Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/11/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 11, 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: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, saying the council would hear an update on the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project. He said that Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson had been leading the City’s effort and was working with River Road Transition Manager David Reed, who was also present at the meeting. Assistant City Manager Carlson recalled the history of the City’s efforts to engage residents of the River Road/Santa Clara area in a discussion of service delivery, the latest of which culminated in the selection of David Reed and Associates to manage the transition effort and bring together expertise to facilitate transition issues in the neighborhoods in question. Assistant City Manager Carlson noted that the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) included a motion of continued support for the transition effort. Assistant City Manager Carlson discussed the funding sources being used for the transition effort, which included residual bond proceeds from the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. He reminded the council that at its direction, the funding that had been allocated had been reduced in fiscal year 2006 to fund newsletters for the neighborhood organizations in River Road and Santa Clara. The funding underwrote the work of Mr. Reed and his firm, which was working with a task force of residents and the affected special districts on the transition project. Assistant City Manager Carlson commended the work being done by Mr. Reed and the transition team, saying progress might seem slow but real progress was being made. Mr. Reed introduced transition team members Julie Fisher, Paul Hoobyar, and Jim Rapp. Mr. Reed emphasized that the transition team had heard no organized rejection of any aspects of the project and there had been no ultimatums issued by the River Road/Santa Clara community. He believed the direction being taken would result in positive outcomes. He acknowledged that not all were in agreement with what had been accomplished or the priorities established. He did not expect universal satisfaction with MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 1 Work Session the project’s end results. However, he believed the effort had achieved the credibility and trust necessary to a successful transition plan. Mr. Reed thanked Mr. Papé and Ms. Ortiz for their support as the councilors representing the affected area, the mayor, Assistant City Manager Carlson and his staff, the citizen task force, and the two neighborhood organizations. He emphasized the cooperation of the service providers. Mr. Reed commended the involvement of the task force members in the effort. He also commended the work of Ms. Fisher in regard to the public outreach aspect of the effort. He said that she was assisted by task force members Jerry Finigan, Ann Vaughn, Dave Van Sickle, Mara Wile, and Patrice Philpott. Mr. Reed reviewed his firm’s accomplishments to this point, which included interviews with stakeholders; the preparation of an issues and findings report; monthly meetings of the task force; preparation of a white paper identifying 50 transition initiatives and options, preparation of a draft River Road/Santa Clara Heritage and Transition Framework; preparation of a guide to urban services; involvement in planning activities affecting the area; and implementation of a public outreach plan to engage the community in neighborhood conversations. Mr. Reed said that the transition team had been invited to speak to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission about improving the process for improving street annexation proposals, as well as invited to speak at a meeting of the Neighborhood Leaders Council. The transition team had also created and maintained a project Web site. Mr. Reed called the council’s attention to a flow chart on page 193 of the AIS that showed the project time line. Mr. Reed noted the council’s receipt of an e-mail communication from Mara Wile discussing her concerns about the process and the fact the work plan had not been updated. He said the schedule established at the time the work plan was prepared was linear, and the process by nature was dynamic, so the transition team had termed the process an adaptive planning process and believed it needed to be visionary in regard to how the transition would work and in regard to the set tasks. The work plan would be updated. Mr. Reed acknowledged that some tasks had been dropped from the work plan but in general he did not share Ms. Wile’s concerns. He thought the process was consistent with the work plan, and he offered to provide additional information if needed. He added that Ms. Wile was a strong critic of the transition team, which operated in a fish bowl and which “had lost skin on the streets” and would continue to do so. Mr. Reed said the project was contentious and large in scope and complexity and residents were passionate about their future, which Ms. Wile’s communication highlighted. He said the transition team would be sensitive to that, although he reiterated it was unrealistic to believe everyone would accept the results of the effort. