Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/21/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall June 21, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Ms. Bettman participated by telephone. A. ACTION: City Manager Compensation Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adjust the City Manager’s compensation as described in Council Option D, which adjusts the City Manager’s compensation by a com- bination of Options A, B, and C. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that Option B would be considered first and Options A and C would be considered together. Mr. Kelly explained that he sought to consider the options separately because options A and C had to do with merit and Option B had to do with a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). Ms. Bettman noted that the cost–of-living adjustment for non-represented employees was 3.2 percent and asked what the increase was for represented employees. Lauren Chouinard, executive director of Human Resource and Risk Services, replied that employees represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) negotiated a 2.4 percent increase for the present year. City Manager Taylor added that the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) negotiated a 3.5 percent increase and the International Alliance of Fire Fighters (IAFF) negotiated a staggered increase that totaled 4 percent at the end of the year. Ms. Bettman did not understand why the contracts had different percentages of increase given that all employees faced the same inflation factors. Mr. Chouinard responded that the contracts were negotiated separately and they were negotiated two and three years out. He said negotiators had the option of setting COLAs using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) factor or requesting a specific amount in the out years. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that he would characterize Mr. Kelly’s motion as not debatable given that it was a motion to divide the question. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to make the COLA 2.4 percent. Ms. Solomon indicated she would not accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion so that the COLA would be set at 2.4 percent. Ms. Bettman opined that the City Manager’s COLA should be set at the level that the “least compensated among the City staff received.” Mr. Papé wondered what the Portland CPI was. He thought Portland was the closest gauge for Eugene. He favored setting the increase to that rate. Mr. Chouinard responded that he would be amazed if it was very far from the 3.2 percent increase that was being suggested. Mr. Papé thought it had been 2.5 percent. Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to take a friendly amendment changing the COLA to 2.5 percent. Mr. Papé replied that his information was not current. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to table the amendment until current information was brought forth. City Manager Taylor indicated that the item could be tabled until later in the meeting in order to allow staff to find the Portland CPI information. The vote to table the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Papé, and Mr. Kelly voting in favor, and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in favor. Mr. Kelly indicated his support for the motion. He thought it only fair that all non-represented employees receive the same COLA. The main motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mr. Papé ascertained from staff that the City Manager was currently at Step 5 of his salary scale. He did not favor giving the City Manager a whole step increase to Step 6. Ms. Bettman observed that the motion as it stood would give the City Manager a step increase to $140,192 in Option A and a 3.2 percent COLA with Option B and then an open-ended percent increase through Option C. She asked whether the low end of market as defined by City Council policy was the target number. Mr. Chouinard replied that the salary was 15.27 percent from the average salary for comparable positions and if the City Manager received a 7.7 percent increase, it would still be down by 3.6 percent. He estimated that it would bring the total compensation level to approximately $162,000. Ms. Bettman indicated her opposition to the motion. Ms. Solomon clarified that the motion for Option C would adjust the City Manager’s pay range by 3.6 percent. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly ascertained from Mr. Chouinard that what this combined motion accomplished was that in addition to the COLA, it would raise the City Manager’s pay by an additional 8.1 percent which amounted to approximately a $12,000 increase above the COLA. He thought the salary increase should be reflective of the reviews given the City Manager’s performance. He said since City Manager Taylor’s average review was a three on a scale of five, this struck him as “way out of line.” He was also puzzled as to why the City of Eugene was trying to close the gap with the entire western United States average including California and Colorado. To him it seemed unreasonable. He felt City Manager Taylor did a lot of very good work, but there were also very significant problems that had come up in the evaluation. Mr. Papé concurred with much of what Mr. Kelly had said. He felt there was a need for improvement particularly with regard to how things were communicated to the council and to the community. He thought a move to Step 6 was excessive. He did not know why the City of Eugene would want to close the gap with the entire western part of the country. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to delete Option C and to amend Option A to read “adjust the City Manager’s compensation to $138,000 annually.” Mr. Papé affirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Solomon that the increase would include the half step and the COLA. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposi- tion. Ms. Ortiz commented that she could not support giving the City Manager less than what he was due. She said he worked very hard. She expressed dismay that the council would not choose to compensate him in a manner that better reflected this. She did not have a problem giving him the salary increase delineated in the original motion and wished to clarify that the only reason she was supporting the current motion was that she wanted the City Manager to get a raise. Mr. Papé agreed that City Manager Taylor worked hard, but he was more interested in results. He said while the council was getting some “pretty good results,” he wished to see more results and some faster results in certain areas. He suggested that a subcommittee of the council be formed for the next City Manager review. Ms. Taylor preferred to implement a COLA that was comparable to the lowest-paid employees. She agreed that the City Manager worked very hard. She did not like comparisons to other cities and wished to underscore her belief that people come here because they like it, knowing that the average salary was low. She opined that Eugene did not need to try to keep up with other places. Mayor Piercy said she was sorry that the salary increase would not be a whole step. She agreed that the council could have spent more time looking at Option C. She averred that the City was in a healthy condition due to the good work of the City Manager and staff. She declared that he had earned the compensation reflected in both Options A and B and she was sorry the council was not delivering that to him at this time. The amended motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 3 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project – Final Report Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson welcomed David Reed of David Reed and Associates, Rob Handy, chair of the River Road Community Organization (RRCO), and Jerry Finigan, chair of the Santa Clara Community Organization (RRCO). He said Mr. Reed would present the final report and noted that it purposely did not address annexation. Mayor Piercy welcomed the guests and thanked them for their hard work. Mr. Reed highlighted the report for the record. He underscored that the Transition Plan was not code for annexation. He pointed out that annexation was not the number one issue that people raised. He said the chief concerns of area residents were infill, density, and development that retained the character of a neighborhood. He reported that River Road/Santa Clara residents placed the highest priority on safe, healthy, child- and family-friendly neighborhoods. He thought that alone presented the opportunity for a continued dialogue between the City and River Road/Santa Clara residents. Mr. Reed related that the framework of the report included a vision statement for River Road/Santa Clara that reflected core values and beliefs held by residents, 10 goal statements recommended to implement the vision, and 11 strategies and 38 actions that provided specific direction for implementing the framework. He stressed that these elements were vetted at length by the task force. He noted that the City of Eugene responded to initial drafts of the framework with a 20-page report and had only rejected two strategies. He felt this had given early traction to the framework development process and represented a good faith commitment on the part of the City staff. Mr. Reed stated that he had a copy of the 1986 Urban Facilities Plan for the River Road/Santa Clara area, the first chapter of which addressed the sanitary sewer element. He called the plan “woefully outdated” as a policy document. He felt elements of the transition and heritage framework, the vision statement, the goals, and the strategies would provide an opportunity to amend the plan and establish new policy directions for guiding the direction of the future of River Road/Santa Clara. Mr. Reed conveyed his deep appreciation for the members of the transition team and the task force and all the citizens who had participated in the process. He also thanked staff from the River Road Park District, the Santa Clara Fire Protection District, the Lane Rural Fire and Rescue Department, and the City of Eugene. He extended a special thanks to councilors Papé and Ortiz for their help and the Mayor for her “kind words of encouragement.” Mr. Finigan related that he had helped to frame the 1986 plan and would not object to altering it. He called the Transition Project a “milestone” in the relationship between the former independent communities of River Road and Santa Clara and the City of Eugene. He said in the report one could see that the two communities joined other neighborhoods in their concern about how the City was attempting to increase density by infilling properties. He felt this was particularly true in Santa Clara where most growth was occurring. He averred that current policy exacerbated the problems Santa Clara had been experiencing for the last four decades, including stormwater issues and increases in traffic. He reported that in the outreach sessions it had become clear that people chose to live in the area because they loved the rural feel and open spaces, while being close to the services that “make life convenient.” There was growing alarm at the rapid disappearance of open space. He suggested that the City could “go a long way” in establishing trust with the communities by partnering with them in finding better strategies for community development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Finigan noted that in the Looking Forward portion of the report, the committee recommended forming an annexation plan, to be created through a collaborative effort between the City and the residents of the area. He felt this would provide the transparency needed to dispel the mistrust of the residents and would engage the City Council not already participating in this process. He predicted that without this, the current problems and animosity would continue as the City staff attempted to meet the annexation goals of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan). Mr. Handy