Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1991 Meeting - - - , I / / e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall July 10, 1991 11 :30 a.m. 1 COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Kaye Robinette, Paul Nicholson, Bobby Green COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan The adjourned meeting of July 8, 1991, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. 1. ITEMS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, AND CITY MANAGER A. New Public Service Officer Mr. Boles welcomed Matt Shuler, who would be replacing June Tolliver in the e position of Public Service Officer. He commended Ms. Tolliver for the excel- lent work that she did in this position. B. Quality Staff Work Mr. Boles commended City staff for the high-quality staff response that it provided regarding the Edgewood Pool. C. Citizen Advisory Committee Report on the Powerline Siting Mr. Boles said that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) recently received the Citizen Advisory Committee's report on Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) powerline siting. He said that the report is a high-quality document and urged the council to review the portion that deals with conservation. O. Art and the Vineyard Recycling Ms. Bascom asked staff to initiate a recycling strategy for next year's Art and the Vineyard celebration. E. Bach Festival Ms. Bascom reported on the success of this year's Bach Festival. She indi- cated that 32,000 people attended the festival this year and said that Eugene is fortunate to host the celebration every year. Because a large number of e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 1 e attendees come from outside the area, she asked staff to explore ways to promote a wide range of Eugene activities at these events in future years. F. Homeless Family Access Center Ms. Bascom said that she had the opportunity to visit the newly opened Home- less Family Access Center located at 19th and Pearl. She stated that the council would receive a more detailed report on the center's activities in July. G. "Dog-Off-Leash" Area Mr. MacDonald said that he has been contacted by a constituent who is greatly concerned that Tugman Park is being given consideration for the "dog-off- leash" areas because of its close proximity to a playground. The City should be considering areas that do not have close access to children. Responding to a question, Mr. Gleason said that the Joint Parks Commission (JPC) has discussed a list of standards for "dog-off-leash" areas; based on those standards, Tugman Park was removed from further consideration. In its deliberations, JPC is considering a number of areas that are relatively iso- lated and that are spaced throughout the community. Mr. Nicholson suggested that the City continue to explore a dog certification program. The council reviewed previous discussions on this issue. Ms. Ehrman said that as part of the policy, dog owners should be responsible e for cleaning up messes that dogs may make. Mr. Gleason stated that there are requirements currently in the code addressing this issue. H. Alternative Energy Vehicles Mr. MacDonald said that staff response from George Jessie, Fleet Manager, about the possibility for alternative energy vehicles was unsatisfactory. He voiced concern that progress on the council's alternative transportation goal has been slow. Recognizing the staff time that might be involved in exploring this issue further, he suggested that the City might try to get an intern from the University of Oregon to research the issue in the fall. Mr. Boles also said that he was not satisfied with the response the council received. The City should consider seriously how it positions itself as a leader with respect to the use of alternative forms of transportation. Mr. Gleason acknowledged the complexity of this issue. He said that the fleet system is designed around maximizing asset utilization and that the City would have to pay a premium for alternative-fuel source vehicles. If the council desires, it would be possible to transition to some alternative vehicles, but it would not be able to do so at a positive cost-benefit ratio. Mr. Nicholson commented that in some instances the City could replace the existing gasoline-powered fleet with bicycles, for parking meter monitoring, for instance, and asked for an analysis of the costs associated with this. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 2 e By consensus, the council requested an estimate of the costs associated with conducting a further analysis of moving toward alternative energy vehicles and, if necessary, to schedule a separate work session on this issue. Mr. Boles also suggested that staff consider how it does its costs analysis. I. Cable Franchise Issues Mr. MacDonald clarified a statement he made regarding the cable franchise update. He said TCI was aware that the FCC was considering new legislation relating to cable issues. Mr. MacDonald stated that he would contact staff for an analysis of whether the City was made aware of potential new legisla- tion. J. Citizen Involvement in the Beltline/Barger Overpass Project Mr. Green said that a group of local residents have come together to deter- mine how citizens might be involved in the Beltline/Barger overpass project. He noted that a representative of CH2M-Hill has offered to update the council on this project at any time in the future. K. Area Spraying Mr. Green requested an update on the issue of pesticide spraying in the area. He also noted that Federal legislation has been passed this session which may preempt local government from controlling this activity in the future. He asked for a summary of that legislation. e L. Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) Process Review Responding to a question from Mr. Robinette, Mr. Boles said that the ele review process has been accepted by the council during a work session with CIC, but has never been formally adopted by council. Mr. Robinette said that it would be good policy for the council to formally adopt the CIC review process. By consensus, the council agreed to do this as part of its next work session with the CIC in the fall. M. Representation of the Mayor Before the Ethics Commission At Mr. Robinette's request, Bill Gary, City Attorney's Office, reported on whether it would be appropriate for the City Attorney's Office to represent the Office of the Mayor before the Ethics Commission. Mr. Gary stated that Chapter 244 of the government ethics law governs all elected officials while holding office. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission has voted to initi- ate an investigation into an alleged violation of the ethics law by Eugene Mayor Jeff Miller and Springfield Mayor Bill Morrisette. Mr. Gary explained that ORS 244.040(7) prohibits public officials or members of their family from accepting gifts in excess of $100 from anyone who has a legislative or administrative interest in the government. Specifically, this investigation centers around the Mayors' acceptance of reimbursement for travel expenses incurred for themselves and their spouses to travel to Shreveport, Louisiana, e MINUTES--Eugene eity Council July 10, 1991 Page 3 e to attend the Independence Bowl. Travel expenses were paid by the State of Oregon through the University of Oregon. Mr. Gary said that there are several legal questions which the council must consider in making its decision: 1) Does reimbursement of travel expenses constitute a gift?; 2) was the Mayor traveling in his official capacity?; and 3) Should the Mayor's spouse be included within the exception? Mr. Gary said that crucial to this case, the council needs to determine who should decide whether the Mayor was traveling in his official capacity. He said the council must also determine whether it has a legal interest in this issue. If the council concludes that the fact of the investigation into these issues and their ultimate decisions are of concern to the City because of their impact that an adverse resolution of these issues would have on the Office of the Mayor, City Council, or the City itself, then it would be ap- propriate for the council to direct the City Attorney to defend the interest of the Mayor of the City of Eugene. Mr. Gary said that the argument being made by the Springfield City Attorney on behalf of Mayor Morrisette concerns whether the University of Oregon can ever have an interest distinct from the general public. Mr. Gary noted that representation of the individual Jeff Miller is different from representation of the Office of the Mayor. While the City Attorney's Office would be representing the Office of the Mayor, it may be prudent for Mayor Miller to seek individual counsel. e Mr. Robinette said that it is clear the that City has a vital interest in this issue. Mr. Robinette moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to direct the City Attorney to represent the Office of the Mayor issue. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Gleason said that it is his understanding that an inquiry was made through the University of Oregon to the Attorney General's Office about whether this was an appropriate expendi- ture of funds. At the time, the decision was made that this would be an appropriate expenditure. Mr. Gleason said that he also believes that an inquiry was made to the City Attorney's Office at that time about this issue; similarly, the decision was yes. Mr. Boles said that if it could be determined that the Mayor spoke with the City Attorney's Office on this issue, then it could be proven that the Mayor saw this as an official duty. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said that he does not know if the Mayor consulted with the City Attorney about the status of his wife's expenses. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 4 e Mr. MacDonald said that he would be supporting the motion. It is critical for local government to retain the authority to decide what constitutes an "official duty." He noted that the spousal issue is a different matter. Mr. Robinette said that when the Mayor is acting in his official capacity, it is not uncommon for the spouse to be serving in this role as well. Mr. Green said that he supports the motion and recommended that the council include the spousal issue as well. Ms. Bascom concurred with Mr. MacDonald on the need to retain "home rule" with respect to this issue. Discussion of this issue should be ongoing at the council level. Mr. Boles agreed. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. N. Enlarging the Rental House Property Tax Exemption Boundary Ms. Ehrman drew attention to a letter the council received from Larry Von Klein who has asked the council to consider enlarging the existing boundary of the rental housing property tax exemption. At council's request, Mr. Gleason agreed to bring back to the council infor- mation on the possible implications of enlarging the property tax boundary. e II. WORK SESSION: LIBRARY PROJECT ISSUES Lew Bowers, Planning and Development Department, gave the staff report. He presented the council with a work plan for a library implementation and reit- erated some of the key assumptions that were used to create the work plan. He said that staff believes it has good estimates of the construction cost from that schematic design. Mr. Bowers said that in creating the time line, it was staff's assumption that the council wants to make a comprehensive decision on library financing. Absent the Eugene Decisions process, it would take approximately six months to identify a library financing plan. The architect has estimated that it would take approximately 29 months to get a library open once a firm financ- ing decision has been made. Mr. Bowers presented two versions of the time line that have been prepared for council consideration: one integrates the library process with the Eu- gene Decisions process; the other does not. The Eugene Decisions time line would take approximately three months longer. Staff recommends that the council consider integrating the funding of the new library into the Eugene Decisions process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 5 e Mr. MacDonald asked City Manager Mike Gleason to comment on the option nego- tiations between the building owner and the City. In response, Mr. Gleason said that staff is in the process of negotiating the option, and said he is confident that a fair agreement will be reached. Mr. MacDonald asked whether the council might be willing to reconsider its earlier decision and initiate purchase of the Sears building at this time. He said that it is clear from the vote that there is strong community support for a library. The council should not suspend all work on the library until the final Eugene Decisions vote has come before the voters; the two issues could run simultaneously. Mr. Green noted that the City of Cleveland, Ohio, has created its own founda- tion program for meeting various civic funding needs. He suggested that Eugene explore this option for library funding. Mr. Boles expressed his support for fast-tracking the library issue. The City might be ready to consult the voters for a comprehensive decision on this issue in November. He noted it would be irresponsible for the council to separate the overhead and maintenance (O&M) costs from the capital costs. Ms. Bascom said that the library issue should be considered within the