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Ortiz thanked members of the transition team and the task force. She also commended the work done by Mr. Reed and noted her attendance at several task force meetings. Referring to Mr. Reed’s “unfortunate” use of the word ‘contentious,’ Ms. Ortiz said that she liked to think that “when people get together and have conversations and have differences of opinion,” that was not contentious, it was “the sharing of the public process.” As long as people were not throwing things, she did not consider the discussions contentious. Ms. Ortiz indicated that she had not read the white paper since she had received it the previous week and thus had no questions at this time, but anticipated that she would support the motion in the AIS. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Papé said he had been somewhat nervous about the process given the passion that existed in the area in question, which was not unified about the direction that should be taken. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Reed and his team and commended the work done by Ms. Fisher in regard to neighborhood participation and the white paper prepared by Mr. Rapp. Mr. Papé acknowledged residents of the River Road/Santa Clara community in attendance at the meeting. He voiced his support for the effort and hoped it would continue to be funded. He encouraged councilors to attend the upcoming task force meeting scheduled at Madison Middle School on February 2. Ms. Taylor requested a response to Ms. Wile’s concerns. She also asked what the anticipated transition would be to. Mr. Reed responded that many had interpreted the transition plan as a code term for an annexation plan, and the transition team had indicated the plan would address the issue of annexation, but at the appropriate time. Annexation was an implementation tool, so it would come up at the end of the project. Mr. Reed said the project could have been derailed by the issue given the anxieties that exist about it. The transition team, under the leadership of Ms. Fisher, was currently working with residents in comfortable small group settings to identify their priorities and concerns. That was resulting in some pretty clear statements about residents’ future vision of River Road and Santa Clara. Continuing, Mr. Reed suggested that the community visioning element of the process could ultimately result in suggestions for changes to the City’s Urban Facilities Plan and Land Use Code. The transition plan would also include long- and short-term goals and strategies that addressed the future of the area service providers. Some considered the outcome would be a negotiated annexation plan. He believed the outcome would be a road map that provided an orderly, smooth, and reasonable approach to urbanization in River Road/Santa Clara. Ms. Taylor concluded from Mr. Reed’s response that annexation would be the result of the process and the details were being worked out. She did not know if that was what people wanted or if it would be a good thing. She thought area residents were being “worn down” by spot annexations, which she considered a bad thing for the City to have done. Ms. Taylor said that anytime the council discussed the issue, she wanted to hear about any opposition or concerns raised by citizens as well as the plan of the transition team. Speaking to Ms. Wile’s concerns, Mr. Reed said Ms. Wile expressed concern that the opinion survey had been pushed out to the following year. The transition team believed that a statistically valid survey was needed to gauge public opinion but, in terms of timing, realized that if people were focused on annexation that would color the responses received. Subsequently, the team decided to move forward with the neighborhood conversations to get more information about the sentiments of the community and providers before it proceeded with a survey focused on the conceptual transition plan. Mr. Reed said that Ms. Wile had expressed concern about the nature of the community visioning process; the transition team had determined that given the many widely different characters of the different areas in River Road/Santa Clara, it would be difficult to establish a single visioning process. Speaking to Ms. Wile’s comments about planning and communication with service providers, Mr. Reed said he did not understand Ms. Wile’s concerns in this area. The transition team was well-aware of the financial thresholds associated with the special districts, and EcoNorthwest had prepared a fiscal analysis for the process. He suggested the issue was more one of timing of the change in service providers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Speaking to Ms. Wile’s comments regarding population growth estimates and impacts on services, Mr. Reed said City staff would provide that information regarding population growth and full build-out and the transition team would do the work related to impacts on services. Speaking to Ms. Wile’s criticism related to trust, voice, collaboration, and equity, Mr. Reed expressed disappointment in the disappointment in this area voiced by Ms. Wile. He said the transition team had attempted from the very first to be as transparent as possible. For that reason, it established a Web site and held open meetings. He said the transition team had not done any work behind closed doors. Mr. Reed said the liaison position was a unique one, and a liaison was not the same thing as a consultant. The liaison was an independent third party who must work with and talk to different parties at different times and the members of the task force could not be at the table for all those meetings. He said that “was just the way it was” and acknowledged it was a source of the mistrust that hung around the process. Mr. Reed said the team had to live with it. He pointed out that the situation in River Road and Santa Clara had taken 20 years to develop and whether it was dubbed contentious or not, it was not a good situation. The transition team was not going to turn the situation