Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/15/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall March 15, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bobby Lee. Ms. Taylor called the meeting to order. She announced that Mayor James D. Torrey would be late in arriving at the meeting and that Councilor Lee would be absent. A. Items from Council, Mayor, and City Manager Mr. Meisner reported that he, Ms. Nathanson, and Ms. Taylor had all attended the National League of Cities Congress in Washington, DC. He said that he would prepare a written report. He said that the congress was one of the best he had attended. He said that as a member of the Leadership Council, he had attended all of the leadership workshops. He noted that there were many networking opportunities throughout the congress. Mr. Meisner said that President Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo all spoke at the congress. He reported that the Leadership Council was undertaking a cooperative effort with International City Managers Association, the National Association of Counties, and the American Association of Graduate Schools of Public Administration to do more leadership workshops in different cities as well as asking members to attend the workshops in Washington. Mr. Fart reported on the first regular joint meeting of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Police Commission. He said that he was very excited about the possibility of the two commissions working together, the Human Rights Commission as a responsive body and the Police Commission as a policy review and recommendation body. Mr. Fart said that the meeting included testimony from female police officers and officers of color about the treatment received by these officers as they work in the community. He said that he was shocked at the discrimination these officers receive. He said that he would distribute copies of the very powerful testimony to councilors. Mr. Fart reported that an agreement had been announced regarding the Bethel branch library site, and work was beginning. He said that it would be a positive addition to the Bethel area and to the City. He thanked Mr. Meisner, the Library Foundation, the Friends of the Library, Wells Fargo, the City, and anyone who had anything to do with making the branch possible. He added thanks to Mayor Jim Torrey for his help in making sure the branch obtained a lease. Mr. Johnson thanked the voters of Eugene, who approved the serial levy. Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Fart for his report on the HRC and Police Commission meeting. He said that it would be really helpful if councilors could receive a short summary of the HRC and the Police Commission meetings. Mr. Fart said that he and the chair of the HRC were planning to begin a one-page newsletter about MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 1 Work Session each meeting to distribute. Mr. Meisner suggested keeping copies of the minutes from the HRC and the Police Commission meeting in a binder in the City office. Mr. Kelly asked for a short memorandum on the meeting between staff and the Cruise-In members. Ms. Nathanson also reported on the National League of Cities (NLC) Congress. She informed members that she had a list of tapes of all the workshops at the conference that were available for $12 a tape. She mentioned that she had copies of information about electric deregulation from the NLC and that she would send a copy to the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She said that she had discovered that the electric board in Greenville, Texas, which has a similar structure as EWEB, was trying to expand its authority to include telecommunications through a charter amendment, much as EWEB was attempting. She said that she would stay in contact with people in Greenville to learn from their campaign. Ms. Nathanson said that Municipalities in Transition focused on municipal revenue. She said that cities were concerned about revenue because of the e-commerce issue. She said that she encouraged the group members to take a broader and fresher look at how to create sensible revenue streams for services because the economy and the sources of revenue were changing rapidly. Mr. Rayor passed. Mr. Pap~ asked if there would be any contingency requests for informational pieces for the police and fire facilities bond. Mr. Johnson said that there would not be any because the Voters Pamphlet would be going to every household with information about the bond measure. Mr. Pap~ excused himself to attend a send-off for youth who were going to Washington, DC, to lobby for diabetes. Ms. Taylor mentioned that she had seen Mary Maitlin and James Carvell in Washington and that she had visited the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial and was very inspired by it and the quotations about human rights and the environment spoken by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt. Ms. Taylor said that she attended a meeting of the Human Development Commission, which focused on the privacy of medical records, domestic violence and relationships, mental health and the ways to erase the stigma of mental illness, and Medicare equity among the states. B. Work Session: Nodal Development Implementation Strategies Jan Childs asked the council for direction regarding a request from Rob Zako of Friends of Eugene to leave the record open longer for TransPlan. She said that the letter requesting the extension was being reviewed by the other three adopting officials. She explained that the request was to leave the record open in order to receive public comment as the council completed its initial series of work sessions on TransPlan. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to extend the opening of the public record for TransPlan until May 31, 2000. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Pap~ was temporarily absent from the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Childs presented strategies for implementation of nodal development to the council for discussion. She referred to a memorandum included in councilor's agenda packets and noted an error in the numbering sequence of the short-term strategies. She reviewed the short-term strategies and said that they included work that was already being done. She said that one part of the short-term strategies that was not funded was the prioritization of the of nodal development areas that would receive that Metro Plan designation or a City overlay zone designation. She said that staff would need council direction as to which areas to pursue. Ms. Childs reviewed the long-term strategies noting that strategies 1.10 through 1.14 were listed in the draft TransPlan document. She said that 1.15 through 1.17 were items that had been discussed by staff. She listed the options for council action at the top of page 188 of the agenda item summary. She noted that staff was recommending Option 3, to direct the City Manager to prepare a work program and budget for full implementation of Short-Term Strategies 1-4, including preparation of a five-year nodal development implementation plan. Mr. Meisner said that he supported Option 3. He clarified with Ms. Childs that the request for funding would be a part of the new budget year, and would probably be in the form of a contingency fund request because of the timing. Mr. Farr said that he supported Option 3 for the following reasons: it was important to begin on long-term planning for nodal development; and nodal development provides the City with less expensive housing options. Mr. Kelly said that he supported Option 3 and appreciated the designation of specific areas. He said that nodal development was necessary if the City was going to grow in a compact fashion. He noted that even the short-term measures took a long time to implement. He underscored the importance for staff work to ensure an adequate budget so that the strategies could be implemented. He raised the issue that land use application fees could be raised to help with nodal planning that would benefit the broader community. Mr. Rayor supported Option 3. He said that he still needed clarity about the definition of nodes and housing component. Ms. Childs said that the four adopting bodies needed to agree on a regional definition of nodal development. She said that after that was accomplished, the City of Eugene would need to develop some more specific requirements for nodal development. She said that this would all come back to the council before projects were begun. Mr. Farr suggested distributing copies of the preliminary work done on the Royal Node to councilors to help get them a better idea of nodal development. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that agreeing on a definition of nodal development would mean developing a minimum set of standards so that cities had some flexibility in the standards. Mr. Meisner noted that once joint standards and Eugene standards were adopted, the Royal Node and the Chambers Node would have to be reviewed against the standards. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner. He added that he would add outreach to supportive developers both locally and regionally to the long-term strategies. Mr. Pap~ reentered the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Johnson mentioned that he was thinking about using strategy 1.11 on page 187 as a way to actively help get the Royal Node accomplished. Mr. Pap~ expressed the concern that strategy 1.11 was not consistent with Growth Management Policy 14. Ms. Taylor noted that the discussion was not about the long-term policies at this time. Ms. Taylor said that she was not in favor of any tax exemptions at all. She said that she would be supporting Option 3. She asked what "incentives" meant in short-term strategy number 4. Ms. Childs said that a work plan would be developed that would include incentive/education/marketing programs and that the council would have the opportunity to approve or disapprove that plan. Mayor Torrey entered the meeting. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council have a field trip to look at nodes or possible node sites. Ms. Childs said that she would schedule such a trip. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to accept Option 3 with work to begin following the joint adopting officials work session. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor turned the meeting over to Mayor Torrey. C. Work Session: Neighborhood Services Redesign Mr. Johnson introduced Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department, who introduced the agenda item, noting it had been previously discussed at a February 23 work session. She described the following two items for discussion by the council: · An amendment to the boundary discussion of when borders would be redrawn. There was a proposal for a neighborhood-driven petition initiative method developed by councilors Kelly, Meisner, and staff. · To discuss the Neighborhood Association newsletter guidelines. Information about the existing guidelines, the governing body which determines whether or not those guidelines had been met, and the legal ramifications of changing that publisher role from the City to the Neighborhood Association were included in the agenda packets. Councilors first discussed the amendment proposal. In response to a questions from Mr. Fart, Ms. Bridges said that the petitioning group would notify the existing neighborhood group of its intent. The existing group would have 45 days to reply and that information would be available to people when they were asked to sign the petition. She said that when a boundary was called into question, a committee would be formed consisting of a person from the Neighborhood Association, someone from the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC), a petitioner, staff, and the council if it chose to participate. That committee would review the petition and make the decision. Mr. Meisner explained that this proposal was created in order to provide an opportunity for citizens to raise boundary issues on their own. He thanked staff for its help on the amendment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Papd noted that the recognition of businesses in a neighborhood was missing in this process. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the eight percent rule on size, saying that she was less comfortable with a percentage because it gave the message that it was all right to get bigger and bigger. Ms. Bridges explained that the percentage was an effort to keep existing neighborhood associations intact. Ms. Nathanson said that she was still uncomfortable with it. Mr. Kelly suggested leaving the eight percent at this time, but taking Ms. Nathanson's comments to the NLC and have it review the process one year from now. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to explain that even though the amendment had his name on it, he did not personally think that the additional mechanism was necessary. He said members of the council had expressed that they thought that it was necessary, so he wanted to work with Mr. Meisner to create a mechanism that would work and would have a high enough threshold that it would not be used in a cavalier manner or in a crises-driven way. Mr. Fart said he thought that the redesign was positive and thanked the councilors and staff for their work. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to amend the recommendations on when a neighborhood association's boundary may be called into question to include a neighborhood petition option. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to implement the Neighborhood Association Newsletter Guidelines, including acknowledgment of the City as publisher. Mr. Kelly said that he appreciated the distillation of the guidelines onto a single sheet. He continued by saying that he understood the liability reasons for the City to be the publisher, but that there needed to be clear guidelines for the autonomy and predictability for the neighborhoods. He also suggested changing the wording in the fourth block of text on the right side of page 202 to read as follows (stricken text deleted, italicized text added): "May question any part of the newsletter (e.g., article, headline, graphic) in lieu of that does not comply with the guidelines." Ms. Taylor and Ms. Nathanson accepted that as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion by adding the following sentence: The City may question a part of the newsletter only if it fails to comply with the guidelines. The councilors discussed the amendment and the motion at length and made the following points: · Mr. Rayor favored being very specific and therefore favored the amendment. · In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly said that the amendment did not change anything, but made it explicit that the City was publisher and that there were guidelines that the newsletters had to meet. · Ms. Nathanson did not support the amendment. She gave an example of a technical glitch with getting information into the newsletter that would not be helped by this amendment. Ms. Bridges pointed out that the guidelines referenced process agreements between the staff and NLC about resolved content disagreement and about including required material from the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 5 Work Session · Mr. Fart was concerned that there was no mention of having to tell the truth in the guidelines. He did not think that Mr. Kelly's amendment allowed the City to correct any misstatements in a newsletter. Ms. Bridges explained that staff reviewed for correctness of facts. She said that it was her understanding and intent that by referencing the roles and the processes they were included in the guidelines. · Mr. Farr asked about item V. Caveat in the guidelines which stated that the neighborhood associations could raise funds to finance its own publications. He wondered then about commercial advertising. Councilors pointed out that if the association was funding the newsletter, the guidelines did not apply. · Mr. Meisner said that he would not support the amendment. He said that he was concerned about the process questions and did not think those questions were covered. He said that all it did was authorize the City to make minor factual adjustments. · Mr. Meisner said that he had great concerns about the caveat in the guidelines. He said that in spite of a disclaimer, the newsletters would be perceived as being published by the City. · In response to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Johnson said that if City dollars were a part of any newsletter, then the guidelines had to be followed. He allowed that the City would accept funds from neighborhoods who wanted to publish at a higher rate. · In response to a question from Mr. Papd, Ms. Bridges explained the process agreements about the amount of material to be included from the City. · Mr. Kelly emphasized that Item IV in the guidelines included process and therefore, his amendment included the process described in the flow charts. He said that the only thing that was not included in his amendment was Mr. Farr's comment about there being no requirement that the truth be printed. He pointed out that opinion articles needed to be bylined. · Ms. Nathanson said that she still thought that the statement was too proscriptive or restrictive. · Mr. Meisner suggested that the NLC would look carefully with staff at the caveat included in the guidelines. · Ms. Nathanson suggested that the NLC review the guidelines after a year. Ms. Taylor agreed. · Ms. Taylor said that her main concern was that the publications be on time, consistent, and informative. She suggested reviewing whether or not the newsletters had helped increase membership at neighborhood meetings. Mr. Farr agreed. The amendment to the motion failed, 3:4, with Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap6, and Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Kelly said that he would not support the original motion. He added that if there was concern about the guidelines, then the solution was to amend the guidelines. He said that the use of public money did not negate the First Amendment. He said that he thought that the neighborhood needed a voice within adopted guidelines. Mr. Farr said that he agreed with Mr. Meisner's concern about the caveat. Ms. Taylor wondered if the issue should be postponed so that neighborhoods could comment on the process. Mr. Pap6 moved to call the question. The motion died for lack of a second. The motion passed, 6:1, with Mr. Kelly voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 6 Work Session D. River Road/Santa Clara Services Issues Mr. Carlson, Assistant City Manager, introduced the agenda item. Before he began, he noted that County Commissioner Anna Morrison was in attendance to listen to the discussion. Mr. Carlson said that service delivery in the River Road/Santa Clara area had been an ongoing issue for the City and the residents in that area for at least 40 years. He said that the purpose of the work session was to provide some background information for the councilors and to hear what issues were of concern to the councilors in regard to this matter. Before giving the background information, Mr. Carlson made the following three key points: 1) there were a number of significant service issues that the staff was dealing with such as fire protection, parks land acquisition, and stormwater management; 2) City staff does not at this time have the capacity to initiate a major new citizen involvement process; 3) staff was requesting the allocation of $10,000 to do some more in depth background analysis, especially around public safety. Mr. Carlson reviewed the background information included in the agenda item summary in the agenda packet. He emphasized