HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/23/10 Work SessionCity Council
McNutt Room Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon
June 23, 2010
Noon
PRESENT: Alan zelenka, Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Chris Pryor,
George Brown, members.
ABSENT: Andrea Ortiz.
Her Honor Mayor Ditty Piercy called the June 23 2010 work session of the Eugene City Council to
order.
A, WORK SESSION:
West Eugene EmX Update
The council was joined by Lane Transit District (LTD) Board of Directors Chair Mike Eyster and EmX
Project Manager Tom Schwetz. LTD General Manager Mark Pangborn and LTD Board member Gary
Gillespie was also present, as were Rob Inerfeld of the City's Transportation Division and City Attorney
Kathryn Brotherton.
Mr. Eyster noted the data - driven process LTD was going through to develop its alternatives for an EmX
route to serve West Eugene. He said the LTD board would discuss the elimination of some of the
alternatives under discussion to this point very soon and he wanted to share that information with the City
Council.
Mr. Schwetz provided a PowerPoint presentation on the west Eugene EmX alignment selection process,
noting the original 58 options under consideration, which led the Federal Transit Administration to
suggest that LTD instead go through an alternatives analysis to narrow the options to a more reasonable
number. He said that analysis involved public input opportunities, a technical advisory committee, and a
citizen committee that included residents of the potentially affected areas.
Mr. Schwetz characterized the new process as a combination of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and alternatives analysis and said it would lead to a locally preferred alternative. He discussed the
advantages of the alternatives analysis approach, emphasizing the local nature of the process, its
flexibility, and the opportunities for collaboration it provided.
Mr. Schwetz noted the criteria used to evaluate the options.
Mr. Schwetz reviewed the terminus and alignment options being considered for elimination from further
consideration by LTD. Terminus options recommended for elimination included both full- length terminus
options at Ed Cone and Ed Cone /Willow Creek and the Seneca terminus option. Alignment alternatives
recommended for elimination included both Amazon alignments and west 7 Place. Mr. Schwetz shared
a map showing ridership for the west 7 Place option.
Mr. Schwetz discussed options on west I I th Avenue west of Garfield. He emphasized LTD's confidence
MINUTES —City Council April 14, 2010 Page I
that it could make West 11 th Avenue work as an EmX route.
Mr. Schwetz reviewed LTD's recommendations for options to retain, which included:
West 13' Avenue between the Downtown Eugene Station to West l l Avenue via Chambers
Street (this alternative includes two design options, atwo -lane transitway or a frontage alley
design option on West 13 Avenue between Polk and Taylor streets);
West 0 1 77 th avenues between the Downtown Eugene Station to West 11`'' Avenue via Garfield
(this alternative includes four design options: a Lincoln/Charnelton couplet or a two -way bus lane
on Charnelton, and either adding or reassigning an existing lane on West 6 and West 7"' avenues
between Blair and Fillmore streets);
West l l t '' Avenue (between Garfield Street and Commerce Street terminus)
Mr. Schwetz reported that LTD had received information from GDGT that indicated reassigning.. lane on
f t '17' avenues was problematic. He reminded the council that 6 h /7 h avenues were GDOT facilities, and
ODGT would be looking closely at LTD's impacts on those roads.
Mr. Schwetz reviewed the next steps in the process, which included board approval to narrow the options,
the preparation of an Alternatives Analysis Report, followed by release of the report and the start of the
locally- preferred alternative decision - making process.
Mayor Piercy believed it was wise to narrow the options at this point given the cost, time, and expense
involved in analyzing 58 options. She wanted to learn more about 7 Place as an option. Mayor Piercy
suggested that members of the West Eugene Collaborative could host a meeting of business owners in the
West 11 to Avenue area to facilitate further discussion, and offered her assistance in making that happen.
Mr. Eyster endorsed the suggestion.
Mayor Piercy solicited questions and comments from the council.
