Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/12/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 12, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling (via telephone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Bettman referred to minutes from the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR) that indicated staff would use the City’s legislative policy document to take a position on a bill if the IGR Committee had not met. She said in the past when there was not an opportunity for the committee to take a position on a bill, the official position was neutral. She characterized a memorandum from staff as “overly argumentative” and objected to inappropriate references to her prior comments. She acknowledged that the current IGR policy did not specifically address supplemental legislative sessions and recommended amending it to include procedures to be used during truncated sessions. Ms. Taylor expressed her continuing concerns with assessments in the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard and Friendly Street areas, which excluded properties on cul de sacs. Mr. Clark said he had attended a meeting to discuss saving Civic Stadium and encouraged the public to participate in the effort. He reported on the Police Commission’s discussion of Police Chief Bob Lehner’s response to the Lane County budget crisis, which would be discussed later in the work session. Mr. Solomon related that some Housing Policy Board (HPB) members were participating on the Planning Commission’s subcommittees on infill compatibility standards and opportunity siting and regularly reporting back to the board. She said the HPB had communicated to the Planning Commission its concerns about the potential impact of proposed policies on the availability of affordable housing. She invited everyone to attend the annual “We Are Bethel” celebration. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for organizing a Communities of Color open house for City Manager Jon Ruiz. She said it was well attended, as was the City’s open house at the Hult Center. She said the Bethel School District celebrated Mexican Mothers’ Day on May 9 and that event was very well attended. She said the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) board met for a budget review and she had requested a condensed version, including the amount contributed by jurisdictions, to share with the Budget Committee. Mr. Zelenka said a hearing on the appeal of the planning director’s decision that the University of Oregon basketball arena did not require a conditional use permit was held on May 7 before the hearings official. He supported the neighborhood’s appeal, but was also working with the University to find ways to mitigate th neighborhood concerns. He said the developer of the housing project at 19 Avenue and Alder Street had been meeting with the neighborhood to resolve problems and had agreed to construct a building more in scale with the neighborhood and provide one parking space per living unit. Mr. Ruiz announced that it was Police Officer Memorial Week and May 15 was National Public Works Day. He said a work session on assessments was scheduled for June 23. He would hold his first community listening forum on May 15 and there would be a work session on Beam development on May 14, with a public hearing scheduled on May 19. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to direct the city manager to work with McKenzie-Willamette Hospital to determine ways in which the City could as- sist in the development of a hospital on a site of McKenzie-Willamette’s choosing. Mr. Clark said he was concerned with comments from McKenzie-Willamette’s spokesperson in a recent newspaper article that indicated the hospital did not feel it had the level of support it needed from the City of Eugene. He said the Riverfront Research Park site was steadily becoming less feasible and he wanted to make a clear and unambiguous statement that the council was directing staff to give strong support to helping McKenzie-Willamette site a hospital in Eugene. He said an important aspect of locating the hospital in Eugene was the impact its property taxes could have on the City’s road maintenance deficit. Mr. Zelenka understood there were numerous discussions in progress about various sites and his concern was that the council would be weighing in at an inappropriate time. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table the motion. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Zelenka voting yes, and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark voting no. The mayor cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Solomon stated she had concerns about the Amazon headwaters issue and the recent resignation of the chair of the acquisition committee provided an opportunity for the council to pause and submit the question to the voters for approval. She felt the acquisition of headwaters properties was becoming an increasingly contentious issue, particularly since the City’s grant application to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) had been declined and the City would need to find an additional $1.9 million to fund the purchase. She said people were concerned because the acquisition had “jumped the queue” ahead of other projects that were in the last two parks bonds and she preferred to let the voters decide if the properties had priority. She was viewing all expenditures at this time through the lens of transportation funding; the voters would be asked to help the City solve its transportation backlog and it was important to establish the council’s credibility. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct staff to prepare for the No- vember 2008 election a ballot measure to determine the voters’ support for the City’s purchase of the Green and Beverly properties. Mr. Clark hoped the motion would not be tabled as the people of Eugene deserved the chance to hear the council’s position on these issues prior to an election. He agreed it was important to work to preserve the properties and was participating on the acquisition committee in good faith, although disagreement among committee members had resulted in the chair’s resignation. He felt it was important to determine how citizens felt about the issue. Ms. Bettman stated that when the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) bond was on the ballot it included acquisition of natural resource properties, which generated public support. She said the Amazon headwaters was not an emergent issue and a task force was working on it. She did not want to preempt that process and put the entire burden squarely on the shoulders of taxpayers. She asked for a copy of the OWEG grant application. Mr. Zelenka said the acquisition committee’s report would be presented to the council in June and did not see a need to refer the matter to the ballot at this time. Ms. Taylor stated she would vote against the motion as the bond measure included funds for open space and natural resources. She thought saving natural resources and water quality was far more important than solving temporary problems. Mr. Pryor said it was a challenging issue. He wanted the City to acquire the property, but did not want to condemn it or pay more than it was worth. He said the financing structure was complicated and it would be difficult for the voters to give a definitive answer without clearly understanding the details of a purchase. He preferred to develop a financing proposal first and thought there should be another appraisal of the property because market conditions had changed dramatically. Mr. Poling thanked Ms. Solomon for bringing the issue forward. He was hearing from an increasing number of people in the community, including those who had worked on getting the PROS bond passed, that the asking price for the property was too high. He would support the motion. Mr. Clark pointed out that the map and list of identified projects associated with the bond measure did not include the Amazon headwaters properties. He felt it was appropriate to discuss use of bond funds for the acquisition, although that meant they would be taken from another use. Mr. Zelenka commented that the City was still awaiting notification about its Oregon Parks and Recreation Department grant application. He agreed with Mr. Pryor that more information was needed and would not support the motion at this time. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the cost of acquisition would need to be identified if the issue was placed on the ballot. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that would depend on how the item was placed on the ballot; a general advisory vote on whether or not to buy the property would not need to include an amount, but asking the voters for additional revenue for the purchase would require a specific dollar amount. Ms. Bettman said there were still too many outstanding questions to place the matter on the ballot. Ms. Solomon disagreed. She said if the council believed that acquiring the property was a priority for the community, citizens should be able to confirm that so the City could move forward without any hesitation. She said several issues clouded that decision, including inflated property prices and questionable participa- tion on the committee by a member who owned land contiguous to the subject property. She felt that was potentially a conflict of interest and the contentious nature of the committee’s efforts was ultimately a reflection on the council, potentially undermining its credibility. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon that there were concerns with the committee’s activities. He pointed out that the City would likely have to fund a majority of the purchase in the absence of grant funding and with the expected public safety deficiencies in the City and County, it was appropriate to let the voters weigh in on how expenditures were prioritized. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting in favor. Mr. Poling left the meeting at 6:05 p.m. B. WORK SESSION: City Response to Lane County Budget Crisis Mr. Ruiz stated that the work session had been scheduled in response to $47 million in anticipated cuts in the County’s budget, many of which would directly affect the people of Eugene. He said there were two levels of discussion: the immediate public safety and public health impacts and the long-term human investments. He said the work session would focus on immediate concerns and he hoped that the long-term discussions could focus on public/private partnerships to collaboratively address the full continuum of prevention, intervention and suppression and possible restructuring of how services were provided in the region. He said recommendations for service priorities were provided in the agenda item summary (AIS) in the event the council wished to move forward with funding some of the items to be cut. He introduced Police Chief Bob Lehner and Jim Carlson, Central Services, to discuss public safety issues and recom- mended funding strategies. Chief Lehner said Lane County was facing a public safety catastrophe and he was greatly concerned about the safety and long-term viability of the community. He used the analogy of a child’s game to illustrate how, while some services were regarded as higher priority, all services were interrelated in a public safety system and it was difficult to determine the consequences of cuts on the overall system. He said recommen- dations were based on an