Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/12/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall December 12, 2001 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Papd, Bonny Bettman. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A.Presentation of Lane County Road Funds to the City of Eugene by Commissioner Green Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green presented the City Council with a check from the County Road Fund in the amount of $1,233,028.95. The council thanked Mr. Green. B.Work Session: Endangered Species Act/Salmon Draft Outreach Plan and Regulatory Review Report The council was joined by Neil Bj6rklund of the Planning and Development Department, who provided a short presentation on the proposed outreach plan and regulatory review report. He overviewed the elements of the outreach plan. Mr. Bj6rklund discussed the staff resource limitations faced by the City, and requested that the council approve supplemental funding to underwrite the costs of implementing the plan. He noted that Eric Jones of the Public Works Department was also involved in the effort. Mr. Bj6rklund invited questions. Ms. Taylor commended the work done by staff to-date and indicated interest in the contemplated code changes. She said the existing penalties for illegal fill needed to be strengthened so that fines had a deterrent effect and did not become a cost of doing business. Ms. Taylor did not perceive the need for a web site, saying that anyone who would access such a site was likely to be informed already. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the site was a small part of the outreach plan, but many of the strategies, while small in themselves, reinforced each other through a number of ways and then became more effective. The web site is supported by an e-mail list, which in turn is supported by a "message of the month," and so on. Mr. Farr expressed support for the effort outlined by staff. He determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that the spring chinook was native to the upper Willamette basin. The fall chinook run was introduced. There was no natural fall run because there was insufficient water for passage over Willamette Falls in autumn. The steelhead in the basin were not native; native steelhead only traveled as far south as the Calapooia River. Mr. Farr asked why the fish runs were so strong this year if the salmon were in decline. Mr. Bj6rklund said there were natural fluctuations in the availability of food in the ocean off the coast. The current high returns MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 1 Work Session were attributed to that abundance. The fact that there was low rainfall and drought conditions for some time indicated there would be a decline in the near future. Mr. Bj6rklund reiterated that such fluctuations were natural. He noted that the majority of fish returning to the river system were hatchery fish. Mr. Fart observed that it had been a very good year for salmon fishing. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the questions posed by Mr. Fart were the type of questions staffhoped to see answered for the public. He added that people were largely unaware there were wild salmon at some life stage in the river all year round. Mr. Meisner also commended the work done by staff. He emphasized that there were things people could do in their everyday lives to help restore the salmon. He looked forward to hearing more about those things. Mr. Kelly also endorsed the outreach plan as showing thought and variety and appreciated the goals that were highlighted. He believed there was value in collaboration and partnership, and hoped that would be a hallmark of what was done in terms of both public education and involvement. He suggested that the Chamber of Commerce was a good avenue to get information to the business community and feedback from it. Local environmental groups with educational expertise could be called on to participate in the outreach as well. Mr. Kelly referred to the anticipated cost of the effort and said there must be grant funding for such efforts. He expressed hope that staff could dedicate time seeking those funds. Mr. Bj6rklund said the United Front participants had discussed natural resource issues over the past few weeks and staff had discussed possible sources of funding with the lobbyist, who thought it a good time to seek funding for the program. Mr. Bj6rklund believed the program was innovative, and would be attractive to granting agencies as a pilot program for similar efforts. Mr. Kelly said that businesses and organizations should be recognized for the steps they took to protect the salmon and applauded for the effort in a public way. Ms. Bettman commended the staff proposal. She felt the outreach and education component was very important. She asked about the prognosis of the salmon in the long-term. Mr. Bj6rklund was unaware of any studies that have tried to answer the question of how long it would take the salmon to go extinct. One of the difficulties in predicting extinction was that the natural cycles were beyond the control of man. An earthquake could change habitat, and climatic changes such as the E1 Nino/La Nina cycle also had an impact on the survival rate of the salmon. Mr. Bj6rklund believed that all citizens had to do their part to assist the salmon; if nothing was done, extinction was very likely. Ms. Bettman asked about the connection between the outreach plan and developments that would have a major impact on the river and fish habitat. Mr. Bj6rklund said the outreach plan included an internal education component, something that had been going on for some time. He had conducted many staff trainings on the issues involved for both City staff and other agency staff. One of the interim strategies proposed was a tool to help staff evaluate its own projects, which would be useful to staff in making decisions and knowing what potential impacts there might be. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the approach was not "rocket science," but provided context for those decisions. He suggested that those were the best strategies that the City could put into place until more programmatic and policy decisions were adopted. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that members of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Team were involved in all development projects along the river and were providing input about ESA implications on those projects to primary project staff. Mr. Pap~ agreed the staff had done a great job. He asked to what degree local efforts were integrated with State efforts. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the City was involved in several groups, such as the Metro ESA Coordinating Team, which would review the outreach plan soon to determine how the City could partner with other local agencies. The City was also involved in the Willamette Urban Watershed Network, in which most valley cities participated. The outreach plan would be reviewed by that group so it could be educated about what Eugene was doing, and its transferability discussed. Staff was investigating activities that were already occurring elsewhere, and would be cataloging and evaluating existing programs to determine how the City could connect with those programs. In addition, staff was communicating with Oregon Plan staff and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board on its plans. Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation for an approach based on education, outreach, and incentives versus one based on regulation. He thought that the City's program was going in the right direction. He determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that the City's efforts were very much in line with the recommendations of the Willamette River Initiative, an initiative that was still alive. Mr. Pap~ asked if urban activities and urban point source pollution were more degrading to salmon than nonpoint source pollution, such as runoff from farmland. Mr. Bj6rklund said the question was difficult to answer because the two types of pollution were different and had different impacts. Studies were occurring regarding the impact of multiple chemicals in the river and their interactions and effect on the salmon. He said it was recognized there was a need to reduce the chemicals that enter the waterway, and that work can occur without precise knowledge of how those chemicals interact. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City would be better off developing salmon habitat at Delta ponds, or working to better control point source pollution. Mr. Bj6rklund said that was a good question. He thought it was important at the regional level to direct the limited funds available to do the most good for salmon. There was no regional agreement on the answer to Mr. Papa's question. Mr. Bj6rklund suggested that the council recall the details of the resolution it adopted with regard to the salmon listing, which contained two directives, one of which was to comply with the ESA and do no harm to the salmon, and the other was to restore habitat. The Delta Ponds project was a large restoration project that would not be sufficient on its own because of impacts from ongoing activities. Staff was looking at those impacts. Mr. Pap~ noted the recent federal court decision related to the salmon and the appeal in process. He asked how that decision related to the City's efforts. Mr. Bj6rklund clarified that only one salmon ESU (Evolutionarily Significant Unit) was being affected by the decision, involving the coastal coho. He said that the coastal coho was delisted on a technicality. Judge Michael Hogan maintained that under the rules of the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) could not list only the wild fish; both hatchery and wild fish must be listed, or none. There were 12 to 20 petitions for additional delistings in similar circumstances. NMFS was in the process of reviewing its policies and analyses related to hatchery fish, and would develop a response in about one year, so the local area would not know the impact on the local listing for that period of time. He suggested that if the listings went away on technicalities, there would be petitions to relist the fish in question. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Bj6rklund to discuss how the regulatory review report fit with State and federal regulations. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. In response to Mr. Rayor's question, Mr. Bj6rklund said the City must coordinate any actions it takes with State Goal 5. Regarding the connection to the federal government, he doubted the local area would seek NMFS' approval of what was proposed locally because that agency was understaffed and was not able to respond in a timely way to applications from local governments. The former director of the agency had advised local staff not to seek NMFS' approval of local ordinances, but to craft those ordinances with the best possible science because NMFS would not be able to assist local governments or approve things submitted to it in the near-term. Mr. Rayor asked if City departments would continue to violate environmental laws in emergencies. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that the process established to help City staff evaluate its own programs helped staff become aware of where it might encounter conflicts with federal law. That information would be provided to the organization, and it would be accompanied by educational support. Mr. Bj6rklund said that where City activities were regulated by chapters 7 and 9, staff would be expected to understand those regulations and the City's responsibility to meet those regulations. He added that anything the City expected of the public would be expected of staff. Mayor Torrey hoped that the outreach program would involve those who disagreed with the position that it represented; he encouraged staff to let those individuals challenge it and the program and to let the public hear that debate. Mayor Torrey noted that there were transient campgrounds on the banks of the Willamette River that generated uncontrolled waste going into the river. Citizens concerned about the issue were unable to get assistance from the City or State. He said that needed a more consistent response. Mr. Bj6rklund said it