Mr. Clark also wanted to hear more about the 7 Place alternative. He determined from Mr. Schwetz that
the most compelling reason for eliminating its option was its longer travel time; Mr. Schwetz pointed out
that the travel time was longer than the no -build option. Mr. Clark expressed concern about the impact of
an EmX route on businesses along West 11 th Avenue, west of Garfield Street. He appreciated that LTD
proposed to mitigate that impact on a case -by -case basis, but he questioned if all impacts could be
mitigated. For example, removal of parking could have a detrimental effect on a business. In addition, he
perceived issues with the further constriction of West 11 th Avenue, pointing out that many buildings had
been constructed near the street, and there was no way to widen the street, and adding an EmX route could
create a bottleneck. He hoped LTD could study a route that traveled relatively near by and avoided
harmful effects. He urged LTD to retain the West 7 th Place option, until it could engage more people in
discussion.
Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Clark's points about West 7 h Place, and the need to engage more people. She
determined from Mr. Schwetz that the City had jurisdiction over 5 and 7 avenues, east of Jefferson
Street. She continued to support a Highway 99 option but acknowledged that option had been eliminated.
Ms. Taylor observed that the locally preferred alternative for residents and businesses adjacent to the
proposed EmX route seemed to be the no -build alternative.
Mr. Zelenka shared the concern expressed by Mayor Piercy and Mr. Clark, about removing the West 7
Place option. However, he agreed with the Mayor it was wise to narrow the options, and there appeared to
MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 2
be a good rationale for removing the options mentioned by Mr. Schwetz.
Mr. Zelenka said his experience with the current Eugene route indicated that bus rapid transit seemed to
work better with a dedicated lane. He asked how much of the west I I Avenue corridor route would
consist of dedicated lanes. Mr. Schwetz said that LTD proposed to add a lane in each direction. The lane
would not impede egress, would allow turning movements, and would improve the flow of traffic. It
lacked a hard curb so that motorists could cross it. It moved the buses out of the through - travel lanes, and
pulled right -turn traffic out of the flow of traffic. He did not expect that LTD would make traffic
conditions on west I I th Avenue, worse than they currently were.
Mr. Zelenka believed that the Eugene - Springfield EmX route had been "a spectacular success." He rode
the route often and found EmX to be a good system. He speculated that as the community grew denser;
such a system would be even more valuable in getting people out of their cars and into transit. The next
corridor would be even more important and he thought the option created a "significant alternative." He
did not want to see the recommendation option end up being the "no- build" alternative.
Mr. Schwetz agreed with Mr. Zelenka that exclusive rights -of -way were useful but pointed out that several
segments of the first two routes ran in mixed traffic. He said that eventually, LTD might be able to
establish exclusive lanes on those routes, but he believed the beauty of the system was its flexibility, and
that it could be made to work with the state of the community as it was today as well as tomorrow.
Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Clark that there were places on west I O'Avenue, where the construction of
buildings up the street had created a problem.
Mr. Zelenka was willing to look at all of the options but emphasized the importance of dedicated lanes.
As a member of the west Eugene Collaborative, Mr. Pryor agreed that currently, west 7 th Place was not
viable, due to a lack of ridership. However, he agreed with Mayor Piercy and Mr. Clark that the option
should be retained to see if it could be made to work.
Mr. Pryor acknowledged that LTD was being responsive to the community in the number of options that it
considered, but he was pleased to see the options narrowed and particularly commended the elimination of
the Amazon Creek option.
Mr. Pryor said he kept hearing the question of whether EmX was needed in the first place. He believed
that public transit was desirable, but that local corridor service was getting more expensive to offer, and
EmX was an affordable option to that existing service that still got people to their destinations quickly and
efficiently. He perceived EmX as a replacement for corridor service, rather than an add -on to corridor
service.
Mr. Pryor thought that LTD needed to put the routes where people lived and worked now and where they
would live and work in the future in a way that did not disrupt what was in place now. Mr. Pryor did not
want to see LTD implement EmX in a way that required the - condemnation of property, the construction of
infrastructure, or street widening.
Mr. Brown was not convinced that the no -build alternative was not the best option. He noted the cost
involved in acquiring property to facilitate the route, which would be between $105 and $113 million in
today's dollars. He determined from Mr. Schwetz that the local match would be about 20 to 40 percent of
that total, and indicated LTD intended to seek State funding for the match. Mr. Brown observed that the
cost involved was a lot of money to save three minutes of travel time.
MMTES--City Council April 14, 2010 Page 3
Mr. Brown agreed with the mayor and other councilors about the West 7 Place option, and suggested that
the area might further develop if LTD ran an EmX route through the area. He acknowledged that the
businesses and jobs that people were trying to reach now, existed on West I 1 t " Avenue.
