Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A - Minutes ApprovalEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: October 11, 2004 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lynda Rose www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5017 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the September 8, 2004, Process Session and September 22, 2004, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A. September 8, 2004, Process Session B. September 22, 2004, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lynda Rose Telephone: 682-5017 Staff E-Mail: lynda.l.rose~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M041011 \S0410113 A. doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom Room -- Eugene Public Library 100 West 10tn Avenue September g, 2004 5~ 30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT~ Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap6, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session Mayor Torrey reviewed the order of business and discussion topics as follows: x/ Operating agreements · 1. O1 Time of Meetings · 1.06 Public Hearings · 7. 02 Other Meeting Guidelines · 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings x/ Crafting motions during meetings x/ Council communications regarding employees x/ Ex parte communication x/ Council assignments/communication with staff x/ Time management/meeting agendas Operating Agreements Mayor Torrey suggested that the operating agreements be addressed a section at a time, commencing with 1. O1 Time of Meeting, and each change be the subject of a separate motion. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 1. O1 Time of Meetings. Mayor Torrey explained that the amendment meant the council meeting would not conclude until an item was completed, regardless of the time, as long as consideration of the item began by 10 p.m. Ms. Bettman clarified that if the council began consideration of a lengthy agenda item at 8:45 p.m. it was committed to completing that item before it adjourned. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 1 Process Session Mr. Meisner pointed out that under Roberts' Rules of Order a councilor could still move to postpone or table the item if the discussion extended to a late hour. Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:35 p.m. The motion carried, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 1.06 Public Hearings. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to the amended language, but it seemed out of place in 1.06 Public Hearings because the council generally did not consider the motion immediately following the hearing; rather, testimony from the hearing was discussed and then a motion was considered. Mr. Kelly commented that the need for the language was raised as a result of a situation in which a motion to direct staff was placed on the table immediately following a hearing and there was concern that at least one full round of comments on the hearing should occur before a motion was considered. He suggested taking the amended language out of the first paragraph of 1.06 Public Hearings and establishing it as a second paragraph in that section and changing the term "initial comment period" to "initial round of comments" to clarify the intent. Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestions as a friendly amendment to the motion. There were no objections. The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Bettman pointed out that Section 6. 03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council still included a reference to the Citizen Involvement Committee, even though that committee had been abolished. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to delete the reference to the Citizen Involvement Committee in 6. 03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council and change the term "five standing advisory bodies" to "four standing advisory bodies." The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 7. 02 Other Meeting Guideline. The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson arrived at 5:40 p.m. City Attorney Glenn Klein referred to his memorandum dated April 1, 2004, addressing removal of Section 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, pending further discussion by the council. He said that the section was removed because a question was raised regarding whether the council had the ability to instruct elected officials on how to vote or what to say when they attended another meeting. He said the memoran- dum set forth the issues related to that question. He suggested the council discuss how it wished to deal with the issue and a motion could be crafted to put the section back into the operating agreements in accordance with the council's direction. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 2 Process Session Mr. Kelly commented that the question arose in part because a concern that if a councilor lobbied, he or she represented the adopted position of the body. He said that the section, as currently written, was directed toward conferences and his concern was with participation in intergovernmental bodies such as the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He expressed an interest in receiving draft language that set forth guidelines reflecting an adopted council position in votes for a specific list of intergovernmental bodies. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She said her concern was focused on the budgetary authority of a body, such as the MPC, and on the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and adoption of policies by those bodies that were counter to official City policy. She said if the approach was to determine that a member of an LOC committee was not representing the City, the City should no longer fund that activity. She indicated that the first paragraph of 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings was acceptable. Ms. Taylor agreed that the council should discuss the relevant issues and direct its MPC representatives on how to vote. She said that if the council had an opportunity to review resolutions of the LOC or National League of Cities (NLC) prior to adoption, it would be appropriate to discuss them and ensure that the council's views were represented. She said that participation on NLC committees, to which members are appointed by the LOC president, was a different situation, and a councilor did not represent the City in that instance. Ms. Nathanson noted her objection to removal of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings at an earlier meeting and said there was more protection for the council with the section in place than with it removed without replacement language. She suggested reinstatement of the section until revised language was approved by the council. Regarding the MPC, she commented that on occasion one of the council's representatives had made statements contrary to the majority position. She said that suggestions for revised language would require that both representatives on the MPC express the same positions and cast the same votes and encouraged the council to discuss whether the representatives should present differing points of views and ideas or present a unified position. She agreed with Ms. Taylor's comments regarding participa- tion on NLC committees and agreed that members did not represent the City, although to the extent that issues were known before a meeting, those could be shared with other councilors via email or as information items on the council's agenda. Mr. Pap6 said he agreed with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman that the council's MPC representatives should adhere to the council's position on issues; however, councilors were also representatives of their wards and constituents and had their own consciences. He said with regard to LOC and NLC committee representation it was fine to ask members to express the will of the council where possible, but vote their own conscience. He did not feel it was feasible for the council to attempt to deliberate on all of the resolutions that went before the MPC, LOC, and NLC and felt voting should be left to a councilor's best judgment. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks and said the issue for him went beyond budgetary authority. He commented that LOC and NLC appointments were made for individuals, but LOC and NLC memberships were expensive and paid for by the City. He said that the Council Committee on Intergovern- mental Relations (CCIGR) had recently expressed frustration that while the City's priorities were communi- cated to LOC, the LOC legislative lobbyists seldom presented those priorities. He stated it was extremely important that councilors and the mayor consistently represent the City's position during their participation in LOC activities, along with their individual opinions. He said that where budgetary authority was concerned, as with the MPC, it was even more important to represent the City's policies. He said he would like to see council policy expressed, if relevant on a particular issue, whenever a councilor is participating in MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 3 Process Session another group. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the existing policy should not be removed, although it should be more explicit on some of the issues being discussed. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Meisner's comments and suggested that language be added to make it more explicit that councilors should represent the council's adopted policy in their votes on other bodies. Mayor Torrey remarked that there were two questions: procedures through December 2004 and procedures after January 1, 2005. He suggested that the council could draft a new policy and adopt it shortly after the first of the year. He noted that there were MPC and LOC activities before the end of the year and if the council wished to implement a policy sooner than January 2005 it would need to provide direction to councilors who would be participating. He added that the council officers could develop draft language for review. Mr. Kelly commented that issues arose around the topic of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, but he did not think it was the intent of the council to remove the section as there was value in the protection afforded by existing language. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to reinstate 9. 03 Attending Confer- ences, Other Meetings of the operating agreements and direct staff to draft addi- tional language relating to intergovernmental bodies, the League of Oregon Cities, and the National League of Cities for consideration at the next process session. Mr. Pap~ asked that staff differentiate between an MPC-type body where a councilor was appointed by the council to serve and bodies such as the NLC where a councilor went on his or her own initiative. City Manager Taylor asked if the council perceived a difference between LOC and NLC and intergovern- mental bodies like MPC, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), or Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). In the case of intergovernmental bodies where a councilor was a member of a governing body that made budgetary and policy decision, he asked if it was the intent for the council representative to be an ~instructed delegate" at all times or only when there was an articulated council policy. Mr. Kelly clarified his intent with respect to intergovernmental bodies was that representatives' votes would follow adopted council policy. He did not feel that the existing language in 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings accomplished that. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that staff would consult actively with council officers in crafting proposed language. He agreed that LOC and NLC appointments were made by those bodies; however, memberships in both organizations were paid for by the City, not individuals, and when issues on which the council had adopted a position were considered, the delegate should be guided by that position. Ms. Taylor noted that it was not always feasible for a member to confer with the council before voting, such as on funding determinations by the Human Services Commission (HSC), but she believed that MPC votes should be discussed in advance by the council. Ms. Nathanson asked for clarification of the phrase ~instructed delegate." City Manager Taylor replied that an ~instructed delegate" was one whose purpose was to represent the body's interests within defined policy MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 4 Process Session parameters. In the case of the MPC, the issue was whether the council's representatives should participate in discussions on allocation decisions for federal and State projects and vote based upon their individual preferences, or as an instructed delegate. He observed that requiring representatives on intergovernmental bodies to be instructed delegates would demand more time for the council and individual members to consider each issue and obtain a sense of council direction. Ms. Bettman, responding to Mayor Torrey's comments, said she believed that any language the council adopted should be applicable to any council and any committee representative. She said the existing language permitted representatives to state that a policy was in conflict with a stated council policy, but vote however they wished. She said MWMC was different because its projects and budgets came before the council for approval and the process for HSC allocations had been established through the council's allocation of a budget. She said that the issue of councilors participating in LOC and NLC activities but not representing the City was problematic because the taxpayers were supporting membership and were not being represented in terms of council policy. She used the example of the City's pursuit of a systems development charge for public safety and the LOC's lack of support. She questioned why the City would continue to participate in the LOC and suggested that councilors should participate on an individual basis for professional development purposes. She questioned the last sentence of 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, which she felt reinforced the idea that councilors could vote their conscience and were not bound to be consistent with council policies. Mr. Kelly agreed that his motion to reinstate the language of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings was in conflict with some of the comments from councilors and said his expectation was that staff would develop revised language to express the council's intent. He said his purpose in restoring the language was to simplify the issue on an interim basis and restore some protection in terms of requiring representatives to report council policy. He said he preferred to adopt new language at a January 2005 process session rather than attempting to ';wordsmith" new language at the meeting. He clarified that the new language should specify that representatives to intergovernmental bodies would need to confer with the council only when there was an adopted council policy at issue. He encouraged councilors to inform the council in advance, whenever possible, of any major changes or policy decisions that were going to be considered by another body on which they served. Mr. Meisner agreed that revised language was necessary, but encouraged the restoration of existing 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings section language until new language could be adopted. He expressed frustration with the lack of information about LOC and NLC legislative direction or lobbying activities requested reports beyond the monthly LOC and weekly NLC publications that would update the council on those activities. Ms. Nathanson said the NLC weekly publication contained updated information on proposed resolutions and priorities for lobbying prior meetings and action by the NLC board and was perhaps a better source of current information than the City's representatives. She hoped that further discussion could be held at a future process meeting on the perceived difference between a councilor's participation in NLC activities and participation on a body to which he or she was appointed. She said it was not possible for a councilor to always make statements or vote in a manner that would satisfy all members of the council and the mayor. Ms. Nathanson observed that there was dissatisfaction with the disparity between LOC's lobbying activities and the City's position on some issues and suggested that staff report not only on activities that were in consistent with the City's interests, but also on the successes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 5 Process Session Mayor Torrey related that he was recently asked by the chair of an Oregon Senate Committee on Telecom- munication to participate in negotiations relating to telecommunications. He said that the City wanted a two-percent tax and the negotiations were directed toward precluding other communities