Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/24/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall January 24, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly asked City Manager Jim Johnson for a status report about the Parks Foundation. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would provide a brief memorandum to the council. Mr. Kelly noted the potential impact of proposed School District 4J school closures on the City and asked if there was a role for the City to participate in that discussion. Mr. Fart referred to the council's decision on the University of Oregon Autzen Stadium amendment and regretted the incompleteness of reporting in the next day's edition of The Register-Guard. He said that he thought the University's offer of $210,000 was generous, particularly given that the University allowed VVISTEC to use the parking. He also regretted that VVISTEC decided to close its doors immediately because he thought there were other actions it could have taken to remain open. Mr. Fart noted an outcry about the closure of KidCity programs in the Bethel district while some programs in the 4J School District were remaining active. He said that it was a big issue for parents. He said that parents were disturbed KidCity did not look at other ways to continue to operating in the Bethel district. Some parents had the perception that the City believed "Bethel could take care of itself." He discussed the situation with Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) Director Angel Jones, who indicated she would be examining those programs to determine how to facilitate the programs remaining in the schools. He was confident the programs could keep operating in some way. In response to an issue raised by Mr. Fart regarding the rezoning for a motorcycle shop in west Eugene, City Manager Jim Johnson suggested that the fastest way to accomplish the zone change was through the normal zone change process. Mr. Fart noted that zoning was not the only issue; the building did not meet the building or fire codes, either. Mr. Johnson indicated that staff was working to resolve all those issues at once, and proposed to go through the zoning process under the existing code while those issues were addressed. Mr. Fart said that the owner was aware of those issues and he hoped they could be addressed as two separate issues as he felt there were two different solutions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said she would be traveling the next day to attend the National League of Cities Leadership Meeting. The committee chairs and officers will be discussing Mayor Archer's initiative to invest in communities. She said she would give the council a report when she returned. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged The Register-Guard's new approach to reporting on City news and said she found it helpful and hoped other residents did as well. She liked having more and regular information about what was going on in the City organization. Ms. Nathanson noted concerns expressed in past years about erosion control, particularly in the south hills. She asked for a staff update on how the City's erosion control program was working. Ms. Nathanson noted her previous interest in having parents and volunteers provide safe crossings for children going to and from school, and said that at the time she raised the issue, the 4J district had no interest in pursuing it. She had encouraged the City and 4J to work together on the issue. Since that time, it appeared that there were programs at some schools and the City was assisting 4J in a crossing program. She requested a briefing on the topic and how the situation came about. She was pleased about the development. Mr. Rayor noted his support for the lower funding amount for WlSTEC because no one had asked the University about its support for the higher level of funding. He had called Meg Trendler of WlSTEC the day following the council's action to promise to reinstate his firm's previous annual contribution and to indicate he would attempt to personally solicit other businesses for funding, but the organization still closed. Mr. Johnson clarified that the board had not yet voted to close the facility. Mr. Rayor said he had received a complaint about the reductions in after-school programs from a constituent and had responded by noting the short-term nature of the levy and his hope that the funding could continue. He wanted staff would get back to the citizen and copy him with the rely. Mr. Rayor brought up an issue regarding the tracking of projects in the City. He encouraged business owners on Willamette Street and 25th Avenue to become proactive about what was needed in that area and a petition was submitted to the City. There was a crossing study planned, but no scheduled date for construction. He had no good answer when people asked him about such projects. Mr. Rayor believed the City should determine a schedule for the project as soon as possible, even if there was no funding, and let the petitioners know of its status. Mr. Rayor said that citizens were also interested in a traffic calming project at Willamette Street and 33rd Avenue and expected the City to get back to them with a schedule. He asserted he had been "left out of the loop" about the project. He said the City should develop interested parties lists for such projects and include councilors on the list. He thought that the issue was somehow related to the position of the Public Service Officer, saying if he did not "tickle her to tickle them no one is going to tickle me." He did not know what to do. If the City wanted him to pay attention to his constituents, he needed more support. He suggested the Public Service Officer needed help, and perhaps should be focused on wards rather than the entire city. Mr. Pap8 said he had received several contacts about school closures and would welcome a work session with the 4J School Board on the subject. He said he had also received constituent contacts about the KidsCity reductions and agreed with Mr. Farr's remarks. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation for Mr. Farr's comments about WISTEC. He said he opposed the additional payment of $60,000 that Ms. Bettman proposed the University of Oregon pay WISTEC out of concern, in part, that the City would receive further requests to condition development proposals on a private owner's support for a nonprofit organization. He had contacted WISTEC to suggest it consider leveraging the University's proposed payment through a financial institute. He did not think WISTEC had explored all the options, including more extensive fund-raising. Mr. Pap~ did not think actions of the University or the City caused the closure of WISTEC. Mr. Pap~ referred to the letters the City received from AutoCraft objecting to the possible closure of the business because of the potential location of the federal courthouse and wondered if the adoption of the Land Use Code Update would create more opportunities for AutoCraft to relocate. Mr. Meisner said that he had been working with management on the issue of complaint tracking for some time and anticipated improvements in that process as a result of a meeting he, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Nathanson had with staff. He thought staff generally did a good job, but not in letting the council know about constituents' complaints or informing citizens of follow-up to complaints and concerns. Mr. Meisner said he received confirmation he was appointed to a second term as a director of the National League of Cities Leadership Training Council. Mr. Meisner noted he was the new chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and was working with staff and the Oregon Passenger Rail Council on a Rail Day on January 30 at the State legislature. It was possible Mayor Torrey and Mr. Pap~ would also travel to Salem on that day. Mr. Meisner shared the concerns of other councilors about potential school closures and said the community decision with the most impact on how Eugene grew was the decision by the school board to end the neighborhood school program. He did not want to interfere with a separate jurisdiction or take financial responsibility for the schools, but thought he City had a role in the school closure topic. Mr. Johnson noted that Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department was a citizen member of the closure committee, and he and the mayor had spoken with board chair Craig Smith and administrator George Russell about the subject. Ms. Bettman wondered what would have occurred if the district put resources into a "Keeping the Schools Open Committee." She liked the idea of a joint work session with the board so the council could share its input about the land use and transportation issues involved. Regarding the issue of WISTEC, Ms. Bettman appreciated Mr. Papa's feedback about the options available to the board and suggested part of the problem was that the board was made up of volunteers and science educators, not bankers. The agency had its hands full over the past years attempting to negotiate with the City and University. She said that part of the problem was timing; WISTEC sold its parking in January for the following season and the University did not want to pay the organization until after the football season. She suggested that the manager pursue the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 3 Work Session concept of selling the building it occupied to WISTEC and turning over the management of Leo Harris Parkway to the organization to manage and to underwrite its costs. Mr. Johnson clarified that WISTEC wished the City to donate the building to the organization, and he had indicated to WISTEC that the option was still open. Ms. Taylor supported the donation of the building now owned by the City to WISTEC. Ms. Taylor also regretted the loss of KidCity programs. Ms. Taylor wanted to discuss the school closure issue as she thought it would impact the City's service systems. She suggested one option to save money was to merge the Bethel and 4J school districts. Ms. Taylor referred to the complaint tracking system and said that the permanent Public Service Officer tracked things much better than they had been in the past and she always received a reply. She thought Public Service Officer Sue Collins went beyond what was expected and did a very good job. Mr. Meisner concurred. Ms. Taylor called for the establishment of a citywide Traffic Calming Advisory Committee to develop neighborhood traffic calming solutions. She called for a council work session on the subject following the work of that committee. Ms. Taylor announced that members of the Nepal delegation would present information about the program on February 6 at the Council Chamber in the evening to share slides and stories, and on February 7 in the McNutt Room on noon. That would be a brown bag affair. She invited all councilors to attend. Mayor Torrey asked how many cars could be parked in a front yard without violating City ordinances, speaking specifically of a situation where nine cars were parked in front of a house. Regarding the KidCity reductions, Mayor Torrey clarified that Measure 20-37 funds could not be used for previously operating programs, only additions. The City could not afford to take those dollars to supplant previously budgeted-for items. Once the Request for Proposals for new programs was released, the City could provide additional programs. He did not want nonprofits to assume that the City would take care of all the funding. He also did not want to use 20-37 dollars on KidCity programs. Mayor Torrey noted a presentation he had seen in Washington DC on an electronic building permit filing system. Mayor Torrey said he met with Ms. Nathanson to discuss a joint meeting between the 4J and Bethel school districts and the City of Eugene. A subcommittee consisting of two councilors and members of the districts would be formed to develop an agenda for that meeting. Regarding WISTEC, Mayor Torrey was adamant that if the City was to give the building to WISTEC, he wanted the organization to produce a five-year operating plan. He said that the council's decision should not have taken the organization under. He wanted to ensure the City had an avenue to proceed if the organization was not successful. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 4 Work Session B.Appointment to Boards, Commissions, and Committees Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to appoint Sam Frear to Position number 5 on the Budget Committee, a three-year term beginning immediately and expiring October 31, 2003. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the motion by substituting John Prevedello for Sam Frear. Ms. Nathanson suggested a discussion on the merits of the candidates. The motion to amend failed, 6:2, Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr voting yes. Mayor Torrey suggested the council do another ballot on the appointment because only four councilors responded to the initial ballot. There was no support for the suggestion. Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to substitute Eric Forrest for Sam Frear. The motion to amend was a 4:4 tie, Mr. Rayor, Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Farr voting yes, and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Meisner voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion and the final vote was 5:4. In response to Mayor Torrey's suggestion, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the councilors all received the same packet and were always offered the audio tapes if they could not attend the interview. He thought all the candidate interviews were good, but that Mr. Frear's was the strongest. He noted Mr. Frear's many years of civic service and his ability to reach out to people of different views. However, he thought Mr. Forrest had also had a very good interview, and he was Mr. Kelly's second choice. Mr. Meisner said candidate interviews were City Council meetings but were treated as optional by many councilors, which he thought should be a topic discussed at a process session. His preference was Mr. Frear, who he thought would be "ready to go" at a crucial time in the budgeting process. However, he agreed that Mr. Forrest had a strong interview, and was fully prepared because he had read the budget. He wished there were two positions the council could fill. He would not oppose the motion because he did not want to vote against Mr. Forrest. Mr. Farr said both candidates interviewed well. He thought the Budget Committee was better represented by someone in the private sector, like Mr. Forrest. Mr. Pap8 concurred with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding Eric Forrest. He also wished there were more openings on the committee because of the quality of the candidates interviewed. Mr. Rayor supported the appointment of Mr. Forrest because he was from the private sector. Ms. Bettman said that she thought Mr. Frear had a more well-rounded perspective, and she liked his committee experience, which she thought was important. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by substituting Sam Frear for Eric Forrest. Ms. Taylor concurred with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman, saying she was impressed by Mr. Frear's wide knowledge of City government and other subjects, as well as his open mind. Mr. Meisner said that while he had supported Mr. Frear in his ballot, he would not support the motion to amend. He believed the council had an obligation to provide opportunities to participate in City government for new people. He asked that the letters sent to candidates commend them for the quality of their interview and encourage them to apply again. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting no. C.Work Session: Council Goals: Environmental Scan Jan Bohman of the City Manager's Office joined the council for the item. She provided an overview of the results of the recent community survey, characterizing the response as strong and positive overall. Mr. Johnson called the council's attention to the progress report on the 1999 council goals. He said that the City was about 80 percent on target or on time on the 203 action priorities associated with the goals. He noted that most of the action priorities were ongoing items, and suggested that might mean the next set of goals would be similar to the current set of goals. Mr. Johnson referred the council to the Executive Managers Key Strategic Issues document, a summary and description of key strategic issues identified by the executives. He noted that many of the issues were related to the City's budget and staff resources. He indicated that the list was a subset of a larger list staff would provide to the council. Mr. Meisner questioned the utility of the community survey. He read it, but did not find it useful. He did not see a relationship between the council's goals, the executives' key issues, and the survey. Mr. Meisner expressed concern about how long it took for the council's goals to be realized. He said that goals should represent an extra effort, not continuing efforts. He did not think the manager's key issues fit into the goals. Mr. Johnson clarified that staff was not suggesting them as goals. Mr. Meisner said that he did not consider a strategic issue to be "we continue to look at and think about what we've always done." Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bohman said the contract for the survey cost $7,000 and, because of the ongoing nature of the questions little City staff time was needed. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner that the survey was not well-connected with the goals, but he thought it was a useful way to solicit broad community input in a statistically valid way. He thought the cost was somewhat high. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner, saying that she questioned the utility of the instrument and the cost. She suggested that the community could be surveyed less often. She also thought the responses to the survey were affected by issues that arose in the community, such as the Christmas tree policy instituted by the City Manager. Mr. Farr thought the survey was useful because it was statistically valid, sought out residents in their homes, and gave the council public input from a broader audience. He supported the survey and its frequency. He suggested that those in the community who might oppose the survey were from the small groups that came to the council "constantly." Mr. Farr acknowledged the survey might be fine-tuned further and some of the questions might be leading. Regarding Ms. Bettman's remarks about the potential the survey could be affected by a single issue, he pointed out that often those in attendance at the council's Public Forum were often also spurred by one issue, and the council had to balance that input with the peaks and valleys in public opinion. Mr. Farr suggested it was the council's responsibility to identify important issues resulting from the survey to incorporate into the goals process. He thought the presentation on the survey was timely. Mr. Farr was pleased the survey indicated an expectation that the City would work with the school districts and was also pleased that was occurring. Ms. Nathanson believed that the survey was related to the goals. If it indicated discontent with a particular service, the council would react to that in some manner. While she supported the annual survey, she thought a biennial goals, budget, and survey cycle based on the fact the council was composed of the same members for two years might be appropriate. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Bohman that the survey was a telephone survey. She said that she thought such surveys were less and less valid as more people monitored their incoming calls. She thought people were annoyed by surveys and gave flip answers to get rid of the call. She thought a survey printed in the newspaper that people could clip and send in would be more valid. Mr. Pap8 said he would like to see a better tie between the survey and goals session. He did not think the cost was too high, but he was unsure it needed to be done every year. He suggested that every two years might be more appropriate. Mayor Torrey said he liked the survey but was willing to look at a biennial survey tied to the biennial goals process. He favored a phone survey and suggested staff contact the University of Oregon and ask for information on the most valid methodology. He did not support a newspaper survey as it could be abused by multiple responses from the same groups or individuals. Mayor Torrey suggested the survey should include four or five key indicators, with additional questions regarding the council's goals. Mr. Meisner favored a biennial survey. He said if the survey was intended to address the goals, it should be structured in a way that accomplished that. Mr. Meisner termed the survey both vague and ambiguous. It did not inform the council about what people really meant because respondents did not know the survey was a tool for determining what the City of Eugene does. What, for example, did education, as a top priority, mean for the City? Mr. Meisner called for more specificity in the survey. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Fart believed telephone surveys were a valid instrument and had utility. He agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the need for specificity in the survey. Mr. Johnson said the survey had been about the same since 1990, and it had served a variety of purposes. The questions were the same to develop a trend analysis over time. He said that the survey should probably be examined again so the council could determine how often it should be done and its purposes. He reminded the council that two years previous during the goals setting process staff used the document to inform the council of the community's point of view on a variety of issues. Mr. Johnson also reminded the council the data from the survey was also used in performance measures and service profiles. Referring to the goals progress report, Mr. Kelly thanked the management team for its hard work. He expressed concern about the slips in the schedule for several goals. He cited specifically open space and parks acquisition, the storm water basin planning process and, of more importance to him, the completion of the transportation systems development charge methodology. He acknowledged the hard work of the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee but said the delay was not acceptable. The City was not recovering the costs of growth through the existing transportation SDC methodology. He requested a staff response. Ms. Nathanson noted she had asked several times if it was legal and feasible to use the funding from the Parks and Open Space Measure to add staff to assist in acquisitions. Mr. Johnson confirmed staff had been added. Ms. Nathanson questioned why the acquisition process was so slow if that was the case, although she acknowledged that many projects were "on the ground" or being implemented. Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Pap8 that staff let the council know if there were more goals than the City could support, Mr. Johnson pointed out that the work items associated with the goals, which implemented the goals, were proposed by staff. He anticipated that staff would work to provide the council with more explanatory plan items for the new goals. Some work items would try to propose fewer work. Mr. Farr emphasized the importance of the safe community goal to the citizens and said that education was directly related to a safe community. He said that many of the work items associated with that goal were on target or completed, so the schedule slip was not universal to all items. Mr. Meisner thought the council bore some responsibility for the slip in schedule. He said the the council needed to be proactive in inquiring about progress from staff. Mr. Meisner referred to the council goal of Fair, Stable, and Adequate Resources, and suggested the council appoint a new finance committee to examine new fair and equitable funding sources. He said the staff approach to funding services was too piecemeal, and at some point the council needed to look at a broader, more comprehensive picture of local government financing. Ms. Bettman thought existing programs often got pushed aside in favor of new initiatives, which created a bigger deficit in terms of maintaining the ongoing system. The City then looked to the tax payers to solve the problem. She suggested the council develop criteria to prioritize how funds were spent and staff resources allocated. She wanted to protect the ongoing existing infrastructure investment before money was spent on other things. Ms. Bettman believed that tradition played a large part in how funds were allocated, and thought the use of long-dedicated funds should be reexamined because "tradition did not cut it anymore." MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Responding to Mr. Kelly's remarks at the request of Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lyle characterized the rate- setting process as extremely complex. The issue was further complicated by the fact the community was going through the TransPlan adoption process at the same time, and many TransPlan-related issues had influenced the committee's discussion. Mr. Lyle believed that the committee wanted to further the goals of TransPlan through the transportation SDC, and there was a lot of energy on the part of the committee in wanting to work through the finer nuances of the issues involved in the rate-setting process. He believed the process would be done in the next four to six months. Ms. Bettman concurred with Mr. Lyle, saying there was no one to blame for the schedule slip. She likened the effort of rate setting to "breaking trail." She reminded the council that it gave the committee the goal of full cost recovery. Defining "full cost" and allocating capacity was very complex, and there was limited available research on the topic. Ms. Bettman said that in some ways, the committee had been trying to "reinvent the wheel." The committee worked extensively on a methodology only to find that there were some significant contradictions in that approach and some question of its equitability. The committee subsequently adopted another approach. She believed the process would be completed shortly. Mr. Rayor believed that the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning strategy of reduced SDCs in the downtown core needed to be incorporated into the SDC methodology now or it would not happen. Mr. Rayor reiterated his previous remarks about the need to schedule projects even if they are not funded. Mr. Rayor anticipated a future budget crunch and he would not accept a "hurry up and rush" budget measure for a project if one was proposed. He needed information about relative priorities and dollars available. Regarding the current work load, Mr. Rayor questioned where the corridor studies were located in the goals report. He said they were related to sustainable community growth. Mr. Johnson said that those studies were in TransPlan and the Arterial and Collector Street Plan. He said that it was the role of the council to suggest what should become a council goal. If the inclusion of corridor studies was important to Mr. Rayor, he should mention it. He suggested that corridor studies were not a council goal, and that there was another process to heighten the studies as a priority. He offered to work with Mr. Rayor on the topic. Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks regarding the importance of the goal of fair, stable, and adequate resources. She did not think that the property tax was fair or equitable. Ms. Taylor did not think the council needed to form a committee, but it should have a serious discussion of possible new revenues. Ms. Nathanson said the council should not have goals that took up 100 percent of the organization's time because of the impact of new and emerging, unanticipated issues on the City. She asked the council to be cautious in the number of goals it set. Ms. Nathanson commended the key strategic issues document. She said it had an impact on how she considered the goals. She highlighted privacy issues and e-government, the 2000 census and changes in community demographics that had an impact on service delivery, and how the City MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 9 Work Session could influence the mix of rental and homeownership ratios in certain neighborhoods as important issues. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the value of the strategic issues document. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's point about the number of goals and associated work load for staff, Mr. Kelly said that staff should not be timid about the impact on resources when the council talked about its goals and priorities. Regarding Mr. Meisner's points about government funding, he agreed that the issue should be a key focus in the next two years. He suggested the council had failed not in setting the goal, but in endorsing the associated work plan without noticing there was not much in it. He agreed with Ms. Taylor another committee was not needed, recommending instead that the staff update the final report of the former Council Committee on Finance for the council's review. Mr. Fart said that the council's goals could not exclude capital improvements and investments in infrastructure. He said the City should take better care of its infrastructure, even if it mean going to the public for more money. He said that the public does not always say no to City ballot measures. Mr. Fart was not interested in a new taxing source. He wanted the City to be more efficient, and thought the efficiencies the organization realized since the passage of Ballot Measure 47/50 could continue and more efficiencies could be found. Mr. Meisner said more efficiencies were never going to provide for community growth or build branch libraries. He wanted to replace all or most of the organization's dependence on the property tax with a tax that was fair, equitable, and progressive. He suggested a comprehensive examination of the entire budget, with identification of elements related to anticipated growth, and subsequent identification of a funding source to underwrite those costs. Mr. Meisner did not think the council was clear about what it meant when it discussed goals as compared to the regular budget and called for a discussion of the topic for the council to reach agreement on what it meant. Mayor Torrey said the City should take advantage of the 2000 census information to the greatest degree possible. He said that information was the most valuable planning tool the City had. He asked that a work session be scheduled on "what the census told us." Mr. Johnson said the goals process was designed to give the council an opportunity to take a longer term view of the community. The process was not the completion of 203 projects, but the change in the direction the community or staff would take in realizing the council's vision. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 10 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2001 Page 11 Work Session