around in two years. In regard to the work plan, Mr. Reed said that some people felt more comfortable with a complex project of which they had high expectations, such as the transition project, if it was both linear and predictable. One of the things the transition team learned was that was not possible. The transition team needed to be agile, adaptive, and responsive, and he believed that bothered some people. He understood that concern. Ms. Taylor believed that respecting the opinions of the minority meant that they must be listened to and their concerns understood rather than being dismissed. She hoped that would occur in the future. Ms. Taylor expressed the desire that in the future, those in the minority in such a situation would be able to directly address the council and answer questions. Mr. Kelly commended the white paper, which he thought provided both good factual background as well as a wide variety of options for the community to consider. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the relationship between the transition team and the task force, Mr. Reed said the two bodies were still working on the relationship. He said that task force would consider the issue at its next meeting. The team had laid out the role and purpose of the task force initially and he thought there was pretty good understanding of the roles, but as the task force discussed contentious issues, that subject had been revisited. Mr. Reed recalled that the mayor had deferred the issue of whether the process needed a formal standing committee to the transition team. The transition team had tried to take a collaborative approach with the task force, and it had worked pretty well. Ms. Wile and other members of the task force were concerned that the transition team was not fulfilling its obligations. Mr. Kelly appreciated that the relationship was being discussed and hoped it was resolved soon as he thought it critical to the outcome of the process. Speaking to City Manager Taylor and Assistant City Manager Carlson, Mr. Kelly said he “was very disappointed” that no member of the task force was involved in the presentation. He thought it a prerequi- site for any future work session on the topic. Assistant City Manager Carlson said that could be arranged if it was the desire of the whole council. He pointed out to Mr. Kelly that the task force was not advisory to the council so no member was invited. Mr. Reed chose to establish the task force to advise the transition MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 4 Work Session team. He said if the council wanted the chair of the task force (which presently lacked such a position) to be present at a future meeting, staff needed to know that. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the transition team’s understanding and acknowledgement of the complex issues involved. She thought the white paper did a good job of setting that out. She also expressed appreciation that the team understood the unique character of the area involved, adding she thought that was true of all the neighborhoods in the community. Ms. Bettman expressed her high regard for the members of the task force. She trusted that their input into the project “would get us through this.” Ms. Bettman spoke to the community visioning process, saying that seemed to her like the defining work that would occur in association with the effort. If the urban transition was to result in a neighborhood or community vision that reflected the on-the-ground heritage of those who lived there, those characteristics must be defined. She believed that given the volunteer effort that existed, the effort should not be dropped. She preferred not to see a generalized, theoretical visioning process as she thought that was a waste of money. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously. In response to Ms. Bettman’s comments, Mr. Reed clarified that his comments were speaking to expecta- tions that the community visioning effort would result in a refinement plan, which Planning staff indicated would not happen given the demand and lack of funding. There would be a community visioning element to the plan. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to continue support if fiscal year 2007 for the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project. Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. Mr. Papé asked if the concerns expressed by Ms. Wile were discussed by the task force. Mr. Reed said some, not all, but there would be further opportunity for discussion. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion, which was accepted by Ms. Solomon and Ms. Ortiz, to add a second sentence reading “The task force shall designate a member to be at the table in future council discussions of this issue.” Mr. Kelly asked for a memorandum to the council providing more information regarding the differences between the framework versus the conceptual vision plan versus the transition plan. He was confused about whether one document evolved from another and the relationship of the white paper to the whole. He also asked for clarification of what the council would receive in June. Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the transition team and task force present. She believed it was important to strengthen the relationship between the City and the unincorporated areas of the community because those residents would be voters some day, and it was good to have voters who were good friends. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 5 Work Session MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 6 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: An Ordinance Concerning Used Merchandise Dealers, and Amending Sections 4.989 and 4.