from imposing such a tax. He said he wanted to be able to participate in the negotiations and represent the best interests of the community and not be "handcuffed" by a requirement to only discuss the City's position with no flexibility to explore other options. Mr. Meisner said he understood Mayor Torrey's point but his comments raised concerns because the City had adopted an ordinance imposing a telecommunications tax, and before every legislative session the council adopted a legislative policies document and instructed the City's lobbyist to work from that document. He asked how the City's lobbyist and CCIGR could have credibility if a single member of the council represented the City in legislative negotiations and expressed a different point of view. He felt that council members and the mayor should be guided by policy documents. Responding to Mr. Meisner's question, Mayor Torrey replied that he would not negotiate to eliminate the telecommunications tax without discussing it with the council. Ms. Bettman opined that there was an obvious difference between serving on a departmental advisory body and participating in LOC activities as LOC took lobbying policy positions that could be consistent with or in opposition to adopted City policies and the City's best interests. She said that elected officials and the council as the deliberative body made the decisions and those who represented them should reflect those decisions. She said the City should examine the LOC legislative agenda and consider whether it might not be better served by hiring its own lobbyist instead of giving money to the LOC. Referring to the Mayor's example of telecommunications negotiations, she said that the problem was that the processes were not inclusive and any elected official who participated should be careful to represent adopted City policy and not his or her own agenda. Mayor Torrey said he would support whatever decision the council made with respect to representation; however, he felt it would be a mistake for the City to "go it alone" with its own lobbyist. Mr. Kelly restated his motion to reinstate the current Section 9. 03 Attending Con- ferences, Other Meetings and direct staff, with consultation with the council offi- cers, to develop new language regarding representatives voting adopted council pol- icy, if there is one, and staff will consider intergovernmental bodies such as MPC as well as organizations such as LOC and NLC, with language to be taken up at the next council process session in January 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Crafting Motions During Meetings City Manager Taylor stated that the purpose of the discussion was to address the inordinate amount of time it took to craft a specific motion at the table during a meeting and asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to elaborate on an alternative approach that would be more precise and take less time. Mr. Klein identified an instance in which the council was considering an ordinance and suggested that instead of trying to craft a motion to amend "on the fly," the council could pass a motion to adopt the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 6 Process Session ordinance and give direction to staff to come back with an amendment that accomplished the council's purpose. He said the issue typically arose when the council was giving direction to staff. He said an alternative approach was to have the discussion about what the council wanted to accomplish, table the issue and move on to the next item while staff developed proposed language. He indicated these approaches applied to substantive, not minor, changes to an ordinance. He encouraged direction to staff that provided guidance and required consultation when appropriate, instead of attempting to wordsmith extremely detailed and specific language. He characterized the issue as one of trusting staff to follow the council's direction and suggested that staff could consult with the councilor or councilors who were identified as leading a particular issue. City Manager Taylor encouraged councilors to provide more general direction and identify a member with whom the staff could consult to determine if the council's intent was being met by the proposed language. Responding to Mr. Klein's remarks, Mr. Kelly noted that there was language currently in the operating agreements about avoiding amending ordinances "on the fly." He said that the option to table an item until later in the meeting while staff crafted language was acceptable unless there were time constraints. He expressed concern with the issue of trust and said his experience over the past two years was that broad direction from the council had often resulted in a response that was not reflective of the council's intent, thereby prompting the council to be more specific in its direction. He said that when a response was not received for two or three months and it was not what the council wanted, that further delayed action. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks that staff responses were not timely and did not articulate council direction. She asked if Mr. Klein's suggestions referred to instances when only one or two councilors requested an amendment or instances when the entire council was in agreement and there was a motion to change the language. Mr. Klein said his remarks anticipated that a majority of the council wanted language brought back. He suggested if one or two councilors were interested in amending an ordinance, the council should determine if a majority supported the concept before postponing the issue to another meeting and directing staff to develop language. Ms. Bettman said the problem with Mr. Klein's suggestion was that any amendment would need to be debated ahead of time to get the council's support of the intent before a councilor could request that language be developed. Mr. Klein said he was not suggesting that the current procedures should not continue, only encouraging alternative approaches to crafting %n the fly" when there had been no opportunity to discuss amendment language with staff and other council members prior to a meeting. He said that a motion to direct staff to return with language that achieved a specific result and work with a designated councilor to ensure the language was responsive was intended to better meet the council's needs. Mr. Kelly stated his opposition to specifying a councilor to consult with staff as he did not think that should be codified. He encouraged staff to communicate freely with members of the council. Ms. Nathanson said unfortunately staff was likely to have reservations about freely contacting councilors because of concerns that their conduct would be challenged or considered inappropriate. Mr. Meisner cautioned that solutions to a problem should not eliminate opportunities to be creative. Mr. Klein reiterated that the purpose of the discussion item was not to change the existing process but to offer options to crafting motions %n the fly" that could make it more efficient or productive. He said staff MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 7 Process Session was not seeking a motion to formally change the existing process. City Manager Taylor expressed his appreciation for the discussion. Ex Parte Communication Mr. Klein distributed a handout on ex Forte contacts and reviewed the information contained in the document. He explained that exForte contacts were concerns in quasi-judicial actions, but not legislative actions, and while they were not specifically prohibited, they were discouraged because of the procedural issues that arose if they occurred. Mr. Poling asked at what point in the process exForte contacts became a concern. Mr. Klein replied that it was at the point an application was filed, although discussions with an applicant prior to submission of the application could create an appearance of bias. Mr. Poling gave the example of a developer who presented conceptual plans to elected officials and at a later date submitted an application for a zone change. Mr. Klein responded that those discussions would not need to be declared as ex Forte contacts and the elected officials' decision must be based only on information in the record, not any information obtained during those earlier discussions. Mr. Kelly asked if the starting point for exForte contacts was a matter of statute and if there were legal ramifications to a discussion held before an application was submitted that would be prohibited after submission. Mr. Klein said he would let the council know the