Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/18/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall April 18, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Quarterly Report From The Citizen Charter Review Committee Mary Walston of the Eugene City Manager's Office introduced members of the committee present, Jon Belcher, Ken Tollenaar, Virginia Thompson, Bob Cassidy, and Mitzi Colbath. She reminded the council of its formation of the committee and its charge to the committee. She reported that the committee had been meeting weekly since January 9 and was forwarding recommendations to the council regarding the number of wards and councilors and the method of voting. Ms. VValston said the committee was requesting further council direction on what role it would play in campaign finance, which was also an activity identified for further follow-up in the council's goals process. She said that the committee was also requesting direction on the scope of its charge as it related to Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). Ms. VValston called the council's attention to options distributed prior to meeting related to instant runoff voting. Chair Jon Belcher presented the report. He distributed a handout to the council entitled Instant Runoff Voting, and advocated that the council ask the voters to adopt the method of voting. He provided an example of how instant runoff voting would work, using the Oregon governor's race of 1990; he suggested that the method could have produced a different result. Mr. Belcher said that the method provided for only one election, which would save candidates' money because they did not have to campaign twice for office in a runoff election. He also said in his opinion it would also save public money. In addition, the method would mean councilors would not have to wait from May to January of the following year to take office as elections would be held only once in November. Mr. Belcher said that another option afforded by instant runoff voting was the ability to have separate elections for the council and mayor, which would allow councilors to run for the office of mayor without having to give up their seats. He said that the method also addressed the perception that voting for a "spoiler" candidate was like throwing away one's vote; in instant runoff voting, voters can vote for all the candidates they want in the order they chose, which meant that MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 1 Work Session candidates must consider all the voters and not just their core constituencies. He acknowledged the system was not broken but thought it "could certainly use some fixing." Mr. Belcher acknowledged the legal obstacles voiced to instant runoff voting by the Secretary of State, but noted the City Attorney's suggestion that the issue could be a home rule test case. The legislature could also be asked to change the way the law works so Eugene could use instant runoff voting. Two bills providing for instant runoff voting were in the legislature awaiting a hearing; they were likely to die within the next few days. He said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations could be directed by the council to support the bills. Mr. Belcher reported on the second committee recommendation for ten wards. He said the committee considered it a de facto form of campaign finance reform. The approach would keep the number of citizens in each ward small, making door-to-door campaigning easier, reduce the ratio of constituents to councilors, and allow for the realignment of wards to neighborhood and geographic boundaries. He said the recommendation was not unanimous, as was the first recommendation. A minority of members objected because of the increased costs to support a larger council, the diluted influence of individual councilors, and the fact deliberations would be less efficient. Mr. Belcher indicated he supported forwarding the recommendation to put the issue before the council. He noted the number of wards was actually established by resolution, although the charter provided for eight councilors elected by wards. Mr. Belcher said the committee recommended a September election for voter consideration of its recommended changes. Mr. Belcher reiterated the committee's request for direction on EWEB. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson asked how many times instant runoff voting had been considered by the legislature. Mr. Belcher did not know. He thought the issue was more relevant now because of the 2000 presidential election. He noted a 1913 case in which the Oregon Supreme Court had agreed that Portland's home rule authority gave it the ability to use preference voting. However, since the time of the State constitutional provision in 1906 allowing preference voting, the legislature has yet to enact a statute to allow that to occur. Ms. Walston noted that legislation providing for instant runoff voting had been introduced in other states in conjunction with a broader national movement, but that she was unaware of any state which had adopted such legislation. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Tollenaar his opinion of instant runoff voting. Mr. Tollenaar said he supported instant runoff voting because it was a clone of the dual election system but saved time and costs; it moved the election closer to the time the winning candidate took office; and, by holding a November election, maximum turnout was ensured. He thought it a better way for the voters to express their views about the various candidates, particularly if there were three or more candidates. He thought it a more logical way for voters to register their opinions on the relative merits of the candidates. Mr. Tollenaar said that Eugene was growing more diverse, and changing socially and politically. He thought instant runoff voting was a way to accommodate those changes. It also avoided the problem of "spoiler" candidates mentioned by Mr. Belcher. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 2 Work Session distinguished instant runoff voting from proportional representation, under which one only needed a minority quota of votes to be elected. Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Belcher what happened with the undervote in instant runoff voting. Mr. Belcher said that if a voter choose to only vote for two candidates, that would be their choice. Mr. Rayor clarified that the voter's vote counted for the first round even if the voter chose to vote for only candidate. Mr. Belcher concurred. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to put instant runoff voting on the ballot. Ms. Taylor thought the method a great improvement and a first step in campaign finance reform. She did not support a November election date, preferring that elections occur in May and councilors take office in January. Mr. Kelly said that it was better for the candidates and voters for the reasons expressed by Mr. Tollenaar. He recognized the legal issues related to instant runoff voting but was not prepared to spend money on a legal fight, preferring to seek a legislative remedy. He suggested the motion be amended to read Enact instant runoff via an election with a clause that makes the effective date contingent upon the approval of instant runoff voting at the Oregon legislature. Ms. Taylor accepted the amendment. Mr. Kelly thought there were legislative possibilities to take advantage of in the current session and suggested a friendly amendment that the council Direct staff to lobby in support of legislation enabling the City to take advantage of instant runoff voting in this session and the next session of the legislature. Ms. Taylor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Nathanson also preferred a legislative remedy to the legal issues surrounding instant runoff voting. She thought instant runoff voting would benefit the community in the long-term, and thought it could be explained to the community in a way it could understand. Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Meisner was not interested in a judicial challenge and also preferred the legislative approach. He did not think the Oregon legislature was interested in the topic this session, but the issue could be pursued in the next legislature. He was less optimistic than Ms. Nathanson that the method would be easily explained, and thought the City had a substantial education process to go through. Mr. Meisner supported the motion with the qualification that, if it was the only measure the council put on that ballot, he would change his vote as he did not want to pay for a separate election to put the question to the voters. City Manager Jim Johnson said that the council may want to have the understanding it would review the issue again once it determined what else was on the ballot. At the request of Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly restated the motion: Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to enact instant runoff via an election with a clause that makes the effective date contingent upon the approval of instant runoff voting at the Oregon legislature, and direct staff to work to enable instant runoff voting in this and the next legislative session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Taylor about the issue of the May election. He supported the motion. Mr. Rayor thanked the committee for giving the council a range of options. He thought the proposal reasonable, and that the public would understand that the approach gave it more choices. Ms. Bettman thanked the committee for its work. She supported the motion, saying it was sensible for all the reasons stated already. She saw no downside to the recommendation other than the legal hurdles. She said she would support a court challenge on the issue if there was no legislative remedy. Mayor Torrey said that he was prepared to let the community vote on the issue. He hoped if there were pitfalls to the method, they would be pointed out during election campaign. Mr. Pap~ said he would vote to the put the issue on the ballot but was not yet sure of his position on the method. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Fart recalled the committee had been asked to change the method of electing councilors and asked how that discussion was going. Mr. Belcher said the committee discussed at-large versus ward elections and agreed to retain ward elections. Mr. Fart wanted the council to consider using the method of electing councilors used in Springfield. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to prepare information and a resolution to place a charter amendment on the September 2001 ballot to increase the number of wards and city councilors from eight to ten. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion at this time, although she was willing to consider it in the future. Mr. Kelly did not support the motion. He said that the council already had a challenging time having a good discussion now with eight members, and he thought ten members would further compound that problem. He said that it would be different if the councilors were full-time and had offices downtown where they could "bump into each other in the hall." Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly, saying he was willing to have the voters consider the issue but was not personally in favor of the concept. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the previous speakers, saying she did not favor the increase. If the impetus behind the recommendation was campaign finance reform, that should be its focus, not something as sweeping as an increase in wards. Mr. Rayor asked how cities with ten wards compared to Eugene's. Mr. Belcher said a few have as many as ten, but many had fewer than eight. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought the advantage of smaller wards outweighed the disadvantages of more councilors, but she said she had heard no outcry from her constituents for such a change. She thought the system was fundamentally good and that minor changes could be made to foster fairness. Mr. Meisner said most of his thoughts had already been stated. He endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding campaign finance reform. He said if the City actually could preserve small neighborhood-based wards with an increase in wards, he would be supportive, but noted the boundaries of his own ward, one of the smallest in population, which was not a small, homogeneous area. He did not see the recommendation as a remedy. Mr. Meisner said he did not want to turn the council into a legislative format council. He said he felt the shift in numbers on the Board of County Commissioners had been harmful for Lane County government. Mayor Torrey pointed out an increase in the number of councilors was likely to raise the profile and influence of the mayor. He reported he received comment on the subject from one person, the chair of the River Road/Santa Clara neighborhood association, who liked the recommendation because he thought it might mean that the area became a common interest ward. The motion failed unanimously, 8:0. Regarding EWEB, Mr. Meisner said that he raised the issue, and wanted clarification about the comparative authority of the council and EWEB commissioners given the disagreement over the text of the ballot measure related to fiber optic. He said that there was also a question of mutual membership on the EWEB commission and other City groups. Mr. Meisner recommended that staff seek clarification from the tape of that meeting. Ms. Bettman asked if there was anything in the charter related to campaign finance reform that the committee should address, noting the council's interest in the topic was largely in what administrative things could be done to streamline the process and get information to voters in a timely fashion. She thought the committee needed to decide if there was a charter issue involved. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to direct staff to prepare information and a resolution to place a charter amendment on a ballot to change the method of councilor election as follows: councilors would represent their wards, as currently, and would be selected by citywide election. Mr. Farr said the approach was currently being used in Springfield. He suggested that the approach might work against him personally, but he thought it important because the council was making decisions that affected the entire city and the entire city should vote for each councilor. Mr. Kelly noted that the committee considered the concept but decided against forwarding a recommendation to the council. He was not adverse to further discussion, but due to a lack of time suggested the council table the issue. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Rayor noted that his interest in campaign finance was in strengthened reporting requirements rather than what he termed the "supply side" of campaign finance. Mr. Kelly did not propose the committee take up the issue of campaign finance as a topic in itself because of the council's work plan and because the charter did not need to be changed to enable the City to take action on campaign finance. Ms. Taylor believed there were other issues the committee could address. Regarding campaign finance reform, Ms. Nathanson said the committee report was helpful; she suggested the committee could prepare a recommendation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of an ordinance versus a charter solution and a voluntary versus mandatory approach. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to direct the committee to prepare a report on the advantages and disadvantages of electing councilors by ward or at large. Ms. Nathanson indicated the motion was to ensure the council had information prior to the discussion of the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 6 Work Session B. Work Session: Ward Redistricting Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item. He reported that ward restricting is a routine, periodic process that occurs at the local, state, and federal level following the census. Mr. Croteau called the council's attention to wall charts showing the result of the 1990 ward redistricting and estimated 2000 census figures for each ward. He added that final census figure would not be available until June 2001. Mr. Croteau said that in 1991, the council made the decisions about redistricting and did not appoint an advisory committee to assist in the process. The council agreed on the ward boundaries without the benefit of a public hearing. Staff was recommending a redistricting process that had much more public involvement. Mr. Croteau requested direction on the options prepared by staff for the council decision-making process (outlined in Attachment A of the meeting packet), noting the staff recommendation that the council make the decision following a public input process. He reviewed the proposed process time line (outlined in Attachment A of the meeting packet). Mr. Croteau also requested approval of the proposed public involvement process, noting it included the provision of information, public input into the criteria to be used in redistricting, and a public hearing on the options developed for redistricting. Ms. Taylor asked if the number of households rather than number of individuals could be considered in redistricting. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the council must consider individuals rather than households. Five individuals living in one household must be counted as five individuals. He confirmed that included children. Ms. Taylor asked why more public involvement than occurred during the previous process was proposed, and why the last process included no extensive public involvement. Mr. Croteau said that the issue was not controversial at that time; there had been little community interest in helping the council make the decision. This time, the public indicated it wanted to be involved, probably because the city had experienced 22 percent growth over the past ten years, and there was a significant shift in where growth had occurred in the community. Ms. Nathanson wanted public involvement in both the criteria and the boundaries. She was pleased by the staff recommendations. She said that sometimes such public processes do not yield much in the way of results, and asked if the public information packets proposed by staff were what was needed. Mr. Johnson anticipated that the City would start out small in producing information packets, and said the City planned to target the information to citizens to accommodate the way individuals liked to access information, such as through the Web or with written materials. If more packets needed to be printed, they would be. Mr. Kelly supported having the council undertake the redistricting issue without the assistance of an advisory committee. He endorsed the time line. He said that he thought having multiple options to consider was vital. He liked the fact the options would be available in September, giving the public and council time to provide input until the process ended in December. He suggested that once the council agreed on the criteria, it could give staff direction on ward boundary options at the same meeting, which would compress the time line somewhat. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly noted that, while the population shifts in 1990 were not as significant and the issue not as controversial, the population shifts 10 years previous to that had been as dramatic as now but nobody testified at the public hearing the council held at that time. He said that council had not gone through an extensive public process and "the republic still stands." Mr. Fart thought the council should make the decision using input from the public and staff. He said the council must ensure the process was reasonable and nonpolitical. The redistricting criteria must make sense for the community, and must be established using public input prior to the council's direction to staff regarding the boundaries. He believed the nature of the process in 1990 made the 2000 process a more political one because it ignored natural boundaries. Mr. Fart wanted to have something in place prior to January 1, 2002. Mr. Pap~ preferred to form a task force to develop a recommendation regarding redistricting for council review, although the final decision would be made by the council. The task force could include two or three councilors, a representative of the University of Oregon, and other community members, perhaps from the League of Women Voters or City Club, to overcome some of the politics about the issue that were building among citizens. He thought the time line looked acceptable. Mr. Pap~ questioned if other legislative processes affected the issue, asking if precincts needed to redrawn before wards were redrawn. Mr. Croteau said the time line was predicated in part on the fact the County Elections Clerk needed to redraw the precinct boundaries by early 2002. Mr. Pap~ asked how much growth occurred in Eugene between 1980 and 1990. Mr. Croteau said he would provide that information to the council. Mr. Meisner favored the council making the decision regarding redistricting without the assistance of a task force or a council subcommittee. He did not think those tools would save time. He thought it would be difficult to make such a committee representative of the community. Mr. Meisner liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion to compress the time line. Mr. Meisner did not think the redistricting issue had been controversial until later in the decade when the predictions of those doing the redistricting proved to be wrong. He said the council's responsibility was to correct those errors as well as predict growth over the next ten years using the best information it had. Ms. Bettman did not think there was anything inherently unfair about the current wards, saying the changes were due to population growth rather than anyone's intent to create an inherently inequitable system. She commended the staff materials as well-done, and supported the staff recommendation that the council make the decision on redistricting. Ms. Bettman thought the time line supported that approach. She did not favor an advisory committee because it would create redundancy and take more time. She thought the public information proposal was comprehensive and that it would result in a lot of public input. Mr. Rayor supported the staff recommendation for the decision-making process and time line. He also agreed with the public input process recommended to the council for the criteria and boundaries. Regarding the public information effort, he did not support the complete list of proposed activities. Mr. Rayor favored putting information on the Web site and making it available at City offices. There would be no speakers bureau, interested parties list, informational sessions, or e-mail communication about the process. If people wanted to know more, they could be referred to the City Web site, or be invited to contact the City Manager's Office for information. Mr. Rayor said that the press should also publicize the information. He wanted to save money and did not think his suggestions "shorted" the public. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Torrey wanted the Planning and Development Department staff to identify available residential development opportunities on a map. He said that the City had the capacity to produce accurate maps to help the council create more appropriate wards. He asked what legal steps were available in case redistricting caused a councilor to no longer live in the ward he or she previously represented. Ms. Taylor supported the council making the decision regarding redistricting. She thought outreach to the neighborhood organizations might be the best form of public outreach. She did not favor spending money on small, poorly attended informational meetings. She thought the Web site was good but pointed out not everyone had a computer. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to have the City Council as a whole carry out the redistricting process. Mr. Kelly referred to an editorial printed in The Register-Guard on April 15 that had misquoted his position, and noted the letter he sent in response, printed the previous day in the paper. He said he had been accurately quoted in a subsequent story. The motion passed, 7:1, Mr. Pap6 voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the general redistricting process and time schedule as outlined in Attachment A, with possible modifications or efficiencies. Mr. Meisner asked for information regarding the number of registered voters in each ward and throughout the entire community. Ms. Nathanson wanted to ensure public comment occurred at the right time and was concerned that the public hearings were not timed in a manner that allowed the council to take the input into account in its decision- making. She encouraged staff to consider how the schedule would work. Mr. Farr shared Ms. Nathanson's concern. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the motion by revising the schedule by adding a public hearing prior to adoption of the criteria. Mr. Kelly suggested the council did not need to make a decision on the form of input at this time. He did not support the motion because he was unsure that a public hearing was more or less effective than an informal, potentially interactive public forum. Ms. Nathanson agreed. Mayor Torrey hoped that staff would develop a map that did not incorporate the current wards and that presumed that, for the first time, the city was going to be divided into wards. The motion to amend failed, 2:6; Mr. Pap6 and Mr. Farr voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:1, Mr. Pap6 voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the citizen information and involvement plan as outlined in Attachment B. Mr. Fart supported the motion, saying he wanted to ensure that the schedule included plenty of opportunity for public hearing prior to the council deliberation. He hoped the manager addressed the concerns he and Ms. Nathanson expressed regarding the timing of public input. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Rayor to delete the speakers bureau from the list of activities. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by removing the information sessions from the list of proposed activities. Referring to the speakers bureau, Mr. Meisner said if councilors were not willing to speak to community groups about redistricting, they did not deserve to be elected. The amendment to the motion failed, 3:5; Mr. Farr, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by removing the e- mail and postal mail addresses for receiving input from the list of proposed activities. Ms. Nathanson asked if the amendment meant that the City would not tell people how to write to City Hall. Mr. Rayor withdraw his motion. Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 10 Work Session