was stafffs intention that the outreach program would provide an opportunity for debate. Mr. Kelly encouraged staff to proactively communicate early on with the groups that would be affected by regulatory changes. Ms. Taylor said she was glad an environmental policy team had been created, and hoped that the council was informed of the team's opinion when related items come to the council. She said that the issue was a human, not just a salmonid, matter, and she hoped that was emphasized in the education and outreach materials. Ms. Taylor, seconded Mr. Kelly, moved to direct staff to prepare a supplemental budget request for $10,000 to fund initial ESA/outreach activities outlined in Attachment B, with 20 percent of the funds to come from the council contingency (General Fund) and the remaining 80 percent of the funds to come from dedicated funds. The motion passed unanimously 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 4 Work Session C.Motion to Reconsider Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reconsider the council action of December 10, 2001, on an ordinance regarding forfeitures and amending sections 4.245, 4.247, 4.251, 4.253, and 4.255 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Ms. Nathanson said she was offering the motion to reconsider after discussions with the City Manager about the potential ramifications of the council's action, particularly in terms of the City's relationships with its intergovernmental panners. She was particularly concerned about the fact the motion directed funding for drug treatment specifically to City of Eugene residents, and would propose an amendment if the motion passed. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to table the motion if the motion to reconsider passed given that the meeting agenda was full and he sensed there would be councilors who would wish to speak to the motion. The motion to reconsider passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to table the motion. The motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Kelly and Mr. Pap~ voting no. D. Work Session: Consideration of City-wide Election of City Councilors The council was joined for the item by Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office. She reminded the council that the Citizen Charter Review Committee (CCRC) had discussed the issue of city-wide elections and issued a brief report highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of ward elections versus city-wide elections, but the committee offered the council no recommendation on the topic. She noted the inclusion in the meeting packet of information regarding the election approaches used by the ten largest Oregon cities; the information indicated the cities were evenly divided in the methods they used. Ms. Walston noted that the Gang of 9, a local political action committee, was circulating a petition to place a measure for city-wide elections on the May 2002 ballot. Ms. Walston invited council questions and comments. Mr. Fart said he requested that the work session be scheduled because there had been many times when the council majority was not in concert with the community majority. City-wide elections were a means to let the entire community elect the entire council. Mr. Fart said he was a strong partisan of his ward and spent much time speaking about his own ward, but he was so concerned about the way the elections had been going in the last few years that he was willing to make the change. Mr. Fart thought there were ways to get around concerns about the cost of city-wide campaigns by limiting campaign expenditures. He pointed out that if the council did not place the item on a ballot, the Gang of 9 would do so. Mr. Fart suggested that the council put the issue on the ballot so it could shape the measure as it wished. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said that he would like the council to have more thorough analysis of city-wide elections before it put a measure on a ballot. He was concerned about the cost of city-wide elections; because it would be difficult to campaign at the grassroots level, elections would have a media focus, and the costs of reaching out to the entire city would be much more expensive than it was to mail campaign material to the residents of a ward. He said that the limitations on campaign contributions suggested by Mr. Fart were an interesting idea, but he noted that the federal courts had expressed free speech concerns about such limitations. Mr. Kelly said that another concern he had was that the current system created a conduit to the City organization for constituents who needed one, and he thought that constituent services would "go out the door" if the election method was changed. Mr. Kelly pointed out that under the system proposed by the Gang of 9, the voters of a ward could vote against the candidate rtmning from their ward, and that person could still be elected. Mr. Meisner said he wished the Gang of 9 petition was not circulating now. He said that the positions taken by the first speakers indicated the situation was "all or nothing." He thought there were advantages to both systems. He was interested in a hybrid system, which many cities had adopted. Mr. Meisner said that it was the councilors' responsibility to represent the ward they were from as well as the interests of the entire community. Mr. Meisner did not think city-wide elections would solve all the problems that Mr. Fart had identified. He said that voters did not always act in a consistent way. Mr. Meisner said he did not know how he would vote if the petition resulted in a ballot measure. He thought a hybrid system might offer some assurance that there were councilors whose job it was to represent the entire community, while others would represent districts or wards. Ms. Nathanson said she was unsure that the petition would succeed, but she assumed that it would. If the council were to decide to forward a measure to the voters, she would support that action. Absent a more complete discussion, she would forward it without a particular recommendation, awaiting the decision of the voters. She said that the concerns expressed by Mr. Fart had been expressed to her by others, but she believed that perhaps redistricting would address some of those concerns. She advised voters to give redistricting a chance to work. Ms. Nathanson said that constituents often told her they liked ward campaigning because it gave them the opportunity to know the candidates. They liked that someone came to their door to give them a brochure or they had an opportunity to meet a candidate at a neighborhood meeting. They thought that gave them better information than an ad in the newspaper. Regarding campaign reform, Ms. Nathanson noted that in her first campaign for council office she had suggested a voluntary cap on expenditures to the candidates rtmning against her, who had not been interested. Mr. Pap~ said that he heard from many in the community who were interested in the topic. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Meisner's suggestion there was a hybrid option. He said he would like to put something on the ballot so the voters could decide if they wanted to pursue the topic. He did not think the CCRC had spent sufficient time on the subject. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap~ observed that cost did not seem to be an issue for other Oregon communities. He asked for information about the costs to candidates running in the last election in Eugene. He also asked staff to find out whether Gresham's system was ward-based or at-large. Regarding the issue of constituent services, Mr. Pap~ said that he believed in an at-large system, councilors could defer to each other for constituent services. Ms. Bettman said if the council was going to have a substantive discussion on the issue, it needed more information about the assumptions being made than was provided in the packet. She cited information about campaign costs as an example. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the perception that councilors did not represent the entire community. She believed that councilors' participation on other committees and their constituent work gave them a well- rounded perspective. Ms. Bettman further pointed out that under a city-wide election system, each councilor would represent 140,000 constituents, more than twice as many as a County commissioner represented. Ms. Taylor thought the councilors all represented the entire city, and those who did not were not doing their job. She talked to everyone who called her no matter what ward they lived in and helped them get information. She did not want a situation where people from other parts of the City got to elect the councilor from a particular ward, and noted Mr. Kelly's comment that a councilor could fail to get the support of residents in their ward yet still be elected. Ms. Taylor believed that there would always be some citizens whose councilor did not represent their views. There was a better opportunity under the ward system to elect someone who did. She thought that money would play a larger role in city-wide elections than it did under the current system. Mr. Rayor said he would like to give the new wards a chance to work. He thought the wards were by their nature fundamentally different from one another, as demonstrated by the vote on the West Eugene Parkway. He also objected to the types of campaigns that he envisioned would be run on a city-wide basis, fearing that coalitions of candidates would run for office. For example, coalitions of realtors might gang up on other candidates by putting campaign signs up on houses for sale, making it appear as though the candidate had more support than they did. He did not think campaign finance limits would have an impact on that situation. Mr. Rayor termed ward campaigns "person-to-person" campaigns that allowed the candidate to become familiar with their wards and ward residents. Mayor Torrey said he believed the council was having this discussion because the ward population distribution had been uneven and councilors were not appropriately representative of the community as a whole. He cited the CCRC as a committee not representative of the community, but nonetheless the council placed its recommendation for instant runoff voting on the ballot and it subsequently was defeated by a wide margin. Mayor Torrey said if the council wanted to make city-wide elections work, it could do so. He asked why the council would be reluctant to let the citizens made a decision on the issue. He was not afraid to have the discussion or let the citizens have the discussion. Mayor Torrey said that the mayor's office depends on the bully pulpit. The mayor did not vote unless there was a tie. The issue was then, how could the mayor get people to do what was in the best interest of the community, and he advocated for communication with them. The mayor was the one person who could point to community-wide support. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mayor Torrey expressed disappointment that the CCRC had summarily rejected city-wide elections. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Meisner that there were pros and cons to either system and he did not intend to imply that city-wide elections were a cure-all. He also agreed with Ms. Nathanson regarding the effect of the new wards. He asked what could be done now. Mr Johnson indicated the council must act by February 25, 2002, to get on the May 2002 ballot. He believed the council needed to hold another work session. Mr. Johnson noted that the council had a discussion on campaign finance scheduled for January 15. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct staff to prepare another work session on city-wide elections to occur sometime during the month of February. Mr. Meisner determined that the Gang of 9 petition was due February 15. Ms. Bettman said she would prefer a later work session if the Gang of 9 was to put a measure on the ballot. She thought that otherwise the City would be providing research for a political campaign. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. PapO, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Rayor voting yes; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Kelly voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 12, 2001 Page 8 Work Session