Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/10/03 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt RoomCity Hall B March 10, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Papé, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Betty Taylor. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Solomon said she was recently a guest speaker at the Songbird Homeowners Association meeting, and it had been a pleasure and a privilege to meet those residents as she began her outreach to the constituents of Ward 4. Mr. Poling congratulated the 16 graduates of the Eugene Police Regional Academy, noting that former City Managers Office staff member Jenny Shin was among those graduating from the academy on March 8. = Mr. Kelly noted the upcoming expiration of the mall exclusion ordinance on Broadway, six months after the reopening of the street. Mr. Papé reported that on behalf of the mayor, he had participated in the Read Across the America event at Meadowlark Grade School. He said that it was a wonderful event and it had been fun to participate. Ms. Bettman commended City staff for its recent response to some difficult issues, specifically citing the work of employees Doña Nowakowski, Pat Wasmundt, Kay Kronhom, Michelle Mortenson, Richie Weinman, and Mike McKerrow. Mr. Meisner said he had also participated in Read Across the America at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC. Mr. Meisner termed the recent United Front trip a success and indicated a report was forthcoming. Mr. Meisner said he had also attended the Police Academy graduation and commended the event. Mr. Meisner said he had participated in a conference call with Claudia Howell of the Oregon Department of Transportations Rail Division and it appeared that the second train had not been eliminated at this point. He = said that many new legislators who had not been sure about rail in the past had come forward to express MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 1 C Work Session support. Mr. Meisner noted that he had a meeting scheduled the next day with three senior Amtrak officials to discuss the future of passenger rail in Oregon. Mr. Carlson noted the meeting was his last Monday work session as City Manager pro tem. Mayor Torrey indicated that the funds the City was to receive from the Army Corps of Engineers for the Delta Ponds project would be retained by the agency, which would do the work. He reported on a recent community outreach meeting on the project and thanked staff for its attendance. Many community members expressed support in working on the project. Mayor Torrey complimented Wetlands Manager Scott Duckett for his work on the United Fronts Washington, = DC, trip. Mayor Torrey noted that he had been in a meeting in Representative Peter DeFazios Office in Washington, = DC, when the Read Across America event began, and so was not able to participate. Mayor Torrey reported that the bridge limitations on Interstate 5 were a growing concern in Salem. The League of Oregon Cities was working to ensure that the money allocated toward addressing the problem did not consume all available resources. The league was seeking an operations, maintenance, and preservation element to match against the bridge funding. He said that the leagues last strategy was to tell ODOT it = supported the bridge program but there must be some operations, maintenance, and preservation money; if there was only so much left over, the Oregon Department of Transportation should take the hit and assume A@ its operations, maintenance, and preservation funding was to be expended on bridge development and maintenance. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner that the United Front visit would result in some benefits to the local area. He suggested some changes in the United Front process might be in order. B.WORK SESSION: Responses to Request For Proposals for Olive Street Development Site Mayor Torrey noted that Ms. Taylor had asked that the council not take action on the item tonight. He suggested that action could take place on March 12. The council was joined by Denny Braud and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Braud reminded the council that the financing plan for the new library included the sale of the Olive Street parking lot. He said that an initial Request for Proposals (RFP) had resulted in a project that had not materialized, and a second RFP had been issued for the site. He reported that four responses to the RFP had been received, and they were reviewed by the Planning Commission. The commission expressed enthusiasm about all four proposals because of their housing elements. Mr. Braud said that the commission subsequently recommended the proposal submitted by the team that included Jennings Development, Lorig Associates, Bergsund Delaney Architects, Hyland Construction, and Jean Tate. The team proposed a mixed-use development that would include 37-47 condominium units with ground floor commercial space. Mr. Braud said that the team also proposed home ownership and was forming a group led by Jean Tate to oversee that element of the proposal. MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 2 C Work Session Mr. Braud said the commissions recommendation was based on the criteria in the RFP, which included team = qualifications, relevant project experience, performance with the planning and design criteria, readiness to proceed, financial return to the City, and financial capacity of the proposer. The Jennings proposal appeared to be responsive to the criteria. The density proposed was about 48 units per acre and staff believed the character of the development would be compatible with downtown and the councils vision for downtown. He noted that = the Jennings Team also offered the City the highest purchase price. Mr. Braud noted two contingencies included in the Jennings proposal: 1) a six-month due diligence period during which the proposer would refine the design and do further market analysis and marketing of the units to be constructed; and 2) access to the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) program. He noted that currently the property was not included in the MUPTE boundaries and anticipated that staff would return for a discussion of possible boundary amendments in May 2003. Mr. Braud emphasized that the preferred proposal was still in the conceptual phase and it was likely there would be design changes. He requested council authorization for the City Manager to open negotiations with the Jennings Team. He noted the Planning Commissions recommendation that if the proposal did not move = forward, the other three proposals be reconsidered. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments and questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Braud said that the City had previously negotiated a $320,000 price for the property. The previous proposer had proposed a townhouse project and it did not appear it would pencil out at that price. The project now before the council was a slightly different project serving a different A@ market. He indicated, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, that the first proposer had no interest in doing commercial on the ground floor and it would have required a zone change for the project to proceed. Referring to the proposers request for a six-month due diligence period, Mr. Papé asked if the proposer was = willing to put down earnest money that could be forfeited if the project did not proceed. Mr. Braud believed that could be discussed. He said that the respondent wanted more time to work out the issues involved, and added that all the respondents to the RFP would need time for the City to reach a final decision. Mr. Sullivan noted that the RFP included a provision for a ten percent refundable earnest deposit. Mr. Papé did not support keeping the property off the market for six months without some sort of compensation. Ms. Bettman supported the Planning Commission recommendation but had concerns with the process. She was particularly concerned about the potential of taking the property off the market without giving the other proposers a chance to refine their proposals. She asked at what point the City would determine that changes to the selected proposal meant that it had changed to the degree it would not meet the RFP criteria, triggering the issuance of another RFP. Mr. Braud did not think the City was precluded from going back to the other RFP respondents if the selected proposal did not work out. Mr. Sullivan said that there was no established parameter that would require the issuance of another RFP. He understood Ms. Bettmans concern that the = project that was selected was the project that was wanted, perhaps with minor changes. He emphasized that staff intended to be faithful to the intent of the Planning Commission while acknowledging there would probably be some unpredicted changes. He said that the City was looking to maintain the unit count and MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 3 C Work Session density of the project and the overall feel of the project. Ms. Bettman wanted to see that information as part of the councils legislative intent. = Speaking to the issue of expanding the MUPTE boundaries, Ms. Bettman asked if it could be expanded to include only the site in question. Mr. Sullivan said he thought it might be possible but would have to do more research. He noted that staff intended to return to the council with expanded MUPTE boundaries at a future meeting. Ms. Bettman did not support the broader MUPTE expansion but supported the inclusion of the property in the MUPTE. Ms. Bettman asked if there was known contamination on the site. Mr. Braud said no. Ms. Bettman asked why staff was proposing commercial on the ground floor given the proximity of the development to other mixed uses. Mr. Sullivan said that the sites current zoning required commercial on the = ground floor. He said that staff had discussed that perhaps there should be some relief from that, but the proposal before the council incorporated offices uses on the ground floor, adding activity and character. Mr. Meisner noted he requested a staff response regarding the boundary expansion as it applied to this site specifically. He supported the Planning Commission recommendation. He wanted to include the project in the MUPTE boundaries. He commended the minutes of the Planning Commission discussion. He acknowledged the concern expressed by Ms. Bettman and expressed support for the commissions recommendation to = reconsider the three other proposals if necessary. Mr. Meisner reported that many in attendance at the library grand opening had expressed interest in owning a housing unit downtown. Mr. Poling expressed appreciation that the chosen respondent was local. He concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation and said he was glad to see housing ownership opportunities in downtown. Mr. Kelly thought all four proposed projects showed promise and liked the idea the City could work with the other three respondents if the recommended project did not go forward. However, he found the project selected to be an absolute jewel and looked forward to seeing it come to fruition. He said the project was very A@ responsive to the RFP. Mr. Kelly did not feel strongly about the six months period requested by the respondent. He suggested that = there could be good faith measures and frequent check-ins. Speaking to the concerns voiced by Ms. Bettman, he pointed out that the suggested motion called for project consistency with the RFP. If there was a significant change, the council would revisit the issue. Mr. Kelly did not support expanding the MUPTE boundaries for the project in question because he wanted to give the core area a chance to work, and at a time when the budget was under attack, he would find it difficult to tell citizens that the City was exempting high-end housing from the property tax. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Sullivan that the MUPTE would apply only to the housing portion of the property. MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 4 C Work Session Ms. Bettman requested information about trees that would be removed from the property. Mr. Braud said that one significant tree on the site was a walnut tree that was moved a couple of years ago. Most of the trees on the site were small. Those in the interior would be removed because of the way the site would be oriented to the street. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on the topic so that the council could respond to constituents questions. = Mayor Torrey supported the Planning Commission recommendation. He endorsed Mr. Papés suggested for = earnest money and suggested it could be phased over time. With regard to the MUPTE, he thought the project a good way to use that tool because he thought it would stimulate additional housing projects in the core of the city. He hoped that the council would be able to act on the item on March 12 when Ms. Nathanson and Ms. Taylor were present. C.WORK SESSION: Development of a Code of Ethics Ordinance The council was joined for the item by Mary Walston of the City Managers Office and Glenn Klein of the City = Attorneys Office. = Ms. Walston provided brief background on the item before the council. She reminded the council that in November 2002, the voters approved a charter amendment initially proposed by the Citizen Charter Review Committee calling for the council to develop and adopt an ordinance establishing a code of ethics. Ms. Walston noted that the staff materials included Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 244, which covered government standards and practices. She suggested it as the basis for an ordinance for Eugene. The law was inclusive, and it had already been extensively interpreted in law. Ms. Walston solicited input from the council on what the Citys ordinance should address, and who should be covered by such an ordinance. = Mr. Klein responded to questions submitted earlier by Mr. Kelly. Regarding what was being recommended from ORS Chapter 244, Mr. Klein indicated the ordinance would include some of the statutes definitions and = the sections related to personal gain and how to handle actual and potential conflicts. Responding to Mr. Kellys question regarding why and when Salem adopted its ethics provision, Mr. Klein said that it appeared to = have been adopted in 1996 but he had been unable to find out why. Two of the provisions of Salems code = went beyond State law. First, under State law, an actual conflict of interest precluded an elected officials = participation in a matter except when authorized by the rule of necessity; if there were not enough councilors A@ to take action, a councilor with a conflict could vote, although he or she could not participate in the discussion. Salems code and the Eugene charter prohibited that. Second, Mr. Klein said that Salems code also exceeded == State law in that State law prohibited people from benefitting or taking advantage of confidential information, but Salems code also precludes any disclosure of confidential information as well. = Speaking to the question of what staff did not recommend from the Salem ordinance, Mr. Klein said that Eugene staff had not contemplated an ethics commission. Staff did not propose to incorporate all employees in the ordinance as did Salems ordinance. He noted that the States law covered all City employees and elected == officials. Ms. Bettman thought the State statute a good place to start. She also was interested in addressing the issues of gifting and reporting, honoraria, the revolving door policy, and who filed a statement of economic interest. A@ MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 5 C Work Session She wanted a local version of the State statute. Speaking to the definitions in ORS of a business with which a person was associated, Ms. Bettman said that the stock ownership figure of $100,000 seemed high to her. She suggested a lower figure that reflected local values. She wanted to include department heads and division managers in the Citys ordinance. Ms. Bettman also questioned whether any City ordinance addressed the = issue of conflict of interest as it related to nonprofit organizations, and requested more information on that topic. Ms. Bettman said the Citys charter amendment on the topic referred to the council making a finding of = intentional violation, meaning that the ultimate decision was with the council. She thought that part of the code of ethics should include a process through which ethics complaints were first examined by either the lawyers or a committee and then adjudicated. Mr. Meisner agreed that the State law was a good basis for beginning. He said he was not interested in a local ethics commission. He was concerned about independent City reporting and the potential of two separate forms with minor or subtle variations. He indicated he would include executive managers in the ordinance; he was unsure about division managers. Mr. Meisner did not want non-use of the Citys domestic partner registry to be a way for individuals to avoid = the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Klein said that he had given that issue some thought, and in the absence of the registry or a public declaration, he could not see another option outside going to ones house and looking = inside to see