Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: December 8, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the August 11, 2008, City Council Meeting, October 13, 2008, City Council Meeting and October 15, 2008, Process Session. ATTACHMENTS A. August 11, 2008, City Council Meeting B. October 13, 2008, City Council Meeting C.October 15, 2008, Process Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081208\S0812083A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Public Hearing Council Chamber 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon August 11, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She announced that action on Item 4 on the agenda would be postponed as further work was required. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed procedures for providing comments. Mary S. Leighton , Normandy Way, Eugene, thanked councilors for their consideration of ways to address downtown public safety issues. She said that over 100 teenagers would be attending Network Charter School in the fall and she was concerned about the negative influence on those students of people in the downtown area who modeled behavior inimical to public interests. She suggested three changes that could improve life downtown temporarily while long-term solutions were identified: pass Mayor Piercy’s modified exclusion zone and implement it as soon as possible, improve patrolling of downtown by guides and police officers, and restore cleaning of sidewalks and alleys. th Rene Kane , West 14 Avenue, Eugene, Jefferson-Westside Neighbors’ chair, stated that neighbors joined with City staff and members of the Opportunity Siting Task Team to conduct neighborhood workshops to test ways that neighborhood character could be preserved while identifying the appropriate locations and processes for siting and design of denser housing development. She stressed that neighbors did not oppose all infill; they simply wanted it to be compatible. Pauline Hutson , Taylor Street, Eugene, founding member of Residents for Responsible Rapid Transit (3RT), expressed concern that Lane Transit District (LTD) might not be considering factual issues that 3RT had raised during the process to identify a West Eugene EmX route. She was concerned that planning was based on outdated data and did not factor in either peak oil or peak traffic counts. She urged the council to question recommendations from LTD regarding the West Eugene EmX alignment. th Ilona Kolezar , West 11 Avenue, Eugene, a member of 3RT and the West Eugene EmX Extension Corridor Committee, said that eight percent of the project design had been completed even though no locally preferred alternative had been chosen. She was concerned with the lack of coordination between the EmX and West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) projects. She distributed a copy of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between LTD and the City, and related materials, and urged that the council keep the provisions of the agreement in mind, particularly those related to the design issues on which LTD must defer to the City during the design phase of planning. She cited several provisions from the IGA and asked that the council inform LTD which alternatives it would consider and which it would not. Josef Siekiel-Zdzienicki , Taylor Street, Eugene, 3RT member, stated there was growing community thth preference for routing EmX to West Eugene along 6 and 7 avenues from the downtown station. He said th many respondents to a 3RT survey agreed the disadvantages of an EmX line on West 13 Avenue thth outweighed the advantages and preferred 6 and 7. He did not feel that LTD had adequately involved business in its planning and design activities. He pointed out the problems caused by the Eugene Code requirement that structures be built out to the curb, which created a conflict with LTD plans, and asked for a moratorium on the requirement. Azra Khalidi , Donald Street, Eugene, asked if the City had a plan for use of the Hynix building now that the company was leaving. She said the site comprised 20 to 30 acres and said the taxes paid by Hynix between 2000 and 2008 could not be compared to the capital gains and profit during that period. She noted that Councilor Taylor was the only one to oppose the location of a Hynix facility in Eugene. She suggested that the University of Oregon and Lane Community College use the Hynix building. th Deb Frisch , West 11 Avenue, Eugene, cited the history of the council’s action on vacation of an alley to accommodate the new University of Oregon basketball arena and described it as worrisome. She noted that EC 9.2160 was not on the list of minor code amendments. She did not think that the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB) had changed anything in the Eugene Police Department. Carol Berg-Caldwell , Augusta Street, Eugene, spoke to the withholding of a citizen complaint from the Police Auditor, contrary to the voter-mandated ordinance. She said Police Chief Robert Lehner’s decision to withhold the file was upheld by City Manager Jon Ruiz. She said if the ordinance needed to be revised to address certain circumstances that should be done through the appropriate process and not the decision of one person. She urged the Police Chief and City Manager to listen to the community and be accountable for their mistake. th Melissa Mona , East 14 Alley, Eugene, said the proposed exclusion zone was not a new idea and had been used elsewhere to discriminate against certain people. She said the proposal was unconscionable and similar laws in jurisdictions had been struck down as unconstitutional. She did not think the issue was drugs; it was a complex problem related to people who were mentally ill and homeless. She said the City had failed to properly address mental illness or homelessness and the solution was not to sweep them out of sight. She said there was a civic duty to help those individuals. John Brown , Eugene, welcomed Mr. Ruiz to the community and commended his willingness to consider a number of points of view. He said the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) was an excellent resource for recruiting a new Police Auditor. He said that clean water was his passion and he was concerned about the City’s practice of blowing trash from the park blocks and downtown sidewalks into storm drains. He said that maintenance staff for the City parks had indicated the practice was due to a lack of financial resources. He preferred that no cleanup activities occur if they resulted in putting trash into the river. Chico Schwall , North Grand Street, Eugene, said he worked at the Shedd Institute and served on the WOW Hall board of directors. He said there were serious public safety problems in the downtown area, but the exclusion zone was not the solution and would not be considered if the people about to be subject to it were in any position to object. He said problems would not be solved by moving them, and suggested that the use of police resources should be examined. He asserted that he and the WOW Hall would be willing to work with the City to find a just and sustainable solution to the problem. Joe Collins , Eugene, criticized Chief Lehner’s withholding of a citizen complaint file from the Police Auditor and the District Attorney’s support of that action. He said the people of Eugene were concerned about trust issues with the Police Department. He acknowledged that there were good officers, but the department needed civilian oversight to avoid problems of the past. He objected to purchase of the Amazon Headwaters, which he said was supported by a minority of the community, and the granting of tax breaks for developments, which he said cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said the council was pro development and redevelopment and homeowners were expected to pay the developers’ share of taxes. He noted that there would be a ballot measure requesting $35 million to improve streets and asked how much the City had budgeted and spent on streets in the last five or six years and what percentage of that amount had been spent on repairs. Claire Syrett , Adams Street, Eugene, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon, spoke to the downtown public safety zone. She acknowledged that the proposed ordinance had been revised to address some of the concerns the ACLU had raised, but the ACLU was still opposed to exclusion zones on principle and had specific concerns about the proposal before the council. She said the ACLU opposed allowing an exclusion order to be issued through a civil procedure in which the court was not required to provide the defendant with legal representation; restrictions on a person’s movement should only be imposed by a judge in the context of a criminal case. She said the way in which variances were allowed for individual cases appeared to be constitutionally suspect and was concerned that the police would enforce the ordinance in a discriminatory manner on low income people and people of color. She cited examples from Cincinnati and Portland related to exclusion zones. She urged the council to adopt an approach to solving chronic problems in the downtown area that involved all stakeholders in seeking fair, effective and constitutional solutions. Liora Sponko , Lincoln Street, Eugene, chair of the WOW Hall board of directors, stated that the WOW Hall opposed the ordinance to exclude accused or convicted community members from downtown Eugene as it violated citizen’s rights and did not address neighborhood issues. She said it was the City’s collective responsibility to provide community spaces for everyone to enjoy. She said the ordinance did not address any of the fundamental problems of crime or homelessness. She said part of the WOW Hall’s mission was to be accessible to people of all ages and income levels and the ordinance would deny people that access and discourage patrons for fear of being accused and excluded because of age, appearance or other discriminat- ing factors. She asserted that the ordinance targeted low income and impoverished populations who did not have access to essential services. She said the City should provide more services and support to those populations instead of excluding them from downtown. Charles Dalton , Timberline Drive, Eugene, president emeritus of the Eugene/Springfield branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), spoke to the Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board (CRB). He said problems with the Police Department had existed for a long time and lack of trust was a factor. He said there was a critical need for transparency within the department in order to build trust with the community and it was necessary to have an independent Police Auditor and CRB that did not report to the City Manager. He submitted written comments that included recommenda- tions to the council. Tim Mueller , Arthur Street, Eugene, said he served on the Police Commission but was speaking as a private citizen. He was disappointed that the commission had not been asked to provide input on the exclusion zone ordinance. He cited statistics for 2007 which indicated a reduction in downtown crime and an increase in crime at Valley River Center. He expressed sympathy for Betty Snowden and others who experienced harassment downtown and appreciated the revisions to the proposed ordinance. He said those causing problem downtown would just go elsewhere in the community and they needed help as much as scorn. He would be willing to support a bond measure for resources to increase policing downtown, and provide services for adult and youth, over one to fix potholes. Ruth Duemler , Fircrest Drive, Eugene, expressed disappointment over the use of a Taser on a protester, and the withholding of a file from the Police Auditor when the community had strongly supported having an auditor. She did not want to see the ordinance revised except as suggested by Councilor Bettman; the auditor needed to be in control of the process in order to build more trust. She said the exclusion zone sounded like Homeland Security was taking over. She recognized there were problems in the downtown area, but there were other ways to address them. She encouraged all citizens to visit the downtown area. Sylvia Furtick , Lorane Highway, Eugene, spoke in support of the strongest possible ordinance to eliminate vagrancy, vandalism and indecency which she felt were being condoned downtown. She said at one time it was common knowledge that good behavior would be rewarded and bad behavior punished, and the community should unite to establish ordinances that proved it was a civilized society that afforded protection to its citizens. She said those ordinances had to be enforced and first responders, when acting honorably, needed and deserved the community’s respect and cooperation. She said a community without law and order was a community without peace; a community got the behavior it was willing to tolerate. Betty Snowden , West Broadway, Eugene, said it was good the ACLU was now worried about people of color, but it would have been nice if they had been concerned about what had been happening to her downtown for the past 17 years. She thanked councilors Clark and Ortiz for their work on the exclusion zone ordinance and Mr. Ruiz for his recommendation to adopt Version C. She supported the pre- and post- conviction provisions as they were, and not the Mayor’s revision, as it was important to remove someone who was cited from the area until they went before a judge. She said it was not about singling out the homeless; it was about unacceptable behavior and repeat offenders. She gave examples of the offensive and racist treatment to which she was subjected on a daily basis and which were contrary to the principles put forth by the Eugene Human Rights Commission. She said no one should be subjected to that type of treatment and questioned why her rights were not being upheld by the community. Cassandra Snowden , West Broadway, Eugene, remarked on the comments of previous speakers about the rights of those who might be excluded from the downtown area. She questioned how the rights of downtown business owners and community members to feel safe downtown were being enforced. She said without