Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/21/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall July 21, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Farr, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary PapS. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor, Bobby Lee. DINNER WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL A. Items from Mayor and Council Mr. Meisner passed. Responding to a request from Mr. Fart, the council indicated its willingness to consider a Contingency Fund request to partially underwrite the costs of a nonviolence training. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner about the origin of the request, Mr. Fart said it came from the Human Rights Commission. Ms. Nathanson asked if the need for the training was identified by a community group or a vendor. Mr. Fart said that the need was identified by the Human Rights Commission. He indicated he would provide additional information to the council in the next meeting packet. Mr. Fart said the Human Rights Commission had raised questions regarding the Police Department's video taping of events. He said that there was no clarity in the community about why the video taping occurred, and questions were raised about its consistency with Oregon Revised Statute 181.010, which states no law enforcement agency may collect or maintain information about citizens' political, religious, or social views. Mr. Fart requested a council discussion about the policy of video taping events so that the reasons for the taping were clear to the community. Mr. Kelly endorsed Mr. Fart's request and suggested that the issue be referred to the new Police Commission if that referral could occur in a timely manner. City Manager Jim Johnson recollected that Chief Jim Hill had responded to an inquiry from Mr. Kelly regarding the same topic with a memorandum discussing the reasons the police video taped, and asked if the response was unsatisfactory. Mr. Farr said the memorandum was responsive but its contents were unfamiliar to most people in the community. He wanted a discussion that more people were aware of. Mr. Farr called the council's attention to the Eugene Police Department's Resource Guide, and said it was a good, inexpensive step toward community policing. The guide contained an extensive list of community resources and services to which the police could refer citizens. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap6 looked forward to the completion of the East Bank Bicycle Trail, saying it would be a good addition to the bicycle transportation system and would provide recreation for the community. Mr. Pap6 said he had been asked to visit Buckley House, and during his visit was asked what the council proposed to do with the people picked up by the new CAHOOTS van proposed by the Public Safety Coordinating Council given Buckley House's lack of capacity and funding to accommodate more users. Mr. Johnson indicated that the subject would be discussed later in the evening when the council considered the Public Safety Coordinating Council proposals. Mr. Kelly referred the council to information distributed prior to the meeting regarding Senate Bill 245 and indicated he would ask the council to act on a motion later in the meeting. Mr. Rayor thanked Mr. Johnson for following up on a suggestion he had made by issuing an executive order requiring City projects to secure erosion control permits to ensure that public as well as private projects complied with regulations. Mr. Rayor requested that he be given an opportunity to review the intergovernmental agreement between the City and School District 4J regarding the use of the high school ballfields because he would not be present at the August 9 meeting when the issue would be discussed. He said he did not want to request that the item be postponed, but wanted to review the agreement and provide the council with his thoughts about it via electronic mail. Ms. Nathanson brought the community up-to-date on several issues she had raised in public meetings and to which she had received staff responses. She said she received complete information in response to her question about emergency training and preparedness for wildfires; a memorandum to her question regarding the use of community service as an option for those violating the City's graffiti ordinance and its impact on Municipal Court; and a prompt response to her questions about summer time neighborhood crime activity areas. Ms. Nathanson acknowledged staff for its work and said that along with its daily duties, staff continued to respond to "big" projects and requests raised by the council. Mr. Johnson introduced Angel Jones, the new department director of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. He invited the council to contact Ms. Jones with questions. The council welcomed Ms. Jones. Mr. Johnson reported that he had extended the notice time for the City Attorney's contract to December 31 to accommodate the council's work session on the contract, tentatively scheduled for October 13. Mr. Torrey asked Mr. Kelly to offer his motion. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, that the council take a Priority 1, Oppose, position on Senate Bill 245 in its present form, and is specifically opposed to the A3 amendments that modify definitions of, and enforcement of, compliance by enterprise zone companies. Staff should immediately work for the amendment's defeat, and inform the governor of the council's opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. In support of his motion, Mr. Kelly stated that he had believed earlier council action about the Hyundai allegations would have been premature given the lack of facts, and recollected the council's agreement that it would await the results of Tax Assessor Jim Gangle's investigation. He said it was unfortunate that the State legislature failed to take a similar approach, as the proposed bill would halt the investigation or render it useless. He described the contents of the bill, which would add new language changing the compliance criteria for a company in an enterprise zone, establish new rules regarding the effect of noncompliance on a company's tax exemption, and establish new rules regarding what was necessary to establish noncompliance with the criteria. Mr. Kelly said the Legislative Revenue Office indicated the amendment would directly affect the Hyundai semiconductor plant in Eugene. In addition, Art Fish of the Oregon Economic Development Department stated in The Register-Guard that the department believed the assessor's actions were inappropriate and the statutes needed to be changed, a clear statement that the intent of the department was to short-circuit the investigation. Local legislator Floyd Prozanski expressed confusion about the intent and impact of the bill, and concern about the haste to pass the bill. Mr. Kelly reported the bill passed the House of Representatives the previous night and would be considered by the Senate as soon as later that day. He asked the council to support his motion on the basis of home rule and its previous decision to let the investigation go forward. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the appropriateness of the motion under the council rules, Mr. Torrey said he believed any councilor could bring up any item at any meeting. He was unsure of the ramifications of Oregon's public meetings notice requirements on the issue. Mr. Johnson indicated he had been unable to consult with the City Attorney before the meeting, but believed there were provisions in the law that allowed the council to take action, given that the discussion regarding an action taken by the legislature near the end of the session, when things typically happened very quickly. Mr. Torrey ruled, as chair, that the motion was appropriate, but requested legal counsel to guide the council in situations such as this in the future. He asked the council to comment on the motion. Mr. Meisner recollected the precedence set by the council's action regarding the resolution related to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and said in this case the council was being asked to take action on specific legislation based on already adopted council policies. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly that home rule was the basis for opposing the legislation. He added that the council should not "pick and choose" which local control issues it chose to fight. He did not think the council could afford that approach. Mr. Meisner wanted the Tax Assessor's investigation to go forward. He said his research indicated that the anti-discrimination portions of the Unmh Act, the California law violated by Hyundai, were so close to Oregon's anti-discrimination statutes that a judgment finding discrimination under that act would likely produce the same outcome under Oregon law. Acknowledging that Senate Bill 245 was likely to be passed by the Senate, Mr. Meisner believed the motion was important as a means of communicating the council's position to Governor John Kitzhaber. He said the council failed to communicate its position to the governor when the enterprise zone statutes were previously amended to provide for the grandfathering, a decision that he believed had "come back to haunt us now." Ms. Nathanson said that the issue was appropriately raised by Mr. Kelly. She was unsure the council needed to spend time on the issue at this time, however. She said her approach to the subject was somewhat pragmatic: did the council want to spend an already full agenda on the issue given the lack of time to affect the issue, and the possibility the legislature would act in spite of, or even because of, Eugene's opposition? She MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. questioned whether the council's taking an official position would make a difference or have an effect on the legislature. Continuing, Ms. Nathanson said she was really disappointed with the proposed legislation and the action taken by the current legislature and previous legislatures in overturning local decisions. She agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks about the need for consistent opposition to legislation threatening local control, but questioned whether the City's opposition mattered given the State legislature's indifference to the issue, as demonstrated by its actions. Mr. Pap~ questioned what good the council's opposition would do given many State legislators' negative view of Eugene, and suggested that "sometimes it was better to stand up and be counted and sometimes it was better to shut up." He did not know which was better in this instance. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the enterprise zones were a creature of the State, and for that reason questioned whether arguments about home rule were appropriate. Mr. Kelly asked the council to act on the motion by keeping in mind the City's representative at the State legislature could not discuss the bill with sympathetic legislators or the governor's office without council direction. He did not think the motion could do any harm. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Papa's remark about the State's jurisdiction over enterprise zones, but pointed out that under the State statute, the question of determining consistency with the criteria was delegated to the counties. Mr. Torrey said that if the council deadlocked on the motion, he would oppose it in its present form. His opposition to the Senate bill was based on the State legislature's lack of information in taking action, and the timing of its action. He said that legislators were largely unaware of the impact of the bill. Mr. Torrey supported predictability in rules. He could support a motion that indicated opposition on the basis of the reasons he cited. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Torrey pointed out that although the motion did not speak to local control, the legislature would not be aware of the motion but of the council's discussion, as reported by The Register-Cmard. That discussion was largely focused on local control. He reiterated he could only support a motion that indicated opposition because of the legislature's lack of information and its haste in acting. He noted his belief the Senate legislation would pass. Mr. Meisner expressed concern that a defeat of the motion at this point would be perceived by many in the public as endorsing the halt of the investigation and indifference on the part of the council. He said that troubled him, made him angry, and was inconsistent with the City's human rights ordinances. Mr. Meisner said the City Council needed to take a position on the bill, which would be a reaffirmation of its prior motion that it would not tolerate discrimination. Mr. Torrey questioned how the motion spoke to Mr. Meisner's concerns. Mr. Meisner said that Senate Bill 245 was specifically intended to forestall the tax assessor's investigation into the allegations of discrimination against Hyundai, as illustrated by the remarks of Oregon Economic Development Department staff. Mr. Fart said he was not prepared to act on the motion, not because of its content but because he had not had an opportunity to examine the legislation. He said that the current compliance enforcement system was MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. somewhat awkward and probably needed to be adjusted, but he did not know at this time if the Senate bill addressed that issue. Mr. Rayor supported the motion, saying that it was not right for the State legislature to short-circuit the tax assessor's investigation. He said that the actions being taken locally were being taken on the basis of current State laws, and it was not right to adjust those laws now. Mr. Rayor said that any other time it would be perfectly appropriate to propose such changes, but the timing of the legislation put the City in an awkward situation. Ms. Nathanson offered a substitute motion, explaining she had attempted to craft something that the entire council could support. She was concerned that a vote on the motion on the floor would be considered a "litmus test vote," which she considered regrettable, because a vote in opposition to the motion did not represent a vote in favor of discrimination. Ms. Nathanson said her own concerns about the motion were based on what was practical and what could actually happen. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, that the Eugene City Council opposes the A-3 amendments to Senate Bill 245 with a position of Priority 1 Oppose, and recognizes that this last-minute legislation is not fully understood by the State legislature, and the necessary administrative rules are unknown. Mr. Meisner said that the motion was problematic for him in that the "specific excluded the general" as it did not reflect the council's concerns about local control. Ms. Nathanson said she had intentionally used "and recognizes that" rather than "because" to avoid the implication the last-minute nature of the legislation was the only reason for the council's opposition. Mr. Fart said that if Hyundai was discriminating it deserved to lose its tax credits. He believed the entire council was opposed to discrimination and would not tolerate such activity. Mr. Fart said he still opposed the motion given the short time the council had to deliberate about the issue. He added that he believed no matter the action taken by the legislature, the City had other mechanisms to address discrimination at Hyundai. Mr. Kelly said that he thought his suggested motion was a "no brainer," requiring no more than five minutes of council time, and he was distressed that had not been the case. He indicated acceptance of Ms. Nathanson's substitute motion, with the deletion of the final clause. Mr. Torrey suggested as a substitute sentence, "and other government entities." Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ accepted both suggestions, and the motion was reworded as follows: Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, that the Eugene City Council opposes the A-3 amendments to Senate Bill 245, with a position of Priority 1 Oppose, and recognizes that this last-minute legislation is not fully understood by the State legislature, and other government entities. Mr. Torrey and Mr. Fart indicated support for the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0. B. Work Session: Repeal of the 1986 Alton Baker Park Master Plan MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. Andrea Riner and John Etter, Public Works Maintenance Parks Planning, were present to answer questions about the proposed master plan repeal. Mr. Rayor expressed concern about the possibility that the boat ramp in West Alton Baker Park which had been included in the Parks & Open Space Bond Measure would be used for the launching of motor boats, to the detriment of other parks, such as Skinner Butte Park, Alton Baker Park, and Maurie Jacobs Park. He had received no assurances about the types of boats that would be allowed to use the ramp. Representatives of the McKenzie Fly Fishers and the East Alton Baker Park Committee had participated in the selection of the ramp site. The ramp is proposed to be designed to support use by fly fishers, and the water at the site was extremely shallow and probably not usable for motor craft. Mr. Rayor did not want work to proceed on the boat ramp until the City knew more about all relevant State, federal, and local regulations governed its use. He did not think that research had been done. Ms. Riner indicated that the work session was a preliminary step in repealing the master plan. Staff wanted to operate under the most recently adopted plans for East and West Alton Baker parks, and avoid the inconsistencies created by the master plan. She said that it was early in the implementation of the bond measure, and staff would do additional work with the McKenzie Fly Fishers, to whom it had made preliminary commitments for returning the boat ramp to the river, where there had historically been boat access. Mr. Rayor said he did not want to build a ramp if people were going to use it to launch motor boats and degrade the park. He recognized that the boat ramp was not part of the master plan repeal issue. Ms. Childs noted that the boat ramp would be required to go through a Willamette Greenway permit review and public hearing, during which time the issues raised by Mr. Rayor could be addressed. Mr. Rayor asked if the 1992 vote to maintain East Alton Baker Park in passive use was still in force if the master plan was repealed. Ms. Riner said that the East Alton Baker Park Plan was created in accordance with that vote, leading to the inconsistencies with the master plan and the proposal for its repeal. Public Works Director Christine Andersen said that the measure to maintain the park in passive use was a countywide measure because Lane County had jurisdiction at the time of the vote. The transfer of jurisdiction to the City eliminated the County's authority to implement the measure, but the East Alton Baker Park planning process was predicated upon its results. Mr. Torrey asked staff to seek a legal opinion on the question. Mr. Fart observed that the majority of motor boats on the river were jetboats that could travel from Browns Landing to Alton Baker Park within five minutes. Mr. Pap~ agreed. He suggested that the council might want to consider an exception for emergency craft. Mr. Kelly asked that the council be provided with copies of the West Alton Baker Park Plan prior to the public hearing. Mr. Kelly noted testimony offered by Catherine Larson before the Planning Commission and asked staff to summarize Ms. Larson's concern. Ms. Riner said that Ms. Larson had wanted to note that the University of Oregon uses of a portion of the site for event-related parking, which generates some revenue to the City. This is consistent with the 1986 Master Plan, which called for a portion of the site to produce revenue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. At the request of Mr. Pap6, Mr. Etter described the boundaries of the East and West portions of the park. He also noted that Willamalane Parks and Recreation District administered all the land east of I-5. C.Work Session: City Response to Lane County Waste Management Division Adoption of System Benefit Fee as Component of Disposal Fees Mr. Papd recused himself from the discussion. Alex Cuyler, Planning and Development Department, invited questions on the agenda item. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the proposed intergovernmental agreement. He asked for clarification of the motion proposed by staff, which called for the assessment of a systems benefit fee against City residents. Mr. Cuyler clarified that City residents would not experience an increase in disposal fees. Those residents who self-haul their garbage to the Lane County transfer station in Glenwood would be assessed a systems benefit as they passed through the gate. That fee, combined with the disposal fee, was no greater than the disposal fee that existed today. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Cuyler said that the tipping fee and system benefit fee were separate fees by code, and could be adjusted administratively by the County. Mr. Rayor asked if the City would have input into proposed changes. Mr. Cuyler said that the City was free to offer its input to the County in the same manner as other citizens. Mr. Rayor asked about the purpose of the motion. Mr. Cuyler responded that the County did not have the authority to implement rules inside Eugene, so the City was creating a mechanism to grant the County that authority. Mr. Rayor asked if, once the authority was granted, the City would have control over the fee structure. Mr. Cuyler said that the City had never had such authority in the past as the program was a County program. Mr. Rayor said he did not want to give the County permission to have another fee source from the City and for the City to have no control over that fee. Mr. Johnson suggested that staff discuss Mr. Rayor's concerns with the County and develop text for the intergovernmental agreement to address them. Mr. Cuyler noted that the County had already developed a schedule of changes to the system benefit fee. Mr. Rayor wanted to see the schedule of changes. Mr. Torrey suggested that text be embedded in the agreement that provided the City with an "out clause" if the council was not comfortable with the agreement as implemented by the County. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to develop an intergovernmental agreement with Lane County that allows Lane County to regulate and collect a "system benefit fee" from licensed haulers and City of Eugene residents who dispose of materials at Lane County-operated disposal sites or at disposal sites outside of the Lane County-operated disposal system. Within a second intergovernmental agreement, allow Lane County to develop regulations related to material recovery facilities operating within the Eugene city limits. Mr. Meisner indicated his support for the motion. He said that he believed that solid waste recovery program costs would continue to rise and that at some point the community would have realistic pricing that ensure people were charged the costs of disposing of the waste they generated. Ms. Nathanson wanted it to be clear that the motion was applicable to all Eugene residents, including Eugene businesses. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. The motion passed 5:0:1, Mr. Papd abstaining from the vote, because he had recused himself. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to suspend the council's operating rules and continue the meeting until 8 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. D.Work Session: Recommendations of Council ad hoc Committee on Street Improvement Funding City Engineer Les Lyle reported that the council committee had met several times to discuss a number of options (14), and now was seeking further direction about the options the subcommittee narrowed down to. He noted that the values and criteria guiding the committee process were included in the meeting packet. The committee was seeking feedback on 1) assessments--local improvement districts; 2) street improvement fee; and 3) general obligation bond. Mr. Kelly reported that the committee started out with 14 funding mechanisms and had narrowed that list to three broad categories. He requested the council's feedback on each option, and asked councilors to respond to the three policy issues identified in the background material: 1. Does the council agree that it is a council goal to have a fully improved street network within the urban growth boundary within a specific period of time (20 years')? 2. Is the council willing to subsidize improvement costs' to facilitate the process of d~hlly improving all streets'. Alternative funding sources would need to be identified. 3. Is &e council willing to move from a voluntary improvement policy for local streets' to a mandatory or council-initiated policy framework? Mr. Kelly noted that there were residents in the community who would like to see the council make some decisions so that the source of the funding for projects such as Garden Way could be determined. Mr. Papd concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly, adding there were some real community equity issues the committee had heard from the public about, and resolution was needed. Mr. Meisner asked if the reference to a fully improved street network included local streets. Mr. Kelly said yes. He said that the policy question was related to the street improvement fee discussed by the committee. If the council was to get to a sustainable situation of maintainable roads, it needed a fully improved network. Mr. Meisner said that he was somewhat troubled by that because he believed the committee's charge had been to address special assessment policies related to arterial and collector streets. He said that in some areas of the community, such as the River Road area, there were miles of unimproved streets, and a change in the nature of the program from voluntary to mandatory would make a tremendous difference in the funding strategy the committee developed. Mr. Kelly clarified that both local streets and alleys were within the committee's charge. Ms. Nathanson said that the topic was very complex and it would likely take a considerable amount of time to work through all the issues. Regarding the first policy question, Ms. Nathanson said that she would not be able to answer in the affirmative for every neighborhood in the urban growth boundary. Some might interpret MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. it in some areas as improvements ahead of development. However, she supported careful examination of areas where street improvements were needed or the street network needed to be completed. Mr. Lyle said that he had assumed staff would develop criteria for such improvements in a manner similar to the Sidewalk Improvement Program. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson about the values and criteria used by the committee, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the values and criteria had helped the committee to avoid looking at options in isolation. Ms. Nathanson commended the values and criteria in general. She requested clarification of the wording in values 5 and 6, which Mr. Kelly provided. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the committee consider further defining the wording "environmentally protected." Mr. Lyle noted the primary focus of the value was on the wetlands in west Eugene, and other sites in the community that would be precluded from development due to "protection" of wetlands. Regarding value 8, Ms. Nathanson suggested that the comparison to the Sidewalk Improvement Program be reconsidered because the sidewalk program was largely aspirational rather than accomplished at this time since funding is not available. Ms. Nathanson asked if the reference to a wide lot deferral in value 9 was to defer in the sense of delay, rather than forgive. Mr. Kelly said yes. Mr. Rayor said that he did not have that much of a problem with the current system of assessments. He believed that it was an equitable system, which ensured that the people who bought houses on unimproved streets were liable for the costs improving their street. The fact was well-known to engineers, although perhaps not to home buyers. Mr. Rayor suggested that the solution was not one of the three options, which represented major programmatic changes, but adjustments to the current system that included a low-income subsidy, 10 to 20 year financing, a wide lot deferral, and single side assessments for comer lots. He said that those living on collectors who object when nearby development triggers a street improvement project were still only buying their share of a local street, which was everybody's liability at some point. Mr. Rayor did not want to shift the cost from the individual to all taxpayers. Mr. Rayor indicated opposition to the general obligation bond approach. He suggested that an educational program focused on home buyers and realtors could be useful. Mr. Lyle noted that several of Mr. Rayor's suggestions touched on elements of the assessment system the committee was addressing. Mr. Rayor said he would like to return to the County and determine what it would take to get the Board of County Commissioners to support the City's assessment system. He believed the wide lot deferral would address many of the County's concerns. Mr. Rayor suggested the problem with a street improvement fee was that there were both County and City residents with unimproved streets inside the city's boundaries, and imposing the fee would require County concurrence. Mr. Pap~ agreed. He added that the committee's thinking when it considered general obligation bonds and the street improvement fee was whether the entire community benefitted from a completed street system. He said that the committee was seeking a funding mechanism that would enjoy the support of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. entire council because the City needed to also get acceptance of the mechanism from the County and Springfield. Mr. Papd noted that the general obligation bond approach had enjoyed success in Salem. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd regarding his reaction to the options as they related to collectors and arterials, Mr. Rayor indicated his conclusions were essentially the same given that the residents were responsible only for the local street equivalent. Mr. Kelly emphasized that the street improvement fee would be assessed against unimproved frontages only. He agreed with Mr. Rayor that the assessment system, if fine-tuned, could work. He noted, however, that while the committee continually heard that everyone who lived on an improved street had already paid their fair share, several residents had pointed out to him that recent capital projects, such as the Willow Creek street project, had not been assessed. In response to Mr. Kelly's last statement, Mr. Meisner said that those projects were the exception. Traditionally, residential properties have paid assessments. He concurred with Mr. Rayor's remarks regarding the current assessment system. He did not support the general obligation bond approach. Regarding the street improvement fee, he said that he could not support if it were designed to include all unimproved County streets inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Meisner said that several residents had raised the issue of "sticker shock" when it came to assessments, but all residents living on improved streets paid that cost as a proportion of the value of the property they owned. He believed the cost had dropped as a percentage of the cost of a house over time. Mr. Meisner said the City had exemption and loan program to address the concerns of the elderly and low-income residents. Regarding the three policy issues, Mr. Meisner said he was unlikely to vote in support of a statement that it was a council goal to have a fully improved street network inside the urban growth boundary within a specified period of time. He did not support a public subsidy of street improvement costs. Mr. Meisner said that he hoped to one day have an answer to the question of how the City could charge systems development charges to those who commute using existing streets because of new development. Mr. Rayor questioned how adjusting the method of payment for a street improvement would address the problem of local opposition to street improvement projects considered detrimental to livability by existing residents. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the assessment funding option. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the street improvement fee funding option. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the committee to further evaluate the general obligation bond funding option. The motion failed unanimously, 0:6. E.Work Session: Public Safety Coordinating Council Revenue Sharing Package Proposal MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m. Mr. Johnson emphasized that staff was seeking conceptual direction on the proposed service package. He said that the City was attempting to give the voters a good idea of how any revenues from a successful measure would be spent. Chief Jim Hill, Leila Snow, and Phyllis Parks of the Eugene Police Department were present to answer questions. Ms. Nathanson called for funding for a substation in southwest Eugene in the Churchill area. Ms. Nathanson noted the County's interest in the use of revenue sharing funds for new programs and suggested that some of the funds could be used to underwrite the costs of the City's activity in the area of youth and prevention. She said that the council had learned it took three or four offenses to ensure a youth went through the criminal justice system, and she believed that was already too late. Ms. Nathanson said that more focus should be put on first-time offenders and those who had yet to offend but were at risk of doing so. She said she would like the teen court system to be expanded citywide. She suggested the concept of early intervention in the schools be combined with activities at the police substations. Ms. Nathanson said Community Service Officers in the schools could work in tandem with the schools, the officers in the schools, and the substations. She asked how item 2(a) in the matrix entitled City of Eugene Safe Community Proposal: Community Policing and Prevention Services Staff Recommendation could be expanded to incorporate two substations and the extra Community Service Officers needed to work with volunteers, the officers in the schools, the school principals, and do prevention-type outreach with youth. In response to Ms. Nathanson's question, Mr. Johnson said that he did not have an easy answer given that the available funding was limited to $4.2 million that would be realized if the Public Safety Coordinating Council measure passed. He said other projects would need to be eliminated to expand 2(a) as the ongoing cost of a substation was approximately $217,000. Staff present noted that 1 (f), Youth Outreach and Referral Services in Schools, reflected Ms. Nathanson's suggested programming. Mr. Kelly believed the homeless camping service dropped from the matrix was an important service that needed to be restored. He suggested that the funding for the service be taken from 2(a), the substations, and 3(d), community policing support. Mr. Kelly questioned what changed when the matrix was revised. Mr. Johnson said that the staff person who made the changes was not present and he was not sure. He did not think the changes were significant. Mr. Kelly referred to the explanation of the community policing support item in the matrix and asked if adding support to the intake desk would mean that things not currently being done would be done, or if what was being currently done would be increased. Ms. Parks said that the added support would allow the department to continue to do what it was doing; without the added support, she envisioned services would be cut or resources directed toward patrol. She noted that the five requested positions were recommended by the Service Improvement Team in 1996, and the proposal was an attempt to reach a base staffing level. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 11 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly questioned how the department knew if a substation was working. Chief Hill said prevention programs were very difficult to evaluate. He suggested the question to consider was how much worse off the situation would be without the station? He believed the question would take time to respond to, and indicated he would direct staff to research what was being done to evaluate substations in other communities. Mr. Kelly indicated that approach was satisfactory, stressing his interest was in knowing what difference substations were making. Chief Hill observed that substations were very popular in the community, as evidenced by the private support the department received to site them. Mr. Fart said that the programming described by Ms. Nathanson was likely to give the City the "biggest bang for the buck." He believed that a substation with a Community Service Officer could serve as an umbrella for youth-related activities in the Bethel area and help to leverage the services being provided in a relatively inexpensive way. Mr. Fart said that the officer in Bethel district spent considerable time mediating and facilitating, which took time from enforcement and direct prevention activities, so funding for the substations was critical. He emphasized the need to assist youth through the transition years between one level of school to another level, such as from elementary school to middle school. Mr. Fart supported Ms. Nathanson's proposal to fund two substations, and suggested the funding for l(c) and l(f) in the matrix could be redirected, although he valued the programming in 1 (c) and believed the council would find a way to fund the item. Mr. Johnson agreed. He cited the youth summer program as an example of a program that would be instituted in the budget rather than funded through contingency, and suggested that could free up some money. Mr. Meisner said he generally liked the package, and could support Ms. Nathanson's suggestion, although he was not completely persuaded of its merits. Regarding the substations, Mr. Meisner noted he was not completely satisfied with the proposal. For example, the mission statement appeared to be a vision statement. In addition, including giving the residents an opportunity to volunteer at the substation was a volunteer opportunity, not a baseline service. Mr. Meisner said that one of the services mentioned was neighborhood- based access to police, but the substation in Whiteaker had an area coordinator, not a police officer. That access was not guaranteed by the mere presence of a substation. Mr. Meisner noted that the West University and downtown substations had police officers paid for by private contributions. He cautioned against a program that was perceived in neighborhoods as an addition to the bureaucracy. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly that some sort of evaluation of the effectiveness of the substation was needed. Mr. Pap~ agreed with the comments about substations made by Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson, adding that the perception of safety often becomes a reality for many residents. He hoped to add more funding to the substations. Regarding item 4(a), Additional CAHOOTS Team, Mr. Pap~ asked if those individuals who could not be accommodated at Buckley House would go to the emergency room or to the jail. Chief Hill said that what would happen was that rather than send the CAHOOTS van the police would respond; he suggested the issue was a broader one of resources for social services such as Buckley House. Chief Hill said that Buckley House's State funding was at risk, and the decision facing the City might be whether the council wanted to direct funding toward the service. He reiterated that the bottom line was that calls would come in; the question was who to dispatch. Chief Hill noted that the CAHOOTS van provides a wide range of services beyond response to detoxification calls. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 12 5:30 p.m. Mr. Pap6 said that his discussions with residents indicated to him that the measure would be difficult to pass. He said that the elected officials needed to persuade the community that the programs proposed were new and would improve the safety of the community. Mr. Rayor asked about the capital costs associated with the substations, and the potential that the Police and Fire departments could share space. He suggested that the police could locate a substation in a trailer located near its pump stations to save money. Mr. Johnson said that there were no capital costs included in the estimates as the City proposed to use existing spaces such as storefront locations. He noted that in the case of the Bethel substation, Sacred Heart Hospital had offered the City free space in its new complex. He anticipated that staff would look at storefronts in Churchill and noted the potential of portable modual units. Mr. Johnson reported on a discussion he had with District Attorney Douglas Harcleroad, who he had invited to review the proposal. Mr. Harcleroad had raised the issue of the additional workload the proposal would generate for the District Attorney's Office, and requested the City consider funding the costs of a half-time deputy district attorney and a half-time office assistant in the amount of $51,000 to recognize that impact. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Johnson clarified that the half-time positions would not be solely devoted to City of Eugene work. Mr. Torrey supported Mr. Harcleroad's request and said the council should identify all associated costs to the public. He cautioned the council against funding the Contingency Fund items or the homeless program at this time. He also supported the position taken by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Fart regarding youth-oriented activities and their relationship to substations at Churchill and Bethel. He said that in some areas people have the perception that the City police presence is nonexistent, and that perception must be overcome. He agreed with Mr. Pap6's remarks about people's perception of their safety. Mr. Torrey said that the proposal took the City a long way toward implementing community policing. Ms. Nathanson noted that the State provided funding for prosecution services, and asked if the request from Mr. Harcleroad implied the State was intentionally under-funding prosecution services. Mr. Johnson said yes. Ms. Nathanson said that it was important to note that cities were having to beef up the funding coming from the State for prosecution services while receiving less money in revenue sharing. Ms. Nathanson noted her support for all the elements of the entire proposal. She hoped the County would refer a measure to the voters in November so the City could build on what was already happening. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve, in concept, the recommended service package as outlined in attachments 1 and 2 as an expression of the council's general intent for the expenditure of potential Public Safety Coordinating Council measure revenue-sharing funds. Mr. Johnson said that it was his sense of the council's discussion that a second substation would be added, funding for the summer programming would be eliminated, and funding for a half-time district attorney would be added. Mr. Torrey pointed out that the document before the council was a draft, and councilors would see it again. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 13 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly supported the motion but wanted further discussion of funding the half-time deputy district attorney. Mr. Meisner concurred. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 14 5:30 p.m.