Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/14/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall June 14, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Bobby Lee. Mr. Torrey called the meeting to order, and acknowledged the presence of Lane County Commissioners Bobby Green and Bill Dwyer and former City Councilor Ken Tollenaar, who were present for the first agenda item. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION A. Council Goals: Community Policing City Manager Jim Johnson introduced the topic. He called the council's attention to the cover memorandum included with the meeting packet entitled Work Session on Council Goal ora Safe Community, which provided background on the possibility of a revenue measure resulting from the work of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) and the potential the City could seek Eugene-only funding if no revenues were available from that measure or if it failed. Mr. Johnson said that the council could identify those services that it would fund with shared revenues from a successful PSCC measure or from a Eugene-only measure. He suggested that the council might wish to cancel its joint meetings with the Planning Commission and Human Rights Commission to identify the components of a Eugene-only ballot measure. Mr. Pap6 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Johnson distributed an election schedule and called the council's attention to key dates. He also distributed the results of a survey of 600 Lane County residents regarding the proposed public safety program. Police Chief Jim Hill described the four focus areas of the City's Community Policing Program--Youth Prevention, Neighborhood Support, Improved Service to Citizens, and Human Services for Community Policing and Youth--and reviewed their current status, proposed added programming, and associated funding. The programs proposed for the four focus areas were more fully described in a document in the meeting packet entitled A Vision for Implementing the City Council's SAFE COMMUNITY Goal: Community Policing and Youth Prevention Programs. Mr. Torrey asked the council to discuss the Community Policing Program funding and the relationship of the program funding to the PSCC measure. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor supported community policing, which meant to her a different approach to policing. She did not think that was reflected in the staff memorandum outlining the program focus areas. Ms. Taylor said that if the City decided to seek a tax for the Community Policing Program it should not be a property tax. She called for council discussion on what City services needed money most; she did not think the council goals called for a focus on police services to the exclusion of other services. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the wide variety of proposals suggested for the four focus areas. He supported some, others he opposed, while others he questioned as part of the City's mission. He did not understand why the council needed to act quickly, as he wanted to give the PSCC the chance to do its job first before even discussing a City money measure. Mr. Kelly said he was not proposing to ignore the subject until after November, but did not want to displace items now on the June agenda. Mr. Johnson believed that voters would want to know how Eugene would use its revenue sharing dollars if a PSCC measure that included revenue sharing was passed. If the City did not have the first three years of a Community Policing Program mapped out, voters might oppose it because of uncertainty. Mr. Kelly said he would rather provide the voters with the elements of the program with the strongest council support in September, and give the community the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the council. Mr. Johnson said that a September ballot gave the council little time to refine its proposals. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the short time line involved and said he did not think the council could do justice to the issues facing it over the months of June and July. Mr. Rayor noted his previous support for the November 1998 PSCC ballot measure and said he wanted to hear more from the County. He liked the Community Policing Program elements presented, but feared that if the City enhanced its system it would overwhelm other elements of the public safety system, such as the judiciary and incarceration systems. Mr. Johnson said that staff attempted to avoid adding new officers or detectives that would generate substantial new arrests that would impact the judicial and incarceration systems. He did not think the measure the PSCC recommended in the future would differ much from the measure offered to the voters in November 1998. However, that package did not address what he believed were Eugene's needs, which were better addressed by the elements of the program included with the staff memorandum and which could be funded by a revenue-sharing component of the PSCC measure. Ms. Nathanson also wanted the PSCC process to go forward, but she wanted to be ready with a Eugene-only measure should the County decide to wait. She acknowledged Mr. Johnson's remarks about voters' interest in Eugene's use of the revenue sharing funds. Regarding the potential of further community input, Ms. Nathanson said that she believed if the City sought further input on the subject of community policing there would be backlash from those who had contributed their time and suggestions to the City over a long period of time and were now waiting impatiently for their implementation. She believed the program components identified by staff reflected the community's desires. Ms. Nathanson said that the memorandum was a starting point for discussion. Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Nathanson regarding further citizen input, noting he had reams of materials related to community policing in his files. He believed that canceling the joint meetings with the Human Rights Commission and Planning Commission to work on a City money measure would create a level of community expectation he was unsure could be satisfied even if a measure was passed. Mr. Meisner did not think the community was currently conscious of the City's progress in implementing community policing. Mr. Meisner wanted to see what the PSCC developed, and expressed frustration that the City Council was not receiving regular reports about the work of the PSCC's Finance Subcommittee. He added he was not prepared to support whatever PSCC placed on the ballot, particularly if the measure did not include a revenue sharing MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. component for Lane County cities. He emphasized the council's strong support for its Safe Community goal, and said that the City Council should be prepared to identify what it was going to spend any shared revenues upon, and how much money was needed for the programs identified. Mr. Torrey stated his support for a September ballot measure. If such a measure failed, the voters could be asked to consider a measure based on the property tax in November. He did not believe the November 1998 measure should be resubmitted because the County had received some substantial grants that could supplant the revenues previously requested of voters. Further, the legislature appeared to be ready to fund the Healthy Start Program, which could bring additional revenues to fund some of the elements of the levy. The Healthy Start Program was the beginning of the continuum of prevention programs. He disagreed with Mr. Kelly's contention that some of the programs identified by staff were better offered by the school districts, pointing out that the schools were the place children were, and for that reason services must be provided to children in the schools. He urged the council to avoid "turf' issues and to focus on the needs of the community and its ability to make meaningful difference in the lives of a young child. Mr. Torrey expressed hope that the only City measure on the November ballot was not one focused on whether councilors should be compensated. He believed that the community was waiting for the City to "step up to the plate" and deal with other important issues. Mr. Torrey indicated his past support for the PSCC measure, but said he was not prepared to support a measure that did not include the preventive components contained in the last measure. Mr. Meisner did not believe the citizens expected another money measure in the next election, even though a safe community was a primary council and community goal. He said that the City must demonstrate it was doing all it could with existing resources. He believed there was community confusion about the public safety services the City delivered since the council had cut and restored services over the past several years. Mr. Meisner did not think the City had persuaded the citizens it was actually implementing community policing. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that at some point the council discussed the City's mission. He agreed there were many things to be done in the community, but he did not think a single public agency could be all things to all people. Mr. Meisner said that there must be clarity about the respective missions of each agency. He added that clarity about mission did not preclude cooperative partnerships. Ms. Taylor indicated her concurrence with Mr. Meisner's remarks, saying it was not getting into a turf war to agree that there were some things better done by one agency than by another. She said that the City did not provide the same services or have the same focus as the school districts. Ms. Nathanson said that some public services, particularly youth services, were not well-coordinated, leading to duplication and fragmentation as well as service gaps. She suggested that if the council was serious about coordination and mission it might be time to consider an intergovernmental youth fund similar to the Intergovernmental Human Services Fund. She said that would be one way to think about where the dollars were coming from and how they were being used, and it would make those expenditures clear to citizens. Mr. Torrey noted that the League of Oregon Cities submitted a measure to the legislature that would require that each local Commission on Children and Families have municipal representation to ensure that more coordination of youth services occurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rayor suggested that the council provide the program elements identified by staff to the PSCC. He said that Eugene had an electorate that supported public programs. He believed that if the measure had passed, the council would not be having the discussion it was having. Mr. Rayor did not want Eugene to pull out of the PSCC effort; he believed Eugene should address its shortage of police officers, for example, in that context. He did not want to discuss the specifics of the program proposed by staff at this time. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Torrey acknowledged that the PSCC would have to prepare a measure for both the September and November ballots to assure a November election in the case of a September election failure. He did not think there was support on the part of the PSCC for such an approach. Mr. Kelly indicated his opposition to a property tax base measure if the City were to place a measure on the ballot. Mr. Kelly said he did not wish to discuss a City ballot measure until the PSCC had finalized its recommendations. At that time, the council could discuss it, and wait for the results of the election. He said he would be interested in a discussion of the program options in the context of the council's goals and as complementary to the PSCC's efforts. Mr. Pap6 concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding further community output. He wanted to get away from discussion to implementation of community policing, and that would require funds. Mr. Pap6 expressed interest in the results of the PSCC survey, and said he wanted the City to remain involved in the PSCC effort and bring that to a successful conclusion. He agreed with Mr. Johnson that the voters would want to know what the City would use any revenues from a PSCC measure for. Mr. Meisner disagreed that the successful passage of the November 1998 levy would have precluded tonight's discussion. Mr. Johnson concurred. Mr. Meisner said that, for example, the measure did not address funding for additional City police officers. Mr. Meisner pointed out that for any PSCC measure to be successful, it must pass in Eugene. If the County measure without revenue sharing went first and passed, it was unlikely the City would have another chance to pass a successful measure for community policing. Mr. Meisner said for that reason, the City must be proactive in letting the PSCC know what it really needed in terms of programming and funding. Ms. Nathanson said that she would rather start to work on an implementation plan for the Community Policing Program. She thought the document outlining the program elements was a great document, and moved the City closer to program implementation. She suggested that the council might want to assign priorities to the items in the document because it could give the City an opportunity to identify and take advantage of sources of matching funds or grants. Ms. Nathanson believed that the community would be very interested in the document. Mr. Torrey announced that there was space on the June 30 agenda for further discussion of the proposed programming. He reiterated that without further information about how any money would be used, the public would not support a ballot measure. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff presurvey the council on the program items identified by staff to focus the work session. Ms. Nathanson suggested that approach did not allow the councilors to benefit from each other's points of view. Mr. Meisner favored Mr. Kelly's suggestion as it would merely order the discussion, not MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. eliminate questions or discussion. He asked that the work session be prefaced by a brief report from the PSCC. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's suggestion, adding that if no interest was expressed by councilors in a particular item, it be discarded. Mr. Torrey recollected reporting to the councilors both individually and in public session on the activities of the PSCC. He reviewed the discussions at the most recent PSCC meetings. Mr. Meisner reiterated his request for monthly reports. Mr. Torrey asked that the PSCC meeting minutes be provided to all councilors. B. Recommendation of Ad Hoc Council Committee on Charter Commission Process Mary Walston, City Manager's Office, reminded the council of its charge to the Ad hoc Council Committee on Charter Commission Processes. She said that the committee, composed of Councilors Meisner and Nathanson, had met and developed a set of recommendations, which were reflected on page 8 of the meeting packet. Ms. Walston reported that timing was an issue if the council wanted to place a measure on the November 1999 ballot; all work must be completed by August 11. Mr. Meisner reviewed the recommended membership composition for the proposed charter review commission which would review council compensation issues. He said that under the proposal, the commission had one month to meet, hold a public forum, and forward a recommendation to the City Council. He suggested that members proposed by councilors should have a previous interest in the topic for such an expedited process to succeed. Ms. Nathanson suggested the possibility the proposed commission could decide the issue was too complicated to address in a one-month time frame. She said that the council might want to establish parameters around the commission's work if it wished to avoid that. Mr. Kelly indicated he was prepared to support Option 2. He suggested that rather than constrain the commission, the councilors indicate the issues that they thought were most important to frame the discussion. He further suggested the second sentence of the mission statement refer to "councilors and mayor." Mr. Pap~ indicated his support for a more global examination of the issues surrounding the City structure. He believed that broader examination would help to ensure a measure's passage. He also suggested that the issue of Eugene Water & Electric Board commissioner compensation might also be examined. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Pap~, and anticipated a broader review would occur through the same or slightly modified commission. He said that the commission might indicate it could not look at the issue of council compensation in isolation. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the recommendation of the ad hoc committee, including the number, composition, appointment process, and charge to the commission to review council compensation. Mr. Meisner encouraged the council to act promptly in making its recommendations for appointments to the mayor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Ms. Nathanson asked about the possibility of an abbreviated application process for the members of the commission. Ms. Walston indicated she was working on such a form. Mr. Kelly said that he was also interested in a broader examination of the City's existing structure. He noted that people had expressed interest in resolving the compensation issue with the current structure. He also believed it was prudent to act in a timely manner to inform those who may be contemplating running for the council in the future. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. At this time, the council sang Happy Birthday to You to Mr. Kelly, who thanked the council for its good wishes. Mr. Meisner left the meeting. C. Citizen Involvement Strategic Plan Beth Bridges, City Manager's Office, reminded the council that it had accepted the Citizen Involvement Strategic Plan in October 1998, and at that time directed staff to schedule work sessions for the strategies in the plan. She said that since that time the council had spent the majority of its time providing direction to staff on the Neighborhood Program. She referred the council to the attachment in the meeting packet entitled Citizen Involvement Strategic Plan First Year Work Activities, and explained that items listed in green were completed; the items listed in blue were budgeted and scheduled; and the items listed in red were initially scheduled for the first year but for which there were insufficient resources. Ms. Bridges asked the council to confirm the listed work activities or suggest adjustments. Ms. Bridges called the council's attention to a letter in the meeting packet from the chair of the Steering Committee of Citizens for Public Accountability, Charlie Magee. The CPA had formed the committee to review the Citizen Involvement Strategic Plan and offer suggestions for work activities. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding the frequency of newsletter publication, Ms. Bridges indicated the initial proposal was for four issues each year; two issues were budgeted. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to proceed with those Citizen Involvement Strategic work plan activities identified as year one projects that are included in the fiscal year 2000 department work plans and adopted budget. Mr. Kelly commended the list of work activities as clear and understandable and indicated his intent to support the motion. He thought that the letter from the CPA had some good suggestions and asked if the Citizen Involvement Committee could coordinate the effort to accomplish the suggestion to convene a panel of experienced volunteer citizen representatives of leading volunteer organizations. Acknowledging that some of the suggestions on the CPA list were in the process of being implemented, he asked that staff examine the list carefully. Ms. Nathanson referred to the list of other work activities that would occur if time and resources allowed, and specifically to the work activity "Work with news agencies' staffto promote civic journalism." She notedthat MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. she had encountered the concept of civic journalism previously at a conference and shared information with staff about her experience. She asked if the City could contact the City Club or University of Oregon to see if one of those organizations could sponsor a conference on civic journalism. She indicated her willingness to spend time on the concept if that was needed to make it happen in the next year or two. Ms. Nathanson questioned the use of the term "citizen juries" and suggested that "citizen panels" was more commonly understood. Mr. Kelly concurred. Ms. Nathanson referred to page 30 of the meeting packet, which contained ideas about vounteerism and coordination of volunteer activities, and cautioned staff against redundant work activities. She asked if, for example, staff had investigated if there was already an organization producing a resource book about community volunteer resources. Mr. Pap~ supported the motion. He complemented staff on the implementation of the City's Web home page, saying that those citizens who were computer-literate were finding it more easy to access information from the City. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0:1; Mr. Meisner being out the room at the time the vote was taken. D. Operating Practices and Policies Related to Cuthbert Amphitheater Rich Scheeland and Laura Niles, co-directors of the Cultural Services Division, provided the staff presentation. Mr. Scheeland reviewed the history of the amphitheater, initially developed by the County when Alton Baker Park was within the County's jurisdiction. The initial concept behind the amphitheater was to have local talent provide free concerts on weekend afternoons. A few such concerts occurred but attracted few people, and the facility fell into disrepair and disuse. The few large commercial events held at the facility were not financially successful. Mr. Scheeland reported that the facility was transferred to the City in the late 1980s in very poor condition. The Cultural Services Division was charged with the task of making the amphitheater a regional venue for nationally known entertainers. The division continued to follow that direction. Mr. Scheeland said that the City had invested considerably in the facility to increase its capacity and usability; however, it was still inadequate for many performances because of its original design, which created operational problems. Mr. Scheeland said that amphitheaters tended to fall into two general categories: commercial and festival. The vast majority were of the commercial category. Mr. Scheeland cited the L.B. Day Amphitheater, Champoeg Amphitheater, and The Gorge Amphitheater as Northwest examples of commercial enterprises managed and operated as businesses. The facilities present nationally known entertainers, serve as a regional destination point, do not have year-round staff, do not depend on fund-raising, and make a good deal of revenue from ancillary services such as parking and concessions. The operators of those amphitheaters did not allow patrons to carry in foods. Mr. Meisner returned to the meeting. Mr. Scheeland discussed the festival model of amphitheaters, citing the Brit Festival in Jacksonville as an Oregon example. Many such operations were the summer home of a major symphony orchestra. Most were MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. private, nonprofit operations, and were not just venues but were institutions with full-time staffs, operating endowments, and major fund-raising campaigns. Such facilities may or may not allow carry-in foods. The manager of the Brit Festival had indicated to Mr. Scheeland that he preferred that foods not be allowed and would change the policy if he could because it affected the facility's concession revenues. Mr. Scheeland reviewed the Budget Committee's charge to the staff to continue to operate the amphitheater by making it possible for commercial promoters to bring in nationally recognized entertainers with the proviso the facility operate on a break-even basis and not require additional staff. He suggested the directive pushed the facility into the commercial category. He said that a change to the policy would represent a 180 degree change in the direction given to staff. Ms. Niles discussed the impact of a change in the policy at this point. She said that the City worked with two very large ticket vendors, Fastix and Ticketmasters, and it would be difficult to communicate the changes to those organizations, which had many points of sale locations. In addition, the ticket holders of presold tickets may not receive the information about the policy change in time to make a choice. Ms. Niles noted that the City had agreements with eight food vendors who believed that there would be no carry-in food at the facility, and a change in the policy could significantly impact the City's relationships with those vendors. She said that the change in policy would result in the return of long lines as well as irritation from patrons whose food containers were searched to protect other patrons and minimize the City's liability. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staffto revise the operational practice regarding carry-in food and beverages, and allow patrons of the Cuthbert Amphitheater to carry in food and nonalcoholic beverages in plastic containers, and to further direct the Cultural Services Department Advisory Committee to study the issue in relation to the comprehensive long-range business plan for the future of the amphitheater and other Cultural Services Division venues. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Scheeland's remarks and the background he provided, but suggested that the change in policy was the staff decision to no longer allow patrons to bring food and beverages to the venue. Regarding the problem of long lines, he suggested that an express line for those with no picnic baskets in combination with a big sign stating the searches occurred because of State regulations would alleviate the issue. Mr. Meisner supported the motion. While he acknowledged the staff concerns, he agreed with Mr. Kelly that the motion did not represent a change in long-standing practice but rather a change to a policy decision made the previous year. He agreed with Mr. Kelly an express line for those who did not bring food would be appropriate. Mr. Meisner said he was sympathetic to the vendors, but did not think everyone patronizing the facility would carry in food. He did not think that the expectations of those who had advance tickets was a concern given that the capacity of the facility was 4,000, the average audience for an event was 2,850, and there were only 3,500 tickets presold, a little more than a single concert's attendance. Mr. Meisner endorsed further study of the issue. Mr. Pap~ asked about the revenue stream to the City from the concessions. Mr. Scheeland said that last season there was total revenues of approximately $94,639 from all activities, including rents. The City realized $25,900 for beverage sales and $4,912 for food sales, or approximately $31,000. The amphitheater had unreimbursed expenses of $67,562. He reminded the council that there was no management time charged against the amphitheater. Mr. Scheeland added that commercial promoters, not the City, brought acts to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. facility. He said that it was an industry assumption that facilities such as the Cuthbert would make money from ancillary revenues, such as food concessions and parking. The cost of bringing in artists was so expensive that promoters do not want to share the gate. Ms. Taylor suggested that the City would make more in beverage concessions because people with picnics would come earlier and possibly drink more beverages. She believed that publicity about the council's decision would reach those who had already purchased tickets. Mr. Johnson said that one of the implications of the motion was that there would be a need for more staffto move people through the lines and cut down on waiting times, a cost was which was generally passed on to the promoters. Ms. Nathanson was uncomfortable changing the policy at this point because it represented "a change in the rules in the middle of the game" and because of contract issues involved. Mr. Scheeland noted that the City's Request for Proposal for vendors had expressly stated that no picnics were to be allowed. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about that fact. She suggested that it was most appropriate to refer the issue to the department advisory committee before making the change. Ms. Nathanson added that she understood that there was also an issue of capacity as people spread their picnics out, reducing the number of people who could attend an event. Mr. Johnson said that the City could give 30-day notice about the change in policy to the vendors, adding it was less a legal problem than a relationship problem. Ms. Niles added that many of the issues related to the Cuthbert were about relationships. City staff worked hard to develop relationships with the promoters, most of whom were from outside the area. The commercial promoters bring talent to the facility to make money. Increasing the capacity of the facility allowed the promoters to generate more revenue. Ms. Niles said that from her years of observation, she learned that people carrying in food took up a significant amount of space in the facility. There was also a conflict at the gates from resolving what constituted a glass container: was it a mayonnaise j ar? A jelly j ar? She said that it could become unpleasant. She believed that precluding picnics led to more smooth operations the previous year. Ms. Niles said there had been no unfavorable comments from promoters and she had heard only two comments from patrons concerning the policy change this year. Ms. Nathanson said that the amphitheater felt like a local facility to her, and she was glad it was not highly commercialized. She said that at that level, it felt right to allow picnics. On the other hand, the City had tried hard to make the facility a successful venue from a financial point of view, and she asked how the facility could be made to be financially successful yet still feel like the community's amphitheater. Mr. Kelly said that it was true the City operated in a fiscal environment and needed to balance the budget. He looked to the department advisory committee for innovative ideas to address the facility's financial status in the long-term However, he believed the Cuthbert Amphitheater was about fulfilling the council's goal for an accessible and thriving culture. He believed the Cuthbert was an experience, and part of that experience was the patron's ability to carry in food. Mr. Kelly said that the lines were a challenge but he believed the issue could be resolved. Regarding the contract issue, he said he was satisfied by Mr. Johnson's statement regarding the 3 O-day notice to vendors. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded by the arguments against the motion. He acknowledged Ms. Niles' comments about relationships but pointed out that the City also had a relationship with its citizens. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m.