Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 8, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www.eugene-or.gov 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 March 13, 2006, City Council Meeting, April 10, 2006, Work Session, April 12, 2006, Work Session, and April 17, 2006, Process Session. ATTACHMENTS A.March 13, 2006 City Council Meeting B.April 10, 2006, Work Session C.April 12, 2006, Work Session D.April 17, 2006, Process Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060508\S0605082A.doc NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: March 13, 2006—Regular Meeting TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006Central Services Department\City Council\cc060313m2.doc BACKUP STORAGE: Ruth #33 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/8/06rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/28 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/28 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/30 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall March 13, 2006 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Gary Papé, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that due the number of people who wished to testify for the public hearings on Resolutions 4861, 1038, and 4862, the public hearing for Resolution 4863 approving the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Project and Priority Plan would be postponed. 1. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - Presentation of Sister City Gift Tom Bickel, manager of the Kakegawa Education Center of Oregon – a Sister City-owned farm in Junction City - explained that Kakegawa presented a painted manhole cover to the City of Eugene. He read into the record the letter of presentation that accompanied the gift, written by the Mayor of Kakegawa. Mayor Piercy introduced three visitors from Tokyo, Japan who were in the audience and welcomed them to Eugene. - Recognition of Eugene Airport Employee Mike Coontz Bob Wells, City Manager for the City of Salem, thanked Eugene for lending Airport employee Mike Coontz to the Salem Airport while its airport administrator fulfilled his military duty in Iraq. He reported that Salem Airport Administrator Alan Alexander had returned safely. He introduced a delegation of four people from Salem who had come to honor Mr. Coontz’s service and read a proclamation signed by the Salem Mayor and City Council into the record. Mayor Piercy said, on behalf of the council and staff, that all were honored to have the delegation from Salem present. She thanked them for taking the time to present the proclamation and that it was an honor to have Mr. Coontz as part of the City organization and the community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 1 City Council Meeting 2. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. She noted that 24 people signed up to speak and requested a motion to extend the 30-minute timeframe usually allotted for testimony. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Papé, moved to allow two minutes per speaker. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Jim Torrey , 3593 River Pointe, asked that the bond measure for the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Project and Priority List be expanded to include synthetic surface fields for five different facilities around the city of Eugene: Cal Young Middle School, Madison Middle School, the Willamette High School football/soccer facility (the only high school that does not currently have a synthetic surface), Jefferson Middle School, and Roosevelt or Spencer Butte Middle School. He suggested that the reason the 1998 bond measure for $25 million passed without one negative letter to the editor of the local paper was because a broad cross-section of the community worked together in support of it. He averred that open space and places for kids to play made good sense. He felt a partnership between open space and playing facilities would help to pass the measure in November. He touted the synthetic fields, calling them “one of the best things the City had done.” He stressed that such facilities could be used year-round and more frequently on a daily basis than the grass fields. Rachelle HaxbyJennifer Lam , 200 North Silver Lane, spoke in tandem with , 2455 Willakenzie Road, and Tricia Buzzard , 2455 Willakenzie Road. They explained that they were members of the Teen Advocacy Council for School-Based Health Centers (TAC), a group of 12 students from School District 4J and Bethel School District high schools who sought to raise awareness of the school-based health centers and what they had to offer: “quality, affordable health care to children and teens.” They stated that the health centers were located at North Eugene, South Eugene, Sheldon, Churchill, and Springfield high schools and provided a wide variety of health services to children from birth to the age of 19. On behalf of TAC, they thanked the City Council for its continued support. They noted that the school levy recently overturned by the courts was vital to the continuation of the health center services. They invited all interested members and supporters to an Open House on April 4 between 2 - 5 p.m. at any school-based health center. They submitted their testimony in writing along with buttons and fliers that publicize the program. Mark Rabinowitz , no address given, alleged that the Osprey Group, the consultants hired to facilitate discussions about the West Eugene Parkway (WEP), were biased as they had been part of a highway project built in Kansas and had served to undermine pro-environment efforts there. He asserted that the Osprey Group’s co-founder was from a company that had a former employee of the engineering firm, CH2M Hill, on its board. He felt this contributed to the bias, as CH2M Hill staff had done some engineering work for the WEP. He called it an inappropriate use of City money to hire the Osprey Group. He suggested that the City kept spending money on “bogus” studies when it could be spent on real transportation projects, such as th fixing the problems on West 11 Avenue. He predicted people would vote against bond measures because they did not perceive that the money was being spent well. Charles Warren , 86260 Lorane Highway, echoed the thoughts expressed by Mr. Torrey. He said he had chaired the committee for the Parks and Open Space bond measure in 1998 and reminded those present that some of the money from the bond measure was earmarked to build synthetic surface athletic fields in collaboration with School District 4j. He averred that the commitment to build those fields proved to be one of the best investments the City made in athletic fields. However, he added that the City was faced with two looming problems: 1) the existing fields needed to be resurfaced between 2008 and 2010 at a cost of approximately $2 million, with the City’s share at $1 million, and 2) the fields had almost reached usage MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 2 City Council Meeting capacity. He stated that if the City was going to continue to offer all of the youth in the community an opportunity to participate in athletic programs and meet its responsibility to its adult athletic programs, the best investment it could make would be to build more all-weather fields. He thought it was imperative that the City Council look at the immediate need the City had for athletic fields and this would improve the chances of the bond measure passing. Kathy Ging , PO Box 11245, recited the Oregon State Motto, “She flies with her own wings.” She said implementation of Oregon Constitution Article 11(d) required a non-partisan, three-member, statewide elected commission to oversee energy production in Oregon. She averred that it would provide local jobs and long-term permanent rate relief and would keep economic benefits at home. She asserted that currently Oregon was “funneling money to out-of-state corporations.” She felt that Oregon could be tapped for solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-fuels, tidal, and hydroelectric power. She said the Oregon State Grange added Article 11(d) to the constitution through the petition process in 1932 and voted in 2006 to sponsor its implementation in the Oregon Renewable Energy and Fuel act of 2006. She opined that the State was at a historical crossroads to correct a “leadership vacuum” where renewable energy, economic development, and environmental advocates could unite. She supported creation of this commission through a petition to get it on the ballot. Dave Clark , 869 Aldridge Place, spoke in support of building more synthetic playing fields. He under- scored that the City currently had more than 600 soccer teams and over 200 football teams, as well as th lacrosse teams in the 8 grade and below. He said the best fields owned by the City could only support two games per day, while the synthetic fields could support up to seven games per day. He stated that the fields were greatly needed by the youth of the community. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, objected to merging three public hearings into one. He cited Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 294.480(4), which mandated a public hearing prior to taking action on a supplemental budget, and subsections under ORS 279 that allegedly required a public hearing be held prior to taking action to exempt a process from competitive selection. He called it “unforgivable” that the council would choose to combine the hearings as it did not allow enough time for testimony. He felt it was “regrettable” that the council had “left to the last minute” something as controversial as the East Broadway garage project. He opined that lack of planning on the City’s part did not constitute an emergency and it was no reason to combine the measures or to shorten the speaking time to two minutes. Marsha Edwards , 2350 Jefferson Street, advocated for inclusion of five additional fields for community sports in the bond measure for the parks and open spaces. As a current member of the Kidsports board of directors, she said the organization was “desperate” for additional playing fields. She noted that lacrosse was the newest sports craze and the City fell short in meeting interest in that sport was because of facility limitations. She asked the council to consider community youth sports programs in parks planning. Jared Allison , 1513 Mill Street, read the mission statement for Leadership Education Adventure Direction (LEAD): “Our mission is to develop the leadership skills of low-income youth, empowering them to address community problems and change the world.” He thanked the councilors for the interest in meeting with LEAD members. Mr. Allison stated that life assignments were long-term goals that LEAD members chose for themselves. He said his life assignment was to be a positive role model for LEAD teens and show them the values of LEAD such as devotion to staying out of the juvenile justice system and staying in school. He explained that the reason he did so was that teens needed a positive peer role model. He described a good LEAD teen as MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 3 City Council Meeting someone who would show common courtesy toward other people, who would stop an individual from oppressing another. and who would stand in the way of oppression. Terra Williams , 1669 Oak Patch Road, #219, stated that she was a volunteer in training for LEAD since turning 18 years old. She felt that being a volunteer was a way to give back to LEAD. She said that as a teen, LEAD gave her support that she would not have received anywhere else and taught her leadership skills, public speaking skills, and ways to build toward her “life assignment.” As a volunteer, she felt able to help other teens improve their skills and accomplish their goals. She said she had to learn to connect with the teens differently and to spread herself out among the participants, but that other volunteers were helping her adjust to her new role. She underscored that LEAD did not lose its connection with the teens it helped, but rather had teens remain in the program to help younger teens. th D. Cohen , 2115 West 12 Avenue, #6, explained that he was a member of LEAD staff and was Teen Center co-coordinator, group leader, and a homeless outreach coordinator. Additionally, he was finishing his studies at the University of Oregon in the Family and Human Services program and the Substance Abuse Prevention program. He said the group had been working on the teen center for a year. He listed some of the partnerships to which LEAD was committed, such as Centro LatinoAmericano, which provided meeting space, Juventud Faceta – a youth program for Amigos Centro de Servicios Multiculturales, Lane County Positive Youth Development Initiative, University of Oregon Family and Human Services program, and the University of Oregon Multicultural Center, as well as the Trauma Healing Project. He noted that Papa John’s Pizza was a sponsor for LEAD. Mr. Cohen related that LEAD held a forum in Spring 2005 at the Eugene Public Library to gather input on whether Eugene needed a teen center and what teens and adults would want from such a center. Since then, through bimonthly meetings, LEAD created a name, a mission, goals, programs, and subcommittees. He said a master’s student at the University of Oregon was currently creating a needs assessment for a teen center and LEAD raised $15,000 in private donations. He was confident in the work LEAD was doing and asked that others who shared LEAD’s vision to join in the effort. He added that his passion for the work came from his own experience of being an at- risk youth. He said if it had not been for the work of key mentors, he was uncertain where he would be at present, as he had spent his first three years in Eugene as a homeless youth. th Caleb Pruzanski , 470 West 27 Avenue, also spoke on behalf of LEAD. He stated that he was a board member and Teen Center co-coordinator. He said the name of the proposed teen center would be Nuestro Lugar, or Our Place. He underscored that LEAD was a non-discriminatory, diverse group of youth and adult mentors committed to a safe, supportive, fun environment that promoted personal growth, multicultur- alism, leadership, and empowerment. He averred that LEAD’s goals were very straight-forward: to help teens in all ways possible. He thanked the council for its help in setting up a meeting with LEAD. He added that LEAD representatives would provide testimony at every City Council meeting until a teen center was underway. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asked if a state of emergency had been called and this was why the three hearings were grouped together. He said he wanted to be specific in his testimony and questioned whether this was possible given that the hearings had been combined. Mr. Vishanoff opined that too much money had been spent on consultants in the City Hall planning process. He suggested that the Eugene Water & Electric Board Steam Plant or the Eugene Hotel be used as a new City Hall. He recommended holding a wider public discussion and firing the consultants. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 4 City Council Meeting Jen Evans , 1591 High Street, #1, showed a drawing she made for her architecture class that demonstrated her plan for seven blocks of park in the downtown area. She thought this was an example of what could be done in downtown Eugene if “we opened our eyes and let people propose what they’re thinking.” She thought the City would then truly become a great city for the arts and outdoors. rd Lora Byxbe , 677 West 23 Avenue, said she had a chance to see the plan for downtown Eugene prepared by Professor Gillem of the University of Oregon; his students and she thought it was a beautiful proposal. She felt it was unfortunate that the Whole Foods project was in the middle of it. She thought Eugene needed to formulate a master plan for the downtown area and follow it. She felt doing so would prevent the City from making a big mistake. John Etter , 85444 Teague Loop, expressed concern that the planning process surrounding the federal courthouse/Cannery Square area was insufficient. He thought there was no site specific planning that would give further direction as to how the downtown objectives would be achieved. He opined that this caused those with a focus on urban design focus distress as they saw those with a focus on urban development “allowing development proposals to proceed without consideration of how all objectives of the downtown plan would be met in a coordinated manner.” He opined that the current policy seemed “first come, first serve.” He felt the opportunity to design and enhance the general architecture of the City was lost in this process. He lauded the university students who examined this opportunity and produced a proposal for a park blocks connector from the downtown to the river. He asked the City to “give the best design visionaries” the chance to work on this development. th Virginia M. Lo , 1855 East 28 Avenue, said she was a professor at the University of Oregon. She was concerned about the direction and process of development in downtown Eugene. She urged the council and staff to tap into the talent of the community for design ideas, such as the one presented by Ms. Evans. She asked that a vision of downtown that was for everyone be sought, and not just a vision of high-rise condominiums and “shopping for yuppies.” She suggested that the City pursue a slow, deliberate, and fiscally responsible policy that was not driven by developers’ agendas. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, recalled that the council passed the Special Chambers Zone Area on December 15, 2005. He hoped the City could maintain those standards for other neighborhoods with similar old houses in them and ensure that the Planning Commission remained within the guidelines the council set. He also conveyed his gratitude for the Forest Legacy Program. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, concurred with Mr. Hinkley’s remarks. He asserted that changes in the structure of the three hearings were “symptomatic” of the rushed character of the whole process. He hoped that the council would step back and allow for more time. He commented that he participated in many of the public parts of the downtown planning process over “many years.” He felt the kinds of visions that were preferred by the public were not reflected in what was occurring. He expressed concern that the downtown plan would push out middle- and lower-income people by making it unaffordable to live there. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, read a letter into the record requesting that his testimony to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee from the meeting held on March 8, 2006, be included as part of the City Council’s packet. He asked the council to postpone its vote on Consent Calendar Item C, which would authorize an application to the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment for loan guarantee assistance and other related matters until councilors had a chance to review the points he made in his testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 5 City Council Meeting Jon Pincus , PO Box 422, noted that he resided in Noti. He commented that the downtown was the cultural and economic center of the area. He expressed concern about the Connor/ Woolley project. He remembered the urban renewal efforts from 25 and 35 years earlier, which he felt had been an “unmitigated disaster.” He recalled that historic buildings were torn down and local businesses driven out. He averred that doing this had not worked then and would not work now. He suggested that what made downtowns attractive and economically vibrant was that they were “fun,” with night clubs, arts venues, and cultural resources. He said this was what was recognized as making downtowns work in modern planning. He felt the current planning seemed to be suffering a crisis of confidence. Moshe Immerman , 1290 McLean Boulevard, opined that there should be an ordinance requiring the City Attorney to determine where the money was coming from whenever a major expenditure of public funds was planned. He wanted to know well in advance the true source of the money and the nature of that transaction. He felt that the public meetings law was sometimes circumvented by local governmental bodies. He said this was not the way to create sustainable government. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum and asked for comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz lauded the representatives of LEAD, calling them a “bright star” at council meetings. She hoped they would come back and that the City would find a way to work with them. She also hoped they were reaching out to other agencies and organizations. Councilor Pryor thanked everyone for speaking. He supported the idea of adding funding for synthetic fields to the bond measure and trying to make it as flexible and usable to all of the people in Eugene. Councilor Solomon asked the City Manager to determine what would be needed to include the costs for the extra five synthetic playing surfaces. City Manager Taylor replied that there was an opportunity on April 10 at which the council could provide further direction on the bond issue. Councilor Solomon supported the inclusion of the all-weather fields. She said she would poll her colleagues regarding this issue and asked that information about this item be included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for that day. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 11, 2006, Work Session - February 13, 2006, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4860 Authorizing Submission of an Application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for Loan Guarantee Assistance and Related Matters Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to adopt the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman pulled Items B and C. Roll call vote; Item A, the council minutes, was approved by unanimous vote, 7:0. Councilor Bettman related that she had not seen the item for the compensation fund for Measure 37 claims on the Tentative Agenda. She hoped to see a work session in April or May. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 6 City Council Meeting City Manager Taylor said the work sessions in April or May could be rearranged to a certain extent in order to make room for that item. Councilor Bettman asked that she be notified if it seemed that the agenda item would be pushed farther out than May. Roll call vote; Item B, the Tentative Agenda, was approved by a unanimous vote, 7:0. Councilor Bettman averred that what the council was doing with Item C was to authorize the City to proceed to pursue a $7.9 million capacity for loans. She asserted that this would require waiving some of the City’s debt policies. She asked which of the conduit financing policies would need to be waived. Financial Analysis Manager for the Finance Division, Sue Cutsogeorge, explained that when an actual proposal came up, the council would have to approve the borrowing and, at that time, Finance staff would review how the debt policies would be affected and which ones might need to be waived in a specific instance. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that policies would only be waived if the City borrowed money to lend to a private developer. Councilor Bettman asked if there was a level that the City could project borrowing that would not necessitate waiving the debt policies. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that it did not have to do with the amount, but rather with the type of borrowing. She assured her that the council would have another chance to consider the debt policy in conjunction with the project. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Providing for Withdrawal of Territories from the River Road Water District and River Road Park and Recreation District and the Santa Clara Water District City Manager Taylor asked Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter, to explain the basics of this item. He noted that there were some consequences should action not be taken on it. Councilor Papé clarified that this had originally been Agenda Item 8. Mr. Yeiter stated that a public hearing was required by State law. He said 25 properties had already been annexed to the City and if they were not withdrawn from the special districts, the tax assessor would keep charging for both the districts that were no longer providing services and the City’s services. Should action not be taken, the 25 property owners could potentially be charged twice for services. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Rob Handy , 455 ½ River Road, likened the annexation to auctioning off properties. He averred that some of the issues River Road/Santa Clara residents had with the City had to do with trust, voice, equity, and collaboration. He said people wanted to know why the streets were being annexed as well as property. He alleged that the impression in the community was that the City was circling for the purpose of later annexation. He asked if the City could be “up front” about what its annexation policy was. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 7 City Council Meeting Mr. Handy related that people were pleased to be receiving the neighborhood organization letters, regardless of City residency. He called it a wonderful step that was taken. He suggested the City amend the neighborhood organization recognition policy to make the change permanent. Mr. Handy asserted that the neighborhood character was being eroded. He said the area was interested in having design standards before implementing opportunity siting. Mr. Handy declared the River Road Park and Recreation District to be the community center. He asserted that slowly but surely the piecemeal annexation was undermining the district’s ability to maintain itself. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for questions and comments from the council. Councilor Ortiz asked staff to provide her with a memorandum explaining why the City was annexing County streets in that area. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there was no objection to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4921, an ordinance providing for withdrawal of territories from special districts. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING and POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2006 City Manager Taylor stated that Management Analyst for the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, Glen Potter, would present the item. Mr. Potter explained that a public hearing on this item was required by State law. He said the ordinance provided for a fee of $31.30 per full-time equivalent (FTE) up to the State-imposed fee cap of $2,000 per facility. He indicated that this was in line with the fees and budget under which the Toxics Right-to-Know program operated for the past two years. He added that it came before the council with unanimous support from the Toxics Board. He asked for action at the present meeting or at the work session scheduled for March 15 in order to meet the charter-mandated fee payment deadline of May 1. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Kathy Ging , PO Box 11245, urged the council not to do anything to dilute the Toxics Right-to-Know initiative. She averred that Eugene was unique in the country for having this policy, which mandated that corporations post information about their toxic emissions posted on a website for all to see. She alleged that the City of Eugene had one of the twelve most polluted “airsheds” in the country. She said that a client of hers had decided not to move here because of this. She listed some of her concerns regarding pollution, such as Teflon in cooking ware and treated lumber. She asserted that the City should demand honesty from its polluters. She further alleged that Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. had a permit to put 69 tons of pollutants into the air. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 8 City Council Meeting Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, asked the council to consider expanding the program to include nanotechnology. He was very concerned that there seemed to be a lack of regulation governing nanotech- nology. He thought the University of Oregon was making “new designer materials” that could be used by the military-industrial complex. He suggested the councilors conduct a Google search by typing in ‘ONAMI and RFID commercializing Oregon’s future.’ He said ONAMI had hired a public relations firm. He felt there was a lack of information on polluters and that the Toxics Right-to-Know law could be gutted. David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, thanked the councilors for their service to the community. He thought it was significant that the councilors understood and appreciated the democratic process and the importance of having an informed public. He said the City’s Toxics Program was one of the finest in the country. He acknowledged that it had been argued the program duplicated Federal and State programs. He disagreed with this assessment. He said the Eugene program had a mass/balance accounting system whereby all of the toxic substances coming into a facility have to be reported whether they go into the water, air, product, or elsewhere. He averred that this prevented any discrepancies from occurring. He noted that a couple of years earlier, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had been allowed to relax the reporting requirements for its program. He related that the DEQ had done so because it asserted that the federal government had adequate reporting programs. He pointed out that the federal government was now proposing reductions in its program, which heightened the need for local vigilance. He noted that the Toxics Right-to-Know program was now nine years old and it still cost the City of Eugene nothing. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for questions and comments from the City Council. Councilor Ortiz commented that she would like to expand the number of businesses that were required to report, but she felt it should be left to the discretion of the Toxics Board to let the council know when it was time to do so. Mayor Piercy ascertained that there were no objections to taking action at the present meeting. Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4920, an ordinance adopting Hazardous Substance User Fees. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy stressed to those in the audience that she took full responsibility for combining the three hearings. Mayor Piercy opened the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:45 p.m. The City Council meeting remained open. The following items were combined into one hearing: 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4861 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30 2006 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 1038 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations for the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and Ending June 30, 2006 MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 9 City Council Meeting 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4862 Granting an Exemption from Competitive Selection Requirements for a Personal Services Contract Relating to Developer Services and Developer’s Selection of General Contrac- tor for Construction of a Public Parking Facility; and Approving Findings Relating Thereto City Manager Taylor asked Associate Planner for PDD, Nan Laurence, to describe the scope of the East Broadway development project and the nature of the hearings that were before the council at this meeting. He noted that he had conferred with the Mayor regarding how to best facilitate the hearing so that everyone would have the opportunity to speak, once it had come to light that many people wished to testify on the item. He said he had also conferred with the City Attorney and determined that the procedure by which the council had chosen to conduct the three hearings was, in fact, legal. He felt the hearing would be more user- friendly. Ms. Laurence described the two components of the East Broadway proposal: the Whole Foods Grocery, which would occupy approximately 52,000 square feet on the southern half of the block; and the parking th garage, located on the northern half of the block and which would face 8 Avenue. She explained that the three items that were subject to public hearing were: 1) the supplemental budget for the East Broadway public parking garage and the City Hall Phase 2 development plan; 2) the supplemental budget for the Urban Renewal Agency also related to the parking garage; and 3) exempting the public parking from the competitive selection process. She wished to emphasize three points: 1. This project sought to implement the vision for downtown based on council direction in the Down- town Plan. 2. This project would be pro-active as the proposed public parking garage would act as an incentive for further redevelopment and satisfy the demand for parking in the east end of the downtown area. She stressed that these spaces were separate from and in addition to the 240 parking spaces that were planned to be built above the Whole Foods Grocery structure. The need for parking was documented in the Parking Study and the data in that study was based on a physical inventory con- ducted by staff. 3. The project would be strategic and would capitalize on a development opportunity. In closing, Ms. Laurence stressed that staff compared garage costs and was confident that the public parking garage, as proposed, would result in construction cost efficiencies and an attractive, high-quality design. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Councilor Papé declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from the proceeding. He left the dais at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Piercy stated that 97 people signed up to speak and imposed a limit of two minutes per person. She noted that it would take a council motion to extend the meeting time beyond 10 p.m. John Barofski , 2010 Hubbard Lane, stated that he was co-chair for the Fairmount Neighborhood Association (FNA) and a citizen member of the Budget Committee. He reported that the FNA passed a resolution in opposition to the above-ground parking structure and also suggested that below-ground parking be built with park space above it. He submitted a copy of the resolution into the record. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 10 City Council Meeting Mr. Barofski disagreed with the assertion that a no-bid contract would save money. He felt evidence in support of that proposal was anecdotal at best. He suggested that the City and citizens determine the design for a parking structure that would work best for the city as a whole and not what fits the design of one particular group. He thought, given that the City spent one year and $1 million to study a potential new City Hall, the City could spend a little more time to decide how it wanted the downtown to look. He expressed concern because this option would use up urban renewal bonding capacity for one project and this could jeopardize other valuable projects. He asked, as a citizen member of the Budget Committee, that the City do more to involve the citizen members of the committee in the supplemental budget process so that those members could be better informed in advising the council. Thomas Peterson , 1178 Charnelton Street, said he was chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA). He reported that the DNA passed a similar resolution opposing the project. He submitted the resolution into the record. He stressed that the DNA was not opposed to development but thought that all of the relevant information about alternatives should be presented publicly, such as the aforementioned underground parking. He averred that the quality of life in “this city of the arts and the outdoors” depended on informed citizens’ democratic participation. He related that DNA members would welcome the opportunity to join with the rest of the community in exploring options regarding this project. In closing, he underscored that an open process was the “wisest course of action.” Larry Reed , 4765 Village Plaza Loop, supported the program. He commended the council for realizing that the downtown was in trouble and for working on a visionary downtown plan. He stressed that the block on which the proposed parking structure was to be built was contained in the plan, as were great pedestrian streets and the provision of places for people to live and shop downtown. He asserted that the Mayor, in her election literature, seemed to understand that it would take a private developer doing a private project to bring marketplace economics to the downtown area. He provided written materials for the council record that included the aforementioned campaign literature. Mr. Reed stated that Whole Foods Grocery did not need Eugene, but Eugene did need the Whole Foods Grocery. He said should the City pass on this “rare opportunity” there might not be a second one. He commented that this was “just the way business operates.” He pointed out that Whole Foods Grocery would create jobs and that it planned to build its own parking garage without a subsidy. He added that it had been identified that the federal courthouse needed downtown parking. He asked that the council not “slap away this opportunity.” He submitted his testimony in writing. th Rick Wright , 25 West 25 Avenue, chief executive officer for the PC Market of Choice stores, averred that a parking garage in partnership with a commercial project was a subsidy. He thought the real debate should focus on who would win and who would lose. He opined that the only winners would be Whole Foods Grocery and landlords and the whole community stood to lose something. He stressed that the city of Eugene had a unique blend of locally owned grocery stores supported by an infrastructure of farmers, manufacturers and suppliers. He felt Eugene offered one of the most sustainable food industries in the country. He predicted that Whole Foods Grocery would do as much business as the combined business of nine existing businesses. He felt this would significantly affect the sales of local businesses and the sales of local growers as well. Ginevra Ralph , 2187 University Street, spoke on behalf of the Shedd Institute for the Arts. She urged the th council to move forward with a parking structure at 8 Avenue and High Street, including foregoing an open bid process in this case. She said the City identified the need for additional structured parking on East Broadway for eight years. She asserted that current parking was already seriously inadequate for existing MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 11 City Council Meeting civic and commercial activity. She noted that the Shedd Institute currently served 700 students and approximately 200 ticket buyers, staff, and faculty each week during daytime hours. She said this was in addition to several thousand each month who attended evening concerts and public events. She stated that the business hour users were served with 36 parking spaces in their lot. She underscored that the Shedd Institute did not support providing a subsidy to businesses and disagreed with the assertion that the proposed parking garage was such a subsidy, as the Whole Foods Grocery would provide its own parking. She believed it was within the City’s role to provide adequate infrastructure parking in the downtown core and that this would support the revitalization of the area. She opined that the alternative was urban sprawl, shopping malls with acres of surface parking. Dwight Collins , 1600 Orchard Street, thanked the council for giving the public the opportunity to share its vision of the downtown area and how public monies should be spent on achieving that vision. He stated that he had owned Newman’s Fish Market for over 27 years, a business that was started in Eugene more than 115 years earlier. He joined many other small grocery businesses in their opposition to the use of public money for the public garage, which he considered to be a subsidy to a competitor. He thought there were already enough grocery stores in the downtown area. He said the free enterprise system invited growth and competition, but this growth should not be subsidized. He asserted that Whole Foods must not be meeting its parking goal given that the business made the parking structure a deal-breaker. He remarked that all businesses faced parking issues and no other business would ask the City to provide more spaces. He did not believe this was an appropriate use of public money. He said the council should show there was a great need for the parking structure and this was a good use of $8 million in public money. Michael Roberts , 1919 Myers Road, said he owned a business in the downtown area. He supported the building of the parking garage because the community had long-planned to build it. He declared that the community must support compact urban growth and not sprawl. He felt construction of the garage would foster many more projects in the downtown area. He asserted that every condominium or apartment built downtown meant one less home outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Roberts said the “team-based delivery system” that was proposed on this construction project was currently the leading method of building projects throughout the world. He stated that his company currently delivered 80 percent of its projects on a team-based approach as opposed to a low-bid process. He averred that the low-bid process did not necessarily translate to a lower cost; it only ensured a low bid on bid day. He felt with a team of designers, engineers, and contractors working together, it would be possible to build a better and more efficient project. He alleged that a privately developed parking garage would save the City approximately $2,000 per space. Greg Brokaw , 114 High Street, recommended deferring to the staff recommendation on whether the parking garage should be publicly or privately bid out. He averred that staff had been the only people who spent “enough time with the details of this particular case to have an informed opinion.” He stated that he and his family lived in the downtown area and he also owned a downtown professional firm and a recently renovated building. He felt he and his partners were true progressives when it came to their commitment to a successful and sustainable future for Eugene. He said his business evaluated many things when considering a long-term investment in the downtown area in 2004, the most important of which had been the Downtown Plan and the wisdom and maturity of the elected City Councilors and the “sophistication” of City staff to carry out the day-to-day hard work of supporting a downtown renaissance. He related that two years earlier he had felt that a successful future of the downtown area was common ground for all sides of the political spectrum. Now, though he and his colleagues were still optimistic, it seemed that political leaders were wavering from the larger vision and this was disconcerting. He had expected unanimous support for a project of this caliber, given that it had been long planned for. He found it alarming that not one councilor MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 12 City Council Meeting was leading the charge for a downtown renaissance. He asked where the leadership was. He submitted his testimony in writing. rd Ronald Goldfarb , 466 West 23 Avenue, said he used to be the owner of Ronnie’s Stereo, but had moved to New Orleans to help his parents. He said that Hurricane Katrina was both an act of nature and an act of a government that had not properly taken care of its citizenry. He did not believe leaders there had done what was necessary to protect the citizenry. He thought the rest of the country looked at New Orleans and thought it “would never happen to us.” He said it could happen anywhere. He averred that a misuse of the public money would result in failure. He opposed giving undue favors, regardless of how positively they were presented, as it led to unfair competition. He also felt it was important to get competitive bids on contracts. Floyd Prozanski , PO Box 11511, State Senator, said he was speaking on behalf of all of the small businesses and constituents had had contacted him to convey their opposition. He thought it was premature for the City to build a parking garage at this time, given that the current $1.2 million study on the City Hall needs assessment had not been completed and there could be a better use for that land, current parking structures met the current needs for parking, and the current proposal was limited by its vertical design. He pointed to the Salem Capitol Mall with its underground parking and above-ground greenway as an example of building a multi-use structure within a dense community. He asked the council what position the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had taken on the ingress/egress on a State highway. He did not th believe that ODOT agreed to any access from the 6 Avenue area. Speaking on his own behalf, he averred that bigger was not always better. He called the parking garage a “boondoggle” for a large business that would give a “very large corporation an unfair advantage” over existing Eugene businesses. Mark Rabinowitz , PO Box 51222, wanted to know the value of the land swap that had been proposed. He felt building a parking garage made it clear that the City would not “deal with peak oil and climate change.” He opined that this meant the City clearly did not “give a damn about sustainability.” He asserted that building a parking garage would be tantamount to subsidizing food shipments from Mexico and all over the world. He equated Whole Foods Grocery with sprawl. He thought the fact that it needed the parking showed that its customer base was regional and not just people in the downtown area. He suggested that a farmers’ market would be a better alternative. Mr. Rabinowitz opined that the site of the former Sears building indicated that City planning was incompe- tent. Doug Black , 4645 West Hillside Drive, said he was part of the group from the Eugene Permaculture Guild that organized the Richard Heinberg event. He related that Professor Heinberg predicted a phenomenally constrained economy of necessary food supply and manufacturing within the decade. He asserted that Whole Foods Grocery’s expensive, contracted interstate-reliant form of product transport would have to be overtaken by local systems of food transport. He referred to a study by Robert Hirsch that suggested that the United States needed 20 years to plan for upcoming impacts of an “energy-constrained economy.” He averred that the country had less than five years to do so. He said his household shopped at Sundance Natural Foods store and Growers Market Food Co-op and had no shortage of “specially ordered supplies.” He alleged that these locally owned stores ordered from locally owned food growers and grocery suppliers as a point of business ethics. He noted that the members of the Permaculture Guild gathered “several hundred signatures” on petitions that asked the City of Eugene to address “peak oil.” He asked where the response was and who was setting the agenda relative to that topic. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 13 City Council Meeting th Gavin McComas , 1350 East 25 Avenue, acknowledged that the Whole Foods Grocery was more progressive than other “big box chain stores.” He saw the appeal the “corporation” had to the idealism of natural foods customers. He asserted that the store’s good deeds did not erase the damage it did to local businesses. He said if it were Walmart asking for help from the City, the City would not give it. He averred that like Walmart, Whole Foods Grocery took money out of the local economy and put it into the pockets of stockholders. It uses a centralized purchasing, distribution, and management to lower its cost of doing business. He alleged that Whole Foods Grocery would dismantle “local food webs” by buying their produce cheaply from factory farms and only supported local farmers as a last resort. He predicted that Whole Foods would help erode the individual character of Eugene, and would make it less attractive to tourists and potential job-producing businesses. He said like Wal-mart, Whole Foods would only be successful at the expense of local businesses. He did not think Whole Foods needed financial help from the City. Kaz Oveissi , 361 Sunset Drive, advocated for downtown development and had done so for many years. He stated that he owned and operated four businesses in the downtown area. He said for the first time in all of the years he had lived in Eugene he saw great possibilities and opportunities to transform the downtown because of both the East Broadway and West Broadway projects. He averred that the City deserved a livable downtown with dense, high-quality housing, movie theaters, restaurants, and a mix of national and local businesses. He wanted the downtown to be free of drugs, crime and vandalism. He felt the City had done its homework and the opportunity had arrived to produce the necessary results. He urged the council to take “effective action for a downtown that is real and works.” John Rowell , 1 East Broadway, spoke in support of the Whole Foods Grocery project as it was currently proposed. He said it aligned with the City’s plan for the downtown which was a result of an open and exhaustive public process. He felt that saying no to this project would send a message that Eugene was incapable of following its own plan. He thought it would be a terrible message to anyone who was about to invest in downtown Eugene. He asserted that the Whole Foods Grocery had a positive identity that fit the goals of the Mayor’s Sustainable Business Initiative and that the project was an important contribution to the city’s health. He predicted that the grocery anchor would make other development more attractive and would help business and not hurt it. He said downtown dwellers would finally have a supermarket, and the “wonderful smaller markets” would continue to fill a niche and would benefit from more activity. He averred that developers would not build housing and people would not move to the downtown area in any numbers unless there was a supermarket. He commented that for decades, large-scale food markets had been unwilling to take the risk and Whole Foods was the pioneer. He stressed that the City of Eugene built expensive public infrastructure like the well-used parking garages all of the time to support the development of outlying sites. He believed that in the downtown core parking garages were essential parts of public infrastructure as they were efficient, good investments that contribute to sustainable land use and promoted density. He did not think they were evil, nor did he think it should be assumed that such a structure would be ugly. He remarked that to paint the parking garage as a subsidy was to ignore that the parking would serve the public in the whole eastern downtown area. He added that if it attracted Whole Foods Grocery, then that was just good strategy. th George Brown , 60 West 17 Avenue, owner of the Kiva Market, said he had sold groceries, books, and wines for 35 years. He commented that thanks to his loyal customers, the store had survived economic bad times, achieved a modest livelihood, and had grown to become somewhat of a Eugene local institution. He surmised that everyone in the room cared very deeply about the city of Eugene and the health of downtown. He wanted to correct assumptions that he felt those who supported the project had about the opponents. He stressed that grocers and restaurateurs did not want Whole Foods Grocery to move in because it threatened their economic self-interest. He also stressed that Dan Giustina had a right to build a grocery store on his property because he had a right to further his own economic self-interest. He underscored that the small MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 14 City Council Meeting market owners were not anti-business, but wanted Eugene to grow and prosper, with modest, regulated growth fueled by sustainable, well-paid jobs. He commented that most people would love to see more well- planned housing, park space, offices, and retail, and possibly some non-polluting light manufacturing in the downtown area. He stated that the people were not opposed to spending $9 million if it was to be spent on public benefits. He believed the City should not spend $9 million to “subsidize a truly huge corporation that was in no need of any type of welfare or entitlements.” Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, stated that it was the policy of the City Council to utilize public contracting practice and methods to maximize the efficient use of public resources and purchasing power of public funds. She opposed the no-bid contract process that had been proposed. She alleged that downtown had six parking garages that operated at only 53 percent of capacity during peak hours. She felt that many people remained unconvinced that another such garage was needed. She thought the process should have been started sooner given the timeline of the contract, proposed to be signed on June 1. She asserted that the money came from the tax dollars of the citizens of Eugene and they had a right to the process. She declared that the council was considering diverting $250,000 from the Stormwater Fund, $400,000 from the Riparian Fund, and $475,000 from the Library fund to help pay for the parking garage. She called it unethical to do so. She opposed the project. She submitted her testimony in writing. David Hinkley , 1350 Lawrence Street, #1, asserted that the proceeding was an improper and illegal use of the supplemental budget process. He averred that the State provided in ORS 294.480(1) five possible reasons to go into a supplemental budget. He did not believe the proceeding met the criteria. He asserted that the council and the Budget Committee had not put this item into the budget and called that “your failing.” He alleged that it should have been given that it was in plans that had been approved by the council in 2004. He did not see a pressing necessity for the parking garage. He opposed the no-bid contracting process as he did not believe it to be legal. Mark Gillem , 1206 University of Oregon, stated that he was teaching the Urban Design Studio at the University of Oregon, where his students were looking at alternatives to the parking garage. He thanked his students, who spent “over 10,000 hours thinking about how to make downtown Eugene a more livable, more vibrant, and more diverse place.” He reiterated that the Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA) unanimously opposed the parking garage. He said the essence of the DNA’s position was that they wished to look at alternatives to the proposal. He noted that the Fairmount Neighborhood Association (FNA) also voted unanimously to consider alternatives as well. He felt they recognized that in order to be the city of the arts and outdoors, parks were needed at the perimeter as well as at the heart of the City. He suggested that the City consider utilizing the $8 million to acquire most of the land for parks or to increase the parks bond from $20 million to $28 million. He thought the Park Blocks could be extended from the existing location all the way to the river. He said allowing the current developer to build parking above grade would block this access to the river forever. He maintained that park blocks to the river would do more in the long run to create a safe and livable downtown. Molly Dobbs , 1125 Jackson Street, a member of the Urban Design Studio class, offered some ideas for alternatives to a parking structure. She stated that the class developed designs for the downtown area that sought to feed into the Downtown Plan. She outlined the benefits that the open spaces were predicted to provide, not only to the City but to the developers and Whole Foods Grocery. She postulated that open spaces in downtown urban areas spurred development. She cited an example from downtown Chicago which increased land values in the areas surrounding the parks development. She cited another example from Vancouver, Washington. She invited everyone present to come to a review of the work of the Urban Design Studio scheduled for March 14 at 278 Lawrence Hall. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 15 City Council Meeting nd Eben Fodor , 394 East 32 Avenue, thanked everyone for the “outstanding citizen participation.” He said he had never seen the Council Chamber so full of people. He called the hearing the “Texas Chain Store Massacre.” He asserted that the planned parking garage was 53 percent more expensive than the City’s own estimates for a garage. He calculated it would cost $29,000 per parking space. He thought it would be a $2.6 million subsidy. He opposed the no-bid contracting process. He alleged that the City had no plans for a parking garage on this site prior to the submittal of the proposal from the developer. He submitted his testimony in writing. Krishna Singh Khalsa , 4521 Wagner Street, thanked the smaller store owners for sharing the impact they felt a large store would have on their respective businesses. He said he was a member of the newly formed Lane Food Policy Council. He called food security an important issue to every citizen. He commented that the average food item traveled 1,500 miles from the farm to the plate. He thought the local food supply needed to be vastly expanded in order to provide true food security to the community. He asked that public funds not be used to “damage the very goal we’re working to establish.” th Dustann Jones , 650 West 12 Avenue, #108, a member of the Urban Design Studio, opined that mixed-use was how the site should be developed. He brought a drawing of his project, which included the 52,000 square foot Whole Foods Grocery, two floors of parking above, and 52 units of walk-up housing. He thought along with the density, a mixed-use area could provide semi-private green spaces. He called it enhanced architecture. He reported that he had run a pro forma on his proposed alternative project and it had come back with a seven-percent return. He noted that the residential units at the Broadway Place apartments subsidized the commercial space. Otto Poticha , 1820 Kona Street, spoke in support of the Whole Foods project but he did not support the parking structure at the “entrance to downtown.” He felt the site would be better used for a new City Hall. He commented that he waited 30 years for someone to build the four floors of parking on the County’s public service building parking lot. He stated that he designed that building and it had been set for four more floors. He described the structure as having a three-foot slab for a foundation over the entire block which had taken 48 continuous hours to pour. He said it was made as ballast so that it does not “pop out of the ground like a swimming pool.” He did not know why the City and the County could not use that building. He had heard rumors that it had been said the structure would not hold up. He maintained that it would hold up and offered to put his engineering study up against any engineering study that asserted otherwise. Russ Brink , 132 East Broadway, provided the names of 225 people who visited the Downtown Eugene, Inc. website to show their support for the project. He acknowledged that Whole Foods Grocery could build a store on any properly zoned land in the City. He predicted the store would come to this community at some time and that parking would be key to its location at any site. He wondered how many parking spaces th Whole Foods Grocery would be required to build under current code on West 11 Avenue and Coburg Road. He asked why people would want to encourage surface parking at a suburban location when a City center location was more consistent with smart growth principles. He pointed out that the City built and operated parking in the downtown area because it was a parking exempt zone, which meant that developers were not required to provide parking. He stressed that the City provided parking as a public service and as a means to implement city growth management policies. He thought the site could be documented by any common sense analysis given the recent developments in that area such as the federal courthouse and the Shedd Institute. Bart Ricketts , 921 Southwest Washington Street, Portland, President of Lease Crutcher Lewis, spoke as a construction professional and contractor with a great deal of experience with the no-bid delivery method. He MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 16 City Council Meeting said this was the type of project that fit the no-bid contract and was allowable according to ORS 279. He averred that the crux of the process was the speed of delivery, coordination of trades on a complex site, the provision of public benefit to the public agency involved, and having a contractor that had public contracting experience and good rapport with the contracting community. He stressed that there was still “plenty of public bidding opportunities” built into the process as over 90 percent of the hard costs of construction would be competitively bid by local trades-people, vendors, and subcontractors in the community. He hoped the council would support the process. Kelly Saito , 1120 Northwest Couch Street, Suite 600, Portland, stated that he worked for Gerding/Edlen Development Company and his company partnered with the Broadway and High Associates to put forth the proposal for this development. He asked for approval on the resolution to grant the sole source exemption. He commented that it was unfair to paint Whole Foods Grocery as a corporate baron coming to town to put local businesses out of business. He felt it was a good company that would provide good jobs. He pointed out that Whole Foods had been consistently ranked as one of the 100 best companies to work for. He predicted Whole Foods would be a steward to the community and to the environment. He also wished to underscore that the parking garage project was not a subsidy to the Whole Foods Grocery. He stressed that Whole Foods was paying a premium to be in this location and was paying for its parking. He asserted that the store could purchase land with surface parking for far less in the outlying areas of the city. Mike Schwartz , 725 Olive Street, said he and his family had owned a business in downtown Eugene for 69 years. He had served on the Downtown Commission, the Downtown Development Board, and the Eugene Renewal Agency. He stressed that Whole Foods Grocery was “everything” the Downtown Plan that had been passed in 1984 wanted, both in scope and in the parking garage. He wondered why this debate was being held at all. He stated that the city and its citizens had spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer time trying to set up a downtown just for the projects it was now beginning to see proposed. He averred that any downtown in the country would love to have a Whole Foods Grocery interested in locating there. He wondered why people were finding ways to oppose a project that was in perfect harmony with the Downtown Plan. He found it ironic that most of the opponents to the project were in support of smart growth principles and were anti-sprawl. He called the project a “poster child for smart growth.” He said there was a documented need for parking in the proposed area and the City would never get another garage in such a strategic location and at a better price. He felt this was an opportunity to say ‘yes’ to exactly the kind of development that Eugene’s downtown vision and plan called for. He added that in the late 1960s Eugene had said ‘no’ to Nordstrom’s and the store had gone to Salem. Alex Brokaw , 1123 Barber Drive, asked the council to trust Planning staff. She said they had studied and researched the proposal. She felt that should this project fell apart as a result of the “actions of a vocal minority” then it was very possible other plans for revitalizing downtown Eugene would go down the drain. She urged the council to “stay the course” and vote for downtown Eugene’s future. Ruth Duemler , 1745 Fircrest Drive, opposed the parking garage project. She predicted that the cost of gasoline would increase to $10 a gallon in ten years. She felt it was short-sighted to focus spending on a parking garage and suggested that the money would be better spent on the library. She predicted a future with small neighborhood grocery stores that supported small local farms. She supported the idea of extending the park blocks to the river. She imagined that Eugene residents would adjust to a healthier lifestyle that involved more walking and bicycling. th Michael Coughlin , 860 West 38 Avenue, stated that he was a downtown building owner and co-owner of the only privately held garage downtown. He indicated that the parking garage was over 100 percent full. He had reviewed the Downtown Plan over the past few weeks and agreed there was a need for parking in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 17 City Council Meeting downtown area. He urged the council to move ahead with the Whole Foods Grocery project as it was an opportunity that should not be passed up. He thought if this got away from the City, the whole plan would “crumble.” He acknowledged that there were a lot of different viewpoints and praised the council for assimilating the information. He commented that the Giustina family had “done right” by Eugene and had done a wonderful job of developing properties. He felt they deserved the City’s backing. Roger Kaldahl , 975 Lewis Avenue, #8, spoke on behalf of the Laborers Union Local 121, which represented more than 200 construction craft laborers in the Eugene market. He said the Union supported moving forward with the development and allowing Lease Crutcher Lewis to perform the construction of the parking structure. He stated that the working relationship Lease Crutcher Lewis had with Local 121 allowed them to complete past projects safely, on time, and with the highest quality assurances. He thought because of the working relationships between the developer and contractor, and the ways and means with which Lease Crutcher Lewis conducted business, the cost savings to the City and taxpayers would be considerable. He said they used a trained and qualified workforce as well as utilizing a State-approved apprenticeship program to ensure that professional craftsmen continue to excel. Kathy Ging , PO Box 11245, said Eugene should take a cue from Cuba which had over 1,000 food kiosks that sold food grown inside and around the urban areas. She predicted Whole Foods Grocery would erode the profit margins of struggling local natural food markets. She asserted that Whole Foods made 12 flavors of hummus under its brand name and this would take away from some of the local, independent companies that make those products. She suggested that the City spend $45,000 to conduct a study of the feasibility of a 100,000 to 150,000 square foot covered space for parking and year-round marketing of farmers’ goods. She asserted that an indoor space would allow the farmers to build greenhouses and grow foods year-round. She predicted that farmers could grow 20 percent of Eugene’s food under those circumstances. She alleged that there were stories of Whole Foods Grocery stores in New Jersey firing and replacing staff for attempting to organize. Based on this information, she did not believe Whole Foods to be a good employer. John Keith Geiger , 86289 Lorane Highway, said he worked for a co-op in Austin, Texas in 1980. He related that the arrival of Whole Foods Grocery had caused a great deal of concern on the part of the co-op; but, in fact, the co-op had kept its basic clientele. He had been able to work with the Whole Foods distribution house and rather than hurting the co-op, it had helped. Both stores still existed in Austin. He favored Whole Foods Grocery coming to Eugene as he had seen them encourage local farmers to turn away from commercial production to local organic production. The council discussed whether to move to extend the meeting. Councilor Ortiz predicted, based on the number of people yet to testify, that the meeting could last until midnight. City Manager Taylor stated that the council operating agreements allowed for completion of an item once it began. Mayor Piercy called for a short break at 10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:08 p.m. Kevin Jones , 4740 Wendover Street, encouraged all people to read ingredient lists and to avoid foods that were either not grown with organic farming methods or were genetically modified. He did not support having a Whole Foods Grocery in the city of Eugene. He believed there were other options that would better serve the community. He related that he had shopped in a Whole Foods store when visiting his parents in the east. He knew the store to be committed to organically grown foods. He enjoyed supporting local stores, however. He asserted that corporate chain stores demanded huge community investments and were fragile in today’s economy. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 18 City Council Meeting Tracy Olson , 795 Willamette Street, stated that he resided downtown. In talking about projects that were designed to bring people downtown, he wished to note that he was one of the “few people crazy enough” to live downtown. He indicated he would shop at a Whole Foods Grocery. He said in order to go grocery shopping at present he had to get in his car and drive somewhere. He averred that those who think the city has plenty of parking downtown either do not live or work downtown. He underscored that there was a need and encouraged the council to move forward with the project. Leroy Marney , 3460 Avalon Street, said he had lived in Eugene for 45 years and provided for his family by working as a laborer in the construction industry. He supported the use of a no-bid contract. He stated that all construction contracts should be awarded to the most responsible contractors providing a living wage and benefits to its workers. He related that it had been his experience that Lease Crutcher Lewis paid its construction craft workers the prevailing wage, contributed $45 an hour to the pension plan, $4.80 to the health insurance premium. He said this kept working families from seeking public assistance and becoming a burden on taxpayers. He felt that allowing this contract to go to a responsible contractor, such as Lease Crutcher Lewis, would help the local community. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , 1025 Taylor Street, wondered why an above-ground parking garage was a priority over every development project in the downtown area. He asked if this was the primary goal when building. He commented that he had yet to find a parking garage that was full. He questioned the notion of the parking structure meeting, in part, the needs of the federal courthouse, as it was not on the east side of Franklin Boulevard. He opined that the no-bid contract sounded much like the contracting of Halliburton in Iraq. th Phyllis Kesner , 650 West 12 Avenue, Apt. 203, extolled the virtues of small markets. She said she had become aware that allergists were now recommending that people not eat food from more than several hundred miles away. She liked the idea of having more green spaces in the downtown area and recalled how Central Park enhanced the livability of New York City. She opposed having a no-bid contract because she thought it “spoke badly” of the City. Artemio Paz , 86950 Cedar Flat Road, Springfield, expressed concern with the urban planning process. He thought as the City marshaled this vision of downtown design, the City would be doing the vision an th injustice by placing a parking structure at the east end of 8 Avenue as it had been designated a “Great Street.” He said if one looked at subsidies, it seemed that the City was privatizing the public realm. Keith Cooper , 28475 Spencer Creek Road, a local food producer, averred that the money for a parking garage appeared to be a subsidy and the City should not spend public funds on it. He said a council that espoused sustainability should not support a store that brought food from a great distance. He stated that the Lane County Farmers Market had existed for 30 years without any City support. Ken Silverman , 2744 Harris Street, sang a song opposing the parking garage. He likened it to “giving away our town.” He opposed “big box stores” because he did not believe they supported sustainability. Mike Bradbury , 1214 ‘Q’ Street, #5, Springfield, stated that he had worked for 16 years in construction. He said whether the City chose to build a parking structure or a bicycle lot or a high rise it should use a responsible contractor in its publicly funded projects. He averred that Lease Crutcher Lewis was a responsible contractor that paid the prevailing wage on both public and private sector projects and offered health care and full retirement plans. He believed that Gerding and Edlen used some form of a competitive evaluation process when selecting Lease Crutcher Lewis. He was certain they had evaluated the company’s past performance, ability to complete projects within the deadline and under budget, and the resources that MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 19 City Council Meeting would benefit the local communities. He opined that Lease Crutcher Lewis was qualified and had much expertise in the Eugene market. He added that Lease Crutcher Lewis valued the safety and livelihood of their workers and employed local citizens who perform the work on their projects at or above industry standards. He felt the City stood to gain value through the working relationship of the two companies and supported the no-bid contract process as it stood. Jan Spencer , 212 Benjamin Street, suggested that citizens should buy the property in question and form its own design process to decide what to do with it. He felt such a group of citizens could think of a lot of different uses for a downtown location that would be more creative than the proposed parking. He suggested that the community had many skills and much creativity that could be tapped into. He said he would leave his Web address and would convene a public meeting so that people could start this process. Steve Stearns , 32789 East Dixon Street, Coburg, stated that he was a local general contractor. He opposed the no-bid contract. He did not think the City would know whether it was charting the best course for itself without getting competitive bids. He related that Lease Crutcher Lewis said it would hire 90 percent local people, but Lease Crutcher Lewis itself was not local. He likened the process to a used car sale. Regarding Whole Foods Grocery, he said let them come because that was their business. However, he felt building a parking structure was the City’s business. th Ben Martin-Horse , 607 West 8 Avenue, thought Eugene was not a community “that was about competition, especially not unfair competition.” He said Eugene was a city whose soul was community. He did not think a downtown area would be made attractive by an “overabundance of parking.” He opined that downtowns were attractive because parking was unnecessary. He stated that he worked at Sundance Natural Foods and he wondered if he should fear for his job should Whole Foods Grocery open in Eugene. He worried for the other smaller community stores. He likened the proposed parking garage to subsidizing “our own loss of soul.” He felt Whole Foods should foot the bill if is wanted more parking. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, suspected that the reason a parking garage was being proposed for the downtown area was that the area was the second choice for a University of Oregon basketball arena. He opposed a Whole Foods Grocery moving into Eugene. He thought the no-bid contract tied into the Government Service Administration. th Virginia M. Lo , 1855 East 28 Avenue, brought a letter signed by seven faculty and staff from the Department of Computer Science of the University of Oregon opposing the project. She called the downtown an “important asset for all of us.” She opined that the need for a new parking garage was dubious. She opposed the no-bid contract. She felt the parking garage was a public subsidy for a corporation from Texas that could hurt the local food industry. She did not like that the proposed parking garage used public money to close the opportunity for a greenway. She did not feel there had been enough time to consider the issues given that the public hearing had been scheduled two days prior to the vote. She asked the council to slow down. th Madeline Smith , 594 West 11 Avenue, said it was difficult to “figure out what to do.” She wished to make Eugene a place that was a showcase of alternative energy technology, “permatopia organic farming practices,” and the rational rationing of all resources. George T. Boehnke , 2040 Willamette Street, likened urban renewal funds to manure: if you did not spread it around, nothing grew. He said the City of Eugene used urban renewal funds to purchase a library. He stated that the 90 businesses that had moved from downtown Eugene never came back. He thought that the MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 20 City Council Meeting parking garage was for the federal courthouse. He exhorted the City Council and staff to “own up to it” and ask the United States government for the funds to build the garage. Gary Wildish , 2424 Quince Street, hoped that the council understood that the no-bid contract was exactly what the City of Eugene did routinely in the selection of an architect or an engineer. He said this process had been used for many years and it had been found that a better project could be delivered at a lower cost and timelier manner using this method. He averred that contractors understood costs. He stated that Lease Crutcher Lewis used a number of subcontractors and every craft working on the project would be required to submit a bid. He thought the team concept was very viable. Terry Connolly , 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. He reminded the council that a great deal of staff time, Planning Commission time, and council time had gone into the adoption of the Downtown Plan. He said policies need to be more than documents on a shelf. He called this project a chance to take another step forward in implementing the Downtown Plan. He read a portion of the plan aloud which emphasized the importance of being flexible and committed to responding to opportunities. He said the project was in line with the goals and policies of the plan. Danelle Zeghbib , 1618 Villard Street, stated that she was a student of architecture and a graduate teaching fellow in the environmental studies department. She said it seemed like the Whole Foods Grocery might be a step in the direction of having a more vibrant downtown but if the City could afford to finance a parking structure then it should be able to support a sustainable economy and the promotion of environmental sustainability. She felt that by funding a new parking structure, the City was sending a message that everyone should drive to downtown. She averred that this ran counter to the purported goal in the plan, on page 52, that the City would promote and support alternative modes of transport. She proposed that the City balance its non-sustainable actions, such as building parking structures, with sustainable measures such as covered bicycle parking, downtown parks, reduced fees for carpool parking, and awareness campaigns. Julie Rogers , 381 Huntington Avenue, felt that Eugene would lose at least as many jobs as it gained should Whole Foods Grocery open an outlet here, as smaller stores would lose business. She asked what was sustainable about bringing to town a “corporate mega-store” that could diminish the success of numerous smaller stores that had already invested heavily in the community. She felt the money should be spent on the development of an indoor/outdoor market for the Farmers Market. th David Woods , 953 West 8 Avenue, did not believe enough time had been allowed to discuss this item. He said it seemed the council was on a fast track and people did not have enough time to say what they needed to say about the issue. He felt he was hearing from “people talking from their wallets and people talking from their hearts” at the hearing. He did not wish to displace the existing natural foods industry with the Whole Foods Grocery. He asked the council to “really think about it.” Sam Hediger , 3440 McKenna Drive, #9, said everyone wanted to rebuild downtown Eugene and to have it be successful. He offered an alternative proposal which sought to subsidize the increase of public sustainable transit. He averred that doing so would “achieve the benefits of a smooth flow of traffic” and this would increase the livability of the new commercial and residential districts. He wished to create a “laboratory for small business” and/or a permanent structure for the Farmers Market by renovating existing businesses using green technologies. He thought such an endeavor could be managed by a citizen board that included representatives from the business colleges and the City Manager among others. th Paul Nicholson , 1855 East 28 Avenue, asked that the council extend this discussion to the next meeting, given that some people had been unable to stay to give their testimony because of the time. He did not take MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 21 City Council Meeting issue with the idea of Whole Foods Grocery coming to Eugene, but he felt the City was giving a subsidy to the developer. He called this a “planning process out of control.” He noted that one of the reasons given for the parking garage was to be prepared for future development as yet unidentified. He said the City would be subsidizing “we don’t know what.” It was not clear to him that a public benefit would be achieved by the proposal. He opined that he did not trust staff because the City had spent almost $100 million on the downtown and staff was responsible for the result. Planet Glassberg , PO Box 11011, opposed using public money for a parking garage. She thought the money should stay in the community and should not be used to subsidize a corporation. She called it “crucial” to continue to support local businesses and farmers in order to build a resilient local economy to conserve cultural and biological diversity in the community. She suggested that the downtown could be revitalized and would flourish for local businesses, parks, and open space. Chuck Hunt , 130 Hansen Lane, asked the council and staff to think creatively of alternatives to the proposal. He stated that he was beginning his 10th year as a vendor at the Farmers Market and suggested that the council consider what it already had. He said the Farmers Market took in $1.5 to $2 million in gross annual sales. He asserted that this revenue remained in the community. He related that the market was struggling with space issues and had problems with weather. He thought the market would love to have a covered area for a year-round farmers’ market-type venue. He asked that the council look to the Farmers Market if it was looking for partnerships. Carl Oslund , 28285 Spencer Creek Road, spoke in support of the Whole Foods Grocery and proposed parking structure. He said as a designer and consultant on a variety of projects, he had found the design- built format very effective. He supported the no-bid contract. He disagreed that Whole Foods Grocery would cause other businesses to fail. He underscored that Eugene would grow regardless of what happened with this issue and the question was whether the growth would occur in the core or at the perimeter. He thought one could “talk on and on” of the aesthetics of a parking structure, but personal transportation and food were both hallmark underpinnings of a vibrant economy. He said people would live near food. He predicted that the development would be a catalyst for the community. He thought instead that the presence of Whole Foods Grocery could raise the standards for other larger stores such as Safeway and Albertson’s. Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, thought the need for the parking structure had not been made clear. He had not personally found any “sound evidence” to support the need. He opined that educational levies would be hurt by the deferred tax revenue. He predicted the project would deplete stormwater funds and this would require an increase in systems development charges (SDCs). He said urban renewal districts were formed to redistribute the “up-front costs of development” over a 20-year timeframe and should not be used to subsidize “as much development as possible” with taxpayers’ money. It was his understanding that the Riverfront Urban Renewal District had depreciated in value since its formation and had “not performed even to conservative expectations.” He submitted his testimony in writing and reiterated his earlier request, made during the Public Forum. th Kim Buchanan , 85 West 24 Place, spoke on behalf of Dan Lundberg. She read a statement from Mr. Lundberg which related his experience studying traffic-calming and car-free centers. She said he found that in Europe, traffic congestion had been reduced by increasing parking fees and reducing parking places. His statement also asserted that Los Angeles traffic engineers found that reducing the freeway by one lane reduced traffic congestion. Mr. Lundberg thought the earth’s climate was “spinning out of control.” She said his main message was that projects such as a parking structure should not be built because peak oil production had been reached and money should not be spent on building infrastructure for petroleum-using vehicles. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 22 City Council Meeting Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, said area transportation planning called for shorter automobile trips and nodal development. He read Whole Foods Grocery siting requirements aloud. He said the store was not intended to serve downtown Eugene residents. He averred that it was a 52,000-square-foot destination store, designed to bring a large volume of automobile traffic to the downtown from a wide area. He thought the store would work against all efforts to increase the use of public transportation because it would encourage grocery shopping after work using single-occupant vehicles. He thought shopping should be within walking distance and supported the idea of urban villages. Mayor Piercy called for a five-minute break. She reconvened the meeting at 11:07 p.m. Councilor Solomon left the meeting. Hope Marston , PO Box 51434, urged the council not to be afraid to pass up what appeared to be an opportunity. She felt it was an opportunity that came with “too many red flags.” She opposed the no-bid contract. She did not believe a parking structure qualified as something that was for the public good. She called the proposal “a slap in the face” to local grocers and people who had built businesses and provided services for many years. She also felt the proposal would jeopardize other public enterprises such as the library. She preferred the types of projects that the students of architecture had brought forth. She thought they did a better job of expressing “what Eugene was about.” She urged the council to oppose the no-bid contract and the supplemental budget. Walter Hunt , 2745 Spring Boulevard, spoke in support of downtown development. He said the parking structure had been talked about for approximately ten years. He hoped the City could “pull it together” downtown. He expressed concern that the City did not have a “plan B” in the event that the Whole Foods Grocery failed. He acknowledged that there was a lot of support in Eugene for the local merchants. He noted the two holes that had been left undeveloped in the downtown area and did not want more holes. He wished to move forward with the project but remained concerned. Tom Slocum , 1950 Graham Drive, expressed disappointment that some business owners expressed such pessimism about another business moving in. He noted that Jerry’s Home Improvement maintained a positive attitude when Home Depot moved into town. He thought the food industry in this community could also step forward and make its way. He did not want others to limit his shopping options. He had been to Whole Foods Groceries in two cities and had found them to be wonderful stores. He thought it would be a welcome addition to the community. He felt the real issue was whether or not the City would get started on revamping the downtown in Eugene. He opined that the community was in disrepair and “really needed some help.” He said without a big increase in the assessed valuation in the community Eugene would not be able to pay its bills. He looked at the project as the cornerstone to the downtown redevelopment. Eric Gunderson , 86840 Dukhobar Road, commented that he heard many people say this was a conversa- tion about development versus livability. He had heard this debate for over 30 years in the community and had found that the City often ended up choosing neither one. He thought sustainability should embrace both. He opined that Whole Foods Grocery and a parking garage and the accompanying density would make the downtown a sustainable place. He said he embraced the people who came to the downtown. He believed parking to be a complement to mass transit. He embraced the developments of residential housing downtown, both the low-income and otherwise. He favored both projects. David Hoffman , 2790 Madison Street, opposed transporting food over long distances. He felt it posed food security risks as well as reduced the nutritional value of produce. He believed Whole Foods Grocery to be MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 23 City Council Meeting akin to Wal-mart. He thought it would drive local markets out of business and would restrict the city’s food supply. He opposed “wasting time and revenue” on this. He opined that the City should be talking about giving the Farmers Market more space. He averred that the Whole Foods Grocery would take money from the community and send it elsewhere, while local growers kept money in the community. Joseph Young , 3045 Harris Street, believed the project would do nothing but take money out of the community and drive local businesses to failure. He felt it made no sense to give money to a large corporation. He did not think money should be thrown around in a “haphazard” manner. He echoed concerns that the hearing had been rushed through. He thought the process should slow down. He related that he ate locally grown foods almost exclusively and he felt this had greatly reduced his allergies. Athena Yemaya-Perkins , 311 Merrill Court, recalled ten years earlier when a major magazine declared Eugene to be one of the ten best places to live in the United States. She attributed this to having both a big city and a small town feel. She felt that part of the small town feeling was due to the number of small natural food stores scattered around the area and Eugene’s resistance to national corporations. She opined that this supported the community and decreased its dependence on fossil fuels. She did not believe a centrally located downtown grocery store was needed. She opposed the project. She opined that money and the power should be kept in the city of Eugene. She suggested the citizens of the community decide how to best use the space downtown. She supported building an indoor, year-round Farmers Market structure. Moshe Immerman , 1295 McLean Boulevard, called Whole Foods Grocery the opposite of sustainable business. He alleged that $46 million would “leave the city” annually should Whole Foods Grocery be located here. He opposed the use of City staff time and money to support the project. Michelle Emmons , 132 East Broadway, #103, said in six years of working downtown she felt there had never been a more exciting time for the future of the downtown area. She averred that downtown was no longer lingering at the tipping point but was now at a “critical juncture of critical mass.” She said Whole Foods Grocery had a record of providing family-wage jobs, insurance, community reinvestment, and supported both local and global sustainable business practices. She commented that she would not stop shopping at her other favorite natural food markets. She stated that a new parking garage would serve parking needs into the future as the courthouse neighborhood continued to develop. She reiterated that city parking studies indicated the need to provide more parking in order to serve the mixed-use, dense urban development described in Eugene’s Growth and Sustainability Principles. She stressed that the community spent several years and “hundreds of thousands” of hours to accommodate the kind of development described in the Downtown Plan. She averred it was a valid plan and it was now time to realize the vision and move forward, stepping into the future of a safe, attractive, inviting, and economically vital downtown that would be a source of pride for everyone. Kevin Matthews , PO Box 1588, called the turnout at the council meeting a “great showing that the people of Eugene really care about their city.” He stated that the Friends of Eugene submitted written testimony. He related that the Friends of Eugene met the previous evening and had spent six hours listing “the problems and the points that need to be clarified.” He wondered why the City of Eugene was in this situation. He felt that developers were “always” going to try to approach the City looking for “sweetheart deals.” He opined that the City was not getting staff work that was “accurate and of the highest integrity.” He opined that the “low quality of the facts and findings” would leave the City “without a legal leg to stand on.” John Flanery , 1641 Broadway, commented that a market that built its strategy around shipping foods for thousands of miles was not a good future bet for the downtown area. He also wondered what the City would do if the Whole Foods Grocery failed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 24 City Council Meeting Candace Nelson , 361 Lombard Lane, opposed the proposed East Broadway parking project. She asked that Eugene citizens be allowed to determine the atmosphere of the downtown rather than business interests. She related that Friends of Eugene held a rally on March 7 at which many people voiced their opposition to the project. She wanted the City to be proactive rather than reactive when planning. She averred that the people wanted the City to plan and develop a downtown that reflected their common values. She asserted that the council was considering transferring money from other sources and that using taxes allocated for other things to build a parking garage was “wrong.” She opined that using public funds to build a garage and to pay for other infrastructure changes in order to entice a private business was unfair to other self- supporting private businesses. She wished for mixed-use development in the downtown area with residential development first. Jenny Gosset agreed that the downtown area could use improvement. She thought mixed-use development would revitalize it, but she opposed the proposed parking garage and its connection to the Whole Foods Grocery store. She thought the City should supply money “of the sort being discussed” to local businesses and then Eugene would become “a sustainable model to the world.” She suggested that money should be given to enhance public transportation. She predicted that the parking garage and the development of Whole Foods Grocery would make the City of Eugene gentrify and become just like “Anywhere U.S.A.” Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She called for council questions and comments. Councilor Bettman asked how much parking the Government Services Administration had requested. She also asked if ODOT had weighed in on the project and whether they had taken a stand on ingress and egress. Continuing, Councilor Bettman asked staff to look into Mr. Poticha’s assertion regarding the County structure and its ability to accommodate more levels of parking. Councilor Bettman said some people had testified that there would still be competitive bidding. She asked staff to determine if this would reduce the amount of money the City would give to Gerding/Edlen. In response to another question from Councilor Bettman, City Manager Taylor indicated that the debt cap would not have to be raised for this project. Councilor Bettman asked where the money would come from if there were not enough agency funds to pay back the City through the Urban Renewal District. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for testifying, calling it a definite show of force. She said it was interesting to see how powerful it can be when people get organized around an issue. She commented that she would love to have people get behind other issues such as child abuse and domestic violence with such a show of force. She reiterated her thanks to everyone for coming and to the councilors for staying to hear everyone speak. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone for staying and for their testimony. The meeting was adjourned at 11:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 25 City Council Meeting Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council -- March 13, 2006 Page 26 City Council Meeting NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 10, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Joyce Ogden MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2006\Central Services Department\City Council\cc060410m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: C:Drive = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 04/15 ___ Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/21 bf __ Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/21 bf __ Returned to Minutes Recording 4/30 ky __ Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording _ 5/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 0 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 10, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed Lane County Commissioners Bobby Green and Faye Stewart. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy announced that the Osprey Group was in town with representatives of the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to begin an assessment of the West Eugene Parkway and ascertain if a cooperative process was possible. She then reported that The Green Guide selected the City of Eugene as the Number One Green City in the nation. Mayor Piercy congratulated the community, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), Lane Transit District (LTD), City staff, and others who worked tirelessly to make Eugene the most energy-efficient, least polluted and healthy space in which to live. Mayor Piercy also reported that she and Mr. Pape? joined urban foresters and volunteers to celebrate Eugene’s 27 consecutive years of recognition as “Tree City USA.” In conclusion, Mayor Piercy shared a letter of appreciation addressed to the Public Works Leaf Crew. Ms. Ortiz reported that she continued to work on the payday loan issue with representatives of Food for Lane County. She announced that a public hearing on the issue would be sponsored by the State Legislature at the Campbell Senior Center, on Tuesday, April 18, at 5 p.m., and noted that the council had a work session on the issue scheduled in May. Ms. Ortiz then reported that she and other residents of Ward 7 participated in a “Pick-Up Trash” day on Saturday, April 8. She spoke of the recent River Road/Santa Clara Task Force meeting and voiced concern regarding the direction in which Santa Clara appeared to be heading. In conclusion, Ms. Ortiz shared that she visited with some of the area’s Hispanic population as members protested the national immigration proposals at the Free Speech Center. She said that this population felt vilified by leaders at the national level. Ms. Ortiz thanked the Eugene Police Department and Human Rights Program staff who worked diligently to ensure that all participants were safe and obeying the laws. Ms. Bettman referred to an e-mail she became aware of approximately one month ago which contained an inappropriate comment about her written by a member of the Executive Management Team. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up on this issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pape? reported that he attended the recent Royal Caribbean event and shared that the company’s building received the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certificate. He said he was most impressed with the construction and urged other councilors to visit the site. Mr. Poling announced that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Board of Directors awarded a contract to a concern in Seattle, Washington, in the amount of $12 million, for a project which was estimated to cost $14.5 million. He reported that he attended a workshop for the Willakenzie Neighborhood Park Project which would be built on the Willakenzie School site. Mr. Poling was pleased to note that there was general agreement from all the stakeholders on how this project should move forward. Mr. Kelly reminded City Manager Taylor about his past request to hold a work session on the Downtown Green Space issue, which he noted was not currently scheduled. City Manager Taylor responded that the larger question of downtown in general was an agenda item for the April 19 council meeting and surmised that this could be an appropriate time for Mr. Kelly’s concerns to be raised. He added that if deemed necessary, a follow-up work session could certainly be scheduled. Ms. Taylor referred to recent constituent complaints around the air circulation in the Library’s underground parking facility and asked if the conditions could be improved. She then asked if there were regulations governing automobile exhaust systems. City Manager Taylor replied he was not aware of any such regulations. Ms. Taylor said she may request a work session to discuss this issue. Ms. Taylor voiced her disappointment regarding the outcome of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) negotiations to move into the downtown core. She opined that the efforts of City staff were not commensurate with the importance of the issue. Ms. Taylor turned to the public hearing held on March 13 regarding the Whole Foods proposed site. She pointed out that the time lapse between that hearing and the council action was 37 hours, which she did not consider allowed for in-depth consideration. Ms. Taylor also voiced objection to the two-minute limit for speaking to which residents were held, and reminded staff that, in the past, public hearings were “continued” to allow all people who wished to speak. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the City’s labor contracts would not be honored when the Cuthbert was managed by a private entity. She believed that the employees impacted by the shift should be protected by the City. She then moved to another issue and indicated that the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood was informed that it had been re-zoned and that this issue was scheduled on a council Consent Calendar. Therefore, the council did not have an opportunity to discuss the action. Mr. Kelly requested that a staff memorandum explaining this action be submitted to the council. Ms. Bettman reported that in response to her many inquiries, she was assured by City staff that such rezoning of entire neighborhoods would not occur. She asked that this action be remedied immediately to ensure there was no detriment to the neighborhood. In conclusion, Ms. Taylor spoke to the potholes on Crest Drive, which continued to worsen. City Manager Taylor noted that potholes and pavement preservation were in particular peril this year due to the heavy rains and staff was working to alleviate the problems to the best of their ability. Ms. Solomon was pleased to announce that the Housing Policy Board Allocations Committee met recently and selected a developer to construct attractive, low-income affordable housing in the Ward 6 area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 2 Work Session City Manager Taylor proudly announced that Public Works Director Kurt Corey was named as one of the top 10 public works leaders in the nation by the American Public Works Association (APWA). He noted that Mr. Corey was the President of the Oregon Chapter of the APWA and officiates, along with Commissioner Bobby Green, at high school and small college sports events. B. Resolution 4865 Establishing Local Criteria Applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and Adopting a Public Benefit Scoring System; and Repealing Resolution 4851 Mr. Pryor, a member of the Enterprise Zone Committee formed by the council to create the local criteria that would apply to tax exemptions for the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, indicated the committee’s work was deliberative, collaborative, and resulted in a fine product. He thanked Planning and Development staff Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud for their support of the committee and said they provided excellent information to the committee as it went about its work. Additionally, he thanked committee members Ms. Ortiz, commissioners Bobby Green and Faye Stewart, Rusty Rexius, Lou Christian, Steven Korth, and Claire Syrett for their invaluable contribution to this process. Ms. Syrett reported that the committee was well-balanced and included City and County elected officials as well as representatives of the business community and the community-at-large. She proceeded to review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), the Proposed Resolution noted in Attachment A, and the Public Benefit Criteria, noted in Exhibit A. She shared that it was the goal of the committee to ensure there would be a balance between making it “too easy” to earn the full tax break and “too difficult” for smaller businesses to qualify, while at the same time setting a standard in terms of the quality of jobs that were to be created under the program. Mayor Piercy thanked all individuals who participated in this exemplary effort. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Syrett replied that the language in the ”Build Oregon Responsibly” pledge was extracted from a pre-existing document that the Building Trade Councils of Oregon asked people to sign on to. Mr. Poling thanked all the individuals who participated in the process and said he was pleased that the committee was unanimous in its recommendation before the council. Mr. Kelly informed the council that City Attorney Jerry Lidz confirmed that although he was a part-time instructor for Lane Community College and therefore may have a potential conflict of interest regarding this issue, he could participate in the discussion at this time. Mr. Kelly stated he was pleased that the committee recommended annual reporting on the West Eugene Enterprise Zone. He then pointed out that under current Oregon State laws, companies could receive two-thirds of the tax exemption without meeting the proposed criteria now before the council. He noted that the proposal capped the benefit criteria amount at 25 percent of the tax exemption and that statutorily it could have been set at 33 percent. Ms. Syrett commented that the committee did not debate the merits of changing the percentage from 25 percent. Mr. Kelly opined it would have been useful for the committee to have had such a discussion as the difference between the percentages was a significant amount of money. He asked if there was any possibility of holding an additional meeting of the committee to review the comments put forth by the council and the Lane County Commission. Mr. Braud clarified that the Public Benefit Criteria was limited to the 25 percentile; however, the job cap could realize one-third, which was recommended by the committee. Mr. Kelly questioned if in a mid-sized improvement, there could be a situation whereby hundreds of MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 3 Work Session thousands of dollars of tax exemption was granted due to the difference between the two percentages. Ms. Bettman opined that the stakes were not very high given the 33 percent cap set by the State. She voiced an assumption that in most cases, that cap would supersede the Public Benefit Criteria. Ms. Bettman stated that the job cap would be the key to recovering public benefit and “giving back” to the jurisdictions and the 4J School District. Ms. Bettman questioned why the action before the council was in the form of a resolution rather than an ordinance. City Manager Taylor responded that the Interim Standards were adopted by resolution by both the council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners. He indicated, however, that the adoption of the resolution does not set in motion a public hearing. Ms. Bettman pointed out that new jobs made available through local training and referral agencies do not necessarily ensure that local workers would be hired to fill those jobs. With regard to redevelopment, she noted that individuals who locate within the boundary of the Enterprise Zone would qualify for five points and that the benefit was not calculated on the number of new jobs created; rather it was calculated on the size of the capital improvement. She concluded, however, that the criteria were welcome as those who receive public money should give back a public benefit. Mr. Pape? voiced appreciation for the efforts put forth by the committee. He referred to Criteria 1, Small Business, and questioned the rationale of the point system. Ms. Syrett explained the system addressed the concern that a smaller business may not be able to reach the wage threshold or provide medical benefits; additionally, it ensured that the program reflects the value of wages and benefits and acknowledged the reality that those applying for the program were smaller, local companies. Mr. Papé? referred to Criteria 8, Construction, and asked if there was consideration given to points for LEED certification. Ms. Syrett responded that that component was not considered by the committee. Mr. Braud added that the State statue stipulated the criteria must be related to the public purpose of providing employment. Mr. Pape? referred to Criteria 6, Redevelopment, and questioned if five points would be allocated in a scenario whereby the City subsidized a company with grant funds. Mr. Braud responded that the Brownfield Grant was limited to the two downtown renewal districts so these areas did not overlap. Mr. Pryor referred to the 33 versus 25 percentile discussion and opined that setting the threshold at 25 points provided a better chance for small businesses to receive an exemption. He pointed out that many small businesses cannot reach even that limit due to their inability to meet some of the strict criteria. Ms. Taylor opined that the Enterprise Zone was not helpful to the community, partly due to the fact that the State statues prohibited meaningful standards, such as those associated with the environment. She surmised that using a median wage of $14.95 per hour would be confusing for the public. Ms. Taylor also pointed out that there were many struggling small businesses that were not in the Enterprise Zone and would therefore be forced to pay their full tax base. She concurred with Ms. Bettman that it would be relatively easy to gather points and divert tax money which could otherwise be utilized for the City’s General Fund. Ms. Taylor asked if the wage standards could be improved upon. Ms. Syrett pointed out that the standards apply to all full-time employees of eligible businesses and that a minimum threshold had not been set. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4865 establishing local criteria applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone; further, to adopt a Public Benefit Scoring System; and repeal Resolution 4851. Ms. Bettman referred to the Job Creation Cap, as noted in the AIS. She questioned if the Enterprise Zone was adopted by ordinance and further if the cap was embedded in that document. Mr. Braud replied that the Enterprise Zone was adopted by resolution and the cap was embedded in that resolution as a result of the action taken in August to adopt the Interim Local Criteria. Ms. Bettman pointed out that an amendment to a resolution could be adopted by a simple majority of the council, whereas an ordinance automatically created the opportunity for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to put forth a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance to the City Council incorporating the proposed language in Resolution 4865, as set forth by the Enterprise Zone Committee. Ms. Bettman explained that an ordinance provided for one more level of public input in the event a future council determined that the job cap should be removed. She pointed out that a resolution provided no protection. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, and added that given the amount of the public interest in the Enterprise Zone, it would benefit the council to solicit public input on the criteria. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the committee held a public workshop and a public hearing on the proposal and received a fair amount of comment. Mr. Kelly continued to believe it would be useful to adopt an ordinance to ensure that future councils would have to make any changes by an additional ordinance. City Manager Taylor replied that a public hearing could be held at the May 8 City Council meeting, followed by council action. Mr. Pryor urged the council to adopt the proposal by resolution and opined that the public comment received at the committee level was adequate. Additionally, he stated that the collaborative nature of the committee and the deliberative debate that ensued resulted in a careful and thoughtful process. He would not support the substitute motion. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Ms. Bettman voiced appreciation that the committee made a successful effort to bring the public into the process; however, she said it was critical to ensure public scrutiny in the future if there was any movement to repeal the job cap as it was the only criterion that tied the benefit to the actual jobs created. Ms. Taylor concurred, and opined there was never too much public scrutiny. She pointed out that public hearings held at the committee level never receive the public interest that was present in a hearing sponsored at the council level. Ms. Ortiz stated she did not oppose slowing down the process to ensure public scrutiny and would support the substitute motion; however, she stressed that the exemplary efforts put forth by the committee should not be discounted. In response to a question posed by Mr. Pape?, Mr. Braud responded that the Lane Board of County Commissioners would review the proposal on April 12, and he voiced an assumption that if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 5 Work Session council delayed action on the proposal before it, the commission may want to remove the item from its agenda until such time that the City’s process was completed. Commissioner Bobby Green indicated that he appreciated the discussion on this issue and said if the council chose to hold a public hearing on the proposal, Lane County would support that action. He added that if the substitute motion before the council passed, he would recommend to the board that it discuss but not take action on the proposal at its April 12 meeting. Commissioner Green did voice a concern, however, that if as a result of the public hearing, the council made additional changes, a different document would be brought back to the board for action; additionally, the Enterprise Zone Committee could be asked to reconvene to review the changes. Mr. Kelly opined that he did not expect major changes to ensue as a result of a public hearing; however, he believed that if significant changes were proposed, the committee should reconvene. He concluded that regardless of the outcome of a public hearing, a discussion at the upcoming commission meeting would still be relevant and inform the collaborative process. City Manager Taylor suggested that the City Council could adopt the resolution to capture the consensus from the Enterprise Zone Committee and the two governing bodies and still direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance which would in effect repeal the resolution. Ms. Bettman responded she could not support the proposal as a resolution. The substitute motion passed 5:3, with Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted a suggestion from the City Manager that the motion state that staff would bring back an ordinance, including the standards, to the City Council on May 8, as a friendly amendment. The motion as amended by the substitute motion passed unanimously. C. Region 2050 Update In response to a recent e-mail inquiry from a councilor, Kurt Yeiter of the Planning Division spoke to the level of staff participation in the Region 2050 process. He explained that as Region 2050 was not stipulated by the City Council as a council priority, staff involvement has been limited to the review of draft products and advisement to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and, to a lesser extent, the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board. Mr. Kelly, the City’s representative to the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board, proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation, outlining the following components: ? What was Region 2050? ? What have we accomplished? ? DRAFT Growth Management Strategy: Where did it come from? Eugene Land Use; Eugene Facilities/Transportation, etc. ? Current Uncertainties ? Feedback for Region 2050 April Meeting Mr. Kelly announced that a meeting held on this date between the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Region 2050 board, and LCOG staff revealed that the Regional Problem Solving Statute cannot be utilized as the result of the decisions made by the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 6 Work Session cities of Springfield and Cottage Grove to withdraw from the Region 2050 process. He then announced that the next meeting of the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board would be held on April 26. Mr. Kelly invited councilors to provide feedback on the draft product for discussion at that meeting. Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Kelly for his commitment to the Region 2050 process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly clarified that the Eugene Draft Strategy uses the modeling projection at 38 percent population increase by 2055, as opposed to the higher Historic Trend Projection. He added that the modeling projection was derived primarily from land capacity issues. Ms. Bettman commented that she supported such a concept; additionally, she supported “triggers” for the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She added that such triggers should apply to commercial as well as residential expansion and also how vehicles would be accommodated. Ms. Bettman turned to the issue of the Lane Community College (LCC) Basin and questioned why it was chosen as an area of growth due to the extraordinary costs for urban services in that area. Mr. Kelly responded that the area was considered a trade-off of certain types of land values, such as farm/forest land. Ms. Bettman voiced concern that the triggers would get lost in the process and said the criteria would need to be met before such growth was considered. In general, she stated that she did not support the regionalization of urban services, as cities were the logical providers of such service; and specifically, when services were regionalized, the denser populations ultimately subsidized projects in other areas of the region, yet there was no direct representation of those populations. She opined that a more prudent step would be for each jurisdiction to adopt its own direction. In response to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Kelly said that there was nothing in the adopted strategies at this point that regionalized services; rather, there were only suggestions to regionalize planning for services. He stressed that the draft document could be changed as a result of comments made by the council, the Lane County board, and/or the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board. Mr. Pape? thanked Mr. Kelly for his continuity in this process. He voiced concern regarding the recent withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove from the process and questioned what the effect would be to the final document if the Regional Problem Solving Statute cannot be utilized. Mr. Pape? pondered if it was a valuable use of time and resources to continue on with the process due to these recent significant changes. Mr. Kelly responded that the advantage to the City of Eugene within the regional context would be the key to continuing or not continuing forward. He said that he would certainly ascertain the effect these changes have on the entire process and advise the council accordingly. Mr. Papé? questioned if density could be tied to how the City viewed its 20-year land supply in the formulas. Mr. Kelly said that that issue would be clarified by a legal opinion. Ms. Bettman questioned the costs of this process thus far. City Manager Taylor responded that the costs have been insignificant at this point, reiterating Mr.Yeiter’s comments regarding staff’s involvement. Carole Heinkel, LCOG staff and project manager, explained that the bulk of funding for the project has been received from local, State, and federal sources, i.e., the Environment Protection Agency, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Communities Pollution Team, Transportation Growth Management Program, EWEB, Emerald Peoples Utility District, the small cities, and the City of Eugene, which provided a contribution of $50,000 during the first year through its Public Works Department. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman spoke to the new variables that must be included into the equalization, such as how much growth would be accommodated outside the UGB in what was “off limits” until Measure 37 was implemented. She suggested that the City calculate Measure 37’s impact on the lands as it may merely be an assumption that 38 percent of the population could be absorbed; 15 percent of that figure could be outside the UGB. Ms. Solomon spoke to the draft strategy which, if adopted, created a regional compact growth scenario that encouraged more growth in the smaller communities, lower target populations in Eugene, and higher densities within the Eugene UGB. She asked if that scenario assigned specific numbers to specific areas. Mr. Kelly responded that the State law already required coordinated population allocations to be adopted at the County level, which disbursed out to the communities. In Lane County, he continued, this process was allocated by the LCOG Board of Directors. He explained that the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board only proposed a change as to where residents were distributed around the region and that this change would merely be a different way of doing comprehensive planning. Ms. Solomon opined that the process just added another layer of government. Mr. Kelly countered that the process would not add another layer as anything enacted by the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board has no effect unless and until the constituent pieces were adopted by appropriate jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon believed there was a disconnect between this particular project and the Coburg wastewater services issue, and stressed that if Eugene moved forward with the plan, it must be faithful to that plan and every other issue before it. Ms. Solomon, seconded, by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to continue the City’s participation in Region 2050 at its current levels and monitor the discussions with the State about the future of the Region 2050 project. Mr. Pape? concurred with the comment made by Ms. Bettman that Measure 37 changed the landscape in the rural areas. He stressed the importance that this component be quantified and included in the formulas. Mr. Kelly pointed to the unknown factor of how many dwelling units would ultimately be accommodated through Measure 37 claims. He said that one unknown impact was if State land use laws were repealed and a large amount of development was accommodated in the rural locations. He said that if “rural” was perceived as it was prior to the implementation of Measure 37, and one- to five-acre parcels were opened up, that still would not result in a great amount of people. However, if a Measure 37 claim could result in a 100-unit PUD on 10 acres in a rural area such an action would be a significant change. Mr. Papé? then spoke to the regionalization of services and said that with the constraints before the City, he supported such services, as taxpayers deserve a careful debate by this council on how to provide and fund services. In conclusion, he questioned if the motion before the council should be tabled until further information was clarified. Mr. Kelly countered that if the motion was tabled, he would not have a clear direction on how to present the City’s position at the April 26 board meeting. He offered that he and City staff would plan to craft a memorandum to update the council on the results of that meeting within a few weeks after it convenes. Mr. Pryor questioned if planning, regional or otherwise, would move from an advisory role, or a resource, to a prescriptive role if the draft product was implemented. He shared that one of the concerns voiced by the City of Springfield was the potential of the Region 2050 process to become prescriptive in nature. Mr. Pryor opined that the City needs to approach this process as an advisory plan rather than a prescriptive plan. He stressed that the prescriptive decisions such as local jurisdiction planning must be made by the City Council. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Poling questioned how the identification of a regional growth management strategy could occur when two of the three largest municipalities have withdrawn from the process. Mr. Kelly opined that the current planning for Springfield and Cottage Grove could be taken into consideration when revising the computer model. Ms. Heinkel reported that LCOG presented information to DLCD on the desired products in the Draft Strategy and the implementation measures to ensure they would happen at the local level. Additionally, she stated that the legal framework within Oregon Revised Statues and Oregon Administrative Rules would support such action without Regional Problem Solving. She shared that the only product that could not occur without Regional Problem Solving, based upon what was revealed by DLCD Director Shetterly and his staff, was the desire on the part of Oakridge Mayor Weathers to redefine the State statutes that define farm and forest land. Different administrative rules would need to be implemented to achieve that request; therefore, Regional Problem Solving would need to occur. Ms. Heinkel added that the Land Capacity Model provided very different results if one assumed there was an endless UGB expansion. Mr. Poling voiced concern that for part of the region, the City would use one method, and for another part of the region, it would use another method due to the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove. He opined that such a process would not provide accurate information; additionally, as the proposed plan would be voluntary, there was no way to force implementation. In conclusion, Mr. Poling conceded that valuable information has been gathered as a result of the 2050 process; however, at this point, with the uncertainty created by the withdrawals of Springfield and Cottage Grove, the future of the project was questionable. He said he would support the motion with reservations. Mayor Piercy commented that the 2050 process reflected a genuine effort on the part of the City to work with its regional partners from both large and small communities. City Manager Taylor spoke to the issue of urban services and said additional cities could ultimately be created by voters and hence would be the vehicle for delivering urban services if the density levels in the model proved correct. He urged the council to continue with the Region 2050 conversation. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectively submitted, Dennis M. Taylor (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 9 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 12, 2006—Work Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2004\Central Services Department\City Council\cc041027m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYJan2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 4/12 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 4/21 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 4/21 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 4/30 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/3 ky Returned to Staff ______ Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 12, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Renewal of Library Local Option Levy City Manager Taylor reminded the council that it discussed the issue of what measures to place on a future ballot several times in the recent past. Today the council would discuss the possible renewal of the Library Local Option Levy. Library Services Manager Connie Bennett was present for the item. Ms. Bennett said the Library Advisory Board, a department advisory committee that had met for over a year, formulated the recommendations before the council. Several members of the board were present in the audience. Ms. Bennett briefly noted the effect of the proposal, which included a shift of $700,000 to the General Fund, allowing for a reduction in the amount levied. She invited questions. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and members of the board. He regretted the use of a local option levy to fund library operations but believed it was necessary until more comprehensive tax reform occurred. He asked what made the reduction possible and if it was related to the upcoming 2008 budget. City Manager Taylor said the funds that allowed the City to make the annualized commitments at the level proposed were due to the work of the Budget Committee over several years. He also attributed the reduction to the PERS reforms sustained by the courts, as those funds then became predictable, ongoing revenues. Overall, in terms of the budget, property tax payments were strong, and the litigation regarding the Qwest lawsuit had been resolved in the City’s favor, bringing in new revenues. He confirmed, in response to a question from Mr. Kelly, that the $700,000 figure was the result of financial analysis performed by staff, and it could be revised by the committee, depending on what happened with other council priorities and ongoing program costs. Mr. Pryor shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns about the use of the local option levy and said his preference was to include the cost of operating the library in the General Fund. He believed that was the council’s ultimate goal, and the renewal of the levy would likely be the last such measure offered the voters regarding library operations. If the levy was needed as a bridge, he thought it reasonable if the goal was kept in mind. City Manager Taylor said he hoped the City could find the $5.2 million in annualized revenue needed to support the library in the General Fund, but he applauded the community’s wisdom in getting the branches MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 1 Work Session started and building the new library. He noted the high use the service enjoyed. He also hoped the levy was bridge financing but said he was unsure the entire amount could be absorbed into the General Fund unless something was done to change the overall revenue structure. Mr. Papé agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated that the upcoming budget would include about $2 million in annualized revenue available for allocation; he would make recommendations on its allocation, but the $700,000 being contemplated would not come from that source. That was an option the council had, but he thought other council priorities might be considered more important while the City still had the opportunity to ask the voters to support the current level of library services. Mr. Papé asked about the potential impact of compression due to other possible levies. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge said that currently, the City was not in compression and staff did not anticipate the City would be in compression as a result of the library or after-school levy. The parks bond was outside the cap and did not affect compression. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, that if the Tax Court decision regarding the after-school levy was upheld, the education component of the property tax would be in compression. City Manager Taylor said the superintendents of the school districts indicated that they would live with the decision of the Tax Court while it was under appeal, which meant the school levy within the municipal cap would be included in the districts’ caps. Mr. Papé thought the City was moving in the right direction by shifting costs to the General Fund. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé about the contingency fund identified in the forecast of require- ments, Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff projected the assessed value over the next four years, and if it overesti- mated the target, the contingency fund could offset the inaccuracies, any unexpected expenses, and cover the costs of compression. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Cutsogeorge said the contingency fund could not be used for General Fund purposes. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the popularity of library programs and emphasized her support for the library. She asked how much of the General Fund cost of library operations was revenue-supported. Ms. Bennett said it was not considered a revenue-supported service; only a small amount came in through fines or fees. Ms. Bettman said because the library was a very popular service, there was a temptation to seek a local option levy for those services as it was more likely to pass. However, she considered the library to be an ongoing General Fund service. She felt any new services to be funded by the money mentioned by City Manager Taylor should be weighed against the fact the library was an ongoing service. She was reluctant to support the staff-proposed motion because it was specific about the amount of the levy and the council had not yet seen the manager’s proposed fiscal year 2008 budget. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the council would be considering a resolution and it could be amended in May after the council had seen the budget. Today the council was merely giving direction to staff to prepare a resolution. City Manager Taylor said the council had until July 26 to make final decision about what to place on the ballot. Ms. Bennett added that even if the measure was authorized by the council, placed on the ballot, and approved by the voters, the City could under-levy the local option levy if the council chose to fund the service from another source. Ms. Taylor agreed that the library was a basic service and she thought it was ridiculous that the council had not pursued other forms of revenue, which was a long-time council goal. She said Springfield was considering a business tax, and suggested that Eugene could do the same. She determined from City MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Manager Taylor that the council could decide against the levy and choose to fund the service with another revenue source before the levy expired. Ms. Taylor thought the council should do something along those lines. She asked what would be saved by closure of the branches. Ms. Bennett estimated $1.5 million. Ms. Taylor wanted more branches but thought it was important to have a library with decent hours and good service. Ms. Taylor asked what happened if the voters did not support the levy. Mr. Taylor said the council would have to make some very hard choices across the General Fund. Ms. Taylor suggested that it might be better to start making those hard choices now. Mr. Poling thought the council was considering a fiscally responsible approach that would not cost the tax payers any more than they were paying now; in fact, it would cost less. Mr. Poling thought closing the branch libraries would be a gross injustice to residents of those areas, noting that use of the branches was very heavy and they were valued by residents, particularly seniors. He also thought closing the branches would place additional stress on the downtown library. Mr. Poling appreciated the flexibility the council had in regard to amending the levy in the future or under- levying the local option levy. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to prepare a meas- ure for the November 7, 2006, general election ballot to fund library services with a tax rate of $0.41 per $1,000 of assessed value, and bring the proposed ballot measure to the council for consideration on the Consent Calendar for May 8. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Bennett said the revenues from the coffee shop in the library lobby go to the levy element of Library operations and they were being used to repay the levy. She said the library received less than one percent of its revenues from sources other than the levy or General Fund, and those revenues were generally from gifts. Revenue from library cards purchased by nonresidents goes into the General Fund and those sales realize about $60,000 annually. City Manager Taylor said that the City could direct those revenues back to the Library if the council chose to do so. Mr. Papé thought that was a logical approach and encouraged staff to consider it. Ms. Taylor thought branch libraries should be everywhere and that it was an injustice that some areas of town did not have branches. However, she thought reductions at the branches would be preferable to reductions at the main library. She thought it unjust that the bookmobile was discontinued, and that there was no fine forgiveness for poor people who ran up library fines. She would support the motion but wanted to find another way to fund Library operations. Ms. Bettman reiterated her support for library services and her opposition to reducing them. She believed that relying on levy revenues put all those services at risk, and at some point a levy would fail and the council would have to cut library services or services added during “rosy times.” She thought it prudent to put as much of the costs of the Library into the General Fund as possible and indicated her intent to pursue any additional money outside public safety to reduce the cost of the levy and make library services more secure for the General Fund in the future. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Finance Director DeeAnn Hardt recalled that the Budget Committee discussed the City’s pending obligations of other post-employment benefits and staff provided magnitude estimates of those obligations. However, those costs were not built into the budget as an ongoing MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 3 Work Session expense or set-aside. It was flagged as an issue for the committee. Ms. Bettman recalled that Budget Committee member Terry McDonald questioned how many of those costs were already being covered by other employee programs and the discrete liability the City faced. She suggested that if the manager proposed such an expenditure in the upcoming budget, the committee might want to consider redirecting those funds. Mayor Piercy invited members of the public to support the work of the Library Foundation. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Development Update—ORI (Sears Development Site) City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the Board of Directors of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) had decided against moving forward with the purchase of the City-owned Sears site for a new downtown headquarters. Denny Braud of Planning and Development joined the council for the item. He emphasized the City’s strong support for ORI’s proposed downtown project. Despite the efforts of all involved, the project was never able to get the financing needed for ORI to go forward. He thought it important for the City to continue to assist ORI in locating downtown and said staff would work toward that goal with ORI. Mr. Braud recommended that the council move forward with another Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Sears site. He believed there would be considerable interest in the site given other pending development proposals in the downtown. Staff would return to the council with the responses to the RFP. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor did not believe there was sufficient effort on the part of staff to follow the council’s direction to do whatever was necessary to help ORI locate downtown. She thought the City should spend any excess money it had to support ORI. If there was any possibility that could still occur, she wanted to follow up on it. Mr. Kelly said it was his understanding from council discussions and discussion with ORI representatives that staff worked hard to assist ORI. He believed the City needed to do more than merely place a “for sale” sign in front of the site, and thought the staff recommendation missed a step. He recalled that the Planning Commission developed criteria for the previous property sale, but that happened in 1999 and it was likely the criteria needed to be reviewed. While he did not think that commission review was necessarily required, he wanted staff to draft a new RFP for council review. City Manager Taylor cautioned that would add time to the process at a time when construction costs were rising, but he had no objection to such a course of action. Mr. Kelly believed that the fact the site was a key site justified the additional time the process would take. Mr. Papé agreed that the criteria should be revisited. He supported a review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Papé expressed disagreement with the remarks of Ms. Taylor, saying that staff put considerable effort into the ORI proposal over the last three years. Mr. Papé requested clarification about the investment the City had made in the Sears site. Mr. Braud noted the original cost of the site, which was one-third of a larger parcel that cost $900,000. The City spent MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 4 Work Session approximately $200,000 to demolish the building. The most recent appraisal valued the land at approxi- mately $30 per square foot. Mr. Papé hoped the City was able to recover its costs and the value of money over time to reach the appraised price. Ms. Bettman agreed the property in question was a key piece of property in downtown and she hoped the City would meet multiple objectives through the development that occurred on the site. Ms. Bettman called for a professional appraisal of the site and said in the meantime staff could work on criteria. She agreed a Planning Commission review of the criteria was a good idea. Ms. Bettman asked how another site could work for ORI downtown if the site in question did not work. Mr. Braud said the cost of the proposed building was the major issue facing ORI. City Manager Taylor pointed out that ORI could be among those parties responding to the new RFP. He reminded the council that the City worked a long time with ORI and granted four extensions to the purchase agreement while ORI sought financing. Because of the limited time frame for financing and the nature of the building contemplated, ORI decided against proceeding with the project at this time. Mr. Braud confirmed that ORI had not indicated it was ready to proceed. Ms. Bettman said there was no emergency or need to move forward with haste. She thought the City should position itself to get the maximum number of options given the magnitude of the development that was expected to occur. She thought that taking more time would result in a better process. Ms. Ortiz asked what happened to the earnest money provided by ORI. City Manager Taylor indicated it would go to the Urban Renewal Agency (URA). Ms. Ortiz pointed out that ORI was a nonprofit agency and given the expected purchase price, she thought the City should refund the money if possible. Mr. Klein said that under the legal agreement between ORI and the City, that was not possible. The council would have to articulate a public purpose for returning the money, such as ORI locating in a downtown location. Mr. Poling asked if the City had plans to deal with the water that accumulated on the Sears site. Mr. Braud indicated it was in the process of being drained. Mr. Poling asked if the earnest money could offset those costs. Mr. Klein said the money was going to the URA as revenue and thus could be considered a source of funding for that activitiy. Mr. Papé agreed with the need for a professional appraiser. Mr. Papé pointed out to those who wanted to see ORI on the site that ORI could respond to a new RFP, and the City could continue to work with it as it would work with other parties who wanted to locate in downtown. Mr. Papé respectfully disagreed with Ms. Ortiz about refunding the earnest money to ORI, pointing out that PeaceHealth was a nonprofit as well, but the council would be unlikely to grant it such a refund. Mr. Papé asked if the City could recover the cost of assisting ORI over the past three years by tapping some of the earnest money. Mr. Klein indicated he would need to do further research and would provide a memorandum to the council. Mr. Papé thought it worthwhile to attempt to recover those costs Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to develop an RFP for the Sears site and bring it back to the council for review after first seeking comments MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 5 Work Session from the Planning Commission, to secure an updated appraisal of the site, and to direct the City Manager to continue to work with ORI to site its new facility downtown. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion with the common understanding that the council was seeking updates on the criteria, and the RFP the council would review would be a draft RFP. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 12:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 12, 2006 Page 6 Work Session NAME OF MEETING: Eugene City Council DATE OF MEETING: April 17, 2006–Process Session TO: Beth Forrest RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2005\Central Services Department\City Manager’s Office\City Council\cc051026m1.doc BACKUP STORAGE: KYApril2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) 5/1 bf Reviewed/Returned by Staff 5/1 bf Returned to Minutes Recording 5/3 ky Proofed/Revised by Minutes Recording 5/3 ky Returned to Staff Council Amendments Incorporated = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom/Tykeson Room—Eugene Public Library April 17, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, George Poling, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. CITY COUNCIL PROCESS SESSION Mayor Kitty Piercy called the process session of the Eugene City Council to order. The council was joined by the City’s executive management team: Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Human Resource and Risk Services Director Lauren Chouinard, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director Angel Jones, Public Works Director Kurt Corey, Planning and Development Director Susan Muir, Fire Chief Tom Tallon, and Police Chief Robert Lehner. Lynda Rose, Mary Feldman, and Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office were also present. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Facilitator Betsy Shepard. Those present introduced themselves to Ms. Shepard. Ms. Shepard went over the suggested “norms” for the meeting. ? Listen with respect—no interrupting, no talking over, disagree agreeably ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus Ms. Shepard determined that councilors had no additions to the list. Ms. Shepard reviewed the agenda. I. Clarification of When Agenda Item Summaries Should Have City Manager-Recommended Motions Mr. Kelly, who proposed the agenda item, recalled past practice when such motions were not offered and acknowledged the council’s more recent direction to staff to prepare them. He said that when action was not needed, such motions put pressure on the council to act. He suggested that if the City Manager wanted MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 1 Process Session specific direction, he should include a suggested motion in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS); otherwise, in the case of update items, motions should not be included. Mayor Piercy advocated for more work sessions devoted to thoughtful discussion. Ms. Taylor did not think the council should take action at work sessions. She preferred not to have City Manager-recommended motions and suggested that options for the council’s consideration be prepared instead. Ms. Bettman concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pryor expressed interest in seeing the City Manager’s recommendation on issues where staff believed there was a preferred course of action. Specific motion text that conformed to State law would be valuable. He said the recommendations could come forward in the form of two or three options, accompanied by the same number of motions. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the AIS almost always included a City Manager-recommended motion. He did not think the situation occurred often. As an example, he suggested that, had the West Eugene Parkway issue not been accompanied by a motion, the council’s discussion would not have been so divisive. Mayor Piercy suggested that there was council tension about City Manager-recommended motions. She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor, but did not want the council to feel that staff was “trying to make the council move in a particular direction.” The council was the decision-maker. Mr. Poling noted that frequently, the council had more than one option to consider, as well as the City Manager-recommended motion, and that the motion could always be amended. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the situation did not occur often. Ms. Bettman thought the Mayor’s remark about council tension over City Manager-prepared motions was very valid. She maintained that frequently, the council heard only about the option the staff preferred rather than being provided with the full range of information needed to make a decision. If the Mayor was suggesting that the City Manager’s recommendation not be so prescriptive and that a motion only be made after all councilors had spoken, she felt that was a better approach to governing. She suggested that the City Manager put forth motions that would unite the council rather than potentially divide it. Mr. Pryor said that the council could direct the City Manager to prepare motions after council discussion to cover the small number of items involved. He agreed that motions were not needed for every item. City Manager Taylor indicated understanding of the discussion and recalled the council’s past discussion of the topic and its expressed desire for multiple options. Mr. Papé asked the manager to let the council know when it had not provided adequate direction. Ms. Bettman said if direction was required, it should be expressed in the form of a motion. In cases where motions were not prepared by the City Manager, she did not want that to preclude the council from making motions. City Manager Taylor indicated he would continue to work to provide the council with multiple options. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Pryor did not agree a motion was needed in every instance but suggested that, following an update, the manager restate the council’s direction if it was not clear. City Manager Taylor concluded there was no change to the operating agreements; rather, the discussion led to clarification of the process for staff. II. Protocol for Contingency Requests from Nonprofit Entities Mayor Piercy recalled that the council decided last November to ask the Budget Committee to discuss the potential of establishing a fund for the council to use to grant funding requests from nonprofits. She asked if the council wished to place some policy parameters around the creation of such a fund prior to the committee’s discussion. She suggested that criteria for the allocation of funds might be needed if such a fund was established. Mr. Kelly did not recall there being unanimous council support for the establishment of such a fund and believed the council was taking the right approach in first seeking input from the Budget Committee first. He agreed that criteria for such a fund would be needed, but he did not want to spend time on that discussion now. Ms. Taylor preferred not to have such a fund and suggested that the City’s money for such purposes be directed through the Human Services Fund unless it was something that would clearly further a council goal. She did not want the council to establish such a fund and then have to deal with emotional requests for money. Mr. Pryor recalled that the council discussed whether it wanted to have such a fund and while he could see arguments for both sides, his impression was that the City had a use for all the money it had. He thought if such a fund was established, a process was needed for the distribution of funds. He agreed with Mr. Kelly about the value of the Budget Committee discussion. Mr. Papé expressed concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Taylor and said in the past, the council had not been able to act with the funds it had in a fair and consistent manner. He said a process existed for the distribution of funds to nonprofits, and it was called the budget process. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff avoid using the word “contingency” when discussing the issue with the committee. He recalled that previously the council did have criteria for the disbursement of such funds. He thought Ms. Taylor’s remarks about distributing money through the Human Services Fund (HSF) were well- taken, but occasionally some nonprofit entities that would not fall under the Human Services Commission’s purview needed seed money or start-up funds and he hoped to establish something for them. Ms. Bettman liked the process the council previously used to distribute funds, calling it fair. She favored reviving that process or establishing a process that identified surpluses at the end of the fiscal year to be set aside for distribution under council-established criteria. That funding might be used to fund unexpected expenses or something that the budget was unable to support. She wanted the fund to be used for Eugene residents. Ms. Ortiz said the council’s past fund provided money for some interesting projects. The Human Rights Commission had a small budget for special requests and she hoped to see something similar established for the council. She agreed that the Budget Committee should discuss the subject, and hoped that anything established would be equitable and available for services for Eugene residents. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 3 Process Session Mayor Piercy suggested the discussion could serve to initiate a conversation with the Budget Committee. Ms. Bettman observed that the fund was dissolved in a “nano-second” but its reestablishment required years of discussion. Responding to a question from City Manager Taylor, Mr. Kelly said that in the past, $60,000 was allocated to the fund, which was restricted to outside applicants and could not be used for City programs. The maximum amount available was $5,000. III. Public Forum/Public Hearing Protocol Mayor Piercy noted a problem that occurred at the City Council meeting the previous week, when people signed up for the public forum 15 minutes into the meeting, affecting the distribution of time allotted to each speaker. She invited suggestions. Ms. Ortiz did not think it was unrealistic for the council to give each person who came to speak the full three minutes. She said that people worked hard on their testimony and then, when they arrived at the meeting, found they only had two minutes. She acknowledged the council’s desire to end meetings on time and give everyone a chance to speak, but reiterated that all should be given three minutes to speak. Ms. Solomon said she would have liked the decision by the council to shorten the amount of time for testimony to be made earlier on in the process. However, that meeting had been an unusual one and “constituted a little bit of bad planning.” She wanted the council to do a better job of anticipating such situations so it could tell the public as soon as possible if the meeting agenda changed. Mr. Papé suggested electronic or telephone call-in sign-ups. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the council should listen to everyone and everyone should get three minutes. If the council had to stay longer, it should. Sometimes people were testifying for the first time and had rehearsed their testimony. Then they were told they only had two minutes and had to decide quickly what part of their testimony to leave out. She pointed out that frequently, people left the meeting early before they were called to speak or simply agreed with the remarks of another. She suggested that if anything was to be cut, it should be the council’s response to public comment. Mr. Kelly said that the public process was “messy” and took time. He said that the council mandated an end time to its meetings about three years ago and decided to limit the time for the public forum. He suggested the forum be extended to 90 minutes and people given three minutes to speak. Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Ortiz and said she was glad that the council was reconsidering the issue. She said it is difficult for those who are not accomplished public speakers to edit their testimony “on the fly.” She did not believe an electronic sign-up was the answer as it would disadvantage those from whom the council did not generally hear. She supported a first-come, first-served process, and suggested that the logistics for the process could be improved. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council should consider holding public hearings on the Monday nights that do not already have regular meetings scheduled. She said that it might be less inconvenient than reschedul- ing and postponing public hearings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 4 Process Session Mr. Pryor said he voted for the two-minute limit because he wanted to get out of the meeting at a reasonable time. He supported the three-minute limit but wanted a time certain by which the council continued with its business. Leaving the time open-ended was inviting problems. If one established a system, people would adapt to it. It was only when the process changed that people had difficulty. He said the council needed to have systems in place so those in attendance understood the process. He suggested that might require a council “huddle” prior to the meeting. Mr. Papé suggested that the sign up for the forum be cut off at 7:30 p.m. Ms. Solomon suggested that the doors of the Council Chamber be opened earlier to give staff a better sense of how many people were signing up. She did not oppose giving people three minutes to speak, but did not want to meet past the hour of 10 p.m. She suggested that alternatively, an additional meeting be added during the month. Mayor Piercy said the “flow” of the council’s schedule might suggest the need for additional meetings. City Manager Taylor noted the tension between the advertised hearings and the public forum, particularly when the forum lasted for 90 minutes. Mr. Kelly determined that no one strongly objected to granting all speakers in the public forum three minutes to speak. He agreed with City Manager Taylor about the tension between the forum and the advertised hearings, and suggested that the more controversial hearings be deferred to the proposed additional hearing. If the hearing was not needed, it could be canceled. Ms. Bettman said that another option would be to hold public hearings at 5:30 p.m. rather than at the regular meeting. She was not opposed to having people sign up via e-mail but did not think that should mean they were first in line. The situation should be first-come, first-served, and those persons could be added to the list after others signed up. She agreed with the suggestion to open the doors earlier and cut off sign-ups at 7:30 or 7:35 p.m. Ms. Solomon reiterated that she wanted to be free to leave the meeting at 10 p.m. and wanted meetings to end at that time. Mr. Kelly agreed, with the reminder that if the council was in the middle of an item, the meeting went past 10 p.m. Ms. Taylor preferred to have meetings run later rather than add another meeting, given the number of meetings councilors already attended. She thought several meetings had been poorly planned because of the number of controversial items scheduled. She also suggested that perhaps the council break periods were too long. Ms. Ortiz liked the idea of a meeting dedicated to public hearings as she thought the current format puzzled people. She agreed that staff should open the doors earlier for people to sign up, particularly in the winter months when people were waiting for meetings in the cold. She acknowledged the staffing issue, but wanted a more open door policy as a “nice gesture” to the community when it came to talk to the council. City Manager Taylor indicated that there was a staffing issue given that the same staff was involved in both the work session and regular meeting, but he would look into opening the door earlier. Regarding an added night meeting, he indicated he would follow-up and suggested it might take four months to get everyone used to the new system so the council had some experience with it prior to the next process session in September. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 5 Process Session Mayor Piercy believed the public forum was very important and noted that often, important issues such as the Golden Gardens Park situation were raised by the public. Ms. Shepard summarized the discussion, determining from the council that it would implement the new system as soon as staff had an opportunity to discuss the proposal and give the council feedback on its implementation. Mr. Pryor determined from the council that while those speaking in the public forum would get three minutes to speak, the item would still be time-limited. He was willing to let it be an issue of judgment on a case-by-case basis. Speaking to the suggestion for an added meeting, Ms. Solomon said the council needed to recognize that there were months that the council would be on break. The council agreed to cut off the deadline for signing up to speak in the public forum at 7:35 p.m. Responding to a question regarding follow-up from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated he heard no sentiment for initiating an electronic sign-up. Ms. Rose noted that the suggested changes would require amendments to the operating agreements to implement and the council would be asked to approve those via resolution at a future meeting. Mr. Pryor reiterated his question about whether the public forum was established for a time certain or if it would continue until all who signed up spoke. Ms. Bettman suggested the 30-minute time limit be rescinded given the discussion. Ms. Taylor agreed the 30-minute limit should be dropped. She pointed out that not all speakers would take the full three minutes allotted to them. City Manager Taylor pointed out that a determined group of people could “game the system” and postpone council action on items by signing up for the public forum in such numbers that other items were pushed off. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the agenda be printed on large print format and placed on a reader board to inform the public. Mr. Kelly believed that many people were confused as to what was occurring at the council and suggested a reader board or magnetic board could be employed to explain the meeting agenda and format. He endorsed Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion. Mr. Kelly thought City Manager Taylor’s remarks were well-taken. There were groups that would game the system or come to the erroneous conclusion that more voices saying the same thing was effective. He thought there was value to a stated norm, such as a maximum of 60 minutes to avoid such situations and give the council president some flexibility in offering the body a motion that it could accept or vote down. Mr. Papé agreed that if the council needed to consult briefly about the agenda before a meeting, it should. There was general concurrence. Mr. Pryor wanted the council to have sufficient time at meetings to do the job it was tasked to do as well as accommodate public forum speakers. He agreed that public education about how the system worked was vital. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 6 Process Session Ms. Rose suggested that staff could revise the sign-up sheet to make the process clearer to the public. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Kelly reiterated his suggestion for one hour for the forum as a canonical time and to give the president flexibility in making a motion. Ms. Taylor preferred that 90 minutes be allocated to the public forum as a maximum, pointing out that sometimes few people spoke. Mr. Pryor thought that for the sake of agenda construction, the council should establish a maximum. He said that staff would not know how to construct agendas with uncertainty about the time. Ms. Shepard polled councilors on their preference for a time limit, either 60 minutes or 90 minutes. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff return with a recommendation that the council could vote up or down. IV. Criteria for Canceling Council Meetings/Work Sessions Mr. Papé believed that the council should have canceled the March 10 meeting since the majority of the agenda had been deferred due to council absences and it contained only the Consent Calendar and Public Forum. He characterized the meeting as a waste of time. Mr. Kelly said that because council agendas were so full, he did not understand why the council did not always have a meeting at the usual time; for example, next Monday there was a Budget Committee meeting that ended at 7:20 p.m. that could have been followed by a regular council meeting. The meeting could be canceled if not needed. There was brief discussion of why the March 10 meeting had been canceled. Mr. Pryor suggested that the question at hand was more relevant for discussion. City Manager Taylor indicated he did not cancel meetings or schedule additional meetings unless asked to do so by the Mayor and City Council. Mr. Pryor suggested that there were only a few instances where a meeting should be canceled; for example, if there was nothing to discuss. He suggested that in some cases, only the regular meeting might be needed. The council did not need to meet in work session if there was no need, but regular meetings should occur if only for the Public Forum and Consent Calendar. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor, and said she would err on the side of holding meetings as opposed to canceling them. City Manager Taylor had no objection to holding a council meeting after Budget Committee meetings, but pointed out there were some logistical issues involved and it was difficult to predict the length of committee meetings. Ms. Shepard determined the council operating agreements did not address the issue. She further determined that the council was not suggesting any changes. Councilors briefly discussed how items were postponed. Mr. Kelly noted the current language in the operating agreements, which stipulated that councilors could requests items be postponed or a vote not be taken. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 7 Process Session Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, City Manager Taylor indicated that the tentative working agenda changed on a weekly basis, depending on the action that occurred that week. He worked with the Mayor on a weekly basis to set future agendas. Mr. Papé said it sounded like the Mayor and manager had a process, but he did not know how it worked. Mayor Piercy briefly explained the process of reviewing and revising the tentative working agenda. V. Councilor Polls for Work Sessions—Timing for Getting Them on the Tentative Agenda Mr. Papé wanted criteria for how quickly items added to the agenda were scheduled for discussion, saying that he had successfully polled for a work session item and then had to advocate for it to be added. Mr. Pryor said that it appeared that Mr. Papé needed to talk to the Mayor and manager. Mr. Kelly said he had experienced such a delay in getting an item on the agenda and suggested that once a poll occurred, the item be scheduled at someplace even if the schedule had to be adjusted later. City Manager Taylor said that was what generally happened. Mr. Kelly believed what happened to Mr. Papé was an oversight. Mr. Kelly asked if the council really needed ten working days to reply to a poll for an agenda item. He suggested five days was more appropriate. Mr. Pryor suggested that even if items could not be scheduled, they could be listed at the end of the tentative working agenda. City Manager Taylor indicated that a date could be assigned. Mr. Papé asked if the operating agreements could be amended to reflect the discussion. There was no objection. The council took a ten-minute meeting break. VI. City Council/Staff Relations and Its Implications for the Organization, Council, and the Electorate Ms. Shepard called the council’s attention to the City’s Respectful Work Environment policy. Ms. Bettman recalled her e-mail correspondence with the City Manager regarding what she considered to be an offensive e-mail from Assistant City Manager Carlson. The manager indicated to her that he considered the e-mail to be offensive as well but he had been unable to talk to Assistant Manager Carlson about it because he was out of town, and would talk to him when he returned. She had asked at the April 10 meeting when the manager had knowledge of the e-mail, and it was her recollection that he indicated he knew about it for about a month. She found that disturbing, because to her knowledge, City Manager Taylor had not taken any action. Ms. Bettman perceived the e-mail as evidence of a larger, underlying problem. She suggested the manager was tacitly approving such conduct by taking no action and that the e-mail was “the tip of the iceberg.” Ms. Bettman said that the council had to act on record, and went on to assert that City staff had the ability to keep its e-mail hidden from the public and from the council. That was not a “level playing field.” She was not interested in policy rhetoric or a scripted apology; she wanted to see genuine reform. Assistant City Manager Carlson apologized for the disrespectful e-mail he sent Ms. Bettman and for any offense he caused. He took responsibility and said he attempted to treat all with respect. Sending the e-mail had not represented normal behavior for him. He regretted he had been unable to be present at the meeting last week to address the issue but had been out of town caring for an ailing relative. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 8 Process Session Assistant City Manager Carlson said that when he sent the e-mail he had been at home sick, and had intended to forward the e-mail to his wife Becky Carlson, the Administrative Division Manager of Public Works, to respond to Ms. Bettman’s question regarding the use of City funds for the Parks Foundation award ceremony. He clarified that City Manager Taylor had not been aware of the e-mail and had not received it. He said he attempted to recall the message but had been unable to do so. Assistant City Manager Carlson apologized again to Ms. Bettman for the content of the e-mail and accepted responsibility for his mistake. He reiterated that the manager knew nothing about it. City Manager Taylor questioned whether a process session was the appropriate forum for discussion of a specific personnel issue. Mr. Kelly said the subject was a delicate one but thought City Manager’s remarks were unfortunate in that he perceived them as setting an adversarial tone. He had no intention of discussing any individual, but the only place the council could discuss a personnel matter was in an open session. He did not think that the manager meant to suppress the discussion, but that was the message he gave. Mr. Kelly believed the issue was a broader one of the organizational culture. He said it was his perception as a sitting councilor that a distinct minority of city managers viewed elected officials as somewhere between irrelevant and a temporary annoyance. He did not think that was the way to foster a partnership. He hoped that City Manager Taylor could lead actively and do something that seriously addressed the issue of the council as a “side show” for some City staff. Mr. Kelly said he could understand that staff had professional experience he would never have, but the City Council and Mayor were in charge. City Manager Taylor indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and pointed out that every time he spoke to staff or groups he stressed the importance of elected officials being the heart of a legitimate democracy. In City settings, he frequently discussed the need for employees to respect reach other, and especially to show respect for those who choose to serve the community as elected officials. Ms. Bettman expressed skepticism that City Manager Taylor’s remarks were being reflected in the organization. She was still very unclear as to when City Manager Taylor had knowledge of the incident. City Manager Taylor said that he did not know about the e-mail at the time of the incident. He had been referring to another e-mail message when responding to Ms. Bettman the previous week. Ms. Bettman suggested that if City Manager Taylor did not know about the e-mail message, it meant that Assistant City Manager Carlson had not told him. She said that to attempt to keep the discussion at a high level when there were things going on behind the scenes might be comfortable, but it was not adding clarity to the issue. Mr. Papé said he found the incident disturbing. He said that he had been treated disrespectfully at times in the past by staff but acknowledged there were times he had treated staff disrespectfully, and those situations were resolved. He said that if one wanted to elicit respect, one had to treat others respectfully. He hoped he had made the appropriate apologies. He wished he had been more professional and that staff had been more appropriate and respectful with him. Ms. Ortiz said she had not been treated disrespectfully by staff. Speaking to the issue of two-way streets, she said that if she saw something she did not like, she had to go to the manager to address the issue. If she acted inappropriately, she would want to know, and she thought the existing system worsened the situation MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 9 Process Session that occurred. She found the system frustrating and had to take care about what she said, which “went against the grain” because she tended to speak her mind. Mr. Pryor said the situation was very difficult in that the council was discussing both the issue of conduct and how one acted in the real world as well as one’s intent, culture, motivation, and relationship. The latter topics were very subjective and could lead to a slippery slope. In regard to the issue of conduct, human society could only function if people were specific, careful, and deliberate in their conduct. He said the conduct in question was wrong and should be dealt with through City’s progressive disciplinary system by the City Manager. The conduct should not be tolerated. The issue of intent and motivation and culture remained, and Mr. Pryor did not know why people did what they did. Given that he did not know the intent, he suggested the council’s focus be on conduct, that in the future all work to ensure it was professional and acceptable. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that some people did not like or respect him, but he asked only that they conduct themselves in a manner that allows the council to get things done. Ms. Taylor said the reason the issue was so serious was that it involved top management and a lack of respect for the council. She maintained that disrespect among top management opened the way for other employees to feel that a lack of respect toward the council was acceptable. Ms. Taylor said she understood the attitude that the council was “sort of a nuisance,” but the councilors represented the voters, so if staff disrespected the council it, in turn, disrespected citizens. She pointed out that if the citizens did not like what their councilors were doing, they could vote them out. Ms. Taylor did not expect such conduct from top managers who were supervising other City employees. Mr. Poling said he spent many years dealing with people who did not like him because of the uniform he wore. He went about his business and treated people the way he wanted to be treated. He shared an anecdote about someone who came to his assistance at a call because he had treated that individual with respect when they were housed in jail. Mr. Poling said he had never been treated with disrespect by a City staff person in the four years he had served on the council. He did not care if staff liked him as long as he was treated respectfully. He thought it unfortunate a mistake was made, and believed it would be addressed by the manager. He recommended that the council move on. Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was moving on and doing its business but the press chose not to report that. He appreciated Mr. Pryor’s distinction between conduct and intent as one could not construe intent. He believed the only way the council and staff could move on was in a partnership. He said he did not doubt Mr. Poling’s experience but Mr. Kelly did have the experience of being disrespected or marginalized by a small number of staff. Mr. Kelly agreed that Assistant City Manager Carlson’s case was symptomatic of a larger issue. He regretted that Ms. Bettman and Assistant City Manager Carlson had not taken the opportunity to sit down and talk in the month since the incident occurred, and advocated for a specific, definitive, positive policy initiative that reinforced what was acceptable on the part of staff and provided a way for communication to occur between staff and the elected officials within the limits of the City Charter. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Papé said he had never felt he had been unable to talk to staff one-on-one. He thought the issue of how the council communicated with staff had been resolved. Mr. Poling said when he talked to a staff person he generally prefaced the conversation by clarifying that he might need to go through management, and when he was referred to management he could deal with that. He had never encountered a problem talking with staff on a one-on-one basis. Ms. Bettman said she had been told by staff that they were prohibited from speaking to her. That practice did not appear to be consistent among the councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 10 Process Session Ms. Bettman said the issue at hand was the attitude demonstrated by the e-mail, which implied to staff below management level that it was “okay” to portray and perpetrate a negative attitude toward elected officials. She did not believe that staff and the council had a partnership because the playing field was not level. She said she could take criticism; that was not the issue. The issue was the ability of a high-level staff person to undermine her credibility with other staff when she was trying to advance the values of her constituents. She reiterated that her communications were public and a matter of public record. If she said something that someone did not like and it got around, she was accountable for that. When staff communi- cated in secret away from the public, it did not add to a level playing field. Ms. Bettman said she knew there would be a backlash against her and people would make the issue about her, but she brought the issue up because she found it so important. She said it was important that the organization model respect for the councilors who worked hard to get elected, worked for practically free, and attempted to do the best for their constituents. She concluded there should be zero tolerance for “that kind of undermining.” Ms. Muir said she was aware that in the past, Planning staff indicated to councilors that there was a prohibition on direct communications but that had been a matter of misunderstanding. Chief Tallon added that there was no prohibition in his department on communicating with the council, but the City Manager indicated he wanted to know when conversations between the council and staff took place so that he was aware of what was going on and staff could provide consistent information to all members of the council. Chief Tallon thought the result was improved and consistent communication. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at the remarks of Chief Tallon as he thought City Manager Taylor indicated the council could talk only to him, the staff responsible for preparing an agenda item summary, and the executive manager. He thought a clear, written clarification from City Manager Taylor to the council and the executive management team about the policy would be in order. Mr. Pryor said the organizational culture was nothing the council could impact directly and it could not direct everyone to get along. However, culture could be influenced by respect, trust, communication, and team work. If one worked on those four elements, one could begin to change a culture. He was concerned that, currently, the culture between elected officials and staff was suffering. He attributed that to a lack of respect, teamwork, communication, and trust. Mr. Pryor did not know where that came from, nor did he care, but believed something needed to be done immediately to improve those four elements, which would lead to improved relationships. He was concerned that the trust level between elected officials and staff was not as good as it could be, and that second-guessing was going on. City Manager Taylor recalled that in an earlier process session, the council reviewed the staff contact question, and it was his expectation that the council would generally communicate through the manager, the assistant manager, the executive managers, and the staff responsible for an agenda item summary. With regard to councilors communicating with other staff, that was perfectly acceptable and it was his expecta- tion that the staff involved in the contact would let him and the executive manager know of it. He said he would be happy to clarify that for the council in writing. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly’s recollection about council-staff communications. Ms. Bettman asked City Manager Taylor what happened when someone violated the City’s respectful work environment policy. City Manager Taylor said that he would coach and counsel the individual, who may be subject to discipline. He noted that there was an ongoing investigation into the incident. Ms. Bettman asked if there would be a point at which City Manager Taylor could talk about the incident. City Manager Taylor said yes, but he would not be able to discuss any disciplinary actions he took with regard to Assistant City MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 11 Process Session Manager Carlson due to the expectation of employee confidentiality in regard to personnel issues. Ms. Bettman said that information reinforced her initial commitment to bring up the issue publicly. If the manager disciplined Assistant Manager Carlson privately, no one in the organization would know that he dealt with the issue, leaving the impression it was okay and had the tacit approval of those at the top. Ms. Shepard summarized some of the issues that had been raised during the discussion: elected offi- cials/staff divide; concerns about respect—both ways; issues of honesty/trust; inability to deal directly with people; unprofessional conducts and behaviors; intent/culture; top management and councilor modeling; people feeling marginalized; inconsistency with how different officials interact with staff; not a level playing field; undermining the work of officials; and asymmetry between elected officials and staff. Ms. Shepard offered a list of expectations and hopes: partnership; two-way street of respect; clear conduct/line of command; professional behavior; “golden rule”; hope for a significant initiative about the issue; hope for modeling respect from the top; clear communication; equitable treatment of all officials; and improve culture through trust, respect, teamwork, and communication. She suggested that the council needed to discuss the topic at greater length and asked about next steps. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the City Manager’s responsibility for personnel issues and said she wanted him to reinforce the appropriate use of e-mail and the need for respect for elected officials with staff. She hoped something positive came out of the situation. Mr. Papé thought many of the issues listed by Ms. Shepard applied to both the council and staff, particu- larly in regard to feeling marginalized. He wanted a council session where issues were put on the table. He thought that would be healthy. Mr. Kelly hoped that a next step would be for the City Manager Taylor to send out a written communication on the issue to the organization. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Papé that respect was a two-way street and the council needed to model the same respectful behavior it expected from staff. However, he perceived an “inevitable asymmetry” between the role of the council and the role of staff, and was concerned that such statements diluted the seriousness of the issue. Ms. Bettman said that if the e-mail had come from a low-level staff member she would have “blown it off” and it would not have registered it at all. The fact that it was sent by Assistant City Manager Carlson, who had headed the organization for a year as acting city manager, concerned her because he should have known better. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council continued to move forward with its business. Ms. Bettman said it would be important to her if the actions the manager took were a significant step in reestablishing credibility, accountability, and trust. She reiterated the need for “zero tolerance” of such situations. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 17, 2006 Page 12 Process Session