analysis to determine which service cuts would have the most immediate and severe impacts on life and safety in the community. He reviewed the following recommendations, which were prioritized in order of life and safety impacts: 1. Buckley House - $326,000 to fill current funding gap, potentially increased by $51,000 if Human Services Commission funds are not available 2. District Attorney – $450,000 contract to fund two prosecutors, support staff and associated equip- ment and supplies to prosecute City non-person felonies 3. County Jail - $650,000 to contract with Lane County to keep 48 jail beds open for the full year, rather than six months 5. Field Law Enforcement - $191,500 in one-time funding and $518,172 in new ongoing funding to fund and equipment four vacant officer positions Chief Lehner discussed the importance of prevention and treatment programs to the public safety system and emphasized that effective treatment did not occur without prosecution of the underlying offenses and jail space to enforce associated supervision. He said specific recommendations were not made regarding those programs because not enough information was available to understand the effect of cuts, not because they were not critical services. He emphasized that if prosecution of offenses did not occur through the district attorney’s office they would need to be prosecuted through municipal court. Mr. Carlson provided an overview of animal control issues. He said the City had not been involved in animal control for three decades; it had a joint program with Lane County and Springfield, although Springfield had withdrawn from the agreement several years ago. He said the City focused on prevention and operated a spay and neuter clinic, which would continue to function. He said the future of animal services at the County level was uncertain, but the City could provide the following basic public safety service within the current budget: 4. Animal Control – provide field enforcement and kennel services by contracting with other govern- ment agencies or nonprofits or by providing the services directly with additional City staff or some combination of those by redirecting the current $660,000 General Fund allocation for animal con- trol, plus the approximately $160,000 to $180,000 in dog license revenue Continuing, Mr. Carlson reviewed agenda materials that summarized the City’s funding reserves and offered recommendations for one-time gap funding to meet the County’s budget crisis. He said staff was requesting direction from the council on how to proceed. In response to a question from Ms. Piercy regarding jail beds, Chief Lehner said the County still had contracts with the U.S. Marshal for federal prisoners and with the City for municipal court beds. He said when budget reductions were fully implemented the result would be 28 beds remaining for local prisoners. Ms. Piercy asked if there was any potential for animal services to generate sufficient revenue to be self- supporting. Mr. Carlson said the County had discussed the possibility of doubling the dog license fee, but it was not certain that would double revenues. Ms. Bettman observed that the City could eliminate its own projected deficit with the short-term funding to fill County budget gaps. She said the County was cutting 188 employees, leaving 1,390 employees and without knowing who those employees were and what priorities the County used to make budgeting decisions she questioned choices such as cuts to the district attorney’s office. She said the City had no policy discretion or ability to set budget priorities if it subsidized the County with City revenues. She pointed out that Lane County had $37 million in public works reserves and suggested requesting something in exchange if the City was going to fund law enforcement or prosecution services. She suggested that from their 46.9 million dollar road fund reserve, the County could provide the City with $1.5 million annually for three years. In exchange the city could use the facility reserve allocation equaling 4.5 million dollars to fund specific county public safety services. She said the City of Springfield had built its own jail and asked for a financial analysis of the feasibility of Eugene assuming operation of the jail. Mr. Pryor was interested in the option of exchanging funds with the County. He said while transportation system funding remained a major concern, he had to consider the additional budget issues that were being raised, including City Hall maintenance costs. He said if a new City Hall was not built the existing structure needed maintenance and that had to be a factor. He said public safety, human services, City Hall mainte- nance and transportation funding became competing interests. He was reluctant to consider one-time funding for services that required ongoing funding, such as using the Facility Reserve for police, but was willing to consider options for addressing the County’s budget crisis. Mr. Clark said he was interested in discussing the possibility of operating the jail as it would require innovative thinking to address public safety responsibilities. He was troubled by discussions of subsidizing the County or solving its problems; the problems belonged to everyone and the County’s problems were the City’s problems. He said public safety was the City’s most basic mission and highest priority and it would be irresponsible not to step up and bridge the gap. He appreciated the city manager’s recommendations and balanced approach, but hoped for a more comprehensive discussion of public safety in the future. Mr. Ruiz clarified with Mr. Pryor that his reference to filling the human services gap related to Eugene and not County-wide. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for an exchange of funds to provide the City money for road repairs. She stated it was difficult to discuss making up for the County’s budget deficits when the council had no knowledge of how the County made its budget decisions. Ms. Ortiz supported funding for law enforcement and stressed the importance of dealing with drug addiction, which was the source of many crimes, through treatment and rehabilitation programs, not just enforcement. She said programs that helped people become responsible members of society were an essential part of the public safety system. Mr. Zelenka expressed dismay that the County’s budget crisis had gotten to the point of dismantling the public safety system. He noted that there were many items not included on the list of services to be restored, such as services to veterans, high risk pregnant women, infants and children and mental health services, parole and probation, alcohol and drug treatment, alternative corrections programs and many others. He hoped the public appreciated that it was a crisis situation. He was concerned with using City reserves to provide one-time temporary funding. He was intrigued by the ideas of a County levy to fund human services and the City assuming responsibility for the jail. He asked how the City could provide animal control services within the existing budget. Mr. Carlson explained that the City would probably concentrate on the regulatory and dangerous dog aspects and work with community partners on adoption activities. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor that if a new City Hall was not built the Facility Reserve should be used to make the current building safe and secure. Chief Lehner explained that the County was forced to make substantial cuts to public safety because a majority of its General Fund was allocated to public safety and a substantial cut to the General Fund had a disproportionate affect on public safety services. He agreed with the need for a discussion of long-term solutions, but reminded the council that such a conversation would take some time and on July 1 there would be a genuine crisis if there was no short-term remedy. He viewed one-time funding as a bridge to get to a long-term solution, not merely a bandage on the problem. He said on July 1 the County’s problem would be Eugene’s problem. Regarding the Springfield jail, Chief Lehner said it was designed to be a low-risk facility that lodged low- level misdemeanants who did not have medical or mental health issues, were not mentally unstable or violent or presently addicted. He said such a facility would not address the problems facing Eugene and he was not certain that the City could operate the jail more efficiently or effectively than the County. He agreed with the need for treatment programs, but enforcement and prosecution were necessary to get people into those programs. He said based on the interest expressed by the community, animal control represented a remarkable opportunity for a private/public partnership. Ms. Piercy commented that the City could not tell other jurisdictions how to determine their financial priorities, but the current situation provided an opportunity to collaborate on how to provide services. She liked the concept of providing bridge funding while long-terms solutions were sought with State and regional partners. Ms. Bettman said it was important to address issues of cross-subsidy, equity and priorities and any proposal that the city manager presented to the Budget Committee should be factored into projections for the General Fund deficit. She thought it was irresponsible to take tax money or rates paid by Eugene residents to provide service to people who chose to live elsewhere. She said the County provided services far and wide and she would be looking for equity that any funding the City provided was constrained to serve City residents. She did not object to funding positions slated for cuts in the district attorney’s office as long as all current resources were preserved to current uses, she did not support funding services just to see the existing county funding shift to another use. She said similarly the City should pay for the cases it referred to Buckley House and not cross-subsidize other areas. She asserted that the Facility Reserve consisted of funds that were taken away from maintaining and updating the City Hall and if a new City Hall was not built a considerable reinvestment would need to be made in the current building. Mr. Pryor said he could support one-time funding if it was a bridge to long-term solutions that were sustainable. He said if funds were taken from the Facility Reserve, some portion had to be used to assure the current City Hall was functional. He said it was essential to be financially prudent with existing resources and accurately assess costs in order to make funds stretch as far as possible. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor about bridge funding leading to long-term sustainability and Ms. Bettman’s point about equitably serving the people of Eugene. He cautioned against having those discussions in an accusatory manner and hoped jurisdictions could collaborate effectively to solve problems that affected them all. He did not see assistance coming from the State or federal levels; solutions would need to be found regionally and required establishing priorities. He said in view of the budget crisis it seemed inappropriate to spend almost $8 million to acquire Amazon headwaters properties without a communitywide conversation. He hoped the council would accept the chief’s recommendations and move them to the Budget Committee for discussion. Mr. Zelenka asked if costs associated with rehabilitating the current City Hall had been estimated. Mr. Carlson said estimates had been developed and would be presented at a work session in late May or early June. Mr. Zelenka said it was important not to suggest that the County’s budget crisis had been resolved by a Eugene bailout because there were still dramatic cuts that would be made. He asked if the city manager concurred with the chief’s recommendations. Mr. Ruiz said the recommendations were his and had been developed by a team. Chief Lehner clarified that the funding recommendations for Buckley House, the district attorney’s office, the jail and field law enforcement were not saving the County; they represented a set of very limited and specific contracts to avoid a public safety crisis and its impacts on the City of Eugene. He said the County clearly understood the funding was a City backstop for Eugene residents. Ms. Piercy pointed out examples of existing collaboration among jurisdictions, such as fire departments, which maximized available resources and established the foundation for further collaboration. Ms. Bettman said any funds remaining in the Facility Reserve after the current City Hall was upgraded should be used to add patrol officers on an ongoing basis. She said despite loss of revenue, the County’s budget was $455 million and the City was considering using $2.5 million of its General Funds, when it was facing a deficit, to bolster services that the County should be providing while at the same time the County was foregoing revenue from development projects throughout the County. She said the council and the voters did not have any impact on those policy decisions and that was a problem that should be rectified immediately. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Ruiz said he understood from the council’s discussion that it was supportive of the recommendations in the AIS as long as they were viewed as a bridge to long-term solutions. He liked the concept of exchanging dollars with the County and would research how that could be achieved. Chief Lehner stressed that the County had not requested any funding; he initiated conversations with County officials to ascertain the impact on Eugene citizens when he saw the magnitude of the proposed cuts. Mr. Clark objected to the continuing discussion of whether the council should have input on how the County operated. He said he had requested the work session because the council was elected to fix problems, not blame, and should be working on solutions for the people of Eugene. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct the city manager to bring to the Budget Committee recommendations that reflected the policy discussions made by the council. Ms. Bettman asserted that the Budget Committee did not make any policy decisions, but had policy discussions about equity and providing services to the citizens of Eugene, assuring that the funds were circumscribed and whatever proportional share the City was receiving in the existing budget was not shifted to whatever contractual agreements were made. Mr. Ruiz pointed out that the funding recommendations in the AIS were not intended to be used for County services or to supplant existing County resources. Ms. Bettman agreed that was not the intent of the proposal but it was not explicit in the recommendations how the County would use funds left in its budget once the City provided funding. She used the example of funding two prosecutors and questioned whether the City would still receive the same service from the existing district attorney staff. Mr. Ruiz said he was in full agreement with the concept of equity. Mr. Carlson clarified that the district attorney was planning to spend zero dollars on prosecuting property crimes; Eugene’s share of that was zero. He said the City was proposing to contract with the district attorney to prosecute property crimes that occurred in Eugene; those services would be specific to Eugene and not supplanting funds the County was otherwise spending in unincorporated areas. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to add as a funding recommendation Eugene’s portion of the $380,000 reduction to the Human Services Commission, which would be bridge funding dedicated to Eugene citizens, with the amount to be determined. Mr. Carlson noted that the City had already provided $140,000 to the Human Services Commission during the current fiscal year and those funds had not been used. He said the County planned to use the funds for human services countywide and the $380,000 represented a portion of services that were currently provided to the unincorporated area. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Clark declined to accept the friendly amendment because of the lack of infor- mation about other budgetary issues. Chief Lehner said he understood Mr. Zelenka’s amendment was specific to the HSC funding, but not to a particular program and the same equity principles attached to the other recommendations would apply. Mr. Clark accepted the friendly amendment if the equity rules applied to all of the recommendations. Ms. Ortiz distributed an information sheet on HSC funding and the history of jurisdictional support. Mr. Clark objected to discussions of cross-jurisdictional responsibilities on one side of the equation, but not the other. He agreed with Ms. Piercy’s remarks that it was all part of a larger system and issues had to be addressed in a balanced and equitable way. Ms. Bettman said the council needed to do the best it could for the people it represented within the system and the City had consistently donated more from its General Fund than either Lane County or Springfield. Mr. Ruiz reiterated his assurance that equity principles would apply. The motion as amended passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor)