Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/16/09 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon July 16, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: General Obligation Bonds for Street Preservation Projects Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge recalled the last council work session on the topic, which resulted in the refined project list and revised bond resolution before the council. She provided an overview of the revised project list, suggesting it both responded to data about the streets most cost-effective to repair with bond funds as well as the public’s desire to fix some of the more heavily traveled roads needing reconstruction. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the bond project list included segments in all geographic areas of the City, but there was a heavier emphasis on the south part of Eugene because the majority of streets that required reconstruction were concentrated in that area, while streets in the north part of the community tended to be in need of less expensive treatments, such as slurry seals. Such repairs were not eligible for a bond levy, and would most likely be paid for using local gas tax dollars. Ms. Cutsogeorge reminded the council that the bond would also underwrite the costs of the preservation of off-street bicycle paths and pedestrian paths. Ms. Cutsogeorge recalled the council’s discussion about the need for flexibility to respond to changing conditions over the ten-year period of the bond and said staff proposed that after all projects on the bond measure project list had been completed, the council could add projects to the list or delete them with a super-majority. She recommended that be included in the bond measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge recommended that the City’s share of local improvement projects be funded from other sources to keep the bond measure simple. Ms. Cutsogeorge referred the council to the Transportation Funding Communications Plan, included in the packet as Attachment F. She anticipated further changes to the plan, and noted the restrictions placed on City employees in regard to communications about bond measures. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff continued to recommend a November 2008 election date to avoid the double- majority requirement, and noted the last day to place a bond measure on the ballot for that date was August 5. Ms. Cutsogeorge called attention to revised Attachment G, Impact on Eugene Taxpayers from Different MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Bond Amounts. She also noted the distribution of copies of a motion Ms. Bettman intended to offer. Mr. Ruiz called the council’s attention to the list of members who served on the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been working on the issue. He reported that a community survey had been done, but the results were not yet compiled. The ad hoc citizens' group would hear feedback from the survey consultant on the issue on July 18, and he anticipated a similar presentation would be made to the council. He suggested the survey results might influence the council’s final decision. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Poling determined from City Manager Ruiz that the numbers used to identify the projects did not relate to any project priorities. Mr. Poling asked if “highly visible streets” correlated to heavily used streets. Ms. Cutsogeorge said yes. Mr. Poling liked the idea of the council being able to take projects off and add projects to the list and clarified the process that would take with Ms. Cutsogeorge. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling about the potential of project reprioritization, Public Works Director Kurt Corey indicated that was a possibility. Mr. Poling wanted to keep the ballot measure simple. He thought the 2008 November ballot preferable given the rising costs of construction. Mayor Piercy suggested a circumstance could occur where a street not on the list became a priority because of need and asked if there was a way to add such a street to the list. Mr. Corey said no, not under the current proposal, and recalled that the council had discussed the need for providing the public with assurance about what would be funded. Mayor Piercy thought staff was trying to create flexibility to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, and the resolution seemed to remove that potential. Mr. Corey thought he had heard council resistance to adding such flexibility. He pointed out that the bond measure was one component of the street preservation package and a project of that kind might be funded through the gas tax or some other yet-to-be-identified tax revenue. Mr. Clark was struck by the large number of streets in south Eugene on the project list as opposed to the lack of streets in other areas of the community, including Santa Clara and River Road. He acknowledged the special circumstances surrounding the Santa Clara/River Road area in that large parts of it were not annexed and there were many unimproved roads. He thought that the result might be that voters would not perceive the measure as the solution to the problem. He wanted flexibility within the ten-year funding window to address emerging needs and changing circumstances. He was challenged by that fact as an inequity issue in regard to asking all to pay for it. He suggested staff consider both the importance of communicating the list of projects and reasons for them, as well as why this method of financing was preferable. Ms. Bettman appreciated the refined project list. She spoke to the ad hoc citizens’ group that had been assembled by the manager, which she did not consider representative of the community. There was a statement in the materials related to the use of the General Fund, and she said the council had agreed on funding strategy proposed by a council subcommittee that did not include that fund. Ms. Bettman wanted to support the resolution but felt the further out the City attempted to project the need, the less able it was to predict any variables. In the case of an emergency or natural disaster, there were other funding sources. In regard to taking projects off the list or moving them around, if people were MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session swayed to support the measure by the inclusion of a street of interest to them and it was removed later by a future council, Ms. Bettman thought that a breach of trust. She intended to offer the body a motion that provided for a shorter time line with results that could be seen in five years. It reduced the risks of unpredictability as well as the price tag for the bond, which she considered important in tough economic times. She did not want to support an unsuccessful effort. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation to staff and its attempt to reflect the input of all involved groups. He considered that the bond needed to be simple, affordable, honest, and it must address the issue. He thought simplicity was a key factor to the measure’s package. The measure must reflect a simple logic. He was willing to hear Ms. Bettman’s arguments in regard to affordability. In regard to the issue of honesty, he thought the discussion about adding projects and flexibility was an effort to maintain the integrity of the proposal while still having some opportunity if needed. He supported the proposal for a super-majority to remove a project off the list as a move in the right direction. In regard to changing things around or adding projects to the list, he suggested the measure be made as ironclad as possible, acknowledging that limited flexibility. He said the council needed to have as honest an election as possible, even if it removed an escape clause. Mr. Pryor liked the list and thought its development and prioritization should be the responsibility of professionals, not the council, as long as everything on the list was addressed. He did not want to create flexibility at the expense of perceived honesty. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks, saying he stated the issues very well. She wanted to be clear with the voters and was concerned about the amount of money involved. She wanted to ensure that the projects that were presented to the voters were the projects that were built. Ms. Ortiz observed that many of the projects were in downtown. She did not think downtown was part of south Eugene and did not want to see the bond measure perceived by the public as a bond measure for south Eugene. Ms. Ortiz noted that much of her ward was in the county and many streets were unimproved streets, and she wanted to discuss that issue at greater length at a future time. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the changes made by staff as he thought it reflected the council’s discussion. He reiterated that the proposed measure was part of a larger package and it solved only a part of the problem. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the package developed by the council subcommittee did not recommend General Fund cuts in order to fund street repairs, although he acknowledged some General Fund dollars had been allocated for that purpose. Mr. Zelenka said the proposed measure was also cheaper and, at his request, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that normally the City would issue such a bond and borrow the money upfront; in this case, the City would only borrow the money it needed each year, which reduced the cost. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the change. He asked how the project list would be determined. Mr. Corey said the City considered utility coordination, pavement ratings, and attempted to get to those streets that could be preserved with an overlay before they reached a status that placed them in the reconstruction category. Mr. Zelenka suggested that offered additional flexibility. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Ortiz about limiting the council’s flexibility to change the list. He asked how many streets were affected by factors such as natural disaster or archaeologi- cal finds. He thought those factors quite rare. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the factors were suggested by bond counsel. She said if one of those circumstances actually occurred, the City would not be able to spend money on other projects unless the affected project could be taken off the list. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Zelenka thought adding to the project list and taking projects off the list were two different things. Ms. Solomon referred to North Seneca Road and asked why it was not on the list. Mr. Pryor shared that concern. Ms. Solomon was also concerned about the condition of Highway 99 from Four Corners to Sheppard Motors. She determined from Mr. Corey that Highway 99 was under the jurisdiction of ODOT from Washington-Jefferson Bridges and on to the west. Mr. Corey recalled that a section of Seneca Road had been overlaid recently and indicated he would follow-up with Ms. Solomon. Ms. Taylor believed this was the first time the council considered a bond measure for streets. She asked how the council could secure the support of those who lived on unimproved streets and could only see improvements to their streets at great cost to themselves. She asked if they could be exempted from the measure. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no, not as the law was currently structured. Ms. Taylor thought it would be difficult to secure the support of those residents, citing specifically the residents on Crest, Storey, and Friendly streets, who had been waiting for their street project for years, only to find that Bond Lane was improved before their streets. City Manager Ruiz pointed out that many people would benefit from the projects being contemplated as many involved arterial and collector streets used by many residents. Ms. Taylor did not doubt that, but thought it would be challenging to persuade people who could not get their own streets fixed. th Ms. Taylor asked why the project proposed for Harris Street stopped at 28 Avenue rather than going on to th 30 Avenue. Mr. Corey indicated he would find out. Ms. Taylor questioned the proposal for a council super-majority to remove a project. Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff was reflecting the council discussion from the last work session. Ms. Taylor thought five people sufficient. Mayor Piercy thought it important that whatever came out of the discussion had strong council support. She liked Ms. Bettman’s suggestion for a five-year horizon because the public could then see results. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the cost was the same, and the number of years were halved. Mayor Piercy thought the sticker shock for voters was reduced by the lower annual amount proposed by Ms. Bettman. She also thought a shorter list for the shorter time period could look more balanced. Mayor Piercy agreed with Ms. Taylor that those who lived on unimproved streets might be a challenge to persuade to support a bond measure to improve streets because “streets were streets” to people. Ms. Bettman had no interest in supporting an unsuccessful bond measure. She thought it dangerous to take too big a bite and lose, because “that’s it,” and it would be a long time before the council could go back to the voters. She pointed out that utility and gas costs were going up and property values were going down, and the council needed to be cognizant of that. She thought that $81.5 million was too much and ten years too long for citizens to visualize results; she was only willing to support the smaller amount because people would see results and then the council would be able to go out for a second measure. Ms. Bettman said another reason for a shorter time line was greater predictability for the public. She suggested that if projects on the list came in under-budget, that funding could be reallocated by the council by adding another preservation project to the list from the master list. In regard to removing projects from the list, she would not include any provision related to that in the ordinance because she thought there were enough projects for five years. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling spoke to the perceived concentration of projects in south and southwest Eugene, and said the measure was aimed at older, more used roads; that needed to be communicated to the public. In regard to the cost of the measure, he pointed out the City would still have the same amount of street repairs at the end of five years, and the voters would forget about the conversation the council was having and believed they had already voted to fix the streets. He recommended the council communicate to the public what it required to fix the streets and propose a ten-year measure. He was not willing to support a five-year measure. Ms. Ortiz thanked the members of the ad hoc citizens’ group. Regarding the time period proposed for the measure, she recalled the approach taken by the Bethel School District and said that $89 million was a lot of money. She emphasized the impact that higher gas prices were having on her constituents. She was inclined to support a lower price tag and demonstrate to the voters that the City could do the job right and distribute the benefits equitably to the community, and thought they would understand. Mr. Zelenka appreciated the communication plan. He was torn between a five-year and a ten-year measure. He understood the argument about cost but wanted to solve the problem that existed. He pointed out that the problem was not a ten-year problem but rather a twenty-year problem, so the council was not solving it with a ten-year bond. He was willing to consider a five-year bond, and in that case wanted to limit the council’s ability to change the list. He suggested the council either eliminate the super-majority section or allow changes to the project list only in the last year of the measure. He thought that was a safety mechanism to allow for changes that came up during the decade. Mr. Zelenka thought that, although it was not on the list as an unimproved street, Crest Drive had a unique place in the discussion and he thought the council should consider including it in the bond as a way to garner more votes. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item until 1 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark did not want to support something that had no chance of passing. He did not think it wise to fix only half of the problem, and was inclined to support a longer bond measure. He wanted to see the results of the survey work and did not think he could support the motion proposed by Ms. Bettman until then. He continued to be concerned about the distribution of projects and was curious about which would be eliminated if the project list was halved for purposes of reducing the time for the measure. Mr. Clark advocated for the council subcommittee to reconvene to consider the parameters of the funding package. Mr. Pryor thought it worth recalling that the problem cost $173 million, so neither a five- or ten-year measure would solve the problem. The issue for him was which increment of time to support. He was supportive of an increment that was passable. He recalled the school board had continually phased its measures and presented them to the public in that manner, which worked reasonably well. He asked Mr. Corey if the city would have more projects completed at the end of a five-year or a ten-year bond. Mr. Corey said that a five-year bond would fund about half the program reflected on the map of projects. Mr. Pryor said that it was not a matter of being able to do more projects in ten years than in five, but the fact the City would have secured the funding. He suggested the issue was the security of having the funding for the entire ten-year period or going for a smaller five-year period because it was more supportable. He did not MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session know that was the case and agreed with Mr. Clark that the survey would be helpful in that regard. Mr. Pryor questioned if making and delivering on one five-year promise was better than asking the voters to trust the council for the entire amount. He recalled the community survey that demonstrated a lack of confidence in the council as it regarded a new city hall, and said he did not know the answer to the question. Ms. Taylor suggested the council could prove it could spend the money responsibly but do it with the wrong roads. She thought that people thought about the annual cost of a bond when they considered their support. She did not think it was any easier for residents to pay for five years as opposed to ten years if the cost was the same. It was not her experience that people cared about the total amount of the measure. She agreed it would be better if all the councilors supported the bond, but it did not sound as though they would. Ms. Solomon agreed that the ten-year plan did not solve the problem, and suggested the issue came down to a leadership issue. She did not favor a shorter period and said the council needed to put forth a bond measure that would solve the problem, and she considered that to be the ten-year bond in combination with the other elements of the funding package. Ms. Bettman said that people were looking both at what they paid annually and how long they paid it. She thought the amount for the ten-year bond too high and the period too long. She pointed out the council reduced the library levy out of concern it would not pass at a higher amount, and it barely passed at the lower amount. Ms. Bettman spoke to the distribution of projects, pointing out there was a higher concentration of arterials and collectors in the affected neighborhoods, reflecting a higher concentration of population. She was not willing to micromanage the list, pointing out there were streets in her ward that badly needed repair, such as th sections of West 18 Avenue, but she was not going to propose it being added. Ms. Bettman said the council needed to start small and build the confidence of the voters. City Manager Ruiz said the council could direct staff to return with two motions, each reflecting a different funding period and amount, on July 28, at which time the survey information would be available. He said that staff would need clear direction about whether projects could be removed. Mr. Zelenka said that the problem was even larger than mentioned, and it simply continued to grow. Ten years was not half of the solution; it was really a question of how often the council went out with a measure. He suggested the second bond measure could be a ten-year bond. Mr. Zelenka asked if there were other survey sources to test the amount proposed. He supported having two motions. He agreed the list should be geographically dispersed. He noted that the November ballot included several other levies, and he thought the council needed to consider that, although it was true of most such measures. He thought doing a five-year bond could build more trust in the City. He anticipated a continual education process faced the City. He did not want a five-year measure to include a way to remove a project. Mr. Clark supported seeing multiple options but he thought there were other factors affecting the trust factor mentioned by Mr. Pryor. He supported a ten-year option and would like to see an adjustment possible, and expressed support for the last-year approach suggested by Mr. Zelenka. He did not see a circumstance where he would be willing to support the five-year option. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to bring to the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session council two resolutions at the July 28 meeting; the first resolution would be for a term of five years and represent half of the listed projects that would have been accomplished in the first five years ($36 million) with no removal clause in the five-year period, and a second draft measure for the ten-year term with all projects in the Agenda Item Summary with a removal clause in place that required action by a super-majority. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to allow changes to the project list, including the addition and removal of projects, in the ten-year period only in the last year, with the super-majority constraint. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to include language in the ordinance that al- lowed the funding for projects that came in under-budget to be allocated to another project. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Clark voting no. Mayor Piercy indicated that she would not support any resolution that did not enjoy a council majority. B.WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning a Council Employee Complaint Process; Adding Sections 2.400, 2.402, 2.404, 2.406, 2.408, 2.410, and 2.412 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and Amending Sec- tion 2.486 of that Code Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Clark asked if the City’s complaint process allowed complainants against City employees to remain anonymous. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones said yes. Mr. Clark noted that as drafted, the ordinance did not include the same standard. He said the ordinance also did not call for the name of the complainant to be kept confidential by the City department that received the complaint. Mr. Klein said that the expectation was that if the complaint went to the City Recorder’s Office (CRO), he or she would not look at it but would immediately forward it to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The complaint would be in a sealed envelope when forwarded to the CAO. The CRO was selected because of its public accessibility. Mr. Zelenka thanked the council officers and staff for their work on the ordinance. He thought the ordinance was clear and the proposed process was fair. He said it appeared to cover all contingencies. He shared Mr. Clark’s concern about the use of the CRO as it related to confidentiality. Mr. Pryor did not think it hard to amend the ordinance to indicate the CRO would maintain confidentiality. He added he had not been interested in an extensive process around anonymous complaints, making confidentiality more important. He thought one needed to take responsibility for making complaints and anonymous complaints could lead to frivolity. Mr. Klein said the draft included a clause that allowed the complainant to retain confidentiality and it would cover both the CRO and CAO. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor about confidentiality and anonymous complaints. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Taylor thought that overall the ordinance looked good. Referring to the reference that the CAO would attempt to contact someone by telephone, she wanted something more to ensure confirmation the complai- nant received the information. Mr. Clark suggested the phrase ‘shall make contact.’ Mr. Klein indicated the ordinance could be amended but someone might be unreachable in spite of all attempts to contact them. Ms. Taylor asked that the ordinance be amended so that the complainant was asked to confirm receipt of the call. Ms. Taylor asked how and when the CAO would forward the complaint to the council. Mr. Klein said that would occur when the complaint was filed. The intent was to get the council the information as soon as the CAO received it. Ms. Taylor asked why the ordinance called for referral to an attorney outside Lane County. Ms. Bettman said that the council officers were seeking an independent review given the high profile of the employees involved. Mr. Pryor pointed out the council could amend the ordinance but he thought it could work with the ordinance now. He said the council might want to consider amending the ordinance later to include the ability for the council to initiate “no-motion” complaints if the charge was of particularly egregious nature. Ms. Bettman thought the ordinance was not perfect but it was transparent. She said it was difficult to anticipate every circumstance. She noted that the Police Auditor could accept anonymous complaints and the council might want to consider that in the future as well as whistle blower protections. Mr. Clark commended the draft ordinance. He said the whistle-blower aspect was an important component of the discussion. He did not want to treat one type of employee one way and another type another way. He believed there was a good reason that the council accepted anonymous complaints as a part of the Police Auditor process and welcomed education about why the council would want anonymous complaints against police officers but not in this case. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the reference to “next steps” following investigation, Mr. Klein said that the reference was to the human resource aspects of the case, not any criminal investigation. Ms. Bettman pointed out the employees involved were at-will employees and the council officers were not seeking equal treatment with other employees given the availability of union representation and complaint processes. The equal treatment must be between the three council at-will employees; they lacked the same protections and processes as other employees. Mr. Zelenka determined from City Manager Ruiz that he was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. City Manager Ruiz said the equity was to be found in due process. He noted that the Police Auditor and Municipal Judge had both reviewed the ordinance and had no objections. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2008 Page 9 Work Session