Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/10/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 10, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Kelly called the meeting to order. A.WORK SESSION: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office was present for the item. She indicated that the council must take action by August 12, 2002, if the council wished to have the charter-related amendments on the November 2002 ballot. It was possible to take action on August 14, but that would be very close to the deadline for filing the measures. City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson distributed the motion the council passed on July 8 related to the City Attorney position. Regarding the issue of a city auditor, Mr. Carlson noted that the City already conducted performance audits and staff did not oppose such audits. They were a legitimate management tool. He was concerned about having a performance auditor appointed by the council, thus establishing a second position that was hired and supervised by the City Council. Mr. Carlson believed that there were potential pitfalls in such a situation, and noted the continued opposition to a city auditor expressed by former City Manager Jim Johnson, who had worked in such a jurisdiction with such a position, and did not find the approach effective. Mr. Carlson referred the councilors to an option distributed at their places that was similar to the approach the council took to the charter amendment related to an in-house city attorney. He said that the option developed by the Citizen Committee on Charter Review (CCRC) went extensively into details, such as the types of professional proficiencies required. Staff recommended that those not be included in the charter because they could change over time, and the charter was intended to be more of a guiding document. Mr. Carlson referred to a sentence in the CCRC recommendation that read, All audit reports are public records. He asked City Attorney Jerome Lidz to comment on how the recommendation conflicted with Oregon Public Records Law. Mr. Lidz anticipated there would be rare times when there was an audit report on a topic that was not suitable for public disclosure. He cited as an example an audit of the City's computer security system, or security at the airport. He reported that technically, under State law, every document in the possession of a State agency or local MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 1 Work Session government was a public record, but some were exempt from disclosure. Mr. Lidz believed that most people, using a common sense interpretation of the term "public record," would read the sentence and believe that they had access to those exempted records. He suggested that the sentence in question could be deleted, or alternatively, the text included in Appendix W of the council's notebook regarding the amendments could be used. Mr. Carlson reported that the City Council formerly had an Audit Committee composed of councilors that oversaw the details of the City's financial audit. The council discontinued the committee because of a lack of interest. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to refer the proposed new section creating the position of a city performance auditor to the ballot in the November 2002 election. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by revising the sentence that read "All audit reports are public records" to read "All audit reports are public records and are subject to disclosures required by and in accordance with State law pertaining to disclosure of public records." Mr. Kelly called for council comments and questions. Ms. Nathanson preferred the City Manager's approach, which was to adopt text parallel to that used for the City Attorney position, as opposed to the more detailed recommendation of the CCRC. Mr. Fart indicated support for the amendment but said he did not favor the main motion because of the complexity of the text being proposed. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Lidz said that the amendment ensured that audits were subject to State law regarding public records. It did not add substance in that the requirements for disclosure would be the same under State law, but it did provide assurance to a member of the public reading the charter that the reports would be treated like other public records, and not placed where they could not be reviewed. He believed that it would be a rare instance in which a report was exempt from disclosure. Mr. Pap8 opposed the amendment, saying he preferred the charter remain simple. Ms. Taylor thought the amendment accomplished the simplicity Mr. Pap8 was seeking. Mr. Lidz concurred. Mr. Kelly believed the amendment was responsive to the legal counsel's concerns. He also believed it provided philosophical assurance related to the public nature of the audit reports. Mr. Carlson said that the amendment was actually a restatement of State law. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Pap8 voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Fart indicated opposition to the amended motion, saying the audit process currently in place was sufficient and met the needs of the citizens. He said that if something was to be placed on the ballot, it should be simple. Ms. Nathanson also opposed the motion on the table. She said that there were performance audits and financial audits, and they had different purposes. The committee's focus was on performance auditing. However, she believed the mechanisms forwarded by the committee, such as an audit committee, were more appropriate for a financial audit. She noted that the Budget Committee approved motions to fund an audit of City services, and she did not think there was an pressing need to include the auditor position in the charter. Mr. Rayor also preferred language that paralleled the text adopted for the City Attorney position. He was concerned about the impact of the motion on the council/manager form of government. He questioned getting into the level of education and the qualifications the auditor must have in the