the exclusion zone ordinance, downtown would continue to experience safety problems. She said the ordinance did not single out the homeless; consequences were based on bad behavior and would apply equally to someone in a business suit or summer dress. She said everyone had the right to feel safe and be free of harassment and racism. Laurel Fisher , Olive Street, Eugene, said she lived within walking distance of downtown for the past two weeks and had been coming downtown with a broom to clean the street. She recognized that it was not a cure for the problems, but hoped she would be joined in her efforts by others in the community who were concerned with downtown. She questioned why adults would stay away from downtown because of fear of young people. She said the behavior demonstrated downtown was commonplace on television. Lisa Warnes , Nectar Way, Eugene, thanked the City for purchasing the Green property and protecting a portion of the Amazon Headwaters. She echoed comments from earlier speakers who opposed the exclusionary zone ordinance as it seemed to be a solution earmarking specific people downtown, specifically youth. She agreed that business owners should not have to tolerate harassment, but the solution should not violate civil rights or shift the problem to other areas in the community. Mr. Poling arrived at 8:25 p.m. th Samantha Chirillo , East 27 Avenue, Eugene, said there was no doubt that hate crimes needed to be prosecuted, but there was also an urgent need to build trust between the police and the community and that was a mutual responsibility. She said the Police Commission should have the opportunity to provide input on the exclusion zone ordinance. She said the ordinance was risky because the City had previously lost a court case, at significant cost, related to attempts to exclude someone from an area. She said the exclusion zone ordinance was particularly scary in consideration of the City’s relationship to Homeland Security, which directed police to target rally participants on May 30. She urged the council not to pass the ordinance. Jean Tate , Olive Street, Eugene, a downtown resident, spoke in support of the exclusion zone ordinance to help make downtown a safer place. She encouraged members of the audience to spend time in downtown as safety was increased when there were more people on the streets. Aaron Nelson , Alder Street, Eugene, expressed compassion and solidarity with downtown business owners who were dealing with vandalism, violence and racism. He questioned what effect the exclusion zone would have, other than giving police more reasons to harass people. He feared the people likely to be harassed fit the stereotype for drug users and homeless people, and the exclusion zone would lead to increased intimidation and only displace people to other neighborhoods rather than solve the problem. th Joe Alsup , West 38 Avenue, Eugene, said he was a Police Commission member, but speaking as a private citizen. He regretted the loss of Chris Beamud as the Police Auditor. He admired police officers and felt the chief was an honorable man, but it was a mistake to withhold a file from the auditor. He said the commu- nity had clearly expressed its desire for an independent auditor and hoped the council would express its support for the auditor office and Ms. Beamud’s efforts. Drix , Eugene, said that youth had always been downtown and many came from other communities to learn about life on the streets. He hoped that older people would come downtown to share their wisdom and help prevent inappropriate behavior and promote civility. Dr. James Dean , Braewood Lane, Eugene, said it was obvious that there were documented, serious, illegal behavioral problems occurring downtown and they affected Betty Snowden, other people and businesses, and educational institutions. He said the issue had been somewhat clouded by the preceding discussion. He suggested the issue was not an exclusion zone; it was the exclusion of individuals who harassed others and acted as criminals or racists and behaved in other deplorable ways. He asked the council to carefully consider the ordinance because the attacks must be stopped and the problem solved. Alex Brokaw , Sorrel Way, Eugene, said she worked in the downtown area. She noted the comments of an earlier speaker who identified transients being downtown as a complex problem. She said it might be a complex problem, but downtown business should not pay the entire price. She hoped that downtown Eugene would not turn into another Camden, New Jersey, which was considered one of the most dangerous cities in the country. She urged the council to pass the original ordinance proposed by Councilor Clark and to place and retain sufficient police downtown to enforce it. Mike Quillin , Kismet Way, Eugene, said it seemed the Eugene police had recently begun taking pleasure in their power over citizens, and by resisting the actions and inquiries of the Police Auditor had, in fact, become dishonest. He said an initial positive experience with police when he moved to Eugene 14 years ago had been eroded in the intervening years. He said people should not be targeted on the basis of their appearance. He no longer taught his children to respect police officers as honorable people working for the public good, but in recent years taught them to avoid contact with the police unless absolutely necessary. He asked the council to make every effort to restore honor to the Police Department before establishing an exclusion zone. Kathy Gain , Harris Street, Eugene, said she was alarmed by the selective persecution that would likely occur in the exclusion zone. She found it curious that the zone was being proposed at the same time that Metro Housing was renting housing and commercial space next door to the WOW Hall, and questioned whether it was an attempt to get rid of it. She said the ordinance was unconstitutional and did not think taxpayers could afford the costs of legal challenges that would occur. She was puzzled that the ordinance targeted drug-dealing and possession and preferred that the police target more violent and serious offenses. She asked what would happen if someone had a medical marijuana card or musicians smoked pot on a break. She said an exclusion zone was preposterous and would make a joke of Eugene. She regarded marijuana as a beneficial plant which should not be covered under the Controlled Substance Act. David Hinkley , Lawrence Street, Eugene, commented that passing an exclusionary zone ordinance without the resources to enforce it was a waste of time. He said the Police Chief’s actions related to withholding a file appeared to be a cover-up and the ordinance was clear that any complaints about police employees were referred to the auditor. He did not feel the current ordinance needed to be revised; the existing rules needed to be followed. Majeska Seese-Green , Eugene, thanked the Mayor and councilors and everyone who helped to protect the Amazon Headwaters. She hoped that the exclusion zone ordinance would not be passed without major revisions. She felt that the issue of a missing complaint was extremely important and wondered why the file could not have been provided to the auditor with sensitive information redacted. She said the Taser incident and withholding of a file had resulted in a setback in public trust and increase in skepticism about the police review system. She said there should be no exceptions to the ordinance and hoped it would never happen again. Councilor Ortiz said passage of the exclusionary zone ordinance was about a crisis of safety downtown. She did not think the exclusion zone would solve all of the problems and was willing to consider anything that might help. She invited community members and community organizations to come downtown, get involved and contribute their suggestions. Councilor Taylor said she was totally opposed to an exclusionary zone. She thanked John Brown for his continuing efforts to promote clean water. Councilor Clark said it was a compliment to the community that so many people spoke on the subject of how to make people safer. He said the council was not perfect and would likely make some mistakes, but he hoped by the end of the meeting, it would take action to make conditions downtown better. He said while the purpose of the Police Auditor was to re-establish trust, that was a two-way street and there should be a willingness to extend trust and respect for the Police Chief’s judgment. He asserted his trust in Chief Lehner and felt his decision would be validated when all information was available. Regarding the Police Auditor, Councilor Poling said that the misstep in communication cited by one of the speakers was the fault of the council, which rushed to get the position established without considering some of the unintended consequences. He said there was no policy or procedure in place to handle a complaint from a City employee against the City Manager, a municipal judge or the Police Auditor. He said there was nothing in place to address the exception circumstances the chief cited with respect to the withheld file. He stressed his support for the Police Auditor position and thanked Ms. Beamud for her work establishing the program. He was willing to withhold judgment regarding the withheld complaint until all information was available and commended Chief Lehner for his management of the department. Councilor Bettman said it was not the details of a complaint that put people in jeopardy; it was the publication of those details, and the Police Auditor was required by ordinance to maintain confidentiality. She said there was no reason the auditor should not have immediately received a redacted file or one specifying why it needed to remain confidential. She said the problem was continuing resistance from the City administration to oversight of complaints involving police employees. She said the ordinance was put in place as a result of the Police Commission’s survey of the community, which revealed that people were afraid to make complaints. She stressed that under the City’s ordinance the Police Chief adjudicates complaints and imposes discipline; the auditor only provides oversight. Mayor Piercy pointed out that on September 15 the council would consider the issue of complaints against council employees. Councilor Zelenka agreed that the Police Auditor ordinance was clear that all complaints should be forwarded to the auditor and there were no exceptions. He said if the chief deemed it necessary, information could have been redacted. Councilor Clark said he saw many people who were victimized downtown and who experienced offensive behavior. He thanked Betty and Cassandra Snowden for speaking up. Councilor Bettman said development of the police auditor model took 18 months and went through multiple subcommittees and public forums, resulting in a comprehensive process consistent with community values. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of the June 9, 2008, Work Session; June 11, 2008, Work Session; June 18, 2008, Work Session; June 23, 2008, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of June 18, 2008 D. Appointment to Toxics Board Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the items on the consent calendar. The motion passed; 8:0. 3. ACTION: Minor Code Amendments Ordinance A: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Sections 9.0020, 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2450, 9,2630, 9.2683, 9.2740, 9.2741, 9.2751, 9.2760, 9.2761, 9.2775, 9.3310, 9.3810, 9.3910, 9.5500, 9.6790, 9.6791, 9.7010, 9.7055, 9.7105, 9.7205, 9.7230, 9.8320, 9.8430, 9.8555, and 4.330 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding a New Section 9.7007 to that Code; and Providing an Effective Date and Ordinance B: An Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Amending Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date and a Sunset Date Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4979, an ordinance concerning land use regulations. Councilor Clark said he understood that the amendments resulting from the Minor Code Amendment Process (MiCAP) were intended to be minor in nature and able to be adopted quickly without significant controversy or threat of litigation. He asked about the purpose of Exhibit A, Attachment B: Findings, which had been distributed at the meeting. Alissa Hansen, Planning and Development Department, said the findings were inadvertently omitted from the agenda packet and were an attachment to Ordinance B. She said they were the same findings presented to the council in July 2008. Councilor Clark expressed concern that putting the stormwater manual language into the code (MiCAP Topic #8) was, in fact, a land use action. He asked staff to elaborate on the finding that the supply or availability of buildable lands would not be impacted. Ms. Hansen replied that there was no Statewide Planning Goal 10 issue related to adding that provision of the manual to the code. She said that provision was already in existing regulations that applied to development currently. She said the amendment was suggested by a resident of the River Road/Santa Clara area and the neighborhood supported including it in the code. She said no additional protections were added; the amendment only took language from the manual that already applied to development and inserted it in the code. Councilor Clark said he had heard testimony during the public hearing expressing concern that taking an administrative rule, which could be easily modified, and placing it in code, created a much more cumber- some process for revisions. He felt that the amendment did have an affect on land supply, the extent of which was not yet known, and should be subjected to further research before action was taken. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to delete Section 17 from Ordinance A and direct the City Manager to send the issue addressed by the pro- posed Section 17, back to the Planning Commission for further review. Councilor Bettman stated she would not support the motion as she understood the drainage ditches were already protected under administrative rule and putting that into the code would not impact the land supply. She said using drainage ditches to manage stormwater was a beneficial practice that also reduced mainte- nance costs. Councilor Clark asked if lands that were subject to the current administrative rule were still listed in the inventory of buildable lands. Ms. Hansen said they were in the inventory. Councilor Clark pointed out that wetlands in West Eugene, which the community wished to protect, were also part of the inventory of commercial/industrial land. He favored respecting the character of the River Road/Santa Clara area and protecting the historic nature of dealing with stormwater, but he felt the City should be honest about that protection and take the subject lands out of the inventory of buildable lands. He was concerned that lands that were currently considered to be buildable were being made unbuildable. Ms. Bettman said the West Eugene wetlands plan slated property for protection with the caveat that it could be developed if the wetlands were mitigated. She gave the Hyundai/Hynix site as an example. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Bettman, Ortiz and Zelenka voting no, and councilors Solomon, Poling, Pryor and Clark voting yes. The Mayor cast a vote against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to retain the current limita- tion on the number of dogs permitted without constituting a “kennel” by: 1) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “ken- nel” in Section 2 of Ordinance A so that the definition retains the following phrase: “premises on which three or more dogs over six-months of age are kept or maintained…” 2) Amending the new test proposed for EC9.2741(2)(a)5 in Section 8 of Ordi- nance A to replace the “3” with a “2.” 3) Deleting the proposed replacement of the number 3 in the definition of “non- commercial dog kennel” in Section 28 of Ordinance A so that the definition re- tains the following phrase: “premises where three or more dogs, over six- months of age, are kept or maintained…” Councilor Poling explained that his motion was responding to citizen concerns regarding neighbors with three or more dogs on their property. He saw no reason to increase the permitted number of dogs from two to three and noted the motion allowed fostering dogs on a temporary basis. Councilor Taylor opposed the motion. She said the proposed change was humane and gave examples of situations where marriage or a death in the family could result in a household having three dogs. Councilor Solomon recalled that the amendment was requested by kennel owners, who wanted the limit increased to three dogs. She was not certain of the implications of Councilor Poling’s motion. Ms. Hansen said the City did not define “dog keeping;” that was done through the definition of a “kennel,” which was defined as three or more dogs. She said if someone owned three dogs that could classify as a kennel, which was not allowed in a residential zone. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Taylor, Pryor, Ortiz and Solomon voting no, and councilors Bettman, Zelenka, Poling and Clark voting yes. The Mayor cast a vote against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend EC 9.7007(1)(a) at Section 19 of Ordinance A to provide: “Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions and tentative cluster subdivisions.” Councilor Zelenka said the requirement for developers to meet with the neighborhood if the proposal was 10 lots or more was irrelevant in more built-up parts of the City and by reducing the number to three, the desired outcome of more neighborhood input would be achieved. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Pryor and Solomon voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to replace the text of the proposed Subsection 9.2751(1)(c) of Ordinance A with the following text: “(c) For purposes of calculating net density[,]: 1. The acreage of land considered part of the residential use shall exclude public [property, including] and private streets and alleys, public parks and other public facilities. 2. In calculating the minimum net density required for a specific lot or development site, the Planning Director shall round down to the previ- ous whole number. 3. In calculating the maximum net density allowed for a specific lot or development site the Planning Director shall round up to the next whole number only for: a. A lot or development site that is 13,500 square feet or more in area; b. A lot or development site that is not abutting the boundary of, or directly across an alley from land zoned R-1; and c. Fractions of .75 or above. In all other circumstances the Planning Director shall round down to the previous whole number. 4. At the request of the developer, the acreage described in 1., above, also may exclude natural or historic resources. For purposes of this section, natural resources include those designated for protection in an adopted plan and the area within natural resources protection or con- servation setbacks that have been applied to the development site. For purposes of this section, historic resources include historic property and resources identified in an official local inventory as “primary” or “secondary.” It may also include additional natural or historic re- sources upon approval of the Planning Director.” Councilor Zelenka explained that his amendment would further limit the circumstances in which rounding up would occur by including development sites adjacent to an R-1 property. The vote on the motion to amend was a 4:4 tie; councilors Zelenka, Bettman, Tay- lor and Ortiz voting yes, and councilors Clark, Poling, Pryor and Solomon voting no. The Mayor voted in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to refer to the Infill Compatibility Standards project or to the Planning Commission the issues of whether the 18-month expiration period for PUDs is too long and whether the City is authorizing too many time-extensions of that expira- tion period. The motion passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Pryor and Poling voting no. The main motion as amended passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Poling and Solomon voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4988, an ordinance concerning land use regulations related to building height transitions. Councilor Zelenka said neighborhoods were concerned about potential activities during the usual 30-day period prior to an ordinance going into effect and had indicated an interest in having the ordinance go into effect immediately. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to delete the text in Section 4 of Ordinance B and replace it with the following: “An immediate effec- tive date of this Ordinance is necessary in order to serve the important public pur- pose of ensuring that infill development in the affected area is compatible with the surroundings.” In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Hansen said that Ordinance B as drafted, contained only the amendment to building height transitions that was specific to the South University Neighborhood. She noted that the staff recommendation was to adopt that ordinance and send that topic, plus the topic of multi-family unit required parking to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for a more thorough review. She pointed out that the ordinance included an 18-month sunset date that would allow the infill project time to either determine the ordinance was sufficient or recommend changes. Councilor Solomon expressed concern with governing the City on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis. Councilor Pryor said he supported the sunset provision and referral back to the infill project. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Councilor Solomon voting no. Councilor Zelenka said the neighborhood areas affected by the ordinance were faced with unique issues that did not extend to other parts of the City. He said his next motion was intended to address the problem of multi-family development that included five- and six-bedroom units and that created large problems with parking as there were no longer just one or two cars per unit. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new section to Ordinance B that included the text provided as Alternative B1 in Attachment C to the agenda item summary (AIS) and to replace the Goal 12 findings for Ordinance B with those provided as Attachment D to the AIS. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Ms. Hansen said the language in the ordinance would not be applied retroactively; it would only affect applications submitted after it went into effect. Councilor Bettman asked if the term “multi-family” could be changed to “multi-unit.” Ms. Hansen said the term appeared throughout the code, including the definitions section, and the change would be added to the list of ongoing code amendments. Councilor Solomon expressed concern with the message to owners who wanted to improve their property and enhance student housing. She said unless someone already had an application in progress they would likely wait 18 months to determine what the final outcome would be. She said the affect would be to stop the building of multi-family housing units in those areas of the City. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Clark, Pryor and Solomon voting no. The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; councilors Clark and Solomon voting no. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to forward amendment topics #5, Building Height Transitions in South University Neighborhood Association, and #7, Required Parking for Multi-Family Developments in West University and South University Neighborhood Associa- tions, to the Infill Compatibility Standards project for further consideration to allow for a more comprehensive review and analysis of the issues and policy choices, as well as identification of long-term solutions. The motion passed, 8:0. 4. ACTION: Initiation of Metro Plan Amendment for River Ridge LTD/Jeffries This item was postponed. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zones; and Adding Sections 4.873, 4.874, 4.875, 4.877 and 4.878 to the Eugene Code, 1971 Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4985, an ordinance concerning downtown public safety zones (Version C). Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend Subsection (1) of Section 4.874 of the Ordinance to add Section 4.770 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (urination or defecation in public places) as a violation for which a person may be excluded. City Attorney Jerome Lidz confirmed that Councilor Pryor’s motion related to Version C, which was a hybrid of versions A and B and provided for exclusion prior to conviction of an offense for a smaller list of offenses; exclusion for other offenses would come only after a conviction in criminal court. He said Version C also expanded the exclusion zone by one square block on the west side, contained a sunset clause and created the additional offense of violation of the downtown public safety zone. Councilor Clark said his amendments were intended to address the specific intimidation and harassment that many people were experiencing downtown. Councilor Taylor stated her intent to vote against the ordinance and all associated amendments. Councilor Bettman said she would vote against each amendment. She preferred to consider only the post- conviction ordinance and then amend it to include certain other serious infractions. She would not support an ordinance that excluded people before they were convicted of a crime. Councilor Zelenka agreed that there were behavioral problems downtown, but noted crime was actually down. He said the treatment experienced by Betty Snowden was not acceptable, but it was unclear that the exclusion zone ordinance would accomplish that. He said more police were needed downtown and an underlying problem was the lack of resources in the Lane County criminal justice system. He felt the hate crimes ordinance the council was working on would be more effective in addressing racism, intimidation and harassment. He said he was concerned with due process and that drugs were the root of many problems. He noted that exclusions would be made by a judge, not the police, and there were other examples of restricting people’s rights without a conviction, such as a restraining order. Reluctantly he could support Version C. Councilor Ortiz said she would support Version C and agreed with Councilor Clark’s amendment. She said the community had clearly expressed concerns about bad behavior and it was a difficult decision to adopt an exclusion zone, but there was a public safety problem downtown that had to be addressed. She appreciated the inclusion of a sunset clause. Councilor Clark asked if the crime rate was lower downtown. Chief Lehner replied that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime reports indicated that Part 1 crimes were down in most of the City, including downtown; however, other types of crimes were actually increasing in the downtown area. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting no. The council took a short break. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.874(1) of the ordinance to add the offense listed in Eugene Code Section 4.110(2) (furnish- ing alcohol to a minor). The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to amend Section 4.874 of the proposed ordinance by moving the following offenses from Subsection (2) to Subsection (1): EC 4.726 (harassment); EC 4.729 (assault); ORS 163.165 (assault in the third degree); ORS 163.175 (assault in the second degree); ORS 163.185 (assault in the first degree); EC 4.730 (menacing); EC 4.731 (intimidation in the second degree); and ORS 166.165 (intimidation in the first degree). The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting no. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to include the following lan- guage as an uncodified section of the Ordinance: “Within two years from the effective date of this Ordinance: 1) The City Manager shall prepare a report of the activity recorded in the Down- town Public Safety Zone and provide that report to the Police Commission, and 2) The Police Commission shall review the report, obtain public input regarding the effectiveness of this Ordinance in reducing targeted incidents in the Down- town Public Safety Zone and provide a recommendation to the council regard- ing continued enforcement of this Ordinance. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Lidz explained that the term “uncodified” meant the language stood as an ordinance but was not in the code as it was a directive to the City Manager and not to the general public. He said a sunset clause was typically an uncodified section also. Councilor Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to require the report after one year. Councilor Ortiz declined to accept the amendment as the report needed to be based on at least a year of data. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Bettman voting no. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new Subsec- tion F to Section 4.875 that would require the officer to inform the cited or arrested person that they have the right to counsel and that if they cannot afford counsel at the hearing one will be provided. Councilor Zelenka said his motion would add due process by providing counsel to people who could not afford it when they went before a judge. He said that was a basic tenet of the judicial system. Councilor Clark asked if Councilor Zelenka’s motion would add time to the process. He said the hearing before the judge would be held within three to five days of the citation and he was not opposed to having the citing officer inform the person that they had that right, but was concerned that having the judge do so would automatically result in a continuance and he was opposed to that. Councilor Zelenka said the motion would apply at the time the officer issued a citation. Mr. Lidz said because it was not a criminal proceeding, it was not a constitutional requirement that someone be provided with appointed counsel; the issue was primarily one of resources. Councilor Solomon objected to the suggestion that people’s rights were being taken away and they were not being given what they were entitled to. She asked City Prosecutor Dan Barkovic to comment on the implications of the amendment. Mr. Barkovic said it would be extremely costly to provide at public expense a court-appointed attorney for a civil proceeding. He felt it would be a huge expense for the Municipal Court to add that to the pre-conviction exclusion. Councilor Bettman said she would make an exception and support the amendment because it restored some of the civil rights and due process citizens were afforded under the Constitution. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Chief Lehner said that the Miranda warning was given in cases of a custodial arrest where a statement that was potentially self-incriminating would be taken. Councilor Clark said he was concerned with the potential fiscal impact of the amendment on the City and while he supported due process as a part of constitutional rights, he likened the exclusionary zone to a stalking or restraining order that were civil proceedings intended to separate people to prevent problems and did not include appointment of counsel. Councilor Zelenka said he was troubled that someone’s rights could be taken away without affording them the knowledge that they had a right to counsel and the City would pay for that counsel. He did not feel the cost would be as great as predicted, but that should not be a factor in the council’s decision. He clarified that the City would pay for an attorney only if the person could not afford one. Councilor Taylor said she would also make an exception and support the amendment as it appeared that the ordinance would pass and the amendment would make it less unfair. She asked if it meant the person being arrested or cited would have to be informed of their right to an attorney and that the City would pay if they person could not afford one. Mr. Lidz said that was his understanding of Councilor Zelenka’s motion. Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Clark that the proceeding was similar to a show cause hearing for a restraining or stalking order and there was no constitutional right to have an attorney appointed in a civil proceeding. He could not support the amendment. Councilor Bettman stated that a stalking order did not apply to an entire area; it only applied to a person. She said the issue of no constitutional right to an attorney at a civil proceeding begged the question because a person could be punished at the civil proceeding before they had their day in court, where they did have a right to legal representation. She said the amendment provided due process and pointed out that all of the crimes listed in the ordinance were punishable by law. Councilor Pryor asked if there was a point at which traffic offenses would result in the City providing an attorney. He said there were now cases coming before Municipal Court that were relatively serious, but the City was not requiring that an attorney be provided. He asked if there were problems adjudicating those cases when people did not have representation. Mr. Barkovic said if a person was charged with a crime they were entitled to a court-appointed attorney at the outset; if the matter was a violation and not a crime there was no entitlement to an attorney appointed at public expense, although the person could hire their own attorney. He said that system has worked well and there was no ambiguity about who did and did not qualify for attorney representation at public expense. He said the offenses under the exclusionary zone were both crimes and violations, and if the underlying case was a crime, the person would be entitled to a court- appointed attorney. He noted that as the ordinance was drafted no one, regardless of the offense, would qualify for an attorney at public expenses for the show cause hearing before the court. In response to a question from Councilor Pryor, Mr. Barkovic said that in instances where the underlying offense was elevated to the status of a crime, the constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney would pertain, but that would not apply to the civil exclusion. Councilor Zelenka asked for clarification that legal counsel was not required under the ordinance until the trial, regardless of the seriousness of the offense, and officers were not required to tell the person they could have an attorney with them. Mr. Barkovic said that was correct. He said the officer was not required to tell the person receiving the notice of exclusion that they had the right to have an attorney at the hearing. He said the person could bring their own attorney, but would not qualify for an attorney at public expense. Mayor Piercy clarified that the judge would make the decision to exclude and the officer would only provide notice that an exclusion order could be entered against the person. She asked Mr. Lidz to discuss applicable decisions by the Oregon Supreme Court. Mr. Lidz said the court had considered a case related to exclusion from Portland’s no prostitution zone; the person who had been excluded was also charged with prostitution and argued that double jeopardy applied since they had already been subjected to criminal punishment through the exclusion. He said the court disagreed and found that the exclusion was a civil remedy and not a criminal prosecution. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment to allow the officer to give the per- son notice of their right to have an attorney at a civil proceeding, but not one pro- vided by the City. Councilor Zelenka declined to accept the amendment. Judge Wayne Allen stated that people were informed in Municipal Court at the time of a hearing on any type of violation that they had the right to be represented by an attorney. He said providing an attorney at the hearing under the ordinance would be expensive, but it was a difficult issue because a person might say something at the hearing that could present a problem for them at trial. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka voting yes. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to add a new Section F to Section 4.875 requiring that the officer inform the person that they have a right to counsel at the hearing. Chief Lehner said that the written notice could contain that information. In response to a question from Councilor Clark, Mr. Lidz assured him that the motion would not change the council’s intent that the ordinance was a civil remedy and not a criminal punishment. The motion to amend passed, 5:3; councilors Bettman, Taylor and Solomon voting no. Councilor Taylor opined that the ordinance was unjust and unenforceable. She said the people who were excluded would not disappear and could cause problems elsewhere in the community. She sympathized with Betty Snowden. She said there were laws in place to address the offenses and the council should be discussing solutions to the problems, such as increasing the downtown police presence, using volunteers to help downtown, building a public restroom, providing shelter for the homeless and creating a center open to all youth. Councilor Bettman said she would not support the ordinance. She agreed there was unacceptable criminal behavior downtown, but could not support excluding people prior to conviction of a crime. She said the Police Department budget had been increased to address problems downtown and in urban parks, and asked how much money it would take for the police to respond to those issues. She felt there were many expenditures that were extraneous and the money could be put toward increasing patrol capacity. Councilor Zelenka said he could not support the ordinance as it was too broadly written as amended. Councilor Pryor said he did not want to have an exclusionary zone, but it was unconscionable what was happening to people downtown. He said it represented a collision between personal liberty and community good will and councilors would vote their conscience. He would reluctantly support the ordinance and hoped it would improve public safety in the downtown area. Councilor Taylor recommended that a committee of community members could be established to consider solutions to the problems downtown, instead of penalties. Councilor Clark expressed his appreciation for the thorough discussion of the issue. He did not see the ordinance as a solution for all of the problems downtown; it was a good first step. He asked Chief Lehner to respond by memorandum to Councilor Bettman’s question about what resources would be required to do an adequate job of community policing in the downtown core area. Councilor Bettman clarified that her question was how much money it would take before the council stopped hearing there were not enough resources to answer calls. Mayor Piercy said it would take many strategies to assure safety downtown, including more people and activities downtown, better enforcement of the law, working to stop hate speech and community collabora- tion to make the downtown area a place people wanted to be. The motion as amended passed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Bettman and Zelenka vot- ing no. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall October 13, 2008 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Chris Pryor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Brown , 101 East Broadway, Suite 101, thanked the City Councilors and Mayor for their commitment to the community. He stressed that he was not representing any board or commission of which he was a member. He stated that he was speaking from having served eight years on the Police Commission and chairing the Auditor/Civilian Review Board Subcommittee that had helped draft the ordinance. He averred that it was a good model and could work, but if the council did not intervene soon to stop the debate on what was right or what was legal, the entire process would be “doomed.” He underscored that he had traveled to the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conferences, as had Councilor Bettman. He felt he had learned the components that would make the auditor ordinance a success, as follows: ? It had to have adequate funding; ? It had to be non-politicized; ? There had to be buy-in from all of the parties involved. He did not think Eugene had those components. He urged the council to take the lead and do something to resolve things. He opined that the system was not functioning currently and people were getting frustrated. He declared that there was a lot of blame and no solutions; the council should find solutions instead of blame. He observed that too many people thought they had the answers. He believed the answers lay in the dialogue that had yet to occur. He recalled that during the process involved in formulating the draft there had been an incident that came about that caused some people to think the process should be accelerated. He said rather than accelerating the process they sat down, had a dialogue, and continued the process. He thought they had done it right; what they had passed on to the council was thought to be correct by the subcommittee, the Police Commission, the council, and the City Attorney. He now felt they had erred in not setting up a system to address problems as they arose. He underscored his desire to continue to honor what the voters had asked for, which was transparent civilian oversight. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 1 Regular Meeting th Deb Frisch , 3003 West 11 Avenue, attributed the departure of the Police Chief and the Police Auditor to the Civilian Review Board (CRB) not functioning. She believed that the CRB needed to function better or there would be more legal and financial risks for the City. She opposed the passage of ballot measure 20- 146. She registered her opposition to the fourth item on the agenda, which would authorize the expenditure of contingency funds from the General Fund for the auditor recruitment process. Jim Hale , 1715 Linnea Avenue, observed that the community had a shortage of police officers and the county was in “disarray” in regard to public safety; public safety needed more funding across the board. He thought there should be more police and more public safety and in order to do that the City had to have people at the margins and at the middle of the political process understand that the police department was above approach. He believed this required a civilian review that was not run by the City Manager. He averred that it was not possible to have the very best police department and the best officers unless the civilian review was above reproach and “not played out in the newspapers.” He did not understand how the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA) could have bargained for a contract that was in conflict with the auditor ordinance. He thought everyone should be completely earnest on all sides of the political spectrum so that the ability to solve the community’s problems would not be “crippled.” He stressed that the community’s crime rate, particularly pertaining to property crimes, was soaring. He believed that people were not calling in crimes as much as in the past because many people felt there was no point as no one would be locked up. He said they needed to find solutions regarding law enforcement, which should include a good approach to police review. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, was angered that the Police Auditor had been blocked from access to the Internal Affairs (IA) office of the Eugene Police Department (EPD). She felt that the auditor should have complete access and the denial of it was “no small matter.” She supported the Mayor’s proposal to hold an executive session regarding this issue. She averred that City Hall and the Human Rights Commission had been “swamped” with callers who wanted to know what was going on. She opined that the Mayor’s opponent in the mayoral race “mocked” the lack of progress of the external review program. She declared that the will of the voters should be respected and nothing should trump the democratic process. She believed that reputable officers had nothing to fear and much to gain from external review. She provided her testimony in writing. Drix , High Street, stressed that there were two more days to register to vote. He said he had been encouraging everyone to vote. He declared that he was not a money person, noting that he had bought his shirt from a used clothing store for half off. He related that he tried to treat everyone with integrity. In closing, he shared two new words: no-add, which meant someone who would choose not to have an address; and p-mail, which was his word for “snail” mail. Alison M. Voss , 3345 Chambers Street, stated that she was present as co-chair of the Wayne Morse Historical Park Corporation and representing the surviving members of the Morse family. She asked the council to help correct an inaccuracy in the park’s name by approving the resolution to do so in the Consent Calendar. She briefly reviewed the history of the Wayne Morse farm. She stated that it had been incorrectly called a ranch and the name had stuck. She related that the remaining daughters of Wayne Morse had reminded the board of the incorrect name and had suggested changing it to the Wayne Morse Family Farm. She said the board had vetted this name with the Parks and Open Space division, neighbors, and dog park patrons, and they had tried to find other interested parties to see if there were any objections. Support had been unanimous for the change and it was now on the Consent Calendar for a council vote. Bob O’Brien , 3525 Gilham Road, declared that he believed in trusting the police. He felt the use of force to deter crime and maintain safety was a big responsibility. He averred that the trust in police had been MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 2 Regular Meeting “basically destroyed” in the community. He thanked the Mayor and the council for trying to work things out in the latest dispute so that it followed the charter amendment. Paul Prensky , 1270 Jacobs Drive, said he had asked City Manager Jon Ruiz when he would give the auditor full backing. He wanted Mr. Ruiz to speak out. He had gotten to know the current Police Auditor, Dawn Reynolds, and had found her to be “regardful and fair-minded.” He called her an “ardent student of the rights of the homeless.” He felt she was providing a resource the community really needed. He shared his suggestion that Joseph McNamara, PhD., from Stanford University be brought to Eugene to help the situation between the citizens and the police. He averred that everyone needed to sit at the table and talk and listen “regardfully” and they would arrive at agreements. Zachary Vishanoff , somewhere on Patterson Street, averred that transparency was “not a brand,” and Mr. Ruiz should “do it” and not just talk about it. He had read that Councilor Zelenka had supported more accountability for the police. He opined that Councilor Zelenka had a lack of accountability on “certain very massive projects.” He asserted that the City Manager had been meeting behind closed doors about a “huge project” that Mr. Vishanoff felt he was not allowed to talk about. He wanted to know when the minutes from those meetings would be available. He said if there was a draft memorandum of understand- ing, he wanted to know when he could see it. He alleged that there was a plan called the “Farkas Report” and it was now missing. He wanted to know where it was and he wanted a copy of it. He also wondered how soon “form-based codes” would be instituted. Ruth Duemler , 1745 Fircrest Drive, thanked everyone for their support for the Police Auditor. She felt there should be a transparent system, given that the people had voted for it. She supported having an executive session and supported having a performance auditor akin to that in Portland. She asserted that the performance auditor had been very successful and had made a big difference to the police department there. She thanked the councilors who had supported Ballot Measure 20-146. She averred that it would help to develop more trust with the police department. John “Mac” McFadden , 575 Knapp Lane, stated that ten years earlier he had been hired as the liaison for the St. Vincent DePaul car campers. He said in the first couple of weeks of the job he took inventory by driving around at night and finding out who was out there and what their needs were. He related that he had seen a police car on one of those trips and was certain he would be stopped by the officer so he pulled over. He had done so because he believed that in order to do his job he needed to be able to trust the police and they needed to be able to trust him. He declared that this was how to build trust – with openness and transparency and a willingness to answer their questions and not secretiveness or withholding information. Jim Torrey , Ward 4, respectfully requested that the Mayor and City Council ask legal counsel and members of the planning and transportation departments to review the decision made on August 13 regarding the removal of the term West Eugene Parkway (WEP) from the Transportation Plan (TransPlan). He explained that Goal 12 stated that there must be a replacement before removing a program that would remove congestion from West Eugene. He underscored the need to seriously look at the implications of this decision with regard to the ability to develop property in West Eugene until a replacement for the WEP had been determined. He added that the WEP terminology did not refer to the alignment that had been terminated in 2005, it referred to an arterial that would reduce congestion. He wanted to make sure that the unintended consequences of the efforts in the August 13 decision would not stop the community from being able to develop businesses and other things, such as an urgent care facility in West Eugene. Paul Moore , 2586 Potter Street, wanted to discuss the plan for the Crest area that had been approved in April, which was a plan for two narrow nine-foot-wide traffic lanes on winding and sometimes steep upgrades in that area. He reiterated that testimony from the bicycling community there had been that it MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 3 Regular Meeting would be unsafe and unsuitable; 100 area residents had signed petitions requesting more space on those roads. He said 100 attendees of the Eugene Bicycle Summit had signed the same petition. He related that since then the cost of gasoline increased to more than $4 per gallon and more people than ever were riding bicycles. He stated that around the country things such as the Complete Streets Initiatives, which were planning initiatives supported by planners all over the country, to make streets complete for bicycling, walking, transit, and automobile usage, had proliferated. He stressed that Eugene was set to build streets in the Crest area that would last forty years, that did not provide bicycle amenities for the multiple cyclists who live in that area. He said the Oregon Bike Bill required that all streets that were undergoing a complete rebuild must include suitable facilities for bicycle usage. He noted that the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) funding bill, increased the focus on bicycling as transportation. He believed that respect for the future of the simple transportation needs of Eugene citizens called for taking a different approach on Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. Councilor Bettman thanked everyone for their testimony. She clarified that the language on the ballot measure would amend the charter and not the ordinance. She disagreed with Mr. Brown’s perspective on the auditor’s office taken from the NACOLE conference. She did not remember people saying there was any way to move forward with independent oversight without there being political issues. She asserted that the police union in Seattle, Washington, had sued its civilian review board to keep a report from being published. She declared that transparency and openness were the only powers in the oversight system. Regarding the WEP, Councilor Bettman noted that Mr. Torrey had sent an email regarding the August 13 decision. She disputed his argument that having no planned transportation corridor would affect develop- ment in western Eugene, declaring it to be untrue. She recalled that the recommendation from staff had been that the plan should include a footnote that basically said inclusion of the WEP in the plan could not be used for planning any development. Councilor Clark also thanked everyone for coming and testifying. He appreciated the comments regarding the Police Auditor. He supported having an effective police oversight system. He concurred that the Mayor and City Council should take a stronger leadership role with the auditor’s office. He felt the council could do a better job of communicating with the Police Auditor, noting that he had met with her earlier in the day. He related that they had a productive conversation about the sorts of things that would make for a more effective oversight office. He looked forward to the council as a whole setting up clear expectations for the office and more regular communication. Councilor Solomon observed that inflammatory and accusatory rhetoric would not help the Police Auditor’s Office improve. She hoped people would “tone it down” so that they could work together and arrive at a solution that would work for the whole community. Councilor Solomon commented that her recollection of the August 13 meeting regarding the WEP did not seem to be the same as Councilor Bettman’s. She requested that staff provide a memorandum regarding the consequences of that meeting and what can and cannot happen in the interim. Councilor Solomon expressed disappointment that no one had come to speak about Ballot Measure 20-145, the measure that would provide funding to fix 70 miles in city streets over the next five years. She said it was a $35.9 million bond measure that would slow the deterioration of the streets so that the “$170 million problem would not turn into a $225 million problem by allowing more streets to fall from fixable to damaged beyond repair.” She stressed that the bond measure was intentionally crafted to raise only enough MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 4 Regular Meeting money to demonstrate that it could do what it said it would do. She encouraged the voters to support the measure. Councilor Zelenka opined that Mr. Torrey was “making a mountain out of a molehill.” He asserted that they had only “cleaned up” and made consistent the transportation planning documents so that they were consistent with “reality.” He disputed the claim that what they had done would stop development in West Eugene. He believed that the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) was the alternative effort that was being “pushed and led” by the Mayor. He averred that it was the right type of process as all of the parties were being brought together to arrive at a solution that worked and was durable. Councilor Zelenka did not believe the Police Auditor system was at issue; he believed it was the “consistent and constant” challenges to any accountability that caused the problems. Continuing, Councilor Zelenka urged the community to support Ballot Measure 20-145. He said people should just drive around and that would be the campaign for the measure. Councilor Ortiz thanked Mr. McFadden for his work. She also wanted to add her support for Ballot Measure 20-145. Councilor Ortiz related that when she ran for office she had promised her constituents that she would do something about the WEP. She averred that the WEC was working more in alignment with what she believed. Regarding the Police Auditor’s Office, Councilor Ortiz thought the council needed to agree what they wanted from the auditor. She supported holding an executive session in order to have a candid conversation. She underscored that the City Council had three employees and gave the City Manager and the Municipal Court judge clear direction, which they did not provide to the Police Auditor. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for testifying. She agreed that both ballot measures should be passed. She opined that the Police Auditor had been prevented from doing her job in some cases. She said the council had no control over the EPD. She supported holding an executive session to further discuss the auditor’s office. Councilor Bettman alleged that the WEP had been dead long before Eugene representatives had voted against it in the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She reiterated her assertion that the cost of the project had been doubled and that it had “died of its own weight.” She averred that it had been kept alive on paper and that people had wanted it to be on paper in case enough money was available, but locally people needed “money to fill potholes.” Councilor Bettman said both of the measures that had been placed on the ballot had been passed almost unanimously by the council. She noted that a lot had been said about how divided the council was. She opined that the community had been divided as well, and the council reflected the community. She felt the council had been able to come together on important issues. Continuing, Councilor Bettman declared that the Police Auditor knew what her job was; it was very well- described in the ordinance. She asserted that the problem lay in her need to have cooperation from the EPD. Councilor Clark expressed disappointment that some of his colleagues were pointing their fingers at the EPD and accusing the department of obstructing the auditing position and the success of the office. He underscored that this was not his opinion. He said, for the sake of balance, he believed the auditors, both MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 5 Regular Meeting present and previous, had exceeded their mandate and their authority on several occasions. He believed they had made mistakes in judgment that were contrary to the ordinance and that were challengeable. He felt there was enough “blame here to go around for everybody” but for him the bottom line was that the council needed to exercise greater authority and supervision of the office and he hoped they would do that. Councilor Clark recalled that the staff member who made the presentation on August 13 mentioned that he had some questions about how the motion would affect any potential zone changes that might take place in West Eugene, because it would adversely affect the TransPlan. He also recalled that the staff work required for that particular motion would set back the work to fix the Delta Highway/Beltline Highway connection by an additional six months. Additionally, Councilor Clark observed that a couple of times during the evening the Mayor had been given credit for having led or created the WEC. He had attended a meeting at the River Road Community Organization at which he related that the Mayor had stated that she created the WEC. He had also heard the Mayor say at many meetings that it was not “owned” per se by the Mayor, rather it consisted of a group of citizens who had come together to do that work. He called on the Mayor to clarify this. Councilor Poling reminded his colleagues that he had requested a meeting of the council to figure out a process for handling complaints when a complaint had been made about the office the previous summer. He had wanted to determine what they were supposed to do to address other issues that arose as unintended consequences of the charter amendment. Councilor Poling also wished to speak to Councilor Bettman’s declaration that there was near unanimous agreement among councilors on the two ballot measures. He stressed that he supported placing the measures on the ballot to allow the voters to decide. He stated that he had specifically voted for one and had indicated that he would not actively campaign against the other. Councilor Poling echoed the request for a memorandum from staff regarding the specific ramifications of the decision to remove references to the WEP on August 13. He understood that the language had been left in as a placeholder. Mayor Piercy thanked everyone who “cared so much” about the success of the Civilian Review Board that they had come to express their “concerns and hopes” for the council to get any disagreements settled. She said the City Manager would have more information in the next couple of days for the larger discussion. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation to the councilors for bringing up the ballot measures. Mayor Piercy also wanted to make clear that the elected officials could not comment on criminal cases. She thought everyone would continue to work to ensure that the auditor and the CRB would continue to work both for the police and the community. She added that she wished to thank Police Chief Robert Lehner for his service to the community. She wished him well. Continuing, Mayor Piercy said she had talked to staff about the WEP issue. It was her understanding that the council had only initiated a process and it would not affect anything in the present. She noted that they had to look at the TransPlan again anyway. In response to Councilor Clark, she lauded the work of the WEC. She believed they would arrive at “some affordable, doable solutions” for transportation in West Eugene. She averred that she took no claim for the WEC, other than that she had helped to get the collaborative process going. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 6 Regular Meeting A. Approval of City Council Minutes - June 16, 2008, Work Session and Public Hearing - July 14, 2008, City Council Meeting - July 15, 2008, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - July 30, 2008, Work Session - August 13, 2008, Work Session - September 8, 2008, Work Session - September 8, 2008, City Council Meeting - September 10, 2008, Work Session - September 15, 2008, Public Hearing - September 22, 2008, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4948 Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (School District 4J, A 08-1) D. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of September 10, 2008 E. Adoption of Resolution 4957 Renaming the “Wayne L. Morse Ranch” as the “Wayne Morse Family Farm” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Councilor Bettman noted she had submitted corrections to the minutes. Councilor Taylor also noted that she had submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy congratulated the Wayne Morse Family Farm Board members on the adoption of the resolution to change the name of the park. 3. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the 1999 Street Classification Map to Add a Newly Constructed Section of Hilyard Street from East Broadway to Mill Street Which is Designated as a Minor Arterial Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City adopt Council Bill 4990, an ordinance amending the 1999 street classification map. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 4. ACTION: Request for Contingency Funds for Cost and Expenses Associated with Recruitment and Selection of a New Police Auditor and Approval of Brochure Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to authorize the expenditure of funds from the General Fund contingency account for recruitment and selection of the Po- lice Auditor, estimated to be approximately $50,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 7 Regular Meeting In response to questions from the councilors, Assistant City Manager Sara Medary said her understanding was that they would address the expenditure and the brochure at the present meeting and then address the job description on October 20. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the updated Police Auditor brochure. Acting Director of the Human Resources Division, Alana Holmes, stated that it had been the recruiter who said it was his preference to have the job description embedded in the brochure. Councilor Bettman asked Ms. Holmes to describe the legislative changes that had been made to the brochure. Ms. Holmes reviewed those changes, hard copies of which were provided to the council. She noted that there were 327 budgeted positions and currently there were 312 employees in the police department and a budget of $43.3 million in FY09. She asked if the council had a preference as to which figure was used for the employees. Councilor Bettman preferred to include the budgeted figure. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Holmes said that given the current proposed timelines there might be a need to push the closing date out one week. She related that the recruiter felt that six weeks were needed to engage in an active recruitment process. Councilor Bettman asked if staff wanted to edit the closing date to change it to December 16. Ms. Holmes responded that staff would revise the documents to reflect whatever the council approved at the present meeting. Ms. Holmes stated, in response to another question from Councilor Bettman, that the recruiter had indicated that he would utilize the opportunity that the council break in late December would provide, to conduct the full background checks on the applicants. She suggested that the councilors could ask him if there were other things they should be doing, such as crafting interview questions. She noted that the recruiters would be verifying degrees, looking at certifications and credentials, and conducting reference checks during while the councilors were on break. She said they would return before the council to report on their findings after the break. Councilor Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the following language to the motion: “Pending approval by the City Council of the embedded job description on October 20.” Councilor Bettman declined the friendly amendment. Councilor Clark stressed that he wished to ensure that the council was not acting precipitously. Mayor Piercy ascertained from City Attorney Jerry Lidz that the motion would simply approve the brochure with a placeholder for the job description. Councilor Poling indicated he would not support the motion, but not because of the position or the ordinance. He could not support it given that the minimum qualifications had been altered to require a juris doctorate. He believed this would limit the number of qualified applicants for the position. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 8 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka supported the motion. He reiterated his support for the requirement of a law degree. He added his feeling that the NACOLE conference would provide a rich recruitment environment. He thought the City had hired a good recruiter. He ascertained from Ms. Holmes that it was staff’s belief that six weeks was the appropriate window for recruitment. Councilor Zelenka asked if making the window longer would make any difference. Ms. Holmes replied that six weeks was adequate, though the requirement that applicants have a juris doctorate would take more of a recruitment effort. Councilor Clark said he would support extending the recruitment as he wanted to make sure there was adequate time for the process. He reiterated his concern for the requirement for a law degree. He believed it was a mistake for the council to limit itself unnecessarily as the councilors had the discretion when reviewing candidates to choose only those who had a juris doctorate. He thought to say they would not consider, nor look at any information from, nor take applications from, nor review any person’s other qualifications for, those who did not possess a law degree, was a mistake. For this reason, he indicated he would oppose the motion. Councilor Bettman reiterated her support for requiring a law degree. Ms. Holmes noted that the recruiter, Eric Middleton, also planned to attend the NACOLE conference. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:2; councilors Clark and Poling voting in opposition. Councilor Clark asked if staff could create a PDF version of the brochure that could easily be circulated. Ms. Holmes said staff could do so. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 9 Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon October 15, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. She introduced Teri Strong of Cascade Health Solutions, who would facilitate the meeting. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session Ms. Strong gave an overview of the meeting and the agenda topics to be addressed. She reviewed the ground rules to be observed during the discussion: ? Listen with respect ? No personal attacks ? Try things on for size ? Stay on task ? Value differences ? Be open and honest ? Look for opportunities to agree ? Strive for consensus Ms. Strong determined there was agreement to take agenda topics in the order in which they were listed. Topic: Respectful communication Ms. Ortiz said at times councilors’ comments became more personalized and directed at others instead of focusing on the discussion subject. She felt constituents expected a certain level of professionalism from councilors. She said comments were sometimes directed at different philosophies and beliefs. She recommended watching the webcasts of council meetings to see what message was being sent either verbally or through body language. Mr. Pryor agreed that the discussion should focus on the issue and not individual members. He said a reason or intent should not be assigned to another’s action and many communication problems had their origin in assumptions about someone else’s motives. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Piercy said respect should be present in all forms of communications, including email, and people should discuss the issue without being accusatory. Ms. Bettman expressed her disappointment that the meeting was not being telecast. She said the council was a body that did not need to work together like the board of a corporation. Members represented different constituencies and vastly different value systems. She said issues were very political and a discussion of intent regarding how an issue was framed was a political consideration. She felt the council had conducted itself well and the discussions had been civilized. She said it was appropriate to point out the real issue below the issue as it was framed. Mr. Zelenka indicated he had served on 15 boards in his career and the council did not operate any differently than the others. He agreed that most communications had been civil. He said the council dealt with challenging issues and discussions could sometimes be emotional because members cared and tried to make their cases as forcefully and persuasively as possible. He thought if councilors made their motivations explicit it would avoid problems that arose when others had to guess. Ms. Taylor saw no reason to share motives when discussing issues. She felt the council was respectful enough. Motives could be revealed through questioning. She said councilors represented different values and goals and the council should not function like a corporate board or family. Mr. Clark remarked that one of his first questions as a councilor was about the appropriateness of characterizing the motivations or intent of his fellow councilors. He said the answer from colleagues was consistently that it was not acceptable to do that. He agreed that people were on the council because they cared, but he preferred a working environment that was less corrosive in terms of comments to and about others. He hoped councilors, including himself, would search for opportunities to treat one another well. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Jon Ruiz said it was his understanding that past process sessions had not been televised and the McNutt Room was being used in order to make it more accessible to the public. Following a discussion of whether process sessions should be televised, Ms. Piercy suggested that such direction should be explicit and from the entire council to avoid individual councilor’s opinions being taken as council direction. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have the cameras on when the council met as a body, except in executive session. The motion passed 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Mr. Poling said he did not feel that process sessions had to be broadcast because the council was not discussing public business, only its operating rules and procedures. Topic: Council direction to staff Mr. Poling said he noted that in public hearings on ordinances, in the council’s discussion following public testimony a councilor might indicate a preference for different language and the next time the ordinance came before the council those changes were embedded in it instead of being presented as proposed amendments. He questioned why one councilor would have the authority to direct staff to change the wording of a proposed ordinance instead of having the changes brought forward as proposed motions to amend. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark recalled a conversation with Interim City Manager Angel Jones regarding a process that would leave the ordinance language unchanged and bring back any suggested changes as options to be voted on separately. He would support that approach. Ms. Taylor said sometimes the change was just a correction or clarification and she was not aware of any other types of changes. Ms. Bettman said if changes were embedded in the ordinance it had happened rarely; typically a councilor requested a motion to amend the ordinance and that was drafted by staff to ensure that the change occurred as intended. She said that also avoided wordsmithing at meetings and provided notification of the amendment. She was not aware of any problems with changes being made on the basis of one councilor’s statement, although occasionally two versions of an ordinance might be presented if there were significantly different opinions on the council. Mr. Pryor agreed it was a good idea to clarify the process and determine that the ordinance, as first proposed and sent to a public hearing should be considered the base document and any substantive changes should be proposed as an amendment to that base document. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. Mr. Poling said Ms. Solomon had originally raised the issue and there could be examples related to the topic other than the one he had offered. Mr. Clark agreed that the topic was broader than action on a specific ordinance. He said sometimes a subject was raised at a public forum and a member of the council wanted the City Manager to undertake a task such as gathering information and reporting back or taking action on the issue. He said the substance of the concern was to ensure that the council was acting as one voice instead of an individual council giving direction to staff or the City Manager that might not reflect the majority opinion. Mr. Ruiz used the public safety zone ordinance as an example of changes being discussed by councilors during the public hearing, which were incorporated by staff into a revised document instead of proposed motions to amend the original document. He asked for clarity on the council’s preferred approach. Ms. Strong determined there was consensus to retain the original ordinance as the base document and present any changes in the form of proposed motions that could be disposed of as the council wished. This would clarify for the public and provide a record of any changes that were made to the document that was presented at the public hearing. Mr. Clark suggested a section in the agenda item summary (AIS) that set forth the City Manager’s recommended changes to the base document. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that non-substantive changes such as grammar or syntax could be made to the base document without a motion to change. Ms. Taylor commented that if the changes to the base document were drastic it should be subject to another public hearing. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Poling said that changes were likely the result of input at a public forum and already sufficiently processed. Ms. Bettman suggested that non-substantive changes such as correcting grammar and typographical errors, which did not require a motion, should be presented in legislative format in the base document to ensure that all changes were identified. Ms. Piercy did not feel that it was necessary to hold public hearings subsequent to amending the base document as those changes typically resulted from the initial hearing. She said constituents still had an opportunity to express their opinions about the changes to councilors via email or other forms of communi- cation before the council took action. Ms. Piercy asked for head nods from councilors to indicate agreement with the procedures for amending proposed ordinances. There were no objections. Mr. Zelenka asked that when there was an informal agreement instead of a formal vote, lack of a stated objection should be taken as agreement. Topic: Adding provisions to ordinances without council direction Ms. Bettman used the elections ordinance to illustrate why this topic was different from the preceding topic. She said a change to the ordinance had been discussed by the council and when the document was returned, it contained two new provisions: the change discussed by the council and a change generated by staff without council discussion. She said the intent of the topic was to ensure that provisions to ordinances were addressed by the council in a work session before they came before the council for action. Mr. Clark felt that it was sufficient for the provision to be identified in the document and AIS as recom- mended by staff. Mr. Zelenka also was satisfied with clearly identifying any staff proposed provisions as such in the document. He asked if the issue was that staff should not be proposing provisions. Ms. Bettman objected to bundling provisions proposed by staff with those requested by the council as she felt it was confusing and placed the onus on the council to separate the issues without an opportunity to discuss some of them in a work session. Ms. Piercy said that occasionally there was a timing issue that required action and staff could alert the council to that in advance. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Bettman that staff proposals should be presented as separate items and the council notified if there were any time-sensitive issues. Mr. Pryor commented that in order for the council to be as transparent as possible, it should ensure that everything it did had sufficient advance notice to the public, to staff and to councilors to avoid surprises. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding advance notice and conducting the public’s business in an open forum. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Strong determined there was consensus that any staff-generated proposals would be offered as separate items and not incorporated in the document when it was presented to the council. The council would take action on those amendments separately. Mr. Poling said that the changes requested by the council should be identified in a way to clearly separate them from staff-recommended changes. Topic: Function and power of council officers Ms. Taylor thought that council officers should not have any more power than other councilors, other than routine actions such as presiding in the mayor’s absence and making motions. She said typically the council officers were the two newest members of the council and it seemed inappropriate they should have more power. She said that in any significant issue, particularly involving council employees such as the Police Auditor, all councilors should be involved in the decision-making process. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Taylor’s comments. He said it was incumbent on council officers to contact the rest of the council prior to offering advice to a council employee. Mr. Pryor said the issue arose because the council was in the position of supervising employees, particularly the unique situation presented by the Police Auditor. He said the auditor was a direct employee with a unique relationship with the council, but was not receiving supervision on a consistent basis; that created problems and vulnerabilities for that person. He agreed that council officers should not have any greater power or authority than other members, but hoped a structure could be developed so the council could provide effective and adequate supervision to the Police Auditor. Mr. Zelenka did not think the Police Auditor could be effectively managed if all eight councilors were involved in supervision. He said substantive supervisory issues could be brought back to the council, but the entire council did not need to be involved in day-to-day operational issues. Ms. Piercy pointed out that the issue of supervision could be addressed at the November 10, 2008, work session on police oversight. Ms. Bettman stated the council only had power as a body. She said the council was out of its purview if it managed employees in any way other than as a body through regular meetings where direction could be given by the full council. She was not in favor of designating one or two members to micromanage the Police Auditor. She said a council officer should be the formal conduit, but have no additional power. Mr. Clark did not think the Police Auditor had a different relationship with the council than other employees. He said no direct council employee had the authority to act without the majority of the council agreeing. Ms. Taylor indicated she raised the topic because she objected to two people meeting with the Mayor to make decisions. She said there seemed to be an assumption that officers would make decisions; but they should only have the responsibilities identified in the charter. Ms. Ortiz felt the function and power of the council officers was primarily ceremonial in nature and they helped set the tone for the council. She said officers did not have more power than other councilors. Ms. Piercy clarified that her meetings with council officers were intended to alert them to items that would be on the agenda and have informal conversations; no decisions were made at those meetings. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Zelenka saw the meetings between the Mayor and council officers to discuss upcoming agendas as useful. He did not see the meetings as additional power for officers, but rather as facilitating the work of the council. Ms. Taylor thought that decisions about items on the agenda should involve the entire council and the meetings should be open to all councilors. She had heard people say “let the council officers decide” and she was not comfortable with that. Ms. Piercy clarified that no changes to the agenda occurred during her meetings with officers. Mr. Clark asked if issues such as votes or strategy on agenda items were ever discussed at meetings between the Mayor and officers. In an environment where votes were close or split, he said those conversations had the capacity to affect outcomes Ms. Bettman said the discussions concerned meeting management issues; the officers did not speak for other councilors. Mr. Pryor said his approach was to facilitate the functions of the council and manage the meeting, not change the agenda or manipulate outcomes. He reiterated that no decisions were made at the officers’ meetings. Mr. Ruiz asked if the public meetings requirements applied to council officer meetings. Mr. Klein indicated that as long as no decisions or recommendations were being made and only two councilors were present, no public meeting notice was required; but if other councilors attended and there was a quorum it would be considered a public meeting and notice would be required. He said if five or more councilors intended to participate, staff should be notified at least 24 hours in advance so the meeting could be properly noticed. Mr. Ruiz asked whether invitations to represent the City or participate in news conferences should be directed to the council officers or all councilors and whether it was appropriate to use council officers as an information conduit to the full council. Councilors agreed that invitations should be extended to all councilors as no one councilor could speak for the entire council. Councilors could speak for themselves or speak to action taken by the council, but there should be no presumption that an individual councilor was speaking for the council itself. Information should be provided to all councilors directly instead of relying on officers as a conduit. The responsibility of council officers with respect to information and decisions regarding a council employee would be discussed at a November council meeting. Topic: Appropriate use of staff within two-hour rule (e.g. one councilor with multiple two-hour requests) Mr. Pryor said this issue related to what it was appropriate for a councilor to ask staff to