Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/11/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall August 11, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, David Kelly, Bobby Lee, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pap~, Betty Taylor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CALL TO ORDER The adjourned August 9, 1999, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. A. ACTION: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING GRAFFITI; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 6.005, 6.010, 6.080, 6.100, AND 6.990 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971 The council reconsidered a motion regarding the second reading of Council Bill 4700, an ordinance concerning graffiti; and amending Sections 6.005, 6.010, 6.080, 6.100, and 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971: Councilor Meisner~ seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at that time. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to table the motion on the table. The motion passed, 5:1; with Ms. Nathanson opposed. Mr. Kelly said he supported the ordinance because he believed it would help abate the vandalism problem, provide education, and provide a positive experience for community youth. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to approve $25,000 from the Contin- gency Fund to establish a program to redirect youth away from spray-can vandalism and towards the production of spray-can art. Staff should produce and release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for private and/or nonprofit agencies or individuals to develop and operate such a program. Staff should also designate a staff liaison for the successful respondent; the liaison will assist in providing available City resources in support of the program (e.g., publicity, routing information request, exhibit space for free-standing art). The RFP should suggest: 1. That respondents form partnerships among existing organizations such as the Lane County Sherif?s Office Community Service Program, Lane Arts Council, MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. private artists, and the private business sector including the Chamber of Commerce. 2. That respondents use predominantly privately owned walls for the production of art, and manage the program through the nonprofit sector. 3. That the program be a pilot program for one year only and that an evaluation component be included. The evaluation should include (but not be limited to) an examination of unauthorized tagging/vandalism in areas near the walls, before and after the program. During the year, there should be periodic monitoring and updates to the council. Ms. Nathanson said she could not support the motion for the following reasons: $25,000 is too much money for a program that has not been researched more thoroughly, especially for a new program; these type of projects should go through the Budget Committee to ensure consistency with the council's goals; research estimates that there are 150 to 250 individuals doing graffiti in this community and she believed the vast majority of the perpetrators were not artists; and there must be other ways to provide the artistic opportunity. Mr. Meisner said he also initially opposed the project for the reasons enumerated by Ms. Nathanson but he had a change of heart. He believed the motion will have an impact on the problem, adding that he actually talked to teens who thought this was an intriguing approach. Mr. Meisner said this was a creative alternative for graffiti abatement. He agreed that this should be a part of the regular budget cycle and said he proposed the council updates. Ms. Taylor said the only way she could support the graffiti abatement ordinance was if this was approved as well. She added that the City should provide opportunities for wall art. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion by deleting the phrase "predominantly privately owned" in section 2 of the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fart noted that there was no framework for the RFP and he assumed the bids would propose a model. He wondered what the level of staff involvement would be beyond the $25,000. City Manager Jim Johnson said he would likely assign the project to the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department and minimize staff time by limiting it to monitoring the program. Mr. Fart said the input he has received, mainly from business owners, was that in communities where such a program was implemented, the artwork was created beyond the designated walls. He said he hoped the bidders would address that issue. Addressing a follow-up question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Johnson said it would be unusual for bids to be referred to the council but staff could refer the criteria. Mr. Farr said he would support the motion. Mr. Pap~ said there needed to be more creative ways of dealing with the problem. He recalled the council's approval recently of a matching grant community arts program and said he could not support the proposal at this funding level. Mr. Johnson said staffwas interested in the council's intent; specifically, should the art be limited to spray- can art? Mayor Torrey suggested deleting the phrase "spray can" in the motion, explaining that his intent was not exclude that medium. He also suggested quarterly review of the program, with the fund dispersal on a quarterly basis as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to amend the motion by removing the words "spray can" from the motion. Mr. Kelly said that what the council would be doing if the amendment were approved was to add yet another program. Ms. Nathanson wondered how many kids in the community were doing spray can art. Mr. Meisner said he opposed the amendment, but if it