Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/09/23 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 9, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. 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. Piercy said she had attended an awards ceremony at Cal Young Middle School for student Hunter Hastings, who had won a national letter-writing competition. Mr. Pryor said the Active Bethel celebration was an enjoyable event. He announced he was representing the mayor at the Bethel School District to deliver a proclamation against hate speech and discriminatory activities and would have to leave the work session by 7 p.m. Ms. Ortiz thanked City Manager Jon Ruiz for his efforts on behalf of the WOW Hall. She reminded Bethel and Trainsong neighbors of a June 10 open house about planned Eugene Water & Electric board (EWEB) projects. She was pleased with community interaction during the city manager’s recent visit to the Whitaker neighborhood. She noted that the Downtown Neighborhood Association was active again and meetings well attended. Mr. Poling said the city manager would hold a community forum at Cal Young Middle School on June 12 and another forum at Sheldon Community Center on June 19. He encouraged everyone to attend the SafetyFest at Alton Baker Park on June 21. Mr. Clark reminded Ward 5 neighbors living on Bond Lane that there would be a meeting on June 24 at Sheldon Community Center. He said the annual Willamette River cleanup would occur on June 14 and thanked REI for its sponsorship. Ms. Taylor noted that the city manager would visit Parker Elementary School on June 11. She attended the National League of Cities (NLC) Human Development Steering Committee meeting. She said the committee’s work was focused primarily on health care and parental involvement in schools. She would provide a report to the council. She said the NLC lobbyist had asked elected officials across the county to write letters in support of Amtrak reauthorization. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Zelenka announced that the Fairmount Neighbors had prevailed in their appeal of the planning director’s decision regarding a conditional use permit for the University of Oregon basketball arena. He was not opposed to moving forward with the alley vacation, but asked that the council delay final action until it was more synchronized with the rest of the arena planning process. Mr. Clark said the Amazon Headwaters Acquisition Committee’s report would be completed this week and thanked Mr. Zelenka for his work in finding compromises among committee members’ positions. Ms. Piercy commented that she had attended the We Are Bethel celebration and was amazed at the large turnout. She said it was becoming an institution in the community. Ms. Ortiz said there were hundreds of people in attendance and a large percentage were children. th Mr. Ruiz announced there would be a June 17 public meeting to review proposals in response to the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street Request for Proposals (RFP). The council would consider propels on July th 16. He said that WestTown on 8 was being occupied by residents and a grand opening as scheduled for August; there would be a June 10 ground breaking for the Prairie View affordable housing project in Bethel. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Public Safety Zone Police Chief Bob Lehner introduced Sgt. Pete Kerns to present the topic. He also introduced that Dan Barkovic from the city prosecutor’s office, Jerome Lidz and Lauren Sommers from the city attorney’s office and Judge Edwin Allen, who were available to respond to questions. Sgt. Kerns described the three options developed in response to the council’s direction. He said two options were exclusion ordinances and the third was an enhanced penalty zone; however, discussions with the Municipal Court indicated the enhanced penalty zone would probably not be effective. He said Option A would impose a 90-day exclusion on an offender upon arrest or citation for one of the offenses listed in the ordinance, with a one-year exclusion upon conviction. Option B would exclude persons for one year upon conviction of the commission of certain offenses within the downtown boundaries. He said a judge would impose the exclusion under both ordinances and there were provisions for appeal of the exclusion. Mr. Clark favored Option A as a reflection of the council’s previous discussions. He preferred the term “time out zone” instead of exclusion order. He asked how the geographic boundary of the exclusionary zone was determined. Sgt. Kerns said the boundary was based on the area were most offenses occurred, based on experience. Mr. Clark suggested that the western boundary be moved one block further to the west to include businesses that had experienced a significant number of problems. Ms. Solomon asked if the police department had the capacity to maintain a consistent police presence in the exclusion zone. Sgt. Kerns replied that two officers were on one-year assignments in the downtown area and the ordinance would be a tool for them to use. He said the department was not presently able to add a third officer. Ms. Solomon noted that Option B based the exclusion on a conviction and asked how long it could take for a conviction to occur. Mr. Barkovic replied that the length of time depended on a variety of factors. He said the problem with waiting for a conviction was that there were many instances when someone failed to appear in court on the charges and it could be six to nine months between arrest or citation and the trial. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Solomon indicated she preferred Option A and supported Mr. Clark’s suggestion to expand the western boundary. She noted a letter from Linda Henry regarding problems occurring outside of the library and was pleased the library was included in the ordinance boundary. Ms. Ortiz was willing to discuss the ordinance and conduct a public hearing to receive community feedback. She said in the past the Human Rights Commission (HRC) had been concerned that an exclusionary zone was used punitively. She noted that considerable community policing had been added since the council had last discussed an exclusion ordinance and questioned whether it was still needed. She observed that the ordinance did not include a variance to enter downtown for entertainment purposes such as a performance at McDonald Theater. Mr. Pryor agreed with expansion of the western boundary of the proposed zone. He sought to strike a balance between flexibility and certainty and felt that Option A best achieved that in a thoughtful and transparent way. Ms. Taylor pointed out that if people were excluded from the downtown area they would just go elsewhere in the community. She was willing to listen to community feedback but was opposed to excluding people from any place and hoped the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was following the issue. She said the downtown should be open to everybody. Mr. Zelenka agreed there were problem behaviors in the downtown area. He was opposed to Option A because it would exclude someone before a conviction. He was willing to discuss Option B, but wanted to see how effective an increased police presence, combined with Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI) patrols, would be in controlling problem behaviors. He said that some of the offenses in the ordinance were not criminal violations and the variances needed to be clarified. He was concerned about the impact of the ordinance on Municipal Court’s workload. Ms. Piercy commented that there were many projects underway in the downtown area that would have a beneficial impact and wondered if the ordinance should have a sunset provision that would allow its effectiveness to be evaluated in the near future. She said the City had explored some short-term measures, such as increased policing of downtown, loans to businesses for improving their premises and other strategies for improving the appearance of downtown, which had helped to reduce problems. She was also concerned about the burden an ordinance might place on the Municipal Court. Judge Allen remarked that the proposed exclusion zone was significantly different from the prostitution zone, both in size and number of offenders. He said there had been 45 exclusions in the prostitution zone in eight years and the clientele in that zone was typically ashamed and embarrassed, resulting in few repeat offenders. He said the exclusion was part of probation for those individuals. Regarding the proposed exclusion zones, he said there were 8,600 misdemeanors filed with the court last year and 5,290 of those fit the definition of an offense in the proposed ordinance, although he was not certain how many of those occurred in the downtown area. He said the funding crisis for the public safety system in Lane County meant he did not have the jail space to enforce such as ordinance. He recognized the City’s desire for a vibrant downtown free of problem behaviors, but those behaviors were limited to a small number of individuals. He said the ordinance would have to be enforceable to be effective. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Piercy asked if the list of offenses should be narrowed. Judge Allen said it could be pared down to better focus on what the City hoped to accomplish and grant the court the discretion to determine the length of exclusion. Mr. Poling felt the ordinance was intended to be focused on the chronic violator. He favored Option A and expansion of the western boundary. He was willing to listen to public input. He was concerned with the ability to hold people accountable for their behavior. He was not in favor of a sunset provision as revitalization of downtown would take years to achieve. Mr. Clark agreed that downtown should be a place where everyone was welcome, but that welcome ended at a point when someone intimidated, threatened or harassed others with their behavior. The point of the ordinance was to indicate that such behavior would not be tolerated in downtown and addressing public safety issues was an integral part of revitalizing the downtown. He said the ordinance gave officers a tool as just an increased presence was not sufficient. He understood concerns about imposing sanctions on first time offenders and would consider scaling back the list of qualifying offenses, but he wanted an immediate response to the hardcore individuals who caused a majority of the problems and for that reason supported Option A. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of public safety to downtown revitalization efforts. She asked what was considered a preponderance of evidence required to determine someone had committed a crime within the zone in order to impose exclusion. Mr. Lidz said a preponderance of evidence meant it was more probably than not, but was not beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the judge had to be persuaded that the offense occurred; the decision was not made by the officer. Ms. Ortiz said it was also important to include other offenders, such as sexual predators, in the ordinance to assure they could be excluded from the zone. Mr. Pryor commented that the debate, which was also occurring in other communities, was about the conflict between individual liberties versus the community’s public safety needs. He said added to that was the problem of resources to assure meaningful enforcement. He hoped the public hearing would provide some guidance on how to create a system that was enforceable. Ms. Taylor said the worst offense on the list was pointing a fire arm at someone. She asked what the consequences were if that occurred anywhere in the community. Sgt. Kerns said that person would be arrested for menacing. He said the individual would be lodged in the jail, but likely released quickly. Ms. Taylor said if someone was excluded from downtown for that offense they could go somewhere else in the community and do that. She said that was a major concern for her as it