Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1998 Work Session . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MAY 4,1998 The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 4, 1998, at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney's Joe Leahy, and Tim Harold. Also present were Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, City Recorder Julie Wilson and members of the staff. 1. City Attorney Performance Evaluation. Pursuant to the City Attorney retainer agreement, the services of the City Attorney are evaluated on an annual basis. The evaluation process is coordinated by Greg Shaver, Chair of the Judiciary Committee. It summarizes the completed evaluations from the council members, the Mayor, city department managers, and the partners in the City Attorney's Office. . The council reviewed their evaluation summary comments which were provided in written form. 1. General Legal Counsel - 4 Excellent, 3 Good Mr. Leahy said he felt they could have done a better job of being more timely on the CCR issue in the south hills area. Councilor Maine said its good for the Attorney's to indicate and communicate the response time involved in issues. It was explained communication was more the issue. 2. Legislative Counsel - 5 Excellent, 2 Good. 3. Litigation - 6 Excellent, 1 Good. 4. Citizen Requests - 5 Excellent, 2 Good. Mr. Leahy suggested improvements in this area. He suggested the council be (blind) copied on writte~ responses to citizen complaints along with a copy of the original citizen letter received. He thought this would keep council better informed. He said there are at least five to ten written correspondence of this nature. . Councilor Burge said this category was difficult to evaluate and recognized the efforts of the City Attorney's Office. He said they must be doing a good job and said he did not receive citizen complaints regarding dissatisfaction with the City Attorney's Office in the six years he has served in capacity as a councilor. Mr. Leahy said they receive many complaints, although they work with the city staff to resolve them and council may not even be aware of the complaints. Work Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 1998 Page 2 . Councilor Ballew wondered if the City Attorney's Office should keep a log of issues addressed. Mr. Leahy said it would be easier to provide a photocopy of the correspondence. He said it would also be more effective and helpful. He explained that the City Manager receives a copy of all correspondence that may be sensitive or controversial in nature. Councilor Shaver agreed that he would appreciate copies of information. Councilor Maine suggested copies of information be provided to the City Manager and he can direct distribution as required. 5. Any other comments or concerns not already covered. Councilor Shaver appreciated City Attorney assistance in drafting the Southern Willamette Private Industry Council agreement. Councilor Burge asked about Bancroft lot sales and if they were done by land sales contract. Mr. Leahy said that initially a few were done by land sales contract. The bulk of them were done by a note of trustee. Mr. Harold said forms and contracts were generated to address this. He said the property management staff had some reason to use the land sales process. He could not recall what it was but land sales contracts were not used. They discussed the issue of marketability. . Council discussed objective criteria. Councilor Ballew had no complaints and felt the City Attorney's Office did a good job. She suggested that they provide or generate information showing time spent on projects. She discussed the performance measures noted in the program budget and may be a good reference source. She did not want to create extra work, only wanted a better sense of the work load they are faced with. Mr. Leahy said they could provide a summary of hours spent by department. He said they do have goals in their budget and have had this discussion with Gino Grimaldi regarding this issue and can identify actual hours spent as discussed. Council proceeded to review management team comments by category: 1. General Legal Counsel - 8 Excellent, 2 Good 2. Legislative Counsel - 8 Excellent, 2 Did not Observe 3. Litigation - 5 Excellent, 3 Good, 2 Did not Observe The group discussed the comment on page 2 of the management team review stating "1 wish our CAO did more litigation for us, rather than hired guns paid by our insurers." Mr. Harold said it was the function of the insurance trade to hire their own legal counsel. He said most attorney's that do defense work specialize in it. He said the City Attorney's Office litigates primarily in the area of business law. He said they did not deal with defense work on a regular basis, such as representing people in auto accidents. Firms that do so, focus in that area. . Mr. Leahy recognized efforts made by attorney Robert Franz regarding city defense efforts related to the poster issue. He said they did an excellent job in the area of arbitration. Work Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 1998 Page 3 . The comment on page 2 of the Management Team review stated "be more aggressive in helping us manage other attorney relationships; We spend a bundle and any assistance would be appreciated." It was asked that Mr. Grimaldi provide additional information to the City Attorney regarding this comment. This comment could relate