Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 27, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. City Council President Jennifer Solomon announced that the Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy was out of town and proceeded to call the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Ms. Solomon reported that she attended the recent meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens. She noted that Police Chief Robert Lehner spoke to the residents. Ms. Ortiz announced that the annual pesticide spray would take place at the Union Pacific Railroad Yard on February 28 and March 1 (date approximate). Mr. Kelly reported on the February meeting of the Human Rights Commission (HRC). He said it discussed issues related to homelessness, The Register-Guard birth announcement policy, and the letter from the Lane Gender Task Force requesting that the commission not move the Gender Identity Code forward at this time. Rather, it asked that a comprehensive educational plan be implemented. Mr. Kelly said a special meeting of the HRC would be held on March 7 to discuss and act on the task force’s recommendation. Mr. Kelly then turned to the recent meeting of the Region 2050 Policy Board and reported that a preliminary draft of the technical analyses and input from community meetings was presented. Mr. Kelly explained that the draft would be forwarded to each jurisdiction and the Board of County Commissioners for review. City Manager Taylor noted that the report would be presented to the City Council on April 19. Mr. Kelly announced that the next meeting of the board would be April 26. Mr. Papé? reported that he and Mayor Piercy attended the recent Fire Department’s Awards and Ceremony Event and noted his pride in the Fire Department’s heroic works. He then turned to the Lane Council of Government (LCOG) February meeting and reported that an economic expert suggested a regional needs and issues inventory process ensue to set priorities for the area’s communities with regard to their special government grant needs. However, he noted that Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County did not concur that such a process was necessary, as the United Front was moving forward. Mr. Papé? said that the smaller communities were interested in such a process and would provide a report to the larger jurisdictions regarding its necessity. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson noted that historically such a process was handled through the development portion of Planning and Development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Papé? then reported on a suggestion which came out of the LCOG Board meeting that there may be some overlap within standing committees, including the Lane Metro Partnership, the Lane Economic Committee, and the Lane Economic Advisory Committee. He said that consolidation of one or more of these committees may occur. Ms. Taylor reported that the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency Board continued to struggle with the issue of odors filtering out of industries into the community. She then referred to a previous set of minutes which noted that the council was to discuss “stormwater” in relationship to development in February or March. City Manager Dennis Taylor reported that that item was an assignment to staff at this point and would be brought to the council on March 13. Ms. Taylor reminded staff that the council requested a discussion on the implementation of a “naming” policy. She asked that the City Manager arrange for a way in which such a discussion can be held. Mr. Pryor reported that on recent activities of the Lane County Metro Partnership, noting the openings of the Royal Caribbean and Williams offices scheduled to occur in April. He shared that there was a discussion around the decrease in “leads” throughout the state, as the type of land and property requests being received were not currently available. Mr. Pryor explained that these requests were very specific with regard to needs, properties, and infrastructures. He moved on to agenda items which included new member orientation and the 2006 Work Plan. Mr. Pryor reminded the council that the five targeted industries for the Lane County Metro Partnership were recreational vehicles and equipment, natural resources and specialties, life technology, customer service “back-office,” and software. Mr. Pryor proceeded to report on the February Human Services Commission meeting, which included a report on the budget and the fact that community need was increasing whereas the funds were not adequate for that need. Mr. Pryor said that discussions to stabilize funding have begun. In conclusion, Mr. Pryor said that the Enterprise Zone Committee conducted its last meeting and adopted its final set of standards. He spoke highly of the process and complimented the members of the committee for their exemplary efforts. Mr. Poling reported that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Group distributed Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and purchased equipment for the 20-year facility upgrade at a cost of $144 million. He said the majority of the work would be completed at the front end of the project as many of the upgrades were the result of more rigid standards. Mr. Poling concluded that an authorization of expenditure for a computer program to monitor the entire project has been approved. Mr. Pape? took the floor once again to explain the inter-relationship between the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He said that the MPC was established by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County as a problem-solving body; the MPO was an organization designated by the governor, which subsequently delegated most of its authority in regard to transportation planning to the MPC. However, members of the LCOG Board had recently expressed concerns that responsibilities with regard to planning for roads and streets have become muddled and have discussed reassuming that responsibility. Mr. Kelly pointed out that MPO, while appointed by the governor, exists mainly because of fact the Eugene-Springfield area was a Transportation Management Area (TMA) and must adhere to federal law requirements; additionally, some of its statutes dictate that both Lane Transit District (LTD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) be “at the table” which was problematic for the LCOG Board unless it was somehow restructured. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 2 Work Session B. Strategies for Long-Term Financial Stability for Transportation System Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation. City Manager Taylor acknowledged the successful actions implemented by the City Council to close some of the gaps in the Pavement Preservation Program and its recognition of the growing concern in the mainte- nance/operation of the Streets Program. Public Works Executive Director Kurt Corey referred to discussions of previous council work sessions around the funding of the $2 million annual deficit in the Operations and Maintenance Budget portion of the Road Fund and the $4.5 million annual deficit in the Capital Preservation/Transportation Funding. He said that the recommendations put before the council on February 15 to 1) address the operations and maintenance shortfall through the combination of shifting the cost of the existing services to other funds and establishing one or more new fees for services to underwrite the difference, and to 2) address the capital preservation backlog have been crafted by staff through a series of options to be considered by the council. The council, by consensus, agreed to consider each option as a separate motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY07 Proposed Budget a shift in a portion of the funding for the Street Trees/Median Maintenance Program (total program costs of approximately $1,310,000) from the Road Fund to the Stormwater Fund, with the remainder of the program funding to be provided from other city fees or funds. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to shift the funding to the General Fund, rather than the Stormwater Fund. The amendment failed due to a lack of a second. Mr. Kelly commented that since the Street Tree Funding was not included in the Road Fund in the past, he understood the logic to remove the funding. He said he would support the motion; however, he clarified with staff that the motion only spoke to one-half of the funding, and concluded that a proposal would need to be brought back to the council with regard to the balance of the funding. Mr. Pape? stated he supported the motion and pointed out that stormwater has significantly improved and been contained by street trees, vegetation, and medians. He said that any increase to the stormwater fees must be discussed independently of this proposed option. Mr. Corey pointed out that the Stormwater Program was currently operating at the minimum level to meet the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirement, together with add-ons that have been implemented in the past few years. Mr. Pape? stressed that the entire issue was complex and must be reviewed in detail by the council. Mr. Corey said that staff can provide council with an overview of modifications that have been made over the past few years to the Stormwater Fund since the major reductions were taken. City Manager Taylor added that such a discussion would ensue as part of the Budget Committee’s consideration if the motion passes. Mr. Corey pointed out that a stormwater rate increase can be set as an administrative action without council approval. Mr. Pape? reiterated that a review of the stormwater fees should ensue at the council level prior to any increase in those fees. Mr. Pryor concurred with Mr. Pape? that a discussion should ensue prior to any increase in stormwater fees. He said he supported the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor stated she opposed the motion due to the fact that the stormwater fees would not be raised sufficiently; consequently, another component of the Stormwater Program would be negatively impacted. She pointed out that the Road Fund was funded by the General Fund in the past; hence, her amendment. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion be quite specific. He said his interpretation of the motion was that a draft FY07 budget would in fact be brought to the Budget Committee on April 24 to increase the stormwater fee at approximately six to seven percent. Mr. Kelly concurred that the stormwater issue was quite complex and recalled that an extensive review undertaken two years ago resulted in service reductions to avoid an increase in the fees. He said that all the historical information around this issue would be helpful to the council. City Manager Taylor explained that the motion put before the council took one-half of the funding gap and transferred it to the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program, which would increase its fees in a corresponding way to present a balanced budget to the Budget Committee. He further explained that if the council approved the motion, it would be in addition to the increases it approved at the January session, at the time the review of the permit requirements and stream corridor acquisition ensued. Mr. Pape? pointed out that the stormwater fee was raised by 30 cents for the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program on January 23. He said the council may choose to decrease that program in the amount of $180,000, rather than increase the stormwater fee. Mr. Corey pointed out that the fees for utility rates were typically adjusted once per year. He explained that the action taken by the council on January 23 was a direction to adjust fees the next time they were increased--typically in July—to accommodate the additional acquisition program. Additionally, he said that the council acted in Fall 2005 to direct staff to add the necessary component to meet the increasing NPDES stormwater permit discharge requirements. He said those directions would act together in a rate increase proposal in the spring or early summer. Mr. Pape? stated he would support the motion, but not in anticipation of a significant