Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/09/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 9, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Scott Meisner. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Joint Work Session with the Citizen Involvement Committee and Adoption of the Citizen Involvement Committee Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 The council was joined by members of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC). Lynn MacDougal, chair of the CIC, reviewed the committee's work plan for Fiscal Year 2000. She asked the council to approve two suggested projects and adopt the work plan. The two suggested projects were 1) updating the City of Eugene Citizen Involvement Program; and 2) reviewing the suggestions for the implementation of the shared decisions and collaborative input progress recommended during the 1998 Citizen Involvement Strategic Planning Sessions. Mr. Kelly thanked the members of the CIC for their service on the committee. Regarding the work plan, he expressed appreciation for the new second project, which was initiated at the request of Charlie Magee of the Citizens for Public Accountability. He said that the inclusion of the item showed one person could make a difference. Mr. Kelly supported the work plan and the changes proposed by the CIC. He thought the department advisory committee (DAC) mechanism worked well in general, although he believed that several deserved to be ongoing advisory committees, such as the Cultural Services Department Advisory Committee. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the distinction between council committees and DACs, City Attorney Jerome Lidz said that the basic difference was that DACs advise the City Manager. City Manager Jim Johnson said that DACs report to the departments and other committees advise the council. Planning Director Jan Childs said that the CIC wished to ensure that there was ongoing accountability for ongoing committees. The distinction between whether the report was made to the City Manager or the City Council was not a significant issue for the CIC. She said that it was not the CIC's intent to convert those committees to standing committees. Mayor Torrey urged the committee to find ways of involving people in different ways. He said that it was helpful to have input before recommendations were formulated. He said that anything the committee could do to reach out to citizens was appreciated. Mr. Hinkley said that he had been trying to get the City to establish a clearing house for calendars so staff could check dates and avoid having events scheduled against one another. He cited the first hearing on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 1 Work Session Land Use Code Update conflict with Lane Transit District's Bus Rapid Transit information session as an example, saying that theoretically, the two events were going to draw the same people. He urged someone in the City to keep a centralized calendar. Acknowledging that he did not have an answer to the situation, Mr. Hinkley said that it was not possible to ask someone reviewing the Land Use Code to summarize their thoughts in three minutes. He believed that some elected officials respond better to oral than written testimony. Mr. Hinkley also acknowledged that giving 200 people 20 minutes to speak was also not workable. Mr. Lee asked the CIC to let the council know if it did not think DAC members were getting sufficient feedback. Mr. Fart noted his own past service on the CIC, and said that it appeared to be a much more functional group than it had been when he sat on it. He said that he continued to want to attract a broader cross section of citizens offering input to the City, and asked the CIC to find creative ways to do so. Each member of the CIC introduced themself. Ms. MacDougal echoed Mr. Hinkley's comments and said that the CIC had recently discussed whether the public hearing structure worked. She anticipated more discussion of the topic. Shannon McCarthy agreed with Mr. Fart about the difficulty of involving different citizens in City issues. She noted that other committees she had served on had discussed the topic at great length without ever arriving at a solution. Nadia Sindi said she also served on the Lane County Human Rights Commission. Mr. Hinkley said he was a relatively new member of the CIC. He believed that getting citizens used to providing input was a hurdle that needed to be overcome. Rita Litin, a member of the Voter Pool, noted her previous membership on the Police Forum and expressed regret it had been disbanded. Mayor Torrey observed that speakers at public hearings got less effective as the evening wore on and it became more difficult for people to concentrate on their remarks. He suggested that those wishing to offer testimony about technical issues might consider pooling their testimony and allowing one person with expertise to provide testimony. He encouraged the CIC to think about such an approach. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt the CIC work program for fiscal year 2000. Mr. Pap6 suggested that there were two conflicting goals in that the council was trying to get more people to offer input, but the more people there were, the more difficult the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to revise the recommendations for Ongoing Department Advisory Committees, as requested by the CIC. Ms. MacDougal reviewed the changes proposed by the CIC to the DAC structure. Mr. Kelly suggested that courtesy copies of the DACs' recommendations to the council would be useful. Mr. Papd asked if staff was working with the CIC to implement some of the things suggested by Mr. Magee. Ms. Childs clarified that the CIC had not embarked on this task because the council had not yet approved its work program. Mr. Johnson suggested that CIC consider looking at the City's Web site and offering input. Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting at 6 p.m. Ms. McDougal said that while the CIC acknowledged the importance of the Web, it also recognized that there were people without computers and was more focused on face-to-face input. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0 (Ms. Nathanson did not participate in the vote, having just arrived at the meeting). Mayor Torrey thanked the CIC for its work. B. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor said she was very concerned about the Amazon headwaters and the development proposed there. She asked if the City could postpone approval of the development while it determined how to prevent it and acquire the land. She believed that the City needed to investigate whether the development was in conflict with the Endangered Species Act and find out more about the effects of the development on the neighborhood. She had asked the City Manager whether the City's grant writer could apply for grants to acquire the land. She believed that there were many grants available for open space acquisition. Ms. Taylor suggested the use of park bond revenues or storm water money to acquire the land because she believed it would be tragic to allow it to develop. Ms. Taylor asked that a work session on an ordinance to prohibit double ATM fees be scheduled. She said that she had been asked by OSPIRG to schedule the session. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, three councilors indicated interest in scheduling such a session. Regarding legal services, Ms. Taylor requested another council discussion of legal services and the possibility of changing to in-house counsel. She wondered if there could be a public hearing about how the City secures legal services, as there continued to be considerable interest in the topic among those she talked to. Ms. Taylor asked that the council begin a discussion soon of the legislation it would propose in the next session. Mr. Kelly also was interested in the issue of the Amazon Creek headwaters. He said that the State Parks Department could have grant money available for property acquisition and asked that possibility be looked MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 3 Work Session into. He asked if stormwater fee funds were usable for the purpose of acquiring that site. Mr. Johnson said that the upcoming council meeting packet would have background information on the topic and a map of the area. Mr. Kelly noted his disagreement with Ms. Taylor about using the parks bond money for the purpose, given that the tabloid prepared for the election had identified the priorities for those dollars. Mr. Johnson indicated that he did not think it was possible to postpone the planned unit development unless the developer agreed to do so. Mr. Kelly said that he had been approached about the concept of creating a Eugene Parks Foundation by several constituents. He said that such a foundation could be set up at little expense. He suggested that the concept could be extended to other departments, such as the Police Department. Mr. Kelly asked that the council direct the City Manager to work with the Oregon Community Foundation on a Parks Foundation. The councilors indicated support. Mr. Kelly suggested that the City Attorney review ordinances restricting ATM fees adopted in other cities. Mr. Rayor noted that his items were citizen requests and he would appreciate some tracking and follow-up. He had been asked by a constituent why the City could not have dedicated traffic enforcement staff. That staff could then pay for itself. Mr. Rayor said he had received four telephone calls about a property acquisition associated with a planned unit development proposal. He suggested that whenever a major planned unit development was submitted, the City Council should be notified because councilors were likely to get calls from concerned neighbors. Mr. Rayor acknowledged that he did not know how to define "major." He asked the manager to develop some manner of notifying the council. Mr. Rayor said that he received a call from a constituent who had asked him to investigate the conditions at Tugman Park. He said that the park needed to be cleaned up, drainage facilities added, and sand added around the play equipment. Mr. Rayor said he took his constituent calls seriously and would appreciate tracking and follow-up. Mr. Pap~ asked if the council was going to have a work session on City services and contracts with the goal of requesting the City do rotational Request for Proposals. Mr. Johnson said that the council could schedule a work session if it wished. Mr. Pap~ wanted to do so, but not only in the context of legal services. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Pap~ to submit his request in writing; if three councilors supported it, it would be scheduled as an agenda item. Mr. Pap~ asked if a work session on charter review was scheduled. Mr. Johnson said yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen indicated she would provide an update on the Ferry Street Bridge project via e-mail. Mr. Pap~ expressed an interest in a post mortem examination of the project. Mr. Pap~ said that the news account of the Police/Fire Fire Task Force was accurate and a recommendation would be forthcoming. He encouraged the council to read that recommendation carefully. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Nathanson asked if it was feasible to set up a tree planting gift program so that citizens could arrange for commemorative tree plantings. She noted that there was a new neighborhood park being developed in southwest Eugene but there was insufficient money to do everything needed right now. She suggested that a tree gift program could help make up those shortfalls. Ms. Andersen noted that Public Works already had a gift catalog and could add trees to it. Mr. Farr said that he had been contacted by constituents living along Dewey Street about the degraded condition of the street. He said it had been pointed out to him that the bicycle paths do not have pot holes but people who live on streets have to deal with pot holes. He asked if the City could tap into other funds in a creative way to keep streets to a minimum level of maintenance. He asked for a follow-up response. Mr. Farr noted that Eugene now had the third highest housing prices in the country. He said that he would like to schedule a work session on the cost of housing in the community and try to determine the reasons housing cost so much. Mr. Farr said that Eugene received a signed lease for the Wells Fargo Building in the Bethel area for use as a branch library. Mr. Johnson said that he had signed and returned the lease. Mr. Farr thanked Mayor Torrey for his efforts in facilitating the lease and Wells Fargo for agreeing to the lease. Mr. Lee noted that Eugene had received $1 million for the acquisition and expansion of the railroad station from the Oregon Transportation Commission. He said that amount would not pay for everything but was a good start. He commended staff for its work in securing the funding. Mr. Johnson indicated that staff would provide a copy of the rules regarding enterprise zones established through Senate Bill 245. Mr. Johnson read a letter from the General Services Administration (GSA) indicating that $3.5 million was available to purchase a new courthouse site, and the GSA Administrator would support a ten percent increase in that amount. Mr. Johnson requested head nods in setting up a Voters Pamphlet Committee for the three possible measures the council was considering placing on the May ballot. No objections were voiced. Mr. Johnson reported that a group of University of Oregon architecture students was working on a design of City Hall without the Police and Fire departments. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to participate in the Read Across America event on March 2, and to contact him if they were unable to do so. Ms. Taylor indicated she would be out of town. Mayor Torrey said that representatives of Oregon Department of Transportation had met with the Board of County Commissioners and representatives of the small cities in Lane County to discuss the possibility of forming an Area Commission on Transportation. He said that before any decision was made, all elected officials would have a chance to comment, adding there had been little interest expressed at the meeting with ODOT. Mayor Torrey said that it appeared Lane County cities would receive $2.5 million in maintenance funds for roads from Lane County Road Fund in the upcoming year. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to contact MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 5 Work Session the Congressional delegation to stress the importance of continuing the timber payments to the counties. Mr. Johnson said that Ms. Andersen would provide the council with the House and Senate resolution and some bulleted talking points. Mayor Torrey urged councilors to e-mail the Board of County Commissioners to encourage it to follow through on the $2.5 million contribution to cities. C. Work Session: Urban Forestry Regulations Public Works Director Christine Andersen, Planning Division Manager Jan Childs, and Urban Forester Mark Snyder joined the council for the item. Ms. Andersen called the council's attention to a memorandum in the meeting packet from Ms. Childs entitled Tree Preservation Regulations and the Land Use Code Ul~date. The memorandum summarized existing and proposed code revisions related to tree preservation, provided a status report on the review of the City's land use regulations in the Land Use Code Update (LUCU), and provided options for alternative processes for reviewing tree preservation regulations through LUCU. The packet also included a memorandum from Mr. Snyder outlining an interim strategy to implement Urban Forestry review of planned unit development and site review applications under the current code while the revisions to existing regulations were in process. The strategy included a contingency fund request to underwrite the cost of an additional employee through the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Childs said that during the review of the Land Use Code Update, staff would examine the long-term staffing implications of any proposed code revisions. Mr. Rayor asked if there would be offsetting revenue to underwrite the costs of the employee. Ms. Andersen said the City's current strategy did not include an additional permit fee increase, but staff would track the time and resource commitment of processing applications, and that analysis would be part of the basis for the fee analysis. Mr. Kelly said that he was comfortable with the proposed approach and emphasized that the proposal was an interim solution while the code review was occurring. He endorsed the idea of a limited review of land use applications as an interim measure. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Andersen said that the position designated for review of land use applications would be housed in the Urban Forestry Program in Public Works. Mr. Pap6 said that he continued to question why citizens "had to go from one department to another to get permits for planning" and would oppose any fee increases until the City addressed the issue. He said that staff would need to give the council a good reason for the present structure or consolidate all permits in the Permit and Information Center. Ms. Andersen suggested that the subject could be examined as new tree regulations are developed through the Land Use Code Update, and that there would be an opportunity for joint functions to be handled by one employee. She said that the interim strategy proposed was the best for the short-term, and in the long- term there would be other options for permit issuance. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Pap6 about the interim strategy, Ms. Andersen said that a variety of staff with expertise in urban forestry would be available to provide input into application reviews, and a single employee at the Permit and Information Center would not lend itself to that level of support. She said that applications such as site review applications would be routed internally, and residents would not be required to submit applications at multiple locations. The site review application would be submitted at the Permit and Information Center. Mr. Pap6 said that to get the Public Works staff to change its priorities, a resident would have to go to Public Works rather than the Permit and Information Center. Ms. Andersen asked for clarification of Mr. Pap6's statement. Mr. Pap6 said that he had his own experience with trying to MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 6 Work Session get a permit issued from the Permit and Information Center, only to be told it was being held up by Public Works Department. He said that it was frustrating. Ms. Andersen said that was not the way the system was supposed to function. Mr. Papd encouraged the City to get all permit functions in one location. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Papd that it would be more efficient if permit review and issuance occurred in one location. Mr. Fart spoke of his love of trees and said that most people who buy houses plant trees. He wanted to see the City support the growth of trees on private property. However, he was concerned about the impact of new fees and new regulations on people building entry-level houses. He said that the council must do what it can to keep housing in the community affordable. When regulations affected the cost of new housing, the cost of existing housing rose as well. Mr. Fart said that he would continue to ask staff about the monetary impact of new regulations on a new house. Ms. Nathanson asked if the City would attempt to regulate lot shape and the placement of open spaces to preserve vegetation. She said that in the past she had raised some "real world" examples regarding conflicts between planned unit development tree planting plans and appropriate plantings for the location in question. She asked how the City could achieve its goals when it had not examined how the legal chain of responsibility for tree preservation in planned unit developments operated between developer, builder, and home buyer. Mr. Rayor noted his concurrence with Mr. Fart's remarks about the relationship between regulations and affordable housing. He hoped all City policies helped to make entry-level housing affordable. He said that large houses on large lots needed to be looked at more carefully in terms of their long-term impacts on the community. He said that his neighborhood was a good candidate for infill development but he doubted any neighbors wanted a 6,000 square foot house next door. Mr. Rayor wanted to see smaller houses appreciated more by the City. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to increase the Urban Forestry Program funding by $25,000 from the General Fund contingency for fiscal year 2000. Mr. Kelly offered as a friendly amendment that staff would provide information to the council in a timely fashion about how increased staffing and permit review would be provided through fiscal year 2001. The friendly amendment was acceptable to Mr. Lee and Ms. Taylor. Mr. Pap~ asked if the process would include any review of the potential of consolidating permit activities in the Planning and Development Department. City Manager Jim Johnson said that subject was within his purview, and he would meet with staff to discuss the best way to organize the delivery of permit review services. Mr. Fart indicated he would oppose the motion because it would slow the permitting process and raise the cost of housing. The motion passed, 5:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. Ms. Childs reviewed the four options for processing revisions to Chapter 9 Tree Preservation, focusing on Option 3, Adopt Changes to Chapter 9 Tree Preservation Regulations in Conjunction with Land Use Code Update, but Hold an Additional Planning Commission Public Hearing on Tree Preservation Regulations MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Prior to Completion of Commission Recommendations on LUCU, which was the preferred option of the Planning Commission. She said that it had been suggested the council might wish to separate action on the tree regulations in a separate ordinance and adopt them before adoption of the full LUCU update (Option 3A). The other option, 3B, was to consider the recommendations related to tree preservation in the context of the council's overall discussion of the LUCU update. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to adopt Option 3A as presented by staff in the diagram accompanying the meeting materials. Ms. Taylor advocated for adopting a tree ordinance as soon as possible. She supported the motion. Mr. Kelly supported the additional public hearing before the Planning Commission. He also supported Option 3A because it could be done quickly. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Childs said that the Chapter 6 and 9 changes would occur in tandem and both would be the subject of a public hearing on March 28 before the Planning Commission. The council would consider both chapters during its review of the Land Use Code Update. Mr. Kelly said that he would like staff to take the earlier draft ordinance (November 5, 1999) and identify where each section went. He was concerned about language in the briefing statement about new and expanded criteria for preservation of "significant vegetation." He said that he would not support language for planned unit developments that was that "fuzzy," because he did not think it benefitted either developers or citizens. He preferred the text from the November 1999 Chapter 6 revisions be included in the Chapter 9 work. Mr. Farr questioned whether the City had done sufficient outreach to those who would be most affected by the ordinance, those who intended to purchase houses in the future. He wanted to ensure that those people had the opportunity to attend the commission's hearing and to let the council know how they felt. Mr. Pap6 supported Option 3B. He believed that there needed to be an integrated process, and the tree ordinance was sufficiently integrated with land use planning at the current time that it did not need to given a higher priority than other important City issues. He endorsed the additional Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Nathanson also endorsed the additional commission hearing. She said that there were one or two things she would have liked to have seen pulled out of the LUCU review and processed separately, but was concerned that pulling the tree preservation regulations out of the review would lead to a rushed or incomplete review, or could push the adoption of LUCU out farther. She did not want that process to take longer, and suggested that best course might be to keep the issues together. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by substituting Option 3B for 3A. Mr. Kelly said he did not want the tree ordinance to slip if the Land Use Code Update review time line slipped. For that reason, he preferred Option 3A and would oppose the amendment. Ms. Taylor agreed. Mr. Lee pointed out that the council was discussing a time line difference between processes of only four months. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 8 Work Session The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no. The main motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Fart voting no. D. Recommendation from Citizen Committee on Mayor and Council Compensation Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office introduced Jon Belcher, chair of the Citizen Committee on Mayor and Council Compensation. Ms. Walston noted that a public hearing had been tentatively scheduled on February 14, with action to refer the question of council compensation to the voters on February 28. Mr. Belcher introduced other members of the committee present. He described the work done by the committee in arriving at its recommendations and noted the public involvement activities associated with that effort. Mr. Belcher reviewed the committee's recommendation to compensate the mayor with a stipend of $1,500 monthly, and councilors with a stipend of $1,000 monthly. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to accept the report of the Citizen Committee on Mayor and Council Compensation and to call for a public hearing on February 14, 2000. Mr. Farr commended the work of the committee. He said he had changed his initial position on council compensation. He now believed that compensation would allow people whose employers were supportive to cut back on their work hours to take care of council business. He thought $1,000 was a good compromise that would allow people to supplement their reduced income without suffering a reduction in their standard of living. Referring to page 6 of the report, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the inclusion of Section 18(5) regarding compensation for other officers. Mr. Johnson indicated staff could review that section, adding it was part of the current charter. Ms. Nathanson said she had been hoping for a reasonable recommendation she could forward to the voters. She had been concerned that the amount would be so large it would represent a salary rather than a stipend and trigger the need for a charter review to discuss the larger issues of council responsibilities. Regarding the process, Ms. Nathanson said that many of the committee members were probably aware that she had not been happy with the outcome of the first committee process. She said that the committee was composed of people who favored compensating the council, and the City had not fully heard what the public felt about the issue. She said that forwarding the recommendation did not represent her opinion that the amount was right, but rather that the voters should be able to act. Mr. Johnson said he had asked questions about the impact of the change on current and existing employees covered by PERS (Public Employees Retirement System) He said that information would be ready by the time of the hearing. Mr. Kelly thanked the committee for its proposal. He said it was a good proposal and he wanted to let the voters have an opportunity to take a position. Mr. Kelly said that the proposal would let an individual adjust their professional work to serve the public and still keep their heads above water. He noted that a young man MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 9 Work Session had expressed interest in the Ward 3 position soon to be vacated by Mr. Lee, but he had been unable to figure out how to pay the rent and run for council. Mr. Papd asked if the committee had any report about the impact of the compensation from the Administrative Services Department. Ms. Walston referred to page 4 of the report, which indicated a total estimated annual expense of $145,004.38. Mr. Papd noted that the committee was not as broad-based as the previous committee and he believed it had been composed of people entirely in favor of council compensation. He said that he would oppose council compensation in the absence of a more comprehensive charter review. Mr. Lee said he would not characterize the process as flawed. He said that the proposal from the committee had not surprised him. He believed the public should have a discussion about council compensation. He said he would not recommend to his peers that they take on a four-year council commitment. He did not intend to run again for financial reasons because it was unrealistic. Mr. Lee said that operating a government and setting policy was very complex and required a deep understanding of government. Ms. Taylor also did not think the proposal was flawed, or the money sufficient to corrupt a candidate. Mr. Kelly observed that the estimated amount involved was 5/100 of 1 percent of the total City budget. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2000 Page 10 Work Session