Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/12/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall July 12, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap& Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 5:30 p.m. A. WORK SESSION: GRAFFITI REMOVAL PROGRAM Referring to an agenda item summary, copies of which were included in the meeting agenda packet, Jeff Lankston of Public Works recalled that on April 21, 1999, the council directed staff to prepare an ordinance defining graffiti and declaring it a nuisance. On May 24, 1999, the council directed staff to prepare three versions of the proposed ordinance for a public hearing. On June 14, 1999, the council held a public hearing to gather public comments on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Lankston stated that staff had since incorporated the comments issued during the public hearing into one draft ordinance. Mr. Lankston explained that in addition to the development of a graffiti tracking system and a public information effort (programs which have been implemented), the Interdepartmental Cooperative Action Team (ICAT) has proposed a number of changes to the Eugene Code related to graffiti. He said the proposed ordinance defines graffiti and declares it a nuisance. Mr. Lankston stated that the ordinance requires property owners to remove graffiti present on their property. If the property owner does not abate the graffiti, the ordinance allows it to be removed by the City. All property owners would be exempt from expenses incurred by the City abating the graffiti. Mr. Lankston noted that under the ordinance, property owners are not required to abate etching on glass. He added that the ordinance provides for penalties up to a $750 fine, confinement in jail for up to 30 days, restitution and/or community service for causing graffiti. Mr. Lankston stated that staff from the Municipal Court, Public Works Department, and the Police Department are designing and will implement a program for community service by graffiti offenders. He said this program will not only provide a valuable learning experience for offenders, but will also provide resources for graffiti abatement. Mr. Lankston said staff members are currently researching "graffiti walls" around the country and assessing both the benefits and difficulties experienced by other communities. He said most of the communities researched have reported little success in terms of "graffiti walls" decreasing the amount of graffiti elsewhere in the community. Mr. Lankston stated that two options were available for the council to consider: 1) adopt the proposed ordinance defining graffiti, making it a public nuisance, and requiring property owners to abate graffiti on their property and exempting all property owners from the cost of graffiti abatement; or 2) continue the graffiti MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. abatement program as it exists. Noting that no action was requested during the present meeting, Lankston forwarded staffs recommendation that the council adopt the proposed ordinance. The council issued the following questions and comments concerning the proposed ordinance, staffs responses are in parentheses. · Meisner: To what locations were the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochures distributed? (The brochures were posted in City buildings, distributed to interested parties, and presented to community groups.) · Meisner: Suggest that the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochures be included in a future citywide mailing. It is important to recognize that neighborhood organizations may not be the most effective way to distribute the information to residents. Support the proposal that the City assess no charge against property owners whose property requires graffiti abatement a few times per year; however, do not support withholding a fee when the situation has become "abusive." Doing so might encourage property owners to simply allow the City to clean up the graffiti on their property. · Kelly: Pleased that this is a multi-faceted program. Noted that the "Graffiti is Not Art" brochure does not address the issue of graffiti prevention. Suggest that such information be included. With regard to the "graffiti wall" concept, opposed to discontinuing consideration of that option. Additional research is needed. · Kelly: Would vote in opposition to the proposed ordinance due to the definition of"graffiti" that is included therein. The proposed definition could result in fines being imposed on persons who, for example, post a sign on a telephone pole or write on a bathroom wall. The definition should be refined. · Nathanson: Pleased with the sanctions for graffiti violations that would result from the proposed ordinance. The ordinance would result in an increased prosecutability of graffiti violations. With regard to the City removing graffiti from private property, have been contacted by constituents who were displeased with the graffiti-removal methods used by a City of Eugene employee. How can the City ensure that it does not receive a claim as the result of acting prematurely in removing graffiti from private property? (The City would send to the property owner a courtesy notice alerting them to the planned abatement. The proposed ordinance would allow for a 10-day delay and a hearing, if requested by the property owner. With regard to the graffiti-removal methods used by employees, the City cannot guarantee a color-match when painting over graffiti.) · Papd: Satisfied with proposed penalties for graffiti violations. Agree with Mr. Kelly that the definition of "graffiti" should be refined. Perhaps the definition could include the phrase "exterior surface." With regard to a comment made by Mr. Meisner, graffiti is not the problem of property owners, but rather is a citywide problem. · Rayor: Disappointed with the costs associated with graffiti abatement. The burden appears to remain on property owners. · Torrey: How many graffiti-related citations are issued in Eugene each year? (There were 455 graffiti-related citations or arrests last year.) · Torrey: Suggest that the City issue a Request for Proposals for daily assessments of and painting in the areas of Eugene identified as having the highest level of graffiti application activity. This might be an effective way to address the problem on a daily basis and demonstrate to those applying the graffiti that graffiti will not be tolerated. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. · Lee: The proposed ordinance is an improvement over the original proposal in that property owners are not held responsible for the costs of graffiti abatement. With regard to the costs associated with abatement, business owners do pay taxes and therefore assist in paying for graffiti removal. With regard to the definition of "graffiti" included in the ordinance, agree that it is too broad. The ordinance could be "abused," resulting in the imposition of unjust fines. (City staff members could abuse the ordinance, but the "check "on that would be the City Council and Municipal Court. In response to concerns issued by councilors, the next draft of the ordinance will state that the ordinance does not pertain to handbills and is specific to exterior surfaces.) Mr. Lankston stated that the revised ordinance would be presented to council for a public hearing on July 26, and council action was scheduled for August 9. B. WORK SESSION: PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL REVENUE SHARING PACKAGE PROPOSAL Referring to an agenda item summary, copies of which were included in the meeting agenda packet, City Manager Jim Johnson explained that the action requested of the council was to provide policy direction regarding a City of Eugene service package for the City's potential allocation of the revenue-sharing component of the proposed Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) revenue measure. He said the proposed service package reflects previous council discussions regarding implementation of the Safe Community goal, including expanded community policing implementation and prevention services focused on youth. For the purpose of discussion, Mr. Johnson referred councilors to several attachments to the agenda item summary, including 1) City of Eugene Safe Community proposal: Community Policing and Prevention Services; 2) list of programs not proposed for funding; and 3) tally of responses to the council survey regarding Community Policing and Youth Services/Prevention proposals, including council comments. Councilors issued the following comments and questions concerning the revenue-sharing package proposal (staff responses are in parentheses:) · Meisner: The revenue-sharing package proposal accurately reflect the council's discussion regarding this matter. With regard to outcome measures component of the PSCC proposal, hope the City will participate in implementing those measures. Unclear at this point how much control the City would have over its own programs. Would like the City to have full control over its own programs. In addition, the proposal may be difficult to "sell" to Eugene taxpayers given that the City would be contributing a disproportionate amount of the shared revenue, while receiving a considerably low level of services in return. · Kelly: Pleased that youth activities are included in the proposed package. With regard to the outcome measures, care must be taken in terms of how the measures are crafted; particularly those related to youth activities, as some outcomes may be difficult to measure. With regard to item 4(d), homeless camping services (page 29 of the agenda packet), that was not recommended as part of the revenue-sharing package, the services are provided via a contract with St. Vincent dePaul and do not want them left as a contingency item. Will make a motion to amend the revenue-sharing package to include homeless camping services. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. · Kelly: Request information regarding item 2(a), police substations, that appears on page 21 of the agenda packet. Support the concept of substations; however, constituents have requested that the mission for substations be clarified and a list of services to be offered by substations be provided. In addition, request information regarding why the proposal adds only one substation but many police personnel. (The substation mission is established by the community and the neighborhood in which it is located. Additional personnel are being proposed both for the purpose of extending existing substations 'hours of operation and addressing issues of capacity.) · Kelly: Request information regarding the large amount of funding associated with item 3(d), community policing. Would like background information to serve as the context for adding nine FTE. Would funds proposed for an additional detective be better spent on covering the community policing shortfall, given the minimal impact provided by one detective? (Attempting to show that when staff is added to one area, the remainder of the system is impacted. The system is interrelated. With regard to the proposed addition to detectives, the department is attempting to balance its needs across the organization.) · Rayor: Support the addition of police officers; however, want to minimize the addition of City FTEs in general. · Pap& Are all of the proposed shared-revenue services additive? Do they provide services above and beyond existing programs? (The City currently funds the youth summer program; however, it is supported by one-time contingency funding) · Pap& The City must be able to say to citizens