Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/10/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall April 10, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Waste, Yard Debris and Recycling, and Amending Sections 3.005, 3.245, 3.247, 3.250, 3.270, and 4.855 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending and Renumbering Sections 3.265, 3.275, and 3.284 of That Code; Repealing Sections 3.260, 3.272, and 3.282 of that Code; and Adding a New Section 3.290 to That Code Mayor Torrey noted that Mr. Pap~ had recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Nancy Young of the Planning and Development Department reviewed the ordinance, noting that it largely consisted of housekeeping changes. She highlighted the shift of the rate criteria to a new Solid Waste Rate Review Manual, the addition of text regarding customer responsibilities, and revisions to Chapter 4 of the code related to the placement of receptacles on sidewalks. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart regarding current public feedback on the yard debris program, Ms. Young said that staff was receiving few, if any, calls, and comments she heard were generally supportive of the program. Mr. Fart indicated his appreciation for the program. He said that many large lot owners did not share his appreciation. He determined from Ms. Young that the biennial rate review would occur in May 2002, and that the City Manager had the authority over rates. The council was free to offer the manager input on the rate-setting process. Mr. Fart wondered if there was a way to measure community discontent with the program. Ms. Young said the City would conduct a customer satisfaction survey in fall 2002. She suggested that one indicator of satisfaction would be the number of customers who shifted from larger containers to 21 gallon containers, and said she would keep the council informed of what staff learned. Mr. Fart noted his own shift from a 35-gallon container to a 20-gallon container. Mr. Kelly questioned why the hauler responsibilities were being shifted from the code to the administrative rules while the customer responsibilities were being codified. He thought the hauler and customer responsibilities should both be in the code, or both be in the administrative MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 1 Work Session rules. Ms. Young said that staff modeled the ordinance on the ordinances of other cities, which generally have dedicated franchises; in those situations, the customer responsibilities are codified and the hauler responsibilities spelled out in the contract between the hauler and the municipality. She perceived no problem in amending the ordinance. Mr. Kelly had no preference but wanted both in the same place. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said that another reason for the proposed structure was that the haulers have and use the administrative rules every day, and the public does not; the code was more accessible to the public. Mr. Kelly said that an issue to consider was that of who manages the changes to the hauler and customer responsibilities, and he thought that should be the same entity. Mr. Kelly said that if literally read, it appeared Section 3.995 of the code would mandate $500 daily fines on residents who did not put their trash can within three feet of the curb. Ms. Young said that the intent was to establish standards for the haulers rather than penalties on residents. Normally, enforcement occurred on a complaint basis. Mr. Kelly asked that legal counsel look at that issue and consider text adjustments. Mr. Kelly asked if there had been follow-up to his question in June 2001 about whether there could be more openness in the rate-setting process, adding that the shift of the rate criteria from the code to the administrative rules made it seem like a less open process. Ms. Young responded that the manual would help in the process of greater understanding. The manual was in the process of being developed now. She said she would get back to the council with more information. Responding to a concern expressed by Ms. Bettman about the deletion of the mention of landscape contractors in Section 3.245(d), Ms. Young said that the deletion had been inadvertant and staff would put it back into the ordinance. Referring to Section 3.247(1), Ms. Bettman asked if, through attrition, the ordinance would accomplish something (the creation of a single-hauler franchise) that the council had not agreed by policy to do. She did not support the eight-license limit proposed by the staff. Ms. Young pointed out that Section 3.247(2) also provided for the creation of additional licenses were the need demonstrated, and licenses can be transfered from one hauler to another hauler with City approval. Ms. Bettman said that the two sections appear to conflict with each other. Ms. Nathanson recalled her concern about establishing the yard debris program before commercial and residential rates were combined, given that the combined rate approach was supposed to decrease residential rates and offset the increase from the yard debris program. It was her expectation that the upcoming rate review would result in, if not actual decreases, delays in the potential for increases over the next few years. Ms. Nathanson noted the seriously degraded condition of City streets and the City's efforts to fund maintenance and preservation. She said that the Public Works director had indicated to her that multiple haulers serving one street contributed to the breakdown of streets. She continued to be concerned about multiple haulers serving the same area. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's request regarding the hauler and customer responsibilities. She also shared Ms. Bettman's concern about Section 3.247(1). Ms. Young pointed out that the City Charter still precluded a single hauler system. In addition, there had never been a license terminated in the time she had been with the City. She did not believe any haulers were planning MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 2 Work Session on leaving the market, and said there were strong companies serving Eugene. Ms. Taylor said that she could foresee a single large hauler buying out other smaller haulers, and she did not think the community wanted that. Ms. Taylor questioned whether people had complained about the fact the haulers would not provide the 20-gallon can size to customers. Ms. Taylor thought the yard debris program a good program but said she continued to receive complaints from constituents. She said that to some people $3.50 was a lot of money. She hoped that the council would get another chance to look at that program and how it had been implemented. Ms. Taylor also hoped the council would not take action immediately following the public hearing. Mr. Meisner said he hoped that the council recognized the value of the yard debris program for the broader community and the landfill, which went beyond the $3.50 charge. He said that there was a cost to implementing community values. He shared Ms. Nathanson's concern about the impact of multiple haulers on one street, and said he was not interested in increasing the number of licensees unless a territory system was adopted. He said that not only the quality of the streets was affected, but the quality of life was threatened by the noise that the trucks made. Mr. Meisner did not object to Mr. Kelly's desire to have the customer and hauler responsibilities in one location. Mr. Meisner said that after an initial period of complaint calls, he now received nothing but praise for the program from citizens. He questioned the impact of the program on the haulers as people adjusted to the program. He asked if the City had any sense of the impact of the program on the landfill in terms of what was being diverted from the landfill. Ms. Young said that she would provide that information to the council. Mayor Torrey said that he had never received a yard debris container and asked Ms. Young to follow-up on why. Mayor Torrey asked staff to consider whether a floor on the number of haulers could be established. Mr. Carlson said that staff would work to correct the inconsistencies between the two sections. He said that the work session was not scheduled to revisit the yard debris program and hoped that the council would allow staff to go through the rate review and complete the customer satisfaction survey. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Ms. Young that the rate review would introduce the combined rate approach. He further confirmed that the ceiling on the yard debris rate through January 2003 would be honored. Ms. Bettman suggested that the limit in Section 3.247(1) be eliminated. She asked for information about what was entailed by the addition of Section 3.250 regarding rules related to minimum standards for employees' qualifications, training, and identification. Ms. Young indicated that the minimum standards included the appropriate licensing, adequate training, and identification that could be clearly understood by the public. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Young said that through the administrative rules, the haulers were required to provide educational materials to customers on a quarterly basis. Staff had discussed the idea of preparing that information and providing it to the haulers, but had not had time to do so. B.WORK SESSION: A Resolution Establishing a Voluntary Campaign Finance Program for City Elections Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She noted the distribution of a revised resolution that deleted subsection (c), which was related to the contributions a candidate could make to his or her own campaign. Mr. Pap8 joined the council meeting. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. Mr. Kelly believed the resolution being considered would help to control campaign spending and reduce the influence of money and the media in local politics. He stressed the voluntary nature of the program. He noted his interest in amending the limits being proposed. He also noted interest in a suggestion to include a provision allowing a candidate to loan the campaign start-up funds. Ms. Taylor wanted to ensure that the candidates could not contribute more to his or her own campaign than others, and wanted to raise the the limit to $100 instead of $75. She asked what would happen if one candidate agreed to participate in the program and another did not; was the one who agreed to participate "helpless to compete"? Ms. Walston reiterated the voluntary nature of the program. Ms. Taylor asked if the use of yard signs from a previous campaign would be counted toward the spending limit, adding that would give an additional advantage to the incumbent candidate. Ms. Walston indicated that if no money was spent, there would be no expenditure to count. Mayor Torrey asked if leftover campaign funds would count toward the spending limit. Ms. Walston said yes, it would be determined by the contributions and expense reports filed by the candidates; this would be the source of the date for each campaign, be in primary or general. Ms. Bettman supported reducing the per-person contribution for mayoral races from $600 to $200. She was unsure that Section 3 carried forward her intent to ensure that reporting on the second filing occurred before the election. She asked that the text be revised to make it more clear as to that intent. Mr. Meisner observed that the spending limit for mayoral races, which initially seemed high to him, was merely eight times the spending limit for council races. Given that the mayor had to run in eight wards, he believed that made sense. He supported an increase in the per-person contribution for council races from $75 to $100. He asked if the resolution would exempt a candidate from filing C&E (Contribution and Expense) reports. He was concerned about the interplay between State and local law. Mr. Lidz responded that he would rewrite the ordinance to ensure that it did not provide an exemption. He believed that State law permitted the City to take that approach. Mr. Meisner agreed, but said that it was not clear to him that reporting was required by the resolution before the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Kate Fieland of the City Recorder's Office reported that the 2001 State legislature adopted a new law that allowed any candidate collecting or spending less than $300 not to report anything. Ms. Nathanson agreed that reports were important, but she was not interested in establishing a new reporting system, which would be costly and unnecessary. She wanted to retain the contribution limit that candidates could