Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/16/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall March 16, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. I. CALL TO ORDER The adjourned March 11, 1998, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. The council discussed the feasibility of moving the meeting into the council chamber to accommodate the large number of spectators, deciding to remain in the McNutt Room. RESOLUTION CONCERNING TOXICS PROGRAM FEES Res. No. 4558--A resolution concerning hazardous substance user fees. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Mayor Torrey said that businesses affected by the Toxics Right-to-Know program believe that basing fees on the number of employees is unfair. He distributed a draft amendment for the council's consideration, as follows: "The council finds that these fees should be established on the basis of information contained in a materials balance report, which is unavailable at this time; the council therefore recommends that a) the fee structure established by this resolution be adjusted and the 1999 fees be calculated based on information contained in materials balance reports submitted as of April 1, 1999; and b) the 1999 fees include an adjustment made on a retrospective look at the 1998 fees." Mayor Torrey explained that the amendment would allow for adjustments for the 1999 fees, which might be credits or additional fees based on the 1998 fees. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the amendment simply gives direction to the future council as to how the fees should be set for 1999. In response to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Klein said that if the council wished to recommend to the State Task Force that fees be based on quantity, staff would draft a resolution and bring it back to the council for approval. Glen Potter, Fire Marshal's Office, provided information on the revised budget, noting that it was unanimously approved by the advisory committee on March 11. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Farr expressed support for the amendment. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Mayor Torrey said both staff and legal counsel were involved in the development of the amendment. Mr. Laue ascertained that for the current year the fee would be based on the number of employees. Mr. Fart moved to amend, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, the resolution by adding a new Section 3, to read as follows: "The council finds that these fees should be established on the basis of information contained in materials balance reports, which are unavailable at this time. The council therefore recommends that a) the fee structure established by this resolution be adjusted, and the 1999 fees be calculated on the basis of information contained in materials balance reports submitted as of April 1, 1999; and b) the 1999 fees include an adjustment based on a retrospective look at the 1998 fees." Ms. Taylor said she opposed the amendment since it had not been reviewed by the Toxics Board. Mr. Tollenaar supported the proposal, adding that there may be an even better way to structure the fee--possibly based on the amount of the toxics that are emitted. Ms. Swanson Gribskov flagged for discussion the issue of a double fee, one imposed by the Toxics Board and another imposed by the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA). She asked if exemptions were considered by the Toxics Board. Mr. Potter said the Board does not have the authority to grant exemptions; the chemicals to be reported are set in the City Charter. He confirmed that in some instances, businesses are required to report to two different agencies and more than one agency may impose a fee. Ms. Swanson Gribskov encouraged the Board to address the double fee issue. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; with Ms. Taylor opposed. The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0. III. WORK SESSION: EVALUATION OF CITY MANAGER Consultant David Corey proposed the following agenda for the City Manager's performance evaluation: Review of Mr. Corey's process in preparing the performance document Review of Section I of the document Council discussion of Section 1 Review Section 2 of the document. Break City Manager's self-evaluation Council's closing comments, including criteria individuals will use to arrive at their decision at their March 18 meeting. Review of Mr. Corey's process in preparing the performance document Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mr. Corey described the process he followed in developing the performance document, which includes Mayor/Councilor perspectives on the performance of the Eugene City Manager (Section I), executive staff and employee association perspectives on the performance of the Eugene City Manager (Section 2), and written performance evaluations of the Eugene City Manager prepared by the Mayor and councilors (Appendix A). He emphasized that his role was not to evaluate City Manager Vicki Elmer's performance but rather to synthesize the evaluations of others and to communicate them to the council. Mr. Corey added that he worked diligently to make sure the end product fairly reflects the judgements of those evaluating Ms. Elmer. Mayor/Council Perspectives on the Performance of the Eugene City Manager At Mr. Corey's request, City Attorney Glenn Klein distributed copies of Section 1. Mr. Corey reviewed the Mayor and City Council's perspectives on Ms. Elmer's performance from February 1997 to February 1998, using a written evaluation instrument prepared and approved by the council in May 1997. He explained the rating scale and asked each council member to reflect on their written evaluations, clarifying and elaborating key elements. Several councilors pointed out weaknesses in the evaluation form itself. Mr. Tollenaar said the elements of mayor-council/city manager relationships, leadership, and change management were most important to him, adding he believed the "free form" overall comments should be given special consideration. Mr. Meisner said he was not sure that any elements were more important than others--calling the interconnectedness of those elements a "seamless web." Ms. Nathanson said the questions on the evaluation form did not work well for explaining her growing concerns about the new council committee structure and the City's relationships with its intergovernmental partners. Mr. Lee described his approach as identifying themes and patterns in the manager's performance. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said it would have been helpful to have the manager's self- evaluation and those from the executive staff earlier in the process. Mr. Laue said key elements for him were leadership, personnel management, and financial management. Mr. Farr described his approach as balancing the areas he sees as the manager's strengths with her weaknesses and deciding which are most important to the community. Mayor Torrey said he referred to his September 1997 evaluation of the manager and assessed progress in three specific areas: leadership, personnel management, and change management. Mr. Meisner said he also referred to his fall evaluation, but will base his evaluation on more updated information, including input from 340 City employees. A summary of Table 2 of Section 1 of the document reflects strengths in the areas of positive outlook, financial management, and prudent use of City resources. Weaknesses included service delivery/operations, mayor and council support, change management, personnel management, community and citizen relations, and leadership. (Please refer to the performance evaluation documents for more detail.) Executive Staff and Employee Association Perspectives on the Performance of the Eugene City Manager Mr. Corey distributed Section 2 of the document containing the perspectives on the manager's performance by executive staff and representatives from the four employee associations. He indicated that the perspectives were gathered during 45-minute interviews with each person and Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. each was assured that the sources of any specific comments made in the interview would not be revealed. Participants were asked to address the manager's ability to 1) articulate her vision for the organization; 2) handle complex issues and make judgment calls; 3) involve the community and to gauge community reaction; 4) work with intergovernmental partners; and 5) understand and respond to the needs of the City organization. They were also asked to call out what they value as qualities in a city manager and indicate what requirements they see for the City Manager (Ms. Elmer) to be successful in her position. In summarizing the perspectives, Mr. Corey said he tried diligently to not distort their messages. (Please refer to the performance evaluation documents for more detail.) The council took a 15-minute break. City Manager's Self-Evaluation Ms. Elmer presented her self evaluation, which included two parts: 1) accomplishments over the last year; and 2) areas for improvement. Ms. Elmer reviewed accomplishments and progress over the last year in the following areas: financial stability; public safety; planning and development; parks acquisition; the Library; and youth. She prefaced her remarks on areas for improvement by providing the following context: "pre-existing polarization"; an active media presence; recent rapid growth; a politically active citizenry; the City Charter provision that prohibits the council from influencing the manager in making personnel decisions; a close-knit, mature organization faced with difficult changes; and her short tenure with the organization. Ms. Elmer identified the following three major areas for changes in the coming year: leadership and communication with the organization; communication with the council; and leadership in the community. Council Comments/Criteria Councilors reflected on the evaluation process. Ms. Nathanson reminded the council that this type of thorough evaluation was desired by both the council and the City Manager and that the City of Eugene has a history of doing these types of sessions publicly and the community has that expectation. Mr. Tollenaar expressed disappointment that the media had neglected to report on the City Manager's self-evaluation. Mr. Meisner said he will place his decision in the present context, given the last month. Councilors mentioned the following criteria that will be used in evaluating the manager's performance: results attributable to the City Manager; management style; timing issue--consider if additional time is likely to improve the situation; the manager's ability to "fix" relationships and if that is a good use of resources; the manager's ability to develop a realistic vision for the City, with benchmarks and time lines attached to a budget; what is best for the community and not what is good for the organization, the manager, or the council; what is best for the public; ability to gain staff support; consistency; and length of tenure. The council acknowledged the large amount of public input about the manager's evaluation and the difficulty of the process. Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey said that Council Officers recommend beginning the March 18 follow-up session with a motion to retain the City Manager, with amendments allowed following the first full round of comment. The council concurred. The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) Minutes--Eugene City Council March 16, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m.