Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/03/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall August 3, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. Mayor Jim Torrey called the Dinner Work Session of the August 3, 1998, meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 5:35 p.m. A. WORK SESSION: GLENWOOD DISCUSSION Mayor Torrey stated that he had a potential conflict of interest regarding the transfer of the jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield and had been advised to recuse himself. He requested that Council Vice President Ken Tollenaar preside at the meeting during consideration of the matter. Mr. Tollenaar stated that the purpose of the work session was to consider a report of the Glenwood Councilors Committee formed to consider issues related to assignment of jurisdiction of the Glenwood area to Springfield, as recommended by a study received by council in May 1998. He welcomed Springfield Mayor Bill Morrisette and Springfield City Council President Greg Shaver and invited them to participate in the discussion. Planning Division Manager Jan Childs reported on the formation and meetings of the Glenwood Councilors Committee. She referred to a summary of issues identified by the committee and its recommendations included in the Agenda Item Summary distributed with the agenda of the meeting. She reviewed three alternative options for action available to the council, as described in the summary. She said the committee unanimously recommended Option 1, in which a joint public hearing with Springfield and Lane County would be held to consider initiation of a Metro Plan amendment to transfer jurisdiction of Glenwood to Springfield. She said the proposed joint public hearing was tentatively scheduled for September 16, 1998. LaDeane Pryor of Mar/Stat marketing research firm provided preliminary information regarding responses to a survey made of Glenwood residents, property owners, and business operators. She described respondents to the survey and revisions made to categories of participants as a result of interviews. Ms. Nathanson asked why nonresident property owners and business operators were included in the survey when only registered voters who reside in the area would vote in an election regarding jurisdiction of Glenwood. Ms. Childs replied that the survey was designed to provide information about the options of as many of those with an interest in the topic as possible. She said the survey was intended as one of a number of opportunities for the public to provide input on issues MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. related to jurisdiction of the area. Mr. Tollenaar added that the design of the survey was based on the Glenwood Refinement Plan. Mr. Meisner requested that the final report of the survey include identification of the responses of participants by categories, specifically identifying the responses of those within the portion of Glenwood already annexed to Eugene.3 In response to questions asked by Ms. Taylor, Ms. Pryor stated that the final report of the survey would provide the number of individuals in each category and the preferences each expressed. Ms. Pryor reported that 26.5 percent of those responding to the survey favored having jurisdiction of the Glenwood area remain with Eugene, 45.5 percent favored having jurisdiction transferred to Springfield, 17.7 percent had no preference or stated additional information was needed, and 10.3 percent stated a preference for "leaving it the way it is." Ms. Taylor asked how many of those who responded to the survey favoring having jurisdiction transferred to Springfield were renters. Ms. Pryor replied that an answer to the question would be available in the final report of the survey. Mr. Tollenaar stated the question under consideration was whether the council should participate in a joint public hearing to consider initiation of a Metro Plan amendment to transfer jurisdiction. Ms. Taylor replied that she believed holding such a hearing implied support for a transfer of jurisdiction and that she felt it was important to evaluate the survey before scheduling the hearing. Ms. Childs stated that a public hearing was not required to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to transfer jurisdiction, but that the committee had considered that such a hearing would be a helpful addition to the process by providing an additional opportunity for public comment. Ms. Taylor stated that she was concerned that the opinions of the residents of the Glenwood area be fully evaluated. Mr. Meisner said surveys were not always an accurate predictor of votes. He repeated his request for a detailed final report of survey results. Mr. Lee suggested that Ms. Taylor be invited to participate in the deliberations of the Glenwood Councilors Committee. Ms. Nathanson asked if the committee had considered providing for full reimbursement of planning costs at the time of transfer rather than on the same payment schedule as infrastructure expenses. Mr. Tollenaar stated that such a consideration had not been made. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that Oregon property tax statutes recognized that reimbursement for such investments were not equivalent. Ms. Nathanson requested that reasons supporting not transferring jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield be added to the staff report to council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Shaver explained that the cost of infrastructure for the Glenwood area in the study was considered to be the same whether provided by Eugene or Springfield. Mr. Meisner said that he did not believe adequate consideration had been given by the committee to the impact of a jurisdictional transfer on the available supply of industrial land in Eugene. Ms. Taylor said that she did not believe the preferences of property owners and business operators who did not reside in the area should be considered in deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction of Glenwood. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Tollenaar said that he believed the survey commissioned by the committee had cost approximately $2,000. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible for residents to vote on whether jurisdiction of Glenwood should be transferred to Springfield. Mr. Tollenaar replied that the question of Ms. Taylor had not been fully considered by the committee. He said, however, that a vote would be required on the transfer to Springfield of territory already annexed to Eugene, if objections to the transfer were raised by either city council or by ten percent of the electors residing in that territory. City Manager Jim Johnson added that the process under consideration contained a number of sequential elements and that changing the Metro Plan was only the first to be undertaken which could be affected by public opinion. Mr. Tollenaar asked what would be the status of a vote by Glenwood residents on a jurisdictional transfer. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that it would be possible to place an advisory measure on a ballot that would state that a Metro Plan amendment to change jurisdiction of the area would not be pursued without voter approval. Mayor Morrisette reviewed the historic connection of Glenwood to Springfield. He explained the process followed to give jurisdiction of the area to Eugene and the work of his council and staff to transfer the jurisdiction to Springfield. He said he would fully support having a vote taken on whether a Metro Plan amendment to change jurisdiction of the area should be approved. Mr. Tollenaar said that it was possible that a vote on whether to amend the Metro Plan might be inevitable, but that it could complicate the issues involved. He said he believed the survey commissioned by the committee would provide more complete information than a vote. Mr. Tollenaar noted that the agenda item summary regarding Glenwood jurisdiction issues omitted reporting that the committee had reached agreement that if a jurisdictional transfer were to take place, all agreements between Eugene and developers regarding sewer line construction and maintenance would be assumed by Springfield. Mr. Shaver stated that he supported holding a joint public hearing regarding a Metro Plan amendment because the specific concerns of those who might object a change in jurisdiction could be identified and addressed. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Shafer said that differences between providing jurisdiction and annexation were explained as carefully as possible in all discussions regarding Glenwood concerns. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to accept the recommendations of the Glenwood Councilors Committee and agree to participate in a joint public hearing with the Springfield City Council and Lane Board of County Commissioners to consider initiation of a Metro Plan amendment to transfer jurisdiction of Glenwood to Springfield. Mr. Lee stated that he believed the proposed hearing was the best way to receive public comment on the issues involved. Ms. Taylor stated that she was skeptical of the survey commissioned by the committee because she did not believe it adequately reflected the opinions of residents in the Glenwood area. The motion was adopted, 6:0. B. FINAL REPORT ON JUNE 1, 1997' Mayor Torrey resumed the role of presiding officer. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would discuss the overall review of the change process which had resulted from a June 1, 1997, incident involving police and protestors seeking to stop the cutting of trees on property under development in a City/private project to construct parking garages and residences. He reviewed material attached to the agenda item summary distributed with the agenda of the meeting. Acting Police Chief Jim Hill acknowledged the presence of Captain Roy Brown and Fred Wilson of the Police Department and said they were the chair of the Use of Force Review Board and coordinator of policy changes related to the incident respectively. Mr. Hill referred to a document entitled "The Delivery of Police Services in Eugene: A Review and Evaluation" attached to the agenda item summary. He noted that the document had been previously reviewed by councilors and that it showed completion of actions undertaken in response to questions raised about the delivery of police services, in general, and in relation to the June 1 incident. Mr. Hill referred to a document entitled "Executive Summary of the Use of Force Review Board Concerning the Events of June 1, 1997" attached to the agenda item summary. He noted that the full report of the board was available. He said the board had concluded that there was no violation of Police Department policy in effect on the date of the incident, but that there was a recognition of the need to update and change certain policies. He also said development of better ways to anticipate crowd reactions, better anticipate the number of officers needed, and better communication with City administrators were examples of changes which were being made. Mr Hill reviewed the determinations by the Use of Force Review Board regarding the use of Oleoresin Capsicum spray (Pepper Spray) and tear gas. He noted the status of changes recommended to be made in department policy regarding chemical agents summarized in a document entitled "Progress on International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Recommendations--25 June 1998" attached to the agenda item summary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Hill said that lessons learned by the Police Department as a result of the June 1 incident included the following: · There is a need to keep department policies up to date and under continuous review. · There is a need to provide for public review of department policies. · Even if they are technically and legally correct, there is no guarantee that department policies will be acceptable to the public and public education needs to be continuous. Mr. Hill stated that changes in the Police Department which had resulted from the June 1 incident included the following: · An "On-Call Captain" position was created. · Permanent communication links between incident commanders, supervisors, and City administrators were established. · The role of the Special Operations Commander was reclassified to that of Captain and now reports directly to the Chief of Police. · The necessity of establishing on-going dialog between police and potential pretesters has been re-emphasized. · All City department heads and staff are informed of and discuss potential "hot topics" that could lead to incidents. Mr. Hill emphasized that the June 1 incident had developed as the antithesis of the established role of the Eugene Police Department. He described how police had historically dealt with pretesters, protecting the First Amendment rights of those seeking to demonstrate their positions and preserving public safety. Mr. Johnson reviewed a document entitled "Post-Incident Analysis: A Review of the Role of City of Eugene Non-Police Staff in the June 1, 1997, Incident-Summary of Recommendations and Progress Report" attached to the agenda item summary, and reviewed lessons learned by the City as a result of the incident, as follows: · Police should not be used to quell protests, if at all possible. · Contingency plans should be developed for dealing with future City projects which could involve the cutting of trees-designing buildings to avoid the cutting, openly involving the public in plans requiring cutting, and negotiating with potential pretesters to allow messages to be made and protecting the public. · Establish better communication within the organization about projects, anticipating potential concerns. · Formalize acting in capacity procedures and responsibilities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. · Final reports about incidents should not be delayed beyond a reasonable length of time. Mr. Meisner said that he was pleased to learn that police and City administrators were distinguishing between legal correctness and "doing the right thing." He said he hoped the final report to the City Council was not an end to seeking lessons which from the June 1 incident. Mr. Meisner asked if policy changes resulting from International Association of Chiefs of Police recommendations regarding chemical agents would be reviewed by the public. Mr. Hill replied that the policy proposals were to be reviewed by the Police Forum. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Hill said that the relationship of community values and police values would be considered by the Council Committee on Public Safety. Ms. Taylor said that she did not agree with Mr. Johnson, if he had meant that public projects should be planned to be undertaken before the public became aware of the potential of cutting trees. She asked how the City would proceed differently in a situation similar to the one which led to the June 1 incident. Mr. Johnson replied that he believed it was unlikely the City would proceed with a project similar to the one in question without increased public involvement. He said police action had been engendered by inaccurate information that there would be significant financial loss from a delay of the project and that re-checking with policy makers would be essential in a future similar incident. Ms. Taylor said that she had been informed by a retired police officer that Pepper Spray was never used by Eugene Police in the past. Mr. Hill replied that the report was true because the technology was not available years previously, but that a great deal of tear gas had been used frequently in operations dealing with unruly crowds. Ms. Taylor said that she had observed the use of tear gas during the June 1 incident and that she believed it had precipitated violence by the public. She asked for an explanation. Mr. Brown replied that the Use of Force Review Board had studied ten video tapes of the June 1 incident and had determined that each of six incidents of the use of tear gas by police had been in response to actions by the crowd appropriately judged to be non-compliance with specific orders to disperse. Mr. Lee stated that he believed tension in the community between police and protestors was growing and could lead to unintended negative consequences. He said he believed City Councilors were responsible for being on the scene of confrontations between police and protestors and that police should facilitate their involvement. Mr. Johnson said that it was evident that violent acts of some protestors had increased in recent years. He suggested that questions of how police were to respond to law breaking involved in protests were more complicated than they were in the past. Mr. Lee said that intentional law breaking was part of the protest of some demonstrators. He said he believed the council could deal with policies which led to some law breaking. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey said he was concerned about the suggestion of Mr. Lee which could be interpreted to mean that councilors should place themselves between police and protestors. He said he believed councilors and the mayor should only deal with police actions through the City Manager. Mr. Klein said that the authority of the City Council lay in its ability to enact ordinances and that the City Charter prevented councilors from directing the activities of City employees. He said councilors could request the City Manager to direct such activities. Mayor Torrey said that he had learned from the June 1 incident that the public should be even more fully involved in decisions regarding public projects and that the most vocal members of the public did not always reflect the will of all of the public. He also said he was concerned that vandalism had come to be considered a legitimate element of public protest. Ms. Taylor said that she had not meant to imply that the City Council should have ordered the Chief of Police to do anything, just that she had hoped to inquire whether the chief knew what was going on during the June 1 incident. Ms. Nathanson said that it was appropriate to improve planning processes for public projects, but that the length of time involved in such processes often meant that different groups of elected officials would be involved. She said she believed it was not possible to force citizens to participate in public involvement processes and that it needed to be determined when to move ahead with decisions and not wait for more opinions. She said she did not believe it was possible to design a public involvement process which would completely avoid protesting of decisions by certain elements of society. Ms. Nathanson requested additional information after the meeting regarding the convening of a working group to assess the roles and responsibilities of police mid-mangers under community policing, and regarding differential responses referred to in the document entitled "Summary of Community Involved Policing Action Plan" attached to the agenda item summary. Mr. Laue expressed appreciation for the report regarding the June 1 incident. He said he believed a great deal had been learned regarding how police can be better utilized in the future. He said he did not believe it was possible for the council to solve issues related to the need to allow free expression of dissent and protecting the safety of the public. He said he believed the need to improve communication with the public was the most important lesson which could be learned from the incident. In response to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Hill explained that the general police policy regarding use of force and chemical agents continued to be under development. Mr. Tollenaar said appropriate action in incidents such as occurred on June 1 were not easy to determine because it was difficult to differentiate between "civil disobedience" and "uncivil disorder." He said he did not believe the police had failed in the incident, but that the failures of top City management to provide clear direction were obvious. Mr. Lee said that he believed the City Council should be informed of all elements involved in public projects which could have an impact on City life. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Dan Lindstrom) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 3, 1998 Page 8 5:30 p.m.