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