Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/09/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 9, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 9, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy recognized Mr. Papé for a motion. Mr. Papé noted the action taken by the council on October 26 to direct the City Manager to initiate work with the City’s intergovernmental partners on alternative transportation approaches in west Eugene contravened the results of the 2001 ballot measure 20-53 where the City specifically asked the voters if the City should work on alternatives to the West Eugene Parkway. He recalled that he had offered a motion to the body, which failed, to table the October 26 motion so the body review the ballot measures considered by the voters in 2001 prior to taking action. He wished to revisit that issue as he had the opportunity to review that information in the interim. Mr. Papé, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the motion of the work session of October 26 directing staff to begin to work on alternative plans with Eugene’s govern- mental partners on a fix to transportation issues in west Eugene. Ms. Bettman opposed the motion to reconsider because she believed Eugene needed to get moving on some projects that were removed from consideration in order to fund the West Eugene Parkway (WEP), such as projects that would address safety and operational efficiencies. She wanted to get started on those projects immediately. If the motion to reconsider passed, she would consider a motion that strengthened the intent of the motion of October 26, which she thought was weakened by the friendly amendment offered by Mr. Papé. Ms. Bettman was not interested in further study as there were already other important transportation projects in TransPlan that were placed on the futures list because of the parkway. She wanted to look at those projects and get them “up and running and on the ground as soon as possible.” Mr. Kelly did not support the motion to reconsider because the two motions passed on October 26 had been interrelated. Passage of the first motion indicated a majority of the council no longer believed the parkway should move forward in transportation plans. The second motion acknowledged the transportation issues in west Eugene and dedicated the City to working with its intergovernmental partners on solutions to those problems. He averred that adoption of the motion would leave the council without any options for transportation issues in west Eugene at all, leaving that part of the community “in the lurch.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pryor said he offered the motion of October 26 as an expression of his extreme frustration over the course of events. The council had chosen to respond to the problems in west Eugene by doing nothing to fix them. A council majority, using a variety of reasons and rationalizations, had chosen to go against the will of the majority of Eugene citizens who cast a ballot in support of building the parkway. He reminded the council that the public, at the same time it voted for the parkway in 2001, voted against looking at other alternatives to the parkway. He did not like being in the position of acting in opposition to the 2001 vote and acknowledged that his proposal of October 26 had done just that. He did not want to leave west Eugene with nothing, and that would be the result of the council’s action. There would be no parkway and no alternative, which was not acceptable. Mr. Pryor recalled that 61 percent of voters voted against examining alternatives to the parkway. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he proposed the October 26 motion out of intense frustration at having nothing done in west Eugene. He felt bad that the council voted against the will of the people. He was very frustrated over the position the council was in. He invited other options, suggesting one option could be to return to the voters. He was undecided on the motion due to conflicting values he had on the issue. Mayor Piercy believed Eugene needed a solution that solved its traffic problems in the west part of the community and protected the west Eugene wetlands. She averred “that was what the people really wanted” when they cast their votes. The parkway had not been built and she did not think it happen anytime soon. The City Council should look for other solutions. The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mr. Papé asked for permission to change his vote on the motion of October 26. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that was not possible under the council’s ground rules. Mr. Papé said he was deeply troubled by the lack of integrity in the council as demonstrated by its action. He recalled the old saying, “If you don’t want to know, don’t ask,” and reminded the council that it had asked the voters their opinion about the parkway and whether the City should consider alternatives. He questioned how the council could ignore the results of the ballot measures four years later without going back to the voters about their willingness to consider alternatives. A. WORK SESSION: Eugene Police Department Strategic Plan City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, noting the voters’ approval of an external police review body and external auditor the previous day. He suggested that the results of the election provided some clarity to the discussion the council had been having over the past year. He reminded the council that he had been working with Police Chief Robert Lehner on a framework for action to help the Police Department restore its trust with the community and move it to the level it needed to be to address current-day issues. He complimented Chief Lehner and his staff for the work they had done in bringing the Strategic Plan forward. Police Chief Robert Lehner provided a PowerPoint presentation on the details of the Strategic Plan. He noted a planning timeline that indicated the process was nearing its end and would flow into future budget and planning processes. He characterized the plan as a beginning rather than an end. He provided some brief history of the plan, noting the inception of the first plan in 1995, subsequent resource limitations, and changes in management that complicated the City’s ability to implement the plan. Chief Lehner noted the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 2 Work Session impact of the Magana/Lara scandal and the work done by the Police Commission with regard to complaint review. He also reminded the council of the results of the ICMA/PERF review, and noted the council’s subsequent adoption of the Strategic Plan as a priority issue. Chief Lehner noted the major