Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/12/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 12, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. He welcomed the participants in Beaver Boys State, and, at his request, each introduced themselves and indicated their home city in Oregon. A.Work Session: An Ordinance to Recover Costs Associated with Gatherings Involving Criminal Violations Requiring Frequent and Significant Police Response City Manager Jim Johnson reminded the council that a public hearing on the proposed ordinance was not scheduled until fall. Chief Jim Hill referred the council to an amended copy of the ordinance, and said the policy issue before the council was who should pay the cost of repeated responses to the types of events the ordinance addresses. Mr. Pap~ arrived at 5:41 p.m. Lieutenant Carolyn McDermed noted staff's many meetings with different segments of the community that would potentially be affected by the proposed ordinance. She noted opposition to the element of the ordinance that would have penalized landlords for repeated police response to an address, and said it had been dropped. Landlords would receive a first-response notice so they were aware of the problem. Changes were also made to the draft ordinance in response to input from the executive board of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon (ASUO) clarifying what specific crimes and violations the ordinance would apply to. Lieutenant McDermed reviewed other changes made to the ordinance since the council had last discussed it. Mr. Meisner asked if Municipal Court had the authority to require the penalty included in the ordinance. Mr. Kelly noted his support for a policy that allowed the City to recover the cost of a police response from the responsible party. He asked staff to consider the following suggestions: 1) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 1 Work Session increase the number of those in the gathering from 10 or more to a higher number, such as 25 to 30 people; 2) consider incorporating a provision in the ordinance that allows the City to return the fine if those cited were acquitted in court; 3) ensure the appeal is not designated by the City Manager to be heard by a Eugene Police Department representative for the sake of neutrality. Mr. Rayor said the ordinance had been improved by the changes made. He asked how the police would determine which of several roommates might be liable for the police response. City Attorney Alan Leiman indicated a notice recipient must be present at the subsequent gathering that gave rise to the liability for the fee to be charged. If a roommate was not present, that individual was not liable. Mr. Rayor questioned how roommate turnover might be addressed. Mr. Pap~ agreed the ordinance was improved. He regretted the Police Commission had lacked time to prepare a recommendation to the council on the ordinance. He suggested that staff also solicit input from Lane Community College and Northwest Christian College students. Mayor Torrey said he had appreciated the input of the leadership of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon. He said that due to that input, action on the ordinance was postponed until the students returned for fall term. While he recognized the importance of the issue addressed by the ordinance, Mr. Lee said that the fines should not be so high that students were unable to pay tuition and were forced out of school. He suggested fines be capped. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Johnson clarified that the ordinance did not apply unless someone was arrested as a result of a complaint. Enforcement was typically complaint- driven. Ms. Taylor asked if the police responded in large numbers. Chief Hill said that the size of the response depended on the size of the gathering. Ms. Taylor said she was very concerned about the number of and variety of offenses covered by the ordinance, and some, such as endangering the welfare of a minor, were ambiguous and could be misinterpreted. Chief Hill responded that the offenses mentioned in the ordinance were specific statutes mentioned in the Eugene Code and State law. Ms. Taylor was also concerned about the time period mentioned in the ordinance, as she did not think a response every 90 days was a response to habitual behavior. She preferred a shorter time period. Ms. Taylor also believed the fines were too high, and suggested they be lowered to reflect those in the Berkeley ordinance. She did not want to make someone pay a fine for a situation that was not their fault. She said that sometimes people attend parties without invitation, and sometimes law-abiding people become noisy and bothersome to their neighbors, and if it happened only occasionally, she did not think a penalty was called for. Mr. Fart asked if the ordinance included an exemption if the tenant was the party calling for the police response. Chief Hill said yes. In response to Ms. Taylor's comment about the breadth of the ordinance, Mr. Kelly thought the scope of the ordinance had been narrowed and improved. He emphasized the fact that the ordinance was designed to address repeat calls to an event where things were sufficiently out of hand that someone was arrested or cited. He did not think that such gatherings were casual. While he agreed that a tenant might not always have control over who attended their party, that party had ultimate control by being the one to call the police. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 2 Work Session In response to Mr. Lee's suggestion for a cap, Mr. Kelly agreed, and suggested that fines be staggered toward that cap. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. Regarding Mr. Lee's suggestion for a cap, he concurred, but said he did not presume that all those impacted would be students, even if they lived in the west University neighborhood. He added that all students are not poor, and all the poor are not students. Mr. Johnson anticipated that by the next work session on the ordinance, staff would have developed a draft informational brochure that would be distributed to students and tavern owners for the council to review. B. Work Session and Action: Youth Task Force Report on After-School Activities Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) Department Director Angel Jones and LRCS staff Linda Phelps provided the report from the Youth After-School Task Force. Ms. Phelps called the council's attention to a report distributed by staff entitled Comprehensive After-School Activities for Youth and discussed available programming, the locations where activities were occurring, the agencies involved in providing after-school activities, barriers to participation, and gaps in services provided. Ms. Phelps described some of the task force's proposals to overcome some of the barriers to participation and to fill the service gaps. Mr. Johnson noted that time for additional work sessions on the issue was available for June 28, July 17, and July 26. The work sessions were timed to give the council an opportunity to place a revenue measure on the November ballot if it chose to do so. Mr. Rayor asked if the number of participants of various age groups in each program could be included in the charts in the report. Ms. Phelps said that would be useful to have, adding that the survey conducted by the task force included data about the program size, but because the information was not reported consistently, staff would follow-up with interviews. Mr. Meisner said that the council had received a packet of information from the League of Women Voters, which was doing a similar mapping process. However, that packet did not mention the work being done by the City of Eugene. He encouraged staff to involve the league in the task force's effort. Mr. Meisner said that the issue of funding after-school activities was not a Eugene-only problem. He said that Lane County had made it clear that it did not have funding for such an effort, but there were more than 40,000 River Road residents not in the city. He advocated for examination of formation of a special youth services district that could provide after-school activities to all children living in the metropolitan area. Mr. Meisner was not interested in placing a measure on the November ballot that did not result in services to everybody. Mr. Fart commended the work done to this point. He asked if the responses from the school districts included after-school athletics. Ms. Phelps clarified that the survey solicited information about programs the schools themselves provided; for example, if KidSports provided after-school athletics at a particular school, that organization would report, rather than the schools. The schools had reported on their athletic activities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Fart noted that work was also a worthwhile after-school activity for youth. He hoped the task force did not lose sight of that fact, and could leverage the expertise of members and the services provided by the City to help youth realize that work was an option. Mr. Kelly was pleased to hear about the proposed formation of youth focus groups as he believed focus groups would produce better information than a survey. Regarding the possibility of a November ballot measure, he did not want to rush the issue and preferred to continue to examine other revenue sources in conjunction with other local jurisdictions. He thought the special services district concept was an intriguing one. Mr. Pap~ said that while it was clear that the community had some problems with youth and needed to keep working to address those problems, there were many fine young people in the community who were graduating from high school. He said that the council should keep that in mind to maintain perspective. Mr. Kelly concurred. Mayor Torrey was anxious to proceed with the comprehensive youth program. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the problem was not a Eugene-only problem, but believed the program was an opportunity to bring in other local governments and the school districts together in a comprehensive effort. He thought there were four options for funding the program: an income tax, a business tax, the property tax, and an admittance tax on theater tickets, etc., including events at the University of Oregon. He pointed out that attendance at such events was discretionary. Mayor Torrey said that an after-school program was an opportunity to employ college and high school students to work with youth in the middle and grade schools, benefitting both groups. Mr. Meisner supported the concept of an alternate source of revenue, such as the admittance tax mentioned by Mayor Torrey. He thought the property tax had been overused. He called for a comprehensive financial approach that identified areas of need and funding sources to address those needs before the council took a piecemeal approach to service delivery and lost the opportunity to use such a tax for other, broader purposes. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner about the need for a multi-jurisdictional approach to a special district concept. He was not interested in the property tax. He was interested in the admittance tax but wanted to know how much was being contemplated on a per ticket basis and what it would realize. He pointed out that the increase in the PUF at the Hult Center had a negative impact on the resident companies. Mr. Johnson observed that most of the cities in the state of Washington exempted private, nonprofit performing arts organizations from the tax. Mr. Fart indicated interest in the admittance tax. He noted that it would collect revenues from noncitizens. He wanted more information about the actual tax rate. Mr. Rayor said that he envisioned the development of a taxing mechanism as a longer process than two to three months. He thought there should be time to get the message about the need out, time to educate the public about the issue, and time to get public feedback if a tax was contemplated. He thought that such a process should be standard practice for any tax measure. Mr. Rayor said that the concept that the council "just discovered this huge $36 million problem" and needed to place a measure on the ballot within two months was not good civics. He also thought that such a measure should be prioritized in terms of other needs, such as funding for the public safety information system, AIRS. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor liked the idea of a business tax, such as the one levied by Portland, and said she would like more information about such a tax. She thought it was logical for after-school programs to be connected to the school districts, as everyone was in a district and it would help address the problem of transportation. She said that there was a great need for after-school programs and the schools were available after-school and on weekends. Ms. Taylor wanted the council to consider a youth center for teenagers as it considered after-school programs for younger children. She did not favor placing a measure on the November ballot, adding that property taxes were stretched as far as they could be. Mr. Lee asked for staff input about the ballot time line. Ms. Jones said that if the council directed staff to proceed, it could do so. She said that the issue was significant, and there was not funding for it now. She said she would like to see the City identify the resources to ensure that the needed programs were put in place. Mr. Johnson observed that it would be difficult to identify alternative revenues before November. Mr. Lee acknowledged the service gaps that existed and said he was ready to proceed with the financial element of the issue. He was ready to try an admittance tax. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the time line for forming a special services district, Mr. Johnson estimated that it would take about two years because it would require an amendment to the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, which discourages the formation of special taxing districts. Mr. Rayor expressed interest in a work session on what other Oregon cities were doing in terms of developing alternative revenues. C.Work Session: Information From Lane County Related to Referring the West Eugene Wetlands Plan Back to the Planning Commission The council was joined by County Commissioner Bill Dwyer and Lane County Land Management Planning Division Director Kent Howe. Mr. Dwyer said that the Board of County Commissioners asked him to attend the meeting to present an option for referring the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments back to the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions for further review. He said that the board had discussed how to act on a planning commission recommendation when the commission had not reviewed the most recent evidence. He suggested it was not fair to the public that it had no opportunity to comment on Hyundai's proposals. Mr. Dwyer believed there was a process problem. Mr. Dwyer distributed a document entitled Options for Elected Official Referral to Planning Commissions. Mayor Torrey asked for staff comment. Planning Director Jan Childs said that it was not unusual for the elected officials to hear testimony that was not provided to the planning commissions. In most cases, that happened to a lesser or greater degree. Typically, that information was not referred to the Planning Commission. The council had the option of referring the new evidence submitted back to the planning commissions. Ms. Childs said she heard that the board thought it unfortunate that review had not occurred, and wished to seek the commissions' advice. She noted the staff's concern about the December 31, 2000, deadline the City was under from the Division of State Lands and Army Corps of Engineers to complete work on the amendments package. Failure to meet the deadline will mean the revocation of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan as a State-approved conservation plan, which had consequences for the property owners in MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 5 Work Session that area. Ms. Childs noted that the earliest a joint planning commisssions meeting could be scheduled was July 18. Mr. Howe said the board was not interested in referring the matter to the commissions unless the council concurred. The