Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/18/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 18, 2002 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.Work Session: Proposed Amendments to the Eugene City Code from the Human Rights Commission City Manager pro tem Jim Carlson introduced Andrea Ortiz, Chair of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), and Gretchen Miller, chair of the work group that developed the proposed amendments. Mr. Carlson invited each to make a brief presentation on the HRC's proposed amendments to the Eugene City Code. City Councilors were provided with an Agenda Item Summary relating to this issue, in addition to the following attachments: 1) ordinance concerning human rights, 2) summary of comments, questions and issues collected by the HRC, 3) "Code Revision Frequently Asked Questions," and 4) transgender terms and issues. Ms. Ortiz thanked City Councilors for the time they have dedicated to human rights issues. Ms. Miller reported that she chaired the Work Group for the ordinance and provided details of the work group's meeting schedule. The work group met approximately weekly from mid-February through mid-June. In addition, four public forums and two work sessions and a public hearing were held with the Human Rights Commission. The commission considered the suggestions made at the forums and the public testimony and made revisions to the ordinance accordingly. Ms. Ortiz shared that her belief that human rights issues are not subject to a vote. She said that human rights laws were enacted for the protection of vulnerable people. Ms. Miller highlighted the significant and controversial changes to the code, as follows: · Changes anti-discrimination language, adding ethnicity · Adds additional language for gender identity, specifically for transgendered people · Requires reasonable accommodations for transgendered people, including bathrooms · Establishes a domestic partner registry · Establishes private right of action, needed because State law does not protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, or ethnicity · Adds Human Rights Support System/advocacy process to the ordinance MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 1 Work Session Relating to the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations for bathroom use by transgendered individuals, Ms. Miller said that she did not believe the proposal that would require extensive physical reconstruction or renovation of existing facilities; a single-use bathroom would present no problems, facilities with private stalls could allow a transgendered individual to use the bathroom he or she needs, and the bathrooms that do not have private stalls might use a system of signage designating when the facility is in use. In rest areas along interstate highways, there are signs that note that attendants of the opposite sex may accompany a disabled person in the bathroom. Ms. Miller stated that the legal impact of the domestic partner registry is extremely limited but acknowledged it could have an indirect legal impact. Ashland has had a registry since October 1999, with approximately 38 people registered. Multnomah County established its registry in June of 1994, with 381 people registered. Ms. Miller predicted that after a few years, Eugene would have a number of registrants somewhere between those numbers. Mr. Farr commented that this was a defining moment for him. The proposed changes will help protect people. He noted that his son attends Lewis and Clark College, where most dorms have cross-gender bathrooms, which initially shocked him. Mr. Farr said that he measures any proposal on three issues: 1) its effect on education, 2) its effect on the cost of housing, and 3) its effect on the cost of doing business, specifically jobs and the economy. He asked how the proposed ordinance for employee restrooms would impact businesses. Ms. Miller said there was a negligible intended impact. For employees, the exception was to allow an employee to use a bathroom of the gender they most consistently identify with, or make other reasonable facilities available. Building a new bathroom would not be considered reasonable, but an "in use" sign would be considered reasonable. Mr. Farr said that the most important issue was how to protect the people of the community. In general, he was in favor of the ordinance, although he expressed concerns about the potential costs for employers, particularly small businesses, in providing a "reasonable facility." Mr. Meisner said that the proposed ordinance was a matter of simple justice, equity, and fairness. He concurred with Ms. Ortiz's statement that the goal was to protect the most vulnerable citizens and that should not be subject to a vote. To the changes, Mr. Meisner spoke in support of each. He commented that he was willing to consider all of the proposed changes together or separately. Ms. Nathanson said she had been supportive of Human Rights ordinance changes in the past and was generally supportive of the proposed changes. She asked the City Manager to explain the process, asking specifically if a motion was needed to provide for the public hearing. Mr. Carlson said that there was no requirement for a motion. Since the proposal was from one of the City Council's advisory committees, a public hearing was put on the City Council's tentative agenda, although Mr. Carlson noted that this could be changed. Ms. Nathanson said that the staff material does not explicitly state the intention of some of the proposed changes. For example, the material states, there was a "significant threat or danger to the public," but there was no supporting data. She suggested that the number of complaints received or other tangible evidence be provided to the council. In addition, relating to the domestic partnership registration, a list of the tangible benefits that one might receive could be provided to City Councilors. In response, Ms. Miller said that it was not specifically clear to her what those benefits might be. She said that it could be an issue where a private employer might accept the registration as sufficient proof to provide medical insurance to a partner. The benefit of MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 2 Work Session providing visitation rights for domestic partners in institutions such as the jail and hospital was also noted. Ms. Bettman thanked the