what was going on. Mr. Meisner encouraged staff to give the issue further consideration. Mr. Papé determined from Mr. Klein that the City already had to comply with ORS Chapter 244. He questioned whether the City wanted to duplicate that law. He proposed that the Planning Commission and Budget Committee could also be included in any City ethics ordinance. Mr. Klein suggested that the council keep in mind that all those officials and all City employees were already subject to ORS Chapter 244. Unless the City was to create additional requirements above those in ORS Chapter 244, who was included would have more political significance than legal significance. Ms. Solomon thought that ORS Chapter 244 was sufficient to address any issues that had arose. She said that the ordinance appeared to be make-work to her. She was unaware of any ethical violations that had come up on the part of the council, and asked to be enlightened. Speaking to Ms. Solomons remarks, Mr. Kelly said the council was taking action because of the voters == passage of the charter amendment. He believed that adoption of the ordinance made a philosophical statement that local concerns over ethics was very important to the council. He said that it was more of a philosophical exercise than a legal exercise. Mr. Kelly agreed with other councilors that ORS Chapter 244 was a reasonable place to start, and suggested that the exercise was one of putting the relevant provisions in code. He noted that Salem extensively cross- referenced Chapter 244 in its ordinance, and that could be appropriate in Eugene as well. He thanked Mr. Klein for his answers to his questions and concurred with his assessment of what should be adopted from Chapter 244. Mr. Kelly also supported the inclusion of executive managers as a philosophical statement. MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 6 C Work Session Mr. Kelly did not think the City needed a local commission, but pointed out that a local commission provided a process to address the complaints that were received. He believed that the City needed a way to evaluate complaints to determine if they were warranted before they were scheduled as a council item. Ms. Solomon did not think more laws and more reporting conveyed more concern about ethics. She reiterated that Chapter 244 was a very good place to start with a new ordinance. Mr. Meisner and Mayor Torrey left the meeting to attend to another commitment. Council President Papé assumed the chair. Ms. Bettman believed that a local ordinance was needed to address local concerns. Speaking to Mr. Kleins = remarks, Ms. Bettman said did not believe that the Citys boards and committees volunteers were aware of the = State statute and its limitations and suggested that reiterating those values in a local ordinance that also reflected local values could be a very valuable exercise for the council and could help to create credibility and trust in government. Mr. Poling indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Solomon. He suggested that Chapter 244 could merely be incorporated into the Citys code by reference. = Speaking to a concern raised by Mr. Kelly, Ms. Walston indicated an additional work session would be scheduled in April for review of a draft ordinance based on ORS Chapter 244, and the scheduled public hearing would be moved back. Responding to a question from Mr. Papé regarding the councils direction to staff, Ms. Bettman agreed that if = there was an adequate process, there was no need for a commission. Mr. Carlson suggested that one option was to direct complaints initially to the Oregon State Government Practices Commission. Mr. Kelly said he would prefer a complaint resolution process that began with the City Attorney rather than a new ethics commission. He pointed out that the Oregon State Government Practices Commission was laying off its investigators and did not think the City could rely on that avenue. He preferred a simple local mechanism. Mr. Klein suggested the danger of too simple a process that was easy to access and could be open to abuse. He said that staff would consider how to establish a process that allowed frivolous complaints to be quickly identified and dismissed by the council. Mr. Kelly shared the concern, saying he wanted to avoid frivolous complaints and believed a buffer between the complainants and the council was needed. He also wanted to avoid a situation where a single councilor continually lodged complaints against other councilors. Ms. Bettman agreed, saying that such a situation could lead to additional partisanship. Ms. Bettman noted that Salems ethics commission was handpicked by the mayor and approved by the council. = She said that if the council chose to establish a local commission, she preferred that each councilor appoint a commissioner. In response to Ms. Solomons earlier question, Mr. Klein said that there had not been an ethics complaint = against a Eugene official for some time, but the Ethics Commission received many complaints, many of which were frivolous but which the commission was required to pursue. Unless there was a process for winnowing out such complaints, the City would risk the danger of complaints being filed merely because a citizen disagreed with the positions taken by a councilor. Staff would attempt to draft an ordinance that protected the MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 7 C Work Session elected officials and employees from such frivolous complaints while allowing other complaints to go forward and be investigated. Mr. Papé adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James D. Carlson, City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R:\2003\Central Services Department\City Council\cc030310m1.wpd MINUTESEugene City Council March 10, 2003 Page 8 C Work Session