Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/18/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall January 18, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape?, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss provided an overview of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) and announced the following events that would ensue if council approval was granted on the PROS Comprehensive Plan. ? A discussion of a potential bond measure for the November 2006 election for the above proposed ordinance would be presented to the City Council in February. ? A discussion of the proposed Project and Priority Plan would be presented to the City Council on February 27. ? A public hearing was scheduled for March 13. ? Action on the Project and Priority Plan was scheduled for April 10. Ms. Weiss reported that a fair amount of oral and written testimony was received at the December 12 public hearing on the plan and she noted that staff addressed the concerns raised in those testimonies in Attachment B in the AIS. She pointed to two specific issues: (1) Concern over the removal of the project list from the proposed plan . Ms. Weiss explained that State statute does not require a project list to be a land use document and therefore the City was consistent with State law. Additionally, she pointed out that it was in the interest of the council to allow the project list to be a living document so that as the environment and/or community priorities evolve and funding opportunities arise, the list could be amended without the need to go through the expensive and timely land use amendment process. In contrast, Ms. Weiss noted that if the project list was adopted as a council resolution, the process to amend the list would be radically shortened to a 30- to 60-day process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session (2) Lack of Parks, Recreation and Open Space Services in Santa Clara. Ms. Weiss opined that much of the testimony presented on this issue was based on Table B.2 in the plan; however, she explained that the table provides a baseline inventory of the existing services throughout the entire City, Additionally, it broke the inventory down by planning area. She stressed that it was not the intent of the table to be a forecast of service provision to the Santa Clara area. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said she did not oppose the adoption of a project list. She said she would oppose a process whereby the plan was adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan and shaped as policies rather than strategies. Ms. Bettman expressed regret that the PROS Committee did not review the policies that would be vacated due to an appeal of the 1989 Plan; however, she recognized that many of the values would be covered as pointed out by staff. Ms. Bettman spoke to the systems development charges (SDCs) and pointed out that the last Parks, Recreation and Open Space bond measure paid for a significant amount of new capacity to accommodate new growth; therefore, a new list was necessary to recover some of the cost of that new capacity. She stated she supported Option B in the AIS which repeals the 1989 plan and provides for a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Bettman voiced concern about fulfilling the Metro Plan policy to develop a system of regional metropolitan areas by encouraging the development of private recreational facilities. She stressed that she does not support “privatization” as a City policy and therefore opined that a resolution was the prudent step for the council to take. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman urged staff to review its website as there were many obstacles to reach the project list and it was not readily accessible with references. She requested that it also be prioritized. Mr. Pryor complimented staff on an excellent plan. However, he voiced concern over unanswered issues that remain. Mr. Pryor opined that if the plan was adopted with the issues unresolved, the community would perceive that it has not been heard. He pointed out that there was an “artificial” pressure to adopt the plan in order to meet the bond measure timeline. Mr. Pryor revealed that some members of the Planning Commission said they approved the proposed ordinance reluctantly and would have preferred to spend more time on this project. He noted that the commission was under the false impression it had to act in an expedient manner to meet the bond measure timeline. Mr. Pryor turned to the concerns of the community regarding the project list and pointed out that it was possible to have a plan with a project list and he would rather discuss the list prior to the adoption of the plan. He opined that a plan without a project list was all vision and no substance. In conclusion, Mr. Pryor encouraged the council to create a strategy which allows the process to move more slowly and thoughtfully. Mr. Pape? questioned the difference between what was aspirational and what flows in policy and said he was hesitant to move forward until that question could be fully clarified. Specifically, he spoke to the Santa Clara component and pointed out that the council has not completed projects for that area which were approved 20 years ago. He voiced doubt that the proposed ordinance would assist in that regard. Additionally, Mr. Pape? voiced concern that land use specialists cautioned the City not to move forward without a project list, as legal consequences could ensue. City Attorney Jerome Lidz clarified there was nothing unlawful about incorporating a project list into the PROS Plan; however, he pointed out that it clearly would not be unlawful to separate the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session two documents. Mr. Lidz said he would be willing to pursue the concerns as expressed by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?; however, he voiced support for the plan as a stand-alone document. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the proposed schedule for the project list to be adopted was April. He reminded the council that if the plan was adopted as a refinement plan, then opportunities for new parks in the future that were not now on the list would be subject to a six-month land use process to change the plan. On the other hand, Mr. Kelly reiterated Ms. Weiss’s statement that if the plan was adopted by council resolution, concerns about timelines to modify become moot. He suggested that Option B may resolve some of the concerns raised by council members. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton countered that adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a resolution does not make the document easily amendable. She explained it would still have the land use timeline added to it. She clarified that if the plan was not adopted as a refinement plan, the land use amendment process must still be adhered to. Mr. Kelly commented that it was his understanding that the council could either adopt the plan as a stand-alone document or as land use document. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that the plan could be adopted as a stand-alone document or as a refinement plan; however, the stand-alone PROS Comprehensive Plan would be considered a land use decision. The stand-alone project list would not be a land use decision. Ms. Solomon opined there would be a lack of accountability in the plan without a project list. She also voiced concern that the inventory included in the plan does not encompass all of the other providers of recreational facilities in Eugene and therefore sets a bad premise to conduct a public campaign for a bond measure. Finally, she pointed out that the Friends of Eugene, the Santa Clara residents, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association all voiced concern about the plan as proposed. She urged the council to reevaluate the proposal. Mr. Poling voiced appreciation to staff for its efforts; however, he concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments and additionally pointed to his experience as a member of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). He explained that group approved a 20-year facility plan that did not include a project list and ultimately was informed the project list must be included. He spoke to Option B and pointed out that in order to alter the resolution, public hearings must be held. Mr. Poling then spoke to the issue of the proposed additional 1,300 acres and questioned how they would impact the buildable land supply. Mr. Lidz clarified that with regard to the MWMC issue, LUBA did return the Public Facilities and Services Plan to the MWMC for additional detail; however, the Facilities Plan, which was adopted as a stand-alone document by the commission, was approved by LUBA. Ms. Taylor stated that the bond measure should move forward in the November election and asked if the ordinance must be adopted for that process to be put before the voters. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson responded that the ordinance as proposed would not need to be adopted. He then referred to the work session on election sequencing and noted that the council asked for a limited bond measure possibility in 2006 and directed staff to present opportunities for land acquisitions or other projects which did not have significant operating costs. Mr. Carlson added that it was not intended for a bond measure to be driven by the implementation of the plan. Ms. Taylor opined that the project list should be a separate document; however, she questioned how a resolution to adopt the plan would impact the process. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that if the council approves Option B, it was adopting the plan by resolution as a stand-alone document and MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session it continued to be a land use decision. She explained there would not be any legal force with regard to the strategies as it would be an aspirational document. Ms. Brotherton opined there would not be any advantages to adopt the document by resolution. She then spoke to the project list and said that if the council adopts the list separately, that action ensures that the City could respond to changing community needs. Mr. Lidz added that if council adopts the plan by ordinance, it would become part of the City Code. In response to a final question posed by Ms. Taylor, Ms. Weiss opined that if the 1989 Plan was not repealed, it would not reflect all the work that has gone into the planning document over the past three years; however, she conceded that it would not harm the City to retain it for a short period of time. Ms. Ortiz complimented staff on the product it created and said she supported Option B after hearing the concerns expressed by council members. City Manager Taylor encouraged the council to adopt the plan and opined that there was value in the proposal to adopt the projects list as a separate document. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to split the proposed ordinance into two documents: 1) an ordinance that repeals the 1989 plan; and, 2) a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a stand-alone internal document, i.e., not as a refinement to the Metro Plan. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Ms. Bettman opined it was not appropriate for the council to call for a bond measure until at least 2010, as there were other higher priorities that need to be addressed in the interim. However, she reiterated that she was motivated to have a project list in place in order to recover the costs of increasing the capacity of Eugene parks to serve new development. In terms of the project list, Ms. Bettman pointed out there was a document created by the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee that would serve the council as it reviewed the list. She asked staff to provide the council with that information. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor replied that the resolution under discussion could be brought back to the council in early February. Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to allow adequate time for responses to Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?’s questions. She pointed out that the issue of the 1,300 acres of residential land would be made on a case-by-case basis. She explained that properties not owned by the City were vetted through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, followed by Budget Committee and City Council scrutiny. Mr. Pryor questioned how the Metro Plan would be affected if Option B moved forward. Mr. Lidz replied there would be no direct effect to the Metro Plan. Mr. Carlson added that the existing policies in the Metro Plan would not change; however, Option B would change the way the City addresses “Goal 8” from the 1989 plan to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pryor stated he could support Option B with the understanding that a project list must be clearly linked to the overall process. Mr. Kelly stated he would support the motion and requested that staff provide a specific outreach to the Friends of Eugene to address its concerns in a timely manner. He then spoke to the issue of MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session the 1,300 acres, noting that they would come in as large community and metropolitan parks, although there was not much land currently in City ownership with public land zoning available for such parks. Mr. Kelly stated that questions of impact to goals could most appropriately be raised during the land use process. Mr. Pape? questioned if most cities adopt a parks plan as part of a comprehensive plan. Ms. Brotherton said she would research that question and advise the council accordingly. She added, however, that the manner in which the City addressed refinement plans was unique and surmised that most municipalities do not adopt park plans as refinements to a comprehensive plan. Mr. Pape? asked if the City would be changing the manner in which it treated refinement plans if Option B was adopted. Ms. Brotherton explained that refinement plans had a regulatory effect and the plan under discussion was not amenable to such effect; therefore, it was not a “good fit” for a refinement plan. Mr. Pape? opined that if Option B moved forward, policies and consistencies must be established. Ms. Brotherton explained that if Option B was approved, the plan would be amended by resolution and would continue to follow the land use process; therefore, opportunities to speak to the resolution would ensue as it implemented Goal 8. She added that if the resolution was appealed, the City would defend it at the Land Use Board of Appeals. In response to a final question from Mr. Pape?, Ms. Weiss responded that the project list was separated from the plan prior to the Planning Commission’s review and following the meetings of the Mayor’s advisory committee. Parks and Open Space Director Johnny Medlin stated a committee meeting was held in July at which time the members were advised of the decision to separate the project list. Mr. Lidz clarified that from a legal point of view, whether the plan were to be adopted as a free- standing document or as a refinement to the Metro Plan, either action would be less significant than separating the project list from the plan. The motion passed 6:2, with Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. B. UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURE 20-106 (Police Auditor) Council, Public, and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston provided an overview of the AIS. She pointed out there was a coordinated effort to shape the recommendations for the council’s review and recognized the efforts of the Police Commission, chaired by Tim Laue, and the Auditor Recruitment Recommendations Team (ARRT), chaired by Senator Floyd Prozanski. She noted that ARRT crafted the job description, candidate profile, and recruitment options which were ultimately approved by the full commission. Ms. Walston referred to page 89 of the AIS and noted that the City Charter language included there was incorrect; the corrected language was inserted on page 96 and in the memorandum forwarded to the council by the Police Commission. Ms. Walston spoke to the decisions before the council and specifically referred to the timelines and the budget components. She explained that the Fiscal Year 2007 budget was being prepared and included funds for one-time start-up costs for the auditor and staff, as well as ongoing MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session operational funds. However, Ms. Walston pointed out that there were no funds for the auditor recruitment and selection process in the Fiscal Year 2006 budget. She encouraged the council to make a decision on that issue as soon as possible, as well as on the recruitment/selection process. She asked if the council wished to be directly involved in the recruitment process and pointed out that the Police Commission articulated suggested options for this process. Ms. Walston noted the formal recommendation made by staff to appoint a subcommittee to assist with the recruitment process. The council proceeded to move forward with motions to begin the independent police auditor process as approved by the voters in November 2005. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to develop and implement necessary plans and processes, a well as budgetary authority to hire an independent police auditor as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Kelly thanked the Police Commission and ARRT for their exemplary efforts. He voiced support for the voters’ decision in November 2005. Mr. Kelly noted that budgetary requests for the recruitment process would be brought before the council on a contingency basis. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, City Manager Taylor reiterated there were no funds allocated for the recruitment process in the current budget and there were approximately $45,000 in citywide contingency funds. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to develop and implement necessary plans and processes to recruit, select and appoint a citizen review board as outlined in Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Ms. Bettman requested that staff refer to the board as a civilian review board as recommended by the Police Commission, pointing out that there were members of the community who were not, in fact, citizens. She expressed hope that as the process moved forward it continued to include the community as it provided valuable input throughout the Police Commission’s review of oversight. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kelly presented a substitute motion to the one included in the AIS which was accepted and moved by Ms. Solomon below. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to appoint the Mayor, Council President, Council Vice President, and Police Commission Chair Tim Laue to an ad hoc committee to develop a timeline and plan for recruitment and selection of the auditor; to finalize the job description and candidate profile for the auditor; and to make recommendations regarding recruitment processes. The committee’s recommendations would be brought to the City Council for final approval. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Kelly opined it would be appropriate to utilize an ad hoc committee to assist the council in the recruitment/selection process. He said he would give deference to that committee to shape recommendations for the council’s review, which he suggested be completed within a six-week period due to critical timelines. Mr. Kelly opined that a professional recruiter would not be necessary for this process, pointing out that the position was well-defined and the Police Commission and/or Human Resources staff, with their expertise, could certainly assist with applicable marketing of the position. Mr. Poling pointed out that Mr. Kelly’s motion adds the Police Commission chair to the ad hoc committee which gives a slight advantage to the commission. He said while he respected the opinions of the commission chair, he was concerned about a possible imbalance on the committee. Mr. Pape? reinforced Mr. Kelly’s comments with regard to the critical timeline that needs to be recognized in order for the auditor to be in place by July 1, 2006. He asked if the Human Resources staff could be utilized to develop the components of a recruitment and selection process. City Manager Taylor replied that staff stood ready to assist in whatever manner the City Council deemed appropriate. He said the City could be successful in its search through the utilization of a professional recruiter, or, through Human Resources staff; however, he pointed out that due to budgetary capacity, his preference would be to utilize in-house staff. Mr. Pape? concurred. Mr. Pape? then spoke to Mr. Poling’s concerns, and asked that progress reports be provided to the council on a regular basis. Ms. Bettman voiced support for the motion; however, she said her preference would have been for the tasks to be delegated to the ARRT, as it had already begun much of the preparatory work. Ms. Bettman referred to Mr. Poling’s concerns and stressed that the Police Commission and its chair were adamant that the success of the model was predicated on the creditability of the auditor; therefore, impartiality would be paramount to the success of the program. She added that the expertise the chair of the commission possesses could only move the process along in an expedient manner and she stressed that the council ultimately would make the final decisions. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman said that the amount of money allocated for a professional recruiter should be minimized and suggested that such an individual could take on the candidate search and present the applicants to Human Resources staff who could then do the screening process to ascertain minimum requirements. Additionally, she suggested that the community be included in the screening process prior to a presentation of a final list of candidates to the council. Ms. Taylor voiced opposition to the inclusion of a professional recruiter for any part of the process. She then said she was unwilling to cede the authority of the council and that it should be involved in the screening of the applications. Ms. Taylor said that if the ad hoc committee’s role was limited to the components listed in the motion, she could support it, with the understanding that the council would make all final decisions, including the hire of the auditor. Ms. Solomon voiced preference for a professional recruiter. She opined that part of the reason voters determined there was a need for a police auditor was due to a breakdown in process in the Human Resources division. However, Ms. Solomon noted that she would not make a final decision on that component prior to discussions that would ensue at the ad hoc committee level. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Ortiz voiced support for Mr. Laue’s inclusion on the ad hoc committee and said his participation would be invaluable to the process. She opined that council authority would not be compromised and said she looked forward to the entire council providing feedback to the committee as it moves through the process. With regard to the use of a professional recruiter, Ms. Ortiz pointed out that there were only a small number of individuals in this specialized field who were currently qualified for the position. Therefore, she voiced her preference for in-house staff to provide its assistance and expressed confidence in their ability to present qualified candidates to the council. Mayor Piercy commented that she looked forward to serving on the committee and moving the process forward. City Manager Taylor voiced support for the substitute motion presented by Mr. Kelly. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to review current policies and code language to determine if current language was in need of revision or expansion as they relate to the implementation of Section 15-A of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Kelly asked for clarification as to what the above motion would entail and how it related to the Police Commission’s adopted workplan, which speaks to this issue. Ms. Walston explained that the motion dovetailed with the commission’s workplan. She explained that Chapter 2 would need to be updated so that the Civilian Review Board would be identified and the Police Commission would be involved with this discussion. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Walston replied that the Police Commission and its staff would work in conjunction with the City Manager’s Office to ascertain what policies need to be revised. Ms. Bettman suggested that the Police Commission establish a subcommittee to review ordinances and craft a recommendation for the City Manager’s office. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session