Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/1991 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Conference Room April 22, 1991 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Kaye Robinette, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Bobby Green, Paul Nicholson. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. EUGENE DECISIONS--DESIGN UPDATE Barb Bellamy of the City Manager's Office said she had met the previous week with the council officers about the Eugene Decisions design update and sever- al issues discussed at this meeting were referred to the council as a whole. Ms. Bellamy said the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) would meet the fol- lowing day, April 23, to discuss the plan design, and the council officers would meet again on Friday, April 26, to discuss the outcome of the CIC meet- ing, and any suggestions which might result from this City Council meeting. Ms. Bellamy said staff hoped the process design would be ready for final council approval on May 8. She said each City department is preparing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of its own ser- vices. She said the council and executive managers would probably review the top ten issues listed by each department to discern common themes City-wide. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Ms. Bellamy said participants in the Community Leaders meeting had voiced both that the Eugene Decision pro- cess should be quicker and that it should be slower. She said adjustments in the timing of the plan would be up to the judgment of the council. Ms. Bellamy reviewed the steps in the planning process leading up to imple- mentation of Eugene Decisions. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Ms. Bellamy said the Eugene Deci- sions process should be workable in that it identifies basic decision-making steps, problems and opportunities, and then develops strategies. In response to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Bellamy said guiding prem- ises could be developed later in -the Eugene Decisions process than planned if necessary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 1 e e e' Ms. Bellamy said that although the council had hoped to conclude the Eugene Decisions process by November 1991, this would not be possible, due in large part to the public involvement process. She said Eugene Decisions would probably conclude no sooner than February 1992, but this still provided the opportunity for a public vote on the plan in Mayor June. Ms. Ehrman said it had been her understanding that the Eugene Decision pro- cess was supposed to help City Manager Mike Gleason prepare the FY93 budget. She said this did not seem possible if the deadline was February 1992. Ms. Bellamy said a budget addendum could be added to the general budget if the strategic plan were completed in February. She said the Budget Committee process began in April. Mr. Gleason said the budget document would have been prepared for printing by February 1992, but an addendum could be added to this. Mr. Rutan said the Eugene Decisions process would recommend major financial changes at the City and he was not sure that strategies issued in February could possibly have this effect. Mr. Gleason said the FY92 budget envisioned a $2 million reserve fund for contingencies which would allow some time to implement budgetary decisions. . He said any decision to eliminate services would probably take about 18 months to implement; it could not be expected to be fully enacted in FY92. Ms. Ehrman asked if an attempt could be made to complete Eugene Decisions by November. Ms. Bellamy said it was ambitious to attempt even a February dead- line. Mr. Gleason explained that public decision-making processes involve the cycling of information between the public and the council which adds one to two months to the overall process. He said staff needed time to process information for both the public and the council. He said the council should focus on the goal of a community-supported, multi-year service plan and con- sider how many resources the City could afford to spend on this project. Mr. MacDonald said he did not want to compress the Eugene Decision process into too short a period. He said a February deadline was acceptable to him. He added that the budget process must be flexible. Mr. Boles said the council should be prepared to see the time line for Eugene Decisions stretch~ He said the February deadline assumed that councilors would agree to changes in its 1991 workplan, but that there would probably be resistance to these changes. In response to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Ms. Bellamy said the process for developing preliminary strategies would involve: 1) council development of rough-cut preliminary strategies; 2) Community leaders Workshop (about July 27), review of premises and rough-cut strategies; and 3) council comple- tion of preliminary strategies. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 2 e e e Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the Community Involvement Plan included citi- zen involvement in identifying preliminary strategies. Mr. Robinette said the council officers were recommending that the Community Leaders group, plus additional citizens such as business representatives, be involved at this level, but that public workshops not take place until the next step of the plan, the evaluation of the premises and preliminary strategies. In response to comments by Ms. Bascom tha~ the public was involved in the Eugene Decisions process at two all-day meetings of the Joint Parks Commit- tee, Mr. Nicholson said he did not object to the change in timing of citizen involvement, but was merely attempting to clarify that this change had been recommended. Mr. Boles asked if the council was in agreement that the public would evalu- ate preliminary strategies and comment on guiding premises at the next sched- uled public workshops. Mr. Gleason pointed out that the council's preliminary strategies must have the approval of the public before substantial staff time was spent developing these strategies. Tony Mounts of the Finance Division said that before staff spent a great deal of time describing what City services would look like in five years if cer- tain gUiding premises and strategies were utilized, these premises and strat- egies should be taken back to the public one last time for comment. Mr. Gleason said the two factors being balanced for each step of Eugene Deci- sions were public involvement and the time line. He said it was important not to waste staff time preparing analyses for strategies which the public did not support. He asked if backtracking for a second public approval of premises and guidelines would still allow for a February deadline. Ms. Bellamy said the participants at the Community Leaders workshop in July would need to realize that the preliminary strategies they identified were only in rough drafts because of the need for review by the public. Mr. Gleason said the council would have a chance to review and change various aspects of the strategic plan at the two decision points in the planning process. Mr. Boles asked when the City planned to issue its annual survey of citizens. Ms. Bellamy said the survey would be conducted soon because staff wanted to submit the results to the council with the SWOT analyses. Mr. MacDonald said he had envisioned conducting this survey later in the Eugene Decisions process. He asked the cost of the survey and whether the City had considered conducting a survey on Eugene Decisions strategies. Ms. Bellamy said a survey would probably be needed as part of evaluating premises and preliminary strategies, and detailed strategies. Mr. Boles said the general community survey cost about $10,000. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 3 . e e In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Mounts said staff was assuming that council would reconvene in early July to evaluate preliminary strategies which would go to the Community Leaders the last week in July. He said a community workshop could be held in early October. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Mounts said staff planned to eliminate the public workshop in July, although the Community Leaders Work- shop would be held in July. Mr. Gleason added that an expanded group of 60 Community Leaders would replace the public workshop. Mayor Miller pointed out that a public workshop could still be held in July if it were scheduled close to the time of the Community Leaders Workshop. Mr. MacDonald said he would like to hold both an expanded Community Leaders Workshop and a large public workshop to avoid the perception that the public was being excluded. Mr. Boles said the council officers had discussed broadening community par- ticipation as the range of options for Eugene Decisions became clearer and smaller. He said the officers did not feel that the community needed to be involved in identifying guiding premises or preliminary strategies. Mr. Robinette added that he felt the general public would not understand the steps in the process until it reached the point of evaluating premises and preliminary strategies. Mr. MacDonald said a second public workshop, on premises and strategies, seemed unnecessary because it was followed closely by a public hearing. Mr. Gleason said the council officers had convinced him that a second public workshop would be useful because it would involve a smaller group of people than the public hearing and would allow staff to test the public's under- standing of the language used to explain premises and strategies. Mr. MacDonald said he was concerned about the public's perception of the process. He suggested that the Community Leaders should evaluate not only preliminary strategies, but also premises. Mr. Boles said the Community Leaders should be involved in identifying guid- ing premises and preliminary strategies, whereas participants in public work- shops should identify guiding premises and evaluate premises and preliminary strategies. Mr. MacDonald questioned how much influence the public would have in evaluat- ing premises after staff time had already been taken to prepare these premis- es. Mayor Miller said it was important that the community feel well-repre- sented by the Community Leaders and that this group be in consensus. Mr. Rutan said the average person would not be well-versed on the issues involved in identifying premises. He said the idea of a large open public forum to identify premises seemed reasonable, but was in reality not work- able. He said the Eugene Decisions design involved a great deal of community participation even without citizen involvement in identifying premises. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 4 e Ms. Bascom said it was important that the Community Leaders group be expanded as requested by the original group which met on April 1. Mr. Boles suggested the community survey be conducted after initial premises were identified to test the premises validity in the community. Mr. MacDonald added that conducting the survey at this time would seem to make better sense than linking survey results to the SWOT analysis. He said the SWOT analysis did not depend on public perception, whereas premises would. e Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Gleason both voiced concern that a survey in conjunction with premises would delay the creation of strategies, thus slowing down the whole process. Mr. Boles said that if the survey were conducted between the end of June and the end of July, it should not delay the overall process. The council agreed to the steps in the Community Involvement Plan as outlined and modified at this meeting. Mr. Boles noted that one of the modifications was a survey to be taken between identifying guiding premises and evaluating premises and preliminary strategies. . Terry Moore, Eugene Decision consultant from ECO Northwest, said a premise could be defined as a principle, assumption, or framework. He said the prem- ise would frame the rest of the discussion about Eugene Decisions. Mr. MacDonald said the premise should not constrain the process or presuppose outcomes. Ms. Bellamy said premises should cover a range of opportunities. Mr. Boles said the premises would need to be mutually exclusive. Mr. Moore said premises are like goals and strategies are similar to poli- cies. Mr. MacDonald said premises should be tested on their validity for the community. Mr. Gleason said issues such as those being discussed at this meeting would ultimately need to be decided by the council officers group because of the need to keep to a time line. Mr. Boles said this was reasonable as long as members of the subcommittees were given time periodically to check back on issues with the other councilors. In response to a question from Ms. Bellamy, the council agreed that it would attempt to select a financial strategy plan by February 25. Ms. Bellamy said the council officers had recommended that the City Council serve as steering committee for Eugene Decisions. She said another option was to have an expanded steering committee which included the council and other selected citizens. Mayor Miller said it seemed reasonable to use the council as the initial steering committee, with the option of expanding mem- bership from among City commissions and committees at a later date, if neces- sary. Mr. Robinette said the creation of a larger steering committee would lengthen the time line for the Eugene Decision process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 5 ... ..~.....a..-...... e e e Mr. Boles said the four reasons why the council officers had recommended the council serve as steering committee were: 1) political--the council would be unable to craft a steering committee of citizens without causing some to feel disenfranchised; 2) the council, as elected representatives, is responsible for the outcome of the strategy planning process; 3) participation could be broadened at a later date, if desired; and 4) the councilors agreed to the concept of the council as a steering committee, whereas they would not agree to his idea of a lottery of interested citizens. Ms. Ehrman suggested the Budget Committee serve as the steering committee. She said this group included eight community members with budget experience who would be ready to start meeting immediately. Ms. Bascom said that she would not choose those on the Budget Committee. Mr. Green said he felt those on the committee were qualified to serve on the steering committee. Mr. Miller said he did not feel the issue was as much who was qualified as who would be the most productive people to have on the steering committee, who also represented the community. He said the council was one such group and had the ability to expand quickly. Mr. Boles said he did not think any strategy would allow the council to ex- pand but not seem to "close the door" on some group. Ms. Ehrman said that if the council were the sum total of the steering committee it would lend to the community's perception that Eugene Decisions was a "done deal." Mr. Nicholson said he liked Mr. Boles' proposal that the City should take all submitted applications and choose members by lottery. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that the Budget Committee and the Mayor serve as the steering committee for Eugene Decisions. Mr. MacDonald said he favored more community involvement in the planning process prior to strategy development. However, he said that although he was not in opposition to the Budget Committee, he was concerned that the steering committee could become too large a group to be workable. Ms. Ehrman said members of the Budget Committee were current with the issues. She said inclusion of this group would add to the public ownership of the final plan. She said selection of the Budget Committee would not add that many more members to the steering committee than if it were composed only of council members. Ms. Bascom said the Budget Committee's expertise and knowledge was fairly limited in comparison to that of the councilors. Mr. Boles said he was against the motion, but felt it should be reconsidered after the evaluation of premises and preliminary strategies, at which time the plan would have a larger framework. He said it was the responsibility of the council to identify the guiding premises and it would be a disservice to the community for the council to do otherwise. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 6 e e e Mr. Nicholson said he was not sure whether the kind of experience those on the council had made it a more knowledgeable group than others in the commu- nity. He said many individuals in the community were knowledgeable and Ms. Ehrman's proposal would provide a broader framework for the plan. Mayor Miller suggested that the Planning Commission be considered as poten- tial members of the steering committee. Roll call vote; the motion was defeated 5:4, with councilors Robinette, Bascom, Rutan, and Boles, and Mayor Miller voting against {Mayor Miller voting to break the tie}; and councilors MacDonald, Nicholson, Ehrman, and Green voting aye. In response to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Boles said his suggestion to the council officers was that people who represented a random sample of the community should be chosen by lottery to serve on the steering committee. Ms. Bellamy said a Citywide SWOT analysis would take place about mid-May and asked if the council wished to participate in this process. Mr. Gleason said each City department was holding mini-workshops to assemble service data and to formulate this into a document. He said the council would get a sense of the issues involved if it participated. Mr. Boles asked if the staff of each City department was compelled to list ten issues for its SWOT analysis. Mr. Gleason said they were not but that most would have trouble limiting the total number to ten. Ms. Bellamy said the council might not have to see the top ten issues listed by each depart- ment. She said this might be narrowed down to the top five issues before being shown to the council. Mr. MacDonald said all levels of personnel at the City should be involved in preparing the SWOT analysis. Mr. Gleason said all employees would be repre- sented, including union representatives. Ms. Ehrman asked if the council would observe or interact with staff during the SWOT process. She said the council's interaction might impede the pro- cess. Mr. Gleason said he recommended that the council serve as observers. Mr. Boles recommended that the council serve as observers during the staff process of identifying service problems and opportunities, except in the case of the City Manager's Office, with which it should interact. He further suggested that the council and the executive managers interact during the process of identifying Citywide problems and opportunities. Ms. Bellamy asked for confirmation that the council work group for Eugene Decisions would continue to be the Mayor, and councilors Boles, Rutan, and Robinette. This was confirmed. Ms. Bascom pointed out that any councilors were free to attend these meetings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 7 e e e Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette>> that the council act as the steering committee for Eugene Decisions. Roll call vote; the motion passed 5:3, with councilors Rutan, MacDonald>> Bascom, Robinette, and Bascom voting aye; and councilors Nicholson, Ehrman, and Green voting against. Mr. Gleason pointed out that budget preparation and the Eugene Decisions processes were being carried out simultaneously. He said any simplification of the budget process would make the February deadline for Eugene Decisions that much more realistic. He said it was natural to try to focus on issues which could be helped immediately by an influx of revenue but that to ap- proach budgeting in this manner would adversely affect Eugene Decisions. Mr. Boles said simplification of the budget process could not necessarily ensure that Eugene Decisions would be completed by February. In addition, he said some community concerns could be resolved through immediate budgetary measures without harming the Eugene Decision process. II. APPROVAL OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 1991 Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to approve actions taken by the Intergovernmental Relations Committee in its meeting of April 10, 1991, as reflected in the minutes as amended, and minus those actions deleted. Mr. MacDonald asked that the third paragraph on page 11 of the Intergovern- mental Relations Committee minutes of April 10, 1991, be changed to read: "He said he had contacted representatives of the two groups identified as possibly in opposition, and found that neither group planned to oppose the bills. He expressed concern that these two groups have been regularly identified as possibly in opposition without adequate staff analysis." Bills deleted from the minutes for future full council consideration includ- ed: HB2884; HB2743; HB3439; SB0738; SB0739; HB3418; SB1082; and SB0692. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. III. HOUSE BILL 2884--ALLOWING COUNTIES, CITIES, AND DISTRICTS TO SUE IF FALSE STATEMENTS LED TO DEFEAT OF MEASURE WHICH COUNTY, CITY, OR DISTRICT REFERRED Mr. Rutan said he did not support the staff recommendation on HB2884. He said this bill could cause the City to be involved in litigation with citizen groups. In addition, he said passage of the bill was not overly important to staff. He said the bill was a bad idea and that cities should not be given more opportunities to argue with the public. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 8 e e e Mr. Nicholson said he agreed with Mr. Rutan. He said the City should not put itself in the position of being punitive toward the general public. Ms. Bascom said she, too, agreed that support for the the bill should be dropped. She said support of the bill would move the City closer to the litigious nature of society. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the council should be neutral towards the bill. She noted that it a member of the lane County legislative delegation was sponsoring the bill. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, that the council adopt a neutral position policy on HB2884. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~fI~f.:' Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Kris Bloch) mncc 042291 MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 22, 1991 Page 9