Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/19/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 19, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~ Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Items from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Mr. Fart reported on the Human Rights Commission's meeting of May 18. He said that public comment at the meeting was largely focused on the judgement assessed against Hyundai for job discrimination by a California jury. Mr. Farr asked if the Board of County Commissioners had discussed the issue. City Manager Jim Johnson said yes. He said that County Administrator Bill Van Vactor met the previous day with County legal counsels Terry Wilson and Trina Laidlaw and County Tax Assessor Jim Gangle to review documents relevant to the issue, including the first source hiring agreement Hyundai had with the Southern Willamette Private Industry Council (SWPIC). Mr. Johnson said Mr. Van Vactor indicated to him in a brief communication that it was the assessor's responsibility to determine the continued eligibility of the company for tax exemptions. Mr. Gangle intended to conduct an investigation that would include review of the court proceedings, the first source hiring agreement, and consultation with the Oregon Department of Revenue. If the assessor found reason to discontinue the exemptions, he would notify Hyundai to give the company an opportunity to respond. Mr. Farr asked about possible time frames for action. Mr. Johnson did not have an estimate of the time the process would take at this time. He indicated he would share the communication from the County with the council. Mr. Fart said that the Human Rights Commission had asked him to ask the council what its role was in the process given the possibility of human rights violations. The commission would like to conduct a work session on the issue June 15. The commission also inquired into the possibility of holding a public forum on the issue. He requested direction from the council. Ms. Taylor commented that if there was nothing the City could do she did not know why there was a need for a meeting. Regarding the public forum possibility, Ms. Taylor suggested that people would raise the issue at council forums. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor said it had been suggested to her that the City use plain clothes police officers to arrest pedestrians who jaywalked, which she understood occurred in other cities. Mr. Meisner said that the issue raised by Mr. Fart was important and he supported discussion of the subject with the HRC during the regular joint meeting. He did not object to the commission gathering information about the topic and holding a work session on June 15. The commission could then report its findings at the joint meeting the following week. Ms. Nathanson concurred with Ms. Taylor about whether a meeting should be held if the council was unable to take action. She acknowledged that it was important to provide an opportunity for people to talk about how they feel, but she questioned who the audience for that purpose should be. Ms. Nathanson suggested that a meeting on the topic would depend on the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Nathanson discussed a recent forum that occurred at Churchill High School the previous week regarding the proposed sports facility at the high school. She was disappointed by the attendance at the forum but impressed by the quality of the discussions and ideas shared. People had constructive ideas to offer about how the facility could be designed in a way that was sensitive to the neighborhood, and supportive of facilities such as skateboard parks and other activities that were not organized. She thanked City staff for its contribution to the event. Mr. Rayor said that there was a school disposition issue in Ward 1. The neighborhood association was sponsoring a meeting on May 23 at Willard School. He said people wanted to know if the Parks Division was interested in the Willard School property for a park and suggested staff be prepared to discuss the question. Mr. Rayor said he had discussed the topic of what City actions could be taken regarding Hyundai with the City Manager. He agreed with the City Manager that the council had no direct authority over the topic, but he believed that the council had a moral imperative to act. He said that if Hyundai did not play by the rules and had done some thing to affect its contract with the State, something should be done. It was a responsibility of government to protect its citizens from racism and sexism. The City gave money to the company and the company, by accepting the tax reductions, had also accepted another degree of responsibility. He said that it appeared that the company had not carried through its responsibilities, and asked the council to direct the manager to clarify what opportunities and responsibilities the City had in this instance. Mr. Kelly referred to an issue related to the proximity of trees to the bicycle path at River Island Estates and asked if the urban forester could investigate. City Manager Jim Johnson said that was already being done. Mr. Kelly responded to Mr. Fart's question. He said it was important for the City and staff to follow-up on the Hyundai court decision. He did not think the situation could be ignored. However, he did not want to take action until a sufficient amount of information had been gathered. He endorsed the commission's information-gathering activities and encouraged staff support. He believed a public meeting would be useful when more of the legal issues were clear, perhaps near the commission's next meeting. Mr. Kelly supported a joint public meeting between the HRC and council if feasible. Mr. Kelly endorsed a discussion of the court decision as a work session item. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly suggested the council issue a formal statement that condemned job discrimination in general and reported that the City was gathering information and would act as appropriate. Mr. Pap~ endorsed Mr. Kelly's request regarding River Island Estates. Mr. Pap~ said he attended a "Welcome to Springfield Ceremony" as a property owner in Glenwood. The Springfield council posted its goals on its meeting room walls, which he shared with other councilors. In response to Mr. Fart's question, Mr. Lee said that the HRC was advisory to the council and helped it understand issues of importance to vulnerable communities. He said that discrimination was not acceptable. He suggested that staff first find out the facts and inform the council, and urged the manager to produce information as soon as possible to forward to the commission and council before a decision was made. Mr. Lee thought the information available now was not sufficient to act upon. He believed the HRC was the most appropriate body to advise the council on the subject. He repeated that discrimination was not acceptable, and the community would be concerned if the council failed to take action. Mr. Torrey said that there were conflicting community feelings about the issues involved and he did not want the council or commission to be used to forward anyone else's agenda. He said that the court case was filed in California, and no complaints had been made to the HRC. He urged the council to be predictable and consistent and to remember that it was a government of laws. The City had an anti-discrimination code and if a company was not compliant with local and State laws they should be required to comply and perhaps be penalized. He asked the council not to predict in advance the outcome of the issue. Mr. Torrey said that if the City began a fact-finding process it would be meddling in a judicial process. He said that staff had already begun to work on the issue and the County Assessor had a process in place for a quick response. Mr. Torrey asked if the City Council should hold hearings on the court decision regarding the basis for the toxics fee or the telecommunications ordinance. He believed that Hyundai would be forced to comply with the law if it had violated the law. He did not know why the council needed to jump ahead of those processes. Mr. Kelly expressed the hope that as the commission moved forward with its task, staff and Mr. Fart took into account the comments of all the councilors as well as the mayor. Ms. Taylor said that the council had evidence Hyundai discriminated at the Eugene plant. She asked if the council could do anything, and she thought if it could, it should without waiting for the HRC to act. Mr. Meisner did not want to prejudge an outcome but also did not want the council to be silent on the topic or "stick its head in the sand." He said that the council had evidence of discrimination and if those allegations were upheld on appeal the council should be prepared to take action. Mr. Meisner said that he had previously asked what the council meant by its action priorities related to discrimination in the city. He said that the Hyundai case was a concrete example of discrimination that must be addressed. He hoped Mr. Kelly would offer a motion regarding his suggestion that the council make a statement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farr summarized the councilors' input. He indicated he would work with HRC staff to draft a memorandum reflecting the HRC's next steps to distribute to all councilors for their input. He did not think that this was an appropriate time for the council to discuss Hyundai's guilt or innocence, but pointed out that the law that Hyundai was accused of breaking was not an Oregon law. Mr. Pap8 endorsed Mr. Lee's remarks. He said that the HRC should be allowed to do its work and the County Tax Assessor investigation to be completed. Mr. Rayor suggested the City Council ask the State Attorney General and the County to report to the City so it could share any information received with city residents. After confirming the fact with Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lee stated that what Mr. Rayor desired was occurring. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Johnson confirmed that Mr. Gangle would conduct an investigation specific to the court proceedings. Ms. Nathanson believed there was general agreement among the councilors about the lack of complete information. She agreed that the public should know the council is interested but she did not think the council was ready to say anything about the issue at this point. Ms. Nathanson believed that the City was doing the right thing now by making sure that those who should be looking into the subject were doing so. Mr. Lee said that it was important for the council to have the discussion. He said that there was a high degree of interest in Eugene about race relations, and people were quick to act, speak, and judge. Mr. Lee cautioned the council against making quick judgments or offhand remarks. He believed that good things could come from the situation if it was handled gracefully. Emphasizing that he was not prejudging Hyundai, Mr. Kelly indicated his intent to offer the council a motion because he did not think silence was an appropriate response for the community's leaders. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, that the council do two things: 1) issue the following statement: "The Eugene City Council condemns any instance of job discrimination in our community. With regard to alleged past or present Hyundai practices, the Human Rights Commission is reviewing information and legal counsel is investigating questions of a legal nature, and further council and City of Eugene action will be dependent on the results of those processes"; and 2) that the council schedule a work session sometime in June on the Hyundai information, ideally in conjunction with the already scheduled joint council/HRC work session now scheduled on June 23, 1999. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, agreeing with Mr. Kelly he did not want to prejudge the outcome of the assessor's investigation. However, he wanted to reaffirm the council's previously unanimous stand against discrimination, and the public to be kept informed. Mr. Lee said that the public would be kept aware of the situation through the press. He appreciated Mr. Kelly's motion because it signaled the council's concern to the public. Mr. Fart supported the motion because it represented a proactive, nonconclusionary stance on the part of the council. He questioned whether the council would know much more than it did now by June 23. Mr. Kelly clarified that he was attempting to target a date when information was MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. available. Mr. Johnson did not think it was likely Mr. Gangle's investigation would be completed by that date, but other information could be available. Mr. Kelly said that the date could be changed if needed. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Kelly to work with the minutes recorder on wording the motion then the council could act on it be the end of the meeting. B.Work Session: Endangered Species Act Mr. Johnson introduced Peter Ruffier of the Public Works Department and Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Lee expressed concern about Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, which indicated those activities that indirectly or directly affect or result in a take of an endangered species were not permissible. He asked for clarification of the phrase "specific prohibition measures." Mr. Ruffier responded that the definition of a take was included in the 4(d) rule, which the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would have one year to develop from the date of listing. He said that the definition of prohibition measures was not well-developed. Staff was anticipating the release of a 4(d) rule for the lower Columbia listing, which could give it some insights. In the meantime, the City had the opportunity to provide input into the process and request that its programs be accepted by NMFS as exemptions. Mr. Bj0rklund added that a 4(d) rule was generally developed for each species in a specific area, but because so many salmon runs were being listed at once the City expected the 4(d) rules to be much more general. He said that the Endangered Species Act was not prescriptive; it did not tell a jurisdiction what it could do, but rather what it could not do, and those prohibitions tended to be broad. He indicated staff intended to develop a relationship with NMFS staff and attempt to remain "in the loop" when rules were issued. The City also continued to offer comment on what was developed in relationship to the listing. Mr. Ruffler added that the City was also working with other local governments to coordinate activities and take a common approach to the listing. Mr. Kelly referred to the bulleted list of potential harmful activities on page 5 of the packet and asked about the implications of the list. Mr. Bj0rklund said that the agencies would examine the impact of those activities as they formulated the rule. The list was from the Federal Register, and it was an attempt to identify the kinds of things people should be thinking about when they consider how to protect salmon. Mr. Kelly endorsed the formation of the environmental policy team and environmental technical team. Mr. Ruffier noted that the environmental policy team, which included Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer and Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen as well as the division managers of those two departments, had held its first organizational meeting. Mr. Kelly expressed caution regarding the International Organizational for Standardization 14001 standard and suggested that staff go slow. Mr. Ruffler said that the City had initiated a pilot program in the Wastewater Division to evaluate the development of an Environmental Management System. He said that a gap analysis indicated the City was in very good shape and the gap might not be as bad as originally thought. MINUTES-Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson did not want to lose sight of an integrated watershed management approach and expressed excitement the City could meet multiple objectives related to storm water management, wetland protection, and species preservation with the assistance and coordination of multiple State and federal agencies. She believed the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was a model for a common approach to an ideal solution. Mr. Bj0rklund noted that NMFS staff had indicated to the City that it was looking for models that integrated the Endangered Species Act with the Clean Water Act, but did not have the staff to develop such programs. There were opportunities for local municipalities with experience in natural resources planning to help them develop those models. Mr. Rayor was pleased the City was addressing the ramifications of the Endangered Species Act situation at this time. Referring to the provisions of the Arterial Street and Collector Plan, he said that the City needed to ensure it could preserve right-of-way for the installation of swales. The City needed to protect drainageways to protect the Willamette River. He would like to see guidelines for when developers should use technologies such as sediment separating vaults in development, new technology incorporated into the standards, improved enforcement and education, and improvements in maintenance. Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen said that the chart in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan did not infer the City would divest itself of existing right-of-way. The City would be acquiring additional right-of-way if needed for stream purposes. She referred the council to the Stormwater Annual Report, which included an overview of activities regarding the frequency of maintenance activities and information about the use of technologies such as swales and sediment vaults, and offered to make copies available. Ms. Taylor said the City needed a stronger erosion control ordinance and more enforcement of such ordinances. She said that she hoped the listing would lead to greater environmental awareness. Ms. Taylor also hoped the City was not merely meeting, but exceeding, environmental standards. She agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments related to meeting multiple objectives. She said that the City should close any loopholes before it was too late, citing development along stream sides as an example. Mr. Lee stressed the complexity of the issues involved and the need for public education to change people's behaviors. He asked how the listing could be integrated into the City's Growth Management Study policies. Mr. Meisner believed that there were many things the City could do better on an environmental level. Many of the things that will need to be done regard private conduct. He believed that the City needed something similar to the McKenzie Watershed Council to ensure that all the citizen stakeholders were involved in decision making. Mr. Meisner said the City would not be able to pass ordinances implementing the listing without education. He said Eugene needed to begin to budget for its response to the Endangered Species Act listing in a way that involved citizens. Mr. Meisner did not think that the City had a formal stakeholder role in the McKenzie Watershed Council. He noted that he was no longer able to serve on the council and was unable to find another councilor to take his place. He believed the City should divert the financial contributions and effort now given to the McKenzie Watershed Council to a metropolitan response to the Endangered Species Act listing. Mr. Pap8 left the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. C.Work Session: Court of Appeals Decision Concerning Toxics Right-to-Know Program At the request of Mr. Farr, Toxics Board members Steve Morgan and Mary O'Brien introduced