Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 09/08/04 Process MINUTES Eugene City Council Process Session Bascom Room -- Eugene Public Library 100 West l0th Avenue September 8, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: City Council Process Session Mayor Torrey reviewed the order of business and discussion topics as follows: x/ Operating agreements · 1. O1 Time of Meetings · 1.06 Public Hearings · 7. 02 Other Meeting Guidelines · 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings x/ Crafting motions during meetings x/ Council communications regarding employees x/ Ex parte communication x/ Council assignments/communication with staff x/ Time management/meeting agendas Operating Agreements Mayor Torrey suggested that the operating agreements be addressed a section at a time, commencing with 1. O1 Time of Meeting, and each change be the subject of a separate motion. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 1. O1 Time of Meetings. Mayor Torrey explained that the amendment meant the council meeting would not conclude until an item was completed, regardless of the time, as long as consideration of the item began by 10 p.m. Ms. Bettman clarified that if the council began consideration of a lengthy agenda item at 8:45 p.m. it was committed to completing that item before it adjourned. Mr. Meisner pointed out that under Roberts Rules of Order a councilor could still move to postpone or table the item if the discussion extended to a late hour. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 1 Process Session Ms. Solomon arrived at 5:35 p.m. The motion carried, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 1.06 Public Hearings. Ms. Bettman said she did not object to the amended language, but it seemed out of place in 1.06 Public Hearings because the council generally did not consider the motion immediately following the hearing; rather, testimony from the hearing was discussed and then a motion was considered. Mr. Kelly commented that the need for the language was raised as a result of a situation in which a motion to direct staff was placed on the table immediately following a hearing and there was concern that at least one full round of comments on the hearing should occur before a motion was considered. He suggested taking the amended language out of the first paragraph of 1.06 Public Hearings and establishing it as a second paragraph in that section and changing the term "initial comment period" to "initial round of comments" to clarify the intent. Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestions as a friendly amendment to the motion. There were no objections. The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Bettman pointed out that Section 6. 03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council still included a reference to the Citizen Involvement Committee, even though that committee had been abolished. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to delete the reference to the Citizen Involvement Committee in 6. 03 Standing Advisory Bodies to the Council and change the term "five standing advisory bodies" to "four standing advisory bodies." The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to accept the amended language in Section 7. 02 Other Meeting Guideline. The motion carried, 7:0. Ms. Nathanson arrived at 5:40 p.m. City Attorney Glenn Klein referred to his memorandum dated April 1, 2004, addressing removal of Section 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, pending further discussion by the council. He said that the section was removed because a question was raised regarding whether the council had the ability to instruct elected officials on how to vote or what to say when they attended another meeting. He said the memoran- dum set forth the issues related to that question. He suggested the council discuss how it wished to deal with the issue and a motion could be crafted to put the section back into the operating agreements in accordance with the council's direction. Mr. Kelly commented that the question arose in part because a concern that if a councilor lobbied, he or she represented the adopted position of the body. He said that the section, as currently written, was directed MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 2 Process Session toward conferences and his concern was with participation in intergovernmental bodies such as the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). He expressed an interest in receiving draft language that set forth guidelines reflecting an adopted council position in votes for a specific list of intergovernmental bodies. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks. She said her concern was focused on the budgetary authority of a body, such as the MPC, and on the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and adoption of policies by those bodies that were counter to official City policy. She said if the approach was to determine that a member of an LOC committee was not representing the City, the City should no longer fund that activity. She indicated that the first paragraph of 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings was acceptable. Ms. Taylor agreed that the council should discuss the relevant issues and direct its MPC representatives on how to vote. She said that if the council had an opportunity to review resolutions of the LOC or National League of Cities (NLC) prior to adoption, it would be appropriate to discuss them and ensure that the council's views were represented. She said that participation on NLC committees, to which members are appointed by the LOC president, was a different situation, and a councilor did not