action categories in the plan: 1) Crime and Public Safety; 2) Community Policing; and 3) Service Quality and Trust. The plan was intended to provide a framework and guide for most police activities for the next four to five years and would help prioritize budgets and activities in a way that maximized police resources and helped reach the intended change outcomes. Chief Lehner reviewed the process that led to the development of the plan, noting sources of public and professional input. He highlighted and emphasized the importance of the evaluation element of the process, as well as the importance of tying budgets to the plan. Chief Lehner shared the department’s organizational values, mission statement, and neighborhood-based community policing philosophy. Chief Lehner shared the results of the work done by program teams to identify the work they did, the objectives they were trying to accomplish, and the measures they used to reach those goals. He said the teams were able to find places in the department with program overlap as well as identify services unclaimed by any program. The teams found that program responsibility had been diffuse in many cases. Chief Lehner reviewed the change element initiatives: 1) improve organizational capacity; 2) improve organizational effectiveness; and 3) improve organizational accountability. He indicated that all the change elements fell into one or more of those categories. Chief Lehner provided a list of short-, mid-, and long- term initiatives. Chief Lehner reviewed next steps in the process, which included adoption of the Strategic Plan, the incorporation of plan recommendations into the fiscal year 2007 budget, and continued development of the initiatives for incorporation into future budget processes. Mayor Piercy opened the floor to questions. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its work on the plan, saying he liked the overall structure of the plan and much of the contents. He liked the goals and the fact the goals were specifically measurable. He endorsed the recommendation for a progress report. Mr. Kelly thought the vision statement was inspiring. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the key role of the neighborhoods and the neighborhood community- based policing philosophy. He suggested that the mission statement be amended to refer to neighborhood associations rather than organizations to reflect the terminology currently in use. Mr. Kelly thought the work being done on the programs was worthwhile and noted the priorities given them in the plan. He said the plan was silent on the issue of how much money to place toward a particular program, and he thought that would be useful information to include. Mr. Kelly noted that the materials before the council mentioned that department staff evaluated the budget to determine historical and actual allocation of resources to each program, but that information was not included in the appendix. Chief Lehner indicated that information was not yet available but would be in the future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor thanked staff for its work on the plan and commended Chief Lehner’s presentation. Ms. Taylor asked if the sizes of Eugene neighborhoods made a difference in community policing; some were easily walked in a short time, and others were “huge.” Chief Lehner said yes, it did make a difference, and noted the relationship to the council’s priority issue related to neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor asked if neighborhood sizes would have to change to accommodate community policing. Chief Lehner believed that was an important element of the discussion regarding the neighborhood initiative, adding that the issue had a significant influence on community-based policing and the department would have a role in that discussion. Ms. Taylor asked if anything in the City’s officer hiring process would prevent the hiring of individuals such as officers Lara and Magana, who she understood had criminal records. Chief Lehner responded that was a consideration in the department’s hiring initiative. The department reviewed its background screens and had already made several adjustments to those processes. The initiative would result in a recommendation for a modified background screen. Ms. Taylor spoke to the need to reduce property crimes, saying she had been hearing about incidents of residents who arrived home to find burglars in their house. She had seen nothing in the plan on how to reduce such property crimes. Chief Lehner said that it was a long-term goal that involved not just department resources, but interagency and inter-organizational resources, and for that reason would be a difficult one to achieve. The department would have to develop strategies that included those other agencies. Ms. Taylor asked if achieving the goal would involve doing more to find burglars. Chief Lehner said that he was working with Lane County Sheriff’s Office on a target offender program with the idea of stopping repeat offenses. Ms. Taylor asked if the department took fingerprints for burglaries. Chief Lehner said yes, in most cases. Mr. Papé asked what involvement the Police Commission had in the development of the plan. Chief Lehner said that the commission was involved through its identification of issues of importance to it, and had reviewed the plan both in a subcommittee setting and as a full commission. The commission would see the plan again on November 11. Mr. Papé said he would like to see a recommendation on the plan from the Police Commission before the council saw the final draft. He would also like to see a cross-reference between the strategies and the ICMA/PERF report. Chief Lehner indicated such a matrix had been prepared. Mr. Papé asked if the department could work with the courts on some of the recommendations in the plan, as he thought the proposals would not work without their cooperation. Chief Lehner indicated that the inclusion of a goal indicated its importance to the City and gave direction to staff as it worked with other agencies. Mr. Papé referred to page 15, listing organizational values, and suggested that some terms needed definition, such as “professionalism” and “innovation.” He also thought that improved organizational something would be a value as well as something else. He asked what “service” and “teamwork” meant. Chief Lehner agreed about the need for such definitions. Mayor Piercy noted that time for the item had expired. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to extend time for the item by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman supported the plan and commended the department and chief. She said that plan represented something that needed to be done for a long time. The plan organized and documented what was being done and identified gaps. She thought it provided transparency into the actions of the department, which was an issue during budget time. Ms. Bettman said the plan represented a large, difficult, and challenging job. She thought it reflective of what the community wanted in terms of quality policing services. Noting that the council did not generally adopt such plans, Mr. Kelly thought it important that the council have a policy discussion of the department’s initiatives with the chief outside the budget process. Speaking to the initiatives, Mr. Kelly asked about the first such short-term initiative, to develop an organizational staffing plan. He said staffing levels are intimately tied to department activities, and asked how that could be done before the initiatives were fleshed out. Chief Lehner said that the plan focused on what the department was doing and what it was doing it with. He said that the gap was in terms of what the department was expected to do and what it could do. Part of the process of plan implementation was closing that gap. He anticipated it would not be a one-time thing and the plan would be reviewed annually. Chief Lehner hoped the staffing plan provided a framework for moving forward. Mr. Papé asked what “culturally competent” meant. Chief Lehner said it met an ability to operate in a culturally diverse environment. He noted his experience in Tucson, where Native American communities were part of the city and knowledge of their culture was vital to an officer’s ability to respond to calls for service from those individuals. He said a significant subculture existed in the form of the gay and lesbian community. An understanding of what was going on with the community was needed, and that occurred in joint discussions of expectations with that community. It implied a educated organization that learned about cultural and style difference, and then was competent in operating in that environment. Mr. Papé thanked Chief Lehner for the excellent explanation. He then expressed the hope the organization and the community understood the term because he was not sure he did. Mr. Papé referred to the goals of the plan and suggested that when someone reported a crime, it would be good to have a live voice on the other end of the line. Chief Lehner said he and his staff felt the same way. The issue was a resource issue in terms of the number of calls being received and the number of people available to take those calls. The issue was how to address the calls for non-emergency service that were received by the department. At the moment, staff preferred to direct calls to a telephone tree as opposed to giving callers a busy signal. Mr. Papé suggested one way to address the issue was through the goals. Chief Lehner pointed out that the issue was already addressed in a goal. Mr. Kelly said there were many good initiatives proposed, and he particularly applauded the initiatives related to the complaint-handling process, domestic violence, the broadening of the parks patrols, and the possibility of a precinct model being adopted at a future time. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the communications review. Chief Lehner noted the continuous staffing problem in Communications, which was tied to retention. A management review was occurring to determine what could be done in regard to training and retention. The study would help inform the City as to the optimal number of staff. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the chief’s outreach to neighborhoods, which she thought was very important. She appreciated the comprehensive and responsive nature of the plan, particularly the elements tied to finding out what residents wanted. She noted the passage of the charter amendment providing for an MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 5 Work Session external police auditor, and said she was interested in having the council know what the officers needed for them to feel supported by the council. She asked the chief to think about how the council could convey its appreciation and support to the department staff on a continuous basis. Chief Lehner commended the work done by Senior Management Analyst Linda Phelps on the Strategic Plan. B. WORK SESSION: Public Safety Task Force Update The council was joined by Jim Johnson, consultant to the Public Safety Task Force process. Mayor Piercy recalled the council’s rejection of a public safety district proposal put forward by the Board of County Commissioners and its expression of willingness to work with its interjurisdictional partners on a funding solution. She called attention to the materials given to the council, which provided a review of the task force process. The task force was formed by the County in response to the reaction it received from Lane County municipalities to the public safety district proposal. City Manager Taylor said he believed the task force attempted to determine the status quo and the level of service needed to meet the demand of cities in Lane County. Several recommendations were forwarded by the task force, and he believed the Board of County Commissioners expected the council to respond to the proposal with a specific set of recommendations, which would inform its decision-making process. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Kelly, a member of the task force, to comment on the recommendations of the task force. Mr. Kelly spoke to how intertwined the elements of the public safety system were and how necessary one element of the system was to another element’s success. He considered the proposal in terms of each element of the system and what it would mean in actual practice. He believed that the mix of services in the proposal made a major difference in all the areas of the system. Mr. Kelly said that it was easy to criticize the allocation if one did not understand the interrlationships of the system, such as the expense of incarcera- tion versus the cost of providing drug treatment beds. Mr. Kelly reported that 10 of 12 jurisdictions present at the final meeting of the task force supported an initiative to create a local sales tax, partially offset by a property tax. Some jurisdictions recommended gross receipts tax offset by property tax reduction. He commended the work of Commissioner Faye Stewart, who had taken a political risk and shown leadership by conceding there was a funding gap and proposing a solution. Mayor Piercy thought the proposal before the council had been carefully thought out. She also commended the work done by Commissioner Stewart in seeking a solution, adding that she supported his proposal and that the commissioners