Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/24/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall June 24, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Farr, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Tim Laue. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order at 11:35 p.m. II. NONACTION ITEMS A. Approval of Minutes Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to approve the April 20, 1998, dinner work session, May 6, 1998, lunch work session, and May 20, 1998, lunch work session. Mr. Tollenaar referred to page 2 of the minutes of May 20, 1998, and asked that the term "accessible frontage" be changed to "assessable frontage" in paragraph 5. Ms. Taylor asked that the word "sic" be removed from the first page of the May 20 minutes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. B. Reconsideration of Resolution 4566 Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to reconsider Resolution 4566, adoption of the fiscal year 1999 budget. Ms. Nathanson said that she was not asking for discussion at this time. She wished to eliminate $89,000 in funding at this time for the Intergenerational Volunteer Outreach Program in Recreation Services and return the funding to the Transition Reserves until further council discussion. Acting City Manager Pro Tern Jim Johnson indicated staff had no intention to spending any money on the program until the council was comfortable with the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. Roll call vote; the motion to reconsider passed, 5:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Taylor voting no. The council reconsidered Resolution 4566. Res. No. 4566--A resolution adopting the budget, making appropriations, determining, levying, and categorizing the annual ad valorem property tax for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1998, and ending June 30, 1999. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend Resolution 4566 by deleting $89,000 for the Intergenerational Volunteer Outreach Program and to return the money to reserves. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to be prepared to answer the question of why it was better to establish a new program and new service through the City of Eugene rather than support or enhance existing programs in the community. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked the mayor and staff to schedule a work session on the program. She noted her interest in spending money on direct recreation services. Mr. Fart did not support the motion as he supported the program and thought the funds should be spent on the program whether it was sponsored by Eugene or some other agency. Mr. Lee also indicated his opposition to the motion, saying he was willing to have the discussion but wished to earmark the funds for the program. Ms. Taylor agreed that more discussion was needed although she did not want to return the dollars to reserve. She supported placing more money into direct recreation services. Mr. Tollenaar also indicated he would reluctantly oppose the motion. He said that he was very supportive of mentoring programs. Mr. Tollenaar suggested the program was complementary of new directions the community was taking in regard to public safety and recreation. Mr. Fart determined that Ms. Nathanson was seeking to direct the funding to reserves for reallocation. Mr. Farr pointed out that voting in favor of the motion was to take the money out of recreation at this time. He believed the money should be earmarked for the program under discussion. Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion. He did not think the public would understand the process issue. Roll call vote; the motion to amend passed, 4:3; Mr. Lee, Mr. Tollenaar, and Mr. Farr voting no. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. C. Report on Options for Flag/Memorial on Skinner Butte MINUTES-Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Mr. Johnson said that the staff notes related to the item included background on the policy issues, an analysis of the proposal, and alternative options. He called the council's attention to a graph prepared by staff illustrating the effect of 90- and 100-foot tall flagpoles on the butte. Mr. Farr said that there were three possible courses of action: 1) the council could install a flag on the butte immediately; 2) the council could refer a measure regarding a flag on the butte to the voters; or 3) the council could let the issue be referred to the ballot in the fall by citizens. He said the council should consider the most reasonable course of action to take and the best decision it could make without drawing the issue out. Mr. Fart said that the best approach would be to place a flag on the butte as called for in the Stewart Family's compromise proposal, and let opponents of the flag attempt to refer its removal. Mr. Fart moved to place an American flag sized 10 feet by 19 feet on a 90- foot flagpole on Skinner Butte, assuming the Stewart Family will provide an endowment to support its maintenance; on holidays and other pre- determined special occasions a larger flag would fly on the pole. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Nathanson asked why the suggested flag was sized as proposed. Mr. Johnson responded that the sponsor wanted it to be seen from everywhere in the community. Mr. Lee expressed appreciation for the unanimity of the veterans' organizations. He expressed concern about the staff resources it would require to maintain a large flag. He said that the issue was related to designating a memorial in the community. He said that to merely place a flag on the butte did not honor the public's views. He said there should be a vote on the issue. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the council needed to make the decision. She did not want to refer the decision to the voters. She believed a vote would create a schism in the community. Ms. Swanson Gribskov pointed out that the council was acting at the behest of a donor. At the time the council approved the removal of the cross, she had been council president when the council received a request to place a flag on the butte and had been part of the body that rejected the request at that time to allow the community time to heal. She agreed that there had been more controversy than she anticipated regarding the proposal. Ms. Swanson Gribskov favored a small flag on the butte. She was concerned about the issues of flag size and lighting, and the staff resources lighting would require. She asked how large a standard flagpole would be. She said that such a flag would be preferable as it was the same as other flags. Such a flag would not fly all night and require illumination. It would not likely be subject to vandalism. Mr. Johnson said that there was no standard flag size. People generally buy flagpoles to fit their surroundings. Flag poles were generally from 80 foot on down. A 90-foot pole was substantially more expensive. The sponsor's intent was that the lights would be placed up the pole fairly far to reduce the impact of illumination. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Johnson said that the halyard would be inside the pole, making it more difficult to be vandalized. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that 90 feet seemed too high to her. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. Mr. Tollenaar strongly supported Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestion. He was also surprised about the amount of controversy that the proposal brought out, but he believed the controversy had been useful as it made people think about the concept of patriotism. He favored a normally size flag and did not understand why the Veterans of Foreign Wars opposed the move of the memorial now located in Skinner Butte park. Relocating the memorial would give the flag more meaning. Mr. Tollenaar indicated his agreement with Mr. Lee that if council could not agree, it should submit the proposal to the voters. Mr. Meisner said that the comments he read in the newspaper to the effect of "love it or leave it" concerned him very much. He was concerned what he perceived to be an expression of bias toward diversity. He liked Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestion that the council tie the flag and memorial so the symbolism of the flag was clear. He was concerned that a request from a private citizen was resulting in a divided community. Ms. Taylor said that the issue was not urgent and she questioned why the council was discussing it. She said that the council had many other important issues to address. She was not opposed to a smaller flag, but she wanted to know more about what the community thought, not just one group. She added that she had heard from many veterans who did not want to see a flag on the butte. Ms. Taylor moved to do nothing and leave the issue open to be brought up again in one year. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Nathanson recollected that a constituent brought up concept of honoring and remembering the United States Constitution, and she had been disappointed that was not given consideration in the staff notes. She was intrigued by that concept. She said that her constituents' input was that the original proposal was not appropriate. Its size was interpreted as being undignified. Regarding the issue of symbolism; Ms. Nathanson said that the council had been drawn into a discussion of the appropriate symbolism for community. The conversation did not start out that way; instead, it began as a discussion of what was appropriate for a war memorial park. She could not say a flag was inappropriate for a war memorial. She wanted to make it clear the council was not discussing a symbol for Eugene. She was reluctant to stipulate at this time what the pole size should be unless the council was sure where the flag would be located. Mr. Farr endorsed Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the fact the flag could not be objected to as a symbol. He said that Ms. Swanson Gribskov's suggestions would not work. The proponents would refer the issue to the voters. He said the council needed to decide what was the most sensible approach. He suggested that the issue was not a matter of patriotism, but one of national pride, which he believed the country had lost. Mr. Farr said the community needed to teach children to be proud of the country, and he believed that it could do so by placing a flag on the butte. He said the council should let the voters decide if they want a flag that can be seen by all. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, that council refer the issue of the flag to the voters. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. Mr. Torrey said that a 30-foot pole was too small. He said that most cities would not even consider having such a debate. He was concerned that Eugene residents did not fly flags on Flag Day. He said there was nothing wrong with recognizing the symbol of the country, which happened to be a flag. He said that the United States allowed dissent and did not suppress it. Mr. Torrey said the City should be proud of the flag. He advocated for placing a measure for the compromise proposal on the ballot. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not think it was a good idea to put such a measure on the ballot as it would cause a bigger schism in the community. She said that there was no disagreement among councilors about the appropriateness of the flag as a symbol, but there was disagreement about the issues of size and scale. She was seeking a "win-win" situation. Mr. Lee advocated for placing a measure related to the compromise proposal on the ballot. He said that the land in question was publicly owned. He acknowledged that everybody had different values about the flag. He did not think the council could appropriately make a decision about the size or location because the flag is a community symbol. Mr. Tollenaar said that he perceived the issue to be an administrative issue rather than a policy issue, although he acknowledged that controversy turned administration issues into policy issues. He said if the council could reach agreement on the basic principle, e.g., normally size flag, it could leave the administrative details to staff. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Swanson Gribskov, to amend the motion to direct the City Manager to arrange for moving the existing war memorial located next to the Skinner Butte bike path to the top of the butte and arrange for erection of a normal sized flag on a normal sized flagpole on the butte. There was brief discussion about the nature of the amendment. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the amendment was a replacement motion. Mr. Johnson said that staff would need further direction from the council regarding what constituted a "normally sized" flag and flagpole. He asked who the council wanted to see the flag, and from where in the community. Mr. Tollenaar responded that his intent was to make the flag primarily visible to the people who visit the top of the butte. Mr. Torrey expressed the hope the amendment would be defeated because such a flag would be obscured by trees. He did not think the council was going to remove trees from the butte. Mr. Torrey believed that the location of the memorial in Skinner Butte Park was appropriate and it should not be moved. He said that he often saw people stopping by to view the monument. In addition, Mr. Torrey pointed out, it was a long way up to the top of the butte for many pedestrians and cyclists. Mr. Farr argued that the proposal before the council was not disproportionate. He pointed out that there were several taller trees on the butte. In addition, the amendment would mean the City would pay all costs, while his proposal would be paid for in perpetuity by a foundation underwritten by the sponsor. Mr. Farr said that three weeks was not a long time for the supporters of the flag proposal to gather sufficient signatures to place a measure on the ballot. However, he believed that the organizers would be successful. He guaranteed that the petition MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. would be successful and the voters would support a measure, resulting in the flag originally contemplated, which the City would have to pay for. Mr. Farr asked the council to let the people of Eugene choose if they wanted the original proposal. He said that the council had plenty of time to take the action contemplated by Mr. Tollenaar's motion. He believed that people rarely walked up to the butte, and if the flag was only visible to those who drove to the top of the butte, it would require an automobile trip to get to the flag. Mr. Farr suggested that those who did not want to see the measure on the ballot were opposed to the concept of a flag on the butte. Ms. Nathanson believed that the discussion to this point had been useful but suggested that another three or four months of potentially very divisive community discussion, and the possibility of creating another schism in the community, was not a good idea. She said that she would prefer to simply make a council decision, and if the council was unable to reach agreement on the question of a flag and its design and siting, it could refer the measure to the voters. Ms. Nathanson said that the issue of the flag being seen had to do with where the flag pole was located. If it was placed right next to a 30-foot tree or right behind the trees, then it would not be seen. She believed that the flag would be seen by many people, pointing out that the 50-foot cross had been easily seen throughout the community. She suggested that the council leave administrative details such as the height of a "normally" sized flag pole to staff. Ms. Taylor said she did not think the council should be spending its time on the issue. She said that the proposal was not brought up by any council member and it had no relationship to the council's goals. She asked if the council should place all items offered to it on the ballot and, if so, where that process stopped. She pointed out that a citizen suggested placing the United States Constitution on the butte, and asked if the council should put that on the ballot. A number of people have suggested some kind of peace symbol. Should the council place that on a ballot? Ms. Taylor said that if the council decided to erect a flag it should place one beside the existing memorial in Skinner Butte Park. She said the council should table the motion and wait to see if the community demonstrates interest in putting something on the butte. Ms. Taylor said that the City had not asked the petitioners to embark on collecting signatures and should not try to prevent that effort or encourage it. Regarding Mr. Farr's remarks about the costs to the City if the council did not refer the measure to the voters, Ms. Taylor said she assumed the ballot measure would then identify the resulting costs, and the voters could decide if they preferred to pay for a flag or for such services as public safety and parks. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated her support for the motion. She also noted her intent to offer a motion to table the motion to a certain date. She wanted to instruct staff to come back to the council with some more images that illustrated some of the different options in terms of height. She acknowledged that the motion referred to a normally sized pole but said she would like to give staff leeway to examine a range of options so the council could make a choice from the range. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the people in support of the original proposal would have a sense of where the council was going, and they could still circulate petitions. In response to Ms. Taylor's earlier remarks, Mr. Torrey said that any person in the community could approach any elected official at any time and make a request of that official. If the official made a motion, got a second, and the motion was passed, anything could be placed on the ballot. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. Mr. Fart said that the council should bear the element of the motion calling for the relocation of the memorial in Skinner Butte. He said that if the motion passed, he would join Jeff Miller and Jim Hale as the chief petitioners for the referendum. Ms. Nathanson said that the motion gave the council flexibility, and she supported it for that reason. Mr. Torrey reiterated his opposition to the amendment and said that it in effect rejected the offer of the Stewart Family to pay for and maintain a flag. He said that the issue was a council one from this point forward. Mr. Tollenaar agreed. He said that he hoped that the spirit of the amendment would appeal to the Stewarts, and that they would still assist financially. He said that he had considerable respect for Stub Stewart. He termed Mr. Stewart's life a model of citizenship. Mr. Tollenaar acknowledged Mr. Stewart's contributions to parks and higher education. He did not want to be portrayed in any way as denigrating or undervaluing the generous offer made by Mr. Stewart, which he believed was offered in good faith with excellent intentions. Ms. Nathanson wished to clarify the intent of the vote. She thought the discussion might be confusing to citizens. She said she was getting the perception that the more patriotic thing to do was to refer the issue to the voters rather than decide to put a flag at the top of the butte. She said that was unfortunate, because the motion was actually a decision to take action and acknowledge that the City was going to use the United States flag as a symbol on the butte, and add it to the war memorial. Mr. Fart said that he was not accusing any councilor of not being patriotic. He asked that the council divorce the issue from the issue of patriotism and focus on national pride. He pointed out that an affirmative vote for the motion was a vote to put a flag on top of the butte. Ms. Taylor stated she would vote against any motion related to the topic except a motion to table the issue for a six-month period. Mr. Torrey said that he was opposed to placing a flag on the butte that was only visible to those on the butte. He wanted to see it from other pads of the city. Roll call vote; the motion passes, 4:3; Mr. Fart, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to postpone the motion until July 13, 1998, and to instruct staff to come back to the council with illustrations of the different range of flags and flag poles. Ms. Taylor move to amend the motion to table the item to January 20. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion to refer the current compromise initiative measure regarding an American flag on Skinner's Butte to the November ballot unchanged. Mr. Klein indicated that the motion was out of order. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. Mr. Tollenaar supported the motion to postpone with some hesitation because it added to the confusion around the issue. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. D. Airport Service Issue--Follow up Public Works Department Director Christine Andersen introduced the item. She said that staff had researched ways to expand the "tool kit" available to assist it with airline recruitment. Staff worked with the Federal Aviation Administration on the proposed approach. Ms. Andersen said the approach would allow repayment of general obligation bond debt payment made by the General Fund in support of the airport bond in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. The total for the two fiscal years was approximately $1.1 million. By capturing that non-Airport revenue-generated airport expenditure and converting it to an airport management fund not tied to airport revenues generated through the airport agreements and airline agreements, the City eliminated many of the previous limitations on the use of those funds. Responding to a clarifying question from Mr. Torrey, Ms. Andersen said that staff was asking the council to establish a separate management fund. The funds would still be tied to airport use. She confirmed that the council must act today if it wished to consider the full $1.1 million. Ms. Andersen reviewed the options before the council. Mr. Meisner said that staff argued in the staff notes that transferring the reserves to the General Fund rather than a marketing account was risky because of the volatile nature of the industry and the Airport Fund, but if the council transferred the reserves to a marketing fund and spent the money, there would be no reserves to address that volatility. Ms. Andersen clarified that she was proposing to establish a management fund with more flexibility; it was not limited to recruitment. It would be part of the Airport Operation Fund available for operations, capital, marketing, etc. Mr. Meisner believed that it was risky to establish such a fund because there would still be no reserves. Ms. Andersen said that if the money was moved to the General Fund, it was now a General Fund asset with no connection to the airport, and that created a $1.1 million "hole" in the Airport Fund. She was suggesting that the fund be made part of the Airport Fund with special flexibility, but still anticipated to be expended for airport purposes when the need appeared. She added that the $1.1 million figure was not tied to a projection of its use, but to the FAA's six-year limitation on such a conversion. Ms. Swanson Gribskov suggested that given the lack of time for making the decision, the council move the $1.1 million to the General Fund, and discuss its transfer at a work session on the topic in July. Ms. Andersen said that was a possibility. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov regarding why the sum would be halved if the council did not take action before the end of the fiscal year, Ms. Andersen attributed it to the FAA limitation on how far back the City could go to capture non-airport revenue expenditures in support of the airport. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to direct $1.131,835 from the Airport Fund to the Airport Fund, pending discussion at a future work session of airport operation costs and needs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m. City Attorney Glenn Klein asked the council to table the motion to give staff time to determine if the motion was the correct vehicle for accomplishing Ms. Swanson Gribskov's intent. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to table the motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. E. Work Session: City Manager Recruitment Process Administrative Services Department Director Warren Wong reminded the council that it directed staff to develop options for the recruitment process at its June 15 work session. There were four options included in the meeting packet. Mr. Wong said that the options ranged from a direct appointment of the manager pro tern to a full-scale professional, national recruitment. He invited questions. Mr. Tollenaar supported Option B with some variation. He said that under Option B, the council would have a work session during which councilors, using the material prepared for the previous recruitment and the job description, would identify four or five major expectations for a permanent city manager appointment. Mr. Tollenaar said that the manager pro tern, a stated candidate for the appointment, would address the council regarding those expectations. At the end of that work session, the council would decide whether to appoint Mr. Johnson to the permanent appointment or begin a limited recruitment effort as reflected in Option C. He said that he also wanted to invite the incoming councilors and council candidates to participate in that discussion of expectations. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Tollenaar clarified that he was not proposing to involve the incoming councilors and council candidates in the vote. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to adopt Option B, and to ask the incoming councilors and council candidates to participate in a discussion at a council work session to be held as soon as possible. At the end of that discussion, the council would decide if it wished to appoint the present manager pro tern to the permanent position or to embark on a limited recruitment effort. Ms. Taylor did not support involving the council candidates, although she supported including the incoming councilors. She said that one of the two candidates would be defeated and should not be involved in choosing a new manager. Ms. Taylor said that the proposed process assumed that the City had a manager and it became like a decision to fire or retain the pro tem. She did not think the council should start with that assumption. She favored Option C, and called for more discussion of the issue. Ms. Swanson Gribskov supported the motion. She commended Mr. Johnson for his work as City Manager pro tern. She said the council was working well together and its interaction with staff was also working well. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that Option B as modified by Mr. Tollenaar allowed for a thorough discussion, involved the councilor elects and council candidates, and gave the council an opportunity to be clear about its expectations and to hear from the manager pro rem about his perceptions. She hoped the manager pro rem would still apply if the council choose to go through a broader recruitment process. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the City was in the process of recruiting a variety of department heads, and it would aid the recruitment if the applicants knew who they were working for. If the council was able to reach consensus about Mr. Johnson as manager, it should make a decision and move on. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 9 11:30 a.m. Mr. Fart indicated he was more comfortable not including the council candidates, but would defer to Mr. Tollenaar. Mr. Tollenaar believed that those individuals' ideas should be considered. He said that even though one would not be elected, the council did not know who that individual was and he felt it would be a safer course to consult with both candidates. Mr. Fart indicated his acceptance of Mr. Tollenaar's rationale. Mr. Lee said that the motion represented a reasonable approach. He said that the council should spend some time debriefing what went wrong during the tenure of the last manager. Councilors needed to discuss what they expected of the manager as individuals. He said that if felt a little strange to pick an option without the benefit of that discussion. Mr. Lee asked that the council approach the topic as objectively as possible, and advocated for councilors to place their expectations of the manager in writing to avoid politicizing the discussion. Ms. Nathanson did not perceive a need for a huge shakeup or radical departure from the current situation, adding that did not mean that it was business as usual; the City organization continued to evolve and improve. New ideas and improvements were being put into place. Ms. Nathanson said that she would not have supported Option D, a full-scale recruitment. She preferred Option B as modified, and suggested the council give more thought to the issue of including those not yet elected. She asked about the scope of the decision to involve those individuals: would they be involved in the full four-week process, or would each give a five- minute presentation of their expectations? The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Wong described how staff would implement the motion adopted by the council. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated she would not be in Eugene during the first two weeks of August, and asked that the item be moved up on the council schedule if possible. Mr. Torrey agreed. E. Work Session: Highway 126 West Interim Corridor Strategy Res. No. 4569--A resolution of support for the Highway 126 West Interim Corridor Strategy. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, approve the resolution of support. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1:0; Mr. Meisner abstaining. The council returned to the motion tabled under item C. The council agreed to bring the motion off the table. Mr. Klein said that staff developed an alternative motion to preserve the council's options. He proposed that the council adopt the motion in the staff notes with added language. He reviewed the proposed language. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion on the table by substituting the following text: to approve the establishment of a separate management fund within the Airport Fund that will involve the transfer of $1,131,835 from the existing Airport reserves and balances, representing the offset of General Fund payments to the Airport general obligation bond debt service in fiscal years 1992 and 1993, and to direct staff to schedule a work MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 10 11:30 a.m. session on this issue in July to determine whether these funds should be transferred from the Special Management Fund to the General Fund. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Roll call vote; the main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1998 Page 11 11:30 a.m.