Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/22/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 22, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from the Council, Mayor, and City Manager Mr. Meisner had no items. Ms. Bettman called attention to a memorandum in the meeting packet from the Police Commission regarding the results of the commission's education outreach effort to help the City define community policing in a consistent manner. She termed the memorandum interesting and informative, and asked the council to keep in mind the fact those filling out the commission's questionnaire had benefitted from the commission's education efforts. She said that if the council had questions or wished to meet with the commission, the commission was willing to do so. Ms. Bettman called attention to the Railvolution Conference being held in Washington, DC, on October 3-6, 2002. She reviewed some highlights of the conference synopsis, and noted she would be attending the conference and hoped other councilors would attend as well. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Taylor said that some constituents who contacted her were upset that code enforcement was made a responsibility of the Police Department rather than the Planning and Development Department. She did not recall any council discussion about such a switch. She wanted further discussion about whether more could be done by way of code enforcement. She said her constituents were concerned about the impact of bright lights and noise, particularly from near-by institutions. Ms. Taylor asked if the Public Works Department sprayed herbicides to control moss. She received a complaint about such spraying. Mr. Kelly said with regard to code enforcement, he received a constituent call specific to the City's noise ordinance. He said that the council did not realize that the old noise code provisions, which MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 1 Work Session included quantitative decibel levels, were removed from the Land Use Code and the qualitative measures were included in the criminal code. He suggested the council might wish to revisit the issue. Mr. Kelly said he would be attending a conference sponsored by the International Downtown Association in Boston on September 28-October 1, and that would conflict with the dates for the Railvolution Conference. He offered to share information about the topics to be discussed at the conference. Mr. Pap~ announced that the last link of the East Bank Bicycle Bridge was under construction and should be completed by fall 2002. Mr. Pap~ said he noticed that there was an article on Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) in the meeting packet. He said he would like to hear more about the expert cited, and suggested that person be invited to present solutions about the issue to the Budget Committee. Mr. Rayor had no items. Ms. Nathanson thanked City staff for its response to her information requests, particularly the information on nuisance abatement laws and drug houses. Mayor Torrey said he recently returned from an American Planning Association meeting in Reno, Nevada at which five cities, including Eugene, participated. He found the event very worthwhile, and he would provide a report to the council in writing. He noted that several local agency staff were present at the meeting. Mayor Torrey said that the regional State Transportation Improvement Plan meeting had been held last week, and he expressed appreciation to Dave Reinhard of the Public Works Department, Springfield City Councilor Lyle Hatfield, and Lane County Commissioner Anna Morrison for their work in securing Oregon Transportation Improvement Act II moneys for the Coburg Road/Beltline interchange. Mayor Torrey suggested that staff provide the council with some definitions regarding Tier I and Tier II employees so that all the councilors had the same background information. Mr. Meisner noted that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations met the previous week and approved the referrral of a resolution regarding PERS to the full council. He asked staff to include the background materials that went to the council along with the resolution. B.Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission The council was joined for the item by Planning Commission President Adell McMillan and Planning Commissioners Chuck Rusch, John Lawless, and Marlene Colbath. Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle, and Planning Division Manager Jan Childs were also present for the item. Ms. McMillan said that the commission had accomplished a great deal over the last year. The commission finished the Chase and Royal nodes studies, completed its recommendations on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 2 Work Session priority nodal development areas, reviewed the Bus Rapid Transit build-out, finished minor code amendments related to the Land Use Code Update, completed work on the code amendments needed to facilitate the construction of the West Eugene Parkway, and wrapped up work on the remand of the Son Blaze development application from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). She noted that the Historic Review Board, a subcommittee of the commission, held a series of strategic planning meetings, and looked forward to completing work on the Modern Context Statement in early fall 2002. Ms. McMillan highlighted items on the next year's work program, including work on the nodal development rezoning for the eight priority nodal areas, work on the Iow-density transition zone, design standards for the Broadway area, and completion of the Downtown Plan update. The HRB hoped to do more on educational outreach in the coming year, and would work on implementation measures for the Modern Context Statement. The work plan included the unfunded South Hills Study update, which the commission considered a high priority. Ms. McMillan said that the commission also included an examination of high-density development and the perception it would degrade neighborhoods as a special project to work on as time permits. Ms. McMillan concluded by saying that the commission was always frustrated by the lack of time to do long-range planning. She called on other