Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1989 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall August 9, 1989 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Emily Schue, Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Bobby Green. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Shawn Boles, Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by Mayor Jeff Mill er. 1. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. Accessibility of the Shelton-McMurphey House Ms. Ehrman said the steering committee for the Shelton-McMurphey House recommended to the Lane County Board of Commissioners that a lift be e installed in the Shelton-McMurphey House to make it accessible to the disabled. Members of Eugene's Commission on the Rights of People with Disabilities have asked the County Commissioners to consider installing a ramp instead because they feel lifts are problematic. The Cou~ty Commissioners have delayed a decision until they have more information. Ms. Ehrman said the house will not be accessible in time for the Eugene Celebration. B. City Support for International Track City Classic Mr. Green said the International Track City Classic is a fine event and was a huge success this year. He said he would like the event to continue in this community and wants the City to increase its contribution to the event, if possible. C. Willamette Science and Technology Center (WISTEC) Ms. Schue said WISTEC was forced to close because of financial difficulties. She and Ms. Bascom asked for council approval of staff work on possible ways the City could help support WISTEC. Ms. Bascom emphasized that council approval would be only for the staff work and would not be a commitment of funding to WISTEC. Ms. Bascom said she would also like the council to consider a request for emergency funding at a separate meeting. Councilors gave approval for preliminary staff work on ways to support WISTEC and agreed to hear a report based on this information. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 1 e Deborah McCarty, Director of WISTEC, said the WISTEC Board of Directors has prepared two plans for its future: a closing plan and a mothball plan. The closing plan would be completed by August 31 and would dissolve the WISTEC Corporation. The mothball plan would put the WISTEC Corporation in a holding pattern for three months while it seeks stable funding and would allow WISTEC to remain open. Ms. McCarty distributed information summarizing these two plans and their proposed budgets. She emphasized that WISTEC is looking to a wide variety of groups for funding, not just the City. Mr. Bennett noted that many groups look at room taxes as a source of funding. He urged commissioners to remember this when deciding whether to become involved with funding WISTEC. Mr. Bennett stated that the council should consider the long-term interests of the community in deciding how to allocate room tax revenues. D. Airport Rules and Regulations Mayor Miller noted that Mr. Holmer would like the council to discuss the airport rules and regulations. According to council rules, two councilors must request a review of the rules and regulations before they can be scheduled for council discussion. Mayor Miller asked if another councilor would second Mr. Holmer's request. Mr. Bennett did so. E. Representation on the Gangs Task Force e Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to appoint councilors Boles and Green as official council representatives to the Gangs Task Force. I!. ORDINANCE TO ACCEPT THE FINAL AMOUNT OF THE CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION AND MATURITY SCHEDULE David Biedermann, Finance Division, gave the staff report. He said the City completed the sale of the Certificates of Participation, 1989, on July 27. This ordinance is action to adopt the final amount of that refunding issues and the maturity schedule for the Eugene Conference Center. He said this refunding has saved the Eugene Renewal Agency $300,000 and is the second, and final, refunding to occur for the conference center. Mr. Biedermann said staff's goal is to hit the market as it is going down; staff feels it has been successful ;n accomplishing this goal. CB 4153--An ordinance to adopt the final amount of the Certificates of Participation and Maturity Schedule. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 2 e Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0, and became Ordinance 19629. III. INITIATIVE/REFERENDUM PETITION PROCESS Mr. Biedermann gave the staff report. He said the City Council requested that staff review the City Code concerning initiative and referendum petition processes. That analysis was given to the Council in late May; at that time, the council referred the issue to the Council Committee on Committees. He said the purpose of this work session is to review changes to the City Code proposed by the Council Committee on Committees. Mr. Biedermann said that one proposal is to change the number of signatures required to place initiatives and referendums on the ballot. The Council Committee on Committees proposes to change the number of signatures required for an initiative petition to 15 percent of registered voters in the city, and for a referendum petition to 10 percent of registered voters in the city. Previously, the number of required signatures has been based on the total number of votes in the last mayoral election. The effect of the change is to raise the number of signatures for initiatives and referendums from 7,654 to 9,524 and from 5,103 to 6,349 respectively. Ms. Ehrman asked when the number of registered voters is determined. Mr. Biedermann said the number of registered voters is updated monthly by the e County. Thus, the number of signatures required for a petition would be determined at the time a petition comes in. Ms. Ehrman stated that the number of registered voters is never completely correct, so this method of calculation would still produce an artificial number. Kathy Fieland, City Recorder's Office, said that Lane County Elections has automated its office and is much quicker at processing voter registrations. She added that Lane County Elections purges its records after every general election and every mail election. Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is also proposing a change in the number of votes required to pass a measure. Specifically, the committee is proposing that if there are conflicting measures on a ballot, the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes will be paramount. Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is also proposing that the council set a period of six months from issuance of ballot title by the City Attorney for the petitioner to begin collecting signatures. If the collection is not started within that time, the ballot title would become void. It is currently possible for a ballot title to be assigned by the City Attorney and then have the sponsors take no action on the collection of signatures. This provision would eliminate that possibility. Mr. Biedermann emphasized that this would not prohibit a party from seeking issuance of the same ballot title. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 3 e Mayor Miller asked how staff arrived at a time limit of six months. Mr. Biedermann said the figure is arbitrary. City Manager Mike Gleason said he feels six months is too long and stressed the importance of setting some time 1 i mit. He said that without a time limit, people can take out ballot titles and hold them as a threat, without acting on them. Mr. Holmer suggested that the time limit be reduced from six months to three months. Other councilors agreed. Ms. Ehrman noted that she preferred the six month time frame. Mr. Holmer questioned staff's proposal to clarify that lithe five-day limit for ballot title preparation by the City Attorney, the five-day limit for appeal by a dissatisfied elector to council requesting a different title, and the three-day limit for the council to afford a hearing are business days (not calendar days)." Mr. Holmer noted that petitioners only have 30 days to collect the requisite signatures for a referendum. He thought that using "business days" as a standard for processing a referendum would not give petitioners ample time to collect signatures. The council agreed to use calendar days as a standard of measurement for referendum petitions and business days as a standard of measurement for initiative petitions. Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is suggesting that a section be included in the code noting that the elector may petition the circuit court of the judicial district for review of the council's decision. This will clarify the review process, and will remove the council from the position of having to choose between a citizen title concern and the efforts e of the City Attorney. Mr. Biedermann said the Council Committee on Committees is also proposing to add a section to the code giving the City Attorney the authority to reject a prospective petition not of a legislative character. This will dissuade spurious initiative campaigns which have nothing to do with the legislative business of the City. Mr. Holmer thought the City Council, rather than the City Attorney, should judge whether a petition is legislative in character. Mr. Sercombe said there are a large number of legal tests that have evolved in the referendum and initiative process to distinguish between those things that are legislative and the proper things for people to petition and vote on, and those things that are administrative. Mr. Sercombe said that if the council sets itself up to make this determination, he would strongly recommend that the council provide for the role of the City Attorney in that process. He reiterated that at bottom, this is a legal classification decision and not a policy issue. Mr. Holmer said he believes that if a petitioner feels the City Attorney made the wrong classification and appeals the decision, that appeal should be heard by a legislative body--the City Council--rather than by a judicial body. Mr. Sercombe pointed out that under such a scenario, the City Council would be hearing an appeal of a decision by the City Attorney while at the same time receiving legal advice from the City Attorney. He added that the City Council has the authority to initiate a piece of legislation for a vote. Thus, if the council wanted a voted on an issue for which the City Attorney e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 4 . denied a ballot title, the council could direct the City Attorney to draft language for a ballot title that is of legislative character. Councilors agreed to include a section in the Code giving the City Attorney the authority to reject a prospective petition that is not of legislative character. Mr. Holmer noted his opposition to this proposal. Mr. Biedermann described several changes to the referendum/initiative process, which he described as IIhousekeeping" measures. One of these changes would require that measures be filed with the Finance Officer no less than 45 days prior to the election. This 15-day extension would give the City Recorder more time to verify signatures. Mr. Holmer said he sympathizes with the pressures on the City Recorder but said he is uncomfortable lengthening the process. Another change would require the nominating petition to be filed at least 75 days prior to the election; this change represents a five-day increase. Mr. Holmer said the State requires that nominating petitions be filed at least 70 days prior to an election. He thought that the City's process should be kept in sync with the State's. Ms. Fieland stated that the City Recorder's Office needs additional time because of its interaction with the County. The City needs to verify signatures on the 70th day and turn in the signatures to Lane County Elections; this does not give the City Recorder enough time to verify signatures on petitions submitted at the last minute. Mr. Biedermann said staff is proposing to change the number of days for e verification of signatures on a petition by the Finance Officer from 10 to 15. Ms. Fieland said implementation of this change will bring the City into compliance with State laws and will eliminate the need to pay overtime to employees to meet the 10-day time limit. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to direct staff to draft an ordinance reflecting the discussion above and that a public hearing be scheduled. The motion passed 5:0:1, with Mr. Holmer abstaining. IV. REPORT ON VOTERS' PAMPHLET Barb Bellamy, City Manager's Office, said that as originally envisioned, most voters' pamphlets would require only eight pages, at an approximate cost of $6,5000 for printing and mailing. Pamphlets published to date have ranged from 8-24 pages and have been more costly than anticipated. This is due in part to increasing postage rates and printing costs. Additional factors are publication size, staffing level, City Attorney assistance required by the committee drafting the neutral statement, and Lane County Elections charges for signature verification on arguments. Ms. Bellamy reviewed three options: 1) retain the ordinance, which allows the council to determine, for each election, whether a local voters' pamphlet should be published; 2) repeal the local voters' pamphlet ordinance; and 3) consider ways to reduce City costs . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 5 e in producing the pamphlet, which could include modifying the fee structure for arguments submitted for publication. Mr. Holmer asked whether staff has considered limiting the size of the pamphlet to eight pages, making those who wish to submit arguments compete for space in the pamphlet. Ms. Bellamy said the council could do this, but it would impose an artificial limit on the number of pro and con arguments that could be printed. Ms. Bellamy added that the council committee that recommended the voters' pamphlet ordinance assumed most people would choose to pay a fee to submit an argument rather than collect signatures; however, very few people choose to pay the fee. Ms. Bellamy said the council could require a fee for every argument. Ms. Ehrman asked if the pamphlet could be distributed with the newspaper to help reduce distribution costs. Ms. Bellamy said staff checked into this. The Register-Guard requires that inserts go to an entire circulation area--in this case, to all of Lane County. To do this, the City would have to print approximately 15,000 extra pamphlets. In addition, not all registered voters subscribe to The Register-Guard. Mr. Bennett suggested that the size of the pamphlet be limited by appointing representative committees to draft the pro and con arguments, with both arguments being paid for. Mr. Sercombe said the State has a loosely analogous process in its voters' pamphlet ordinance. In the State's process, a legislative committee is appointed to draft a pro statement when the legislature proposes a referendum or initiative. e Mr. Holmer said those who are initiating a measure could automatically be charged with drafting the pro statement, so the council would only have to authorize an "anti" committee. Mr. Holmer thought that the Ci~y should pay for this additional committee. Ms. Bellamy thought this would be less expensive than the current process. Ms. Bascom reminded councilors that the voters' pamphlet was intended to be experimental. She did not feel it has been successful so far, and said the user surveys indicate this. Mr. Bennett said he agrees that the cost of the voters' pamphlet needs to be reduced, but he does not believe the voters' pamphlet should be eliminated. He said the voters' pamphlet is a helpful means of distributing information to people who need it. Mayor Miller requested that staff return to the council with the following: 1) an analysis on the cost of distributing the voters. pamphlet in The Register-Guard; 2) an analysis of the cost of a pamphlet containing the ballot text and a neutral explanation; 3) an analysis of the cost of a pamphlet containing the ballot text, a neutral explanation, and pro and con arguments; and 4) an analysis of the cost of printing the pamphlet in other shapes and sizes. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 6 . V. NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY REVIEW Christine Donahue, Neighborhood Liaison, introduced several neighborhood leaders and members of the Neighborhood Boundary Review Advisory Committee (NBRAC). She said a review of the neighborhood organization boundaries was initiated at the recommendation of the Citizen Participation Review Team, a task team that made a series of recommendations to the City Council in 1986 on citizen involvement and public information. In January 1988, volunteers from the Neighborhood Leaders Association and the Citizen Involvement Committee formed NBRAC. The committee developed a list of goals that included the following: include all Eugene residences within the boundaries of a recognized neighborhood; include public buildings within their boundaries, such as community centers and schools; coordinate with elected officials within their boundaries; facilitate citizen/government relationships; and represent the parochial interests within the neighborhood regions. Ms. Donahue said NBRAC considered information from a variety of sources as it studied the boundaries, including: the history of the various neighborhoods, geography, commercial patterns, transportation patterns, established planning districts, ward boundaries, and information about how residents interact with one another and with local government units. Ms. Donahue said NBRAC proposed that seven neighborhood regions be formed, incorporating all residences within the city limits. NBRAC proposed that residences in the various regions determine how their region would e operate--they could operate as a large neighborhood area or as a series of small areas, for example. Ms. Donahue said the Neighborhood Leaders Association ultimately voted not to accept the regional proposal. Concer.ns expressed by the leaders included disagreement with some of the actual geographic boundaries and concerns about the organizational structure of neighborhood regions. Mr. Holmer said he would like the neighborhood boundaries to be more consistent with ward boundaries. Mayor Miller suggested that the council revisit this issue after completion of the 1990 census. Ms. Ehrman agreed with this suggestion. Ms. Bascom said the Neighborhood Leaders Association did not favor the regional approach to neighborhoods; she felt the council should support this decision and not address this issue further. Mr. Bennett questioned the representativeness of neighborhood groups; he said very few people attend most neighborhood meetings. He said he would like a very broad-based neighborhood organization to be created. Mr. Bennett stated that changes can be made to strengthen the neighborhood organization. He did not feel the council should drop the idea of realigning neighborhood boundaries if realignment would strengthen the program. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 7 - Ms. Schue thought the council should not force the regional proposal on neighborhoods that do not want to reorganize. She thought, however, that the council should remain open to changes in boundaries that come from the neighborhoods. Mr. Holmer agreed that the council should consider new neighborhood configurations reflecting common interests. The council reached consensus not to pursue the regional proposal, but informally to encourage neighborhood groups to reconfigure their boundaries to include nonincorporated areas and to reflect common interests. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. RespectfjJ.1...ly submi tte" ;'::::',': :':~:',.-,":-:',:~S:;~'<:~/P ( ,,"" ,/' '-"~,,,--;:- - Micneal Gleason/'" City Manager (Recorded by Tanya Northman) MNCC 080989 e e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1989 Page 8