that the proposed shared-revenue services are additive and will improve the community. · Nathanson: Disappointed that only one additional substation is proposed. In response to a statement that substations generally impact a 10-block radius in terms of law enforcement, think the impact of substations extends beyond that of law enforcement. For example, substations can contribute to strong neighborhood identification. · Nathanson: With regard to item 1 (g), interagency coordination, somewhat skeptical because Eugene would be paying for something the metropolitan area is not addressing. Not convinced this would be prudent. Lastly, does the revenue-sharing proposal include the addition of staffto conduct outcome measurements? (The proposal would provide the added capacity necessary to conduct such measurements. Ouwome measurements are a priority in the youth prevention and other areas of the proposal. Ensuring that the additional services are effective is considered a priority.) · Lee: Think the proposed program list is adequate, given the implementation of those minor changes that have been discussed. Request discussion regarding how the City will justify sharing its revenue to benefit non-City programs. In addition, would support a motion by Mr. Kelly to include in the revenue-sharing package the homeless camping services to ensure its continued funding. · Taylor: Would prefer a tax exemption for citizens who fall below a certain income level, such as $50,000 per year. In addition, concerned about the duplication of services. Not all services are provided more efficiently on a larger scale. Request information on how substations add to the safety of a community. (Staff will produce a memorandum in response to councilors 'questions concerning the value of substations.) · Torrey: Attempt to include in the package funding for counseling in schools failed. Concerned that the continuum of care stops when a child enters kindergarten and that children attending school are "falling through the cracks" due to a lack of available services. Think the City should MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. request that Lane County assist in funding services for school children, given the number of Lane County residents who attend Eugene schools. Request additional information regarding item 1 (d). If a majority of users are non-City residents, Eugene should expect to receive some assistance. In addition, request detailed information regarding item 1 (g). Agree with Ms. Nathanson that a substation is needed in the Churchill High School area. Perhaps a substation could be located in the new fire station. · Torrey: Request that council consider assigning one Community Service Officer (CSO) to Cascade Middle School, as a demonstration project, for a period of at least three years. Propose that the CSO assigned to Cascade Middle School also serve its three "feeder" grade schools, all of which are located within the city limits. · Meisner: The CSO pilot project is interesting. In response to a comment made by Mr. Torrey concerning the income level of most families served by Cascade Middle School and its "feeder" grade schools, would want to be persuaded that a correlation exists between low-income families and the need for additional law enforcement. In addition, a question exists as to whether substations contribute to the safety of a neighborhood. The Whiteaker substation does not appear to contribute to the safety of that neighborhood. Think the substation mission and services provided should be universal. Request a comparative analysis of the cost-effectiveness of substations. Finally, would not support a motion by Mr. Kelly to amend the package to include homeless camping services, because unclear as to whether it represents the greatest need. Hesitant to take absolute responsibility for homelessness because it is a county-wide problem. Prefer that the Lane County Human Services Commission address homelessness. · Kelly: Will defer making motion to include in the package a homeless camping element until the information requested by councilors has been received. (Suggest that information be provided to councilors prior to its duly 21 meeting, during which discussion of this matter is scheduled.) C. WORK SESSION: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SCOPE OF REVIEW FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Referring to an agenda item summary, copies of which were included in the meeting agenda packet, City Engineer Les Lyle explained that the action requested of council was to review and approve the scope of work recommended by staff and the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee (PWRAC) for review of the Transportation System Development Charges (SDC). He said the committee has completed its initial review of the existing methodology and is prepared to proceed with a detailed analysis. Mr. Lyle said staff would return to the council on an as-needed basis for additional policy direction or if formal council action was necessary. Mr. Lyle solicited councilors' feedback regarding whether the list of elements proposed for review and possible inclusion in the methodology was complete. Councilors issued the following comments (stafPs responses are in parentheses :) · Kelly: Approve of the proposed elements. · Nathanson: Request that the traffic calming element be expanded to include striping, signs, and minor widening of existing streets. (Staff will contact Councilor Nathanson to clarify the request.) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. · Rayor: Suggest adding to the list of elements: "mitigating environmental impacts of capacity improvements." (Will add that element.) The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. (Recorded by Kim Kunkel) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.