Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MInutes - 02/17/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 17, 1999 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, David Kelly. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 11:30 a.m. COUNCIL LUNCH WORK SESSION A. Revisions to Mall Exclusion and Mall Closure Ordinances Mr. Fart reported that the Human Rights Commission was not comfortable it had seen sufficient data regarding how well or poorly the ordinances have worked. He said that the commission wanted to take a closer look at the ordinances to increase its comfort level. Mr. Fart said he was prepared to extend the ordinances' sunset by 90 days to allow the commission time to review them in greater depth, and asked Officer Scott Fellman of the Eugene Police Department the impact of the delay. Officer Fellman responded that a 90-day extension would be necessary for adequate commission review and discussion. He said that because of the commission's meeting schedule, that would put the council up against the current ordinance sunset date. Officer Fellman pointed out that the department had already dedicated many hours of staff time working on the project and on presentations to the council and to various groups. He believed his time was better spent on the street. Officer Fellman said while he valued the input of the Human Rights Commission, he did not expect it or the American Civil Liberties Union would support either ordinance as each group had previously expressed a fundamental opposition to such legislation. Mr. Fart said it appeared to him that a four-month extension would be workable in terms of timing. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting at 11:35 a.m. Mr. Fart moved to extend the sunset date for the two mall ordinance by four months. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to amend the ordinances to remove the sunset clause. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion to include a sunset date of April 30, 2001, to provide time for staff to gather definitive data regarding the impact of the ordinances on crime and the use of the ordinances, and to mandate a council review of the ordinances at that time. Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting at 11:39 a.m. Mr. Meisner express support for the amendment to the motion as it mandated a review of the ordinances. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Mr. Lee voting no. Ms. Taylor indicated she would have proposed a one-year sunset had not Mr. Kelly acted first. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Lee voting no. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the existing Ordinance to add willful violations which applies only to repeat violations of the mall rules, not the first violation of any given rule. Mr. Kelly indicated he was strongly in opposition to the inclusion of the mall rules in the ordinance. He said that he also opposed the motion because he respected the integrity of Eugene's body of law. Criminal process and punishment should be proportional to the crime. He believed that to exclude someone for sign holding on the mall twice, for example, was excessive. Also, Mr. Kelly objected to the fact that exclusions was issued upon arrest rather than upon conviction. Mr. Rayor said he would oppose the motion. He said that if the council continued to need assurances that the ordinance would be enforced on the basis of a person's actions rather than appearance he did not think the argument for including the mall rules was very powerful. Mr. Meisner said he was also opposed to the motion. He was not persuaded of the necessity of including the rules. Mr. Farr asked what sanctions currently existed for violations of the mall rules. Officer Fellman said that people received a verbal warning or citation of $50; the second violation could also involve written or verbal warning, citation or arrest, with a bail amount of $150. Mr. Fart indicated he would also oppose the motion because he perceived there could be a potential problem with residents' civil liberties and due process. He believed that the City would be "stepping around" due process with this approach, particularly as there were sanctions in place already for wilful violations of the mall rules. Mr. Lee concurred with those speaking in opposition to the motion. He said that the approach did not solve the problem it was intended to address. He said that the City should instead be connecting with the population of youth hanging on the mall and help them get off the mall. Ms. Nathanson said that what the council previously put in place on the mall had worked with a coordinated department approach. Given the council's serious reservations and notable MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 2 11:30 a.m. improvement in past year, she was also leaning toward opposing the motion. She said that the ordinances, in combination with the City's youth focus, should be given time to see if they work. She added that a annual report to the council on the effect of the ordinances would be useful. Officer Fellman addressed the council's comments. He said that the exclusion does not go into effect until the person receiving the exclusion appeared before a Municipal Court judge. Regarding the necessity of adding the mall rules to the ordinance, Officer Fellman believed it would merely help improve the ordinance's effectiveness. He emphasized that Police staff were not applying the ordinance on the basis of appearance. He invited the councilors to accompany him as he walked the mall to see for