board was not interested in further public hearings but wanted feedback on the information new in the public record. The board also recognized the time lines involved. Mr. Meisner did not want to refer the matter back to the commissions, preferring to proceed on schedule. He was unpersuaded by the argument put forth in the document distributed by Mr. Dwyer that the membership of the Lane County Planning Commission had changed since its consideration of the plan. Mr. Kelly concurred, citing the deadlines the City was under and the fact the elected officials regularly received new evidence in hearings as his reasoning. He also did not want to set a bad precedent for the future, fearing the result would be an "endless loop." Mr. Rayor preferred not to refer the matter to the commissions. He said that the amendments were a "hot potato" the elected officials must handle. He asked if the issue of the Hyundai designation could be referred to the regulatory agencies. Ms. Childs said that the regulatory agencies would make a final determination on the amendments, but she did not think it was appropriate to take one designation out of the amendments package. Mr. Rayor asked if it was possible. Ms. Childs deferred to City Attorney Glenn Klein. Mr. Klein clarified that the issue before the council was the application of the criteria. The regulatory agencies wanted the City to apply the criteria to the site, and would not comment at this stage. Mr. Fart concurred with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Rayor. Mr. Pap~ also agreed with the previous speakers, but reminded the council that it was discussing private property. He said that the City needed to meet its time lines to ensure that Hyundai could make consistent business decisions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the consequences of the plan's approval being revoked by the regulatory agencies, Ms. Childs said that the regulatory agencies would not look at the designations in the plan in evaluating applications for fill permits. People owning sites currently designated for development under the plan could not rely on those designations when they applied for a fill permit. Ms. Taylor indicated her concurrence with the remarks of previous speakers. Mr. Dwyer thanked the council for its consideration of the board's request. D.Work Session: Regional Parks and Open Space Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson joined the council for the item. The council provided Mr. Carlson with feedback on the materials provided in the meeting packet. Mr. Kelly termed the staff work a good beginning and expressed appreciation for the long-term view. He liked the idea of a regional greenbelt and river system, saying it let the community grow compactly. He favored moving forward with the fall joint elected officials meeting. Mr. Kelly commended the Lane Council of Governments' recommendations, particularly the recommendation related to the use of conservation easements and development rights as alternatives to outright acquisition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pap8 liked the regional planning being done for parks and open space, saying that the cooperation of the other communities was necessary or they would grow into Eugene. Ms. Taylor said that it was important to have a greenbelt around the city, important to preserve farmland in and near the city, important to preserve the forest land, and she liked the idea of cooperating with Lane County. Mr. Lee believed that Eugene had a role in regional planning for parks and open space. He said that the effort was a recognition that environmental issues are interdependent. He said that a plan was needed, and he looked forward to more information about plan implementation. Mr. Rayor was strongly supportive of a regional planning effort for parks and open space. Mr. Farr suggested that such a regional plan would be a model for intergovernmental cooperation. He liked the greenbelt concept. He said that he agreed with Mr. Kelly that conservation easements and the purchase of development rights were good mechanisms to employ as long as the City kept the rights of individual landowners in mind. Mr. Farr did not want to see other cities growing into Eugene and a greenbelt might provide a buffer. He said that if the City did not manage its growth judiciously, growth would occur in other communities and toward Eugene-Springfield, creating what he termed the worst kind of urban sprawl. Mr. Meisner supported the concept, and called for careful monitoring of any partnership the City entered into with other governments. He said that if the effort contemplated was a planning effort, he supported it; if the effort contemplated was an acquisition effort, he supported it with the caveat that it was not Eugene's sole fiscal responsibility. Mayor Torrey agreed with the remarks of previous speakers. He pointed out that Eugene already had a problem with Junction City encroaching on Eugene's urban growth boundary. He noted that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission intended to use the site initially intended for a prison site as a poplar farm, which would provide some barrier between Eugene and the planned prison. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, the council agreed that staff should schedule a joint work session with the elected officials from Springfield and Lane County. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 12, 2000 Page 7 Work Session