were now working on next steps. Mayor Piercy invited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Bettman asked who the decision-making body would be for the allocation of the revenues collected if the task force’s recommendation was adopted by the voters. She learned from Mr. Kelly it would be the Lane Board of County Commissioners, then voiced her concern with that arrangement. She asked what percentage of the $60 million was actually dedicated to prevention as opposed to enforcement. Mr. Kelly said he was not trying to avoid the question, but he did not think the statistic was particularly relevant MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 6 Work Session because prevention was cheaper than enforcement. Ms. Bettman thought the figure relevant, adding that she would be interested in knowing what the current split was, and how the new money changed that ratio. Mr. Kelly responded the $60 million fix of services had a higher percent of prevention services that the current mix. Mr. Johnson said the current amount was $6 million and $14 million for incarceration. He indicated he would respond to Ms. Bettman’s request. Ms. Bettman said she would be more supportive of a gross receipts tax than a sales tax, which touches rich and poor alike. The property tax reduction would go only to property owners, multiplying the regressive aspect of the sales tax. Ms. Taylor was concerned about the broad range of the services included in the proposal. She said that people like to choose what to vote for. Regarding prevention of services, she asked if anyone had examined the duplication of services provided by various agencies, as it was her perception that there was duplication. She was opposed to a sales tax and thought it a waste of time to place it on the ballot. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about the property tax reduction. Ms. Taylor said she thought a business license tax was preferable to the other taxes that had been considered. Mayor Piercy assured the council there was nothing set in stone at this point, and the City’s participation was purely advisory. Mr. Papé said the funding problem arose from a lack of revenues. While Lane County was one of the most populous counties in the state, it had one of the lowest revenue streams. He also commended the work of Commissioner Stewart. He said he would have loved to see a sales tax with exceptions for necessities instituted in Oregon years ago. He acknowledged the failure of other sales tax proposals but indicated he would support the one under consideration. Mr. Papé asked if there was any consideration by the County about contracting with the cities of Eugene and Springfield for services provided in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara and Glenwood. Mr. Johnson indicated that police services had not received much deliberation, adding that more discussion occurred about incarceration, treatment, and the potential of double taxation. Ms. Ortiz expressed her appreciation for the work of the task force. She had been unable to support the public safety district proposal but thought the County’s response to the City’s concerns was reasonable. Ms. Ortiz said she would support taking the proposal to a vote. Ms. Solomon asked about recent Board of County Commissioners decisions, time line, and the potential of placing more than one item on the ballot. In response, Mr. Johnson indicated that it would be possible to place more than one item on the ballot, but generally the measures got tied together and would require more than one campaign. Mr. Johnson said the Board of County Commissioners recently met to discuss the topic and the task force’s recommendations. The board discussion covered everything but the form of taxation and date of election. The board agreed to the suggested property tax reduction and basically concurred with the task force’s recommendations related to the service mix, although the board could add to the prevention and rural patrol services. The board would take up the funding issue again, and he thought it would give serious consideration to a business income tax similar to that used in Portland, as well as a personal income tax. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon about the nature of the ballot measure that would be offered to the voters, Mr. Johnson suggested the rate and purpose would be in the County Charter, which could only be MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 7 Work Session changed by a vote of the people. The ballot measure related to income taxes would likely be to ask voters if an income tax should be put into place. If successful, the tax would be implemented through ordinance. He anticipated the measures could be on the May 2006 ballot. Ms. Bettman asked if the entire $32 million in property taxes currently budgeted for County public safety services would be refunded. She also asked if anyone had compared the anticipated revenue streams to determine where the largest amounts would be generated, and if the task force considered directing some of the revenues to the Eugene Police Department to help it implement its Strategic Plan and pay for police services. She believed that if the proposal was adopted, Eugene taxpayers would be helping to pay for State-mandated services that were supposed to be delivered by the County. Mr. Kelly addressed the issues that had been raised. He said that projections indicated Eugene would generate the majority of the revenue from a new taxing source. However, it was likely a plurality of drug treatment clients or those occupying jail beds would be from Eugene. Mr. Kelly said the task force had not discussed a revenue share with the cities, an idea he found intriguing. However, that would require a larger money measure. Mr. Kelly noted a multi-million dollar item to fund rural patrols had been dropped out of concern about the potential of double taxation. Mr. Kelly recalled the task force’s discussion of the gross receipts tax had always exempted smaller businesses. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s question about the property tax refund, Mr. Kelly said that if one removed the existing funding for public safety services paid for by property tax and funded through a dedicated revenue source, what the County was refunding in property tax was what one used to pay through the General Fund for part of the services. Speaking to the remarks of Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly indicated that no additional new bureaucracy would be needed. He also indicated that the task force found more examples of service gaps than examples of duplication of service. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2005 Page 8 Work Session