Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/11/01 Meeting MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--Eugene City Ha11--777 Pearl Street June 11, 2001 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1.CEREMONIAL MATTERS Mayor Torrey presented a Citizen Life Saving Award to Alan Mayer, who rescued a person from a burning motor home. Mayor Torrey called for the community to recognize the actions of Mr. Mayer and expressed his pleasure in presenting the award. Mr. Mayer received a standing ovation from those present. II.PUBLIC FORUM David Sohm, 720 Mountain View Drive, urged the council to adopt the League of Women Voters' criteria for redistricting. He called for an even distribution of councilors through the city and opined that variation in wards could be less than three percent because growth had slowed in recent years. He said that the staff recommendation for redistricting ignored public opinion and stated that politics had no place in the discussion. Zach Vishanoff, 1312 Mill Street, said that the university neighborhood area was being destroyed by development for the University of Oregon. He said that the historic nature of the neighborhood was being lost and related how the University was erecting a phone relay tower in a residential neighborhood. He said the University denied the neighborhood was being damaged and called for help from the council. Ray Broderick, 1375 Corum Street, urged the council to approve the Community Development Block Grant for the Child Advocacy Center. He related the role the center played in helping abused children and how the center had helped 170 kids, from Eugene alone, in the last year. Gary Pierpoint, 2059 Musket Street, urged approval of the Community Development Block grant for the Child Advocacy Center. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 1 Regular Meeting Doug Harcleroad, Lane County District Attorney, urged approval of the Child Advocacy Center Grant. He said that it was a good example of a public private partnership. Bruce Miller, PC) Box 50968, urged councilors to read an article from a Salem newspaper regarding that city's downtown area. Mr. Miller also urged the council to consider using the old Eugene Hospital site, and its surrounding blocks, as a new Sacred Heart Hospital site. Misha Seymour, 1313 Lincoln Street, opined that Symantec Corporation had "hoodwinked" the City by getting tax breaks and then moving its operation to the city of Springfield. Regarding the opening of Broadway Street in the downtown area, Mr. Seymour stressed that opening streets to traffic did not make a street special. Councilor Rayor noted that the new Land Use Code required transitions between public land and residential land. He urged Mr. Vishanoff to look at those transition requirements and ensure that the developers were aware of those new codes. Councilor Rayor opined that the grant for the Child Advocacy Center would be approved, but called for a discussion over City of Eugene money dedicated to nonprofit organizations that were also supported by Lane County and the City of Springfield. He stressed that he was in support of approving the grant and asked the center's representatives not to misconstrue any questions he might ask as opposition. Councilor Pap8 stressed his support for the Child Advocacy Center but raised concern over the way the grant had been presented to the City Council. He opined that the grant should have come through the recently completed budget process. Councilor Kelly said that the new City Land Use Code required public review for new uses on land that was zoned PL (Public Land) when it was adjacent to residential land. He agreed with Mr. Vishanoff that the City did a poor job of respecting its history. As an example, he noted that the house that Ms. Eugene Skinner had died in was still standing but had no protections on it what so ever. III.DISCUSSION AND ACTION: Consideration of a Grant to Lane County for a New Child Advocacy Center City Manager Johnson said that the County's role in the grant was explained in the council meeting packet. He noted that there was background information attached that explained the kinds of services that the Child Advocacy Center provided. He added what the role of the City of Springfield was in the process and that the suggested motion specified that no dollars would be allocated until the City of Springfield took action on its grant approval. Regarding the site of the facility, City Manager Johnson said that alternate sites had been reviewed but, given the value of land and the need for the City of Springfield to have access to the facility, staff were recommending that the site be located on Lane County's Youth Campus. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 2 Regular Meeting Regarding the concern raised by Councilor Pap~, Mr. Johnson said the people requesting the grant were not aware that the grant would be awarded in time to put the item in the City's budget process. He said that, even then, he would not have included the item since it deserved a special agenda item for consideration at a council meeting. He said a special grant, such as the one being discussed, did not fit in the normal budget process. He reiterated that he had no knowledge of the grant request during the budget process. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the City's Community Development Block Grant Department Advisory Committee be directed to award Lane County $100,000, over the next two grant years, from the pool of funds designated for nonprofit facility construction and remodeling and $50,000 from council contingency funds. The City of Eugene's contribution is conditioned on the City of Springfield's contribution of $75,000. In response to a question from Councilor Nathanson regarding whether the last $50,000 would come from the council contingency nonprofit account, City Manager Johnson noted that there was about $70,000 left in the combined categories of council contingency. He noted that the nonprofit account had $51,500 left with the balance in the main contingency account. Councilor Nathanson expressed her desire to see the main account used for emergencies and unanticipated organizational issues. City Manager Johnson reiterated that the main account did not have $50,000 dollars remaining so the grant would have to come from the nonprofit side. He said that, as late in the fiscal year as the request came, it would not matter where the money came from. Councilor Meisner raised concern that the grant was written and submitted predicated on the idea of grants from the cities of Eugene and Springfield. He stressed that the council should have been notified of that. Councilor Meisner raised concern that County taxes were paid by citizens of Eugene and yet the citizens were being asked to pay an additional contribution to make a service available to them. He said that it was setting a bad precedent. Councilor Meisner said he would, reluctantly, not support the motion because of his concerns. He reiterated his concern over the grant being submitted predicated on the City's contribution and yet the city did not know about it. Councilor Rayor expressed his pleasure that the funding was predicated on the participation of the City of Springfield. He said he would support the motion with reservations. Councilor Rayor raised concern that the Human Services Commission would feel shortchanged since the question of funding the Child Advocacy Center was not brought through them. He expressed a desire to see more cooperation from the County on future issues. Council Fart commented that he could not think of a better use of contingency money than the Child Advocacy Center Grant. He noted that the fiscal year ended on June 30, and that there would be no other requests for contingency funds for the current fiscal year. Councilor Fart said the center was so important that he did not care what place its funding took in the budget cycle. He stressed the importance of viewing the center as a "target of opportunity" and added that the funding would not add additional stress to the City's budget. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 3 Regular Meeting Regarding the planned location of the facility, Councilor Fart said that it was ideal. He cited the ease of transportation and the lower land cost as examples of that rating. Councilor Fart urged the council to rally behind the grant request. He said it was a huge issue that would affect the community for many years to come. Councilor Kelly commented that the Child Advocacy Center did extraordinarily valuable work. He expressed his pleasure that Lane County was also funding the center and that Eugene's funding was contingent on funds from the City of Springfield. Councilor Kelly raised concern that the request did not use the correct process. He was not comfortable with the idea of the City Council dictating to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. City Manager Johnson acknowledged that it was unusual for the City to ask the committee to hold aside that much funding for one request but noted that the amount of leverage on the facility was also very different (1/10 of the total cost). He acknowledged that the advisory committee usually had a larger role. Councilor Kelly stressed that the request was worthwhile but noted that there were other worthy projects that had gone through the standard process. He stressed the importance of grant requests going through the correct process. Councilor Kelly noted that nonprofit contingency requests were limited to $5,000. He said that other requests had been asked to cut down their requests to that amount. He acknowledged that it would be inappropriate to cut a $50,000 request to $5,000 so he suggested that the funding come out of the main contingency account from FY01-02. He commented that the $5,000 limit should not be "thrown out the window." Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend the motion so that the contingency money was taken from general council contingency, combined FY01-02, as necessary. Councilor Pap~ commented that the council was leaping over standards that it had set. He suggested that the contingency money be removed and that staff be challenged to find the money from the 2002 budget. He raised concern over the precedent set by the council violating its own processes. Councilor Pap~, moved to amend the amendment to stop the use of any contingency funds and request that the City Manager come back with a request that was worked into the budget process. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment to the amendment was a tie. Mayor Torrey voted in opposition. The amendment to the amendment failed, 5:4, with councilors Pap~, Bettman, Meisner, and Rayor voting in favor. Speaking to the original amendment, Councilor Nathanson was willing to support the change if it moved the process forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 4 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap~ commented that the amendment set a horrible precedent about contingency fund use. He said he would not support the amendment. He raised concern over spending next year's contingency funds in the current year. Councilor Pap~ reiterated his objection to the way the grant was handled. The amendment passed 6:2, with councilors Nathanson and Taylor in opposition. Speaking to the main motion, Councilor Taylor said she could think of no better use of Community Development Block Grant funding than what was being proposed. She stressed the facility's importance to the community. Councilor Taylor moved to amend the motion by deleting the requirement on Springfield to help fund the request and getting the last $50,000 from the Human Services Commission rather than contingency funds. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Bettman commented that a true partnership would have come to the City early in the process, and let the council know that there would be a request for funding. She added that the City should have had an opportunity to offer land in lieu of cash. She raised concern over the location of the site chosen by staff because of lack of access. She said she philosophically supported the request but objected to the process used. Councilor Nathanson raised concern over the planned use of next years funds for unplanned emergencies and expenditures. She suggested that the money be allocated to some department's budget. She called for an explanation from City Manager Johnson as to why the request violated so many processes. Regarding the Human Services Commission funding, City Manager Johnson said that those funds were for operations only and did not include capital projects. Regarding the process used, City Manager Johnson apologized to the council. He said that he had tried to help the County District Attorney in getting the grant approved. He acknowledged that the grant did not meet the usual processes, but stressed that it was an opportunity for the City to be involved in a project that was very worthwhile. He commented that he had never seen a grant request from Lane County and added that it did not fit into the standard process. Councilor Pap~ acknowledged the worth of the project but reiterated his objection to the process used. Councilor Pap~ moved to table the motion to a date certain. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Meisner reiterated his concern over the precedent set by the request. He commented that what was a request from the Child Advocacy Center could end up as future demands to participate in State and County general law enforcement needs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 5 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner stressed that he had no qualms about the quality or need for the service but raised concern that funding would come up shod for other capital requests for Community Development Block Grant funds. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding whether the planned facility was new or being remodeled, City Manager Johnson said that it would be a new building. Councilor Fart, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to call the question. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2, with councilors Pap~ and Meisner voting in opposition. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Council Minutes: 1. May 14, 2001, Work Session 2. May 14, 2001, Regular Session 3. May 16, 2001, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of the 2001-02 City Council Goals Work Plan Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly pulled item C. Councilor Kelly offered the following minutes corrections (verbatim from e-mailed corrections); 1. May 14, 2001, work session page 15, packet page 95; fourth paragraph starting "Mr. Kelly tentatively..." add three words shown in all caps: "Mr. Kelly tentatively supported the INTENT OF THE motion..." 2. May 14, 2001, regular session page 2, packet page 98: third paragraph starting" Mr. Snyder recognized..." The individuals recognized for their work in Ward 4 were left off the list and should be included. 3. May 14, 2001, regular session page 5, packet page 101: fourth paragraph starting "Councilor Kelly had..." Should say "pulled items C and G" (rather than E and G). 4. May 14, 2001, regular session page 5, packet page 101; eighth paragraph starting "Roll call vote"; delete "E" from the list. The motion applied to A, B, D, and F. 5. May 14, 2001 regular session page 6, packet page 102; last paragraph, first line; change "e-mail" to "phone." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman offered a correction to the May 16, 2001, minutes. On packet page 114 she noted that mill should be spelled with a capital (Mill). Councilor Nathanson offered a correction to the May 14, 2001, work session, packet page 94. She said that the last sentence of the first paragraph should read: "Ms. Nathanson was concerned that the City should develop a more comprehensive list of acquisitions before expending available funding." Councilor Nathanson offered a correction to the minutes of May 14, 2001, regular session, packet page 106. In the third paragraph from the bottom of the page she added: "There were things in the code she was not happy with, just as for other councilors, and she believed changes would be needed." The motion, with the exception of item C, passed unanimously. Regarding Item C, Councilor Kelly asked that the secondary list be included as an appendix to the document. Councilor Kelly raised concern over page 26 of the document, which incorporated something that the council had not seen yet. He said that under Item 4, "Choose a revenue source by reviewing revenue options", all of the bulleted details were brand new. He called for information on who came up with them and where they got the idea. Jan Bohman noted that, at its last meeting, the council asked for some interim timelines and these were the bulleted items that Dee Ann Hardt of Administrative Services Department had provided. City Manager Johnson added that the items were an attempt to be more specific with data. Councilor Kelly raised concern that the council was being led down the specific path of an admissions tax rather than being brought a number of alternatives from which to choose. He called for rephrasing of the language that mentioned other alternatives for funding the youth levy. Councilor Bettman called for language integrating street car planning in the downtown visioning process. Councilor Taylor called for a list of alternative funding options for Item 4. She also was concerned about being led toward an admissions tax. Councilor Meisner raised concern over looking at an admissions tax. He expressed concern that it was also too late for a special district to be formed. Jim Carlson said that it was too late to form a special district by FY02. Referring to page 25(1) of the document, Councilor Meisner called for consistency in the language. Councilor Meisner urged the City Manager to work with the LRCS director make a plan that was better coordinated in timing and goals. Referring to the youth levy, Councilor Kelly suggested that there might be a funding bridge that would last until a special district could be formed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Rayor stressed the importance of good transition planning. He stated that his intent was to not refer any more levies to the voters since it was not the correct way to deliver services to the community. Roll call vote; item C of the Consent Calendar passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting