Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/11/09 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 11, 2009 12:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, George Poling, Betty Taylor Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz Ms. Piercy called the work session meeting of the Eugene City Council to order at 12:00 p.m. Fire Chief Randall Groves briefed the City Council on a chemical spill incident that occurred at approximately 9:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, and distributed copies of a report regarding the incident. Mr. Groves noted that the small hydrochloric acid spill from a railroad tank car on the Union Pacific Rail Road yards property had been properly dealt with by Fire & EMS Department (EFD) personnel. Ms. Ortiz thanked both Chief Groves for his briefing and the EFD for their professional response to the incident. She noted that she was glad that the incident had been covered by local media outlets. Chief Groves noted that the council members could feel free to contact either him or Deputy Chief Joe Zaludek if they had any further questions regarding the incident. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Interview Process AIC Human Resources Director Alana Holmes and AIC Recruitment Selection Manager Becky Hopkins coordinated with the City Council members and various members of City staff a suitable date for the four police auditor candidate interviews. The council members and staff briefly discussed their respective availability with regard to the police auditor candidate interviews, with Mr. Zelenka suggesting the possibility of splitting the interviews over two consecutive days. Ms. Ortiz wanted to make sure that the interviews were conducted before the next council break and feared that the candidates might get hired in other job searches if the interview process took too long. The council members agreed to schedule the police auditor candidate interviews for Tuesday, February 24, 2009, from 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Wednesday, February 25, 2009, from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Ms. Holmes noted that recommended internal stakeholder panel information had been distributed to the council by Ms. Hopkins and asked if the most recent recommendations regarding stakeholder panel participants were acceptable to the council. Ms. Holmes added that staff’s recommendations regarding the stakeholder panel were intended to mirror the strategies used in the City’s 2006 hiring process. Mr. Zelenka felt that the recommended list of internal stakeholder panel participants was very heavily weighted toward the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and suggested that the panel be supplemented with MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 1 Work Session other City executives or division representatives. Ms. Holmes responded that the council was free to add other members to the panel but advised that any such persons should have a thorough understanding of the nature of the police auditor position. Ms. Holmes, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that members of the Civilian Review Board would be included in the community member panel to be conducted during the interview process. Ms. Piercy suggested that members of the business community and homeless advocacy community be included on the community member panel. The council briefly discussed various community members and City representatives that might serve on the community member panel during the interview process. Ms. Holmes reminded the council that the internal stakeholder panel would be meeting on Monday, February 23, 2009. Ms. Holmes confirmed that the council had had the opportunity to weigh in and give input on which groups or individuals should be included in the community stakeholder panel. She further noted that the council had been considering either identifying particular groups who would choose and send their own representatives, or having each council member identify two individuals who would be invited to serve on the panel. Ms. Ortiz felt that the councilors should each submit two names of recommended community panel participants using the staff’s list of recommended groups to help identify those persons. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to have each City Councilor and the Mayor submit two names from the list of organizations recommended by staff to serve as participants on the community member stakeholder panel during the police auditor candidate interview process. Ms. Taylor felt that suggesting names from the list of staff recommended groups was not a good idea and alternatively suggested that the councilors and Mayor should chose two names regardless of their group affiliation. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to substitute that each City Councilor and the Mayor choose two individuals to serve as participants on the community member stakeholder panel during the police auditor candidate interview process. Mr. Clark maintained that selecting names from a list of recommended groups might create a less balanced panel although he noted that he could find either approach acceptable. Ms. Ortiz, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Zelenka, noted that it would be feasible to select names from the recommended groups list and then select additional individuals to supplement the community panel if needed. Both Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Pryor found Ms. Ortiz’s hybrid approach acceptable. Ms. Taylor did not like the categories from the list of organizations recommended by staff such as “people of faith.” She felt that representatives from University of Oregon student groups should be included on the community panel. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark worried that a simple selection of individuals by council members might result in an imbalanced community panel. Mr. Zelenka restated his support of Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to use a hybrid approach to the selection of community panel members. Ms. Taylor asked who would be responsible for determining the authority of the groups and categories recommended by staff. Mr. Zelenka replied that the council members and the Mayor would make such determinations. Ms. Ortiz noted that she had drafted a preliminary list of individuals based on previous City hiring processes and while the previous panels appeared unbalanced to her, she did not intend for the selection of individuals using the groups recommended by staff to be an immutable list. She suggested that the council and Mayor should feel free to add individual names to the lists if their participation in the community panel appeared warranted. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Taylor’s previously stated substitute motion. The motion failed, 2:6 (Ms. Taylor and Mr. Clark voting in favor). Ms. Piercy reminded council members that the panel selection strategy in the previous hiring process had been to allow groups to select and send their own representatives to serve on the community panel. Mr. Zelenka, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ortiz, wanted to offer a friendly amendment to Ms. Ortiz’s original motion whereby the council would review the recommended groups and their selected representatives and then determine any gaps that might be filled by selections of individuals by the councilors and the Mayor. Ms. Ortiz maintained that proceeding in the manner stated by Mr. Zelenka might make the panel selection process much more complicated. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, amended her previous motion and moved to have each council member and the Mayor submit two names and then add any supplemental groups suggested by council members to use as a template in the selection of community panel members in the police auditor candidate interview process. The motion passed, 7:1 (Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). Ms. Holmes noted that she would need to have the names of any additional organizations or groups by the end of the day and the names of any individuals by Friday, February 13, in order to have them included in the community panel selection process. Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that the McNutt room be used for the internal stakeholder panel and the City Council Chamber be used for the community stakeholder panel. Ms. Piercy confirmed there were no objections to staff’s recommendation. Ms. Holmes noted staff’s recommendation that City tours offered to the police auditor candidates as part of the interview process be conducted by division managers and/or executive managers who were not otherwise part of the interview process. Ms. Ortiz suggested that the tours be conducted with a community member as well as a division manager. Ms. Piercy confirmed for Ms. Holmes that there were no council objections to Ms. Ortiz’s suggestions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Holmes asked for the council and Mayor’s positions on providing for travel expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Mr. Pryor felt that the City could not afford the expense of paying for the travel expenses of spouses. Ms. Piercy maintained that if the four candidates under consideration were indeed the final candidates, it might be advisable to pay for the spouses’ travel expenses since it would be much more expensive to go through the search process all over again if none of the four candidates were eventually hired. Ms. Ortiz suggested that given the costs and logistics involved, the City might offer to cover half of the travel expenses for the police auditor candidates’ spouses. Ms. Piercy averred that the spouses of the interview candidates served an extremely important role in the hiring process and that it might not be advisable to skimp on their travel expenses. Mr. Zelenka concurred with Ms. Piercy’s statement and suggested that the City at least cover the airfare expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Ms. Holmes concurred with Ms. Piercy’s assessment of the role of spouses in the hiring process. Mr. Brown noted that covering the travel expenses of the spouses of only three candidates would be much less expensive than having to go through the search process all over again. Mr. Clark concurred with Mr. Brown’s statement. Ms. Piercy, noting no objections from the council, confirmed for Ms. Holmes that the City would cover the travel expenses for the spouses of the police auditor candidates. Ms. Piercy adjourned the work session to an executive session at 12:45 p.m. and reconvened the regular work session at 12:49 p.m. A. WORK SESSION Use of Facility Reserves – Next Steps on Police Patrol Facility Mr. Ruiz directed the council to their copies of his February 11, 2009, memorandum regarding the use of the City’s Facility Reserve for the design and construction of a police patrol facility and briefly summarized the information contained therein for the benefit of the council. Mr. Ruiz proceeded to give a brief overview of the two options and the recognized best outcomes of those options presented in the memorandum, noting that staff was currently recommending the first option to move all the Eugene Police Department services out of City Hall and into their own facility. He then proceeded to summarize the two-phase process by which the City would proceed should the council approve Option 1 as recommended. Mr. Ruiz noted that the costs listed in the two-phase process of Option 1 were preliminary and would most likely be revised as the planning of the project progressed. Mr. Poling thanked Mr. Ruiz for taking their recent input regarding the matter and putting it into action so promptly. He reiterated that the notion of addressing the state of the current City Hall facility had been a serious concern for at least the last ten years and that the funds to address the issue were not newfound money or any type of slush fund, but rather part of a reserve that had been specifically put away to address MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 4 Work Session the types of deficiencies found in the current City Hall facility. Mr. Poling noted that the use of the funds in the manner described by Mr. Ruiz was not a political tool to favor one department of the City over another but rather an attempt by the City leaders to provide the safest possible facility in which the City’s emergency responders could operate. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved as follows: (1) To develop a conceptual plan and estimate for (a) making seismic upgrades to City Hall to meet the life/safety standard, and (b) expanding Municipal Court’s space to meet the court’s needs; (2) To use appropriated but unspent city hall complex master plan funds to complete an analysis of potential sites owned by the City but limited to downtown, to determine the most suitable site for a police facility and return with a final recommendation on that location; (3) To develop a cost estimate for a phased police facility, rather than a patrol facility with the first phase consisting of space for the patrol function - but designed so that it could be expanded into a building for the entire Police Department; and (4) To investigate the willingness of EWEB to eventually sell its administration building to the City for use as a city hall, and if there is such a willingness, undertake and bring back to the council a preliminary analysis of the pros and cons of using that building for city hall. They City Manager shall return to the council with the information described above by April 15. Until the council makes decisions - after receiving the information described above, the City Manager should not include in his proposed budget the use of any portion of the facility reserve. Ms. Taylor thanked Mr. Ruiz and his colleagues for their work on the planning process and noted that while she would rather vote on each point of the recommended motion separately, she would be happy to support the motion as it provided for the creation of the safest facility possible. Ms. Taylor further noted that she was glad that the plan called for all of the Eugene Police services to be housed in one facility and felt it was strange that historically the Police Chief’s office location had been separated from the officers under their command. Ms. Taylor felt that the council and City staff should take into account the results of the previous ballot measures regarding the facility reserves and that subsequently the public would need to be made aware of the reasons and circumstances behind the council’s directives to staff regarding the construction of a new police facility. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that any specific directives to budget for seismic upgrades to life safety standards into any planned facility would need to be incorporated when he returned to the council with further information on April 15. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor was pleased that the planning process described in Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum specifically stated that any new facility be based in or around the downtown area. Mr. Clark asked that the City Manager’s Office include a plan to retrofit and utilize the unused space in the current City Hall facility. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion to direct the City Manager to request that EWEB include any directives or intentions to negotiate with the City for the use of their administration building into their ongoing master plan process. Mr. Poling accepted Mr. Clark’s friendly amendment to the previously stated motion. Ms. Ortiz indicated her support of Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion and further noted that while she was supportive of intentions to construct a new police patrol facility in the downtown area she would like the West Eugene area to be considered as well. City Attorney Glen Klein, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, said that the City of Eugene had the first right of refusal for the EWEB administration building property. Mr. Zelenka felt that the planning process described in Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum represented a comprehensive plan for addressing a variety of City needs. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the only downtown sites that would be considered for a new police patrol facility would be those currently owned by the City. Facilities Project Manager Mike Penwell briefly described some of the City-owned sites that might be considered for the new facility. Mr. Zelenka commented that if the City were to vacate its current City Hall facility, the facility would then need to be demolished as no one would want to undertake a remodel or refit of such a seismically questionable structure. Mr. Pryor noted he was prepared to vote on the motion as a whole rather than voting separately on individual parts of it. Mr. Pryor reiterated that the City could only spend the Facility Reserve Funds once and that those funds should not be put on the table in any budget committee discussions for any uses outside of those for which the Facility Reserve Fund was originally created. Mr. Ruiz, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, noted that he would be returning to the council with more concrete financial information regarding the planning process on April 15. Mr. Brown noted his support of Option 2 from Mr. Ruiz’s memorandum and that the phased approach described therein would engender greater trust among the public. Mr. Zelenka noted a great deal of uncertainty in the preliminary costs presented by Mr. Ruiz and further noted that the council would need clearer cost information regarding the project when he returned on April 15. Ms. Piercy expressed that the planning process under discussion presented a strong direction for the City and took care of a variety of the City’s future needs. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion with Mr. Clark’s previously stated friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2009 Page 7 Work Session