HRC and work group for their efforts. She asked about the anticipated impact and how it could be delineated. Can the threshold that would trigger a change be identified? She expressed her support for the ordinance. She asked what the difference was between a civil ceremony and a domestic registry. Ms. Miller said that a civil ceremony is a marriage, but two people of the same sex cannot get married anywhere within the United States. The domestic partner registry is a way for two people who cannot or choose not to be married to say that they are partners. The registry does not provide for a legal marriage. Ms. Bettman said that there were tangible benefits for those registering as domestic partners, including the right to visit a loved one in the hospital or participate in a funeral. Those people who oppose the registry probably do so on religious/moral grounds. To deny a population the same rights granted to others is a matter of discrimination. Specifically relating to transgender protection, Ms. Bettman said that the City of Eugene would be protecting the most vulnerable. Mr. Kelly thanked the HRC and the work group for doing a thorough job and expressed his support for the proposed changes, which he considered to be matters of human decency. With regard to the domestic partnership registry, he stated that anything that the State or community can do to encourage a stable family environment should be done. Mr. Rayor said that the City of Eugene has been actively trying to eliminate discrimination since before this charter was adopted in 1976. He said that the proposed revisions were thoughtful and went through a reasonable process. The need for the gender identity protections can be found in the Police Department. The bathroom issue does not appear to be one that could not be overcome. He asked for clarification on "source of income" discrimination. Ms. Miller said that it was added during the last code revision and it addresses income discrimination based on welfare or other government benefit/income. She said that this has not been a big deal. Ms. Taylor commented that the proposed revisions were an excellent package. She spoke in support of the domestic registry, which provides a tangible benefit for loved ones who want to visit their partner in the hospital. Regarding transgender accommodations, she questioned the potential expense for remodeling a bathroom and asked for additional information about this. Ms. Taylor said that this was her only reservation about the proposed changes. Mr. Pap8 said that he has been the City Council's representative on the HRC. This is not an issue of providing rights, but providing protection. He supported the domestic registry, but expressed concerns that individuals beyond the City of Eugene will want to use the service. The services and benefits should be targeted for the citizens of the City of Eugene. He asked that this qualification be added to the registry. He echoed the concerns of Mr. Farr and Ms. Taylor that there should be no additional expense or additional code requirement for restroom accommodations. Except for the qualifications that were just raised, Mr. Pap8 said that he supported the proposed changes. Mr. Torrey asked Mr. Lidz for clarification of any "down-side" to the proposed changes, and what would be considered reasonable accommodation. He asked if there would be a cost for the person using the domestic registry. Ms. Miller said that there have been initial discussions with the City Recorder and that the fee might be about $50, which would cover the costs to the City. Mr. Torrey also noted that the domestic registry was not a marriage. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Lidz said that the liability to the City, if it was to lose a legal challenge, would depend on the challenge proposed. In terms of "reasonable access" or "reasonable accommodation," Mr. Lidz said that reasonable access was specifically defined within the ordinance. If the definition was broader than the City Council would like, it could be redefined. Mr. Torrey asked if "restroom" would also include public shower facilities at a fitness or swimming pool facility, like the Sheldon Community Center. He also asked if there was a point when a person is legally or medically transformed from one sex to another. Mr. Lidz said that there was no legal answer as to when an individual has transformed from one sex to another. Mr. Lidz said that the City Council could define this in the ordinance, but noted that he has not worked with this issue enough to know the answer. Mr. Meisner said that Oregon has a fairly abbreviated ex parte procedure for change of name, and the procedure for a change of gender is the same. An individual takes the forms to a judge for ex parte signature after posting it for the requisite number of days. This provides for a legal stage to change gender identification, but there is no physical stage that has been identified. Mr. Lidz also noted that on page 27 of the ordinance, there were provisions for health clubs or other entities that operate gender-specific facilities, such as showers or locker rooms. Mr. Torrey said that a number of employers in the community had expressed their frustration that they do not understand the proposed ordinance. They are concerned about their legal responsibility. Mr. Farr said that prior to the two years he spent on the HRC, he had believed that there were no problems and that there was no discrimination. After that experience, he now knew that this was not the case. He has thought long and hard about this issue and said that it was important. He hoped that those who disagreed with him would understand his position. Ms. Bettman said that it is important to address the concerns of some of the people who oppose the gender related changes. In the big picture, there is such a small potential for abuse that she felt safe with the proposed changes. The ordinance itself addresses the identity with which a person identifies, not the person's medical diagnosis of a gender transformation. Ms. Taylor responded to Mr. Rayor's concern that the registry serve only the citizens of Eugene, noting that since the fees would make the program self-supporting, it would be appropriate to allow anyone to register. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to extend the time for the item by three minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Nathanson said that the last time a human rights ordinance was passed by the City Council unanimously. She said that following the public hearing, she hoped the City Council could agree to support the proposed ordinance unanimously. Mr. Pap8 said he supported a registry that would serve only City of Eugene residents. When the motion is made, he would seek amendments to address the cost issue, to show that there will be no requirement to build any new facilities based on the ordinance. Mr. Torrey closed the work session. The public hearing is scheduled for October 14. Ms. Miller thanked the City Council for the opportunity to work on the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Hospital Mr. Carlson informed the council that this was a work session, called by four members of the City Council, was an opportunity to talk about a downtown hospital. Planning and Development Department Director Tom Coyle provided the initial presentation and consultant Jim Johnson was present to provide additional background material he provided at the request of Mr. Carlson. Mr. Coyle spoke to three components regarding downtown hospitals: 1) What Planning and Development staff was capable of doing, subject to council direction. 2) What Planning and Development staff was currently doing. 3) What Planning and Development staff cannot do. Mr. Coyle said that Planning staff can provide land use information to any potential hospital advisor who seeks its counsel. Staff is familiar with the policy direction from City Council to encourage downtown and nodal development. Staff is currently providing McKenzie Willamette Hospital these services and will provide the same services to PeaceHealth as it goes through its renovation. Staff is capable of going further with medical providers by assisting, facilitating, or inducing medical service delivery in an area that is not otherwise being presented in the market environment. Staff is not currently providing this service, but could with direction from council. Finally, staff was not an expert on the current status of medical administration. It is an area that staff would typically have to contract for service. As such, it would be difficult to provide the City Council with good advice relative to downtown hospital opportunities. Mr. Coyle said that Planning and Development staff would be happy to participate in the proposed dialogue with a citizens group involving the different governmental agencies. He expressed concern that the output will not give the City Council the technical information that it might desire. Mr. Coyle noted that Mr. Johnson's memorandum was included with the packet of materials. Mr. Rayor reported that the McKenzie Watershed Council had a presentation from the PeaceHealth organization regarding the Riverbend campus. He expressed disappointment with the plan. The Hilyard campus, if developed as promised, will be good for the community. He expressed concern that citizens of Eugene do not have the freedom to choose from difference reproductive service providers. Mr. Rayor said that he supported putting this item on the agenda because he would like to provide development assistance, in the form of a hospital zone, in several areas of the city. This zoning would change a hospital from a conditional use to an allowed use. This a no-cost way to assist with potential hospital development, and might be used in C-2 zone or within the downtown core. Mr. Farr said that in 2008, when PeaceHealth completed its move to Riverbend, there will still be a hospital in the City of Eugene. Fifty to sixty percent of the citizens from the Eugene area will be able to get to the new hospital faster than they could reach the old hospital. He acknowledged that there was an argument regarding emergency care. To keep open the possibilities for the future, he would support the "allowed use." MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Johnson for the materials he provided. She said that they made a good case for why cities have a stake in their communities' health care. Eugene needs a hospital and all citizens need access to health care. Competition in health care gives the community a choice for services. Without competitive services, the City is at a disadvantage. She suggested that the City "bait the hook" to attract a downtown hospital. The opportunities before the City should be publicized and then it can wait to see what happens. This does not include deciding what the health care needs are for the next 50 years. Mr. Meisner said that the memorandum from Mr. Johnson was helpful, but did not provide the answers to several questions. While the City may take action, the issue of "can the City" remains to be seen, and the issue of "should the City" remains unanswered. He said he would like to ensure that there is a good level of hospital service in Eugene. There are no guarantees with either PeaceHealth or McKenzie Willamette. It is important to ensure that there is care within the city. He suggested that there be an expression of support for the provision of hospital care facilities in Eugene, without making a commitment of financial resources at this time or identifying the hospital of choice. Mr. Kelly said that in this community, health services are provided privately, not publicly. He said that it made sense for the health care community and the City to work together to determine how health care services will be provided for the community. Although there will be a facility at Hilyard, there will not be an emergency room, nor general health care beds for the hospital. Mr. Kelly expressed his appreciation for Mr. Coyle's assessment of what the staff can and cannot do. He asked that staff move forward with those things they can do and he hoped there would be a motion to this effect. He echoed Ms. Bettman's remark that this was good for economic development and redevelopment. Ms. Nathanson said that she represents southwest Eugene, which will have the worst access to medical facilities with the move to the Riverbend campus. She said that there are two critical factors in emergency services: 1) the time it takes an ambulance to reach a patient and 2) the time it takes an ambulance to get to the hospital. She asked if the City has adequate zoning in place or are there appropriate changes that could be made that would help enable locating, relocating, or expanding a hospital. Mr. Coyle said that one option was to provide for a specialty zone or an opportunity zone. In addition, it could also be possible to change existing zoning uses from conditional uses to principally allowable uses. He added that there may be policy issues which need to be further addressed. Ms. Nathanson asked that staff further research this issue. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible for the Planning and Development staff to determine what was in the "tool kit" and what the City Council should be prepared to authorize. Mr. Coyle responded that the infrastructure and land assemblage information can be brought forward quickly at council direction today. Ms. Nathanson said that she would be interested in pursuing those issues that were within the City's purview to ensure good health care. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap~ reminded members about the recent history, that the existing hospital chose to move out of the area to the Riverbend campus. It is important to have two critical care facilities in the community. He would not like to have the City in the hospital business, but he would support those things that the City can do, specifically related to zoning, to make the community open and available to another health care organization that might locate in Eugene. He said he would not support changes limited to the downtown core area, but would support services closer to the physical center of the City, at 2nd Avenue and Garfield Street. Ms. Taylor said that rezoning was an urgent issue to pursue. She found it interesting that McKenzie Willamette was established to ensure that hospital services would be available on both sides of the river, and now both hospitals are to be located on the same side of the river. She would support a motion to provide for moving forward with these opportunities. Mr. Johnson said that the City Council has multiple goals. He asked how the redevelopment of the Hilyard site and the potential for the development of a new site could be used to reach the goals. He encouraged the City Council to think about hospital development/redevelopment in the same light as other proposals to meet the City's goals. Mr. Torrey asked that incentives be tied to emergency care. He asked for a definition of the difference between urgent care, Level 3, and Level 4 care. He asked if a third facility can be sited here. Mr. Johnson said that it would be very unlikely, because McKenzie Willamette and PeaceHealth have the "certificate of need." A third hospital could associate with either facility, but it would be unlikely that a new third hospital could locate in the area. Mr. Torrey asked if the City had the authority for eminent domain for property currently owned by an existing hospital. Mr. Lidz said that there was the authority. Mr. Johnson suggested that this might be considered in executive session with the City Attorney. Mr. Rayor said that he would like a motion to address long-term, short-term, and mid-term care. He said that the City was not providing for its citizenry if the majority of its people live on one side of the river and the bulk of the services are on the opposite side. When the need is greatest, the separation will be greatest. As the representative of Ward 4, he said that he did not believe his constituents would have access to emergency health care. Mr. Farr hoped that the City could make some of the changes that were discussed today. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, that it shall be the policy of the City of Eugene to encourage hospital uses in the central city to support health care for Eugene citizens and as a method of stimulating economic development and downtown redevelopment. The City Manager shall proceed with appropriate staff work necessary to encourage the development and/or redevelopment of sites for hospital uses in the central city and return to MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 7 Work Session council in November with options for appropriate siting opportunities and financial incentives. Ms. Bettman said that in her mind, the incentives included a hospital zone. Mr. Pap~ asked what was meant by "central" and "downtown." Ms. Bettman said that is was broader than just downtown, but included anything within the central core. This extends beyond the downtown core. Mr. Kelly noted that this motion was e-mailed last night and was originally drafted by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Carlson said that this will be a new work plan item for the Planning and Development staff. Mr. Coyle said that with the level of scoping requested, it might be necessary for the City Council to provide direction for the amount of time staff should dedicate for this task. Ms. Bettman said that there was no request for a product in November, but asked that staff check back with City Council prior to the holiday break. This is initial attempt to keep City staff working on what the City can do. Mr. Kelly suggested that the term "opportunity-driven" be considered by Mr. Coyle in determining staff assignments. Mr. Farr said that he could support a much simpler motion that would suggest changing the zoning to make it a possibility, which would only dedicate a few hours of City staff time. He said that he could not support the motion because it goes too far. Ms. Nathanson said that she considered this to be a scoping document, rather than a final report. She spoke to the motion's term "financial incentive" and proposed that the term "financial" be taken out and replaced by "other" so the last sentence in the motion read "The City Manager shall proceed with appropriate staff work necessary to encourage the development and/or redevelopment of sites for hospital uses in the central city and return to council in November with options for appropriate siting opportunities and other incentives." Ms. Bettman and Mr. Rayor accepted Ms. Nathanson's friendly amendment to the motion. Mr. Torrey said that he would like to see the area more clearly defined. He personally identified the area for consideration as that land between I-5 to 18th Avenue, to 5th Avenue on the north and Garfield Street on the west. The motion passed 7:1, with Mr. Farr voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 8 Work Session James R. Carlson City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kris Aanderud) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 2002 Page 9 Work Session