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 The council was joined for the item by Captain Elvia Williams and Detective Randy Berger of the Eugene Police Department. City Manager Taylor noted that Captain Williams was the City’s loaned executive to the Community Campaign this year, and the City set records for employee contributions. He thanked her for her efforts. Captain Williams noted the increasing level of property crimes facing the department and their relationship to methamphetamine abuse. Staff was proposing to update the City’s current code with a provision that established an electronic reporting system to provide law enforcement personnel with “real time” data on sales that can be matched to lists of stolen property. Captain Williams called attention to the ordinance, included in the meeting packet. She noted the pilot that had occurred over the past three years and indicated the participants in the pilot program had not been charged by the City for the use of the automated system that was installed in their businesses. The system vendors now wanted the City to adopt the system and pay for it or move to another system. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the department for showing regional leadership. She supported the ordinance and hoped the system worked as anticipated. She noted that the City would save money from the use of the system, but pointed out that both Lane County and City of Springfield were participating at no cost, which she wanted to get on the record. Mr. Pryor was very supportive of the ordinance and said he had recovered stolen property through the legwork of officers, who had to visit a pawnshop to physically inspect serial numbers. The proposed system would improve upon the existing system. Mr. Papé agreed with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. He pointed out that Lane County was not participating financially in the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project and the City provided newsletter funding for non-City residents without County support. Mr. Papé expressed concern about the cost of the system for pawn shops and asked if the City could bear those costs with the savings it realized internally. Captain Williams clarified that the $700 fee would be for stores with more than 3,000 transactions each year. The $700 would be cheaper than a per-transaction approach, which was contemplated at one time. She said that the larger stores were not complaining about the fee. She acknowledged the system would save the City money by saving detectives’ time, but that time would be redistributed to other crimes. It would not save much time in the Records Division due to the need to verify information. Detective Berger pointed out that few businesses required as much supervision to ensure laws were followed as the secondhand business. Mr. Kelly also supported the ordinance and the leadership shown by the department. He believed that the ordinance directed resources to where they could be most effective and increased the likelihood that residents would recover their stolen property. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about why the ordinance was not being adopted countywide, Detective Berger indicated the ordinance was being considered by Lane County and the City of Springfield. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Those jurisdictions were in the process of adopting a similar ordinance. He added that because most of the stores in question were in urban centers, only three stores in Lane County would not be addressed by the ordinance. If other cities, such as Florence and Cottage Grove, decided to adopt the ordinance, they could be accommodated within the existing system. Mr. Poling asked about the possibility of securing another system. Detective Berger indicated that other products were examined but none of the others provided the integration and search ability of the system in question. Mr. Poling suggested that the department let the public know that the information that would be gathered electronically was the same information that was currently being gathered by hand. Mr. Poling shared Mr. Papé’s concern about the cost to the stores. He looked forward to hearing from store owners at the public hearing. He was very supportive of the ordinance. Ms. Taylor also expressed support for the ordinance. She had been surprised by the number of stores involved and determined from Detective Berger that the 54 stores in Eugene did not include used clothing stores. Ms. Taylor thought the fees seemed quite fair given the number of transactions involved. Ms. Taylor determined from Detective Berger that the system addressed stolen bicycles as well. Ms. Ortiz also supported the ordinance and determined from Detective Berger that officers would have access to the transaction data and could check to see if a suspect sold an article or identify suspects who sold stolen goods. Ms. Ortiz agreed with other councilors’ comments about sharing the cost of the system if all jurisdictions benefited. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to proceed with the January 23, 2006, public hearing on the ordinance concerning used merchandise dealers. Mr. Papé commended the department and staff. He appreciated the fact that the Police Commission had reviewed the ordinance. He hoped the department became more “user friendly” in the future in regard to reported stolen property. Mayor Piercy commended the department’s interjurisdictional work regarding property crimes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 8 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 11, 2006 Page 9 Work Session