charter, as there was no precedent for that elsewhere in the charter. He also questioned establishing a committee through the charter. He indicated that he had developed an alternative motion he would offer when appropriate. Ms. Bettman said a city auditor was a means to get the City more respect. The council currently had no way to evaluate how the City Manager was implementing City policy. There was no independent oversight of the manager. She wanted to give voters an opportunity to vote for an independent auditor supervised by the City Council. There would be value to the position only if the auditor were independent. She believed an independent auditor would build credibility for the council because the council now lacked the needed information to adequately supervise the manager. She believed that voters would reject a watered-down version of a city auditor and then the vote could be considered by some as justification for not having one. Mr. Meisner said he would not support the motion or the approach suggested by the manager. He did not recall that the committee was charged to examine the issue by the council. Mr. Meisner said he did not find a great deal of public interest in the concept. He was very concerned about creating an unfunded mandate for the council to fund at a time when it had no money. Mr. Meisner said there was anecdotal information but no guarantee the City would save money from having such a position. He was not impressed with the performance of such positions in the jurisdictions of which he had knowledge. Mr. Meisner wanted independent performance audits but believed that they could be secured without creating a city auditor position. He added that the background materials the council received clouded rather than clarified the issue as half of the materials did not address the position of a performance auditor. Regarding the issue of respect for City government, Mr. Meisner agreed that it was an issue, adding it was an issue at the council table as it was clear that there were councilors that did not respect or trust Eugene's city government. He did not think the position would enhance trust in the City. He also referred to and commended the work being done by some City departments, in particular the Department of Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services, as it attempted to do more work with less resources. Ms. Taylor did not think that the council knew what kind of job the executive staff did except through secondhand reports. She said that Portland had a very successful performance auditor MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 3 Work Session that saved that city money immediately. She emphasized that the focus of such a position was performance as opposed to monetary savings. She pointed out the auditor would report to the City Council, which was a way of being responsible to the public. Ms. Taylor said the performance auditor would be able to respond to citizen questions about the way things work, and could find ways to improve City operations. If the auditor position was responsible to the City Manager, "there was no point to it at all." The person would feel constrained to give the manager positive reports about issues and personnel. Ms. Taylor asked Bob Cassidy and Ken Tollenaar of the CCRC why the committee recommended the auditor position. Mr. Cassidy said the key reason was the independence of the position. The CCRC felt the position would have an impact only if independent. He was sure the committee would oppose a motion that modified its recommendation. Mr. Pap~ asked if the committee's support for the proposal was unanimous. Mr. Cassidy said yes. Mr. Pap~ thought the council should ask the voters if they supported an audit position. He hoped the council put something on the ballot. He was concerned, however, about hiring a full-time auditor to assist the council, which was not a full-time body. Mr. Pap~ was also concerned about the impact on the council/manager form of government of having someone with independent authority, and suggested having the auditor report to the audit committee. Mr. Kelly believed that there was great value to having an independent auditor because it promoted transparency, openness, and integrity in municipal government. He thought the philosophical and psychological benefits worth the cost of the position. It could help demonstrate that the council could be efficient and accountable prior to requesting tax increases from the citizens. Mr. Kelly did not think the manager's proposal worth referring to the voters as it could happen now without charter authority. He emphasized the importance of the position's independence. Speaking to Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the auditor was in the committee's original charge from the council. Mr. Kelly quoted from correspondence from the General Accounting Office in Appendix M of the final report of the CCRC regarding the need for local government to take steps that ensure an auditor was independent and free from organizational impairment. Mr. Kelly believed there were jurisdictions where the concept worked well and others where it did not, and suggested that the council not attempt to generalize from the experience of individual communities. Mr. Kelly said the CCRC recommended the audit committee as a way to more closely involve the City Manager with the operations of the city auditor. He said that the budget proposal for a temporary audit was a very different thing from a charter-established, ongoing employee appointed by the council. Mr. Fart was specifically concerned about an auditor appointed by the council as he feared that it would become a political position. He did not want to see a council majority dictating the day-to- MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 4 Work Session day operations of the City. He did not believe the council needed another employee. He opposed the motion. Ms. Nathanson quoted from the materials provided to the council by the CCRC on the topic, which stated "Nonetheless, internal auditors should not report directly to the governing board except