themselves. City Attorney Jerome Lidz noted that the interveners, followed by the City, asked for a reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' decision overturning the fee basis for the Toxics Program. The City had done the same that day. The action gave the City time to determine if it wished to file a petition for review to the Supreme Court. Mr. Lidz noted that the Court of Appeals rarely acts positively on requests for reconsideration, and he was unsure how quickly it would act. Mr. Lidz reviewed the elements of the Court of Appeals decision. He said that in considering whether to request Supreme Court review of the decision, the council should consider the likelihood of success, the cost, and if there were alternatives to the current fee structure that the council could accept. Mr. Lidz reviewed the costs involved in seeking the Supreme Court's review. Mr. Lidz called attention to three motions related to the issue that had been prepared for council consideration. Mr. Kelly thanked staff and Ms. O'Brien for clarifying a complex situation. He asked for more information about the legal costs involved in a court challenge. Mr. Kelly supported the City joining the interveners in requesting the court's reconsideration. He asked if the City could secure legal assistance from the League of Oregon Cities or other cities interested in such a program. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that it was unlikely the League of Oregon Cities would be likely to help given its limited legal budget and the demands on what funds were available. He did not think there was another Oregon city interested in the subject willing to help. Mr. Kelly asked if the governor would advocate for the program at the Court of Appeals level. Mr. Lidz did not think so, suggesting such advocacy was more likely at the Supreme Court level. Mr. Kelly said that prior to supporting a motion to forward the case to the Supreme Court, he wanted the council to discuss the cost, whether the case would be heard by the court, and whether the City wanted to take a financial chance to make a philosophical point. Mr. Meisner said that he had read the court opinion and, while he did not agree with the substance of the key decision, he believed it was sufficiently well-reasoned and well-crafted to resist an appeal. He would need to be persuaded that filing a petition for review to the Supreme Court would not be futile. He asked if the City had spent money in joining the interveners in their request for reconsideration. Mr. Lidz estimated those costs at about $1,000. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein estimated the cost of supporting the interveners' request at approximately $2,000, depending on what they filed. Mr. Lidz said that what the City filed in support depended on the arguments the interveners put forward. Mr. Rayor asked if there had been consideration of changing the program's fee basis. Mr. Johnson said yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to support the interveners' request for Supreme Court review if they file one. Mr. Johnson said he had also asked the attorneys about the chances of success and cost of seeking Supreme Court review. He believed that, on the basis of their responses, the expense was too great, the chances of review were too Iow, and there were alternatives to the current fee basis. Mr. Klein estimated that the legal costs to the City, if the Supreme Court accepted the case, were likely to be about $20,000. Mr. Kelly said that he wanted to ensure the City's response was predicated on the response of the interveners. He asked why the cost would be so high if the City joined the interveners. Mr. Klein said that the motion was intended to reflect the minimal cost to the City of seeing if the court would accept the case. If the court accepted the case, he would recommend that the City play a full role with the interveners in developing briefs on the matter. Mr. Johnson indicated that he would not have made his recommendation if he had been aware of the costs involved. Mr. Meisner withdrew his motion, and Mr. Kelly withdrew his second. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the City not request Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He said while he wished that the City could get the courts to review the decision, he did not think it would be successful in seeking reconsideration. He said that interveners may elect to file a petition for review, and if that petition was accepted the council may want to offer financial assistance. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could decide to request a review of the court decision at a later time. Mr. Lidz said no; that after the Court of Appeals reached a decision on the reconsideration, the 35-day appeal process period would begin. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no, and Mr. Pap~ having left the meeting. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the council request the Toxics Board to consider a full range of options related to the invalidation of the fee structure, including but not limited to alternative fee structures or other revenue sources and referral of amendments to the charter amendment to the voters. Mr. Kelly asked that staff return to the council for input if the interveners decided to petition the Supreme Court. Mr. Fart supported the motion because the voters had indicated their support for Eugene's right- to-know law. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Pap~ having left the meeting. The council returned to the motion previously submitted by Mr. Kelly: Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, 1) issue the following statement: "The Eugene City Council condemns any instance of job discrimination. With regard to alleged past or present Hyundai practices, the Human Rights Commission is reviewing information and legal counsel is investigating questions of a legal nature. Further council and City of Eugene action will be dependent on the results of those processes"; and 2) that the council schedule a work session in June on the Hyundai situation, ideally this would be on June 23, in conjunction with the already scheduled joint council/HRC work session. Roll call vote: the motion passed unanimously, 7:0, Mr. Pap~ having left the meeting. Responding to a request for direction from Mr. Johnson, the council agreed that the statement would be issued as a news release to all major media. D. Work Session: Emergency Preparedness This item was not addressed due to a lack of time. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 19, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m.