that part of this area was now in the city and part of it was not. He said that the annexations that had been occurring were undeveloped lands that then were developed in the city because the Metro Plan required annexation prior to development. There had been very little annexation of predeveloped land. Mr. Carlson reviewed the following points: · The City already provided fire service to the River Road area south of Beltline through a contract with the River Road Water District. A higher level of service was now possible because of the new fire station at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street. · The City was in negotiations with Lane Rural and Santa Clara rural fire departments for service in the Santa Clara area north of Beltline. · The non-contiguous nature of the annexations have caused both patrol and response issues for the Police Department. · Both the Public Works departments of Lane County and Eugene had worked together to establish an intergovernmental agreement on service provisions for street maintenance. At this time Eugene provides service and maintenance for everything south of Maxwell Street and the County provides the service north of Maxwell Street. · There was no agency responsible for stormwater management in the unincorporated area outside of the road right-of-way. Lane County provides the service inside the road right-of-way. · The agreement with the River Road Park and Recreation District, initiated in 1983, would expire in 2003. The City had been providing funds to the district in lieu of taxes on property that had been annexed to the City. Mr. Meisner requested clarification of the first paragraph of the proposal on page 227 of attachment C at some future time. He continued his comments by saying that he was not sure that a 25-page report would be comprehensive enough to deal with a situation that was not working. He stressed that there needed to be more options for service delivery to this area without just assuming that annexation would be the answer. Ms. Nathanson commented that she saw this proposal as a first step, not necessarily a comprehensive report. Mr. Carlson agreed by noting that the paper began with the most complex subject matter with the fewest options for solutions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Nathanson observed that the things she had heard residents being concerned about were tax rates, what were the benefits of paying Eugene tax rates, and neighborhood character. She said that her concern was for what was the money that was paid to the River Road Parks and Recreation District being used. Mr. Johnson answered that residents of Eugene in that park district received services at an in-district rate. Mr. Carlson concurred adding that the money was used for operation costs. Ms. Nathanson noted that Eugene had had to cut its own program because it could not afford recreation facilities. Mr. Fart commented that annexation had to be at least one of the scenarios that was considered in order to create a win-win situation in that area. He said that he thought that neighborhood character was something that a neighborhood could choose. He wondered if urban renewal was a tool that could be used in the area. He added that whatever happened had to be customer-driven. He said that he thought that if one asked the residents in these areas, police coverage would be their first priority. He said that he would support the proposal for $10,000 to do the study. He added that he hoped that the County would be helping with sponsoring the study. Mr. Johnson clarified that the only policy that staff was working on for annexation was for new development. He said that no staff was working on annexation for already developed areas. He added that the proposal asked for information about the law regarding large annexations simply to get that information, not with the intent to do anything about it. Mr. Pap6 said that he sensed a change in attitude in the River Road/Santa Clara area in terms of cooperating with the City. He said that he would like to see a task force formed in that area that included County and City officials and residents from that area. He said that the most complaints that he heard from residents were about streets, planning, and permits. Mr. Pap6 supported beginning the process and staying with it in order to make things work better in that area. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson said that a new development could not get sewer lines without being annexed. Mr. Kelly said that it was clear that the situation was not working for the customers. He said that he was concerned about what the proposal covered. He said that he would like to see a background document that covered all of the services, not just police, and that he would even support delaying the report if it could be more comprehensive. He added that he liked Mr. Pap6's idea of a task force. Mr. Johnson explained that staff could just not take on a large project right now and that the idea was to at least focus on police issues in the area. Mr. Carlson also explained that this report was something that LCOG could do now based on existing data and analysis. Mr. Kelly said that he would be more comfortable with broadening the context and outline to include all the issues before approving Phase 1. Ms. Taylor wondered about, and asked the following series of questions: · How did we get into this situation? · Why did we start annexing little islands? · Why don't we know what the law is? · What do the citizens want? · Why can't LCOG pay for the report? Mr. Johnson said that those questions would be best answered in writing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, for the City to use $10,000 in FY00 General Fund Contingency to develop a background report on River Road/Santa Clara. Ms Nathanson asked Mr. Papd as the primary councilor representing this area what his recommendation would be. Mr. Papd responded that he would like to ask staff to come back with an estimate of the funds needed to cover all of the issues for inclusion in tho noxt budgot. I-to askod Ms. Morrison for opinion. Ms. Morrison responded that she and Commissioner Bobby Green both supported the idea of a task force. She said that she would have to check to see what resources the County could contribute. Mr. Pap~ repeated that his preference would be to see a plan with funds attached to it in the FY01 budget. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, to table the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Elise Self) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 15, 2000 Page 9 Work Session