Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/22/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall May 22, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. He said that councilors had requested time to comment on the election of May 21, 2002, and called for a round of comments. Mr. Meisner expressed his delight about the successful passage of the library levy measure. He said that, with the concurrence of the City Council, he would send a letter of thanks to those who worked on the campaign for their efforts in passing the measure. Councilors indicated their endorsement of the letter. Ms. Bettman anticipated the fire bond measure would pass and noted the passage of the Library levy, and thanked those who were willing to invest in the community. She also congratulated Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~ on their re-elections. Ms. Taylor said she was happy and amazed at the more-than-50-percent voter turnout and hoped the fire bond measure would pass. She also congratulated messrs. Kelly and Pap~. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to the voters for the more-than-50-percent turnout and wished it had been higher and that people were more involved in the democratic process. He concurred with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. Mayor Torrey said he knew all councilors respected the fact that it was a not an easy time for the voters to support money measures. He thanked the citizens for their willingness to spend their money to have a better city. He congratulated messrs. Pap~ and Kelly on their re-election, and Mr. Farr on his success in the primary running for a house seat. Mr. Pap~ also thanked the voters for supporting the City's money measures and for taking the time to understand the issues that were involved. He said that it demonstrated again that the Eugene electorate was intelligent and voted intelligently. Mr. Rayor congratulated the successful candidates, including his successor, George Poling. He indicated that he planned to serve out his term in Ward 4 to the best of his ability and said that he would be available to Mr. Poling to help him transition into office. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Farr also congratulated the successful candidates and indicated he too would serve out his term. He anticipated that he would continue to work closely with his successor, Jennifer Solomon, as she transitioned to office. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the difficult economic times that faced residents and the difficult decisions now being addressed by the Budget Committee even as the vote occurred. She was pleased that the voters supported the library levy and the fire bond measure. She hoped the council could demonstrate the City's services could be delivered efficiently and economically and that City projects could be something everyone was proud of, whether they supported them or not. City Manager Jim Carlson indicated a 50 percent voter turnout had been achieved locally. He said that at this time, the fire bond measure was still too close to call; if the current numbers hold up, the measure will pass. He too thanked Eugene voters for passing the City's money measures, saying that they were a significant achievement for the council and community. The passage of the library levy gave the council four years to seek a permanent funding source. A.WORK SESSION and ACTION: Resolution 4720 Consenting to Change in Control of TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc., from AT&T to AT&T Comcast Pam Berrian, Franchise Manager, Information Services Division, introduced Milo Mecham of the Lane Council of Governments and Sanford Inouye, AT&T Broadband Manager for Oregon. She said that City Attorney Jerome Lidz was also present, and noted that he had participated in the negotiations between Eugene, Springfield, Lane County, and AT&T. Ms. Berrian circulated a copy of the current franchise agreement. The franchise outlines the conditions under which AT&T Broadband had the City's permission to use the City's right-of-way. The conditions were governed by the City and federal law. Currently, there are about 35,000 cable subscribers in the city. Ms. Berrian provided background on the issue, noting the current agreement was negotiated in 1991 with TCI Cablevision. It stipulated that any transfer of the franchise be brought to the council for consideration and concurrence. Ms. Berrian recalled that in 1998, the City Council went through a similar process when the franchise control shifted from TCI to AT&T. The council approved the transfer at that time with specific conditions. Those conditions provided that the transfer not negatively impact the scheduled network upgrade, and that the corporation comply with court decisions related to Ordinance 20083 litigation (related to the use of the rights-of-way). Ms. Berrian reported that the scheduled upgrade was not completed on time and the ordinance was still in litigation. In responding to City concerns, AT&T refused to concede that the transfer of the franchise from TCI to AT&T had anything do with the interrupted upgrade, and cited the problem as the recent downturn in the economy, which reduced its available capital resources. She said that AT&T moved quickly to reach a financial settlement with the City and adopted a renewed upgrade schedule in 2001; that, so far, was on schedule. Ms. Berrian said that in relationship to the resolution before the council, AT&T Broadband will exist as a corporate entity, but would share control with Comcast. Negotiations between local governments and the corporation commenced in March 2002, and staff provided updates to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), acting as the Cable Commission, in March and April 2002. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 2 Work Session She said that she worked to ensure that the upgrade agreement was addressed in the process, and that compliance with court decisions related to Ordinance 20083 would be accepted by the new corporation, AT&T Comcast. The City has received those commitments from AT&T. Ms. Berrian identified other major areas of concern related to cable operations and customer service, and indicated they were under discussion with AT&T. · AT&T's dispute resolution process for subscribers · AT&T non-payment of franchise fees associated with revenue received from the sale of cable modem (Internet) services · AT&T relationship to affiliates and non-affiliates accessing its cable system installed in the public rights-of-way · Compliance with customer service standards outlined in the franchise agreement Ms. Berrian recommended adoption of the consent resolution with the recommended text as being in the public interest. She said that while AT&T was neither conceding liability nor agreeing with the City's positions, the resolution provides the best chance for solving the problems short of litigation. Ms. Taylor asked why the council should adopt the resolution before the issues of contention were resolved, and the consequences of not approving the resolution. Ms. Berrian responded that the franchise transfer process time frame was very constrained by federal law and City ordinance and did not lend itself to a resolution of the issues in this transfer process. She pointed out that two of the issues of concern were being addressed by the courts, and the other two would require an investigation that would take longer than the transfer time frame allowed. In the absence of council action within a certain time frame, under federal law the transfer would be deemed unconditionally approved. Ms. Berrian said the council could deny the transfer, and risk that AT&T will deem the denial unlawful and take legal action against the City. She noted that the merger was to be considered by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in fall or winter 2002. Mr. Kelly had concerns over the customer service issues, changes to the arbitration process, and delays in the system upgrade. He noted the resolution referenced a letter of agreement committing all parties to work on the four issues, and asked if the letter had been signed by AT&T. Ms. Berrian said yes. If the council approved the consent resolution, she would present it to the City Manager for his signature. Mr. Kelly cited a memorandum written to the MPC in March 2002 by Mr. Mecham recommending against the transfer approval and suggesting that the corporation was not acting in good faith and might not be qualified to hold the franchise. He asked what had changed since that memorandum was written. Mr. Mecham responded that at that time, the corporation had stated it would not provide any information or hold discussions; since then, discussions had taken place and the corporation had agreed that the local governments had legitimate concerns and wished to resolve them. Mr. Kelly asked if the City had received a construction schedule for the system upgrade, and if checkpoints had been met. Ms. Berrian said that the checkpoints had been met, and a schedule would be available in June 2002. Customer service representatives would soon be able to respond to callers wishing to know when their neighborhood would be upgraded. Mr. Kelly asked MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Berrian if she had been concerned it took a year for the schedule to be done. Ms. Berrian said yes, she had been concerned in November 2000 when the upgrade stopped. Following discussion between the City and the corporation, a settlement stipulating a new schedule was arrived at in June 2001. Mr. Meisner indicated that Mr. Kelly had asked his questions, and he was prepared to support the resolution given that AT&T had signed the letter of agreement. Mr. Pap~ said he would like to see the resolution conditioned upon the letter of agreement, or the conditions of the letter included in the resolution. Ms. Berrian said she would designate the agreement as an exhibit to the resolution. Mr. Pap~ indicated that was acceptable. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern about the changes proposed by AT&T to the dispute resolution process because he thought it should be more local, and asked if the City was maintaining its position on that issue. Ms. Berrian said yes, and indicated that the City was on record with its positions, including that issue. She said there was a time line of six months to resolve the issues; if resolution did not occur in that time period, the City would have to determine its next steps, which could include legal action. Mr. Lidz added that the issue was in litigation and the City expected that if the franchising authorities prevailed in that litigation that AT&T would agree to modify the mandatory arbitration approach. If it did not, the local franchise authority would likely have to go to court. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Berrian that AT&T had not rescinded the notification of mandatory arbitration, even though she continued to be involved with disputes and Mr. Inouye was very accommodating in resolving them. The City wanted the actual process rescinded. Mr. Pap~ asked if AT&T subscribers could be mailed a notice that there was an alternative to the method proscribed by AT&T, given that subscribers were not likely to be informed of the council's discussion. Ms. Berrian indicated staff would follow-up to see what could be done. Mr. Mecham noted that the AT&T bill included the number of the local franchise authority to contact with complaints or concerns. He clarified that there was still a local process; however, when a complaint escalated into a legal dispute, AT&T's new arbitration policy was triggered. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Berrian indicated she received calls of complaint about cable services on an average of once a day; the most recent calls concerned the removal of Cinemax from certain subscriber packages. She also received calls about billing disputes, programming, rate increases, the upgrade, and calls about long delays waiting for customer service. She indicated that 99 percent of those inquiries were quickly resolved. Mr. Fart noted that he had AT&T service and was very satisfied. He was happy to know that relatively minor problems, similar to those that might be experienced by customers of other retail businesses, were being experienced by AT&T customers. He said that he admired the way that Ms. Berrian had worked with AT&T to address the City's issues and reach resolution. Mr. Fart determined that Mr. Inouye and Ms. Berrian were satisfied with the process, and said he would support the resolution. Ms. Nathanson joined in Mr. Farr's remarks about staff's work in working toward resolution of the issues with AT&T. She disagreed with Mr. Fart's suggestion that AT&T was like other retail firms, pointing out that it had a monopoly on cable service delivery, which was why the City had a role in overseeing the franchise. She regretted that it required a near-threat of litigation to resolve the system upgrade issue. Ms. Nathanson continued to be concerned that not all the issues would be MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 4 Work Session resolved amicably within a reasonable time, but said she would be hopeful, and vote to support the resolution. She hoped the council's vote demonstrated its willingness to work with AT&T in good faith on the issues outlined in the letter. Ms. Nathanson noted that Attachment A, the letter of agreement, indicated the parties would meet within 120 days and resolve the identified issues within six months; she asked when the "clock started ticking" on the six months' time period. Ms. Berrian said that she believed it was six months from the date of the agreement. Ms. Bettman said she would support the resolution, pointing out that the unresolved issues related to the franchise agreement would be the same with or without the transfer. The City was not diminishing its position by passage the resolution. She did not think the other options available were very attractive, and hoped the agreement was strong enough to ensure that the City's position was not diminished. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to Ms. Nathanson for the distinction she drew between AT&T and other retailers. He proposed a change to page 2 of the resolution, suggesting that Finding I be modified as follows: "The Franchisee and Franchising Authority have, in a separate agreement, attached as Exhibit A, noted the existence of certain identified issues..." There was general concurrence. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve Rcsolmion 4720 consenting to change in control of TCI Cablevision of Oregon, Inc. from AT&T to AT&T Comcast. Mr. Rayor supported the motion. He agreed with the assessments of Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Bettman. He thought the solution proposed by staff workable, and thanked staff and Mr. Inouye. Mr. Farr commended Ms. Berrian for her work. Mr. Meisner supported the resolution and endorsed the change made to the resolution. He pointed out that the franchise agreement with AT&T did not bar other entrants to the market. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. C.WORK SESSION: Police Forensic Evidence/Property Control Building Alternatives Mr. Carlson stated that the decision before the council was whether to build a new facility for the Police Forensics Evidence/Property Control Unit (FEU/PUC) at the Roosevelt site, or convert privately leased space for the purpose. He reminded the council that the action before it had been identified in the council goals. A facility reserve that was sufficient to fund any of the options had been set aside. Mr. Carlson said the staff recommendation fit the council's direction through the Downtown Space Plan that City facilities should be owned rather than leased. He said that the recommendation for a two-stow structure represented a more efficient use of the land and protected more of the Public Works Maintenance site for future use by that division. Mr. Carlson further noted the recommendation for a construction manager/general contractor approach to speed the time line. He said that staff had employed Jack Barry, a private architect, to review the cost estimates and programming. Appraiser John Brown and contractor Mike Roberts had also MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 5 Work Session reviewed that information. He said that Peter Roberts of RCS Associates provided a letter to the council that included a private sector review to the costs and approach to providing the facility. Mr. Carlson recommended that the council take action on the item and adopt the staff proposal for a two-story facility at the Roosevelt site. He anticipated that the facility could be done concurrently with the new fire station. Mr. Rayor liked the proposal. He thought every point of contention raised by the council had been taken into account by staff. He was pleased with the alternative delivery method as it would move staff out of the basement more quickly. Mr. Kelly supported the primary goal of getting staff out of the basement. He appreciated the changes made to the build proposal, in particularly the two-story structure and the use of existing property. However, he found the lease proposal more attractive. He said if the use contemplated was to be permanent, he would support the build proposal, but the use was proposed for only five years, and the cost over that time period for the lease proposal was $2.8 million; he contrasted that to the build proposal, which cost $4.4 million. He did not think that was an efficient use of taxpayer money. Mr. Kelly questioned whether the cost of the tenant improvements for the lease proposal would be considered differently if it was known the building would be used