Mr. Brown noted the e-mail sent to the council by Ilona Kolezar of the West Eugene EmX Extension
Steering Committee proposing that Pearl and Oak streets be added back to the options under
consideration, and he supported the suggestion because of the potential loss of parking spaces on Lincoln
and Charnelton streets.
Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Schwetz that the option costs included the costs of property
acquisition. She further determined from Mr. Schwetz that even though it did not have an elected board of
directors, LTD was allowed to condemn property. Ms. Solomon expressed concern that a non - elected
board could initiate condemnation of private property.
Mayor Piercy said while she wanted to retain the West 7 h Place option, she thought that West 11
Avenue, was the option that reached the most businesses and jobs, and was closest to the existing
neighborhoods. She said the farther a resident was from the route, the less easy it was to use the system.
She reminded the council of the MAX system in Portland, which the community had initially resisted, but
which she asserted had been "proven to be good to businesses and good for mobility."
Mayor Piercy hoped that at some future point the community had the capacity to consider the connection
between the rail and bus systems. She said that the community needed to prepare for the needs of both
today and tomorrow.
Mr. Pryor wanted to avoid an artificial conflict between the benefit to business and the benefit to the
public. He urged a balanced approach as LTD moved forward. He encouraged LTD to consider a West
I I Avenue alternative that did not require a lot of infrastructure. That possibility was creating
considerable concern among West 11 th Avenue business owners. He wanted to believe that LTD could
provide the service along West I 1 h Avenue, without the need to construct infrastructure that disrupted
business, and asked LTD to keep that in mind as it explored that corridor.
Mr. Clark was also interested in hearing more about the no -build option in terms of its impact on people.
Mr. Clark was not convinced that it was wise for LTD to make such a heavy capital investment when the
organization was facing operational funding shortfalls. He acknowledged the funding streams involved
were different. He welcomed more information about the concept that EmX would lead to smaller
operational budgets, as Mr. Pryor's remarks seemed to suggest.
Mr. Clark asked if LTD had secured funding for the West Eugene EmX extension. Mr. Schwetz said that
LTD had yet to begin the actual grant application process. It had to go through the locally preferred
alternative process before the Federal Transit Administration would consider a grant application. Mr.
Clark asked if LTD would expect the region to fund the system if that funding was not forthcoming. Mr.
Eyster assured Mr. Clark that would not happen.
Mr. Zelenka said LTD's goal was that the system would be completely funded by the State and federal
governments. He asserted that such transit projects were good for businesses; they enhanced businesses
along the route. He further asserted that Portland's experience was a great example of that. Mayor Piercy
agreed.
MINUTES --City Council April 14, 201 0 Page 4
Mr. Zelenka said the decision facing the community was a 30 -40 year decision, not a decision for
tomorrow, and the community needed to consider greenhouse gases and the impact transit could have in
reducing greenhouse gases, which he maintained was significant.
Mr. Zelenka said it was not enough to provide alternatives, but those alternatives needed to be convenient
and easy for people to use. He believed that Emx was successful for those reasons and would be
successful in West Eugene for the same reasons.
Mr. Eyster acknowledged the City's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases, congestion, and reliance
on fossil fuels, and said Emx realized those goals and moved people cost - effectively while promoting
businesses along the way.
B. WORD SESSION:
Civilian Review Board Annual Report Presentation
The council was joined by Police Auditor Mark Gissiner and Civilian Review Board Chair Kate
Wilkinson. Civilian Review Board members Steve McIntyre, Bernadette Conover, and Eric Van Houten
were also present.
Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the remarks of the Civilian Review Board (CRB) regarding the
work of the Police Auditor, and said those comments made her feel like the City was making progress.
She noted the CRB's request for a review of the ordinance that governed its operations.
Ms. Wilkinson highlighted the recommendations in the Civilian Review Board's report, beginning on
page 3 of the Agenda Item Summary.
■ Community impact case designations now only the auditor could classify a case as community
impact case, which impacted how the board could handle a case; many members of the public had
suggested that the board should have a role in that decision or make the decision. Ms. Wilkinson
acknowledged there was no consensus on the board in regard to the issue.
• Informationldisclosure the board wanted to provide as much information as possible to the
public, but members of the public complained about not being able to see things such as the
Internal Affairs report. Ms. Wilkinson acknowledged the constraints of State law.
