Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall April 10, 2006 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Chris Pryor. The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order and welcomed Lane County Commissioners Bobby Green and Faye Stewart. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, City Council and City Manager Mayor Piercy announced that the Osprey Group was in town with representatives of the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to begin an assessment of the West Eugene Parkway and ascertain if a cooperative process was possible. She then reported that The Green Guide selected the City of Eugene as the Number One Green City in the nation. Mayor Piercy congratulated the community, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), Lane Transit District (LTD), City staff, and others who worked tirelessly to make Eugene the most energy-efficient, least polluted and healthy space in which to live. Mayor Piercy also reported that she and Mr. Pape? joined urban foresters and volunteers to celebrate Eugene’s 27 consecutive years of recognition as “Tree City USA.” In conclusion, Mayor Piercy shared a letter of appreciation addressed to the Public Works Leaf Crew. Ms. Ortiz reported that she continued to work on the payday loan issue with representatives of Food for Lane County. She announced that a public hearing on the issue would be sponsored by the State Legislature at the Campbell Senior Center, on Tuesday, April 18, at 5 p.m., and noted that the council had a work session on the issue scheduled in May. Ms. Ortiz then reported that she and other residents of Ward 7 participated in a “Pick-Up Trash” day on Saturday, April 8. She spoke of the recent River Road/Santa Clara Task Force meeting and voiced concern regarding the direction in which Santa Clara appeared to be heading. In conclusion, Ms. Ortiz shared that she visited with some of the area’s Hispanic population as members protested the national immigration proposals at the Free Speech Center. She said that this population felt vilified by leaders at the national level. Ms. Ortiz thanked the Eugene Police Department and Human Rights Program staff who worked diligently to ensure that all participants were safe and obeying the laws. Ms. Bettman asked that the following exchange be included in the minutes in verbatim form: Ms. Bettman: I have an issue I would like to ask a few questions about. Um, I sent out an e-mail this morning—I hope everybody has seen it—if they haven’t seen it, I noticed it’s not at our MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 1 Work Session places—but, um, regarding this particular incident, I have a couple of questions I want to ask now because it’s my only opportunity to ask them. I can only ask in open session. And, um, but otherwise I think it would be appropriate to defer the remainder of the conversation—although I’m happy to hear from my, my colleagues if they want to weigh in on this. But otherwise, I think the balance of the conversation probably should happen in the process session next week. And I will be sending that feedback to Linda. But my first question, Dennis, is, was, my communication with you this morning the first knowledge that you had about this incident? City Manager Dennis Taylor: No ma’m. Ms. Bettman: So when was your first knowledge? City Manager Taylor: I don’t know exactly the time I got it—I would assume that at the same time you received the e-mail from the sender. Ms. Bettman: You were apprized of it at that time? City Manager Taylor: I believe I was. Ms. Bettman: So that was March 9 or 10. City Manager Taylor: I’m not sure of the exact day. