Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/10/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall June 10, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Fart indicated the council would receive testimony at the regular meeting from the local business community regarding the dramatic impact of the anti-smoking ordinance on their business. He asked the council to listen to the testimony it would receive. Mr. Rayor said Hynix had the right to appeal its tax burden but the council had a right to know about that appeal when it considered the company's tax exemption request. It would have made a difference to him. He requested an accounting of what happened and asked why the newspaper knew what was being appealed and staff did not. Mr. Pap~ commended former Mayor Ruth Bascom for her work in realizing the completion of the Hayes Memorial Garden, and encouraged other councilors to visit it. He asked how he could make a donation to help improve the site. Mr. Fart said that Willamette High School was sending a contingent of students to the National Debate Tournament in North Carolina. It was the largest group of students ever to attend the event from Oregon. He commended Willamette High School for its success, and noted his son was one of the students in attendance. Mayor Torrey called attention to the upcoming Ducks on Parade event and encouraged councilors to buy a duck. The council sang Happy Birthday to Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly said a constituent called him about a situation where a street tree in the planting strip had begun to break up the sidewalk. The Public Works Department informed this person he was responsible for the damage repair. The department further informed him he could not take out the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 1 Work Session tree and replace it with another tree. He asked City Manager Jim Carlson to look into the situation. Mr. Kelly said the Housing Policy Board wrote a letter to the mayor and council related to charges associated with St. Vincent de Paul's mid-rise in downtown. He appreciated the response, which indicated the agency was being overcharged. He expressed concern there was no booklet to guide a person on Eugene's development fees, and asked Mr. Carlson to investigate the feasibility of such a guidebook. Ms. Taylor said constituents had contacted her with concerns about individuals parking and sleeping near the Masonic Cemetery. Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Rayor for raising the issue of the tax assessment. Ms. Bettman said the bond measure for 4J would build two new schools, and there would be an open house in the Patterson School cafeteria on June 15 to discuss school site planning. She encouraged residents to attend. Ms. Bettman thanked and commended the Lane County Budget Committee and Lane County commissioners Dwyer, Sorenson, Green, and Weeldreyer for increasing their contributions to human services in Lane County. Mr. Meisner said he hoped the council received more information about how to donate to the Hayes Memorial Garden. Mr. Meisner invited the councilors to participate in a work day at Trainsong Park on June 13. He said that Home Depot was donating materials and labor; Eugene Sand & Gravel was donating materials and labor; and the park project was being funded in part by a neighborhood matching grant. Mr. Carlson said the executive managers discussed the opportunity to have the City of Eugene purchase a duck for the Ducks on Parade Art Exhibit that would occur through the summer. He asked if the council was interested in using a portion of its remaining contingency fund to participate. Councilors indicated willingness to consider such a contingency request. B. WORK SESSION: School Finance Issues The council was joined for the item by Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department Director Angel Jones, 4J School District Superintendent George Russell, and Bethel School District Superintendent Kent Hunksaker. Mr. Russell spoke of the funding shortfall the school districts were facing this year, continuing a steady pattern of the last five to six years. He discussed how many costs now devolved onto parents. Mr. Russell said the legislature would go into special session later this week, but no compromise position had yet been drafted. The impact of potential cuts was an additional $14 million to the 4J school districts. The proposal before the council spoke to the cuts made over the past year, and the hope that programs that served both families and children could be retained. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 2 Work Session He said that the proposal was modeled on one developed and implemented by the City of Ashland, which passed a serial levy to help the schools with funding. Mr. Hunsaker expressed appreciation for the council's support for numerous programs already in place, such as the Safer Schools Program and the after-school program levy. He said the City's support in working with the district on facilities issues was also appreciated. He expressed pleasure with the partnership that had been created. He said that City Planning staff had been particularly helpful to the district. Mr. Hunsaker encouraged the council to let the proposal move forward and see what happened. He noted the lesser funding percentage that the Bethel district took in comparison to the 4J district, but said there were many things that had been phased out he would like to see replaced and for which he believed there was community support. Ms. Jones requested direction from the council to proceed to develop a proposal. She reiterated there was considerable community support, and emphasized the partnerships that would be created. Mr. Meisner liked the idea and said he would support a motion directing more work. He termed the proposal a stop-gap measure and said he had heard from a Santa Clara resident urging support because that person did not have to pay for it. He said that people would question annexation if the City paid for everything. He said the City