contribute to their own campaigns as originally proposed. Ms. Nathanson asked what happened if a candidate volunteered to participate in the program and no other candidate did so. Could the candidate then change his or her mind? She asked if the resolution could be revised to address that concern. Mr. Farr thought the resolution created an unfair system. An incumbent with name familarity already had an advantage over a challenger, and the only way the challenger could overcome that advantage was by spending an inordinate amount of time or more money. The resolution also created a situation where a candidate was penalized for exercising his or her right to free speech; the opponent received an advantage on the proposed web page and the Voters Pamphlet. Mr. Farr thought some form of campaign finance reform was needed, but the program that would be created was not the answer. He asked what occurred if a candidate agreed to participate in the City program and got the added benefits of the program, while another candidate participated in the State program with a lower spending limit of $2,000. That candidate was actually doing the more noble thing. Mr. Rayor indicated support for the resolution and concurred with the comments of Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Pap8 believed too much money was being spent on City races and supported some form of campaign finance reform. He agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the per-person council contribution limit. He shared Mr. Kelly's interest in a provision allowing a candidate to loan the campaign start-up funds. Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Nathanson that council candidates needed to be able to contribute more to their own campaigns. Mr. Pap8 questioned whether the day after filing should be the date of declaration. He also liked Ms. Nathanson's idea of giving candidates a window of opportunity to withdraw from the program. Mayor Torrey observed that he had not heard a demand for the program from any citizens outside the base group who offered the council comment. He was concerned that people would have expectations that the City could not meet with the program being proposed. He asked about the impact of independent expenditures: if the police union placed a half-page advertisement in the newspaper endorsing a candidate, was that a campaign contribution or a political action committee expenditure? Mayor Torrey said he would not oppose the resolution. He believed that the program would not make a difference given the name familiarity advantage incumbents enjoyed over challengers. The equity issue was not solved by the resolution. Mr. Kelly believed many of the questions raised in the discussion would be addressed by the procedural rules implementing the intent of the resolution. He noted that, as written the program started each election cycle, so unless that language was struck, a candidate choosing not to MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 5 Work Session participate in the program in the primary election could not participate in the program in the general election if they had carryover contributions. Speaking to the reporting issue, Mr. Kelly believed State law mandated C&E reporting unless the candidate spent less than $2,000. He pointed out to Mr. Farr that participation in the State program would mean the candidate was automatically complying with the City program and receiving its benefits. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to adopt the resolution marked as revised Attachment A and revised Attachment B, with an effective date of May 22, 2002. Mr. Farr reiterated his concern that the program gave an edge to the incumbent candidate and to someone who chose to participate in the program as opposed to someone who chose to exercise their free speech rights. Mr. Meisner wanted to amend the resolution to require C&E reporting in conjunction with the program. He disagreed with Mr. Kelly that participants in the State program would enjoy the benefits of the City program given the manner in which the resolution was written. Ms. Taylor did not see why a candidate pledging to spend less than $2,000 would not be willing to similarly commit to spend less than $7,500. She thought the program was fair because it let the public know who was spending less money. She did not know how to avoid the advantage of incumbency. Ms. Taylor thought it important to change the influence money had over elections. She did not support changing the amount one could give to one's own campaign. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the resolution by changing the amount for per-person contributions for all candidates to $100. Mr. Kelly suggested as a friendly amendment a change from $100 to $300 for mayoral races. Ms. Taylor declined to accept the friendly amendment. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the resolution by changing the amount of per-person contributions to $100 for council candidates. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Pap8 suggested the council place a sunset on the resolution to ensure it was reviewed in the future. Ms. Nathanson identified five needed amendments to the resolution she would require before she could support it: 1) requiring C&E reports as suggested by Mr. Meisner; 2) a mechanism to provide a candidate with release from the program if other candidates declined to participate; 3) a mechanism that recognized a candidate's participation in the State program; 4) clarification of how to account for the value of expenditures made on behalf of the candidate; and 5) limits to per- person mayoral limits. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the resolution by changing the per-person contribution to mayoral candidates from $600 to $500. Ms. Bettman suggested a friendly amendment to reduce the amount to $300. Ms. Nathanson declined to accept the friendly amendment. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Bettman said that the unfairness that existed was the role that money played in politics. She said it was not unfair to have a voluntary program available, as any candidate could decide whether to participate after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of participation. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the resolution by changing the total expenditure limit for mayoral elections from $60,000 to $30,000. Mr. Kelly noted that history indicated that $7,500 was close to the average spent by the winning council candidate, but $60,000 was more than any mayoral candidate save one had ever spent on an election. The $30,000 amount was a high average of past mayoral spending. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Pap8 voting in opposition. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to amend the resolution by deleting Section 4. Mr. Kelly pointed out that deleting Section 4 would eliminate any public awareness of the program. Mr. Fart questioned whether anyone believed that the provision did not limit free speech. Mr. Pap8 said there were two ways of publicizing candidates' participation in the program; those who seek to find out can get in touch with the City, or the candidates themselves would advertise that participation. He had sympathy with Mr. Farr's point of view, suggesting that it might be unfair to have the City spend City funds publishing names in the newspaper. He preferred making information available to those who seek to know it. He suggested as a friendly amendment that the second sentence in the section be deleted rather than the entire section. Mr. Farr accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment, saying that removing the City's role meant there was no reason for the City to have a resolution in the first place. In response, Mr. Pap~ said that he did not think the City should have a role. It should put the mechanism in place and take a neutral position. Mr. Farr concurred with Mr. Pap~. The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap8 voting yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the resolution by stipulating that a candidate could contribute $500 to his or her campaign. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Rayor believed the amount was reasonable. It allowed a candidate to get a campaign started. Mr. Kelly indicated he would propose an amendment to allow a candidate to loan his or her campaign up to 25 percent of the total voluntary limit. Ms. Taylor said that many people could not afford such an amount, and she believed it gave an advantage to those with money. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Meisner asked that the motion's maker and second accept a friendly amendment to line 2 of Section 4 of the resolution to preface "voluntary limits" with the words "City and State." Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~ agreed. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~ accepted another friendly amendment from Mr. Meisner, which was to add a new Section 5 that read "A candidate who pledges to follow these limits shall file C&E reports at the same times and using the same forms as candidates who have not made the pledge." Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to add a new section that read "Candidates may be released from the pledge if other candidates in the race have not made and met the conditions of the pledge through the second reporting period." Ms. Bettman asked what happened if there were three candidates for a position, and the third candidate did not participate; that did not matter in the scenaro envisioned by Ms. Nathanson, because it was only the candidates that had agreed to participate in the program would be released. It did not imply that all the candidates had to commit to the program. Ms. Nathanson said that was a good point, and the subject deserved futher discussion. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council simply establish a time limit, for example, within a week of filing, during which candidates could be released from the program commitment. Mr. Kelly agreed with the intent of Ms. Nathanson's motion but suggested that a broader approach, such as "the City Manager will design a program that will allow release under certain circumstances" might be more appropriate given the limited amount of time available to the council. Ms. Nathanson was willing to take that approach, but wanted to have something in place now. Mr. Carlson pointed out that the council could pass the resolution anytime before May 22 to ensure it took place; unlike an ordinance, the resolution could become effectively immediately. Ms. Walston suggested that the resolution be redrafted, circulated among councilors, and adopted at a later time. Ms. Nathanson anticipated that the wording in question would be fixed at a subsequent meeting. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the resolution by stipulating that those who elect to use the voluntary program do so within five days after the filing deadline. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Pap~ moved to continue the meeting to a date certain. The motion died for lack of a second. The main motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Fart voting no. Mr. Kelly believed it would take staff some time to develop rules implementing the resolution, and he thought there was merit in staff sending those rules out to the council for comment. Mr. Fart reiterated that the council established a flawed system, and did so "on the fly." Ms. Bettman appreciated the work the council had done, disagreeing it was done "on the fly," considering the discussions at the previous work sessions. She looked forward to seeing how the program operated. Mr. Pap~ indicated he would likely propose that the resolution include a sunset date that followed the general election of 2004. Speaking to Mr. Fart, Mr. Meisner noted that C&E reports, when established, were opposed by some on a free speech basis, but he did not think requiring people to report campaign contributions was a violation of free speech. Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Bettman that the council had not worked "on the fly." He thought the process had been orderly. He said that "you either believe stuff or you don't" and he preferred to have less discussion and just address the amendments. Mr. Kelly thanked everyone, including legal counsel, Ms. Walston, the councilors, and the mayor for the completion of what had been a long process. He anticipated further fine-tuning of the program and also looked forward to see how it worked in practice. Respectfully submitted, James R.. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 9 Work Session