to City Prosecutor services or possibly legal representation for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. r 4. Citizen Requests - 6 Excellent, 3 Did not Observe 5. Any other comments or concerns not already covered. Councilor Shaver proceeded to review the staff/supervisor comments by category: Councilor Shaver requested clarification regarding the extent of contact staff / supervisors have with the City Attorney's Office. Mr. Leahy replied that he has frequent contact with staff / supervisors. If it is not appropriate that the City Attorney's Office be involved in a particular issue, the staff may be referred back to their supervisor. Mr. Leahy provided information regarding the process in which issues are referred to the City Attorney's Office. He provided examples using the Human Resources and Planning Departments. Mr. Leahy provided information regarding the routing of citizen requests and staff involvement in the process. Councilor Dahlquist discussed the conflicting comments stating issues are referred to staff and comments stating that many items are handled by the City Attorney. ' . Mr. Leahy referenced directives in which staff may request draft agreements. He said the staff person should be educated in the process and provide at least an outline of what they want the City Attorney's office to do. This would be a time-saving measure. He said staff should at least generate an outline of what the desired outcome or intent IS. Council expected staff to do their part as it relates to the process. Councilor Shaver said the Council should talk to City Manager Mike Kelly about this. 1. General Legal Counsel- 8 Excellent, 1 Good. 2. Legislative Counsel- 1 Excellent, 5 Good. 3. Litigation - 6 Excellent, 2 Good. 4. Citizen Request - 3 Excellent, 3 Good. 5. Any other comments or concerns ~ot already covered. Councilor Shaver proceeded to review the self-evaluation review and comments by category: 1. General Legal Counsel - 2 Excellent. . Mr. Leahy said he had indicated ratings in the "good" category, although, they were not reflected in the summary score. 2. Legislative Counsel - 2 Excellent . . . . . Work Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 1998 Page 4 3. Litigation - 2 Excellent 4. Citizen Requests - 2 Excellent 5. Any other comments or concerns not already covered. Mr. Leahy again said there is always room for improvement. 2. Liquor License Endorsement for the Renewal Period of 1998-1999. Police Chief Bill DeForrest and Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this issue. Council reviewed the list of license applicants for the renewal period of 1998-99 with consideration given to the.police activity report prepared by Chief Bill DeForrest. The applicant list and activity report were both included in the agenda packet information. On December 19, 1994, council approved specific criteria to be used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may recommend denial based upon reliable, factual information as it relates to any of the criteria listed in Section 7.302 of the Springfield Municipal Code. Some of the required information for the license renewal, (i.e., ownership. of the specific establishment), cannot be determined until the actual application is. received bystaff. However, some determination about meeting certain criteria can be made now since the criteria relates to the level of police activity associated with the establishment. Attachment two of the staff report discusses recommendations of the Police Chief for compliance with certain criteria by establishments on the renewal list. On May 18, 1998, council will be requested to provide one of the following recommendations to Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) for the liquor license renewal of the listed establishments: 1) grant; 2) no recommendation; 3) do not grant unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome listed concerns); or 4) deny. Council discussed the process involving liquor license renewals. Police Chief DeForrest discussed Oregon law. He said staff recommendations are based on legal parameters. Councilor Shaver asked Mr. Leahy if council could recommend denial and Mr. Leahy responded council could recommend denial. He said criteria is set forth in ORS law. Mr. Leahy discussed satellite school locations (alternate school facility locations). The business establishment "Rumors" was discussed in conjunction with the alternate school location. Mayor Morrisette discussed the need for legislation related to this issue. Chief DeForrest again clarified that when a recommendation is provided, it is not necessarily the fact that staff may support the recommendation, although, based on criteria, the recommendation is brought forth. . Mr. Leahy said an in-depth discussion has not occurred regarding overlay district limitations and restrictions. He also discussed criteria regarding business licensing requirements and , .' ~ . . . Work Session Meeting Minutes May 4, 1998 Page 5 preemption related to bars and liquor. He said state mandates had to be followed. This also included establishment hours. Councilor Maine discussed the need to think this through and deal with things based on set policy, not on a case-by-case basis. Councilor Burge expressed concern regarding the process. Mr. Kelly clarified renewal dates. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson i8;/,7f~ Bill Morrisette Mayor Manager Gino Grimaldi