commissioners for comments. Mr. Rusch said that his experience was mostly positive, although he experienced some frustrations. He agreed that the commission had accomplished a great deal in the last year. He agreed with Ms. McMillan that the commission had little time for long-range planning. He found discussions like the one the council would have about sustainability to be missing from the commission's work. He was very impressed by those in the room, and said the devotion of other commissioners was inspiring. Mr. Rusch praised Ms. Childs and the Planning Division staff. He asked that in its discussion of sustainability, the council start by rewriting the goal that guides its work, Sustainability Community Growth and Change. He said there was no such thing as "sustainable growth." No system could grow indefinitely. Mr. Rusch suggested that the council change the goal to read "Sustainable Development" as long as sustainable meant "renewal," not "growth." Mr. Lawless said that he suggested the examination of the impact and perception of high density because the discussion appeared not to have occurred. There was a negative perception of infill on the part of some, and he thought it could be overcome. Regarding the issue of sustainability, Mr. Lawless agreed that the topic was very important. He said that infill would help to fill the void in the lifestyle options that existed in the metropolitan area, and would help open up opportunities for development and economic growth, and begin to show ways that nodal development could be applied, and how it had already been applied. Mr. Lawless said he had offered to do a little work to guide some of the examination in recognition of staff resource limitations, and committed to bringing forward the relevant issues through that process. Mr. Lawless said that he was "awestruck" by his fellow commissioners and the commitment they had. He recalled that he asked the council during his interview what its definition of the roles and goals of the commission and council, and asked if the council found a way to sort those out. Ms. Colbath said she had also enjoyed her shod time on the commission and said the dialogue between commissioners led to a well-informed commission and well-informed outcomes. She had been asked during her interview how to get more people involved, and she said the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 3 Work Session commission continued to work on that. She emphasized the importance of good neighborhoods to good transportation, and said she had enjoyed visiting neighborhood organizations since becoming a commissioner to discuss the City's work on nodal development. Ms. Colbath also spoke to the importance of a regional planning strategy and noted her participation in the Region 2050 study. She said it was important for the commission to be able to see the big picture as it made decisions, and she thought that happened. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Nathanson thanked Planning Commissioner Art Farley, who was unable to be present at the meeting, for his service on the commission and for the specific comments he made in the memorandum he prepared for the council. Ms. Nathanson referred to page 16 of the meeting packet and requested clarification on the proposed Iow-density residential transitional zone. She noted that the materials indicated the zone would have a minimum density of eight, which was higher than most people considered Iow- density to be. Ms. Childs said that the purpose of the district, which was part of the implementation of the Residential Lands Study, was to create a Iow-density residential zone tailored to the high end of residential density; eight units per acre would be the minimum density allowed, whereas in the current R-1 district there can be 13,500 square foot lots. She said that the idea was to showcase small-lot development within the Iow-density range. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation to the commission for identifying a special project, saying she thought the one that had been selected was excellent. Mr. Kelly said that the commission did a good deal of work over the last year and he thanked members. The plan for the year ahead was very ambitious, and he appreciated the commission's willingness to take on the work. He found it sad that there were so many high-priority items that were being postponed because of staff resource issues. He said that was a real consequence of the cut that the Planning Division took over the last two years. Such reductions made the community less livable. He said that when incompatible development is built due to lack of planning, the consequences are long-term in nature. He wanted the council to keep that in mind. Mr. Kelly was pained by the postponement of the South Hills Study update, the alternative code path to make sure that innovative development was not hamstrung, and asset mapping to determine how infill occurred. He asked Ms. Childs if the addition of another planner would help to move those items forward. Ms. Childs confirmed that the issue was both a staff resource issue and a work load issue. Staff capacity had been lost in both sections of the division. She said that the work program already envisioned more public hearings than the commission generally held, and there was only so much work the commission could process in one year. Mr. Coyle added that while there could be more staff, there was only one Planning Commission, and all such work had to go through the commission. He thought to ask the commission to do more would be excessive. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. McMillan if she thought the commission could get started on the South Hills Study by the end of the year if staff support was not an inhibiting factor. Ms. McMillan said that would be the commission's intent. The item was dependent on completion of other work items and funding. She believed it would not be possible to address the other two items cited by Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 4 Work Session Kelly because of a lack of time. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that work was not going to occur this year, and said the council needed to set its expectations better. Ms. Taylor suggested that perhaps some work plan items could be reprioritized to accommodate Mr. Kelly's concerns. She continued to be impressed by the caliber of people who applied to serve on the commission. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Rusch regarding the title of the council's goal related to sustainability. Ms. Taylor hoped the tree preservation ordinance was high on the commission's priority list. She requested commission input where code enforcement should be administered. Mr. Carlson clarified that the issue Ms. Taylor referred to was specific to the noise ordinance only, not other code enforcement efforts. Regarding the tree preservation ordinance, Ms. Childs said that the LUBA remand work program was attached to the council's packet. That work was not included on the commission's work program but was coming back to the council. Staff had put together a work program that would reinstate the remaining portions of the remanded code. She reviewed the elements of the work program, noting the tree preservation ordinance was one of the four elements of that code. She said that staff intended to work on getting the rest of the code update back in place over the next nine months. In response to Ms. Nathanson's earlier question, Mr. Meisner noted his neighborhood of single- family homes was developed at a density of exactly eight units per acre. He shared Ms. Nathanson's appreciation for the remarks and work of Mr. Farley. He appreciated the opportunity that the courthouse design process afforded him to participate with the commission, and said he wished the council had more time to focus on single issues. Mr. Meisner was very interested in the implementation of the nodal area planning and the courthouse area planning. Mr. Meisner said the final report of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Services Study Committees would be published soon. He hoped that commissioners would be willing to take a look at the final report, which had major implications for the City, and make comments to the council. Mr. Meisner noted a suggestion that City committees be appointed by individual councilors and asked for commission comments on that suggestion. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation to the commission for the hard work it did. She shared some of Mr. Kelly's concerns regarding the prioritization of limited commission and staff resources. However, she was very supportive of the efforts being proposed, such as the examination of density in the community. She asked the commission to also pursue "density with design," which could be a means to overcome the distrust and dislike of density in the community. Ms. Bettman said that in the post-LUCU work program, the commission identified as important but outside the work program a work item calling for ways to establish home ownership in the University area to increase long-term residency. She said that was also related to the council's goal in the Downtown Plan update related to the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. The council wanted to restore the residential nature of those neighborhoods. She suggested that the two items could be combined and strategies applicable for both areas be developed. Ms. Childs said in terms of the applicability of the strategies related to the downtown neighborhoods, there MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 5 Work Session could be transferability in many cases. The areas immediately adjacent to downtown have a somewhat different development pattern than the University area, so she was unsure all the strategies that would be examined would be directly applicable, but staff would review them to determine which were transferable. Mr. Pap~ acknowledged the commission's role in the reopening of Broadway. Saying he had listened to several hours of commission deliberation regarding the West Eugene Parkway, Mr. Pap~ advised the commission to save valuable time by checking in with the council on what its policies were, rather than attempt to anticipate what the council would do. Mr. Pap~ asked if the commission thought commission participation would be enhanced by having a member from each ward. Ms. McMillan said it was her personal belief that commissioners represent the entire city, not just the place they lived. She would be concerned if the commission began to address constituencies as opposed to working together on issues. Mr. Rayor also thanked the commission for its work. He said the commission was the best he had seen because every single person on the commission was sensitive to the environment and even- handed. He preferred to maintain the current commission selection process. He thought the complexion of the commission would reflect the complexion of the council over time if the current system were maintained. Mr. Rayor expressed appreciation that there was a separate commission process for land use related issues. Mr. Rayor said the City's toughest job was trying to incorporate the protections required by the Endangered Species Act into the City's codes. He thought infill development had potential for sustainable growth as it occurred on land that was already served. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Rusch to define what an acceptable sustainable outcome would be, recognizing that the City would grow. He asked that one of his concerns in such a discussion was how the City would know when it had "won." Mayor Torrey also asked the commission to find the time to assign a marketing or advertising agency the responsibility of coming up with a name for nodal development. Regarding infill, Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Lawless. He said that the most difficult thing would be to get those most concerned about expanding the urban growth boundary to agree that infill development was needed to avoid expansion. Mayor Torrey applauded the appearance of the building in which Mr. Lawless' firm was located. Mr. Rusch accepted the mayor's challenge, acknowledging that growth could not be stopped. He said that the community needed to understand where it was going, and "where it has to come out." Ms. Childs indicated that she would provide the commission with copies of the council's sustainability statement. Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Kelly referred to the remand schedule and said he would have hoped for more timely adoption but expressed acceptance of the time line if it could be adhered to. He asked staff to let the council know if the schedule slipped. Mr. Kelly did not want to lengthen the time line for the remand process and acknowledged the commission's full work program, but he wanted the commission to review the staff recommendations regarding the remanded items. Ms. Colbath and Ms. McMillan indicated willingness to do so. Ms. McMillan noted that the remand was to the council, not the commission. Ms. Childs reminded the council that the commission saw the materials related to the remand as a status report. She proposed to do the same in this situation. She was concerned about the potential delay in getting the LUBA items remanded readopted. Mr. Kelly indicated he would move to amend the motion adopting the commission's work program to ensure that at least one commission meeting was dedicated to the topic of the remanded items. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the special project, which he termed "density done right." Ms. Nathanson asked if there was time in the work program for a hot topic if one came up, such as the PeaceHealth proposal. Ms. Childs said such projects caused other projects to be put on hold. Ms. Nathanson recalled that council actions in the past in response to emerging issues had the effect of inadvertently but significantly changing the commission's work plan. Ms. Nathanson referred to the work item regarding reestablishing home ownership in the West University Neighborhood, and she asked if the commission had discussed working on that issue in collaboration with the University and major employers or commercial groups in the area so the effort was not solely a City effort. Ms. Childs said that the item was also related to the West University Scoping Report, which placed emphasis on a collaborative improvement. In regard to the topic of density, Ms. Nathanson asked if the commissioners had the benefit of going through the visual preference survey. She found the exercise to be beneficial in explaining complex topics. Ms. Childs said that the commission could be provided with copies of the final report. She confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. McMillan, there was a slide show associated with the survey, and she would see if she could locate it. Referring to the mention of the minor amendments package on page 16 of the council packet, Ms. Bettman asked how many more minor amendments staff was working on. Ms. Bishow said that there were at least 30 code sections that were impacted; the majority were clarifications, but staff would ask the council to revisit a couple of its policy choices. Ms. Childs indicated the materials would be coming to the council in multiple ordinances to distinguish between the changes made for clarification and the policy-related changes. Ms. Bettman said that it appeared the minor amendments package was going ahead of other council priorities, and a completely new proposal to address them was being suggested in the work program. She objected that the new process was to include staff and users of the code and did not include the general public, and that the process was not developed at the direction of the council. She indicated she would offer an amendment to the motion adopting the work program to address her concern. In response to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Coyle responded that the recommendation for an annual tuneup to the zoning ordinance was forwarded by both himself and Ms. Childs. He said it was an important but not an urgent maintenance component of the ordinance. He thought it just made good sense. The investment in the document in terms of time and public hearings created a need for a system to maintain the quality of the document. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Pap8 supported Mr. Kelly's suggestion that the commission review the remanded items. He suggested it would save the council time. He hoped the council would respect the commission's deliberations. Mr. Lawless said that he appreciated Ms. Bettman's concern, but pointed out that the Land Use Code Update provided for an adjustment review process, an internal methodology for getting minor clarifications resolved so a project can move forward. He thought it made sense to have a process whereby a developer could benefit from what had been learned on other projects, and the adjustment review approval could eventually be rolled into the code. Mr. Coyle added that the City needed to give clear direction to the development community. He said that no matter how often staff looked at the code, frequently a new development was proposed that did not fit the code. He said that those projects could be addressed on an annual basis or could be added to a list to review later. Without an institutionalized way to make changes, the changes would not be made. Ms. Childs recalled that in the past, the City had packaged annual minor code amendments. That gave the City an opportunity to fix things that were not working on a regular basis. She noted that the minor amendments under consideration now were still in the omissions and errors category. Mayor Torrey endorsed an annual review as proposed and believed that the council promised the community it would do so. Mr. Meisner said the council discussed the issue of unintended consequences as a result of the new code. He recalled the Duncan-Foote proposal for the existing library parking lot, where application of the new code made the proposal difficult to implement. He wanted an annual review, as he wanted to know where the code was preventing good development, which it did too often. Developers were telling him that the new code made more good development almost impossible, while a typical subdivision was very easy to do. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to approve the FY03 Planning Commission work program, including the FY03 Historic Review Board work program. Ms. Bettman believed the minor amendments process had become a wholesale attempt to roll back provisions of the code she believed were important for infill development and smart growth. She said that the process described for amendments was very exclusive. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct to the City Manager to amend the Planning Commission's fiscal year 2002 work program to modify the minor amendments packages under the Land Use Permits service category to read: "Tune-up amendments be processed no more than annually; any proposed amendments to be based on an inclusive process for public input as well as staff experience with implementing the new code." Ms. Bettman said the amended process would allow problems and issues to be addressed in an inclusive manner, involving the people who were going to have to live with the changes, such as homeowners and neighbors. She believed that even with the amendment, it would be difficult for the public to keep up with all the changes proposed and made, and only after 20 years had passed would people realize their neighborhood had changed for the worse and their investment in their house had been reduced. Ms. Bettman believed that the proposed process would create a situation of "continuously moving goal posts" that did not allow for any predictability for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 8 Work Session public or the development community. She believed that the minor amendments process proposed by staff would be resource-intensive in terms of commission and staff time. She thought it was asking a lot to ask the public to track such a process, but the amendment would at least "give people a prayer" of being able to participate in their neighborhood's evolution. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time by ten minutes. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Rayor thought the work plan was well thought-out. He said the City needed to address the remand items soon and staff should track problems with the code as they arose. He believed that could be done before 20 years had passed. He did not support the amendment. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the minor amendments process proposed by staff, Ms. Childs responded that the City would notify the interested parties list of the minor amendments being proposed. She spoke of the increased use of e-mail, and said she believed that he City would receive considerable comment through that venue. The public hearing venue would be available as well. She confirmed that all neighborhood groups were notified. She confirmed that all commission public hearings notice go to the Neighborhood Leaders Council as well. Mr. Pap~ thought the staff-proposed process was adequate as regards public notice. Mr. Meisner said his concerns were satisfied by Ms. Childs' response to Mr. Papa's questions. He did not support the amendment. He added, however, that notice to neighborhood groups provides notice to some individuals, but they were a small percentage of the population and other types of public notice were essential. Mr. Kelly said that the amendment appeared to change the staff-proposed process in two ways: by changing "annual update" to "no more than annual updates" and by explicitly adding mention of the public. In response, Ms. Bettman said that the current process meant the industry and staff would be generating the minor amendments. A public hearing would occur after that process, and the public would get to comment. She was more focused on the amendments-generation process, and found the staff-proposed process to be very exclusive in that it stipulated the only amendments to be considered would come from those two sources. Ms. Bettman did not find that adequate. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed that the element of the amendment related to the annual review could have the effect of postponing acceptance of an application that could be innovative but did not fit the parameters of the code. Regarding those who participated in the annual review, Ms. Childs said that staff considered the general public to be users of the code as well as the industry, as what she termed "regular folks" also use the code in a variety of ways, such as to evaluate applications for land use decisions in their neighborhoods. She was not concerned about broadening the language in the proposal given staff's intent. Ms. Childs said that she was concerned about the unintended consequences of limiting a minor amendment to the code, as opposed to a major, standalone project on the work program to once annually. Realistically, however, it would be difficult to do it more than once annually. Ms. Nathanson also indicated opposition to the amendment, saying that the phrase "users of the code" meant the same to her as it did to Ms. Childs. She had envisioned that notice would be sent to the many citizens who sought and received permits in the past. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Taylor that the phrase "tune-up amendments" be replaced with "staff-initiated amendments," Ms. Childs had no objection. She added that the council could initiate an amendment to the code at any time. Ms. Taylor said that the general public does not use the code often, and she doubted that members of the public knew what was going on unless they recently completed a project. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. PapS, to amend the motion to amend the work program to provide for one Planning Commission meeting for the commission to review and comment on the Land Use Code Update changes related to the LUBA remand. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The main motion passed, 7:0. Mayor Torrey thanked the commission for its hard work. C.Work Session: Discussion of Recommended Amendments to the Eugene City Charter Mr. Kelly reviewed the proposed process for proceeding with the remaining items related to charter review, reflected in a motion he proposed to offer to the body. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the reference in the motion to be proposed was two-thirds of those councilors present, or five. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to suspend rules related to debate for discussion on the remaining Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC) recommendations for changes to the City Charter. After each CCRC recommendation is moved, only a single speaker in favor and a single speaker in opposition will be permitted prior to voting on that motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Nathanson said that she intended to vote on the motions as written. Her no vote did not mean she did not like the concept underlying the motion, but rather the fact the expedited process did not permit for more thorough examination. Mr. Kelly indicated there was no opportunity for amendment under the process adopted. However, there would be another opportunity to make amendments when the council took action on a the final resolutions. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the new section on citizen participation as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Ms. Taylor said that citizen participation was a goal of the entire council and anything the council could do to increase participation and demonstrated its continued devotion to the concept a good idea. The details of the approach would be worked out later. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Meisner agreed that citizen participation was an important value for the City, but he did not think the charter amendment as phrased was sufficiently detailed enough. It was so broadly stated that it was both vague and ambiguous. Mr. Meisner said that no public process the council devised by ordinance would satisfy complaints against the values stated in the charter amendment. He anticipated endless litigation. Mayor Torrey noted he was limiting staff input to legal counsel. Mr. Klein agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner, saying that if the council wanted such a provision, it should rewrite it. The provision had the potential of leading to endless litigation, because no one could say for sure what the provision actually meant. Mr. Kelly suggested that legal counsel comment could be interpreted as biased in one way or another, and noted that there had been legal input on all the items before the council. Mr. Klein indicated he did not intend to offer comment on any other item. The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section ]6 (2) (b) related to the purchasing authority of the City Manager as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly argued that contrary to the staff analysis, the prevision would not erode the authority of the manager, but enhance council awareness of significant City operations. The committee had discussed placing a dollar amount on the contract involved, but determined that might be inappropriate with inflation and the passage of time. The committee had discussed contracts of a relatively high amount, and many council-manager cities have a council sign-off on major contracts. Mr. Kelly noted that the committee voted 6:1 for the recommendation. He anticipated that most such authorizations would be placed on a council Consent Calender, and unless the item pulled, it would not result in much cost or affect the length of meetings. However, it would give the council and the public awareness of the City's largest contracts. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section 16(2)(c) related to the hiring and firing authority of the City Manager as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Ms. Taylor argued in favor of the motion, saying the council's most important task was hiring a city manager and evaluating that person's performance. Among the manager's most important tasks was hiring the executive managers. Ms. Taylor said that if the council did not know why someone was hired or resigned, it inhibited the council's ability to evaluate the manager. She preferred even stronger language, saying the manager could take the council into his confidence if he or she wished. If the reasons for a hiring or firing were explained to the council, it would have a better sense of the manager's performance. Since the council cannot interfere in personnel decisions, the council should at least be informed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 11 Work Session Ms. Nathanson noted alternate wording had been previously suggested. She preferred to vote on that alternative wording and could not support the proposal under consideration. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mayor Torrey determined that under the rules of the adopted process, he would not allow Mr. Kelly to withdraw the motion and substitute another. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap8 voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section 24 related to filling vacancies as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly said that it was very important that citizens be allowed to select another representative in a timely fashion after a vacancy occurs. At the current time, it was possible for an appointed councilor to sit for 2-3/4 years before another election. The amendment provided for a subsequent year election and assumption of office in July with an absolute majority at the May election, which reduced the maximum existing between the time a vacancy occurred and the time the election occurred to a maximum of 1-3/4 years, and to as little as five months. He suggested that the council needed to weigh the additional cost of odd-year elections against the value of citizens electing a new representative. He also thought the staff-estimated costs for such an election too high. Uncertainty about such odd-year elections could be resolved by further research or a legislative remedy. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Rayor requested to change his vote on the prior motion. Mayor Torrey determined there was no objection, and the vote on the motion related to the hiring and firing authority of the City Manager failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section 28 related to adoption of ordinances as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly thought, given that enacting laws is a fundamental duty of the council, it made sense that the charter provided some more clear, modern detail on how ordinances were adopted so that the process was not subject to ad hoc change. He reviewed the elements of the proposed text. Mr. Kelly did not think that the cost of providing public notice about ordinances overly burdensome, and noted that the recommendation of the CCRC on this issue was unanimous. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the amendments to Section 32 related to the effective date of ordinances as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 12 Work Session Mr. Kelly spoke in support of the motion, saying that the same arguments apply to the motion as the previous motion in terms of clarifying and updating the existing detail that existed in the charter. He pointed out that the existing charter also called for an explanation of why an ordinance should take effect in less than 30 days. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to refer the new section on ordinances adopted by initiative as proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee to the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Kelly spoke in support of the motion. He believed that the proposal provided a new choice to the council rather than taking away from its power. He cited the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment as an example of an amendment that might have been passed as a protected ordinance, had that option be available to its proponents, who were concerned that the City Council might change it. The provision provided a way to enact a law that was hard to change but not impossible to change without cluttering up the charter. Mr. Kelly said the amendment provided another tool for the citizens. No one spoke in opposition to the motion. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Meisner and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Kelly noted that the council had completed work on the CCRC's recommendations and thanked the council for agreeing to the expedited process. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to refer to the voters amendments to Section 16(2)(c) related to the hiring and firing authority of the city manager as proposed by the CCRC to this language: "After appointing, dismissing, or accepting the resignation of a department director, the city manager shall explain to the council the reasons for the action taken unless prohibited by law. The report required by this subsection may be made to the council in executive session." Mr. Kelly noted that the language in the motion was the alternative language Ms. Nathanson previously referred to. Mr. Rayor noted his support for the alternative text. Ms. Nathanson said there had been concern expressed by some that the proposal could result in a power play between the council and manager but she did not interpret it that way. The alternative language addressed her concerns about confidentiality and legality. She said that although it did not happen often, sometimes the community was puzzled or troubled by a personnel action taken by the manager. At times the action had risen to the level of a political problem. Ms. Nathanson said that the motion gave the council an opportunity to act on behalf of all the public, hear what happened, and make its own determination. Mr. Meisner also supported the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Nathanson. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 13 Work Session Addressing a concern expressed by Ms. Bettman regarding the construction of the text, Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment to change the text to read: After accepting the resignation, dismissing, or appointing a department director~ the city manager shaft explain to the council the reasons for the action taken unless prohibited by law. The report required by this subsection may be made to the council in executive session. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Klein there was no State penalty if a councilor violated the spirit of an executive session. Mr. Klein said the executive session allows the council to receive information without the public present; if a councilor decides to leave the session and share its contents with the public, the council could censure that individual. There was nothing in State statute that prohibited a member of the council from recounting the events of an executive session. He noted that staff traditionally advised the council to appoint a spokesperson to debrief the media on the contents of an executive session. Ms. Nathanson said that the damage would already be done. Mayor Torrey thought the council had the right to do what the provision called for now. He suggested it was a matter of will rather than law. He said that the council could request an explanation from the manager about his personnel decisions. Mr. Klein concurred. Mr. Kelly thought Ms. Nathanson's points well taken and suggested it took a certain level of maturity to "do it right." He was willing to send the text to the voters. He believed the mayor's remarks were supportive of passing the motion, as the council could bring the issue up in open session, but not in a private conversation or in an open meeting. Ms. Taylor indicated support for the motion, saying that she would like to move toward having the council at least as involved as other members of the public were involved in the selection of executive managers. The council had not participated in those selection processes. She thought anything the council could do to know more was a good step. Ms. Bettman responded to the mayor, saying that the executive session would address the confidentiality issues and then the council could bring up the issue in public session, but because the council operated in such a vacuum regarding personnel decisions, she did not see a way to realize there was an issue at all given the lack of information about why the manager does what he does regarding personnel issues. The motion gave the council the ability to understand the manager's motives. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, but pointed out it involved appointments, dismissals, and resignations, and did not give the manager the authority to question why a particular manager was being retained. Sometimes that was a privately stated issue for councilors. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro tem MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 14 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 15 Work Session