Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/08/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt Room—City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon December 8, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Piercy issued a reminder that December 10 was International Human Rights Day and there would be a celebration at Cesar Chaves Elementary School. She said the State of the City address was scheduled for thth January 7, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. She spoke to 6 and 7 grade students at Kelly Middle School on Diversity Day. She said the First Friday event in downtown last week was very successful. She noted that many people had complained about leaves being piled in bike lanes and the hazard that posed to bicyclists. Ms. Bettman pointed out it was her last Monday evening council meeting. She said it had been an honor to serve her constituents and welcomed incoming councilor George Brown, who would fill her position. Mr. Zelenka said he received a summary of conflict of interest issues at a recent Lane Workforce Partner- ship meeting. He found it very helpful and would provide copies to other councilors. He had attended a Laurel Hill Valley neighborhood meeting at which there was a lively discussion of roads. He noted the groundbreaking for the new University of Oregon basketball arena. He asked the council to consider whether its January 2009 retreat would be televised. He indicated he would be putting forward a proposal for a work session that included a panel discussion of the City’s role in promoting economic development. Mr. Clark supported Mr. Zelenka’s idea for a panel discussion and suggested including a regional perspective. He said he attended the First Friday event and was very pleased with the large number of people downtown. He attended the December 2 meeting on the Lane County coordinated population forecast and would attend a meeting of the Police Commission on December 10. Ms. Taylor said she also had received many complaints regarding leaves in bike lanes. She said the City should consider giving people two compost bins instead of picking up the leaves. She had been downtown for First Friday and said the Farmers Market had expressed a desire to be located in downtown on a year- round basis. She referred to an editorial in the Register Guard about police oversight. She said people had MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 1 Work Session asked her why the process was delayed by referring it to a committee. She asked if the council could reconsider its action. Mr. Poling commented that he had attended an open house at Lane Council of Government’s (LCOG) new facility and commended LCOG on its new office. Mr. Pryor said the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) was having its last meeting on December 9. He said there was an initial draft of the WEC’s final report and it would be issued fairly soon. He noted that all members of the WEC were still participating. He supported Mr. Zelenka’s idea for a workshop to discuss the City’s role in economic development. Ms. Piercy concurred with holding a workshop in economic development and the City’s role and the community wanted a response from the City during this period of economic crisis. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to con- tract on behalf of the Eugene City Council (as soon as is practicable but before the convening of the Mayor’s Committee on Police Auditor Ordinance issues) with Beery, Elsner, Hammond LLP. The contract shall be for the purposes of providing to the council a comprehensive legal analysis of the actions required to ensure the full enactment of the Eugene Charter Section 15A as amended, and any ordinance provisions or revisions necessary to secure the full and maximum authority vested in the Police Auditor’s Office and the Civilian Review Board, by the Charter. The analysis of the Charter and Ordinance language provided shall be used as the legal framework for the Mayor’s Committee on Police Auditor Ordinance issues. Ms. Bettman said her earlier request to the City Manager and City Attorney to provide a legal framework before provisions were offered was declined and that was for the best because an independent opinion was needed. She said Beery Elsner only worked for governing bodies and did considerable charter work, including for the League of Oregon Cities; the firm did not have a conflict of interest. She believed that Harrang Long, the firm that was currently under contract to the City, had many conflicts of interest because they were involved in risk claims with the police department, discipline issues and lawsuits. She said it was also a part of the administrative branch of City government, while the Police Auditor was under the legislative branch. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion and objected to formation of the committee, the delay it represented and its composition. Mr. Pryor asked if the City had a legal opinion on whether there was a conflict with the City Charter. City Manager Ruiz said he had provided information to the council based on his understanding of the Charter and Code regarding a potential conflict, but he did not have a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Pryor asked if there was a concern that contracting with Beery Elsner would violate the City’s current contract with Harrang Long and whether obtaining a second legal opinion was prohibited. Mr. Ruiz said that was a potential concern as the contract stated that the City Attorney would be the sole legal authority, with exceptions related to workers compensation, bond counsel, prosecution and a few other issues. He said there was no specific prohibition on a second opinion, but the contract did state Harrang Long would be the sole provider of legal services. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor remarked that he was not opposed to obtaining a second opinion, but he did not want to violate the contract or Charter and was concerned with making the opinion from Beery Elsner the only legal opinion the committee could follow, as stated in the last sentence of the motion. He wanted to retain flexibility and if a second opinion was obtained it should inform and not regulate the committee’s process. Mr. Ruiz said if the council passed the motion he wanted to investigate its implications from a legal perspective and understand the intended role of the second opinion. Mr. Clark did not object to having more opinions available to better inform the council’s decisions, but shared Mr. Pryor’s concern that the role of any additional opinions be appropriately defined so they were not substituted for the City Attorney’s opinion. He questioned why the council would want to obtain another opinion, given the current fiscal environment. He asked Mr. Ruiz to address Ms. Bettman’s assertion that the City’s current legal counsel had a conflict of interest. Mr. Ruiz felt it was important to at least obtain an opinion from the City Attorney before obtaining another opinion. He said the contract with Harrang Long did address conflicts of interest as defined by the Oregon Code of Professional Responsibility. Mr. Clark noted that Ms. Bettman had emailed her discussion and rational for her proposed motion to other councilors and suggested that conducting council business via email should be discussed at a future process session. He asked if the conflict of interest Ms. Bettman referred to was perceived or actual. Ms. Bettman noted that her motion was distributed on Friday morning and felt that provided ample time for attorneys to respond to the council’s questions. She said that councilors were raising questions that could not be answered in order to deflect support for her proposal. She said the independence of the opinion was important and Beery Elsner had a statewide reputation and was not connected to the City. She cited several instances that she felt demonstrated the current law firm’s conflict of interest, including a refusal to respond th to her questions at a November 17 council meeting. She said a contract provision that prohibited obtaining another legal opinion was dictating public policy. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he did not object to a second opinion, but would want to know the cost and whether obtaining one would present problems with either the Charter or current contract. He would not support the motion because those questions had not been answered and the motion would make the opinion from Beery Elsner the only opinion available to the committee. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Pryor’s remarks. He did not perceive there to be problems with the current firm and had not heard specific conflicts of interest identified that would preclude them from rendering an opinion, only the appearance of a conflict and implications of how people spoke at meetings. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the Charter amendment was specific about the fact the Police Auditor oversight should be independent of the City Manager chain of command. She said the City Manager executed and implemented the contract with the City Attorney and she believed that an interpretation of the Charter amendment should be obtained from an independent firm, instead of the existing firm. She recalled that there was a penalty that the firm charged the City under its contract, but thought that fee might be waived in the best interests of the public. She said Harrang Long was able to represent clients who were in adversarial roles to the City through waivers from the City Manager and the City likewise should be able to rely on the firm’s cooperation to obtain another opinion. She opined that the City Manager’s reliance on Harrang Long’s interpretation of the Charter to prevent the council from contracting for another legal opinion was a blatant conflict of interest. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 3 Work Session With respect to the formation of a committee, Mr. Zelenka said being thoughtful, careful and inclusive was very different from delaying and obfuscating. He said his intent in serving on the committee was to have a truly independent and effective police oversight system. He did not object to second opinions or outside legal advice as additional input to his decision-making process as a councilor. He said the Charter did not specifically prohibit that and by Home Rule it was permissible. He was troubled that a contract signed by the City Manager could prevent the council from doing something it felt was in the best interests of the City. Mr. Zelenka said the Charter amendment on the ballot changed the City Council’s discretion about whether or not there was a Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board oversight function; it made that function mandatory. He said there were no changes required in the ordinance to fulfill that Charter amendment, as the current language was consistent with that. He said the 12 changes proposed by Ms. Bettman did not address that issue; they were issues that the council had discussed and he supported, but they had not been presented to the voters. He preferred to stay with the current process. Mr. Ruiz clarified that he was not arguing for or against obtaining a second legal opinion. He felt it was his responsibility to identify issues that he felt the council should be made aware of, such as contract language, and that could present potential problems. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka about what the voters had approved and the 12 changes proposed by Ms. Bettman. He there were there varying opinions about the constraints imposed on the council by the Charter and suggested that the issue be clarified at some point in the future. Ms. Bettman cited Section 16 of the Charter that the City Manager shall make all purchases. She said the council could direct that a particular contract be entered into; it was not prohibited. She disagreed with Mr. Zelenka’s comment that the voters only changed the police oversight function from discretionary to mandatory. She said the council chose to change all of the language from “may” to “shall,” including mandating authorities as they were listed in the Charter. She asserted that the current ordinance language was inconsistent with the Charter as amended and an independent legal analysis of how to proceed was needed. Ms. Piercy reminded the council that the motion to form a committee authorized it to review the issues raised by Ms. Bettman on November 10 and 17, 2008, and report back to the council on March 11, 2009, with recommendations on