Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/09/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall November 9, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Tim Laue, Bobby Lee, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Betty Taylor Betty Taylor, Ken Tollenaar. I. CALL TO ORDER The November 9, 1998, Eugene City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey presiding. The council reversed agenda items II and III at Mr. Laue's request, as he was arriving late. II. WORK SESSION: REVISIONS TO CITY'S VOTER'S PAMPHLET SIGNATURE GATHERING PROCESS Kate Fieland, Deputy City Recorder, provided the staff report. She recalled that in previous discussions about the use of paid petitioners in the gathering of signatures for placing arguments in the voter's pamphlet, the council had been advised that prohibiting paid signature gatherers was unconstitutional. At that time, she continued, the council decided that: 1) groups using paid signature gatherers would have to pay a $500 fee; 2) the signature gatherer would have to wear a button identifying himself or herself as paid; and 3) the petitions themselves would indicate that the person gathering the signatures was being paid. Ms. Fieland said during summer 1998 the City Manager received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asking the City to review fee requirements. Ms. Fieland said the proposed ordinance does away with the fee and the requirement that gatherers wear buttons, adding that was staff's recommendation. She explained that the City has limited resources to enforce the button requirement, resulting in "uneven" compliance. Ms. Fieland added that a similar requirement for initiative signature gathering does not exist. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that if a lawsuit challenging these requirements was filed, it would be a very expensive process for the City as they have not been tested in the courts. He said there are some reasonable arguments that can be put forward to defend the requirements, but the council must decide if it was worth the expense--about $100,000. Mr. Tollenaar said people have a general frustration about the initiative process, which was focused on paid signature gathering. He called the button requirement "overkill "but opposed eliminating the fee altogether, favoring instead a requirement for 300 signatures or $300 to include an argument in the voter's pamphlet. He said the fee was justified to cover the expenses of printing the pamphlet. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor opposed any fee, saying that some people base their votes on information distributed in the pamphlet and it would enable people to "buy their way into the pamphlet." She added that if paid signature gatherers were allowed, they should be required to wear identification buttons. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Ms. Taylor, but said she did not wish to spend any money on defending the requirements. Mr. Laue arrived at the meeting. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Klein said that if the ordinance was challenged, the ACLU would likely represent whoever raised the challenge. In response to a follow-up question, City Manager Jim Johnson said the ACLU objection to the ordinance was based on its constitutionality and doing as Mr. Tollenaar has suggested would be "very safe." Mr. Farr said he was interested knowing how the ACLU felt about Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion, adding that he also did not wish to spend money on enforcing the current ordinance or defending it in court. In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Fieland said since the current ordinance was passed in 1995, no one has used paid signature gatherers for including arguments in the voter's pamphlet. Mr. Lee said it was a matter of "access" and ideally the democratic process should be "value-driven" not "money-driven," but added that common sense should prevail and the expense of defending a challenge avoided. Mr. Meisner said he agreed with the comments made and expressed support for Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion and staff's recommendation. Ms. Nathanson said she regretted that the City would not get an opportunity to test the ordinance but agreed that resources should not be spent defending it. She recalled that the process came to the council's attention because citizens had reported what seemed to be abuses. She said it may be more efficient to continue the City's efforts toward reforming the initiative process statewide as well as locally. Mr. Tollenaar said he preferred a system that confined the arguments to a structure such as exists now. He called the individual arguments found in the voter's pamphlet, particularly the State's, often redundant, irrelevant, and sometimes humorous and adding great expense to the cost of producing the pamphlet. He said he understood the ACLU's position and favored returning to the previous process of allowing arguments to be placed in the pamphlet by paying a fee. Mr. Meisner said he favored the rebuttal portion of the pamphlet and wished the State pamphlet included that feature. Ms. Taylor wondered if the City was obliged to defend itself if the ACLU filed a lawsuit. Mr. Klein said he would recommend that the City respond to the suit but, if the City decided to change the ordinance after the suit is filed, the City would be required to pay any fees incurred by the ACLU in filing the suit. Ms. Taylor said she would be interested on the group's position on the identification button. Mr. Klein said the basic question is whether one can treat someone differently only because they are paid to gather signatures. Ms. Taylor suggested prohibiting individual arguments altogether if the current process was changed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. Mayor Torrey summarized the discussion by saying that the majority on the council favored Mr. Tollenaar's suggestion, and he asked staff to develop another draft ordinance for the council's review. Ms. Nathanson said there seemed to be a very narrow set of options available to fix the problem. She emphasized that there was nothing said against the people performing the job of gathering signatures and wondered it buttons could also be worn by those volunteering to gather signatures. Ms. Taylor said the person that cannot afford the fee is more than likely the same person that cannot volunteer the time to collect signatures. She