in highly unusual circumstances, for example, evidence of fraud by top management." She said that much of the information the council received from the committee was conflicting. Ms. Nathanson asked how many people worked in the Portland city auditor's office. Mr. Carlson believed there were a total of 56 people working in the Portland auditor's office. Ms. Nathanson said she heard no clarity in the discussion about the nature of the position envisioned. It was unclear if councilors were talking about a performance auditor or a financial auditor. She believed the public wanted to know there was no fraud in municipal operations, and there were financial audits to ensure that happened. Ms. Nathanson believed that the organizational credibility of the organization relied in part on the credibility of the council, and how well it managed the City's affairs. She asked how Mr. Carlson would characterize the auditor role authorized through the fiscal year 2003 budget. Mr. Carlson characterized it as an independent audit performed under contract by an independent auditor. Ms. Nathanson thought such an independent audit would serve as well in terms of expertise and independence. She said she had too many questions to support a solution when the problem was not yet adequately described. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion with the following substitute text: "The City Manager shall appoint a City performance auditor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. The performance auditor shall conduct or cause to be conducted performance audits and may conduct studies intended to measure or improve the performance of City functions. The performance auditor shall regularly report the results of their work, as well as the annual performance work plan to an audit committee consisting of the Budget Committee or a subcommittee of the Budget Committee." Mr. Kelly solicited comments on the amendment to the motion. Speaking in support of his amendment, Mr. Rayor said it created a new city auditor position subject to confirmation by the manager. He did not want to create a new committee through the charter that could not be maintained because of funding or one that represented a duplication of efforts. Mr. Farr preferred Mr. Rayor's motion over the previous motion, but still questioned the need for a performance auditor. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's statement about the City's ability to hire independent expertise. He thought it would be irresponsible, given the economic difficulties facing the City, to refer such a position to the ballot. Ms. Bettman considered council resistance to the concept of an internal independent auditor to be "astounding." She said that such an auditor would assist the council in its evaluation of the manager, and would help inform budget policy. She said that without council oversight, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 5 Work Session motion on the floor was just a wordier version of the manager's proposal. She termed it "auditing under the influence of the supervisory chain," and pointed out that it was the supervisory chain of which the council wanted independent evaluation. Ms. Bettman did not think the focus of the discussion was on financial malfeasance but rather on overcoming the personal and professional alliances that existed among staff that make it impossible for staff to move beyond those alliances. An independent auditor could look objectively at the organization and provide the manager with an outside recommendation. She said that the City had "insider management for decades and decades" and she found the auditor a timely initiative. She would not support an auditor that was not independent. Mr. Pap8 said that Mr. Rayor's motion answered the issue of whether the position was focused on financial or performance auditing. He agreed that the City could easily contract with independent financial auditors and there was no reason to increase the City staff for that purpose. He found the motion to be a workable compromise. If a performance auditor was established, Mr. Pap8 wanted the council to see the auditor's reports, but he did not think he wanted the council to manage the auditor. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion for the reasons he opposed the previous motion. He suggested that the notion that an internal employee auditor would not form alliances was ludicrous. If the council wanted an independent audit, he did not see how that could be accomplished internally. Mr. Meisner believed that if the council was dissatisfied with the performance of the auditor and wanted to dismiss that individual, it could encounter great difficulty. He also thought it ludicrous to assume that the council would hire a single auditor who would have substantive knowledge of every program in the city; that person would have to hire or contract outside the organization for assistance. Mr. Meisner said if the council wanted independent audits, it should contract for them. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to Mr. Rayor for his motion, but said he could not support it. Other than the confirmation by the council, the motion would add nothing to the charter that the manager could not accomplish now. Speaking to Mr. PapS's suggestion that the amendment to the motion clarified the nature of the auditor, Mr. Kelly pointed out the text offered by Mr. Rayor was taken from the CCRC's proposal, so it was as clear or as vague as that original text. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly said he wished he shared her optimism about the success of contracted audits. He agreed they were valuable for specific purposes. He suggested that a key difference between a council-directed auditor and manager-directed auditor was the perception of independence. Mr. Kelly said that the council could direct the City Manager to contract with an independent auditor, but then staff was responsible for writing and overseeing the contract. It was Ms. Taylor's perception that the focus of the discussion was on performance auditing rather than financial auditing. She did not think the council had the ability to manage the organization adequately now. She pointed out that performance auditors did not audit all the departments at the same time, but rather one at a time. She believed that the issue was not one of fraud, but having someone outside the organization telling the council if the City was run efficiently. The MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 6 Work Session council had no way of knowing that now. She did not believe that the council had a way to manage the manager. With regard to her remarks that the council was not allowed to manage, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the council had been asked not to contact the executive managers directly. She thought the council was a long way from being able to ask the managers the reasons for what they did and suggest alternative actions. Ms. Taylor termed the amendment to the motion "useless" and suggested that the council was setting itself up for a charter amendment proposal for an independent auditor from the voters. Mr. Kelly solicited another round of comments. Ms. Nathanson said she was "astounded" at the resistance to trying the trial performance auditor approved by the Budget Committee. She noted that she had recommended in the past that the Budget Committee form a subcommittee to do performance audits on a serial basis using the service profile process. She suggested that the issue was not "why," it was "how." She reiterated she had sought an increased level of oversight by the committee and council. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that in May 2001 the CCRC received a report from staff regarding 16 internal audit projects undertaken over the past two years that resulted in cost savings, service delivery improvement, increased accountability, additional efficiencies, or additional revenues. She believed that the manager would be receptive to direction from the council for similar audits for specific programs in the future. Mr. Kelly called for further comments. Mr. Farr said he would prefer to hire more police officers or parks staff as opposed to a city auditor and the required staff. He believed that audits could be tailored to a particular activity. Ms. Bettman said that the CCRC did not recommend that an auditor and staff be hired, just a full- time auditor. She thought the discussion the council was having was confusing to the audience, as councilors were confusing auditors and functions. She did not think that the trial auditor mentioned by Ms. Nathanson was the same as what was being proposed though the charter amendment. What was being proposed was an internal independent auditor, and that independence was predicated on that position's being appointed and supervised by the City Council. Mr. Pap~ said that the council owed it to the community to put a measure on the ballot. He supported the motion as a reasonable proposal that addressed his concerns regarding efficiency. The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2, Mr. Rayor and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. The main motion failed, 5:3, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. B.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Special Events Parking and Amending Section 5.285 of the Eugene Code, 1971 MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 7 Work Session The council was joined for the item by Public Works Parks and Open Space Division Manager Johnny Medlin, Cultural Services Division Manager Rich Scheeland of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, and Parking Program Manager George Jessie of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Medlin overviewed the staff recommendation, which was to remove the maximum amount that could be charged for off-street special event parking and allow the City Manager to set the amount. He noted that the current maximum of $3 was far below market for football parking at and around Autzen Stadium. Events at the Cuthbert Amphitheater and events that employed downtown parking structures would also be affected. Mr. Kelly called for council questions and comments. Mr. Fart determined from Mr. Medlin that the recommended option would remove the cap; Option B would leave the cap but change it to $30. Mr. Farr asked if the change would affect the Freedom Event, held on July 4. Mr. Medlin said that the City issued special permits for that event that encompassed parking. The event would not be impacted, nor would other events where the event coordinator, rather than City staff, controlled the parking. Mr. Fart asked what types of events could command higher parking fees. Mr. Medlin cited home football games at Autzen Stadium as an example. Mr. Meisner favored staff-recommended Option A. It delegated authority to the manager and allowed for administrative adjustments to reflect market changes. He hoped the option generated additional revenue for the Parks and Open Space Division. He also hoped it provided some additional protections for Alton Baker Park, where parking created significant damage to the park. Ms. Bettman supported Option A but believed the revenues being generated should go through the budget priorization process. She asked how night-time events were addressed, and questioned what constituted a special event. She asked how the proposal would affect users such as those at the BMX track, who leased land from the City for $1 and then charged for parking and kept the money. There was no taxpayer accountability for how the money was spent. Ms. Bettman said that the City was bestowing a benefit on one entity that others could not take advantage of. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would be recovering the cost of maintaining Hult Center parking under the proposal. Mr. Medlin said that the revenues collected were subject to the budget prioritization process. Staff requested authorization from the Budget Committee for the use of the revenues. Regarding the BMX facility, the City was currently in negotiations with the facility operators to establish a parking arrangement that shared revenues with the City. Mr. Medlin deferred the issue of the use of parking revenues from structured parking to Mr. Jessie. Mr. Jessie said that currently, all special event revenues go to the Parking Fund and are available for maintenance and operations of the structures. He said that the parking rates are based on market rates rather than on maintenance estimates. Mr. Rayor wanted to see a minimal amount of space allocated for bicycle parking. He wanted maximum fees that encouraged rather than discouraged bicycle use. He called for an analysis of MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 8 Work Session how the ordinance encouraged or discouraged bicycle use. Mr. Carlson pointed out that the purpose of the ordinance regarded parking fees for motorized vehicles. The council would create an incentive for bicycle use by removing the $3 limit and allowing more to be charged for parking. Mr. Rayor feared that the cost of bicycle parking would rise as well as a result of the cap's removal. Mr. Carlson said that the City did not specify what event sponsors using City facilities charged for bicycle parking. Mr. Rayor thought that when event sponsors used City facilities they should not create a situation that discouraged bicycle use. Mr. Meisner recommended Mr. Rayor request a work session on the topic. Mr. Medlin said that currently, the City does not charge for bicycle parking. He said that the bicycle parking associated with football games was part of the transportation demand management (TDM) plan with the University of Oregon, and was operated by the 20-30 Club. He said that the City could discuss the issue with the University in the context of negotiations regarding the TDM plan. Ms. Nathanson supported Option A as recommended by staff. She asked how oversized vehicles were addressed by the proposal, and if the City charged variable rates. Mr. Medlin said that if a vehicle took up multiple parking spaces, the vehicle operator was required to pay for them. All spaces were marked and easily identifiable. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the person collecting the parking fees would know that a vehicle would be taking up multiple spaces. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Medlin said that the cost of parking was included in the cost of the special event permit if the event operators wished to manage their own parking. He cited Art in the Vineyard as an example of such an event. Event operators can decide whether to subsidize parking with gate revenues, for example. Mr. Pap8 indicated support for both options and asked what market City staff considered when setting parking fees. Mr. Medlin said staff considered the local market for events when considering event fees. Mr. Scheeland added that the Cultural Services Division looked at market rates in the northwestern states and found that in terms of structured parking, $3 was at the Iow end of the market. He noted that he had met with the Hult Center's resident company managers that morning to inform them that the council was contemplating the action before it because of the impact on those companies' patrons. There was no objection from the resident companies at this time. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City examined private lot rates. Mr. Scheeland said no. Ms. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Sheeland that the proposal encompassed events at the Cuthbert Amphitheater where parking demand was expected to be heavy and must be managed. Ms. Taylor did not think that the City should charge for parking for cultural activities because it discouraged people of modest means from attending such events. She also opposed charging for parking at the Eugene Celebration. She thought that bicyclists should park for free because that use benefitted the community. Ms. Taylor preferred not to take action now. She did not support the higher cap associated with Option B. Mr. Kelly noted that action today would merely place the item on an public hearing agenda. He did not support either option before the council. He agreed there was a problem to be addressed, particularly with regard to Autzen Stadium events, but did not think either option solved the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 9 Work Session problem in the manner he preferred. He shared Ms. Taylor's concern about the cost of event parking for City facility events. He said that Eugene was not Portland and $3 was on the Iow end in Portland. He pointed out that the council rejected an increase in the Hult parking maximum fee two years ago. Mr. Kelly wanted to see an ordinance that distinguished between events at City facilities and events elsewhere. He did not object to charging for parking at Cuthbert but objected to raising it to $5, saying it would generate ill will for little revenue gain. Regarding incentives for alternative modes, he pointed out that if one's choice of mode was bus transit, it was very difficult for transit users to rely on the bus when attending evening Hult Center events, because the buses stopped running when it was time to go home. He suggested that staff draft an ordinance that included two different maximums related to the two different categories staff had contemplated. Mr. Kelly also had concerns about the way that the Eugene Celebration and First Night were defined, saying "they were as good as City events" even though there was no longer City sponsorship. He reiterated his argument regarding ill will and little revenue. Mr. Carlson said that because Option A included a fee-related administrative action, the administrative order would come to the council for its review and comment. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to affirm the proposed special event off-street parking ordinance Option A, and direct the City Manager to proceed with the scheduled public hearing regarding the ordinance. Ms. Taylor indicated opposition to the motion. She did not approve of having public hearings in the middle of the summer because people were out of town. The motion passed 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2002 Page 10 Work Session