source of the start point and regarding the pre-application discussion, bias would be difficult to sustain in an appeal but the discussion could provide the basis for a challenge and need to respond. Responding to questions from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Klein stated that if a decision was challenged on the basis of bias, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) could remand that decision. He said that an appeal to LUBA would have to be filed within 21 days of a decision. He indicated that staff would alert the council when a quasi-judicial action was coming before it. He said that recusation from a decision because of an ex Forte contact should occur only if the contact had in fact created bias or if the councilor believed that the contact could provide the basis for an appeal because of bias. Mr. Meisner asked how councilors should respond to requests for an individual meeting with an individual or organization that was engaged in litigation against the City, such as the telecommunications lawsuit. Mr. Klein advised that councilors and staff should decline to speak to any party that was suing the City. He said that although there was no legal prohibition against contact, anything said could potentially be used against the City. Mr. Meisner asked for written guidance to the council and staff regarding contact with litigants. Ms. Bettman asked if that guidance would apply equally to the lawsuit filed by the Chamber of Commerce and Lane County Home Builders Association over land use issues. Mr. Klein said that legal counsel requested to be present whenever there was a conversation about resolving litigation. He explained that the situation was somewhat different with land use issues or other State administrative proceedings because the judgment of LUBA or the State Hearings Official would be based on a record that had already been produced and conversations held after the contested decision was made would not be taken into account. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 8 Process Session Mr. Klein commented that he would provide a memorandum clarifying the authority for the ex porte contact starting point, identifying the types of actions to which ex porte contacts applied, and providing guidance to elected officials and staff on contact with parties who were suing the City as well as contacts in the case of a pending quasi-judicial action, including timeframes prior to and following a decision. He cautioned councilors that while discussions following a decision did not have the same impact, it was preferable to err on the side of caution and avoid all contact until the matter was resolved or appeal period had expired. The council took a break from 7:30 p.m. to 7:40 p.m. Council Communications Regarding Employees City Manager Taylor noted that the subject arose in an earlier process session and he asked Mr. Klein to explain the provisions of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Klein distributed a handout that set forth the charter provisions regarding communications to the city manager from the mayor or councilors that could potentially influence the manager in the making of any appointment or removal of city personnel. He advised councilors not to tell the manager that they thought an employee was doing a bad job because it could be inferred that the councilor was attempting to influence the manager to fire the employee, which could result in the forfeiture of the councilor's office. He emphasized that this caution applied to individual communications to the manager outside of a council meeting. He advised that instead of discussing a specific employee, the manager should be told that the services being provided by a department were poorly delivered or a particular program was being operated poorly and specify the reasons, such as from a customer's perspective. City Manager Taylor suggested that councilors could direct their remarks to outcomes, processes, service domain, and particular deliverables attributed to an organization, but not make statements about a specific staff person. Ms. Bettman asked if the same restrictions applied to positive comments regarding a particular employee and if they applied only to comments made to the city manager. Mr. Klein replied that the charter provisions applied to any comments, positive or negative, that could be construed as an attempt to influence the appointment, promotion, or removal of staff, although in the case of positive comments the risk was small if there was no indication from the manager of a pending personnel action relating to that specific employee. He said that a councilor would be equally at risk if negative comments about an employee were made to a supervisor, as those comments were likely to reach the manager. He urged councilors to use common sense in their remarks about City staff as there was no case law available for a judge to interpret should a complaint be filed. Mr. Pap~ said he did not agree with Ms. Bettman that there was equal risk in making positive comments unless there was a promotional opportunity involved. Mr. Klein said that the issue was a question of risk and each councilor must make an individual determination about whether to accept the risk. Mr. Kelly said the only protection against personal risk was to discuss such matters in an open council session. He expressed concern that comments regarding a specific program could be considered as comments regarding the individual staff involved with that program. Mr. Klein said there could be some risk; however, a major factor if the matter went to court was the assessment of a councilor's intent. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 9 Process Session City Manager Taylor suggested that councilors hold him responsible for any deficiency in City services or performance. Time Management/Meeting Agendas City Manager Taylor asked for feedback on whether the council should take action on any items on the agenda for the regular meeting if there was time available at the end of the work session. Ms. Taylor did not support the suggestion. Ms. Bettman stated she was not opposed to the suggestion, but the council should select an item that was not controversial and all regular meeting agendas should include the caveat that action could be taken on an item during the work session. She said she was opposed to any public hearing items being considered during a work session. Mr. Kelly said he like the idea of flexibility, but that every item on an agenda could be potentially controversial or of interest to someone. He suggested that staff develop a protocol to discuss at the next process session and that the council might consider requiring a super majority in order to take up an item from the regular agenda at a work session. Ms. Taylor observed that if an item was controversial, taking it up at the work session would save little time during the regular meeting. Council Assignments/Communication with Staff City Manager Taylor asked councilors to report on their communications with staff and responses to council assignments within and outside of established protocols and guidelines. Ms. Bettman said she had seen no improvement from a time and information perspective; responses were delayed and too general in nature. She said that responses often did not reflect the intent of the council's assignment and required that the request for a response be resubmitted. Mr. Kelly said he had seen some improvement and had taken the initiative to clarify a council assignment to an executive when the summary was not reflective of council intent. He said that email communications were helpful, but it was difficult to clarify a council assignment with respect to an item when the executive of a department was always listed as the lead on agenda item summaries (ALS) instead of the staff person responsible for preparing the AlS. Mr. Pap~ agreed that he would prefer to have the staff person preparing the AIS listed as the lead. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with comments about the quality of information provided by staff and suggested that perhaps councilors were not always as articulate as possible in their requests. She said she was generally pleased with the quality of responses she had received from staff. Mr. Meisner cautioned against structuring communications between the council and staff that exceptions were not identified or allowed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 10 Process Session Ms. Nathanson suggested that it could be helpful if the city manager provided some guidelines for communications when a councilor had a role as chair of a committee and needed to provide direction or resolve an issue with staff. Mr. Poling noted that the deadline was approaching for boards and commissions applications. He asked that the requirements for counting the number of votes necessary for interviews and appointments be clearly specified on the ballots provided to councilors. Mary Walston distributed a meeting feedback form and an example of the revised AIS format. Ms. Taylor asked for more comment space on the feedback form. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 11 Process Session ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 22, 2004 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Hospital Update City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item. He recalled the council's June 16 work session on the topic of hospital siting and said staff had been working with McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) since that time to achieve the council's goal of having a hospital in the city center. Steady progress was being made. City Manager Taylor felt confident that in the near-term, EWEB would succeed in finding another site. In the meantime, staff was working on an option agreement between McKenzie-Willamette/Triad and EWEB that he anticipated would be finalized in the next month. That agreement would establish the timing and the price of the real estate transaction. Today's discussion would focus on the issue of transportation access to the EWEB site. Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle and Public Works Director Kurt Corey were present for the item. Mr. Coyle recalled that in June, the council discussed the concerns expressed by McKenzie- Willamette/Triad in regard to the site, which were largely focused on cost, timing, and site access. He indicated that staff of both the Planning and Development and Public Works departments had been working with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital on the EWEB site and with EWEB on opportunities for alternative sites. Ms. Nathanson arrived. Mr. Coyle said the issue of three access points was raised at the June 16 meeting, and the possible extension of Agate Street was one of three options examined as a result of the meeting. He said staff had looked at the design and costs of the three alternatives, which were outlined on a large aerial map of the area in question in red (Alternative 1), orange (Alternative 2), and yellow (Alternative 3). Mr. Coyle noted the letter sent to the council by McKenzie-Willamette/Triad's chief executive officer, Roy Orr, which indicated the hospital's belief that the site could function safely with two unimpeded access points if the second was constructed immediately adjacent to the hospital campus (e.g., the extension of Patterson Street), and if it was open and functioning by the target date of late 2007. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Corey briefly described the three alternatives and noted their associated costs and the estimated time needed to complete each project. He indicated that alternatives 1 and 2 were projected to cost $10 million, while Alternative 3 was projected to cost $19.5 million. He noted the City Manager's recommendation for Alternative 1, the extension of Patterson Street. Mayor Torrey called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct staff to pursue a development agreement for the benefit of providing access to McKenzie- Willamette Medical Center via Patterson Street. Ms. Bettman said it appeared from the letter from Mr. Orr that the Patterson extension was acceptable to the hospital, so she saw no reason to consider the additional costs that would be created by the Agate Street extension alternatives. She was prepared to support the motion. Ms. Bettman suggested that in the future, given that the hospital was advocating for no particular access routing, the City consider those access options that had the broadest community benefit. She suggested that the proposed improvements to the 3rd/4th connector and the addition of an access over the tracks that was equally spaced between the Chambers overpass and the Ferry Street Bridge would assist in creating additional, unimpeded access to the hospital site. Ms. Bettman recalled that the last motion the council passed regarding the topic had indicated the council's support for the project was contingent on the $85 million project being built. That was not mentioned in the staff-crafted motion before the council; she asked if the motion should be amended to convey the council's intent. Mayor Torrey advised Ms. Bettman to craft an amendment to the motion to convey that intent. Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Orr for his correspondence. He termed the proposed alternative a ~win-win" situation as it allowed the council to save money by avoiding the Agate extension at this time, it meant there was one less road project needed for the hospital to begin operations, and it avoided community controversy about the potential for a road north of the railroad tracks. He supported the motion. Mr. Kelly noted McKenzie-Willamette Hospital's late-2007 target date mentioned in the letter from Mr. Orr and urged City Manager Taylor to return to the council if there was anything that the council could do to help the hospital achieve that target. He said dealing with the railroad could be a challenge and suggested there might be a need to get Oregon's congressional delegation involved at some point. City Manager Taylor indicated staff's belief it would take four years to complete the project because of the nature of the project and the other parties involved, especially Union Pacific Railroad. He urged the council not to focus on any particular date. The target date mentioned was dependent on many, many things. Mr. Kelly emphasized that his interest was on partnering with the hospital, and being of assistance if that assistance was needed. Mr. Kelly determined from City Manager Taylor that the development agreement mentioned in the motion would be between the City of Eugene and McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. City Manager Taylor did not know if EWEB would be an eventual party to the agreement. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Manager Taylor that McKenzie-Willamette/Triad needed to have a hospital site before it could apply to the State for a certificate of need. He asked where EWEB was in the process of finding a new site. City Manager Taylor indicated that EWEB was actively working to identify sites and had narrowed its list of possible sites. The utility was involved in active negotiations for site acquisition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap6 asserted that people in the local medical community was very interested in knowing where the hospital would be %ooner rather than later" and he suggested the City apply what pressure or leverage it could upon EWEB to make the relocation happen. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Corey said the City did not control all the elements driving the timing of the project, citing as examples the need for track crossing authorization from Union Pacific Railroad, the need for a greenway permit, etc. The City had no control over the outcome of the regulatory processes or potential appeals resulting from those processes, so he was reluctant to commit to a timeline. He assured the council that staff would do the best it could to expedite the process. Mr. Pap6 asked if the City could begin to work with the railroad now. Mr. Corey said staff had already begun to work with the railroad on the design concept. The City would need to make a formal application to Union Pacific Railroad to eliminate the at-grade crossing for a grade-separated crossing. Mr. Pap6 again reiterated his interest in making progress on the hospital relocation, and urged the staff to make the official application to Union Pacific Railroad, as he anticipated that would be the longest process. Mr. Pap6 also thanked Mr. Orr for his letter. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that the proposal was a win-win for the community and for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad. Speaking to the timeline, Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Pap6's interest in seeing progress. He acknowledged the constraints that existed. Speaking to Mr. Pap6's comments about the length of the railroad's process, Mr. Meisner said that he had discussed the issue with the railroad's vice president at the depot dedication on September 20, and the railroad never said no to an opportunity to get rid of an at-grade crossing. He did not think Union Pacific would impede the process. Mr. Meisner stated for the record that the motion under consideration directed staff to not pursue the extension of Agate Street at this time. Mr. Meisner determined from Mr. Corey that staff contemplated a downward grade of about 5-1/2 percent to get to a clearance of about 17 feet under the railroad tracks. He said the City would not necessarily use the existing Patterson alignment; the railroad crossing could be anywhere within a 300- to 400-foot location along the tracks and may not be exactly at Patterson Street. Ms. Taylor was happy to abandon the thought of extending Agate Street. She asked if the proposed alternative would affect the possible ;;daylighting" of the Millrace in the area. Mr. Corey said nothing currently under discussion for development in the greater courthouse area appeared to preclude the construction of that project at some point. Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of PeaceHealth's move to Springfield on the project and what would happen if PeaceHealth did not get approval to build in that community. Mr. Corey did not think that was an issue that was particularly germane to the Memorandum of Understanding. Ms. Taylor suggested that if PeaceHealth was unable to move, McKenzie-Willamette/Triad would not be able to build a new hospital. City Manager Taylor did not think that was the case. He believed a certificate of need process would be required for McKenzie-Willamette/Triad regardless of where PeaceHealth moved. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mayor Torrey asked staff to communicate the need for speed to EWEB. He thought the City Council could reach its goal of having the hospital in Eugene and he hoped EWEB would assist in achieving that goal. Ms. Bettman, with the concurrence of the second, Mr. Poling, offered the following revised motion to the body: "Move to direct staff to pursue a development agreement for the benefit of providing access to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center via Patterson Street, contingent upon McKenzie Willamette Medical Center providing an $85 million hospital development with a substantial Willamette River setback." The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: West Eugene Parkway Memorandum of Understanding City Manager Taylor introduced the item, reporting that the Oregon Department of Transportation had asked the City to sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding street standards and maintenance negotiations about how the West Eugene Parkway might be developed and maintained. He asked Mr. Corey to discuss the background of the request and the subject of negotiations for the MOU. Mr. Corey recalled that the project was initiated in 1980 by ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Since its inception, the project had been the subject of many studies, including a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) prepared in 1997. That SDEIS was in the process of being reevaluated to determine what factors had changed in the last few years, and whether the project can be advanced to the publication of a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement or if a new SDEIS must be prepared. Mr. Corey said as a result of the reevaluation, it was determined that the parkway east of Beltline (Unit lA) would be too congested at peak hours by 2025 to meet ODOT's design standards. Subsequently, ODOT asked the City to consider a jurisdictional transfer for Unit 1 following construction, because while Unit lA would not meet ODOT's mobility and accessibility standards, it would meet the City of Eugene's design standards for arterial streets. The MOU would acknowledge to ODOT that the City would enter into negotiations for an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to discuss the specifics of a jurisdictional transfer and all the related issues. Regarding the specific differences between ODOT and City standards, Mr. Corey said that City standards were more liberal in allowing congestion at intersections; in addition, ODOT required 30-percent reserve capacity from the design year, which was not a City requirement. City Manager Taylor anticipated that as a result of the negotiations that would shape the IGA, ODOT would pay for the construction and maintenance of the West Eugene Parkway. He said that was the City's previous expectation, and he would continue to convey that expectation to ODOT. He intended to sign the MOU and hoped to return with an IGA on an expedited timeframe in partnership with Lane County. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments, reminding the council it would not take action on the MOU; the city manager had charter authority to sign it. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Corey that the MOU did not bind the City to future maintenance of the parkway. Mr. Corey said the MOU was not binding outside of binding the involved parties to agree to discuss an IGA. Mr. Poling asked if the council and Board of County Commissioners would have to approve the ultimate IGA. City Manager Taylor said yes. He said that signing the MOU would assist ODOT in moving forward on the project. He agreed with a remark from Mr. Poling that the MOU was one step in many to move the project along. Ms. Nathanson said the parkway was to have been a State project that created continuous connections to and between cities. She thought the State would still be interested in the project if the need still existed. Since the provision of connections between communities was a State responsibility, some of the questions and comments from project opponents concerned her. Ms. Nathanson believed the MOU provided WEP opponents with further doubt or ammunition against the project. Ms. Nathanson did not see how Eugene or Lane County would benefit if the State would not maintain the parkway, and was happy to hear the manager say his terms for the IGA included State responsibility for construction and maintenance costs. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed that the City had gone through multiple reevaluations of the project while the need for the project was growing rather than decreasing. She said it seemed as though the State planning process had placed the community in a ~Catch 22" position; if it completed the project it was wrong, but if it did not complete the project it was also wrong. If the State waited any longer to do the project, the problem would get worse, but the City could not redesign the project without starting out at square one, creating an endless loop which prevented the project from being done. Ms. Solomon agreed with Ms. Nathanson. She said she was confident in the manager's negotiating skills and believed he would come to an agreement with ODOT that benefited all citizens, especially those who voted for the parkway. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson that traffic conditions in west Eugene were worse, and he was discouraged to read that the planned route did not meet State standards. However, Mr. Meisner acknowl- edged the MOU was within the manager's authority. Mr. Meisner noted his long-held belief that the project cost too much money and would have too little effect, and that appeared to be confirmed by the State. He noted his membership on Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit Steering Committee, which had discussed placing a route on Highway 126 to serve downtown Eugene and Springfield. The committee eventually gave up on many of the elements necessary for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along that highway because the State was unwilling to accommodate local standards or the regional goal represented by BRT. Now the State was proposing to transfer jurisdiction of the parkway because of local standards. Mr. Meisner asked about other examples in Oregon where State highways were being built to local standards. In response, Mr. Corey said the City's partnership with ODOT was healthier now than it had been in the past. He thought the City and State were on the verge of getting many good things accom- plished. He believed municipalities were better stewards of the transportation infrastructure inside their communities. He was an advocate for jurisdictional transfer of roadway facilities in company with the appropriate funding. Mr. Corey cited the extension of 42nd Street in Springfield as an example of a roadway constructed by the State to local standards and then turned over to the local city for maintenance. He said such transfers were quite common. Mr. Meisner requested a written response to his question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked City Manager Taylor if he had read the many e-mails the City received objecting to his signing the MOU. City Manager Taylor said he had. He also met earlier in the week with community activists Mary O'Brien, Rob Zako, Lauri Segal, and Rob Handy to discuss their concerns at length. Ms. Taylor asked why the City was wasting money on something that might not be necessary. Mr. Corey said from his perspective, the reason to proceed was to give ODOT some assurance that the final design of Unit 1 would meet the City's design standards. That final design was necessary to achieve the final SEIS. Otherwise, ODOT could take the position that if the project could not be designed to City standards, the project should return to %quare one." The FHWA and ODOT findings stated that the project as designed met its stated purpose and intent and the need initially identified, with the exception of being able to meet current ODOT design standards for one segment. He suggested the MOU was an alternative to starting over. Ms. Taylor suggested the outcome of the process could be that one section of the parkway was built and the other section was not because of environmental concerns, leaving the community with something not needed when it could have been searching for other solutions to traffic problems. Ms. Taylor hoped the manager did not sign the MOU. Mr. Kelly asked if the final IGA would be reviewed by the council. City Attorney Glenn Klein said generally, an IGA is within the purview of the manager, but it depends on the commitments made in the IGA; for example, the manager does not have the authority to spend new money if it is not authorized in the City's budget. The manager could sign such an IGA only if it stated that the agreement was contingent upon council action. He said any policy changes required by the IGA would also be reviewed by the council. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the manager's authority in the matter and expressed appreciation that the discussion had been scheduled. He suggested that although City Manager Taylor had the authority to sign the IGA, he thought it would be appropriate for him to request the council's review. Regarding the issue of the City paying for the construction or maintenance costs of the project, Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the manager's remarks about what assurances he would seek, and noted that one of the assumptions used by project proponents during the 2001 election was that the State would pay for the project and its maintenance. Mr. Kelly believed that the reevaluation indicated the road was too congested for the State to want it. Mr. Corey suggested it was more appropriate to say some of the intersections become more congested than what was allowed by ODOT standards. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner that the project cost too much money for too little benefit. He was concerned that the public would feel deceived when it found within a few years there was no congestion relief as a result the project. The parkway at Seneca Road was projected to be at full capacity by 2025. Mr. Pap~ echoed Mr. Kelly's appreciation to the manager for scheduling the work session. Mr. Pap~ said jurisdictional transfers were a concern to many Oregon cities because of collateral leverages that were attached to them by the State. He indicated he would share a policy statement with City Manager Taylor that came out of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) legislative committee he had recently attended. Mr. Pap~ asked if another SDEIS would be required. Mr. Corey said the reevaluation report would be sent MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 6 Work Session by the FHWA to other cooperating federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), which would review the information and provide feedback to the FHWA and ODOT. The FHWA would use that feedback to determine which document to publish, a SDEIS or a Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement. The FHWA's goal was the final issuance of a record of decision by the relevant federal regulatory agencies. Ms. Bettman termed the parkway a "stinking albatross" for which the State did not want to take responsibil- ity. With regard to the MOU, she acknowledged that the City Manager had the authority to negotiate such documents, but she thought in this case the authority for the project came from the ballot. The project was on the ballot as a State project. Every finding was predicated on that fact and on the fact the project fulfilled State objectives and was to be regional in nature. Ms. Bettman said that as part of the ElS process, other alternatives with local elements had been examined and rejected on the basis that they did not fulfill the purpose and need of the State project. Ms. Bettman said the project now being contemplated represented a very different project than had been evaluated in the SDEIS or included in TransPlan. Even if costs were not considered, the traffic projections, access, and purpose and need for the project were different. She considered that very significant, and said she did not think the manager had the authority to change the nature of the project from a full parkway to half a parkway without public testimony or further evaluation. She asked if the FWHA's reevaluation was for the entire project or half the project, and how relevant was that information if the project in question was completely different. Mayor Torrey said the councilors' opinions were no surprise given their past positions on the parkway. What was different was who would pay for and maintain the parkway. He noted that he had campaigned for the project on the basis that the State would pay for its construction and maintenance costs. Mayor Torrey believed the City's partnership with ODOT was healthier than it had been in the past. However, the City was at a crossroads. He believed the council's most important decision in the near-term was how to proceed with the project. He supported the action to be taken by the City Manager Taylor. If the manager did not sign the MOU, the State could maintain the City killed the project. It was ODOT's responsibility to follow up on the project. Mayor Torrey believed the City had done what it could in regard to the parkway. ODOT must deal with the BLM, the Army Corps of Engineers, and finding money to pay for the cost of the project. That was its job. Mayor Torrey said that ODOT was asking the City to enter into negotiations, and that was the responsible thing for the agency to do. He believed it would be irresponsible for Eugene to back out now. Mayor Torrey said that some might think that killing the parkway was a great idea, but it would also kill the City's ability to negotiate effectively with ODOT in the future for other projects, and that made no sense. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Ms. Solomon thanked the mayor for his comments. She expressed support for the parkway and emphasized the fact that the MOU was nonbinding. She reiterated her confidence in the manager's ability to negotiate for the City. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Pap6 to share the LOC committee policy with the council. Mr. Pap6 agreed. Mr. Meisner asked what failure date could be expected for the intersections in the eastern phase of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 7 Work Session parkway given the anticipated congestion. Mr. Corey indicated he would secure that information. Mr. Meisner said the council was talking about a ~huge" investment, and he was concerned that by building the parkway to a lesser standard the State would be investing in an %ven sooner" failure date. Ms. Taylor believed a public process was needed because the project was essentially a new one. She questioned whether the manager had the authority to sign the MOU given the changed nature of the project. Regardless of whether he had the authority, she continued to advocate for a public process. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor with regard to the City's partnership with the State. However, he believed the MOU would ultimately be ;;fodder for the recycling pile." There were many barriers facing the parkway. He noted that many alternatives to the parkway were rejected by ODOT because they did not meet ODOT's standards, but now its own proposal does not meet its standards, leading the Army Corps of Engineers to suggest that the process be reopened and other alternatives considered. Mr. Pap6 said the project was contentious no matter who paid for it. He continued to believe the project had community support and agreed with the mayor that Eugene needed to keep up the pressure on the State. With regard to the location of the intersections and the parkway design, Mr. Pap6 said that was not known when the vote occurred and he did not think they should be an issue now. He did not want Eugene to be the scapegoat if the project was killed. Ms. Bettman said the community voted on a highway, not a local street, and the MOU specifically called the parkway a local street that was a link between downtown and points west. The project described in TransPlan was also described as a State project meeting regional needs. She said the project was very different than that initially contemplated. Ms. Bettman said that ODOT rejected many alternatives for the same reason it was attempting to transfer the project and that concerned her because she had placed an alternative on the table that was rejected because it did not meet the State need and purpose for the project. The alternative used existing local streets that have excess capacity at the current time to create a network. Mayor Torrey suggested the council consider a future in which there was no parkway. Who would pay to address congestion east of the Beltline if ODOT was no longer involved? He said that was a reason for Eugene to %tay at the table" as long as possible. He said the manager and staff should be given every opportunity to make this work for Eugene. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments. Mr. Kelly cited additional barriers to the project, including the federal prohibition on roadways crossing land acquired by the BLM using Land and Water Conservation Funds, the fact the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments facilitating the parkway had not been adopted by the BLM, the fact the FHWA had not initiated the wetlands mitigation process, the fact the reevaluation report stated that West 11th Avenue at Bailey Hill was in failure by 2025 with or without the parkway, and the funding gap of $30 million beyond what the community had secured in revising TransPlan by eliminating other projects. Mr. Kelly did not believe the City had access management requirements, and asked what would happen once the parkway was a City street. What legal guarantee was there that every property owner along the route would not take driveway access to the parkway? Mr. Corey said that the City would have whatever guarantee it included in the IGA. Mr. Kelly questioned whether ODOT could impose State requirements on MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 8 Work Session a City street, saying that preventing a land owner from taking access to a local street "smelled like a land use decision" to him. He suggested further research be done on the question. Mr. Kelly anticipated that the project would take many years to come to fruition if it ever did, and asked when and how the community could say "okay, the 'WEP' will be what the WEP will be and may not get built," and place serious staff time and money into looking into other alternatives. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Kelly. She said the council should be looking at alternative transportation strategies for improving congestion in west Eugene, and the farther the community went with the parkway, the farther away it got from a solution. Ms. Bettman thought access management was a very serious issue. She said the information provided to her suggested there would be no access management, leading to serious problems given the fact the street was to be a local city street. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of funding, noting that in her review of the packet she kept encountering past letters from ODOT calling for instant decisions on the part of the council or the funding would be at risk, and four years later the $17 million was still available. She believed the City could have benefited by negotiating to use that money for a different solution, and it would have been spent long ago with some effect. Ms. Bettman reiterated her interest in looking at other alternatives. She advised City Manager Dennis Taylor to consult with legal counsel before he signed the MOU. She wanted to know how the change being proposed affected TransPlan and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. She wanted to know the legal parameters involved. Mr. Klein said there would be many authority questions that arise depending on the nature of the negotiations. He said that Ms. Bettman's questions were good questions that must be answered, depending on the nature of what was in the IGA. Mr. Klein stressed the non-binding nature of the MOU, which stipulated that negotiations between Eugene, Lane County, and ODOT would happen. He said the manager had the authority to sign this MOU, but there were other authority questions legal counsel must resolve before he could advise the manager to sign the IGA. Ms. Bettman agreed the MOU was not legally binding, but was intended to document that future discussions will occur to define operations and maintenance roles and responsibilities. It states that the rules would change without telling the council how they would change. If the MOU had no significance, ODOT would not insist upon it. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly, Mr. Pap~ recalled the two-day charette moderated by Judge Michael Hogan in 2002 and said no other viable alternatives had arisen out of the meeting. Mayor Torrey asked the manager to keep the council informed on the status of negotiations with the State. Speaking to the ODOT representatives, he asked them to let the council know sooner rather than later if the project was not going to happen. Mayor Torrey believed that further delay did the community a tremendous disservice. He pointed out that the City lost opportunities to participate in the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA) 1, 2, and 3 because the TransPlan budget had been fully dedicated to the parkway and the community had no way of applying for those dollars. He said the parkway had never been the top priority project in the community; the highest priority was between River Road and 1-5 on the Beltline. Mayor Torrey said government should not be so slow in solving such problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Torrey reminded the council that the community had directed the City through its vote not to study another alternative. Mayor Torrey asked City Manager Taylor to write a letter to ODOT asking if the agency would participate with Eugene and Lane County in an alternative plan with staff and funding for the area east of the Beltline if the parkway was determined to no longer be a viable project. Mayor Torrey solicited a fourth round of council comments. Speaking to Mr. Papa's comments, Mr. Kelly said there were other %ack of the envelope" alternatives that arose out of the design charette, including the final recommendation made by charette participants that ODOT issue a record of no decision and not build the parkway. He suggested it was not possible to develop viable alternatives in a two-day charette, and the only way the community would come to a resolution for the west Eugene area was to give the area the same level of intense consideration that had gone into the parkway. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum from legal counsel discussing how the changed project would relate to all the past legal and public processes that had been gone through locally, and if the manager could change the nature of the project through the MOU or if TransPlan must be amended. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor that the community missed many opportunities to address safety and operational efficiency issues in west Eugene because it had committed to the parkway. Ms. Bettman recalled that half a parkway was heavily favored at the charette, but the State representatives %hot it down" because they could not guarantee the State could participate in the cost of such a project and because it did not fulfill the State's purpose and need for the parkway. Now the State was proposing a different project that probably would not compare favorably with some of the alternatives previously on the table. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 10 Work Session