Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/23/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall November 23, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY ISSUE ACTION PLAN City Manager Taylor stated that this issue initially was presented to the City Council on August 10, 2005, at which time councilors requested that, in accordance with their suggested changes, a revised action plan be crafted for further review. Public Works Executive Director Kurt Corey proceeded to review the revisions that were made at the suggestion of the council. He explained that the proposal continues to propose three key objectives (noted below) with a reduced number of individual action items from 39 to 19. ? Enhance effective public engagement activities. ? Support neighborhood involvement in problem solving. ? Focus service delivery to better meet neighborhood-identified priorities. Mr. Corey explained that the reduction in the number of action items was possible as some were 1) already in the planning stage, 2) in progress, or 3) already implemented. Additionally, related items were combined. Mr. Corey continued that at the request of the council, staff shared the proposal with the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) who commented accordingly in a letter to the council in September 2005. In conclusion, Mr. Corey thanked City staff who worked diligently to craft the proposal and respond to the suggested revisions put forth by the council. Mayor Piercy called for council and comments. Ms. Taylor pointed out that at least two neighborhood associations have not discussed the proposal under discussion and suggested that the council not proceed to adopt until such time review by all neighborhoods can occur. She then pointed to the key objectives and specifically the guiding principle “Create Partnerships,” and asked for an explanation of such partnerships. Mr. Corey replied that it was a general goal to bring diverse groups together who may not traditionally be viewed as partners. Ms. Taylor remarked that the principal under discussion was 1 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session not attached to the correct objective. She then referred to the guiding principles – “Build on strengths and assets” and “Collaborate and use existing resources” - and questioned if the latter was, in fact, redundant and therefore the two principles could be combined. Ms. Taylor moved on to Phase One- Annual Report on use of best practices in citizen involvement project. She questioned who would produce such a report. Mr. Corey stated the City Manager would provide the report on a quarterly basis. City Manager Taylor pointed out that at a recent City Council process session it was agreed that all the council priorities would be a part of the State of the City document and posted to the City’s website, followed by quarterly reporting. Ms. Taylor suggested that the neighborhood groups be involved in the crafting of such a report. Ms. Taylor referred to Phase Two, Increase number of people participating in public involvement activities. She suggested that it be moved to Phase One. Additionally she opined that an annual community survey would not provide an accurate indication of how the neighborhood perceives the plan, as many constituents do not participate in telephone surveys. She then questioned how Deliver Neighborhood priorities would unfold. Mr. Corey explained that such a measure would implement programs that include a priority-setting process from the neighborhoods themselves, rather than the City presupposing what may be effective. Mr. Kelly stated that the revised proposal was an improved step forward and voiced his appreciation to the outreach to the NLC. He took very seriously the statement in the Agenda Item Summary statement: It was not intended to be a comprehensive plan. The refinement of the plan will begin with the involvement of the neighborhood associations, and continue through the implementation of the three key objectives. Mr. Kelly commented that the next step in the process was for City staff to begin its work with the neighborhood associations by gathering feedback and revising the proposal appropriately. Mr. Kelly spoke to the annual report component. He pointed out that while the initiative was broader than the neighborhoods associations, the involvement of the associations was a critical component and therefore he requested that the reports include neighborhood association feedback as well as staff feedback. Mr. Kelly, referencing the discussion at the recent council retreat, referred to action items 16 through 19 and opined that while they were all relevant items, they were in fact less true to the intent of the Neighborhood Initiative and therefore should be treated as a lower priority. Mr. Kelly referred to Action Item 11, Shift Involvement of neighborhoods to be earlier in the land use process, and opined that the item would satisfy many objectives in the initiative and elsewhere and therefore should be raised to a higher priority. Mr. Papé voiced appreciation to the staff for its work on the revised proposal and said he hoped that such documents would be provided to the council in a more rapid manner in the future. He referred to Action Item 3: Institute “best practices” for citizen involvement, including methods for establishing clear expectations and closing the feedback loop and questioned how staff will identify appropriate “best practices.” Mr. Corey replied that resources such as the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and American Planning Association (APA) will assist in crafting best practices. He opined that best practices that were defined globally and implemented locally were the most effective for communities. Mr. Papé requested that the neighborhood associations be brought into the discussion of best practices prior to implementation. 2 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Mr. Papé said that it was prudent to name a responsible party or position for the action items. In referring to Action Item 7, Institute annual neighborhood summits with Neighborhood Associations’ boards and City elected & appointed officials, he asked what a neighborhood summit would entail. Mr. Corey replied it would be defined in the manner determined by the council. He added that opportunities such as “get togethers,” of which neighborhood services currently avail themselves, may not rise to the level of an actual summit and that following a summit, the council could determine to move the Neighborhood Initiative forward in some manner, discontinue it , or continue it as was. He added that Beth Bridges, the Neighborhood Services Manager, raised the concept of instituting some form of NLC training on “public input.” Mr. Papé opined that this action item should be incorporated into Action Item 5, Provide training on collaboration tools and leadership development/coating so that associations become forums to bring together divergent views for problem solving. Mayor Piercy recalled that she received a request from the NLC to hold a summit that would provide an opportunity to share information with City staff and elected officials. Mr. Pryor pointed out that while some neighborhoods have active associations, some do not and those inactive associations need a mechanism to contribute. He favored an investigation of various ways to gain the involvement of neighborhoods that do not enjoy an active association. Mr. Pryor opined that an annual neighborhood summit would be an opportunity to include all members of a neighborhood. With regard to surveys, Mr. Pryor opined that it was critical to statistically measure the pulse of a community along with the other components to ascertain if effective tracking was taking place. He concluded that action items 16 through 19 could be considered lower priorities; however he added that Action Item 19, Train staff to be ambassadors for service delivery in neighborhoods, would be an excellent tool to ensure that staff effectively represents the City when out in the community; additionally, it would be an excellent use of City resources. Ms. Bettman commented that some of the action items have very specific/directional provisions and others were very general in nature. She suggested that the objectives include two umbrella values; namely, empower neighborhood organizations and preserve and enhance residential property values. Mr. Corey questioned if the action plan the council wished to adopt would focus toward existing neighborhood associations or other stakeholders not necessarily represented by such associations. Ms. Bettman referred to Action Item 1, Recruit for participation via demographics profiles to ensure additional “silent” stakeholders, and opined that such an item was a policy decision. Mr. Corey explained that the language was crafted in that manner in order to respond to the council’s desire that more individuals become involved in the process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman explained that using demographic profiles to recruit seniors, youth, and diversity groups would result in a group that reflects the community in a truer sense. City Manager Taylor added that a broader representative pool of applicants for boards and commissions was the intent of staff with regard to this language. Ms. Bettman then spoke to Action Item 5 and opined that staff’s role was to assist neighborhood associations and leaders achieve the skills necessary to build their organizations. 3 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Mr. Poling complimented staff on its effort and voiced caution that the initiative not be overly expanded. He reminded the council that it was a starting document at this phase with the intent to include the neighborhoods in the process prior to adoption. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the proposed Neighborhood Initiative Action Plan. Ms. Ortiz voiced concern regarding Action Item 9, Divide Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens into smaller associations, and asked staff to explain how the division process would be handled. Mr. Corey said staff would follow up with an explanation of that process. Ms. Taylor questioned why those particular neighborhoods were being divided as there were other large neighborhood associations in Eugene. Ms. Taylor spoke to Action Item 19 and opined it was an excellent step forward. She then referred to the section entitled Enhance Effective Public Engagement Activities and opined that the programs were vague in nature, with the exception of Increase for volunteer coordinator staffing levels. She also questioned why the revival of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) was not included in the initiative. Ms. Taylor then commented that she viewed neighborhood associations