represent the City in that instance. Ms. Nathanson noted her objection to removal of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings at an earlier meeting and said there was more protection for the council with the section in place than with it removed without replacement language. She suggested reinstatement of the section until revised language was approved by the council. Regarding the MPC, she commented that on occasion one of the council's representatives had made statements contrary to the majority position. She said that suggestions for revised language would require that both representatives on the MPC express the same positions and cast the same votes and encouraged the council to discuss whether the representatives should present differing points of views and ideas or present a unified position. She agreed with Ms. Taylor's comments regarding participa- tion on NLC committees and agreed that members did not represent the City, although to the extent that issues were known before a meeting, those could be shared with other councilors via email or as information items on the council's agenda. Mr. Pap~ said he agreed with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman that the council's MPC representatives should adhere to the council's position on issues; however, councilors were also representatives of their wards and constituents and had their own consciences. He said with regard to LOC and NLC committee representation it was fine to ask members to express the will of the council where possible, but vote their own conscience. He did not feel it was feasible for the council to attempt to deliberate on all of the resolutions that went before the MPC, LOC, and NLC and felt voting should be left to a councilor's best judgment. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks and said the issue for him went beyond budgetary authority. He commented that LOC and NLC appointments were made for individuals, but LOC and NLC memberships were expensive and paid for by the City. He said that the Council Committee on Intergovern- mental Relations (CCIGR) had recently expressed frustration that while the City's priorities were communi- cated to LOC, the LOC legislative lobbyists seldom presented those priorities. He stated it was extremely important that councilors and the mayor consistently represent the City's position during their participation in LOC activities, along with their individual opinions. He said that where budgetary authority was concerned, as with the MPC, it was even more important to represent the City's policies. He said he would like to see council policy expressed, if relevant on a particular issue, whenever a councilor is participating in MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 3 Process Session another group. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the existing policy should not be removed, although it should be more explicit on some of the issues being discussed. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Meisner's comments and suggested that language be added to make it more explicit that councilors should represent the council's adopted policy in their votes on other bodies. Mayor Torrey remarked that there were two questions: procedures through December 2004 and procedures after January 1, 2005. He suggested that the council could draft a new policy and adopt it shortly after the first of the year. He noted that there were MPC and LOC activities before the end of the year and if the council wished to implement a policy sooner than January 2005 it would need to provide direction to councilors who would be participating. He added that the council officers could develop draft language for review. Mr. Kelly commented that issues arose around the topic of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, but he did not think it was the intent of the council to remove the section as there was value in the protection afforded by existing language. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to reinstate 9. 03 Attending Confer- ences, Other Meetings of the operating agreements and direct staff to draft addi- tional language relating to intergovernmental bodies, the League of Oregon Cities, and the National League of Cities for consideration at the next process session. Mr. Pap~ asked that staff differentiate between an MPC-type body where a councilor was appointed by the council to serve and bodies such as the NLC where a councilor went on his or her own initiative. City Manager Taylor asked if the council perceived a difference between LOC and NLC and intergovern- mental bodies like MPC, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), or Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). In the case of intergovernmental bodies where a councilor was a member of a governing body that made budgetary and policy decision, he asked if it was the intent for the council representative to be an ~instructed delegate" at all times or only when there was an articulated council policy. Mr. Kelly clarified his intent with respect to intergovernmental bodies was that representatives' votes would follow adopted council policy. He did not feel that the existing language in 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings accomplished that. Mr. Meisner expressed hope that staff would consult actively with council officers in crafting proposed language. He agreed that LOC and NLC appointments were made by those bodies; however, memberships in both organizations were paid for by the City, not individuals, and when issues on which the council had adopted a position were considered, the delegate should be guided by that position. Ms. Taylor noted that it was not always feasible for a member to confer with the council before voting, such as on funding determinations by the Human Services Commission (HSC), but she believed that MPC votes should be discussed in advance by the council. Ms. Nathanson asked for clarification of the phrase ~instructed delegate." City Manager Taylor replied that MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 4 Process Session an ~instructed delegate" was one whose purpose was to represent the body's interests within defined policy parameters. In the case of the MPC, the issue was whether the council's representatives should participate in discussions on allocation decisions for federal and State projects and vote based upon their individual preferences, or as an instructed delegate. He observed that requiring representatives on intergovernmental bodies to be instructed delegates would demand more time for the council and individual members to consider each issue and obtain a sense of council direction. Ms. Bettman, responding to Mayor Torrey's comments, said she believed that any language the council adopted should be applicable to any council and any committee representative. She said the existing language permitted representatives to state that a policy was in conflict with a stated council policy, but vote however they wished. She said MWMC was different because its projects and budgets came before the council for approval and the process for HSC allocations had been established through the council's allocation of a budget. She said that the issue of councilors participating in LOC and NLC activities but not representing the City was problematic because the taxpayers were supporting membership and were not being represented in terms of council policy. She used the example of the City's pursuit of a systems development charge for public safety and the LOC's lack of support. She questioned why the City would continue to participate in the LOC and suggested that councilors should participate on an individual basis for professional development purposes. She questioned the last sentence of 9.03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings, which she felt reinforced the idea that councilors could vote their conscience and were not bound to be consistent with council policies. Mr. Kelly agreed that his motion to reinstate the language of 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings was in conflict with some of the comments from councilors and said his expectation was that staff would develop revised language to express the council's intent. He said his purpose in restoring the language was to simplify the issue on an interim basis and restore some protection in terms of requiring representatives to report council policy. He said he preferred to adopt new language at a January 2005 process session rather than attempting to ';wordsmith" new language at the meeting. He clarified that the new language should specify that representatives to intergovernmental bodies would need to confer with the council only when there was an adopted council policy at issue. He encouraged councilors to inform the council in advance, whenever possible, of any major changes or policy decisions that were going to be considered by another body on which they served. Mr. Meisner agreed that revised language was necessary, but encouraged the restoration of existing 9. 03 Attending Conferences, Other Meetings section language until new language could be adopted. He expressed frustration with the lack of information about LOC and NLC legislative direction or lobbying activities requested reports beyond the monthly LOC and weekly NLC publications that would update the council on those activities. Ms. Nathanson said the NLC weekly publication contained updated information on proposed resolutions and priorities for lobbying prior meetings and action by the NLC board and was perhaps a better source of current information than the City's representatives. She hoped that further discussion could be held at a future process meeting on the perceived difference between a councilor's participation in NLC activities and participation on a body to which he or she was appointed. She said it was not possible for a councilor to always make statements or vote in a manner that would satisfy all members of the council and the mayor. Ms. Nathanson observed that there was dissatisfaction with the disparity between LOC's lobbying activities and the City's position on some issues and suggested that staff report not only on activities that were in MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 5 Process Session consistent with the City's interests, but also on the successes. Mayor Torrey related that he was recently asked by the chair of an Oregon Senate Committee on Telecom- munication to participate in negotiations relating to telecommunications. He said that the City wanted a two-percent tax and the negotiations were directed toward precluding other communities from imposing such a tax. He said he wanted to be able to participate in the negotiations and represent the best interests of the community and not be "handcuffed" by a requirement to only discuss the City's position with no flexibility to explore other options. Mr. Meisner said he understood Mayor Torrey's point but his comments raised concerns because the City had adopted an ordinance imposing a telecommunications tax, and before every legislative session the council adopted a legislative policies document and instructed the City's lobbyist to work from that document. He asked how the City's lobbyist and CCIGR could have credibility if a single member of the council represented the City