Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/11/07 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 11, 2007 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman (via speaker- phone for Item C), George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER City Manager Dennis Taylor sought direction from the City Council regarding a number of annexation bills, noting that none of them had been scheduled for a hearing before the State Legislature. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson was also present for the item. She said that Senate Bill 887, introduced last session, had resulted in an interim work group that met between sessions and developed a report, but no legislative concepts. The work group, which included Eugene representatives, continued to meet with different members. The legislative committee with oversight over the subject asked the work group to consider what it could and could not live with in a final bill, which appeared to be House Bill 2760, initially introduced by Representative Chris Edwards. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter noted the staff recommendations included in the meeting packet, which had their basis in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan (Metro Plan), which assumed that development within the urban growth boundary (UGB) would annex, and staff’s concern about retaining the City’s flexibility to consolidate the city limits once annexation occurred. Mr. Yeiter said that Intergovernmental Relations staff indicated to him that the bill abolishing the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission would pass. Mr. Yeiter reviewed the bills currently before the Oregon State Legislature that dealt with annexation and posed a series of policy questions to the council. Retain the City’s ability to use the island annexation process? Mr. Yeiter noted staff’s support for retaining that authority. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council previously gave direction to staff that precluded the creation of islands from annexation through annexation of street rights-of-way. She suggested the council take the resolution addressing that issue off the table at this time, given its impact on the rest of the discussion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to take from the table the prior resolution. Responding to a request from Ms. Solomon for an explanation of the resolution, City Manager Dennis Taylor recalled the resolution was to preclude annexation of street right-of-way if it created an island. City Attorney Glenn Klein further recalled that the council directed staff to halt the practice of seeking additional right-of-way if it created an island; he had recommended the council also amend the resolution regarding annexation guidelines so it was consistent with the direction already given to staff. The motion would put the amendment to the resolution consistent with the council’s direction back on the table. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy declared the resolution back on the table. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend Section 1 of Resolution 4903 by (a) adding the words “revising and” before the words “adding language”; and (b) replacing the word ‘should” with the word “may.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Speaking to the policy issue, Ms. Bettman was not willing to support a policy that allowed the City to pursue island annexations, particularly if they included property that was being involuntarily annexed. With regard to the boundaries, she suggested that another way to create islands was to utilize streets and waterways as boundaries. She agreed with the Metro Plan policy that the City was the logical provider of service and eventually all property inside the UGB would be annexed and served in a cost-effective way. However, she thought that should be a negotiated process, making progress toward that goal. She thought the City had overreached by being so aggressive, alienating the residents in that area. She suggested the City proceed with the tools it had at hand. Mr. Clark concurred with the remarks of Ms. Bettman, and requested staff comment about the value of the policy to the City. Mr. Yeiter indicated the City had not used island annexations for about 15 years. The last time island annexations were employed was in the Bethel area. He suggested that island annexations had value in that they give the City a tool to force annexation after negotiation had failed. Mr. Clark asked why the City would want to force annexation on an unwilling resident. City Manager Taylor suggested reasons such as rational service provision, emergency response, and tax equity and fairness concerns. He said the State legislation created a context for each governing body to use in its approach to annexation. In other communities where he had worked, such annexations were a normal feature of annexation law, although frequently contested. City Manager Taylor said there were many parcels throughout the city, not just in the River Road/Santa Clara area, that were not annexed but were wholly surrounded by property inside the city limits. Eugene had decided not to force annexation on those properties. In other jurisdictions, residents decided annually whether to annex wholly surrounded islands once yearly as a rational way to provide for tax equity and service provision. He recommended the council preserve the tool as an option. Mayor Piercy said the elimination of the boundary commission would change annexation in the future. She suggested that the City could retain the tool with council oversight. She asked what must be put in place to retain the tool while making it clear that the council was consulted. Mr. Yeiter said no changes would be required as the law left that decision up to the governing body. The council would have to initiate the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 2 Work Session annexation. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that a public hearing would be required to approve, although not to initiate, an annexation request. Ms. Bettman said she would be willing to retain the tool in extenuating circumstances, given the fact that public hearings and council oversight would occur, but not for “housekeeping” annexations that were often controversial in nature. Ms. Taylor thought past City practice regarding annexation had created a problem. She wanted to listen to the residents and was reluctant to oppose bills that allowed residents to vote. She said the council had given direction to staff regarding the annexation of streets but she thought it important that people who annexed to the city wanted to do so for the future of the city. Ms. Taylor liked the bills that phased in property taxes for properties annexing to a municipality. She wanted to support those bills as she thought they might be an incentive for people to annex. She thought the City would regret it if it forced people to annex later. She thought they would recognize the value of annexing to the city over time. Ms. Taylor advocated for discussion of broad principles to guide the Council Committee on Intergovernmen- tal Relations (CCIGR) rather than specific bills. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to have a general policy that Eugene have the ability to use the island annexation process in extenuating circumstance and with the ap- proval of the City Council, including a public hearing. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Flexibility should be permitted to allow administrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings official rather than by an elected body for non-controversial annexations? Ms. Bettman, seconded Ms. Ortiz, moved that flexibility should be permitted to allow ad- ministrative approvals and/or approvals by a hearings official rather than an elected body for simple, non-controversial annexations. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. Support use of streets and waterways as boundaries for island annexations unless UGB and city limits can be used as border for annexations? Speaking to the issue of waterways serving as boundaries, Mr. Clark asked if ditches or street-side culverts qualified as waterways. Mr. Yeiter said those may qualify as waterways, although the legislative definition was not clear. Given that the UGB was largely defined by streets and waterways, particularly in the northern part of the community, staff was concerned about a prohibition on their use as boundaries. In addition, the City had been able annex non-contiguous properties through the boundary commission, and in the absence of the boundary commission, someone wishing to annex would not be able to do so if their property was not contiguous to a piece of the city. He acknowledged the practice of using streets had been abused in other communities through a practice known as “cherry stemming.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that streets may be used to create contiguous annexations for voluntary annexations in River Road/Santa Clara and within the UGB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman agreed that if someone wished to annex voluntarily, that desire should be accommodated as long as the property was within the UGB. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Yeiter said that a pending bill would allow a property across the street from an annexed property to be considered contiguous. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Piercy noted the time and asked the council for a motion to extend time for the discussion. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to continue discussion on the item for 10 min- utes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that using the UGB to create an island would allow for involuntary annexations. She could support the use of streets and waterways for voluntary annexations. Mr. Poling thought there might be times when the City needed to use streets and waterways for island annexations. Mr. Clark suggested the council consider the environment; the likelihood the boundary commission would be abolished was high, and he thought giving staff some latitude was acceptable since the council would consider each annexation and it would be the subject of a public hearing Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the council did not support the use of streets and waterways as boundaries for involuntary annexations. City Manager Taylor reminded the council that the motion spoke to legislation that was intended to govern every municipality in the state. He said that other communities might find it desirable to use both waterways and streets in annexations, although the Eugene council might choose not to. He did not recommend making it a prohibition statewide. Ms. Bettman argued that the City was taking positions on bills consistent with what worked for the City, although she acknowledged the potential statewide impacts. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion by stating the City sup- ported the use of streets and waterways as boundaries for island annexations unless the UGB and city limits can be used as a border for annexation, following a public hearing and council approval. Mr. Poling said that the amendment to the motion would retain the City’s ability to use the island annexation process. The amendment to the motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no. The main motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting no. Extraterritorial extension of services should not be allowed other than provided by the Metro Plan? MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to process annexations in a manner to be con- sistent with the Metro Plan policies. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Oppose required votes by general public for individual annexations? If votes are allowed or required, oppose legislation that would allow the votes from the area being annexed to outweigh the votes of the city residents? Ms. Taylor did not think the City should oppose a bill that allowed the votes of the residents of the city to outweigh the votes of those being annexed. If a majority of those to be annexed were opposed to annexation, that position should prevail. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that if votes were allowed or required, the City supported legislation allowing the votes from the area being annexed to outweigh the votes of the city residents. Mr. Zelenka asked why the City residents would even have a vote in that case. He asked how such a process would work. Mr. Yeiter said that different areas do it differently; some mix the vote from the annexed and non-annexed areas, while others separate the vote so a smaller area could “trump” a larger area’s vote. The issue had not been settled by the courts. He confirmed that the City had never used such an approach. Ms. Bettman asked if the bills requiring votes all mandated a vote, pointing out the council would normally oppose such legislation based on home rule. Ms. Wilson said there were three proposed bills that required some sort of democratic process. Ms. Bettman objected to the requirement and did not think the City needed to take a position on the first question because of the violation of home rule. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said that some of the proposed legislation supported Ms. Taylor’s position. Ms. Bettman thought the scope of the annexation needed to be taken into account and indicated she lacked sufficient information to take a position. Ms. Solomon objected to any proposed policy that suggested her vote was not as important as another resident’s vote. Mr. Pryor did not have enough information to take a position, but if the motion failed he would be willing to offer a motion that stated the City did not support anything that precluded home rule. The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz voting yes. recommend to the CCIGR that it take a Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to position that no issues around voting should usurp home rule or local control. The motion passed 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Oppose mandatory tax phase-in provisions, unless they are coupled with mechanisms that make it easier for the City to incorporate properties inside the UGB? Taxes during the deferral period should not be lower than before annexation? MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the tax phase-in provisions, saying she opposed anything that usurped home rule. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said the bill would require all local jurisdictions to phase in taxes if it passed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved that the City oppose any mandatory positions, but was willing to utilize deferral periods as long as taxes during the deferral were not lower than previous. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Bettman clarified that it was her position that deferrals should only be used for involuntary annexations, rather than for properties that the owner wished to develop. She did not want mandates from the state. The motion passed 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. B. WORK SESSION: Discussion on Role of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and Process to Establish City Council Policy on Legislative Matters Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided some historic background on the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR). She reviewed the CCIGR process for reviewing proposed legislation and said that the committee’s recommendations were to be ratified by the full council. She said that two questions had recently come up with regard to the committee, one being whether the committee’s actions must be ratified by the full council prior to lobbying in Salem, which the council discussed earlier in the week, and the other was the committee’s purview over legislation related to human resources and collective bargaining, which were currently the responsibility of the City Manager through council resolution. Ms. Wilson, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, said that when the committee did not have a unanimous position on a bill, she still assumed that it represented the position of the council, but in one situation the committee’s position on a bill was overturned by the full council. It had not affected the City’s lobbying efforts on that particular bill, but it might in other cases. She asked for council direction. Ms. Wilson described how bills were reviewed and said bills that addressed staffing, employment, and collective bargaining were referred to staff in Human Resources and Risk Services (HRRS), as the staff there were best qualified to evaluate them. In some cases it was clear that a bill was specific to personnel and management issues while others addressed broader issues, such as medical marijuana in the work place and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The resolution previously mentioned delegated that authority to the manager. She asked for direction on that issue. Ms. Bettman called for the recession of the resolution mentioned by Ms. Walston, which she considered ambiguous. She suggested that if the council could not get through all the issues today, it endorse the current protocol of the CCIGR and schedule another work session. Ms. Bettman offered a list of questions for the council to consider: Did the position of the CCIGR stand as the council position before council ratification of committee actions? Was there a distinction between a 2:1 vote and a unanimous vote at the committee, regardless of the makeup of the committee? Did the council MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 6 Work Session want to consider appointments based on different constituencies to ensure a broad range of opinions on the committee? Did the position of staff represent the position of the council either before committee action or council ratification? If the committee was not authorized to represent the City position unless ratified by the council action, should it change its meeting format to make them longer and more frequent to expedite ratification? Should members be appointed with the goal of achieving political balance? Was there a charter justification that prohibited the council from taking action on State legislation related to human resources or personnel? If the council had not taken a position on those bills, could staff take a position on behalf of the City organization on those bills? Speaking to the resolution mentioned by Ms. Walston, Ms. Bettman said that City Attorney Jerome Lidz indicated to the CCIGR that the resolution was ambiguous. Mr. Pryor thought Ms. Bettman raised legitimate questions that were based on a lack of clarity, consistency, or transparency in the process now being used. He said that it appeared the committee was a tradition that preceded the current council. He was concerned about the authority of the committee as opposed to the council, and about the authority of the manager as it related to the committee and council. His second concern was ensuring a procedure that ensured appropriate oversight, accurate representation, and that the default position the City took was the most inclusive of its position. Mr. Pryor thought that the tradition was that the vote of the CCIGR was the official position of the City unless the council voted to overturn it. He did not want the City’s default position to be one that could be set by two people representing a majority of the committee. Mr. Pryor thought the council needed a procedure that allowed staff to lobby in Salem with the confidence it had the council’s endorsement, not the endorsement of one or two councilors. That could result in staff taking one position one week and reversing itself the following week. He would prefer to be silent rather than take a position on legislation that would be changed later because of the haste of the process. Mr. Pryor pointed out that that when he raised a split committee vote to the council, it led to significant discussion and debate, which suggested to him that the City was taking positions in Salem that, unless someone made an effort to change, were being set by three people. He preferred instead that committee actions be ratified by the full council in what ever timely system could be established before staff lobbied in Salem. Mayor Piercy said she was a “substitute member” of the CCIGR if someone was absent. She said that council’s operating agreements indicated that the committee’s split votes were to be automatically brought up at the council, but that was not occurring. Mr. Pryor had taken the initiative to bring those votes forward. Mayor Piercy said the history of the resolution delegating the authority over human resource bills and collective bargaining had been debated before by past councils. She believed the charter was clear about the specific City personnel issues within the purview of the manager but said there were larger policy debates occurring at the State level, and the City needed to participate in those discussions. She contended the council was delegating a policy role to the city manger through the resolution. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mayor Piercy. She recalled that in the past, the council considered the CCIGR’s recommendations on the Consent Calendar and individual councilors pulled items. She thought for the entire council to consider every single bill, it would need longer weekly meetings and would not be able to have a break. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor did not think the committee process represented a matter of two people setting policy. If other councilors did not like a position taken by the committee, they could ask for discussion. Mr. Zelenka determined that Ms. Wilson considered herself governed by the majority vote on the committee. Ms. Wilson said the City’s most important asset in Salem was its credibility. She could explain a single changed position, but not twenty of them. It was not an issue for some bills because they were not moving. If the committee assigned a bill a status of Priority 1, Oppose, she did all she could to kill the bill. If the committee assigned a bill a status of Support, it was slightly easier to change the City’s position. Mr. Zelenka determined from Ms. Wilson that the council had switched the committee’s position about five times this year. Mr. Zelenka said his dilemma was that the legislature moved fast, which was why the City Council had the committee. He did not have time to track all the bills and thought the process had worked well in the past. He said that every process has “foibles and bruises and bumps” associated with it. He asked Mr. Pryor what he would do in the absence of the committee process to respond to the immediacy of the legislative process. Mr. Pryor did not think the entire system was broken. On unanimous votes, the current system probably worked well, as it was most likely that the entire council would endorse those positions. His principle concern regarded split votes. He preferred to leave the process in place, but where there was a split committee vote, he did not want the lobbyist to take a position to Salem as the position of the City. He said that might put Ms. Wilson in a bind, but would also prevent her from having to change the position later on. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the City “had been operating like this for years” and he did not think the issue of split votes had been a problem before. Ms. Bettman asked if staff resources could be available in the case of a 2:1 committee vote on a high priority issue to get the issue to the City Council in the interim before scheduled council ratification. Ms. Bettman said she would move to rescind Resolution No. 4139. She said if staff had a concern that committee review of a bill had charter implications, it could indicate that. She thought the council needed to review those bills because they addressed broad policy issues, and otherwise the opinion of City staff would be given more weight than that of the elected representatives. She would then move to create operating agreements for the committee. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the manager to return with a resolu- tion rescinding Section 7 of Resolution 4139. Mr. Clark said he would support the motion because when the lobbyist spoke in Salem she spoke for the body, and he thought the City’s policy should be driven by the council rather than staff. Mr. Pryor also supported them motion, emphasizing it was no reflection on the City Manager, and suggesting that whatever resulted needed to be a collaborative process given the importance of having staff expertise. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff, in collaboration with the CCIGR and the Intergovernmental Relations Manager, to draft operating agreements for the CCIGR and to bring them back to the City Council for approval. Mr. Zelenka hoped whatever process was developed allowed the City to be able to respond quickly to events in Salem. Mr. Pryor indicated support for the motion. He did not want to create a burden on staff but believed the council could move in a more transparent and timely fashion. City Manager Taylor said that the City took a position on so many bills at so many levels the council might want to consider a different approach to Priority 1 bills, which were the bills of most concern. He said that sometimes, it was necessary to take a position in a timely manner; in other cases, it might be possible for the City to wait. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman said the committee was aware of the issue raised by Mr. Pryor and would work to address it. However, she pointed out that the committee did considerable research in its review of proposed legislation, and she questioned whether that was feasible for the full council. She said that there were not many such bills involved, but she thought when the CCIGR brought such bills to the council, it behooved the council to review them carefully because they were frequently quite complex. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to the members of the CCIGR and to staff for its support of the committee. She invited council suggestions for process improvements and recommended they be sent to Ms. Bettman as soon as possible. The meeting adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 11, 2007 Page 9 Work Session