con- text of the Eugene Decisions process. She noted, however, that it might be prudent for the council to hold a separate vote on the two issues. e Mr. Nicholson agreed that library O&M costs should be considered concurrent with capital costs. He noted that many different interpretations have been made surrounding the affirmative library vote. He does not believe that the vote was a mandate for a library at the Sears site; it was rather approval of library construction in that general location. Mr. Nicholson said that he believes that it would not be difficult to reaffirm the public commitment for a library in other nearby locations. Mr. Robinette urged the council not to separate the library issue from the Eugene Decisions process and cautioned the council that separating the issues might damage the credibility of the Eugene Decisions process. It would be unwise for the council to prejudge what the outcome of the Eugene Decisions process will be. Mr. Green agreed that decisions on the library should be made in the context of the Eugene Decision process. He believes that a library will come out as a high priority of the Eugene Decisions process. Once a good financial pack- age has been created for the library, the council should initiate purchase of the building immediately. Ms. Ehrman voiced concern with the staffing implications of fast-tracking the library. She said that she continues to support building purchase, but said that O&M costs should not be separated from capital costs. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 6 Mayor Miller expressed concern with separating the library from the Eugene e Decisions process. He warned that in doing so, the council risks pitting one part of the community (in particular, those who want increased police and fire protection services) against another. He said he is also concerned that using staff time on the library issue might lengthen the Eugene Decisions time line. Mr. Nicholson argued that the council made a decision to treat this issue separately when it asked the voters to approve a library on this site. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to create a full financing package for the library that includes building ac- quisition, capitalization, and O&M costs to be presented to the voters in November. In response to Mr. Robinette's concerns, Mr. Boles noted that the council has a clear mandate from the voters to construct a library on this site. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the council follow a process similar to the Airport in which it created a subcommittee of councilors and staff to create study the issue, create a proposal, and make a recommendation to the council. She noted that with a project of this magnitude, the council has limited possi- bilities for financing. Mr. Robinette spoke in opposition to the motion. Noting that the purpose of the Eugene Decisions process is to ask the community to prioritize City ser- e vices; the library is a major component of this process and should not be withdrawn from the decision. Ms. Bascom cautioned the council that it needs to be politically wise in going to the public for a vote on the library. Timing is critical. The council may risk losing the library vote if it asks the citizens to make a decision on the issue before the Eugene Decisions process has been completed. November is too soon to conduct the type of campaign that would be necessary. Mr. MacDonald agreed with Ms. Bascom. He suggested that the motion be amend- ed to target a March election. He argued that with a March vote, the council would be better integrated with the outcome of the Eugene Decisions process and noted that it would also allow adequate time to campaign. Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Green, to amend the mo- tion to target a March 1992 library election date. Ms. Ehrman reminded councilors that the community has a long history of sup- port for a library. The library was on the Eugene Agenda when Brian Obie was Mayor. The council might be able to avoid a divisive vote, if it could iden- tify a new revenue source for the library. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 7 e Mr. Boles voiced concern with a March vote because it would be in the middle of the Eugene Decisions process. If the council cannot accomplish a campaign and vote by November, it should put the the library back into the Eugene Decisions process. Mr. Gleason reminded the council of the magnitude of the decisions that will have to be made during the Eugene Decisions process. In order to hold an election in November, all decisions would have to be made by September 5. He noted that it would be possible to take the library out of the General Fund it could be supported through some other type of tax, such as a restau- rant tax. Roll call vote; the amendment failed 1:6; with Councilor MacDonald voting in favor and councilors Boles, Bascom, Green, Robinette, Ehrman, and Nicholson voting opposed. Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mayor Miller said that he is com- mitted to both the library and the Eugene Decisions process. He voiced con- cern that the council may not understand the full consequences of Measure 5. Mr. Nicholson said he is convinced by the argument that the library would be unsuccessful if voted on in November. In order to have a successful library campaign, he supports putting the library back into the Eugene Decisions process. e Ms. Ehrman urged the council to take a leadership position on this issue and reiterated the need to form a subcommittee to begin work immediately. Mr. Boles pointed out that the Eugene Decisions process is a broad-based advisory committee; the ultimate decisions rest with the council. It might be useful to have a subcommittee examine and make a recommendation in August on whether the council could put a vote before the public in November. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to amend the main motion to proceed with a vote in November contingent upon a review by a council committee to report to the council in August and acceptance by the City Council at that time. Mr. MacDonald said that he does not believe a vote in November would be suc- cessful and would not support the motion. Roll call vote; the amendment failed 2:5, with councilors Boles and Ehrman voting in favor, and councilors Bascom, Robinette, Nicholson, Green, and MacDonald voting opposed. By consensus, it was agreed that the library would remain as a part of the Eugene Decisions process. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 8 e z~ tt~~ 'M Re-rl-Gle~s n -- City Manager (Recorded by Traci Northman) mncc 071091-1130 e - MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 1991 Page 9