in legislative negotiations and expressed a different point of view. He felt that council members and the mayor should be guided by policy documents. Responding to Mr. Meisner's question, Mayor Torrey replied that he would not negotiate to eliminate the telecommunications tax without discussing it with the council. Ms. Bettman opined that there was an obvious difference between serving on a departmental advisory body and participating in LOC activities as LOC took lobbying policy positions that could be consistent with or in opposition to adopted City policies and the City's best interests. She said that elected officials and the council as the deliberative body made the decisions and those who represented them should reflect those decisions. She said the City should examine the LOC legislative agenda and consider whether it might not be better served by hiring its own lobbyist instead of giving money to the LOC. Referring to the Mayor's example of telecommunications negotiations, she said that the problem was that the processes were not inclusive and any elected official who participated should be careful to represent adopted City policy and not his or her own agenda. Mayor Torrey said he would support whatever decision the council made with respect to representation; however, he felt it would be a mistake for the City to "go it alone" with its own lobbyist. Mr. Kelly restated his motion to reinstate the current Section 9. 03 Attending Con- ferences, Other Meetings and direct staff, with consultation with the council offi- cers, to develop new language regarding representatives voting adopted council pol- icy, if there is one, and staff will consider intergovernmental bodies such as MPC as well as organizations such as LOC and NLC, with language to be taken up at the next council process session in January 2005. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Crafting Motions During Meetings City Manager Taylor stated that the purpose of the discussion was to address the inordinate amount of time it took to craft a specific motion at the table during a meeting and asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to elaborate on an alternative approach that would be more precise and take less time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 6 Process Session Mr. Klein identified an instance in which the council was considering an ordinance and suggested that instead of trying to craft a motion to amend %n the fly," the council could pass a motion to adopt the ordinance and give direction to staff to come back with an amendment that accomplished the council's purpose. He said the issue typically arose when the council was giving direction to staff. He said an alternative approach was to have the discussion about what the council wanted to accomplish, table the issue and move on to the next item while staff developed proposed language. He indicated these approaches applied to substantive, not minor, changes to an ordinance. He encouraged direction to staff that provided guidance and required consultation when appropriate, instead of attempting to wordsmith extremely detailed and specific language. He characterized the issue as one of trusting staff to follow the council's direction and suggested that staff could consult with the councilor or councilors who were identified as leading a particular issue. City Manager Taylor encouraged councilors to provide more general direction and identify a member with whom the staff could consult to determine if the council's intent was being met by the proposed language. Responding to Mr. Klein's remarks, Mr. Kelly noted that there was language currently in the operating agreements about avoiding amending ordinances "on the fly." He said that the option to table an item until later in the meeting while staff crafted language was acceptable unless there were time constraints. He expressed concern with the issue of trust and said his experience over the past two years was that broad direction from the council had often resulted in a response that was not reflective of the council's intent, thereby prompting the council to be more specific in its direction. He said that when a response was not received for two or three months and it was not what the council wanted, that further delayed action. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks that staff responses were not timely and did not articulate council direction. She asked if Mr. Klein's suggestions referred to instances when only one or two councilors requested an amendment or instances when the entire council was in agreement and there was a motion to change the language. Mr. Klein said his remarks anticipated that a majority of the council wanted language brought back. He suggested if one or two councilors were interested in amending an ordinance, the council should determine if a majority supported the concept before postponing the issue to another meeting and directing staff to develop language. Ms. Bettman said the problem with Mr. Klein's suggestion was that any amendment would need to be debated ahead of time to get the council's support of the intent before a councilor could request that language be developed. Mr. Klein said he was not suggesting that the current procedures should not continue, only encouraging alternative approaches to crafting "on the fly" when there had been no opportunity to discuss amendment language with staff and other council members prior to a meeting. He said that a motion to direct staff to return with language that achieved a specific result and work with a designated councilor to ensure the language was responsive was intended to better meet the council's needs. Mr. Kelly stated his opposition to specifying a councilor to consult with staff as he did not think that should be codified. He encouraged staff to communicate freely with members of the council. Ms. Nathanson said unfortunately staff was likely to have reservations about freely contacting councilors because of concerns that their conduct would be challenged or considered inappropriate. Mr. Meisner cautioned that solutions to a problem should not eliminate opportunities to be creative. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 7 Process Session Mr. Klein reiterated that the purpose of the discussion item was not to change the existing process but to offer options to crafting motions %n the fly" that could make it more efficient or productive. He said staff was not seeking a motion to formally change the existing process. City Manager Taylor expressed his appreciation for the discussion. Ex Parte Communication Mr. Klein distributed a handout on ex Forte contacts and reviewed the information contained in the document. He explained that exForte contacts were concerns in quasi-judicial actions, but not legislative actions, and while they were not specifically prohibited, they were discouraged because of the procedural issues that arose if they occurred. Mr. Poling asked at what point in the process exForte contacts became a concern. Mr. Klein replied that it was at the point an application was filed, although discussions with an applicant prior to submission of the application could create an appearance of bias. Mr. Poling gave the example of a developer who presented conceptual plans to elected officials and at a later date submitted an application for a zone change. Mr. Klein responded that those discussions would not need to be declared as ex Forte contacts and the elected officials' decision must be based only on information in the record, not any information obtained during those earlier discussions. Mr. Kelly asked if the starting point for exForte contacts was a matter of statute and if there were legal ramifications to a discussion held before an application was submitted that would be prohibited after submission. Mr. Klein said he would let the council know the source of the start point and regarding the pre-application discussion, bias would be difficult to sustain in an appeal but the discussion could provide the basis for a challenge and need to respond. Responding to questions from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Klein stated that if a decision was challenged on the basis of bias, the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) could remand that decision. He said that an appeal to LUBA would have to be filed within 21 days of a decision. He indicated that staff would alert the council when a quasi-judicial action was coming before it. He said that recusation from a decision because of an ex Forte contact should occur only if the contact had in fact created bias or if the councilor believed that the contact could provide the basis for an appeal because of bias. Mr. Meisner asked how councilors should respond to requests for an individual meeting with an individual or organization that was engaged in litigation against the City, such as the telecommunications lawsuit. Mr. Klein advised that councilors and staff should decline to speak to any party that was suing the City. He said that although there was no legal prohibition against contact, anything said could potentially be used against the City. Mr. Meisner asked for written guidance to the council and staff regarding contact with litigants. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 8 Process Session Ms. Bettman asked if that guidance would apply equally to the lawsuit filed by the Chamber of Commerce and Lane County Home Builders Association over land use issues. Mr. Klein said that legal counsel requested to be present whenever there was a conversation about resolving litigation. He explained that the situation was somewhat different with land use issues or other State administrative proceedings because the judgment of LUBA or the State Hearings Official would be based on a record that had already been produced and conversations held after the contested decision was made would not be taken into account. Mr. Klein commented that he would provide a memorandum clarifying the authority for the ex porte contact starting point, identifying the types of actions to which ex porte contacts applied, and providing guidance to elected officials and staff on contact with parties who were suing the City as well as contacts in the case of a pending quasi-judicial action, including timeframes prior to and following a decision. He cautioned councilors that while discussions following a decision did not have the same impact, it was preferable to err on the side of caution and avoid all contact until the matter was resolved or appeal period had expired. The council took a break from 7:30 p.m. to 7:40 p.m. Council Communications Regarding Employees City Manager Taylor noted that the subject arose in an earlier process session and he asked Mr. Klein to explain the provisions of the Eugene Charter. Mr. Klein distributed a handout that set forth the charter provisions regarding communications to the city manager from the mayor or councilors that could potentially influence the manager in the making of any appointment or removal of city personnel. He advised councilors not to tell the manager that they thought an employee was doing a bad job because it could be inferred that the councilor was attempting to influence the manager to fire the employee, which could result in the forfeiture of the councilor's office. He emphasized that this caution