themselves how the ordinances were enforced. Regarding Mr. Lee's remarks regarding the need to connect with the youth population, Officer Fellman said officers' activity on the mall includes conversations with youth and recommendations for counseling and advice, and follow-up with parents has indicated those activities have been useful for some youth. Ms. Taylor stated that she was sympathetic to those who felt they were harassed by people on the mall. She believed that improvements on the mall were probably because of the additional attention given the area. Ms. Taylor did not like laws that were difficult to enforce or unnecessary, and she placed the mall rules in that category. She indicated she would oppose the motion. Mr. Pap~ said that by concentrating on a small group of excluded people the council was missing the real focus of the ordinances, which was to open up the center of the city to all people and encourage residents to come down to the mall. The motion failed, 1:7; Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend Ordinance 20122 to expand the geographic boundary. Mr. Kelly said that he supported the motion given that it only applied to the night time mall closure. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Officer Fellman confirmed that the State had a youth curfew law, which Eugene enforced. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Lee voting no. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that it was not taking final action on the ordinance, which would be the subject of a later public hearing. Mr. Farr asked that staff notify the Human Rights Commission of the information presented to the council regarding the ordinance's success as well as the public hearing date so members had an opportunity to testify. B.Approval of Council Minutes November 25, 1998, City Council Lunch Work Session December 7, 1998, City Council Dinner Work Session December 7, 1998, City Council Meeting MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 3 11:30 a.m. December 9, 1998, City Council Lunch Work Session January 11, 1999, State of the City Mr. Torrey said that Ms. Nathanson requested the following change to sentence 3 in paragraph 1 on page 9 of the minutes of November 25 (italicized text added, struck text deleted): "She did not support including the term "advocating the neighborhood's position "and She suggested the following wording:..." She also requested that the last sentence in the paragraph be deleted. Mr. Torrey said that Ms. Nathanson requested the last sentence in paragraph 2 on page 9 be replaced by the following: "She understood that all ideas were considered and reviewed by staff." He determined there was no objection to those changes. Mr. Meisner referred to the minutes of the December 7, 1998, 5:30 meeting, and asked paragraph 9 on page 13 be changed as follows: Mr. Meisner said he objected to the proposed expenditure for Growth Management implemeP~afie~ communication tools when it had been agreed to delay and extend primary implementation of the policies through the Land Use Code Update." Ms. Taylor asked that sentence 3 in paragraph 3 on page 3 of the November 25 minutes be changed to read "She said that infrastructure or other monuments should be named afte~ for anyone, including Representative Peter DeFazio after, until he had died or left office." She also asked that sentence 1 in paragraph 4 on page 4 be revised to read "Ms. Taylor said that she liked Representative DeFazio ~,-,d ~,-,ow how h~rd ho wor~od." Mr. Farr objected to Ms. Taylor's proposed change to page 3 on the basis that the minutes should reflect what was actually said at a meeting, not what one wished one had said. The council agreed that the minutes would be pulled and a transcription prepared by staff for Ms. Taylor's review. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the minutes of the December 7, 1998, City Council Dinner Work Session, December 7, 1998, City Council Meeting, December 9, 1998, City Council Lunch Work Session, and January 11, 1999, State of the City, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 C.Sidewalk Improvement Program Public Works Department Director Chris Andersen and Dave Reinhard, Public Works Department, provided a Powerpoint presentation on the City's current sidewalk program. Mr. Reinhard reviewed the program goals and history, cited recent program accomplishments, and showed the council a series of slides illustrating projects built under the program. Mr. Reinhard discussed unmet priority needs throughout the community, and contrasted those priorities to existing and projected program resources. He showed the council slides of areas throughout the city without sidewalks or with incomplete sidewalks. Mr. Reinhard reviewed a series of options for the sidewalk program prepared by staff: 1) continue program, no change; 2) use City crews to build sidewalks; 3) cap property owner costs; and 4) put the program on hold temporarily. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Mr. Reinhard provided an overview of the City's sidewalk maintenance program and showed the council slides illustrating examples of sidewalk repairs, including a recent City sidewalk repair project. Mr. Fart left the meeting at 12:15 p.m. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the useful presentation. He noted that the staff notes regarding the options indicated that the City could still pursue construction of individual high-priority sidewalk segments under option 4, and asked if those projects would compete with other Road Fund dollars. Mr. Reinhard said that the City would assess the property owner for the costs of the project and attempt to minimize related administrative costs to the degree possible. Mr. Kelly noted calls from constituents complaining that when the City made a sidewalk repair, at its higher costs, and discovered a problem related to a street tree, it covered those costs. If the property owner performed the repair or contracted for it to save money, the property owner was responsible for the costs caused by the publicly owned street trees. He asked if the City had considered developing a list of approved sidewalk maintenance/repair contractors for which it would guarantee the work in case of disruption caused by a street tree. Ms. Andersen said that the City was unlikely to have contractor list but could develop a set of specifications and an inspection process for sidewalk repairs. Mr. Kelly endorsed such an approach, saying it would engender goodwill about both trees and sidewalks and would not pit one community interest against another. Ms. Nathanson said that she had long been concerned that pedestrian movement in Eugene was impeded by the City's inattention to such things as support for alternative modes, safety of school children walking to school, and the convenience of access, and the value of exercise. She did not want to take action at this point because the solutions appeared to be too expensive or did nothing, and she was not willing to support doing nothing. Ms. Nathanson said that people appreciate sidewalks when they are installed, and cited Bertelsen Road as an example. She asked if staff could identify those remaining areas where there is not a sidewalk on either side of the street, or the sidewalk is on one side but the street is at least three or more lanes in width, to find where sidewalks were needed for safety or access. She wanted to know what those projects were, and their cost. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Reinhard confirmed that School District 4J paid for the sidewalk adjacent to Harris School. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether those who paid for sidewalks over a period of time paid interest, Mr. Lyle said yes; the interest was approximately eight percent interest. The City sold bonds for assessment issues, and charged the bond interest rate plus two percent. Ms. Taylor said that sidewalks were important but residents were concerned about their costs. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the option of doing nothing. He said that the issue was a difficult one in terms of community equity. He said that the City mandates that new development have sidewalks. Property owners without sidewalks have not been assessed for the cost of sidewalks and did not pay for them when they purchased their houses. Those with sidewalks paid for them. Now the council was at the point of gap analysis. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 5 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner was not comfortable with charging a maximum cost per square foot because of varying circumstances and because property owners had the responsibility to invest in the community on an individual basis. He said he understands the limitations of the Road Fund, but did not want to focus only on high-priority areas that would be determined both technically and politically, and leaving the council "holding the bag" in the end to make such determinations. He agreed the system gaps were significant. He was surprised at the number of people who walked on streets lacking sidewalks, such as Seneca Road. Mr. Meisner said that such gaps were more dangerous where they existed intermittently. He cited his own street as an example of a street without a complete sidewalk system, yet it was located adjacent to a park with a heavily used wading pool. Mr. Rayor said he would prefer to focus on the more easy-to-repair sidewalks rather than on sidewalks on steep hills that might have fewer pedestrians traveling them. He said that staff could be directed to identify high-priority gaps, and suggested the council might have to just "bite the bullet" and attempt to get property owners to fulfill their responsibility. Ms. Andersen said that staff had been grappling with the program for some time because so many property owners were in unique situations, and there were reasons in most cases why a sidewalk was not installed or there were constraints on the property owners that prevented installation. She said that it was much more difficult to get the in-fill elements of the system completed. Ms. Andersen said staff agreed that it was necessary to keep moving forward with the program to the degree possible given existing funding limitations. She said staff was looking at a "triage" approach similar to what Ms. Nathanson had outlined, but would not be able to make much progress on the priority listing that had been presented to the council in the past and which was addressed in the sidewalk program. Ms. Andersen perceived the sidewalk program as a part of the whole transportation system funding problem. Staff wanted to call the council's attention to the fact the program had reached a point where staff was constrained in its ability to move forward aggressively in a number of key areas. Ms. Andersen said staff wanted to continue where it could in places of the highest need in the most cost-effective way, but the program needed to be revisited when the council attempted to address the larger transportation funding picture following whatever legislative action that might come out of the current session. Mr. Papb agreed about the importance of sidewalks to the transportation system, and also indicated his concurrence with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding conflicts between trees and sidewalks. He said it was unfair to require the property owner to pay for the expense of maintaining a tree that disturbed a sidewalk. He also was troubled about the "do nothing" option. Mr. Pap~ said that the program should be a priority and more funding should be found to support it. He was opposed to an approach that required the council to argue over sidewalk installation on a street-by-street basis. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could require sidewalks on an infill property. Ms. Andersen said the City could require the property owner to install the sidewalk. She said that in most cases, the sidewalk program was focused on just such properties. Ms. Taylor believed that steep areas needed sidewalks more than flat areas because such streets curve and can be dangerous for pedestrians. She asked why the City had not provided a sidewalk near the neighborhood park on Potter Street. Mr. Reinhard said that such projects were included on the priority list Ms. Andersen referred to earlier. Ms. Andersen added that the City paid for such projects with park improvement funds. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson asked if the council could amend the Capital Improvement Program in the future if it choose to make changes to the sidewalk program, such as by adopting the triage approach. Ms. Andersen recommended that staff provide the council with an estimates of the costs of projects fitting the triage definition; those projects were primarily assessable. The council could reconcile the capital budget process and Capital Improvement Program in May. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to place the sidewalk program on hold except for those locations where staff review or public input clearly identifies a high-priority sidewalk need that should be addressed. Staff will proceed with a limited program based on the highest priorities and a high benefit-to-cost analysis. Mr. Pap~ asked if the council could reprogram additional funds for the sidewalk at this point. Mr. Torrey said that the Budget Committee would be considering the Capital Improvement Program the following week, and if Mr. Pap~ could get the votes, funds could be reprogrammed. Mr. Johnson concurred. Ms. Andersen added that the funds were actually authorized through the capital budget. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Ms. Andersen indicated that the only moveable money available for reprogramming was in the Street and Alley Overlay Program, about $500,000 or half of what was normally available. She did not recommend that the City build new sidewalks in lieu of maintaining existing streets with such limited funding. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Andersen said that the $300,000 budgeted for parking lot construction at the airport were Airport Funds and could not be used for nonairport needs. Ms. Andersen noted that staff was hoping to be able to include intersection/sidewalk ramps in the systems development charge (SDC) as a legitimate, SDC-eligible cost. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Farr having left the meeting. D.Council Goals Process: Environmental Scan Jan Bohman, City Manager's Office, introduced the item and Jim Carlson and Clare Van Bloem of the Lane Council of Governments, who provided a slide presentation on trends in Eugene's population, employment, housing, income, racial, and crime demographics. Mr. Kelly regretted that the nation was at the end of a census cycle and more current data was not available. Mr. Kelly asked if data was available on employed individual income. Mr. Carlson said that payroll data was available from the State for various industry classifications. Mr. Kelly requested information regarding the average full-time worker income in Eugene. Mr. Carlson indicated LC©G could try to provide that information, adding that income in general was a very complex topic because of transfer payments, interest income, investment earnings, etc. Mr. Kelly indicated his focus was on income from employment. Ms. Nathanson noted her increasing concern regarding under reported and nonreported income and her interest in further discussion of the topic. Mr. Johnson suggested there would be an opportunity for that discussion at a later meeting. Ms. Nathanson requested information comparing the ratio of University of Oregon students, staff, and faculty to the Eugene population as a whole for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson asked if LC©G was aware of whether people moved to Eugene to be students at Lane Community College (LCC). Mr. Carlson indicated he would have to contact LCC for that information. He added that the LCC student population was very different from the University of Oregon student population in that most students were neither full-time or degree candidates. Ms. Nathanson referred to school enrollment figures and asked if LC©G had looked at trends for home schooling and private schools and if that changed the picture. Mr. Carlson responded that there was no significant change for the purpose of the information presented to the council. Enrollment in private schools was growing but the public schools still had a significant majority of students. Referring to the issue of commuting to work, Ms. Nathanson said that LC©G should convene a community discussion for the metropolitan area regarding land use and transportation issues. She believed that when Eugene adopted land use and transportation rules its actions could be contradicted or offset by the action or inaction of neighboring communities. She said that a community conversation was needed because growth was not just a Eugene issue. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said Eugene needed to look at such issues jointly and from a metropolitan point of view. He added that the council needed to be cautious about "opting out" of boundary changes such as the change occasioned by development of the sports complex in Springfield. Mr. Meisner asked if LCOG had any information on why people decide to live in Eugene. Mr. Carlson said that the information LCOG had was only anecdotal. The general theory was that most movement was economically induced. He added that the University was a source of permanent in-migration to Eugene. Mr. Carlson said that migration pressure had decreased as the economies in Washington and California improved. Mr. Lee asked if University of Oregon students were included in the information presented, such as income. Mr. Carlson said yes. He added that the existence of the University and the student population in Eugene was one of the reasons for the lower income levels. Mr. Lee asked if the income figures were broken down by race. Ms. Van Bloem said that information was available through the census. Mr. Lee asked how the council could address the fact that Eugene was an employment center for people living outside of the community and traveling on City roads to reach their place of employment. Mr. Johnson said that was a complex issue. Eugene had 70 percent of the employment in Lane County, meaning that people would commute to Eugene, but Eugene did not have the ability to tax outside its jurisdiction. Mr. Lee asked how the County handled the issue. Mr. Torrey said that the County does nothing about the issue now. Mr. Lee said it was wrong that Eugene residents were subsidizing other County residents' use of the infrastructure. Mr. Johnson believed the County would point to the transfer of Road Fund payments and in particular its assistance with some of the larger projects such as the Ferry Street Bridge and Chambers Connector as indicators of how it was offsetting those costs. Mr. Kelly referred to the community survey and said that he was concerned that the demographic breakdown on page 8 indicated that the respondents were heavily weighed toward owner- occupants. However, the distribution in the population was 51 percent owner-occupants and 49 percent renters. He had a similar concern about the ethnic demographics of respondents in MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m. view of the trends data. Ms. Bohman said she would look into those issues and possible ways of addressing them. E.Review of Budget Committee Information Requests Hillary Kittleson, Administrative Services Department, reviewed the Budget Committee's requests for information. The council indicated that staff could proceed with the work required to respond to the Budget Committee's information requests. F. Items from Mayor, City Council,and City Manager Responding to a request for a volunteer to serve on the Human Services Commission from the council from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lee agreed to serve as a member of the commission. Mr. Torrey called the council's attention to the upcoming African American Dinner Dance fund raiser and said that staff had purchased tickets for councilors who wish to attend. Mr. Meisner passed. Mr. Lee thanked the council for its attendance at the recent Asian Celebration. Mr. Lee reported that the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth may be forwarding a budget request to the council soon. Mr. Rayor passed. Mr. Johnson called the council's attention to a memorandum regarding further development of the partnership between School District 4J and Eugene regarding community fields. He added that the 4J school board would discuss the issue later that day. Ms. Taylor said that such a partnership was a great idea but people had asked her if the City will use parks bond measure moneys to help to fund football fields. She said that people were distressed to think that part of the parks money was going for that use. Mr. Johnson responded that the facilities in questions were community fields upon which soccer and football would be played. He said that staff would provide the council with a memorandum describing how the funds would be used; a budget request for that purpose was forthcoming. Mr. Pap8 noted he had heard similar concerns about how the parks funds would be used. Mr. Kelly thanked the Public Service Officer and City Manager's Office staff for changes to what he considered overly bureaucratic language in City letters. He added he was astonished by the speed of the change. Mr. Kelly requested a memorandum on the status of employee hours dedicated to graffiti removal. Mr. Kelly said he was dismayed to read about the undercover police officer situation at the Human Rights Commission given the presence of a uniformed officer at those meetings. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 9 11:30 a.m. Ms. Nathanson addressed the partnership concept discussed by Mr. Johnson and said that school property could be opened for community use, for example, school fields could be used as public neighborhood parks when school was not in session. She acknowledged the safety and security issues involved, but indicated she was very interested in that concept. The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 10 11:30 a.m.