Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout190417 WSMINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session April 17, 2019 Page 1 MINUTES Eugene City Council Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 April 17, 2019 12:00 p.m. Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Jennifer Yeh, Alan Zelenka, Mike Clark, Chris Pryor, Greg Evans, Betty Taylor, Claire Syrett Mayor Vinis opened the April 17, 2019, work session of the Eugene City Council. She noted that she had been communicating with council via email to schedule an additional work session in May to continue their community safety revenue discussion. 1.POSSIBLE ACTION: A Resolution Requesting the Federal Government to Update Studies on Potential Health Risks of 5G Radio Frequency Wireless Emissions and Publish Findings, as Federal Guidelines Push for More Rapid Deployment of 5GCouncil Discussion: •Councilor Taylor – said the council has heard a lot from the community about this topic anda resolution may help to clarify the council’s position. •Councilor Clark – said he would vote for the motion because he would like to be bettereducated about the topic. •Councilor Zelenka – noted the resolution was very similar to Portland’s and he wouldsupport it. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt a resolution requesting the Federal government to update studies on potential health risks of 5G radio frequency wireless emissions and publish findings, as Federal guidelines push for more rapid deployment of 5G. PASSED 8:0 2.WORK SESSION: Municipal Court Presiding JudgeInterim City Manager’s Office Division Manager Becky DeWitt presented the council’s optionsrelated to the salary and job description for a new presiding judge.Council Discussion: •Councilor Clark – asked whether it would be possible to let Interim Presiding Judge Gillknow what questions council would like to ask; specifically, noting that he would like to askabout a recent news article critiquing community court. •Councilor Semple – asked for clarification about the two salary options presented and howthey would be negotiated. •Councilor Zelanka – asked whether the average salary reflects the Beaverton geographicpay differential, whether the second option included a salary range, and whether businessexpenses would be included. •Councilor Syrett – asked for clarification regarding the Beaverton geographic paydifferential; supported asking Judge Gill about community court considering he had a role inestablishing it; stated willingness to vote for the second option presented. •Councilor Pryor – said he supported the second option because it gives council theopportunity to negotiate with a candidate using a salary range. MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session April 17, 2019 Page 2 •Councilor Taylor – asked for clarity about whether a decision needed to be made that day;noted she would also like to ask questions regarding community court; asked when aninterview would occur. •Councilor Clark – said he supported the second option; wanted to make sure that the payrange would adjust in accordance with other similar positions around the City. •Councilor Semple – asked whether council had used these same strategies when hiring thePolice Auditor; expressed her support for the second option. •Councilor Zelenka – asked for clarification from the City Attorney regarding the purpose ofthe salary range and where it will appear; asked whether experience in community courtshould be included as a requirement. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to move forward with the presiding municipal judge’s contract salary consistent with option two and with a job description consistent with Attachment A to the agenda item summary. PASSED 8:0 3.WORK SESSION: Local Options for Inclusionary ZoningGrants Manager Stephanie Jennings gave a presentation to council on what inclusionary zoningis, how it is used around the country and in Oregon, about local market conditions worthconsidering in a local program, and community perspectives recently gathered through theHousing Tools and Strategies process.Council Discussion: •Councilor Zelenka – asked staff how the fee-in-lieu-of option is determined and whether thepercentage of units is established locally; said he did not like that the local governmentdoesn’t get to decide what to do with the funds. •Councilor Taylor – said one of the advantages of inclusionary zoning is to integrate housingtypes, which is especially good for children; asked for clarification about whether acondominium is considered a “home” under the legislation that allows for inclusionaryzoning in Oregon; expressed support for inclusionary zoning in Eugene. •Councilor Clark – opposed the idea of inclusionary zoning because it discouragesdevelopment; preferred to incentivize affordable housing rather than issue directives. •Councilor Syrett – asked whether the funds could be used if the City didn’t have anyinclusionary zoning housing projects; asked whether it was required to have otherincentives in addition to the construction excise tax; asked for clarification about whathappens if a building with inclusionary zoning units is sold; supported the concept butexpressed doubt that it was the best tool to use for building more affordable housingbecause of the restrictions the State puts on the CET funds. •Mayor Vinis – asked staff for information about what made the program successful inPortland. •Councilor Semple – asked what proportion of the developers in Portland chose the fee-in-lieu-of option rather than building the units; asked for clarification about what could bedone with new CET funds; asked whether Portland’s program was mandatory; asked aboutthe time and cost it would take to establish such a program compared to the impact andwhether a voluntary program would work; preferred that council have authority over whatto do with CET funds. •Councilor Pryor – highlighted the shared goal of dispersing different types of housingthroughout the city; recommended a review of the Housing Dispersal Policy in order toreach the desired outcome.