do without the authority of the full body if there could be an official implication. He said the two-hour rule was meant to address use of staff resources, but he wanted some clarification about whether that could include a request to work on a policy issue in which no one else on the council had an interest. Ms. Ortiz asked if there had been concerns in the past that prompted adding the topic to the agenda. She requested feedback from staff. Mr. Ruiz replied that staff was responsive to the council as a whole and within established guidelines to individual councilors. He had not received feedback from staff regarding MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 6 Work Session numerous requests taking longer than two hours to fulfill. He would notify a councilor if a request was likely to exceed two hours of work and the council could then bring that issue before the body to determine if it was appropriate to proceed. Mr. Zelenka pointed out there were numerous ways in which a councilor could request information from staff and there should be a master list of requests to assure that nothing was overlooked. Mr. Ruiz said the Assistant City Manager tracked requests that came into the City Manager’s Office and ensured that responses were provided. He asked that any requests that were made via email also be copied to the Assistant City Manager. He said that the status of decisions and requests from past council meetings would be periodically reported to the council. He encouraged councilors to let staff know if there was no response to a request. Mr. Clark said he occasionally made requests of department executives and expected that if any of those exceeded the established guidelines that information would be conveyed to him by the City Manager. Mr. Ruiz said he was supportive of councilors working directly with executives and trusted that executives could accurately determine whether a request conformed to the guidelines and discuss any concerns with councilors. Ms. Taylor was pleased that Mr. Ruiz encouraged communication between councilors and executives. She appreciated having the City Manager’s Office track decisions and requests and providing status reports. She did not like the two-hour rule and felt if a request took longer it should not be eliminated just for that reason. Ms. Bettman said that tracking decisions and requests was an important service to the council. She said she had many requests for information because she perceived that agenda packets had less information and she only asked staff to pursue something that was already on the agenda or an issue in which the council was already interested. She objected to the quality of responses to issues raised during meetings or public forums as being too general. Mr. Poling hoped that executives understood that if an individual councilor’s request or direction crossed a boundary they could indicate to the councilor that the matter had to be referred to the City Manager before a response would be provided. Topic: Raising issues/motions at meetings without adequate prior notice Mr. Poling said he was not concerned with motions that were made during a meeting that were related to the agenda items or motions that were time-sensitive or in emergency situations. He was concerned with motions that had major repercussions in the community, such as the purchase of the Amazon Headwaters property, being sent out a few hours before a work session, or motions that were made at the last minute that were unrelated to an agenda topic. He felt there should be more than a few minutes or hours of notice, even if the issue had been discussed previously by the council. Ms. Taylor disagreed and felt that councilors should be able to make motions at any time. She said there were different types of motions and different reasons for publishing them in advance or for not providing advance notice. Mr. Clark felt it was an issue of fidelity to the agenda. He said the council agreed on a tentative working agenda and the issue was last-minute changes to a previous agreement of the council that were made by one person. He said that was acceptable if the council wanted to grant the chair the ability to change the agenda MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 7 Work Session on the fly, but that was not part of the agreement to-date. He said another example was discussion of one agenda item going beyond its allotted time and thereby shortening the discussion of the next item. He suggested either the council give the chair the authority to change the agenda at will, or agree that the approved tentative working agenda would be adhered to unless it was changed with the consent of the majority of the council. Mr. Pryor commented that he was not comfortable with surprises, particularly motions that had a significant impact on community resources when there was no emergency. He said the council had emphasized the importance of operating in a transparent manner and making decisions in public; bringing an issue before the council and the public without prior notification violated that concept and prevented the public from commenting on that business. He said while councilors had a right to make a motion whenever they wanted to, that contradicted what the council had said it wished to do with respect to public awareness and involvement. Ms. Piercy said she attempted to adhere to the agenda, but felt it was within her purview to change the agenda if necessary. Ms. Bettman asserted that a councilor should be able to make a motion at any time. She tried to alert councilors to her issues so there were no surprises, but it was often difficult to review the agenda or obtain constituent feedback until shortly before a meeting. She said the council generally did a good job of getting through the items on the agenda. Mr. Zelenka preferred to have no surprises, but recognized that sometimes there might not be sufficient time to provide advance notice of a motion. He said it was a good general practice to provide notice, but was not in favor of a rule that prohibited motions without that notice. Mr. Clark said his concern related more to use of the agenda to achieve a different result. He wanted clarity and now understood that the chair was able to change the agenda on the fly and recognize whomever he or she wished for whatever reason. Mr. Poling reiterated that his concern was not with motions related to the agenda item; it was with motions completely unrelated to the meeting agenda. He said a motion like the one to purchase the Amazon Headwaters should have been noticed farther in advance to allow time for discussion or, possibly, a work session. Ms. Piercy clarified that she consistently tried to adhere to the meeting agenda and did not make changes lightly or often, although she retained that right when it was in the best interests of getting the council’s work done. Topic: Process for requesting work sessions (e.g. define scope of meeting, ensure councilor’s intent is met) Mr. Pryor said the process for requesting work sessions had been modified to provide councilors with more information on the subject and purpose of the request and he felt more comfortable with the new process. Mr. Zelenka agreed the new form resolved the problem by providing sufficient information about work session requests and urged that it be formalized. He asked for clarification between work sessions and regular meetings as there did not appear to be substantive differences. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Taylor said in the past, motions were not allowed at work sessions, but that was changed several years ago, and the result was that there was little difference between a work session and a regular meeting. Mr. Clark liked the new form and agreed it should be used by all councilors when requesting a work session. He asked what staff did to prepare for a work session once there was a successful poll. Mr. Ruiz replied it was the responsibility of staff to provide information to the council to facilitate a meaningful discussion of the topic, and having an understanding of the intent of the work session and desired outcome, made it easier to provide that support. He asked councilors to also inform staff in advance, of the need for any specific information or materials. Mr. Zelenka affirmed the need to complete the form for all work session requests so councilors would have enough information to prepare for the discussion. Mr. Ruiz said he would ask for the form to be completed on any upcoming work sessions if staff needed clarification of the intent and desired outcomes. Topic: Process for considering contingency requests Mr. Zelenka observed that there was no clear process of making requests for contingency requests. Mr. Ruiz indicated he would distribute information on the use of contingency funds. He said the funds were appropriated by the council as part of the budget at the beginning of the fiscal year and any unspent funds at the end of the year were returned to the General Fund. Jim Carlson, Central Services, explained that until around 2003, the council’s contingency was $400,000 per year, of which $60,000 was dedicated to non-profits. He said there was a specific application process associated with those funds; a budget reduction decision eliminated the $60,000 set aside for non-profits and since then funds had been used for costs associated with special elections or other exceptional costs not anticipated when the budget was developed. Mr. Zelenka said that information was sufficient and he did not need a memorandum on the subject. Topic: Ways to achieve better communications with constituents (City Council newsletters, forums, e-mail newsletters, etc.) Discussion of this item was deferred. Topic: Review effectiveness of thirdMonday meetings dedicated to public hearings Ms. Bettman suggested that if there was only one item scheduled for the public hearing on the third Monday night it be shifted to a regular meeting if there was space on the agenda. Ms. Taylor stated she preferred to stay later on a regular meeting night than to have a third Monday night dedicated to a public hearing. Mr. Clark said he was in favor of re-scheduling an item to a regular meeting agenda unless the item was controversial and a significant amount of testimony was anticipated. Ms. Ortiz was not opposed to a third Monday meeting for the purpose of a public hearing to avoid extremely long regular meetings, but was comfortable with granting the Mayor the discretion to move an item to a regular meeting agenda as long as consistency in the council’s calendar was not jeopardized. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pryor preferred to have more frequent and shorter meetings, but agreed that an item could be shifted to a regular meeting agenda if it did not cause that meeting to be too long. He said the third Monday public hearing could be considered optional. Ms. Bettman agreed with granting the City Manager and Mayor the authority to shift an item to a regular meeting agenda, depending on the topic and expected amount of public testimony. Topic: Use of laptops during City Council meetings Ms. Ortiz said she initially objected to the use of laptops and had heard from constituents that they thought councilors might be paying more attention to their computers than to the meeting discussion. She could now accept their use during meetings. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Ortiz that there could be a perception that a laptop was distracting the user’s attention from the meeting and suggested that the council establish a protocol that laptops be used only as a resource for reviewing the agenda and related materials. He noted that the use of laptops promoted sustainability by eliminating a very large volume of paper. Ms. Bettman thought the council should formalize a policy and not rely on the honor system with respect to laptop use. She said the idea that a councilor could be receiving emails from constituents, lobbyists or others viewing the webcast was disturbing and that would constitute inappropriate contact during a council discussion. She said if the council did not want to formalize a policy to allow laptop use, then there should not be any Internet access during the meeting. Mr. Zelenka said he used his laptop to make meeting notes, organize materials by topic and eliminate paper. He said the electronic filing cabinet provided easy reference to information. He did not feel laptops should be used to communicate during a meeting, but Internet access was important to retrieving materials related to the meeting. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend the discussion by five min- utes. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka that a laptop was a very useful tool and there were times when Internet access was important. He would support a formal policy that laptops were to be used as a meeting resource and outside communication during a meeting should be prohibited. Ms. Taylor commented that councilors could communicate with each other during meetings. She did not want laptops used and preferred to see people’s faces instead of their computers. Ms. Bettman noted that all email to councilors was part of the public record, but she heard from a constituent who was told that councilors could delete emails and then they were no longer in the public record. Mr. Klein cautioned councilors that email should not be deleted unless it was addressed to the Mayor and council, in which case staff retained a copy. Email sent directly to an individual councilor in his or her official capacity was covered by State retention requirements and should not be deleted. He would provide a retention schedule. Topic: Use of council office space (guidelines, courtesies) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 10 Work Session This item was deferred. Topic: Meeting safety This item was deferred. Ms. Piercy said the items that were deferred would be addressed in the future. She asked the City Manager to discuss the Civilian Review System and Police Auditor oversight process. Mr. Ruiz distributed and read his memorandum of October 15, 2008, addressed to the Mayor and the council. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2008 Page 11 Work Session