increase in the stormwater fee. Based on the above discussion, Mr. Kelly stated he would not now support the motion as he did not want to put at risk all the work that has been done around stormwater acquisition. The motion passed 4:3, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Taylor in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a Eugene Livability Fee (ELF) to fund programs that en- hance community livability and transportation alternatives, including funding for the street trees/median maintenance program. Mr. Poling stated he would not support the motion as it would be perceived by the community as a “nickel and dime” approach. Rather, he suggested that an uncomplicated system such as the Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) be instituted, which would be fair and equitable and clearly define how the fee would be expended. He stressed that the business community and neighborhood associations needed to be included in the process to ensure that it was in fact fair and equitable. Mr. Poling noted that the community wants the pavement maintenance brought up to par. Mr. Pape? opined that the motion was a property tax in disguise. Mr. Corey explained that the motion would implement a fee for a particular service provided through the Road Fund and it would be a policy decision as to whether or not to offer the service. He said if the overriding concern was whether it was a tax, it could be MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session revised so that it would not be perceived as a tax. Mr. Corey pointed out there were a list of services provided through the Road Fund that the revenues cannot adequately provide. He explained that an individual assessment to cover this type of service could be a per service charge or something more sophisticated. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the motion put before the council was a creative funding strategy; however, as a citizen he did not favor such a plan. Rather, he said he favored a system such as the TSMF with specific oversight. Mr. Kelly commented that one fee after another was not the manner in which to fund general purpose government services. He said the broader-based the fee, the broader-based the tax. Mr. Kelly reminded staff that he supported the TSMF initially and would support it in the future if it were brought to the council in a similar fashion. Mr. Kelly said he opposed the motion due to its narrowness. He then clarified that the previous TSMF was $4 monthly for a household. The motion failed unanimously. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a citywide Street Lighting Fee to fund the operation, main- tenance and enhancement of the City’s street lighting system along arterial, collector, and neighborhood streets. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many constituents requested a mechanism to pay for street lights in their neighborhoods. She voiced hope that residents could be granted the opportunity; however, she said that she could not support the motion as a separate action. City Manager Taylor urged the council to consider this motion, pointing out that it has a reasonable relationship to the day-to-day issues the city needed to address to make the lights appropriate, expand as neighborhood interest warranted, and retract as deemed prudent. Additionally, he pointed out that due to the escalating costs of energy, this motion may have special value to the community. Mr. Kelly said he was under the impression there was a program to fund street lights for neighborhoods that expressed an interest. Mr. Corey replied there was a small amount of money available for spot street lighting; however, he spoke to the bigger funding issue of ongoing energy costs. Mr. Kelly pointed out that energy costs were a reality in other City operations as well and therefore he could not support the motion. Mr. Poling turned to page 23 of the council meeting packet and asked staff to provide the current annual cost of the arterial collector/neighborhood street lighting, how much of an increase would be required, and how would it be applied. Mr. Corey replied that the current annual cost was approximately $800,000, and that slightly more than half was for the arterial collector system and slightly less than half was for the neighborhood system, funded by the Road Operating Fund. He said the analysis describes different scenarios in how the moneys could be collected, one being a per utility service charge of approximately 60 cents per month for an individual service user who benefits from the Arterial Collector System; approxi- mately 50 cents per month if there was desire to have a residential neighborhood street lighting; and an estimated cost of 29 cents per month for collection. In response to a question from Mr. Pape?, Mr. Corey explained there was an “opt in” and “opt out” alternative for most of the systems that were in place. He said that if the motion moved forward, staff would MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session develop operating policies and procedures to address preferences on a “several-block” basis. Assistant City Manager Carlson added that the City received a six percent contribution in lieu of tax on gross revenues to the utilities. He explained that the moneys paid for utilities would be subject to the six-percent contribution as well and the revenues were deposited into the General Fund. Mr. Pape? stated he supports the motion at its face value but may offer objections when the proposal was put before the council. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the community paid property taxes for City services and said she did not approve of a plan whereby a constituent paid for every service he or she used. Mr. Kelly stated he could not support the motion due to the narrowness of it. He said that he understood the challenge; however, as the property tax cannot be utilized as in the past and if the Road Fund must be relieved of the funding of street lights, the funding should be part of the TSMF. Mr. Pape? asked if street lights were provided in all areas of Eugene. Mr. Corey said some neighborhoods have them and some do not, and explained that the installation of lighting was a condition of new develop- ment. He said that the spot-type method and a local improvement district could be options to install street lighting in neighborhoods. Mr. Corey believed one of the advantages of the motion would be a more fair and equitable lighting service for the community. City Attorney Jerry Lidz pointed out that the difference between a local improvement district approach and the street lighting fee was the district approach would include only the installation and the City would be responsible for the operating and maintenance costs. The motion failed 6:1, with Mr. Pape? voting in support. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for reestablishing the previously repealed Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) to address not only the projected ongoing operating deficit in Road Fund street op- erations and maintenance, but also to generate additional revenue to address the remaining annual funding gaps in the pavement and off-street bike path preservation programs. Ms. Taylor opined that $5 per month was a lot of money to some people. She suggested that the council review some of the options rejected by the previous Budget Subcommittee. Ms. Taylor noted for example the excise tax that the subcommittee rejected. Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill remarked that an excise tax was a tax on a sale or a specific sales tax on a variety of things. He stressed that such a tax would not be based on property value but on a sale or transaction other than property. Ms. Taylor opined that the council should review the Parking Lot Tax and the Fuel Distribution Tax rejected by the subcom- mittee. She stressed there were other sources of revenue that need to be considered. Mr. Kelly concurred that a general tax restructuring would be a prudent step for the council. However, he said that if such a process was not to occur, the TSMF was the least negative option. Mr. Kelly pointed out that TSMF was tied to the impact on transportation and therefore businesses would pay more than residents. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, City Manager Taylor replied that staff can present options to the council of varying levels of a TSMF which would then be adopted by ordinance. Mr. Kelly commented that he supported the original TSMF, as it provided a clear scientific methodology in how the rates were calculated. He pointed out that although the fee was focused on the curb-to-curb component, it also included a five-percent portion for off-street bike path preservation. Mr. Kelly said he could support a MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 6 Work Session similar methodology but would not support the changed methodology that was presented to the council in 2004 as it dramatically shifted the share-paid from large businesses to homeowners. Mr. Pryor said he preferred that if the TSMF was implemented, the funds be dedicated solely to that use. Additionally, that the rate structure be carefully reviewed to ensure that it was equitable. He commented there were the operational components that need to be addressed which cannot be funded in other ways and which can be tackled by the TSMF. Mr. Pryor suggested that with regard to the capital components, the City should begin a creative discussion to address those components separately. Mr. Poling reiterated that the TSMF must be uncomplicated so the community would have a clear understanding of what it would be expected to pay. He noted that he voted to repeal the TSMF when it came before the council in 2002 as he was under the impression that the County was willing to work with the City on some of these issues. Mr. Poling said he commented at the time that if such a partnership did not move forward, he would be willing to support a resurrection of the TSMF. He opined that it may be prudent to ask the public to vote on this issue. Mr. Pape? stated he voted to retain TSMF in 2000 and 2002 and he was in favor of considering it once again only if the council has the political will to follow through regardless of the pressure that would be present from other jurisdictions. City Manager Taylor remarked that discussions regarding this and other options present before the council have already begun with the Budget Committee. Mr. Corey added there was a fairly intense and well-developed public outreach process to ensure that all constituents understood the TSMF proposal in 2002, and that some form of public outreach would need to ensue for the proposals that were being considered. Mr. Pape? asked how the community could provide input to develop the TSMF. Mr. Corey explained that the previous outreach did include input for the development of the ordinance. City Manager Taylor added that should the council adopt the motion under consideration, staff could develop specific strategies and timelines for the council to consider. Mr. Pape? voiced his concurrence with the comments expressed by Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pryor around this option and further suggested a “sunset” component as a prudent step. Mr. Corey stressed that the proposals under consideration only begin to decrease the backlog and over a period of 10 years, the current $100 + million backlog would only be partially erased. However, he concurred that a sunset clause could be effective to the overall strategy with the understanding that other measures would need to be implemented at some point. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the discussion by 10 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. City Manager Taylor said that when the decision was made to rescind the TSMF, it was with the hope there would be a solution provided by the County. However, he pointed out that not only was there no solution, the City was now in jeopardy of losing partnership payments. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue of pavement preservation was the most frequently mentioned topic when he met with citizen groups. City Manager Taylor remarked that $11 million of pavement preservation would have been contracted out the summer the TSMF was rescinded. He concluded that there was now more support from the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Eugene Water & Electric Board due to the legitimate efforts of the City to seek other solutions. Ms. Solomon offered her support for the TSMF. However, she stressed that it must be clearly identified so the councilors can defend the fee to their constituents. Ms. Solomon said she was uncomfortable that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 7 Work Session proposal was removed from the “curb-to-curb” focus; however, she commented that if the percentages were dedicated to the particular items identified, it would keep the City accountable. Mr. Corey remarked that the original ordinance passed by the council in 2000 was the same ordinance considered in 2002; however, the methodology was reviewed based on a more sophisticated traffic model than was available in 2000. In fact, he noted that it revealed a different split between the commercial and residential assessments than was estimated in 2000 which resulted in a decrease in fees for the commercial side. Mr. Corey pointed out that the policy issue before the council was adoption of the ordinance and the methodology would be developed subsequent to that action and could change annually based upon traffic generation conditions. Ms. Ortiz asked if there was a mechanism which can be implemented for streets that have never been paved. In other words, if there was a non-collector street that was solely for neighborhood traffic and has never been improved, would there be an opportunity to have a separate matrix for those streets. Mr. Corey responded that the proposal under consideration referred solely to the “maintainable” transportation system in place and improvements to streets not brought up to standard, the TSMF, under current policy, could not fund. He said that design standards throughout neighborhoods were a sidebar to this discussion. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that many of her constituents would be paying for services that they would not receive. She stressed that the process must be equitable to her constituents and should include a mechanism to address their issues. Mr. Corey responded that other municipalities which have street maintenance assessments in place have used the idea of a portion of that money to offset the cost of upgrading streets to an acceptable standard. Ms. Ortiz said she was in general support of the motion but stressed it not be complex in nature. Ms. Taylor said that Public Works did an excellent job of convincing residents there was a problem with the operations, maintenance, and preservation of the city’s transportation service system. She noted that a general obligation bond had not been heretofore considered. Ms. Taylor opined that a vehicle registration fee would be more equitable. She pointed out that most of the residents in Lane County live in an urban area and opined that such a fee would be successful. Ms. Taylor noted that if the statewide laws could be changed, the City could move a fee forward which would be equitable to all wards. Mr. Kelly conceded that the TSMF was a policy issue; however, he said it was also a policy question as to who would pay the TSMF. He said that his support was contingent on having a clear and fair methodology. The motion passed 6:1, with Ms. Taylor in opposition. C. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Project and Priority Plan Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss joined the council for the item. She stated that the plan being considered contained information to guide implementational projects related to Parks, Recreation and Open Space. She said the information includes project timing, cost estimates, maintenance costs, growth allocation percentages, as well as associated maps identifying location of projects. Ms. Weiss shared that the relationship between the plan and the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) was that the PROS Plan was a policy document whereas the project and priority plan before the council was an action document and provides for specific projects. She said that if adopted, the plan would be inserted into the PROS as an appendix. Ms. Weiss explained that the projects were in direct response to a comprehensive public outreach process. She then outlined the following components included in the Agenda Item Summary: MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 8 Work Session ? Financial Assumptions ? Project Prioritization ? Project List Updates ? Systems Development Charge (SDC) Growth Allocation Percentages – Updated Tables 3 and 4 distributed Ms. Weiss concluded her presentation with the statement that the plan was intended to be living document that can be amended in response to future funding opportunities and community priorities. Additionally, the cost estimates would change to correspond to inflationary fluctuations. Ms. Taylor pointed out that possible future acquisitions were not included in the plan and said she was pleased that staff recognized this as a living document. She then turned to the Introduction on page 7 and asked for an explanation of “The feasibility of acquiring farmland”. Ms. Weiss explained there were two projects identified to farmland connections: 1) a greenbelt that would go around the northern side of the city and 2) a working farm as a public open space. Ms. Taylor turned to page 4, Table 1 and asked for an explanation of “Acquire Amazon Park in holdings along Hilyard Street.” Ms. Weiss explained there were some properties north of Hilyard Community Center and south of Roosevelt Middle School which the City may be interested in acquiring. Ms. Taylor then turned to staff’s notation of “Kincaid Park.” She said that area was not considered a park. Ms. Weiss stated it was considered a park in the City’s inventory and that staff was considering adding additional features to it. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Upgrade to Tugman Park.” Ms. Weiss said there have been some improvements made to the play areas; however, additional play area improvements were planned. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Frank Kinney Park.” Ms. Weiss said there was a Phase II to that plan, primarily trail improvement and stormwater improvements. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Upgrade Milton Park.” Ms. Weiss said there was a Phase II plan for improvements to that park. Ms. Taylor asked for an explanation of “Improving access to Kincaid and Milton Parks.” Ms. Weiss explained the map of those areas illustrates that primarily to the east of Kincaid Park, there was a neighborhood not well served by parks; therefore, some easier connection to reach that park was in the plan. Mr. Kelly stated he was supportive of the plan before the council. Mr. Kelly referred to the $6 million costs for the first year if the $20 million bond was successful. He questioned the $8 million per year for the remaining years. Ms. Weiss said she would respond fully to that question in writing; however, she noted that the $8 million estimate was projected on future bond measures and potential SDC increases. Mr. Kelly asked that a chart be provided to the council beginning with current conditions and how much each funding source can generate per year to ascertain the trend. He then turned to the information regarding SDCs and said that SDC changes can only be implemented on approved projects and requested that when the plan was adopted, staff ascertain what was included for Park SDCs. Mr. Pryor said he supported the plan as a “projected” list and asked if there would be a process for a rates committee and public hearings to arrive at a final list that was much more refined based on actual figures MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 9 Work Session rather than projections. Ms. Weiss responded that the growth allocation percentages would not change significantly; however, how they were applied was to be determined. Mr. Pape? questioned how the “projected” project list and the prioritization result in an equitable geographic plan. Ms. Weiss explained that the revised Table 4 identifies capital costs by planning area which reflects the acquisition development totals for each area and the priority ratings. She explained that the plan strives to provide service to all areas of Eugene and that some new acquisition was targeted for the Willakenzie area. Mr. Pape? voiced a concern that as the plan moves forward, it should be equitable to all areas. He then turned to Page 3, Post Projects and Priorities for Programs and Services – Develop a resource manage- ment plan for existing and new parks. He asked if “resource” has a specific meaning in that concept. Ms. Weiss responded that the word was used to refer to management plans for the City’s existing resources. Ms. Weiss noted that there were funding strategies identified in the PROS that were not currently included in the Project List. Ms. Ortiz moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor to direct the City Manager to hold a public hear- ing on the PROS Project and Priority Plan on March 13, 2006. Ms. Taylor turned to page 7, Table 1, and asked for an explanation of “Acquire Additional Amazon Headwaters Properties.” Ms. Weiss said the location was not specifically identified. Ms. Taylor asked if it was possible to add properties that were not currently for sale to the Project List. Ms. Weiss replied that specific parcels have not been identified and, by keeping them general, there was flexibility to target or not target individual properties. Ms. Taylor turned to page 3, Table 2, and asked for an explanation of “Public Information – Marketing Director for Parks.” Ms. Weiss replied that that component would not be funded by the Parks Bond and a Marketing Director has been hired and can be removed from the list. Recreation Division Manager Renee Grube further explained that the Marketing Director position had been vacant for five years and it was deemed necessary to bring it back as the City relies on the public’s understanding of what services were available within the community. Ms. Taylor said that she hoped Parks funds would not be spent for sidewalks that should be dedicated to land acquisition. Ms. Weiss explained that such expenditures would not occur through a parks bond; however, she pointed out that when a park was developed, the City was required to bring such an area up to accessibility standards, which included the installation of sidewalks. Mr. Kelly turned to page 4, Table 1, Civic Stadium. He pointed out that the stadium was an extraordinary community asset, currently owned by 4J School District, and that it has been dropped in priority from 2 to 5. Mr. Kelly said that the stadium was in threat of being demolished and voiced concern that the City would not consider it a high priority in possible discussions with 4J over such action. Ms. Weiss responded that the “living document” comes into action for such a situation. She added that if there was an imminent threat, the priority should indeed be raised. Mr. Kelly asked staff to research the feasibility of the loss of the stadium and advise if an amendment should be added to the motion to adopt the plan. Mr. Pape? questioned why the Amazon Headwaters property was listed as a citywide project, rather than a south Eugene property. Ms. Weiss explained there was some judgment exercised as to what project was “citywide” and in general, the ridgeline trail was considered “citywide” and the Amazon Headwaters Property was viewed as a component of the ridgeline trail. Mr. Pape? asked staff to provide a matrix of a five-year projection, including assumptions, as to what would be developed in all areas of town to ascertain equitability for all areas. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Poling was mindful that although there was support from the council for the plan, there was a lot of work that still needs to be done, including the critical community input. City Manager Taylor confirmed that the plan was scheduled for council action on April 10, following the Public Hearing to be held on March 13. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 11 Work Session