would just move problems around. Ms. Piercy observed that enforcement in neighborhood parks had shifted the problems somewhere else, but that allowed people in the neighborhood to resume using their park. She said the City faced that issue all the time and while problems were not solved, enforcement did bring some relief to an area. Mr. Zelenka expressed concerned with infringing on people’s rights and taking away freedoms without due process. He questioned the constitutionality of excluding someone without a conviction. Mr. Lidz said the ordinance was modeled on the City’s prostitution-free zone ordinance, with some modifications, which was modeled on a Portland ordinance. He said the Portland ordinance had been upheld by the Oregon Supreme MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Court as a civil remedy. He said as a constitutional matter a criminal conviction was not required, but due process was and that was the purpose of bringing the individual before a judge for a decision. He said the city attorney regarded the ordinance as constitutional; it was the council’s policy decision to balance free movement in the City with enhancing livability in downtown. Mr. Zelenka said he was interested in a different approach. He noted that most of the listed offenses were serious crimes and when committed by habitual offenders, the exclusion could be part of probation or parole. He was worried about enforcement capacity and preferred to give additional police presence a chance before taking the step of creating an exclusion zone. He asked for definitions of the offenses listed in the ordinance. Mr. Lidz replied that all of the offenses were defined either in City code or Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). Mr. Clark understood Mr. Zelenka’s interest in allowing additional officers to do the job first, but said that the officers lacked sufficient tools and that was the reason for proposing the ordinance. He was not comfortable with no action and wanted the council to respond to community concerns. He was not interested in limiting people’s rights unless they had proved their willingness to violate other people’s rights; at that point sanctions were appropriate as a last resort tool. Ms. Ortiz asked for a report to the council on the exclusion zone’s effectiveness if the ordinance was implemented. She asked if the Portland ordinance was still in effect. Ms. Sommers said the ordinance was still included in Portland’s online code. Ms. Ortiz opined that effectiveness of the ordinance would depend on officers’ ability to enforce it. Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy and background information on the Portland ordinance. He reiterated his concern with protecting people’s rights. He said the ordinance provided considerable discretion and that made it susceptible to abuse. Ms. Piercy asked if the meetings to discuss the ordinance included representation from all interested parties, including Municipal Court. Mr. Clark said initial meetings consisted of a wide range of stakeholders, including downtown business owners, police officers and HRC staff. He said a larger conversation including the ACLU would also be held. Chief Lehner added that prosecutors and Municipal Court judges and administrative staff were included and the ordinance had been discussed with the ACLU. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the city manager to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance providing for exclusion of persons who commit cer- tain offenses in the downtown area. Sgt. Kerns commented that there were complications associated with excluding persons based on probation, rather than an ordinance. He said the impact of limited jail capacity on the ordinance was difficult to determine because the police department practiced a strategy of disruption that did not require a fully staffed, robust criminal justice system, but did require a persistent police presence with tools such as the ordinance to interfere with criminal conduct of chronic offenders. In response to a question from Mr. Lidz, Mr. Pryor said that paring the list of offenses could wait until after feedback from the community at the public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka preferred to clarify and refine the ordinance content prior to submitting it for public comment. He felt that the questions raised during the work session should be answered before a public hearing was scheduled. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to table until the answers to ques- tions had been provided to the council. The motion failed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the ordinance, but agreed the list should be reduced to those activities that were dangerous to others. She asked if the offense related to consumption of alcohol in unlicensed places could apply to someone attending the First Friday Artwalk. Sgt. Kerns said events like the Artwalk obtained a license, although someone walking along the sidewalk with a glass of wine could theoretically be cited. Mr. Clark pointed out that the council often forwarded staff recommendations as submitted to a public hearing for the purpose of receiving information about the community’s concerns and recommendations. He was willing to compromise on a shorter list of offenses, but wanted public input on the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Poling remarked that the list of offenses was based on a history of criminal activity in the area. He said those who wanted to testify at the public hearing could research the definition of offenses online if they were unclear. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Zelenka and Ms. Taylor voting no. . WORK SESSION: General Obligation Bonds for Street Maintenance Projects C Sue Cutsogeorge, Central Services, provided an overview of a General Obligation (GO) bond measure. She said staff, at the council’s direction, had developed an $81 million bond measure for placement on the November ballot. She said the preliminary project list included in the agenda packet reflected full expenditure of the bond proceeds. She illustrated on a map the geographic distribution of projects, which included approximately 50 percent reconstruction projects and 50 percent overlay projects. In addition to the projects on the list, she said $350,000 would be set aside annually for preservation of off-street bike and pedestrian paths. She said the next step was to consolidate the data from the pavement management system into project groupings that made the most efficient use of bond funds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the council’s interest in accountability and flexibility was addressed through a draft resolution that included hiring an independent auditor to review expenditure of bond proceeds and report to the city manager, the council and the public and establishing a department advisory committee (DAC) to review the project list annually and assist in identifying the projects that would be done each year. She said the DAC would also advise the city manager on any modifications to the list. She said the project list represented staff’s best professional estimate of what could be accomplished with bond proceeds over the next ten years, but it was impossible to predict with any accuracy the pavement condition of particular street segments or the exact costs; the DAC would help decide whether projects should be added or removed from the list depending on expenditure of funds. She said the deadline for referring a measure to the ballot was August 6, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor asked if the GO bond was the same as or similar to a ten-year serial local option levy as discussed by the council’s committee on transportation system funding. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the committee had discussed both long-term and short-term bond and the proposal was for a short-term bond similar in operation to a local option levy. She said payoff was incremental and interest costs lower. Mr. Pryor said all things considered it was wiser to refer the measure to the 2008 ballot than the 2010 ballot, where it would be competing with other funding measures. Mr. Poling asked about the estimated cost of an external auditor and if the cost would be paid from bond proceeds. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would research the question and provide the information later. Mr. Poling appreciated the checks and balances built into the proposal and liked the preliminary project list. He supported an advisory committee that would review the project list on a regular basis because it was difficult to predict with certainty exactly what projects would need to be done at what time because of the variables of weather and traffic conditions. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor that a viable solution needed to be crafted now, but was concerned with placing the measure on the November 2008 ballot because of other measures that would be on the ballot. He felt that politicizing long-term solutions in the budget cycle would add challenges to passing the measure in November. He liked the concept of involving the public through an advisory committee, but had grave concerns about the measures passage in November. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Ruiz said if the council chose to refer the measure to the November 2008 ballot, it was essential that everyone be involved in the difficult task of assuring it was successful. He said the bond was part of a long-term, comprehensive solution to street maintenance. He had convened a community group to discuss what the public would be willing to support and he would have a better sense of that when the council had its next work session in late July. He commended staff for developing the information and the thorough assessment of street conditions. Ms. Solomon agreed that the bond measure would only account for less than half of the annual estimated cost for street maintenance, but it was essential to begin to address the issue. She was willing to refer the measure to the November ballot, but it would require the full support and efforts of the council to help educate the community about the need for the funding mechanism. Mr. Zelenka said the problem had grown so large that it could not be solved with just one revenue sources. He said lack of resources from the State and federal levels meant that local governments had to bear the full burden for road maintenance; the GO bond was part of a package of solutions to address the backlog of maintenance projects. He asserted that the project list should be very specific and not subject to change. He did not favor a DAC with no accountability that could revise the list once it had been approved by the voters. He did not object to prioritization, but objected to adding or removing projects from the list. He stressed the need to build trust and credibility with the public. He did not understand why a very specific list could not be developed. Kurt Corey, Public Works, explained that the list was the department’s best estimate of how $16 million would be used if it was currently available, based upon the pavement management system. He said the DAC was proposed in response to the council’s discussion at its January meeting of the need to establish some level of accountability in the process. He emphasized that the projects on the list represented high priority reconstruct projects and projects that would prevent deterioration to the point that reconstruction was necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Mr. Zelenka comments that the parks bond was somewhat ambiguous in terms of how revenue would be used and he wanted to avoid that problem with a street maintenance funding measure. He asked if the bond could be referred to the May 2009 ballot. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that the measure would be subject to a double majority in May 2009. Mr. Zelenka observed that the Crest Drive project was not on the list. Mr. Corey said there was significant discussion by the council of Crest Drive within the context of whether the bond would be used for improved or unimproved streets. He said there was specific direction from the council that unimproved street projects would not be included in the bond measure. Ms. Ortiz supported referring the bond to the ballot in November and was willing to help pass the measure. She said the community recognized that something needed to be done about streets and the challenge would be to education people about the importance of the bond as part of the funding structure. Ms. Taylor asked who was in the community group convened by Mr. Ruiz and how were they selected. Mr. Ruiz said he would provide a list of members to the council; members were recommended by councilors and the mayor in response to his request and he had identified others to fill in gaps. Ms. Taylor asked for a list of members and an explanation of why they were considered to know how an election would go. Mr. Ruiz said his interest was not in predicting election results, but rather what could various community interests agree upon. Ms. Taylor opined that including Crest Drive might improve the chances for passage. She was in favor of a bond measure, although she preferred using the General Funds if there were sufficient sources of revenue. She said voters could make a choice with the bond. Ms. Piercy stressed the council’s commitment to road repairs over the past several years and had imple- mented several short-term strategies. She said it was time to focus on long-term solutions and hoped that there would be strong council support and consensus if the measure was referred to the ballot. She suggested formation of a focus group to help prepare for an election campaign. She said the council could decide what type of advisory committee might be appropriate and agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the project list should not change. Ms. Solomon supported including a project list in the bond measure and agreed with the concept of an advisory committee to provide review and oversight. She did not see the advisory committee adding or deleting projects as much as reprioritizing them based on circumstances. Mr. Corey said the committee would provide advice if there were proceeds remaining after the project list was completed or if the funds were not adequate to complete all of the projects on the list. He said the project list was to some extent a moving target as a project that was now an overlay could become a reconstruct by the time funds were available. He said the list represented staff’s best estimate based on how pavement deterioration occurred. Ms. Solomon said there had to be a balance between asking voters to commit to paying for projects and the City’s ability to identify which projects would be constructed. She asked if a reduction in the number of municipal bond underwriters would have any impact on the bond measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge said there would be no problems as the bond measure was relatively small compared to those issued by other jurisdictions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that bond measures could be referred to any ballot, but a double majority was required for all elections except November in even numbered years. Mr. Zelenka said his concern with the bond measure as a funding mechanism was the lack of connection between the value of a house or commercial property and road use. He preferred fees that were based on road use, such as a gas tax, street utility fee or carbon tax. He was opposed to a DAC adding or deleting projects and felt that would lose support from other councilors. He did not object to a DAC being involved in prioritization if there was another mechanism for revising the list that involved the council. He asked when the street utility would move forward. Mr. Corey said the current focus was the bond measure and other fee mechanisms would be addressed later to avoid confusing the issue. Mr. Zelenka noted that a Springfield citizen advisory committee had recommended a street utility or preservation fee as a funding mechanism. He asked if the Crest Drive project could be included on the list if the council reversed its policy to use funds only for improved streets. Mr. Corey said the council had determined that the City’s share of unimproved street projects should not be included in the bond measure. In response to another question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Corey said there were 75 miles of unimproved streets representing approximately 15 percent of streets. Ms. Cutsogeorge added that the $173 million backlog did not include any unimproved streets. Mr. Clark did not agree that the council had shown a commitment to street maintenance, which was why it had become an issue. He said adding funds to the budget to fix potholes did not address the greater problem of street repairs. He hoped the council could compromise on a solution that all could support. Ms. Piercy said she did not feel the problem had been solved, but wanted to acknowledge the council’s efforts over time to address the issue. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the city manager to bring council a resolution placing an $81.1 million GO bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, consistent with the initial project list in Attachment C and the draft resolution in Attachment E. Ms. Solomon asked if it was possible to include unimproved streets on the project list. Mr. Corey reiterated that the current ordinance, which supported the council’s policy, required unimproved streets to be paid for initially by direct assessment of properties. He said the council was scheduled to discuss assessment procedures at a work session later in the month. Ms. Solomon asked that the council’s policy regarding unimproved streets could be discussed at that work session. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Clark voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 10 Work Session