applied to individual communications to the manager outside of a council meeting. He advised that instead of discussing a specific employee, the manager should be told that the services being provided by a department were poorly delivered or a particular program was being operated poorly and specify the reasons, such as from a customer's perspective. City Manager Taylor suggested that councilors could direct their remarks to outcomes, processes, service domain, and particular deliverables attributed to an organization, but not make statements about a specific staff person. Ms. Bettman asked if the same restrictions applied to positive comments regarding a particular employee and if they applied only to comments made to the city manager. Mr. Klein replied that the charter provisions applied to any comments, positive or negative, that could be construed as an attempt to influence the appointment, promotion, or removal of staff, although in the case of positive comments the risk was small if there was no indication from the manager of a pending personnel action relating to that specific employee. He said that a councilor would be equally at risk if negative comments about an employee were made to a supervisor, as those comments were likely to reach the manager. He urged councilors to use common sense in their remarks about City staff as there was no case law available for a judge to interpret should a complaint be filed. Mr. Pap~ said he did not agree with Ms. Bettman that there was equal risk in making positive comments unless there was a promotional opportunity involved. Mr. Klein said that the issue was a question of risk MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 9 Process Session and each councilor must make an individual determination about whether to accept the risk. Mr. Kelly said the only protection against personal risk was to discuss such matters in an open council session. He expressed concern that comments regarding a specific program could be considered as comments regarding the individual staff involved with that program. Mr. Klein said there could be some risk; however, a major factor if the matter went to court was the assessment of a councilor's intent. City Manager Taylor suggested that councilors hold him responsible for any deficiency in City services or performance. Time Management/Meeting Agendas City Manager Taylor asked for feedback on whether the council should take action on any items on the agenda for the regular meeting if there was time available at the end of the work session. Ms. Taylor did not support the suggestion. Ms. Bettman stated she was not opposed to the suggestion, but the council should select an item that was not controversial and all regular meeting agendas should include the caveat that action could be taken on an item during the work session. She said she was opposed to any public hearing items being considered during a work session. Mr. Kelly said he like the idea of flexibility, but that every item on an agenda could be potentially controversial or of interest to someone. He suggested that staff develop a protocol to discuss at the next process session and that the council might consider requiring a super majority in order to take up an item from the regular agenda at a work session. Ms. Taylor observed that if an item was controversial, taking it up at the work session would save little time during the regular meeting. Council Assignments/Communication with Staff City Manager Taylor asked councilors to report on their communications with staff and responses to council assignments within and outside of established protocols and guidelines. Ms. Bettman said she had seen no improvement from a time and information perspective; responses were delayed and too general in nature. She said that responses often did not reflect the intent of the council's assignment and required that the request for a response be resubmitted. Mr. Kelly said he had seen some improvement and had taken the initiative to clarify a council assignment to an executive when the summary was not reflective of council intent. He said that email communications were helpful, but it was difficult to clarify a council assignment with respect to an item when the executive of a department was always listed as the lead on agenda item summaries (ALS) instead of the staff person responsible for preparing the AlS. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 10 Process Session Mr. Papd agreed that he would prefer to have the staff person preparing the AlS listed as the lead. Ms. Solomon expressed concern with comments about the quality of information provided by staff and suggested that perhaps councilors were not always as articulate as possible in their requests. She said she was generally pleased with the quality of responses she had received from staff. Mr. Meisner cautioned against structuring communications between the council and staff that exceptions were not identified or allowed. Ms. Nathanson suggested that it could be helpful if the city manager provided some guidelines for communications when a councilor had a role as chair of a committee and needed to provide direction or resolve an issue with staff. Mr. Poling noted that the deadline was approaching for boards and commissions applications. He asked that the requirements for counting the number of votes necessary for interviews and appointments be clearly specified on the ballots provided to councilors. Mary Walston distributed a meeting feedback form and an example of the revised AIS format. Ms. Taylor asked for more comment space on the feedback form. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 8, 2004 Page 11 Process Session