Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/22/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 22, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pyror. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Downtown Update—East Broadway City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council it had a narrow window to take advantage of the partnership contemplated in the materials before the council. He noted the work sessions that occurred to this point and asked the council to consider directing staff to move forward. Nan Laurence of the Planning Division noted a public hearing was scheduled for March 13 regarding the competitive bidding process for the parking garage associated with the Whole Foods development. She said the agreement before the council was consistent with the Downtown Plan, created an active place people wanted to come to, and made good financial sense. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment A of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), which laid out the terms of the land transaction. She called the council’s attention to a map of the area mounted on the McNutt Room wall, which illustrated the properties in question and showed the current tax lot configuration, proposed tax lot exchange, and proposed site configuration. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment B of the AIS, the Development Agreement between the City, Broadway High Associates, and Gerding/Edlen Developers, and reviewed highlights of the agreement. Ms. Laurence previewed the public input process. Ms. Laurence indicated that following permit application and review, construction was anticipated to start in May, with completion of the City garage and Whole Foods Store in one year. Ms. Laurence referred the council to Attachment C of the AIS, the Financial Strategy, and indicated that staff was available to answer questions. Ms. Laurence requested that the council authorize the City Manager to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Urban Renewal District so the district could participate in the garage purchase and can reimburse the City for funds that might be needed from the Facilities Reserve. Ms. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 1 Regular Meeting Laurence called attention to the draft motions in the AIS. Approval of the motions would allow the integrated design concept to go forward. Ms. Laurence reviewed upcoming decision points in the process, which included the supplemental budget appropriation and public hearing on the competitive bidding process, both scheduled for March 13. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Mr. Papé declared a conflict of interest due to his son’s employment with Gerding/Edlen Developers and left the council table. Ms. Bettman said the motions moved the project forward, and she believed a public hearing on the bidding exemption for the parking garage was required before the council took action. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the East Broadway proposal decisions package be postponed until the next available work session after a public hearing is held but within the procedural requirements of Eugene Code Section 2.1425 and applicable State law. Ms. Bettman said she raised the issue of the competitive bid process several times, and the previous evening the council received a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office referencing the applicable provision in the City Code. She disagreed with the City Manager’s recommendation to move forward at this time. She did not think the council should take action until a public hearing occurred about the proposal to exempt the parking garage from the competitive bidding process. A vote on the motions before the council presupposed the outcome of that hearing. Ms. Bettman perceived the council’s role as being that of a legislative check on the administration of the City and to act on behalf of the public interest. She did not think the council acted in the public interest by taking action before the hearing. She thought that insulted the public. Going through the public process would substantiate the information the council needed to create findings to support a conclusion the project should go forward. Regarding the legality of taking action at this time, Mr. Klein said there was a series of actions that must be approved by the council for the parking garage project to go forward. The council must hold a public hearing and act on a supplemental budget for both the City and Urban Renewal Agency, and at some point in the future would consider the alley vacation as well. The development agreement would not be signed until after March 13, and by then the council would have acted on the supplemental budget and held the public hearing on the competitive bidding process. Even then, the project did not go forward unless the council exercised its discretion to approve the alley vacation. The council could legally take action today on the motions in the AIS. However, the council did not have to act today. Mr. Kelly believed the project had upsides and downsides and the upsides appeared to significantly outweigh the downsides. However, he believed that the council needed to act with integrity and should postpone action on the motion until after the public hearing, as he did not know what would be said at the hearing. The public parking garage was linked to the Whole Foods project, and to act today would signal the public that the council did not care what it had to say. He thought that was inappropriate. Speaking to Mr. Klein’s remarks, Mr. Kelly suggested that it would be close to malfeasance of the council’s duty to decline to act on the alley vacation if the development agreement was already approved and the project underway. He supported the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 2 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly asked the manager “who was asleep at the switch?” He said the project had been in the works for months and the issue of the requirements for the noncompetitive bid had been raised more than once. He found it painful that staff identified a major legal requirement that was not being met the night before the council was scheduled to take action. Ms. Taylor suggested that the morality of the situation was more important than the legality. She thought the public should be involved in any City decision regarding the development. Taking action at this time would eliminate other possibilities, such as the proposal forwarded by the University of Oregon class for connecting the Parks Blocks to the river. She thought the council was making big decisions without public involvement as people did not know what was going on. She agreed with Mr. Kelly that it would be silly to stop the alley vacation so far into the process. Ms. Taylor said she would be out of town at a National League of Cities committee meeting on March 13 and asked that action on the competitive bid issue be postponed. She preferred that the hearing be postponed until after the council break. She said that the council should not take action at the public hearing and allow the public to make comments following the hearing so they could respond to what was said. Mr. Klein clarified that the council would not be taking action at the public hearing, but at the work session following the hearing. Mr. Poling thought the Whole Foods project worthwhile whether it included a City-owned parking garage built without a competitive bid or not. He believed the issue before the council was the public process and the order in which action occurred. He agreed the public hearing should be held before the council took action and encouraged the council to follow the letter of the law to avoid future litigation. Mr. Pryor asked what effect a delay would have on the project. Ms. Laurence said that staff worked closely with the developers, who established time lines for the project within its agreement with Whole Foods. She thought there was a possibility that the City’s participation could be threatened by delay. Ms. Laurence believed the developers were seeking City support for the integrated concept. Mr. Pryor did not think the delay created by the public hearing was significant and suggested it would allow time for the community to voice its support for the project. He was concerned about the public perception of acting now, but wanted to ensure that the motion was not a way to drag out the process. He supported it with the expectation that the council would act on the issue immediately after the public hearing. With regard to the exemption, Mr. Pryor said he had recently been through that process and was not concerned about it, as it was not intended to circumvent bargaining or legal requirements. It was a means to find cost savings through partnerships, which, in his experience, worked. However, he voiced support for the motion because he wanted to hear from the public. Ms. Ortiz also supported the motion. She shared Mr. Kelly’s concern about the legal issue related to the exemption and was frustrated that the issue was raised by a councilor doing her homework instead of by staff. She also supported the project and thought it doable. She said she was “just a very simple person who wanted to come here and work” and wanted to do so in a timely fashion, but when she had to work backwards, she did not think it boded well for the community. Mayor Piercy called for a second round of comments. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 3 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly underscored the fact that the motion called for action at the work session following the public hearing, which he thought appropriate. City Manager Taylor asked if he should postpone action on the supplemental budget that would enable the City to go forward with the process. Mr. Kelly suggested that the supplemental budget hearing occur as scheduled and the council could vote to adopt it on March 15. City Manager Taylor indicated that was the course of action he would follow. Mr. Poling said the council needed to consider the point of the public hearing, which was the competitive bidding exemption, not the merits of the Whole Foods project. Ms. Taylor wanted to hold a public hearing on the project. She asked if the maker of the amendment would accept a friendly amendment to hold a hearing on the project. Ms. Bettman declined to accept the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor did not think a day and a half was enough time to consider testimony on the issue. Ms. Bettman said that for people to speak to the issue of the competitive bid process, they would need the findings. She said that information needed to be available as soon as possible as widely as possible in a format the average citizen could understand. Mayor Piercy said the council was open to hearing from the public on the issue. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0; Ms. Taylor moved to hold a public hearing on the parking garage project and whether it was the best use of City money. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed agreement with Broadway High Associates and expressed appreciation to staff for incorporating the suggestions made by the council. Mr. Kelly referred to the proposed agreement with The Shedd and said the agreement appeared to lack any requirement for delivery of the site to the developer. Ms. Laurence indicated such a section would be included. Mr. Kelly noted the City’s long-time goal of having a grocery store in downtown and said he received a call that morning from Rick Wright of Market of Choice, who indicated in response to a question that he had never been contacted by the City about the possibility of locating a store downtown. He asked why. He believed it was an omission for staff not to have made the contact. Mr. Kelly acknowledged that frequently, such developments were created by a particular opportunity, but the opportunity before the council presented itself recently. City Manager Taylor said that the work City staff does downtown resulted either from specific request for proposals, such as for the Sears site, or when the City had interest in a particular parcel or particular partnership. He said that if the council considered the opportunities that had occupied the City over the last year, they generally came about as the result of a specific development proposal. The City did not generally solicit competition for specific retail uses, absent such a public/private partnership. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 4 Regular Meeting Ms. Bettman referred to the development agreement and said that there were no parameters in the agreement that penalized the developer for failure to follow established deadlines. She would like to see such parameters included. Ms. Bettman recalled a problem with a past parking garage where surfacing problems were addressed by the City rather than the responsible contractor; she suggested the agreement needed a section that protected the City once it took ownership of the garage. Ms. Bettman requested a detailed memorandum regarding the reimbursement for debt. Ms. Bettman noted that she had not received the original parking study to see the changes made by staff. Mr. Kelly acknowledged City Manager Taylor’s comments about why Market of Choice was not contacted to site a store downtown, but said he was disappointed. In his opinion, planning should be proactive, and when the council established a priority around a particular type of development, staff should be soliciting businesses for that development. Ms. Bettman asserted that the Downtown Plan boundaries had been expanded considerably, which made it impossible to compare the past and current studies. She said the area north of the Amtrak Station was now rdth part of the study. The City recently completed the 3/4 Connector in that area and the facility lacked on- street parking. If that was in the downtown area, which needed parking, she questioned why the City “wasted” the right-of-way where on-street parking could have been located. She thought it would have been useful to have such on-street parking. She asked why the City did not include on-street parking when it could. Ms. Laurence said the 2002 study and revised study appeared to have the same study boundaries, although there were three different zones in the study. She could not speak to the issue of why on-street rdth parking was not included on the 3/4 Connector. Ms. Bettman recalled that cover letter accompanying the study indicated staff took into account a broader area, and looked forward to seeing the original studies. Mr. Papé returned to the council table. B. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY WORK SESSION: Downtown Update—East Broadway Because of actions taken in regard to the previous agenda item, this item was not addressed. C. WORK SESSION: Update on Implementation of Measure 20-106 (Police Auditor) The council was joined by Government and Public Affairs Manager Mary Walston, staff to the Police Auditor Recruitment and Selection Committee. The committee included Mayor Piercy, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon, and Police Commission Chair Tim Laue. Ms. Walston called the council’s attention to the AIS, which included a series of recommendations prepared by the committee. ? The auditor should be an “at will” employee. ? Compensation should be set at a range between 35-37. ? The committee recommended the council allocate funds from the General Fund Contingency to cover the costs of recruitment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 5 Regular Meeting ? The committee recommended that four public forums be held to solicit input on the candidate pro- file. Mayor Piercy solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Ortiz said she wanted the City to do the recruiting for the position rather than a headhunter. She did not think the City needed to spend any additional money given the limited number of available candidates and the media attention the issue received. She thought the process could be both transparent and local and could produce quality applicants. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the position description for the police auditor dated February 2, 2006, and use that as the basis for recruitment and selection of the position. Referring to the section entitled “Supervision Received and Exercised” in Attachment A, the draft position description, Ms. Bettman objected to the recommendation that the council or its designee supervise the position, as it was so broadly worded “the designee” could be interpreted to mean the City Manager. She wanted to remove the phrase “or its designee.” Alternatively, she suggested the committee return with a description of a potential designee and general supervision for the council’s consideration. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by deleting the phrase “or its designee.” After a brief discussion about including or deleting the phrase, with Mr. Pryor pointing out it was merely in the position description, Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz agreed to remove the phrase as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that legal counsel maintained that the City Manager Taylor would hire, fire, and supervise the auditor’s staff, which she felt would undermine the authority of the auditor to oversee staff, as employees’ loyalty would be to the City Manager rather than the auditor. She did not think that was consistent with what the public expected when it voted for the City to establish the auditor position. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by ending the first sen- tence in the last paragraph on page 36 after “training,” eliminating the remainder of the sen- tence, and replacing it with the following: “Responsibilities include hiring and evaluating auditor office staff consistent with City of Eugene procedural requirements.” Mr. Kelly believed the committee was creating a challenge for the auditor through the organization being proposed. He did not think it necessary for the City Manager to supervise the auditor’s staff and thought it would be an awkward arrangement. Responding to a request for comment from Mayor Piercy, City Manager Taylor said he was seeking a reasonable accommodation that was consistent with the charter and also met the spirit of what the council was trying to achieve. He asked the council to keep in mind such things as collective bargaining, liability issues, and some of the other obligations that the charter clearly identified as the responsibilities of the City Manager. He thought something could be worked out with the auditor’s office that would provide conceptual clarity while preserving the charter provisions regarding subordinate employees. Mr. Kelly asked for more information. City Manager Taylor declined to speak hypothetically, but there were certain issues that accrued to employees that were larger than their day-to-day supervision and the mission they may MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 6 Regular Meeting have. That was the reason, for instance, that Court employees were still under the supervision of the City Manager rather than the Municipal Court presiding judge. Mr. Kelly said he wished City Manager Taylor could speak hypothetically. City Manager Taylor said that he was speaking to what the charter provided and thought it consistent with what the voters adopted. Mr. Kelly said his bottom-line goal was to ensure that the auditor’s office was as successful and as smooth- running as possible. He supported the amendment, recognizing there was time before the auditor was hired to discuss the issue. Mr. Pryor said he understood that people were seeking independent oversight of the Eugene Police Department. He did not support the amendment because he was concerned that it was beginning to drift away from the charter. There were existing, workable models for organizations where supervision was under one jurisdiction and employees were under another. He was also reluctant to create a parallel government structure to the one in place. He wanted to work toward collaboration and partnership, not separation. He was fully supportive of the independent auditor and believed that independence could be accomplished with the committee’s proposal. Mr. Papé agreed with Mr. Pryor’s remarks about parallel government. He determined from City Manager Taylor that the Court employees were hired by the City and supervised by the court administrator. Judges also participate in their supervision in a way that recognized legal requirements and charter restrictions. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern about placing the extra burden of supervision on the auditor, who would have a lot of other work to do. She preferred an approach that was consistent with the way other City employees were hired. She said when an employee was hired one expected them to do their job, regardless of who their supervisor was. She said the auditor would be involved in personnel matters and would provide input, but a focus on supervision would take away from the focus of the job. Ms. Bettman maintained the committee’s proposal would undermine the independence of the auditor’s office. The spirit of the ballot measure was to have an auditor independent of the manager’s authority. The recommendation placed the City Manager’s administration in the office of the auditor and removed the auditor’s ability to manage his or her own staff. She suggested that its adoption would handicap the auditor’s office because professionals considering applying for the position would believe the City was setting them up to fail, and would not even apply for the position. Ms. Taylor said the whole purpose of the ballot measure was independence and independence of administra- tion. Some people were worried because the administration has been the City Manager, the Chief of Police, and the police hierarchy, and the idea was to have something independent. Independence required that the auditor hire his or her own staff. She did not think that would take much time. The amendment to the motion failed, 3:5; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly referred to the position description and asked committee members if they evaluated the qualifica- tions against those required by other cities. He asked how many people could meet those qualifications. Mr. Laue pointed out the position spoke of having “knowledge of.” He said the committee worked from other position descriptions from other communities. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 7 Regular Meeting Mr. Kelly expressed concern about other requirements that spoke to the fact a candidate must have no “recent” background or affiliations with the Eugene Police Department. Ms. Solomon asked how one determined what sort of background or affiliation would hamper an individual’s ability to serve. Mr. Kelly suggested that the City Council would look at an individual’s job history, and if it included employment with the department or service as a consultant, they would be eliminated from further consideration. He added that was no reflection on an individual’s personal character but was a way to clearly establish the position’s independence. Ms. Solomon did not support removal of the word. She did not think people should be penalized for their service to the community. Mr. Kelly did not think people were being penalized; they would merely not be hired for the position. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the motion by striking the word “re- cent.” City Attorney Jerome Lidz suggested that if Mr. Kelly’s intent was to disqualify everyone who had ever worked for the Police Department, all text in the motion after “department” should also be deleted. Mr. Kelly accepted the clarification. Mr. Papé did not support the amendment because he considered it to be discriminatory for reasons he did not consider legitimate. Mr. Poling also did not support the amendment. He questioned why the City would eliminate those with experience and expertise from the pool of candidates. Mr. Kelly expressed surprise at his colleagues’ reaction. It was his understanding from the Police Commission discussion that this issue touched on how wide the net of exclusions should be cast. He recalled that one proposal excluded anyone who had ever done law enforcement in the state of Oregon. He said the council needed to think about the community’s reaction if the council appointed a former police officer to the position of police auditor. He believed the community would object. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Kelly. She underscored that the issue was about external police review, and while Eugene police officers do a wonderful job and could be viable, good candidates for the position, the transparency of process the council was trying to accomplish was important. Mr. Pryor said the amendment referred to recent background and affiliation, and he questioned what that meant in terms of time frame. What did affiliation mean? Did that eliminate those who were consultants to the department? He could support excluding people employed by the department but needed more information about what recent background and affiliation meant in terms of its exclusionary element. Mayor Piercy asked Mr. Laue to comment. Mr. Laue said the commission discussed the four options the council also saw. The commission’s preferred option was the option the council was now considering. The commission discussed excluding people with prior law enforcement experience and agreed that there may have been someone hired by the Eugene Police Department 20 years ago who worked for the department for a few years and then went onto have a stellar career in another field. The commission did not think excluding such candidates was appropriate. Mr. Laue reminded the council that it would select the auditor, and he anticipated that those who got beyond a certain point in the hiring process would undergo a background investigation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 8 Regular Meeting Ms. Taylor said it was inconceivable to her that the council would hire someone who had worked for the police to be the auditor because she believed it would be impossible for them to be neutral. Mr. Poling asked if the motion excluded a person who had been a cadet with the department. He did not think it made sense. Mr. Kelly rephrased the text for his amendment, saying that candidates for the position may not have any employment, past employment by, or past contracts with the City of Eugene Police Department in the prior 20 years. Ms. Ortiz, the second to the motion, accepted the revised text. Ms. Bettman asked that the motion be expanded to include the Lane County Sheriff’s Department and the City of Springfield as those departments worked closely with the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Kelly declined to accept the suggestion as a friendly amendment and recommended the committee consider Ms. Bettman’s request. Mr. Poling believed the amendment and Ms. Bettman’s suggestion would exclude those with previous law enforcement within Lane County and the State of Oregon, which limited the pool of candidates who met the requirements outlined in the job description. Mr. Papé expressed appreciation for the remarks of Mr. Laue and Mr. Poling. He said making a judgment on the basis of one’s past affiliation was classifying someone and assuming they could not be unbiased or fair in the position. He thought it was discriminatory like categorizing people by race and he was offended by it. Speaking to Mr. Papé’s point, Mr. Kelly disagreed that the council would be classifying an individual; the public would do that. He maintained that hiring a former Eugene police officer would undermine the council’s credibility with the very people it was working hard to gain the trust of. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bett- man, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy cast a vote in support of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the amended motion was unanimous, 8:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to implement the police auditor and civilian review board oversight program in a manner that is consistent with the Police Commission recommendation of July 25, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to allocate up to $17,000 from the General Fund Contingency to the Human Resources and Risk Services Department in Fiscal Year 2006 for the purpose of recruitment and selection of the Police Auditor. Ms. Bettman said it appeared the motion put the division in charge of recruiting and selecting the auditor. She needed more information before she could vote on it. Ms. Solomon, with the consent of her second, withdrew the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 9 Regular Meeting Regarding compensation, Ms. Bettman said she could accept the higher range recommended, but wanted to offer a signing bonus and moving allowance to the successful candidate, who would be “inventing the wheel.” Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2006 Page 10 Regular Meeting