as the spokespersons for the neighborhoods. In conclusion, she spoke to the activity of Neighborhood outreach on mixed use center planning efforts and said she hoped that this activity would become part of City policy for all neighborhoods. Mr. Kelly concurred with Mr. Pryor’s observation that there were a number of inactive neighborhood associations and opined that the manner in which to improve such inactivity was to empower the associations which will, in turn, draw in more individuals. Mr. Kelly also concurred with Mr. Poling’s hope that the initiative not be expanded and pointed out that the neighborhood associations could make suggestions that could become replacements of action items already proposed. Mr. Kelly asked if there was interest around the table to drop action items 16 to 19 and, as he observed little interest, he said he would not put forth such an amendment. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to add language (noted in bold) in Action Item 11 – Shift involvement of neighborhood associations to be earlier in the land use process. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly spoke to the Phase One action items and said they should be regularly measured and outcomes reported to the council. Mr. Papé spoke to Action Item 9 and questioned if the division of Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens will be acceptable to the respective associations. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to add language (noted in bold) in Action Item 9 – Consider the division of Cal Young and Active Bethel Citizens into smaller associations, in accordance with the council’s policy on neighborhood boundaries. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to replace the following language under Key Programs and Activities: 4 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Support neighborhood involvement in problem-solving Support neighborhood involvement by empowering all neighborhood associations. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to add the following objective: Preserve and enhance residential property values. Ms. Bettman explained there needed to be an overriding value so that an action will not reduce property values and therefore result in a negative impact to the neighborhoods. Mr. Papé countered that impacts to property values do not factor into the City’s relationship with neighborhood associations and therefore such a value – or filter – would not be accurate. The motion failed 2:5, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend Action Item 12 as follows: Create standards to minimize conversion from residential uses. Ms. Bettman explained that the amendment was one of three initial goals put forth by the council at its recent retreat under the discussion of neighborhood initiatives and questioned why staff proceeded to ignore this goal. She stressed that there needed to be housing support in the downtown area and currently there was unlimited conversion allowed for other uses. Mr. Corey replied that the cross-departmental group that crafted the action items was not in a position to weigh that type of policy measure within a neighborhood initiative. Therefore, he said that the appropriate manner in which to process this goal would be as Ms. Bettman proposed in her amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Kelly concurred that the issue brought forward by Ms. Bettman was discussed at the council retreat and launched in the Downtown Area Housing Policy Analysis as well, which received unanimous support by council. He asked that Ms. Bettman’s amendment be changed to a friendly amendment as an added action item, with the explanation that there were regular reviewing standards for regulating and focusing infill. Ms. Bettman agreed to change the amendment to a friendly amendment which Mr. Kelly put forth as follows: Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor to retain Action Item 12 as proposed and add an additional action item as follows: Create standards to minimize conversion from residential uses. Mr. Papé voiced concern that as the city grows, residential neighborhoods could conceivably convert to commercial/industrial areas and vice versa. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the amendment stipulates minimize and does not include language such as “prohibit” or “eliminate.” Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling but not accepted by Ms. Taylor, to revise Action Item 18 as follows: Safe Streets. Ms. Bettman explained that the language in Action Item 18 as currently stated, limits improvements. She pointed out that safe streets may have a different connotation to neighborhoods than what was noted in the proposal and therefore the item should not specify in 5 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session its design. Ms. Taylor stated that context-sensitive should be retained as it was not necessarily connected to safe. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to amend Action Item 18 as follows: Safe Streets. The amendment passed 5:2, with Mr. Papé and Ms. Taylor in opposition. The main motion as amended passed unanimously. B. WORK SESSION: CITY HALL/POLICE BUILDING PRIORITY ISSUE Facility Project Manager Mike Penwell distributed a corrected copy of Matrix of Leanings. He then reviewed the Agenda Item Summary and opened the floor to discussion. Mr. Kelly suggested that as staff referred to Phase 1, the language be corrected to The Policy Advisement Phase of the City Hall Complex Action Plan. Staff concurred. Mr. Kelly then turned to the Project Values, specifically Value 7, Physically manifest the principles of democracy and Value 8, Strive for simplicity, and asked to be reminded of their merit. Ms. Bettman explained those were values she put forth and that she would speak to their relevance. Mr. Kelly then stated he concured with the proposed Preliminary Task List and Schedule, Phases One and Two. He spoke to the Position Statements, specifically number 4, and recalled that th rather than stating while acknowledging reservations about the concept of 8 Avenue as the Great th Civic Street, it should read do not limit to an 8 Avenue concept for a City Hall Complex. In conclusion, Mr. Kelly referred to the City Manager’s recommendations in the Agenda Item Summary and suggested that the language “renovate or replace” should be corrected to read “renovate and replace.” He explained that preservation of the building and/or the City Council Chamber has been under discussion and will be further debated. Ms. Bettman spoke to Values 7 and 8 as noted above and explained that with regard to Value 7, the building needed to stand for the principles of democracy, specifically, to provide community meeting space, be open to the street and the city, and easily accessible to all with a high comfort level. Additionally, all the branches of City government should be located in the complex and the Mayor and City Council should have offices and maintain office hours in the building. With regard to Value 8, Ms. Bettman explained that the plan needed to be one simple, cost-efficient project and not too complicated for voters to understand. She then turned to the Position Statements and opined that Position 3 had been “watered down,” as consolidation had been an overarching objective. With regard to Position 4, Ms. Bettman reminded the council that it previously agreed City Hall should remain downtown. Mr. Pryor voiced a concern that constituents may not fully understand the meaning of the wording in Value 7 and suggested that if was incorporated into a public document, it be changed to the following language: “To maximize usability access to government and its representatives.” Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly’s comments regarding Position Statement 4. He asked that it be clarified. Additionally, in speaking to Position Statement 2, Mr. Papé said he was under the 6 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session impression that the City was planning a building for the 50-year range rather than the 25-year range. Mr. Penwell explained that the intent of the language was to respond to space needs and expansion, not the life of the building. Mr. Papé stressed that the life of the building needed to be incorporated into the planning. Mr. Poling referred to Value 9 and asked for clarification. Mr. Papé explained that it spoke to both the physical growth of the building and growth of the government. Mr. Pryor commented that the City needs to plan for growth over a 50-year period and to construct a building that will last 50 years but not build the entire building initially; rather, expand as necessary. Ms. Taylor commented that the government may not need to grow; rather, it should limit itself over the years. She then spoke to public involvement and pointed out that that component had not yet been addressed with this project. Ms. Taylor referred to basic questions that have yet to be answered and said those should include public involvement, i.e., if the police building should be separate, how many police stations should be constructed and at what size, if the City should renovate or build anew, and if those decisions should be made prior to other decisions. She commented that the current City Council Chamber was the “epitome of democracy” as it was open to the public and the environment and may be adequate for the future, regardless of population increases. Mr. Poling concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments regarding Value 7, and offered new language which was noted in the motion that follows: Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the six project values presented at the October 19, 2005, City Council workshop, plus three additional project values: (7) Maximize use of City Hall public spaces by the public and access to government and its representatives; (8) Strive for simplicity; (9) Plan for the future; and further, adopt the following four position statements: (1) Incorporate meaningful sustainable design goals; (2) Utilize a long-term planning horizon of 25 years; (3) Consolidate general City services to the greatest practical extent, postponing decisions on the inclusion of police functions until further technical analysis was completed; and (4) Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while th acknowledging reservations about the concept of 8 Avenue as the Great Civic Street. Mr. Poling stressed that this motion sets the groundwork for the public process. Mr. Papé spoke once again to Value 9, and pointed out the current facility had no plan for the future, with the exception of the City Council Chamber, and therefore had poor accessibility. 7 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she would accept the rewording of Value 7. She then turned to Position Statement 3, and opined that the language separated police services, which she assumed would not be decided upon at this stage in the process. Mr. Penwell explained that the intent of that specific language was to recognize that there were varying police delivery models and to not preclude options. He assured the council that the option to retain the department within the City Hall Complex continues to be on the table. Ms. Bettman commented that the council awaited technical analysis on this and other issues and therefore such caveats should be omitted. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to change the language in Position Statement 3 as follows: Consolidate City services to the greatest practical extent. Mr. Kelly spoke to Value 7 and opined that the original wording sounded more like a value, whereas the revised wording sounded more in the measurable objective area. However, he stated he could accept the change as proposed. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. Poling and Ms. Taylor, to change the language in Position Statement 4 as follows: Develop the project in consideration of the Downtown Plan while not limiting th location choices to 8 Avenue. Mr. Papé questioned if the Police Department was moving towards a precinct model or leaning towards a downtown model. City Manager Taylor replied that such a decision was premature as the information needed to make the decision was incomplete at this time. Mr. Papé indicated that without such information the council cannot move ahead with that phase of the City Hall Complex. Jonah Hardy, architect for Thomas Hacker Architects, explained that the police design decision will certainly have an impact on the entire project; however, he pointed out that options will be identified that will allow the council to move forward. Mr. Papé indicated he did not oppose options per se; however, they must converge. He added that such a process does not stay with the simplicity theme that was necessary for the public domain. Mr. Penwell said that some of the components can be carried forward conceptually and staff understands that hard data will be necessary within the next year. To respond to the Police Department design, Police Chief Robert Lehner spoke to the Consolidation Models and said that three options have been developed around Model 5, any one of which will allow the department to deliver a precinct model. He pointed out that the decision the council must make around what to incorporate in City Hall was independent of service delivery models. Chief Lehner said that the models will be further refined for the benefit of the council at its next meeting so it can make a decision on this issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Chief Lehner clarified that the three options proposed for Model 5 include: (1) City Hall with the Police Department; (2) City Hall with the Police Department in close proximity; and (3) City Hall and the Police Department completely separate. However, he added that the principal of the division of a precinct, or not, will be preserved. With this clarification, Ms. Bettman asked for a postponement of the vote on the City Hall Complex on December 14, as she would not be in attendance. 8 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session Ms. Bettman referred to Position Statement 3 and pointed out that as the Strategic Plan was discussed by the Police Commission, it reviewed different variations for the creation of precincts. She shared that she was informed by Chief Lehner that the City Council will make the decision on the precinct model and following that vote, that portion of the Strategic Plan will move forward. Mr. Penwell clarified that the December 14 meeting will not include an action request by staff to the City Council of the three police models. Rather, he explained that process will not converge until early in 2006. He further clarified that the action request to the council on December 14 will include the scope for the consultant team, how much technical information it should provide, and the adoption of the public involvement, and associated costs. Mr. Papé observed that staff was informing the council that it will make a decision around police operations in sight of going after facilities and he strongly suggested that how the Police Department was ultimately designed should inform the facilities. Mr. Penwell clarified that the council will determine the police delivery model and Facilities staff will include that decision in the facilities process. Mr. Taylor added that a process was in place to provide all the necessary information for the council to make a determination prior to a facility plan. He reiterated that the additional information around specific models for police delivery will inform the decision to be made by the council. Mr. Kelly shared Mr. Papé’s concerns. Additionally, he asked staff to communicate to Ms. Bettman and Ms. Ortiz the action items the council will be asked to debate on December 14 so they can determine if a formal request for postponement was appropriate. Councilor Kelly said that if the vote needed to be postponed, the discussion should also be postponed. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) m:\2005\central services department\city manager's office\city council\cc051123m1.doc 9 MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 23, 2005 Page Work Session