Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/07/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall August 7, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. Mr. Fart took an opportunity to speak against the upcoming Ballot Measure 9, the Student Protection Act, that was being placed on the ballot by the Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA). He called for the City Council to join him in a resolution to oppose Ballot Measure 9. Mr. Meisner said that he had been working on the resolution for more than two weeks. He noted that he had been working, as an attorney, against the OCA for more than a decade. He expressed his sorrow that another OCA-sponsored measure was on the ballot in November. Mr. Meisner distributed a copy of the resolution to the council. He said that it spoke for itself. He remarked that he understood the electoral limitations upon the City staff and said that was why the resolution was not listed on the agenda, but had been raised by council as an item for consideration. Mr. Meisner called for school districts, the Human Rights Commission, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Friends of Eugene, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Rotary and other civic clubs, the League of Women Voters, Twin Rivers Ministries, Community Alliance of Lane County, the City Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Community Coalition against Hate, and any concerned citizens and organizations to join in fighting the ballot measure. Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to adopt a resolution opposing Ballot Measure 9, the Student Protection Act. Ms. Nathanson commented that there was clear City Council history to support such a resolution. She cited the human rights resolution as an example. Ms. Taylor called for a reading of the resolution. Mr. Fart and Mr. Meisner read the resolution for the record. Mr. Fart said that citizens needed to take personal exception any time local control was eroded. He stressed the importance of local communities controlling the education of their children. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 1 Work Session also stressed that the council needed to be aware of the rights of the people who lived and worked in the community. He again called for council support of the resolution. Mr. Rayor called for a discussion of the problem of safe and friendly sounding names being associated with measures that promoted fear and intolerance. He called for leadership from the council to help educate the public about the "Student Protection Act." Mr. Lee wholeheartedly endorsed the resolution. He expressed his appreciation of the work Councilors Fart and Meisner had done. He remarked that the measure was poorly written and ambiguous and expressed a desire to see it defeated by the voters. Mr. Pap~ remarked that there were certain things that government should not get into. He opined that the issue being discussed was one of them. Mayor Torrey commented that, in the event of a tie vote, he would be voting in support of the resolution. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. A.An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan by Adopting New Wetland Designations for Site HG, Referred to as the Hyundai Site, and Related Text Amendments; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date (Note: The first reading of this council bill was on August 2, 2000; the roil carl vote on the first reading was not unanimous. Therefore, further consideration of the bill must be taken up at the next meeting of the City Council and must begin with the second reading of the council bill.) City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4737 by number only. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ms. Nathanson noted that the major discussion for the item had taken place the week before. The motion passed, 6:2, with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition, and became Ordinance No. 20201. B.ACTION: Consideration of Council Contingency Fund Account Funding Requests Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to authorize the expenditure of $8,000 to cover the operating and maintenance expenses of the Lane Educational Services District Planetarium Project during its transition from Alton Baker Park to the Lane County Fairgrounds. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how much of an emergency the funding was, Mr. Lee commented that the funds were necessary to keep the doors of the planetarium open. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 2 Work Session He said that the City could not afford to take on the responsibility of running the planetarium. He reiterated that if the funding was not forthcoming, the facility would close. Mr. Pap8 commented that the City had already been very supportive in leasing the facility for one dollar a year. He remarked that the break on rent was a considerable benefit. Mr. Meisner commented that the funding did not feel like it was appropriate for contingency. He said that he understood the need for the funding. He noted that the applicant had asked for a sum of money that was over the limited allowed. He said that he would not support the proposed funding. Mr. Kelly said that it was unusual for a city the size of Eugene to have a planetarium. He commented that it was a valuable resource to education and recreation. He said that the council could provide a "bridge" to help the planetarium move to its new location. He added that the funding was clearly only a one-time request. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by reducing the funding amount to $5,000. Mr. Lee appreciated the remarks made by Mr. Meisner, but expressed his concern that without the funding requested, the doors to the facility would close. He noted that he had told the applicant the funding would probably be reduced to $5,000 to comply with council ground rules. He stressed that the planetarium was the only one in the southern Willamette Valley and he could not see the council letting it close. Mr. Pap8 commented that if southern Willamette Valley was using the facility then the residents of southern Willamette Valley should help with its support. The amendment passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson raised concern that the funding would go to ongoing operations instead of helping the planetarium relocate. She questioned how the school districts were participating in the funding. Mr. Meisner commented that he had seen no evidence that the planetarium staff had gone to other sources for fund-raising purposes. He said that the City could not rescue every facility without help from its intergovernmental partners. He commented that the City would be facing its own financial emergencies very soon. Mr. Rayor questioned how the funding would benefit the City. He commented that he had not seen any background information on the request. He remarked that he could not see the financial sense in leaving a building that was being supplied rent-free. Mr. Pap8 said that the planetarium staff knew the move was coming and should have planned for it. He said that he would not support the request. Ms. Taylor said that the money was going for a worthwhile cause. She said that she would vote in favor of the request. Mayor Torrey said that, in the event of a tie vote he would support the request. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 3 Work Session The vote resulted in a tie. Mayor Torrey voted in favor of the request. The amended motion passed, 5:4, with Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to authorize the expenditure of $5,000 to assist with the development and production cost of the "Not My Friends Not My School" video. Mr. Kelly commented that the request did not adhere to contingency guidelines since it would be a reimbursement of productions costs. He did not support the request. Mr. Meisner agreed. He supported the work of the organization but said that he would not support the request. Mr. Lee said that the group making the request was all volunteers. He said that he had already urged them to come back and re-apply at a future point. Ms. Nathanson commented that Eugene was the only place the organization had gone to for funding. The motion failed, 6:2, with Mr. Lee and Mr. Fart voting in favor. C.WORK SESSION: Interim Setback Provisions for Open Waterways City Engineer Les Lyle said that the preliminary evaluation, outlined in the last work session, had been completed. He said that staff had also mapped the waterways by class that would be potentially affected by an interim buffer strategy. Mr. Lyle said that the interim buffers would only be in effect within the city limits. He added that the buffers would be based on waterside protection provisions from the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. The buffers would vary in width from 20' to 60'. He recommended that the council not vary from the established buffer widths. Mr. Lyle noted that the Eugene Planning Commission had voted 3:2 to not proceed with interim buffers and let other policies protect Eugene's waterways. Ms. Childs said that the Planning Commission was concerned that there would be confusion if interim buffers were implemented concurrently with the Natural Resources Study. She said that the commission was also concerned about the number of planning efforts that were being run concurrently. In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding breaks in the maps of the streams, Mr. Lyle said that some of the streams had been piped a one time or another but that did not take away from the fact that the stream was still part of the conveyance system for storm water through the city. In response to a comment from Mr. Fart regarding the open waterways ordinance and its progress in other jurisdictions, Ms. Childs said that staff would work with the County to make the ordinance effective within the urban growth boundary as part of the Natural Resources Study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Fart raised concern that the open waterways plan would adversely affect the cost of housing in the city. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the Planning Commission's concerns about using interim buffers, Mr. Lyle said that the commission felt that planned unit development (PUDs) would go a long way in protecting headwaters over 500' elevation. Ms. Childs added that Commissioner Art Farley felt that if the council's primary concern was headwaters, then the PUD process would be adequate protection. She went on to say that Commissioner Farley had also felt that if the council's concern was with areas outside of the 500' elevation, then the council should consider some sort of interim buffer. She said that Commissioner Jon Belcher was concerned about waiting until the Natural Resources Study process provided buffers. She said that he also viewed setbacks as a way of providing more open space. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding a timeline for the Natural Resources Study, Ms. Childs said that there was a two-step approach to the study. She said the inventory document would come before the council in January. She said the second phase of the study would come before the council in the winter of 2001. Mr. Kelly commented that the key word was "interim." He stressed the importance of providing some protection for waterways while waiting for the Natural Resources Study to be completed. He added that the time line projected by Ms. Childs seemed a little optimistic. He opined that PUDs and the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) were not adequate to protect waterways in the interim. Mr. Rayor expressed concern over the cost of implementing interim buffers. Mr. Lyle said that much of the cost was involved with the public process. He clarified that those costs were for policy adoption and not for implementation. He said that buffers on redevelopment sites were not being considered. Ms. Taylor believed that interim buffers were needed. She noted that the Planning Commission recommendation was a 3:2 vote. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the timeline for implementing the Natural Resources Study, Ms. Childs reiterated that it would take 18 to 24 months for the study to be completed. Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff look at new technologies that would allow for more narrow buffers and still protect water quality. Mr. Meisner expressed confusion in that he thought the question before the Planning Commission was not whether to implement interim buffers but how to do it. He thought that PUDs and LUCU were not adequate to protect the City's open waterways. Ms. Nathanson commented that the question was if the provisions in PUDs and LUCU were good enough until the Natural Resources Study was completed. She supported the majority position of the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Mr. Lee regarding the impact of interim buffers on City staff time, City Manager Johnson said that there would be a contract with the Lane Council of Governments MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 5 Work Session to do much of the staff work but that it would still have an impact on staff time. Ms. Childs added that the public involvement process would be the primary user of City staff time. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to not pursue interim setbacks and rely on existing PUD provisions and LUCU until the Natural Resources Study was complete. Ms. Taylor said that seconded the motion in her role as Council Vice President but would vote against it. Mr. Kelly did not see the need to examine each of the lots in question. He pointed out that a flyer was circulated for the LUCU and suggested the same process for interim buffers. He noted that raising land use application fees could be used to cover a portion of the costs involved. Ms. Childs said that individual properties needed to be examined because they would be rezoned so the waterside protection provisions could be applied. Mr. Kelly said that existing PUD provisions and LUCU were not "good enough." He commented that interim buffers may not be the best solution but they were certainly better than doing nothing. He stressed that a degraded waterway could not be remade. Mr. Fart was in favor of the motion. He commented that there were 585 tax lots that would be affected by interim buffers and that was a significant percentage of the City's buildable land. He raised concern that the amount of available housing would be affected. Mr. Meisner reiterated Mr. Kelly's concerns. He said that LUCU would not be completed in a timely fashion and he did not think the PUD provisions provided enough protection. The motion failed, 6:2, with Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting in favor. Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to proceed with interim setbacks as outlined in the scope of work of June 21, 2000, and to approve a request for $85,000 that will be processed as part of Supplemental Budget #1. If the interim setback ordinance is challenged, there will be additional legal fees (for defending that challenge) that are not included in the $85,000. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to change the wording of the motion to read "up to $85,000" in light of the money-saving measures that were discussed. The motion passed, 6:2, with Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. E.WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Charge to Proposed Citizen Charter Review Committee and Appointment Process for the Proposed Committee Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Lee, moved to create a nine-member citizen committee to undertake a review of the Eugene City Charter specifically concerning the following as identified by members of the council: A. Chapter III, Sections 5, 6, and 8 (wards and elections by wards) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 6 Work Session B. Chapter III, Section 14 (conflicts of interest) C. Chapter IV, Section 16 (The role of the City Manager, including but not limited to consideration of the following that could require changes to Chapter III; possible city auditor position, possible city appointed or elected city attorney, possible role of council in hiring and firing of executive managers, and possible role of council in major reorganizations of departments). D. Chapter VI, Section 24 (filling vacancies) E. Chapter X, Section 44 (Eugene Water & Electric Board functions, membership) F. Chapters and sections in need of "housekeeping," specifically Section 42 (Skinner Butte) and Section 51 (Tax by specific years), and Section 54 (Toxics Right-to-Know) Should the committee find it necessary or desirable to engage in a larger review of the charter, a request must be made of the council to revise the charge and task of the committee. Ms. Taylor commented that nothing should be banned from discussion by the proposed committee. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by allowing the proposed committee to discuss the form of city government. Ms. Taylor commented that all topics of city government should be able to be discussed by the proposed committee. Mr. Kelly raised concern that opening up too many topics for the committee to discuss would make its time frame hopelessly long. He opposed the amendment and commented that Item C of the motion allowed any discussion that would be needed. Mr. Meisner also opposed the amendment. He commented that the proposed committee had sufficient flexibility to look very openly at city government. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Taylor. He commented that it took three years to pass the current charter. He wanted all forms of city government to be discussed. The amendment failed, 6:2, with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Ms. Nathanson stressed the importance of including the concerns of the League of Women Voters, the City Club, and the Chamber of Commerce into the "housekeeping" area in the stated motion. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Lee accepted Ms. Nathanson's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Nathanson raised concern that involving the City Council in the hiring and firing of department managers moved them into a different form of city government. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by deleting Section 54 from Item F. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Fart said that Section 54 needed to stay in the motion because there were serious questions as to whether the Toxics Right-to-Know law was functioning the way the voters understood it should. He believed that there was no harm in leaving the item in the original motion. Mr. Kelly said that he would support the amendment but did not feel strongly about it. He stressed that, no matter how the vote resulted, the committee would look to the existing expertise to make decisions. The motion to amend resulted in a tie. Mayor Torrey voted with the opposition. The motion to amend failed, 5:4, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Rayor voting in favor. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete Item A from the original motion. Mr. Rayor commented that he liked the ward system. He said that running citywide for City Council positions was not feasible. He added that the councilors currently had good communication with their constituents. Mr. Kelly said that he also liked the ward system, but thought that a discussion on wards would be worthwhile because a number of people had raised the issue. He noted that whatever the proposed committee produced needed to be approved by the council. The motion to amend failed, 6:2, with Mr. Rayor and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 7:1, with Mr. Lee voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to select all the members of the proposed committee "at large." Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion. She stressed the importance of a blend of openness with expertise on the proposed committee. She suggested a larger committee with a high quorum requirement. Mr. Meisner commented that he would have preferred a larger committee as well. He said that he was against assigned seats in the committee. He suggested encouraging people with experience to apply. He stressed the importance of having a citizen committee with comprehensive representation. He supported the idea of an "at large" committee. Mr. Fart opposed the motion. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson. The motion passed, 5:3, with Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. Ms. Taylor moved to set the following timeline for the citizen committee process: 1. Recruitment begins not later than September 1, 2000; 2. Recruitment ends by September 30, 2000; MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 8 Work Session 3. The mayor, members of the council, and the councilor-elect submit two nominees each from the applicant pool not later than November 15, 2000; 4. The selection and appointment by the council (which may include interviews of the applicants) of members of the committee occurs not later than December 15, 2000; 5. The committee holds an initial meeting not later than January 15, 2001; 6. The committee provides written monthly reports to the city council during its tenure; 7. The final report of the committee is provided to the city council not later than December 31, 2001. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to make the reports to the council quarterly instead of monthly. Mr. Kelly supported the motion, but suggested the schedule be moved up so that the committee could have its first meeting in 2000. Mr. Meisner supported the motion but offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to increase the time of recruitment to October 31. Mr. Pap~ wanted language in the motion that would allow the committee to extend its time if necessary. The amended motion passed, 7:1, with Mr. Lee voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Joe Sams) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 9 Work Session