•
CRB authority to order cases reopened —a CRB majority had voted to order the City to reopen an
investigation, which led to a legal opinion from the City Attorney that the board lacked that
authority. The ordinance allows the CRB to reopen community impact cases but was silent in
regard to closed cases.
■ Exception of goad cause exception to six -month filing deadline the ordinance allowed the
auditor to make an exception without providing a definition of "good cause." The CRB believed
such a definition was needed.
Mayor Piercy left the meeting and turned the gavel over to Mr. Clark.
Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for the work of the CRB and noted that he and Ms. Taylor had the
opportunity to discuss such issues with Mr. Gissiner frequently. He noted the CRB report was prepared
by the chair and vice chair and asked if it was reviewed and voted on by the CRB. Ms. Wilkinson said
that the report was circulated among members, and revisions were suggested and made and the report was
again circulated. There was no formal vote on the report but she believed members were in general
agreement.
MINUTES —City Council April 14, 2010 Page 5
Mr. Clark noted the CRB's recommendation to form another Police Auditor Ordinance Review
Committee (PAORC) and requested Mr. Gissiner's comments on that subject as well as on the remainder
of the report.
Mr. Gissiner believed the report represented consensus on the part of the CRB. He suggested that the
council keep in mind that several CRB members were relatively new. He was hesitant to ask for major
changes in the ordinance until the current CRB had gotten more experience. Speaking to the
recommendations, Mr. Gissiner noted that the decision regarding who could designate a community
impact case was a council decision. He believed that the Police Auditor's Office provided as much
information to the public as was possible in a manner consistent with State law. He had discussed the
CRB's concerns with the State Attorney General, who indicated he planned to offer changes to State law
regarding personnel records.
Mr. 'Clark asked what was uncertain about State law as it related to confidentiality. Ms. Wilkinson said
that one of the State statutes that discussed personnel records spoke to disclosing the record if it was
considered to be in the public interest, but there was no statutory direction as to who decided that or what
was in the public interest. She did not think the City Attorney had issued such a definition, and the
Attorney General, had declined to respond to the CRB's inquiry.
City Attorney Glenn Klein reported that there were no cases that defined what was in the public interest
for purposes of the statute in question. He said that the City Code or City Charter guided the City in
regard to who made the determination as to what was in the public interest. In regard to the Internal
Affairs files, the City Manager or Police Chief made that determination. If someone disagreed, that
individual could challenge the determination under State law, and the District Attorney would rule on the
subject. That decision could also be appealed to Circuit Court. He had advised the CRB that
determination was not within its purview or the purview of the Police Auditor. Mr. Clark said that the
issue did not appear to be one of confidentiality, but one of authority over who determined what was in the
public interest. Ms. Wilkinson agreed.
Mr. Gissiner said the Attorney General had indicated there was no legislative definition of "public
interest" and he believed one was needed. Currently, the Attorney General made that determination on
behalf of the State.
Mr. Gissiner noted that many of the CRB's recommendations were related to collective bargaining
agreements, and he deferred to the attorneys as to whether one superseded the other. He did not think that
Oregon had yet had a court case that stipulated a collective bargaining agreement overrode an ordinance,
or vice versa.
Speaking to Mr. Clark's question about reconstituting the PAORC, Mr. Gissiner said he could see a case
being made for that. He reiterated his concern about the need for the CRB to gain more experience with
the revised ordinance.
Mr. Clark said he thought the PAORC did a thorough job and he was happy with the way the revised
ordinance had worked to this point. He believed that it might be premature to form another review
committee at this time.
Mr. Zelenka thanked Ms. Wilkinson and the other CRB members and expressed appreciation for the
board's work. He believed that eventually the City would want to review the ordinance again, but pointed
out that the last review was fairly recent. He suggested that the CRB begin to compile a list of issues for
future review. However, he thought it would be good for the - CRB to work with the revised ordinance and
MINUTES —City Council April 14, 2010 Page 6
get more experience before returning to the ordinance.
Speaking to the Public Records Law, Mr. Zelenka suggested that if the CRB had specific ideas for
changes to the law, it should forward them to the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to
consider as a legislative priority. He was interested in pursuing a legislative definition of "public
interest."