asked for more options, including requiring all signature gatherers to wear buttons. Mr. Laue said it does not make sense to enact ordinances that the City has no resources to enforce. Mayor Torrey directed staff to bring back more options. Mr. Johnson noted that the last voter's pamphlet cost $12,271. III. DISCUSSION OF ELECTION RESULTS Mr. Lee said it was a good election and said he looked forward to conducting a study on why people voted as they did. He was especially excited about the results on the parks and library measures. Mr. Meisner said the outcome of the public safety levy was heartbreaking. He said he believed the community was impressed that the council unanimously supported both the parks and library measures and it made a tremendous difference. He said he was grateful to the citizens and reminded the council that the Library Committee concluded its work in six months--a remarkable achievement. Ms. Nathanson commended the Committee on Parks and Open Space for its work as well, saying that the committee was able to reflect the "larger vision" and it addressed many issues important to the community such as mental and physical health, recreation for kids, and deterrents to youth crime. Mr. Tollenaar said the entire council can take pride in passing both those measures. He added that the election produced a great challenge for the next council, particularly with the failure of the citizen police review board. He lamented the failure of the public safety measure, saying it was packaged so well that the council owed it to the community to find some other way to fund it. Mr. Farr thanked the council for its support of the BetheI-Danebo area, saying that those residents were big winners. He expressed concern that the public safety measure failed, but noted that the Bethel School District managed in the recent past, to pass a measure the second time it was presented to the public. Mr. Farr said he was pleased that the flag on Skinner Butte was approved. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor said the library would have been approved long ago except that it was always presented as a part of another measure, noting that the same thing may have happened to the public safety measure. Mr. Laue noted that the library was not included in the current council goals but was made a priority when the opportunity arose. He said the public safety measure was so well-crafted that it should not be separated into different portions, agreeing with Mr. Tollenaar that another way must be found to fund it. He suggested an income or gross receipt tax on a countywide basis or, alternatively, placing the issue on the ballot again soon. Mr. Laue agreed with Mr. Tollenaar completely with regard to the police review board and suggested that it was time to review and revise the long-range public safety plan, perhaps to focus it more intergovernmentally. He reflected on his tenure on the council and said there was much to be pleased about. Ms. Swanson Gribskov reminded the council that it had toned down the parks and library measures to get to a public "yes" and asked Mr. Johnson to discuss the next steps in those processes. She added her disappointment at the outcome of the public safety vote and said she was hopeful that the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) would conduct an analysis of the public safety levy. Ms. Swanson Gribskov urged a March or May vote on the same measure, saying its failure may have been a matter of not having enough time to educate the public about all it involved. She expressed support for the Council Committee on Public Safety's proposed police commission/advisory board as an alternative to the failed citizen review board. Mr. Johnson said there are many reasons why voters approve money measures, one of which is confidence in leadership. He congratulated the council on instilling that public confidence. He discussed the next steps for implementing the processes for the library and parks, reminding the council that the dollars "would not flow until the next fiscal year." However, he said, the library proposal had an interfund loan built in so implementation could begin as early as February-- Sunday operating hours for the library, followed by the planning phase for the first library branch in the Bethel-Danebo neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said the parks issue was very complicated and staff, in thinking about minimizing operational expenses for the new parks, would likely do the upgrades first to save on maintenance. He said there would be efficiencies to be gained from coordinating with the two school districts and those relationships would be pursued. With regard to external review of police operations, Mr. Johnson said both he and Acting Police Chief Jim Hill believed it was necessary and they would review the research done on the various systems of review and recommend alternatives. He added that the City would continue to work on the public safety issue with its interjurisdictional partners through the PSCC. Mr. Johnson discussed the impacts the measure's failure will have on the City, including the forest work camp and the AIRS system. Mayor Torrey compared the success of the library and parks measures with the fire redeployment measure passed a few years ago. He acknowledged City staff Terry Smith and Carol Hildebrand for their work on the measures and asked the City Manager to write commendation letters for the two. He also acknowledged individual councilors for their committee work on the measures. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the upcoming council will continue to work on passing the public safety levy and he was looking forward to analyzing the election. Mr. Johnson noted that the voter turnout was 61.4 percent. IV. WORK SESSION: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Les Lyle, Public Works, provided the staff report, calling attention to the meeting packet that included the analysis requested by the council during its last discussion. He reviewed the packet material, including a table reflecting the financial implications of reduced assessments for 12 example projects. He reviewed a second table in the packet reflecting the impact on transportation systems development charges (SDCs) from assessable share reductions, noting that all new development would pay as much as 21 percent increase in transportation SDCs, with single-family dwellings paying a net increase of about 5 percent for all SDCs charged by the City. Ms. Nathanson explained that if the council determines that the current policy of charging some people for two roads is unfair, one of the ways to make it more equitable is to spread the cost to everybody through SDCs. Addressing a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Lyle said that if new development is not creating an additional demand on the roadway, the City would be precluded from financing a share of the cost of an improvement of that roadway using SDCs so the non-assessable component would have to be General Fund or Road Fund. Mr. Klein explained that under State law, SDCs may be used only to increase road capacity. Ms. Nathanson said it was curious that a way cannot be found to use SDCs for traffic control or a safety devices necessitated by increased volume, not just capacity. Mr. Lyle said based on staff's and the City Attorney's analysis of State law, SDCs can only be used for increasing capacity. Mr. Lyle continued his report, noting a discussion in the packet of the pros and cons for both the primary access approach and the previous staff recommendation. If the council was leaning toward an SDC approach, he said, staff recommended delaying action until the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee has reviewed the transportation SDC as a whole. He said staff believed the TransPlan and the Arterial and Collector Street Plan, currently in progress, may influence the way the council wished to use transportation SDCs to accomplish those policy goals. Mr. Lyle reminded the council that the City Charter requires that assessment ordinance changes cannot take effect for six months and six affirmative votes on the council are required to move forward with any code change. Finally, he said, the council needs to decide the role of the new council and the level of public involvement it deems appropriate. He added that he would be working with Mr. Lee and Meisner on the alley assessment policy issue. Mr. Meisner asked what the municipality could to bring non-SDC-eligible projects into eligibility. Mr. Klein reiterated that the statute says SDCs can only be used for enhancing capacity. Mr. Meisner ascertained that the statute does not define capacity. Mr. Klein said he would research whether any court had addressed that question and also look at the broad liberal interpretation of how SDCs could be used and what the risks would be. Mr. Klein said the council might consider referring the issue to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Farr said the proposal was fair because it shared the costs of development more equitably. In response to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Lyle referred her to page 67 of the packet, which reflected the SDC cost to the average home in various scenarios. Mayor Torrey asked for Mr. Lyle's opinion. Mr. Lyle recommended that the council postpone any approach to increase SDCs until the Rates Advisory Committee has completed its work--in MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. approximately one year. He added that the council should also wait until it has had a chance to discuss the TransPlan update and fold that discussion into the transportation SDC. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that there were basically two policy positions: 1) staff's recommendation; and, 2) his and Ms. Nathanson's position that everyone be responsible for paying the equivalent cost of actual residential access to their property. He agreed that changes should be postponed until after the committee work has been completed but asked that the second proposal (above) be put out for public comment. Mr. Tollenaar responded to the questions posed in the item summary as follows: 1) yes; 2) yes; 3) actual, potential access is meaningless (Mr. Lyle questioned applying this to large lots or vacant parcels. Mr. Tollenaar said vacant and partially developed lots should be treated the same--pay for actual access or presume they have access if vacant.); 5) some of the papers presented by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and others recommend a per-unit approach--an approach that should be analyzed; and 6) the new policies should apply also to new and vacant or partially developed sites. Mr. Tollenaar referred the council to page 39, noting that corner lots would be assessable for one street. He questioned that double frontage development would be a con, as listed in the agenda summary for the primary access approach. Mr. Lyle explained that City planners were looking of ways to create more connection to the street system. Ms. Taylor was opposed to postponing implementation for another year and said the inequities should be corrected as soon as possible. She said if "actual" in question 3 referred to access that touched the street, the answer should be "potential." With regard to double frontage, Ms. Taylor wondered if that might be disallowed through the permitting process. Mr. Lyle responded that it could in the Land Use Code Update. Mr. Meisner said in general he agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's analysis and shared Ms. Taylor's concern with postponing implementation. Mayor Torrey noted that even if the process were expedited, it would preclude large projects for next year. Mr. Lyle summarized the discussion and noted that at least six councilors seem to be supportive of the direct access policy approach and, in general, agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's responses to the questions posed in the summary. He said he was unsure if the support was sustainable into the next council and looked forward to addressing it, given the input today and including public comment through the Rates Advisory Committee and other appropriate outreach. Mayor Torrey said he was very interested in the positions of the other jurisdictions. Mr. Lyle confirmed that the Lane County Board of Commissioners had veto power over parcels within its jurisdiction. Mr. Meisner said the information should make clear that access referred access "from and to." Mr. Tollenaar said the policy needed an effective date that did not affect current projects--after the 1999 construction season. The council concurred. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m. James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Yolanda Paule) R:~1998~Admin Services~CIS~Councfl~cc981109ml.wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 9, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m.