needed equitable participation from other agencies. He asked why the County was not involved. Ms. Jones said that staff continued to work to get all jurisdictions to step up and get involved. She would continue to work with Lane County. She said that she discussed the issue with selected commissioners, who have no desire to put something on the ballot at this time. Mr. Russell indicated that he had received an e-mail from County Administrator Bill Van Vactor regarding his interest in the topic. Mr. Meisner encouraged staff to work with Lane County. Mr. Farr endorsed Mr. Meisner's remarks and said the City needed to start with the State legislature. He said that he had become a councilor to help schools. He said that the council had the chance to do so tonight. He thought it should help both districts in whatever way possible. He called for council support in putting something on the ballot. Mr. Kelly agreed the need was critical and the mission of the schools vital. He supported the concept under discussion. He asked for an update from staff regarding the impact of such a measure on the City's property tax cap. He said the measure would allow the districts to restore or avoid cutting some of its recreation service, art, music, etc., which he fully supported. He said that the Agenda Item Summary for the item hints the measure might be bundled with the renewal of the City youth service levy, an action which he opposed. He believed that politically, the more simple the message behind it, the more likely a measure would pass. From a philosophical standpoint, he thought the council had, under some protest, put the initial youth levy on the ballot; its wariness had been the continued reliance on the property tax. Staff had been directed at that time to develop a permanent funding source. That had not happened. Ms. Taylor asked if the issue of combining districts had been discussed. She suggested it would save dollars to combine the districts. She agreed a countywide approach was preferable. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that the issues should be separate. She wanted the City to help the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 3 Work Session schools. She felt the community cared about education, and she did not want to spend money without asking the people. She did not see why the City would not let the voters decide. Ms. Taylor believed the measure fit with the council's goals, but believed it ironic the council had cut many services related to the goal. Ms. Bettman favored using whatever resources the City could to address the funding cuts the schools faced, but did not think the City could afford a "feel good" measure. She was concerned that the measure would not address core student needs. She objected to funding music clubs and cutting music teachers, for example, and asked staff to come back with a recommendation that focused on core services or what will directly impact core services, such as school counselors and school nurses. She wanted to see what other jurisdictions were doing to offset school cuts. Ms. Bettman said if the council was going to ask taxpayers to foot the bill, the proposal needed to benefit City residents. She had a problem with spending City taxpayer money to benefit nonresidents. Ms. Nathanson noted the links between many existing City and school programs, the existing partnerships, and the interrelationship between services and functions. She cited efforts to reduce criminal activity as an example. She said that, seemingly, the council was being asked to consider a partnership approach. She thought the council had an incentive to help. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Jones to consider how working relationships could be strengthened without making participating partners unhappy, and finding a way to engage the districts in discussion about some of the neighborhood impacts from schools that were of concern to the council. Mr. Pap~ was very concerned about area schools. He hoped Governor John Kitzhaber and the legislature were sufficiently concerned to put aside their differences and act in the benefit of the schools. He said that he would support placing a measure before the voters and hoped the measure took a broad approach, as had been discussed by Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman. He disliked funding permanent services with serial levies, and said it was a grave concern in this case. Ms. Jones responded that staff was considering the measure a stop-gap approach, with the expectation that the State would develop a permanent funding solution. Mr. Pap~ asked what happened if the State failed to act. Ms. Jones said that Eugene needed a Eugene solution in that case. Mr. Pap~ agreed that a regional solution would be preferable. He shared the concern expressed by others about subsidizing nonresidents. Ms. Jones said that staff had not yet decided how to address the nonresident population, although it acknowledged that issue was out there. Mr. Pap~ asked if any money left over from last parks and open space bond could be used to assist the schools. Ms. Jones said that she did not think that was legally permissible. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Jones that State law precluded the City from funding school operations. Mr. Rayor opposed the approach being contemplated, saying schools and municipalities had always been separated, and taking on the burden of school funding would just let the State legislature avoid solving the problem. The proposal did not address the driver for MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 4 Work Session increased costs, PERS and medical costs for employees. Until that issue was addressed, "everyone was going down together." He pointed out that the City was party to a suit against PERS and the school districts were not. He did not think giving a few million to the schools would solve the problem. Mr. Rayor criticized "foul ups at the top" that had lead to mismanagement. Mayor Torrey supported the proposal before the council. He said he was not willing to wait while Salem made a decision. He was concerned about area children. He said that the council should direct staff to return with a measure to vote up or down. He did not want to take on the board's role, but thought the board should take into account the council's remarks, which would be reflective of the community discussion. Ms. Jones pointed the council to information in the Agenda Item Summary related to the impact of a ballot measure on the property tax cap, and said more information was forthcoming. Councilors noted the time and concurred that they would devote five more minutes to the item. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to authorize staff to proceed with developing a proposal for a ballot measure to be returned to the City Council by August 2002. Mr. Kelly endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks that the effort lead to an ongoing partnership related to issues of other concern. Mr. Fart said the districts had cut as much as they could cut. He thought the City should help the school in whatever way it could. He supported the motion and hoped others did so as well. He acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns about serving nonresidents, but believed the City had ways to address that issue. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Rayor about enabling the dysfunction at the State legislature, but did not want Eugene's children to have to wait for the legislature to "wake up" and fund education. She wanted to see options for what would be funded and different ways of funding the services, such as the Portland model. She said her priority was restoration of cuts as close to the core as possible. Ms. Nathanson said fees for nonresidents were one way to address the issue of concern to Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman, and suggested that the information brought back to the council address the issue of the complication of services inside city and school boundaries. She suggested a solution existed midway between a County and City solution. Mr. Meisner thought the points made by Mr. Rayor related to the legislature were well-taken. He said that every session of the legislature he observed was a failure from a financial planning point of view. He opposed the motion on the floor as it did not contemplate a regional solution. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Judicial Evaluation Task Team MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 5 Work Session The council was joined for the item by Judicial Task Team member Floyd Prozanski and Court Administrator Marilyn Nelson. Ms. Nelson reviewed the process used for the evaluation, which included a citizen committee to review the judge's performance. Ms. Nelson introduced Judge Wayne Allen. She noted that task team member Kathy Cunningham was also present. She said other task team members included Dan Neal, Tom Orr, and Andrea Ortiz. Mr. Prozanski reviewed the task team process and methodology. He encouraged the council to review the materials provided, and noted that the task team found no problems with the judge. Ms. Taylor asked if defendants were surveyed. Ms. Nelson said that the court sent out 2,000 surveys twice annually, and the task team employed that information. Ms. Taylor wondered if there was an attempt to separate those who lost in court from those who prevailed. Mr. Prozanksi believed that the surveys would indicate that bias. Ms. Nelson indicated those surveys could be made available to the council. Mr. Prozanski said that the surveys the task team reviewed showed overwhelming satisfaction. Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Prozanski for his work. Ms. Nathanson said she was pleased to read the information gathered and thanked the task team for the work it did. She said that the effort involved was considerable. She believed that Eugene had a very sensitive socio-economic climate, and it was necessary to balance the community's interest against the individual's interest. Ms. Nathanson referred to key issues for the court, and asked why the Road Crew schedule was set so far in advance, and what the council could do to help alleviate the problem. She asked for more information about the court remodel, asking if it could be accomplished in a shorter time period. Ms. Nelson indicated staff would provide responses on June 26. Mr. Kelly thanked the task team for its work. He said that Eugene had a distinctive judicial evaluation process that he found valuable and thorough. He thought the consistency of the responses spoke well of Judge Allen and the other judges. He particularly appreciated Judge Allen's efforts in education and diversion programs and for his outreach to Spanish-speaking peoples. Ms. Bettman thanked the task team. She referred to page 5 of the report, and asked how specific criticisms were followed up on. Ms. Nelson said that the staff was working on follow-up and research. Mr. Meisner looked forward to the public hearing and subsequent work session. He expressed appreciation for the work of the task team. He said that on occasion, when the council was considering amendments to the City's criminal ordinances, it asked the judge for input. He wanted to do so as a matter of policy and practice in the future. He asked that staff follow-up in ensuring that occurred. Mr. Prozanski credited Municipal Court staff for the work it did in helping the task team complete the evaluation. He said it made the task team's job much easier. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the road crew, Mr. Prozanski said that in his experience as a prosecutor for Florence the Road Crew was in high demand, and Lane County MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 6 Work Session was the only agency offering that service. He suggested that the City might consider operating its own crews, over which it would have control. D. WORK SESSION: Request from the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) to Revise Eugene Code Section 6.250 The council was joined by Brian Jennison of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), who asked the council to amend the City Code related to new standards for certain types of particulate matter. Mr. Kelly asked the source of the proposed standards, and how often staff envisioned the conditions that the standards were intended to address occurring. Mr. Jennison said that the source of the standard was the federal health-based standard for fine particulates, PM 2.5, and LRAPA wished to avoid violating that regulation; if it could preclude emissions when the community reached a reading of 55, it could avoid violating the federal standard. He said that a Stage 1 advisory had never been called, and the agency had been using PM 2.5 all year; it had called more yellow advisories than in the past. Mr. Kelly referred to new subsection 4 of the proposed ordinance and said that while red was defined, "green" and "yellow" were never defined. He suggested legal counsel check into that. He asked if "opacity" was easy to measure in the field. He also asked what the likely impact would be of a green/yellow advisory: no more wood stove use? Mr. Jennisen said those who use wood stoves properly will have no problem with the opacity limitation. It was an enforcement tool to help inspectors in the field determine whether a particular wood stove was a neighborhood nuisance. Mr. Pap8 asked how the ordinance would be enforced. Mr. Jennisen said that the City Manager had, through administrative order, delegated the enforcement of the rule to LRAPA. LRAPA had been enforcing the ordinance for some time. If the agency had to call a red, it would send out field staff. Inspectors would knock on the doors of offenders and ask them to stop burning. If they refused, they could be cited and fined. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Jennison that Section 6.250(3) was a list of what constituted garbage and could cause dense smoke if burned. Mr. Pap8 determined that the ordinance applied to fireplaces, and asked about fireplaces and stoves that were ignited by propane or gas. Mr. Jennisen was not aware of a fireplace which was ignited by gas and burned wood. If a fireplace was designed to be started with a gas fuel, th ordinance would not apply. He said that the focus of the ordinance was on items thrown into a fire after it was started. Mr. Pap~ was aware of such fireplaces, and was concerned about the specificity in Section 6.250(3), particularly the mention of petroleum byproducts. Mr. Jennisen said that the reference to petroleum by-products was a reference to waste oil and rags, for example. He emphasized that the focus was on solid-fuel space heating devices, which did not include gas heated fireplaces. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Jennisen that LRAPA's enforcement officers could decide whether the ordinance was being violated by evaluating degrees of opacity. Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Jennison for the work that LRAPA did. He determined from Mr. Jennisen that barbeques and the cooking of food for human consumption were exempt from the ordinance. He asked how arbitrary enforcement could be avoided. Mr. Jennisen said that he was also MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 7 Work Session concerned about arbitrary enforcement and wanted to ensure that enforcement was consistent. LRAPA's inspectors were trained professionals who were also concerned about not being arbitrary. The ordinance gave LRAPA an opportunity to talk to people and educate them on how to burn their stoves more cleanly. That was LRAPA's preferred approach. Ms. Bettman supported the changes being proposed. She appreciated that LRAPA emphasized citizen education, which kept polluting materials out of wood stoves. She hoped the agency did actual outreach, particularly during holiday times when people considered burning paper. She noted that increased particulates in the air and the hazard of asthma. Mr. Jennison said that Public Information Director Kim Metzger did public outreach year-round, and LRAPA did considerable public outreach around the holidays. He agreed about the importance of that outreach. Mr. Meisner indicated support for forwarding the item to a public hearing. He expressed appreciation for the materials provided with the agenda item. He noted that LRAPA was unique to Lane County and that troubled him. He wanted to balance local needs and protections with what others were doing. He said that his sentiments were not a reflection on LRAPA's work, but he thought the community should look at why it needed to be unique in the state with its own bureaucracy, rather than relying on a State bureaucracy that apparently satisfactorily served other communities. Ms. Taylor said LRAPA focused on education rather than penalizing people. Mr. Kelly said he liked the specificity in the ordinance and suggested a line be included that stated petroleum products used to ignite a fireplace were not to be included in the prohibition against petroleum. Mr. Pap~ referred to page 63 of the agenda packet and said it appeared there could be up to a $500 fine levied in a process outside the court system. Mr. Kelly noted that fines were appealable. Mr. Jennison said that referred to the administrative penalty. He said that if LRAPA got to the point where it had to request a penalty, there would be legal recourse available to those cited. Ms. Taylor said that the fines were appealable, negotiable, and fair. Mr. Jennison said that the fine could be appealed to a Hearings Officer, to the LRAPA Board, and then to the courts. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct the City Manager to hold a public hearing on June 24, 2002, on an ordinance to revise Section 6.250 of the Eugene Code. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. E. WORK SESSION: City Manager Recruitment Human Resource and Risk Services Director Lauren Chouinard joined the council for the item. He referred the council to the agenda item summary, which outlined the options for proceeding with the city manager recruitment process. Option A would begin the next phase of the recruitment process in July 2002; Option 2 would begin the next phase of the process in late September 2002. Mr. Chouinard requested council direction on the timing of the process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. Mr. Kelly noted the inclusion of the job description and profile in the packet, which had been reviewed by a subcommittee composed of himself, Mr. Pap~, and Mr. Meisner, and asked that councilors with comments provide them later to Mr. Chouinard. Mr. Kelly saw advantages to both options but wanted to move ahead as quickly as was prudent. He preferred the earlier time line offered to the council, Option A, saying it would be his preference to involve the councilors-elect in every way possible with the exception of casting a final vote. He anticipated, for example, that the councilors-elected could meet with the recruiter, review resumes, etc. Mr. Kelly noted that using the earlier time year would still mean a new manager would not be hired until the first of the year. Mr. Fart agreed that the council needed to move forward as quickly as prudently possible but he preferred the later time line to ensure that the councilors-elect were part of the process. Mr. Meisner noted his participation in the 1996 hiring process as a councilor-elect, and observed that it had not been a position with decision-making authority. He said the subcommittee tasked now to oversee the recruitment process met with the recruiter to discuss possible time lines. The recruiter indicated that if the council opted for the earlier time line, he could not do the job he wanted to do in an adequate or satisfactory way. Mr. Chouinard concurred that the recruiter indicated the earlier time line would affect the quality and quantity of the candidates he could secure. Mr. Meisner did not support an earlier time line, pointing out the difference in the two time lines in terms of the hire date was two months, not a great delay. He expressed support for Option B. He hoped to ask councilor-elect George Poling, who was present, his feeling about the time line. Mr. Farr concurred. Ms. Bettman asked for the precedent for asking the question of Mr. Poling. Mayor Torrey indicated that he would follow precedent and disallow the question. Mr. Rayor indicated he would ask Mr. Poling his opinion and share it when he had the floor. Ms. Taylor supported the earlier time line. She thought it would be better if the process could begin even sooner. Ms. Taylor said that the manager pro tern was not able to hire and fire permanent executive staff without council concurrence, and she did not think he would want to do so if a new manager was joining the organization. She said that the approach taken in 1996 had made her, as a councilor-elect at the time, feel included, even though she could not vote. There were four new councilors at that time, and one-half of the council was to be new, a different situation from now. She said that the people who were in office now were the ones who should vote until they were out of office. Mr. Pap~ indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. He said that there was no other decision facing the council that was more important than the hiring of a new manager. He thought it important that the people who would supervise the manager in the future should also be responsible for hiring the manager. He preferred the extended time line reflected in Option B. Mr. Rayor shared Mr. Poling's view, with which he concurred, that Option B was preferable. That would allow the complete participation of the councilor-elects while allowing the current council to MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 9 Work Session proceed with the development of the criteria. The actual selection of a new manager would be in the hands of the new council. Ms. Bettman believed the process of hiring of the manager should focus on who was the best manager for the second-largest city in Oregon. She hoped to move forward quickly and search for a city manager as extraordinary as the community. She was dismayed that the former manager had informed the council that he was resigning the previous October, and now the council was proposing to postpone the next phase of the search until October 2002. She said that was a "political ploy" to postpone the decision until another council with a "certain make-up" was in place to make the decision. Ms. Bettman said that argued to her that the decision would not be made on the basis of best qualified candidate, but rather on the basis of politics. She was very disappointed about that. Ms. Bettman referred to the time line and the assertion that the October time line would enhance the recruiters' ability to come up with better candidates. She said that both time lines appeared to be predicated on a six-month time period and asked why the six months between July and September was not as good as the six months between September and March 2003. Mr. Chouinard said the recruiter believed that to attract the best candidates, such as those not currently looking for a job, candidates would need to know that the people hiring them were the people they would be working for. Ms. Bettman believed that the recruiter was reinforcing the political nature of the issue. Mr. Chouinard said that the recruiter did not consider the politics of the council. He was unaware of those issues. Ms. Bettman asked if staff were sure the process would only take six months, and if there were factors that could slow or delay the process. Mr. Chouinard said that the public involvement component of the process would drive the timing in part, and the council had made no decision about that. He thought that aside from the unknowns of that issue, six months would be adequate. Ms. Bettman suggested that said that the council could start the process in July but not hire a manager until January 2003. Mr. Chouinard said that was possible, but the more time there was in the process the more likely it was the City would lose some good candidates to other cities across the country. Ms. Bettman suggested late August