for only five years. That might bring the costs down. He also liked the greater flexibility of a lease approach. He asked about the space needs for Special Operations, which was to occupy the new space after five years. He recalled that the alternatives identified for City Hall indicated the service was occupying 6,500 square feet now. He acknowledged that could be cramped, but questioned why the amount needed was more than double that. Mr. Meisner asked Chief Thad Buchanan to discuss the ultimate use of the building. Chief Buchanan responded that the building would be used for Special Operations when the FEU/PCU was relocated to a new police facility, when and if constructed. He said that the reason for the additional space for the Special Operations function was due to the need for storage of vehicles, such as the Command Bus. Mr. Meisner said his questions and concerns about the lease versus buy approach had been answered. While he acknowledged the amount of money involved, he supported the staff recommendation and expressed pleasure that the structure was to be two stories. He wanted to move forward immediately. Mr. Meisner asked if the council needed to have a public hearing on the issue. Mr. Carlson said the issue was governed by State law, which required a public hearing on the exemption from public bidding. Mr. Meisner asked that such information be included in future Agenda Item Summaries. He also asked that the public hearing be scheduled soon. Ms. Bettman wanted to achieve both the immediate objective of getting staff out of the basement of City Hall and the long-term objective of getting a new police station downtown. She objected to the staff proposal because it would expend the entire facilities reserve on a building not on the council's capital priority list. She believed the lease costs prepared by staff to be inflated because she thought the City could purchase an office building. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested that the lease costs prepared by staff were inflated. Recalling that the difference between the costs of an office space and the lab space were estimated by staff to be approximately $175,000, she suggested that the City purchase an office building and invest $175,000 in improvements. The building could be sold once it had filled its purpose. The remainder of the reserves could be held to offset the eventual cost of bond levy going to the voters for a downtown police station. She said that if the City saved money for that use, it would be leverage for getting a measure passed. Ms. Bettman suggested alternatively, the City could buy a parcel of land and install modular units on it. Ms. Bettman said that for the April 25, 2001, work session on the same item, the council agenda item summary indicated that locating the facility on City-owned property would require additional property acquisition. She asked what happened to the idea that the City would save money by using the site because it already owned the property. She also asked the status of the disposal of several City properties. Regarding Ms. Bettman's statement the facility was for a temporary use, Mr. Carlson reiterated that staff was proposing to use the structure in the future for Special Operations, which was a specific facility identified in the Downtown Space Plan. Mr. Svendsen clarified that the $175,000 referred to by Ms. Bettman was the incremental cost of constructing a new office building and accommodating the lab. There would be retrofit costs for an existing space. There were similar conversion issues with modular units. Regarding the status of City-owned property to be disposed, Mr. Svendsen indicated that Lane Transit District had expressed interest in Fire Station 6 on Coburg Road. The City was still working to clear some old railroad easements on Fire Station 4, and was ready to proceed with disposal of Fire Station 2. There were several land use issues related to the Kaufman Annex because the two properties were developed under a conditional use permit as a senior center, and the new code required housing replacement in the remaining center if the annex was to be sold. He said that disposal of the Lincoln Yards was dependent on the eventual move of Special Operations. Peter Roberts of RCS Associates, Inc., said that he reviewed the lease costs and did not consider them inflated. He said that the issue was how the space had been programmed. He had interviewed City staff extensively to determine the programming that had been done, and it appeared to him that an thorough effort had gone into the programming, with considerable involvement from the end users of the facility and outside professionals. Mr. Roberts said that what he saw in terms of costs was commensurate with his experience and the market. The differences between the standard office costs and lab costs in the lease proposal took into account the additional HVAC requirements and requirements for mill work, which can dramatically drive up the costs. Regarding modular units, Mr. Roberts said that they were very expensive, particularly in Oregon, because of the State codes governing modular units. In addition, the market was not competitive and the wait for units could be long. He did not think the use of modular units would be a cost-effective solution. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Carlson that there was one months' difference in the time line for the lease approach versus build approach. He further determined from Mr. Carlson that the proceeds of the sales of City property would be placed in the Facilities Reserve Fund. He expressed hope that the City would be able to put funds aside in the future to address other public safety-related deficits the organization faced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation to Mr. Rayor for his engineering expertise and appreciation to Mr. Roberts for his expert opinion. Ms. Nathanson said that it was time to move ahead and make the best decision. She noted that it had been mentioned the building was for a temporary use, but she did not consider police services a temporary use. The building was being built for police services, and she was not troubled that one function would move out and be replaced by another function. With regard to the lease versus build approach, Ms. Nathanson said that the leased building might cost less, but at the end of five years the City would have no asset to show for its expenditures. Regarding the potential of purchasing a building to improve and then sell when it was no longer needed, Ms. Nathanson pointed to the specialized nature of the functions in question and said that the value of the tenant improvements would not be generic value to resell for general office use. She supported the staff proposal. Mr. Farr found the proposal to be exciting, particularly when taken in conjunction with the successful passage of the fire station bond measure. He concurred with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson about the fact the City would have no asset at the end of five years if it took the lease approach. Ms. Taylor also opposed the staff proposal, saying the City would also lose the money it would cost to build the lab in a new space. She did not see anything in the Agenda Item Summary related to having the lab work done elsewhere. She pointed out that Springfield did not have a forensics unit and relied on the State Police. Mr. Carlson said that staff did not recommend that approach, and the Public Safety Coordinating Council had gone on record as supporting the City maintaining its separate lab function. Ms. Taylor anticipated that a motion to support the build option would pass, and hoped the City Council would consider the testimony it received when it held the public hearing and reverse its decision. Ms. Taylor asked about the connection between the FEU and PCU, and if they had to be housed in the same structure. Chief Buchanan said yes, for convenience's sake; evidence first gets booked into Property, and then was transferred to the lab for processing and then back to Property. Mayor Torrey supported the staff recommendation, saying "let's do it, today." Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to direct the City Manager to initiate relocation of the Police FEU/PCU units to a new, two-story facility to be constructed on City-owned property at Roosevelt and Garfield. Staff is directed to return to the council for a public hearing and action on a proposal to use a Construction Manager/General Contractor method for construction of this project. Mr. Kelly agreed that with Ms. Nathanson it was time for a decision and he was prepared to act. He continued to feel strongly that the lease approach was the preferable way to go. While he agreed that the Police Department's needs were permanent, he was not convinced that in five years staff would recommend the use of the building for Special Operations, resulting in a white elephant. The only reason he opposed the motion, Mr. Kelly emphasized, was because he thought the leased option less costly than the build option. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman acknowledged the motion was likely to pass and said she would be glad to see staff out of the basement. However, she would not support the motion because she did not think the staff proposal the most efficient use of the dollars available. In addition, the motion did not include a cap on the costs, and she wanted to ensure the $4.2 million was a cap. She said that Special Operations would only be able to use the building in the future if there was a levy to build a new police station, resulting in what she termed a "musical chairs" situation. Ms. Bettman said that the City would end up with an asset using the build option, but reiterated it was not an asset that had previously been identified as a priority. Ms. Bettman reiterated her question about the additional property that would have to be acquired. Mr. Carlson said when staff started looking at how the property to be used had been acquired, it learned it was acquired with Public Works dedicated funds; the asset would be a General Fund asset, and the dedicated funds would be reimbursed. Mr. Rayor said he was pleased with the responsiveness of staff to the council's concerns about conserving housing and the wisest use of land. He did not perceive the building would be a white elephant as it would be used in the future either by the Police or Public Works departments. Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion enthusiastically. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, he pointed out that the public hearing would not be whether to build the facility, but whether to take the Construction Manager/General Contractor approach toward construction. Mr. Meisner clarified that the Lane Transit District was not proposing to have the City hold Station 6; it was proposing to purchase it. Mr. Farr said he hoped the community knew how fortunate it and the council were in having the staff they did. He commended the staff for bringing the council good options. Mr. Pap8 also thanked staff for responding to the council's concerns when developing its options. He indicated support for the motion. Ms. Taylor said she wanted it to be clear that she wanted the police out of the basement, but she thought the leased approach better. She acknowledged Mr. Meisner's comments about the scope of the hearing, and suggested that the council should have a public hearing on whether it should spent the money as was being proposed. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion by including a public hearing on the expenditure. The motion to amend died from lack of a second. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tern MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 9 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 22, 2002 Page 10 Work Session