amendments to the Police Auditor ordinance. The motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Opportunity Siting Update Mr. Ruiz introduced Patricia Thomas and Teri Harding, Planning Division, to present the update on opportunity siting. Ms. Thomas used a slide presentation to provide background on the project, activities to date and next steps. She said council direction to staff to incorporate opportunity siting as a primary strategy for achieving density targets in mixed use centers. She said formation of Planning Committee subcommittee, neighbor- hood tours, online surveys and sounding boards eventually resulted in the formation of an Opportunity Siting (OS) Task Team of a dozen members. She described the composition of the team and said it was charged with studying the issues, developing a neighborhood process, identifying hypothetical test sites, studying market demand and feasibility and implementation. Ms. Thomas reviewed the issues considered during the task team’s study of market demand, compatibility and feasibility. She said the task team developed a methodology for working with neighborhoods and the Jefferson Westside Neighbors volunteered to test the methodology in neighborhood workshops. As a result of the test exercise, she said it was apparent that there were three important elements to identifying sites: neighborhood character, development impacts and matching development type to the site. She explained how hypothetical sites in the neighborhood were used for economic study of market demand and feasibility. She said the task team anticipated forwarding recommendations to the Planning Commission in mid-2009 and the next steps in the process were: 1. Develop implementation strategies and tools 2. Engage development community 3. Further investigation of neighborhood siting process 4. Formulate recommendations for implementation. Ms. Piercy underscored the importance of retaining inner City neighborhoods with a mix of income levels and housing and richness of character. She asked if the process would identify those things in the community that should not be changed. Ms. Thomas said that issue had been raised and would be more fully developed by the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team. Mr. Clark said he had spent time touring a neighborhood that recent went through an infill compatibility process and had a much better understanding of the impacts of infill and opportunity siting. He asked if the project would study the impact of development, particularly opportunity siting, on infrastructure. Ms. Thomas said she would bring that issue to the technical advisory team of staff that was working with the project. Ms. Harding added that infrastructure impact varied by type and location of infill. She said infrastructure impact could be a factor in the site analysis process. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to balance conflicting issues and figure out a way to develop infill policies that recognized neighborhood character and yet fulfilled the need to achieve greater density. He said the recommendations that emergency from the OS/ICS project would help the council chart a course through difficult territory. Mr. Poling pointed out that the naval reserve test site was only a hypothetical and did not represent any plans for the property. He was pleased that the model being developed could be used throughout the community. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon said she sat on the Housing Policy Board; one of its members participated on the OS and ICS task teams and provided the board with regular updates, which were very helpful and informative. Mr. Zelenka said infill compatibility was the most important issue facing neighborhoods over the next few years. He noted that engaging the development community was identified as a next step, but he did not see the same emphasis on engaging neighborhoods. Ms. Thomas explained that the process to date had been heavily weighted toward engaging neighborhoods, not the development community. She said the task team had several decisions to make as they moved forward, including whether to reach out and involve other neighborhoods in the testing process. Ms. Harding said that focus groups with a cross-section of neighbor- hoods could be a part of the process. Ms. Taylor remarked that she had seen many examples of incompatible development in South Eugene. She commended the Jefferson Westside Neighbors for their work on the process. She asked why tax exemption or incentives would be required. Ms. Thomas said that a financial study had shown a considerable financial gap in affordability because people were unable to pay the amount of rent needed to cover the cost of that type of development. She said tax abatement was included for that reason and added that heavier investment by developers than was typical would be necessary as well. Ms. Harding said the study also addressed why development was not happening in places where zoning already allowed it and the City was promoting it by policy. She said the financial viability gap was a major factor and that would be studied in the next steps. Ms. Taylor said there appeared to be few neighbors on the task teams. She asked about the difference between opportunity siting and infill compatibility. Ms. Harding said one way of describing the difference was that the infill compatibility project had mostly focused on preventing bad infill from happening; the focus of opportunity siting was trying to find ways to encourage development that was good for neighbor- hoods and neighbors would welcome. Ms. Taylor asked if there was currently any way to prevent incompatible development. Ms. Harding replied that it could be limited only to the extent allowed by current zoning regulations. Ms. Bettman stated that bifurcating the process into infill compatibility and opportunity siting meant it was no longer consistent with the original objective to absorb more housing units within the urban growth boundary without destroying existing neighborhoods. She said the result would be density that was no longer compatible. She said one of the problems with lack of higher density development was that they were originally intended to occur in mixed use centers where appropriate services were available; there was a disincentive to develop away from those services. She said allowing indiscriminate density everywhere eliminated the effectiveness of leverage such as incentives. She stressed the importance of a firm urban growth boundary to maintaining the value of land. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Harding said one of the criteria for identifying an opportunity site was active property owner participation. She said the task team felt it was critical to work with a willing owner of property, whether the owner was the developer or not. Ms. Piercy asked if neighbors had discussed what they wanted their neighborhood to look like in 20 years. She encouraged that discussion as a part of the process. Ms. Thomas said there was a workshop exercise that did look at current neighborhood character and what needed to be protected, but not necessarily at a long-range vision of the neighborhood. She said that conversation could be included in future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 6 Work Session C. WORK SESSION City Council Goal Update – Neighborhood Empowerment Renee Grube, Library, Recreation and Cultural Services, said the council’s neighborhood empowerment goal focused on two things: building strong leadership in neighborhoods and work collaborative with residents to deliver City services and achieve neighborhood priorities. She said a joint committee of neighborhood leaders and City staff had been meeting monthly for the past year to work through the 23 action items identified in the Neighborhood Empowerment Action Plan. She recognized a number of committee members in the audience. She introduced Carolyn Weiss, project lead, to discuss the committee’s progress to date. Ms. Weiss said the committee had focused its efforts on the following action items that were identified as high priorities for the neighborhoods at the 2007 neighborhood summit: 1. Shift involvement of neighborhood associations to be earlier in the land use process. 2. Infill compatibility standards and opportunity siting. 3. Increase ongoing support for neighborhood associations. 4. Integrate neighborhood priorities identified in the City’s operating budget and capital improvement program and the council’s goals. Ms. Weiss said progress on those items included hiring a neighborhood planner to assist neighborhoods to be more informed about and effective in the land use process. She listed a number of steps taken to improve communications with neighborhoods and said the City had offered 14 scholarships to the Oregon Planning Institute conference to interested neighborhoods. She said an assessment of the neighborhood services program had just been completed to identify ways to improve support for neighborhood. She announced that another neighborhood summit was planned for March 7, 2009, with a focus on identifying methods to improve and expand collaboration between neighborhood associations and the City. Mr. Clark commented that he heard frequently from neighborhoods about land use planning. He asked if the neighborhood planner would be measuring the priorities and goals of a broad section of a particular neighborhood, not just those who participated in the association. Ms. Weiss responded that staff had been discussing an equitable system for developing neighborhood plans that did not being with one neighborhood, leaving the others behind. She said the system would allow neighborhoods to take the initiative to move forward with their plans and there would be readiness components that required involvement of a broad cross-section of the neighborhood, particularly during the early phases of issue identification. The tools for that were still being developed. Mr. Clark said many constituents had remarked that neighborhood groups who spoke on behalf of the neighborhood actually had differing levels of participation in the organization. He was interested in the true representative nature of the voices that were being heard and assuring that services being delivered were truly desired by a large cross-section of the neighborhoods. Mr. Zelenka saw the goal as twofold: strengthen and support neighborhood associations and involve neighborhoods earlier and more effectively in the land use process to preserve and protect their livability. He hoped the initiative would continue to pursue those two goals. Ms. Piercy hoped neighborhood residents felt that the last neighborhood summit drove actions and priorities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Zelenka agreed that the summit should result in actions by the City. He asked if the neighborhood plans were considered refinement plans and carried any legal weight. Ms. Weiss said that issue was being grappled with and while a refinement plan might be one of the tools that was needed to implement neighborhood priorities, the planning process might identify other venues for implementing priorities. Mr. Zelenka noted that refinement plans were expensive and time-consuming, but a plan without any legal teeth did not have much value in terms of protecting the livability of a neighborhood. He hoped staff would investigate what resources would be required to develop refinement plans for neighborhood associations and bring that information back to the council. Ms. Bettman stated that the City had been discussing the issue for some time. She said an early suggestion was to ask neighborhoods to identify problem areas and develop smaller refinement plans that targeted those areas instead of doing a refinement plan for the entire neighborhood. She said it was a good idea to bring neighborhoods into the land use process at an earlier point but not all neighborhoods would be able to participate. She said the City should have policies in place to protect people’s homes and neighborhoods. She pointed out the cost of appealing a land use decision and said that should be waived for neighborhood associations so that money was not an obstacle. Ms. Piercy said while the City tried to reach out to the broader neighborhood, it was important to recognize those people who did put their time and energy into neighborhood activities. She commended neighborhoods for modeling and sharing new ideas with each other and encouraged them to also seek things that were shared by all neighborhoods. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 8 Work Session