passed the council's intent about what kind of program it was looking for with the RFP should be made very clear. Ms. Taylor spoke in favor of the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner opposed. Addressing a question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Johnson said this type of program had never been attempted by the City, although there had been similar programs (in the Department of Youth Services) that used art as therapy, etc. Mr. Lee ascertained that perpetrators could, at the court's discretion, be mandated to participate in the program. Mr. Lee said he was supportive of the approach and hoped to see some exciting ideas to consider. Mr. Kelly asked that the RFP include some of the recommendations made in Jim Evangelista's e-mail. He said he favored "predominantly" because this was a reaction to spray-can art/graffiti. He noted that nothing in his motion prevented the use of public space. Mr. Kelly said he also did not wish to go outside the budget process but raised this in context of the ordinance. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Johnson said that if the City found the problem spreading despite the program, a chance would likely be given to allow for a dialogue with the perpetrators. Ms. Nathanson said if the purpose was to decrease the amount of unwanted graffiti and the program was not doing that, the money should be redirected to programs that do work or could be stopped very quickly if it were not working. Mr. Johnson said the program could be stopped very quickly if desired. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Papd, that the amount not exceed $15,000, and that the quarterly assessment include findings that unwanted graffiti was not significantly increasing or spreading. Mr. Kelly said approving the lessor amount set the program up for failure, adding that the second phrase was too general and difficult to apply. Mr. Papd said he supported the amendment for financial reasons, adding that the council might choose at any time to increase support to the program. Mr. Meisner said he opposed the motion, explaining that he could support the amount but not the contingency. The motion failed, 2:5; with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Papd voting in favor. Mr. Papd moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to reduce the amount to $12,000. The motion failed, 2:5; with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Papd voting in favor. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. The main motion passed, 5:2; with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ opposed. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to remove the orginal motion regarding second reading from the table. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Fart said it would have been difficult for him to support the ordinance without the program just approved. The motion on the table passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4770 by number only. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms Nathanson, that the bill be approved and be given final passage. Having no opposition, the bill was unanimously passed and became Ordinance Number 20165. B. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER 1. Birthday Mayor Torrey announced Mr. Fart's birthday on August 16. Everyone joined in singing their best wishes. 2. Exchange Student Mr. Fart announced that his family is hosting a French student named Clement George from Lyon. 3. Downtown Mr. Fart said there was a welcome party at the downtown mall for the French exchange students and he was shocked at how poorly they rated the downtown, noting they were fearful about being in the area. He pointed out that Eugene had a long way to go in developing a welcoming downtown. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. 4. Bethel Branch Library Mr. Fart expressed concern that the Albertson's store and corporation continued to be an obstacle in developing the Bethel Branch Library. He said the Bethel community has raised the issue of a boycott. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Fart to forward a memorandum on the topic to him so that he formally contact the Albertson's home office in Boise, Idaho. 5. Traffic Congestion Ms. Taylor suggested an advisory committee to address the problem of traffic congestion. 6. Intergovernmental Agreement with School District 4J Mr. Meisner said the revised draft intergovernmental agreement with Eugene School District 4J has adequately addressed his public access concern so he would not move to reconsider. Mr. Kelly said he remained leery of the blanket statement: "the use of other athletic fields in the youth sports park will be determined by the User Committee," saying he would much prefer to see a broad statement of philosophical intent of relative use of those other fields. He suggested identifying some parameters for the User Committee to follow. 7. Emergency Preparedness Class Mr. Kelly highly recommended the City's three-hour emergency preparedness class. 8. Citizen's Demise Mr. Kelly noted the passing of citizen activist Hilde Cherry. 9. Council Assignments Mr. Johnson indicated that a better system for keeping the council informed of the status of council assigmnents will be in place when it returns from its summer break. C. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE CODE UPDATE SCHEDULE Teresa Bishow, Planning and Development Department, reported that the Planning Commission last month achieved a significant milestone in the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) schedule by completing an initial review of the entire draft code. As a result, she said, staff was now in the process of preparing a new entire Land Use Code for another round of public review before coming to the council for final adoption. Ms. Bishow indicated that the Planning Commission had recommended the following changes to the schedule: October 1999: Release of the revised draft code and summary/public information materials November 1999: Public information sessions begin February 2000: Planning Commission public hearings, including joint Eugene and Lane County planning commissions MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. July 2000: Joint elected officials hearing, with action by the Eugene City Council by October 2000 and by Lane County Board of Commissioners by December 2000 January 1, 2000:Effective date of the code. Mr. Meisner said he hoped that in extending time, the forthcoming code was not static, i.e., that adopted plans and policies are incorporated in the update to avoid having to revisit it shortly after adoption. Ms. Bishow said the new draft code would primarily be based on the direction from the Planning Commission and emerging issues may be addressed separately. Planning Division Manager Jan Childs explained that the two pieces of the Residential Lands Study and of TransPlan that cannot be addressed as part of the LUCU are pieces that create new, specially-tailored zoning districts, but those would be structured in such a way that they could literally just be added. Addressing a follow-up question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said the other pieces such as density requirements would be incorporated. Addressing a question from Mr. Fart, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the size of the Land Use Code (40 percent of the Eugene Code) was standard for this size community. Mr. Fart expressed support for the commission's request. Mr. Kelly suggested that citizens be kept apprized of those items that will not make it to LUCU prior to the public process. He noted, in comparing the two schedules, that the release of the draft code slipped two months while the public process hearings have slipped four months. Ms. Childs said a vast segment of the public enjoyed time off during the holiday and scheduling a public process over that period was likely to raise criticism. Mr. Kelly said he saw no reason not to hold planning commission hearings in January and the elected officials hearings in April. Ms. Taylor said there should be no hearings scheduled for December or July as many citizens travel or enjoy time off during those periods. Mayor Torrey said this council should not hand this item off to the new council. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mayor Torrey's comments. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to approve the revised Land Use Code Update schedule as recommended by the Planning Commission except that those recommendations are revised to provide that the planning commission public hearings shall begin in January 2000 and Joint Elected Officials hearings shall begin in April 2000. Ms. Bishow said it was reasonable to have Joint Elected Officials hearings in May, but holding them in April gave the commission less than 60 days to forward a recommendation. Mayor Torrey suggested letting staff set the time line provided it met the council's deadline. Ms. Nathanson agreed. Mr. Pap6 asked what allowances in the public information process had been made for community groups. Ms. Bishow explained that staff would offer to make presentations to anyone requesting them; something staff does on a regular basis. In addition to these, she said, there would be three or four City-sponsored information sessions in strategic locations throughout the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to have the document prepared for the Joint Elected Officials to review in May. The change was accepted by the second. Mr. Fart said the average citizen has no interest in the code regulations and since it was such a complex subject, an effort should be made to personalize the information, e.g., how will this effect me? The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. D. ACTION: CONSIDERATION OF CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to authorize the expenditure of $5,000 from the contingency fund for the re-roofing project for the Hope Abbey in the Eugene Masonic Cemetery. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. E. ACTION: AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL REVENUE MEASURE Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to authorize the expenditure of up to $30,000 from the contingency fund for the Public Information Campaign for the Public Safety Coordinating Council revenue measure. Addressing a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Johnson confirmed that it was customary for a city to spend money on ballet measures. He emphasized that the money was not being spent on a political campaign but rather the City was providing public information explaining what was in the measure. Ms. Taylor ascertained that the City had spent similar amounts on other ballot measures. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the problem of using the term "campaign," which was usually associated with advocacy. Mr. Lee said this was a good investment and it would help demystify the ballot measure. Mayor Torrey noted that the cities of Springfield and Eugene and Lane County were sharing equally in the cost of the campaign. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. (Mr. Meisner was out of the room for the vote.) F. WORK SESSION: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CITIZEN CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ON COUNCIL COMPENSATION Mary Walston, City Manager's Office, introduced the topic and noted the presence of committee chair and former Councilor Kaye Robinette and members David Hinckley and Rob Zako. She indicated that the committee did not agree on many items, but all agreed that there was insufficient time or information to make an fully informed recommendation to the council to put a measure on the November ballot. Ms. Walston MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. noted the recommendation to reappoint this committee or reform a committee to study the issue through the fall and make a recommendation in time for the May primary. Mr. Kelly thanked the committee for its work and excused it for not coming to consensus given its size and diversity. He expressed concern about reappointing the same committee and having the same result. He said he believed the question of compensation for the council should be left to the voters. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the council place a charter amendment on the May 2000 ballot that calls for compensation for the mayor and city council. The council will appoint a seven-member committee to draft a viable and equitable charter amendment for review and referral by the council. Applications for the citizen committee will be accepted until September 20, 1999. The council will appoint the committee no later than October 20, 1999, and the committee will complete its work and forward a charter amendment draft to the council no later than February 1, 2000. Mr. Kelly said that the idea behind the motion was to refer the issue of council compensation to the citizens. Mr. Meisner expressed support for the motion, agreeing that the question ultimately is a voter decision. Ms. Nathanson said she was hesitant to support the motion, adding that it "not good government to develop new programs or new ideas without adequate time to think about it in the public sphere or at least adequate discussion time." She said the council might consider putting an advisory vote on the ballot, i.e., "Should there be compensation for the mayor and City Council?" or "Should the council appoint a committee to develop a package to refer to the voters?" Mr. Papd recalled that the council decided to fold this into an overall charter review should the committee fail to arrive at a recommendation. He favored convening a committee to do just that. Mr. Farr said he agreed with Ms. Nathanson that further discussion was needed, adding that he was impressed with the diversity on the committee and was puzzled by its failure to reach consensus. He favored leaving the committee intact and having them continue its work on the issue. Mr. Lee said he believed the mayor and council should be paid but not that the system should be changed. He said he would support the motion because it brought him closer to compensation. Ms. Taylor said she believed the entire charter needed review but it should be undertaken separately. She expressed support for the motion, noting compensation was common in communities across the nation. Mayor Torrey said that before he could support the motion, he hoped to place before the voters a charter change allowing for a citywide vote for all councilors. He wondered how a successful measure for citywide elections in May would impact people running for council seats in November. Mayor Torrey said he saw no reason for taking action on the item this evening. Mr. Meisner recalled that the council had agreed to an overall review of the charter had the committee arrived at a "aye" or "nay" recommendation first. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the questions of a) whether compensation should be given, and b) how much should be placed before voters. He also agreed that the overall charter review was a different question from that of compensation. Mr. Meisner said the subject was MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. not new and had been raised both among individual council members and in public meetings. Without pay, he added, the City would run out of candidates for the council. Mr. Kelly asked for more information from the other councilors on citywide elections. He also agreed that charter review was a separate question. He pointed out that election results were nearly impossible to predict. Finally, he said, he expected the committee proposed would have a public process and that would be a chance for a broad diversity of citizens to weigh in on crafting the measure. Mr. Fart said he needed more time to think about the topic, but would support the motion to put himself in a position to raise a motion to reconsider at the next regularly scheduled council meeting. Ms. Taylor called for the question. Mr. Pap~ seconded the motion to end debate. The motion passed, 4:3; with councilors Fart, Lee, and Nathanson opposed. As the motion did not pass by a two-thirds vote, debate continued. Again, Ms. Taylor called for the question. Mr. Pap~ seconded the motion to end debate. The motion passed, 4:3; with councilors Nathanson, Fart, and Lee opposed. Again, a the motion to end debate did not pass by a two-thirds vote, debate continued. Ms. Nathanson explained that the motion on the table was something significantly different from what was included in the council's meeting packet. She said the smaller committee with a very specific charge was a good idea but reiterated that an advisory vote would be just as useful as a specific charter amendment on the ballot. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to postpone the item to September 8, 1999. Mr. Lee said he was supportive of the motion out of respect for the others. Mr. Kelly said he opposed the motion because he did not wish to hand this off to the next council. The motion passed, 4:3; with councilors Taylor, Meisner, and Kelly opposed. Mayor Torrey offered the council an opportunity to reconsider the question on the joint intergovernmental agreement with School District 4J with respect to the youth sports complex. Mr. Lee said he was satisfied with the changes in the revised draft agreement. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m.