or early September as a middle ground. Mr. Chouinard said part of the reasoning behind Option B was to ensure that the process did not extend into the holiday season. Ms. Bettman thought that consistent with her position. Ms. Nathanson supported Option B. She said that a manager's job was to implement the decisions of a majority of the council, and she did not see the decision before the council as a political decision. All of the councilors would want a good, professional city manager. She said that the politics of the community and council would be a factor for the candidates to consider, but so was the demeanor and working style of the councilors. She believed that the candidate would be interviewing the council and the City organization as much as the reverse was true. Mayor Torrey supported Option B because he thought an interested candidate would want to know the outcome of the charter review referral. He thought the council would have a true reflection of ward boundaries when the new councilors took their seats. He believed the council was blessed to have an acting city manager who was as competent and understanding of the City's needs as City Manager pro tern Jim Carlson. He said Eugene was not an easy city to manage, and there were qualified people that would be scared away by the politics of Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Kelly said it was somewhat dismaying to him to say that the issue was not political while making political statements. He believed the average tenure for city managers was about ten years, so whoever was hired to be the next manager would deal with several councils. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Meisner if he could think of any way the 1996 experience could have been improved short of having a vote. Mr. Meisner said no. He said that it was easy to say, as his predecessor had done, that they would vote the way the incoming candidate wanted, until they disagreed with the incoming candidate. He wanted the incoming councilors' participation to be real. He said that the decision to hire was not the only one of concern to him; he was also concerned about the process of winnowing the list of candidates. Mr. Kelly said it was his impression the late time line had the current council doing the winnowing process. Mr. Chouinard agreed. Mr. Meisner said that he was not happy about that fact. Mr. Kelly indicated he would place a motion on the floor that appeared to reflect the council majority: Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt Option A. Mr. Farr opposed the motion. He did not think anyone could argue that there was going to be a "sea change" on the council. He wanted to ensue that the right decision was made by those who would have to live with the change. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion to substitute Option B. Mr. Rayor hoped that Mr. Carlson would apply for and receive the job of city manager. He said that the time the process took was because there was no need for haste; the City had a steady "hand on the tiller." Ms. Taylor said the council would have to stop everything if it had to wait on newly elected people. She pointed out that the manager would have to work with a new council in another two years. She thought a good manager should be able to work with any council. She thought the appeal of Eugene would be sufficient for any new manager. Mr. Pap8 said the recruiter recommended that the council wait and involve the new councilors in the hiring of the manager. He supported the motion. Mr. Pap8 called for the question, seconded by Mr. Farr. The motion to call the question failed for lack of a two-thirds majority vote, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Bettman agreed that the new council would not be a "sea change" politically. However, she had watched since October as the majority of the council postponed the decision, and felt strongly that those who were not represented were the citizens of Eugene, who deserve a topnotch city manager. The council should begin the recruitment process soon, because the time line might not hold. She believed the councilor could be in the position of hiring the manager in January 2003 anyway, and the new councilors would have a vote. She believed the council had been derelict in not addressing the issue to this point. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that the use of substitute motions was being increasingly employed. He thought it complicated matters considerably, and suggested that motions be voted up or down. He also thought there was a time and place to call for the question, but did not think that it was appropriate at a work session. Mr. Kelly thought it inappropriate to call for the hiring of Mr. Carlson in an open session. He thought it sent an inappropriate message to interested candidates. Mr. Meisner said while he agreed with Mr. Kelly about the use of substitute motions, he intended to support the one on the floor. He thought the motion made it more likely the council could achieve the outlined time line. He felt the time line would give the recruiter the ability to recruit top candidates. Ms. Taylor said that it was important not to take forever for the hiring process. She said once someone was hired, it could take some time for that person to join the City organization. Mr. Farr indicated that he seconded Mr. Rayor's motion because he believed Mr. Kelly misread the sentiment of the council in offering his motion. Ms. Bettman asked how a prospective candidate interpreted the City's delay in seeking a new manager. Could it be interpreted as a strong preference for an internal candidate? Mr. Chouinard did not know how it would be interpreted. He said that it might send the signal that the organization had a steady hand at the tiller, but no one knew if Mr. Carlson was a candidate. The motion to substitute passed 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. The amended motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tern (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 2002 Page 12 Work Session