Mr. Zelenka did not believe that a collective bargaining agreement could trump a municipal ordinance.
Mr. Zelenka said the PAORC purposely created a strong auditor's position to ensure the authority was
vested in the auditor, and the CRB was advisory to the auditor. He was unsure he wanted to change that
as he believed it was a still -a good thing to have a strong auditor.
Mr. Pryor commended the work of the CRB. He agreed that the CRB would benefit from more experience
but he did want to see its concerns addressed in an effective way at some point.
Mr. Pryor was pleased with the direction the Police Auditor's Office had taken over the past four years.
He thought the City had stayed on the right course. It acted thoughtfully, deliberately, and collaboratively.
He agreed with the comments he had heard from Mr. Clark and Mr. Zelenka in regard to forming a new
PAORC at this time.
Mr. Gissiner suggested that staff could consider how to address the issues related to information
disclosure, as opposed to the City being forced into a court situation that took years to resolve.
Ms. Taylor agreed that the council should wait a while before reconsidering the ordinance. She thought
the CRB should be a smaller body of three to five and pointed out it took longer for a larger group of
people to work together effectively. She suggested that the CRB could serve as the next PAORC She
suggested that it might be that the CRB should be able to overrule the Police Auditor in some instances as
well as reopen cases, and recommended the council discuss the issue in more detail with advice from the
CRB.
Mr. Clark recognized CRB member Steve McIntyre for comment.
Mr. McIntyre did not believe the issues that the CRB raised were related to its lack of experience, but
rather to ambiguities in the ordinance. He said that clarity in regard to those ambiguities would make the
CRB's job easier. He suggested the council consider the CRB's request through that lens. He thought the
CRB ,was working well as a body and encouraged the council to attend its meetings. Ms. Wilkinson
agreed. She anticipated that some of the same issues that prompted the recommendations could come up
again and the CRB would be in the same position. She said the CRB's suggestion for a new PAORC was
just one idea for how to move forward.
Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka that the City Council created the system with a strong auditor in mind
and he was happy with that decision. He saw no ambiguity in the current ordinance in regard to the
auditor's ability to determine what is good cause. However, he could appreciate that when there was
disagreement between the auditor and the CRB one way to address it was through a new arrangement. He
anticipated the council would discuss the issues again in a work session.
Mr. Brown commended the work of the CRB. He agreed with Mr. McIntyre that the recommendations
were not born of inexperience. He though the CRB was merely requesting clarity on the issues involved.
He thought that the issue related to disclosure was somewhat out of the City's hands given that it was
MINUTES- --City Council April 14, 2010 Page 7
governed by State law. He said that Oregon was quite restrictive in what was disclosed. Mr. Brown
believed that the council should clarify the other two issues and suggested that the CRB be asked to come
up with some recommendations.
Mr. Zelenka distinguished the issues of definitions and clarifications from that of structural authority
changes. He believed that issues related to authority and structural changes needed to be reviewed by a
new PAORC. He also believed that the lack of a definition of "good cause" was not an issue of structural
authority but rather something that the auditor and CRB could work through and bring back to the council.
He suggested that the CRB continue to identify such issues and recommend remedies.
Mr. Zelenka expressed appreciation for the CRB's evaluation of the Police Auditor. He agreed with the
remarks of Mayor Piercy regarding that assessment and commended the work of Mr. Gissiner.
Mr. Gissiner agreed with Mr. McIntyre about some of the clarity issues raised by the CRB and the
agreements that had been written before he arrived; some of them created ambiguities, depending on one's
interpretation.
Mr. Gissiner commended the preparation and hard work of the CRB.
Speaking to Mr. Zelenka's earlier remark that a municipal ordinance trumped a collective bargaining
agreement, Mr. Klein indicated that the CRB's protocols were part of the City's collective bargaining
agreement with the police union, and when that agreement was renegotiated, the City and union could
revisit them. The collective bargaining agreement did not override the local ordinance, but if a local
ordinance inconsistent with the agreement was passed after the contract was signed by the manager, that
ordinance was not consistent with State law and was unenforceable. If management and the union could
not reach agreement, the issue went to arbitration, and the arbitrator was not bound by local ordinances.
Mr. Clark adjourned the work session at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Stubbs
Deputy City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES —City Council April I4, 20 I D Page 8