated that additional information would be provided at the public hearing as part of the staff presentation on this issue. She said that as the code was currently written, the developer could pick and choose any one technique over another. Ms. Keppler explained that as one works through the simplified method for providing treatment facilities, the first step staff reviewed was the entire pervious area and would remove all the area of pervious pavements. In response to a question from Mr. Papé?, City Manager Taylor replied that staff was not currently looking at integration over several departments with regard to stormwater standards for building and development. Mr. Papé? suggested that?? an integrated approach would be a prudent step. City Attorney Klein remarked that another element of the Stormwater Program was the Water Quality Protected Waterways which would be presented to the City Council later in the year. He said that it was a Public Works project but PUD was involved to ensure that any and all opportunities were taken into account and that a collaborative effort moves forward. Ms. Keppler added there was an option in the manual for harvesting and using rainwater and that the Public Works Department was working in unison with the Planning and Building Department to ensure a connection between the two departments. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Papé’s suggestion to work in a collaborative manner across departments. He expressed surprise that single-family homes and duplexes were exempt from the standards unless they were part of a new PUD or subdivision. Mr. Kelly said there would be many “one-at-a-time” house constructions in the future and asked for an explanation of why that exemption was included in the draft ordinance. Additionally, he questioned the exemption of lots in the existing PUDs. He spoke to the largest PUD in the city, East Ridge in Laurel Hill Valley, which includes about 200 lots of record that were not yet built and all of which were above 500 feet. Mr. Kelly said to exempt all that development from the regulations was a concern. Mr. Kelly turned to the Flood Control Design and the Storm and Water Quality Design standards. He asked if they were related to five-year and 10-year storm events. Ms. Keppler replied that the flood control events were anywhere from five- to 25-year storm events and staff measures the level of risk on a certain facility. She said that a local street, less than 40 acres, was a five-year storm event; an arterial street was a 10-year storm event and consistent with current practices for designing for destination. With regard to the storm and MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 10 Work Session water quality event, Ms. Keppler explained that staff attempted to catch 80 percent of the water events observed over one year. She said the size was listed in the manual. In response to Mr. Kelly’s final question, Ms. Keppler replied that the draft manual was available online. Mr. Kelly requested that the website address to review that manual be included in the AIS for the upcoming public hearing. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Keppler replied that the NPDES Permit has listed a number of the best management practices (BMPs) to improve water quality within the Eugene area. She added that annually, as staff reports back on the permit, steps were taken to list accumulatively what improvements have been made in the Stormwater Program since 1994. Ms. Keppler said that the next step would be a monitoring exercise and a report of the pollutants. Ms. Walch added that there was a great deal of water quality measuring which needed to be done to ascertain how effective each facility was. Therefore, she explained that the City established the goal to ascertain how much of the rainfall was being captured and treated. Ms. Walch noted that an analysis of the long-term rainfall record was less costly. Mayor Piercy stated that it benefited the community when staff implements goaled and benchmarks. Ms. Walch indicated that staff would need to establish a baseline water pollutant loading and receding water ways when the NPDES stormwater permit was up for renewal in 2008. Additionally, staff must become more conscious in its measurements of the effectiveness of all the programs. Mr. Papé? concurred with Mayor Piercy’s remarks and said that measurements and? goals were critical in the event that existing properties need to improve the runoff situation or improve the rainwater capture in existing areas. The motion passed unanimously. (Note: Ms. Taylor was not connected via telephone for this vote.) The meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 13, 2006 Page 11 Work Session