extended his thanks to the City for conducting this process. He felt the result, the Heritage Framework document, was a key to the next steps. He appreciated that the discussion had remained “annexation neutral.” He averred that the next steps in the Transition Plan would involve a work plan from the River Road Community Organization. He hoped that amendments to the refinement plan would arise from the work plan and that the amendments would lead to code changes that would make some of the “themes and ideas a reality” in the community. Mr. Handy encouraged the City to take time to vet the ideas in the Transition Plan with community organizations. He felt the City Council should work on a policy that would guide the River Road/Santa Clara area through its transition. He asserted that minus a policy, area residents were not able to relate to what the City was attempting to do and this fostered their mistrust. He asked that the council step back from the recommendation in the report that suggested the creation of an annexation plan. He believed this to be dangerously premature. He asserted that in order for residents to move forward and “heal and plan for the future” it would be very helpful to put this to a vote. Mr. Handy read the following from an essay written by Mr. Finigan: “Domination will never result in cooperation. Involve the citizens of Santa Clara and River Road in Eugene processes and they may one day feel a part of it.” Mr. Pryor thanked Mr. Reed, Mr. Finigan, and Mr. Handy for their “incredible work.” He extrapolated from the presentation that the community organizations had a desire for good faith efforts in terms of the annexation issue. He commented that ultimately it was not a matter of ‘if,’ it was a matter of ‘when.’ Mr. Finigan called annexation the “elephant in the room.” He said ignoring it would muddle all of the other elements of the plan. Mr. Kelly thanked the Transition Team. He said ultimately one of the places that the work would be reflected would be in revisions to the refinement plan. He averred that this was a key way to accomplish initiatives and it had worked in other areas of the City. He found the report to contain a lot of creative ideas and said they now needed to be sorted out in more detail, vetted out to the broader community and, at a later point, raised with the City Council. Mr. Kelly noted that the end of the report called for a statistically valid public opinion survey. He understood the hesitation about doing it too soon. He thought a neutral information piece should precede the survey. Mr. Kelly recalled that the council allocated $60,000 for neighborhood planning and implementation efforts. He thought it would be inappropriate to release those resources to the neighborhood associations until there was some council approval based traditionally on some sort of work plan. He asked Mr. Carlson if he MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 5 Work Session foresaw an expeditious process that would pull something together that “council could say go forth and do good” about. Mr. Carlson responded that he, Mr. Handy, and Executive Director for the Planning and Development Department (PDD) Susan Muir had talked about the need for a process to figure out how this would work. He said there were no good precedents for how to enable a neighborhood organization to access these public funds. Mayor Piercy stated that the third item on the agenda, Sign Code Enforcement, could be rescheduled in order to fully discuss this item. There was general concurrence. Ms. Ortiz shared Mr. Kelly’s concerns regarding how the money would be distributed. She thanked everyone for their hard work and commended their dedication to keeping their community intact. Mr. Papé was appreciative of the process. He agreed that annexation should be placed on the back burner in order to focus people on the other issues. He asked the community organization leaders if they felt the council had listened to their concerns. Mr. Finigan felt the council had listened. He said the difference between this process and the one that had been conducted in the 1980s was that community leaders were coming to the council because that was where the solutions lay. Mr. Handy agreed with Mr. Finigan, but wished to “tease out some nuances.” He thought it was a little more complicated because the City had to listen to, discuss with, and respect the ideas of River Road/Santa Clara residents. He felt that how the City and the neighborhoods worked together would become the hallmark of how they had been listened to and how the next steps would be taken. Mr. Papé asked Mr. Finigan and Mr. Handy if they felt the relationship between the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods and the City of Eugene improved. Mr. Finigan replied that the people involved in the process seemed to understand that they had to work with the City on this. Mr. Handy responded that the effort of the City was improving. He averred that the determination of infill standards, street standards, and low-impact development standards would contribute to the improvement of the City’s relationship with residents, especially as citizens could actively recognize the role of the City in the creation of improved standards. Mr. Papé called out the work of Assistant City Manager Carlson and thanked him for it. Ms. Taylor thanked the Transition Team for their work. She asked Mr. Handy if he was requesting a no vote to the motion. Mr. Handy asked if there was a motion on the table. Ms. Taylor clarified that it was a suggested motion, but that it had not been made yet. She expressed skepticism about accepting a report. She asserted that a plan could later be used to implement policy she did not necessarily agree with. Mr. Handy stated that there was one aspect of the report that did not have traction in the community. He reiterated its hesitation to endorse the recommendation for the City to proceed with an annexation plan. Ms. Taylor averred that the council needed to discuss infill standards for the whole city. She alleged that all of the neighborhoods she knew about were “suffering from inappropriate infill.” Ms. Taylor was also skeptical about the statement that said 2/3 of the participants favor annexation. She thought the people who did not favor annexation would not have participated in this process. Mr. Reed clarified that 1/3 favored annexation and 1/3 were undecided. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor opined that the River Road/Santa Clara area should have been a separate community or there should have been a plan for annexation all at once. She felt the City was “stuck in a place” because of past mistakes. Ms. Bettman echoed her colleagues’ thanks for the work that went into the plan. She supported the report but could not support moving forward to create an annexation plan. She asked how the council could accept the plan without reinforcing this idea. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the council was not approving any recommendations at this time, it was only voting to accept the report. Mr. Carlson said this was why staff had used the word ‘accept’ rather than ‘approve’ or ‘adopt,’ because the latter two were stronger terms. He assured the council that amending the Urban Facilities Plan or the enacting of new code amendments for infill development would be separate actions that would come back for approval. Ms. Bettman said as long as the legislative intent and the record supported Mr. Carlson’s assertion she was prepared to support acceptance of the plan. Mayor Piercy was struck by how much citizens had in common. She said the intensity and the amount of conversation and investment area residents had in this plan were something the elected officials witnessed throughout the community on a regular basis. She felt it was an important attribute of the community’s processes and life. She had been heartened to listen to this conversation. She observed that no matter where one lived in the community, infill was a difficult concept to deal with. She said the City has one policy which dictates that residents should live more densely so that the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) would not have to be expanded, yet there was a strong feeling throughout the community that residents did not want their neighborhoods to change in nature. She commented that it was difficult to meet both goals at the same time, adding that we are only at the beginning of that struggle. Mr. Kelly agreed that it was not the ‘if’ or the ‘when,’ but the ‘how’ in this challenge. Regarding infill, he quoted former PDD director, Paul Farmer, who said “change is inevitable but decline is not.” He said Santa Clara and River Road did not look the same as they had 20 years ago and they were guaranteed not to look the same in 20 years. He believed that the City and its residents could collectively devise a way that the neighborhoods could look and feel “good and better” than they did now. Ms. Ortiz asked Mr. Handy how he would envision the policy he suggested. Mr. Handy replied that it would be broad enough to give citizens something to “interface with” so that they understand where the City was coming from. He cited as an example that the case had not been effectively made for street annexations and community residents were not persuaded that they were necessary. He wanted, on some level, the City to communicate to its citizens about what it wanted to do and how it intended to do it so that citizens had a better understanding of what the City was doing. Mr. Carlson noted that there had been a lot of focus on the Urban Facilities Plan, but there was also a major section of the Metro Plan that dealt with the provision of services to River Road/Santa Clara. He said this was actually where the City’s policies related to annexation and the future of the area were located. He stated that this was developed in the years from 1979 to 1982 and it focused on the provision of sanitary sewers in the area. He thought it would be of use to take a comprehensive review of the plan. He noted that the County also shared some of the issues regarding urban transition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Piercy acknowledged that County Commissioner Bill Dwyer, Springfield, was in attendance. Mr. Handy said there were other elements of the Metro Plan that spoke to the uniqueness of the situation in River Road and Santa Clara. He understood that at times it was felt that the area should not be treated in a special way, yet the Metro Plan said the area presented a unique situation. He urged everyone to consider “the rising tide of equity” and whether this tide lifted all of the neighborhoods or a way to lower the livability of all of neighborhoods. He wished to see all of the things that the neighborhood organizations were striving for enacted citywide, as he thought they would be applicable to the entire city. But if the City could not do this, then he felt it should treat the River Road/Santa Clara as per its description as a unique situation in the Metro Plan. Ms. Taylor noted that the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN) model sought to protect the Chambers Area neighborhood. She thought it was a good model for the whole City. She felt the City had made past mistakes and recalled the parking garage project adjacent to the proposed Whole Foods Grocery project in which she alleged not enough time had been given for public input. She underscored the importance of not taking actions that destroy trust. She reiterated her skepticism regarding the word ‘accept.’ She wished to add language that indicated that the council accepted the report but this did not mean ‘totally approve.’ Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to accept the River Road and Santa Clara Transition Project Final Report. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C. WORK SESSION: Sign Code Enforcement Due to a lack of time, this item was postponed. The meeting adjourned at 1:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 21, 2006 Page 8 Work Session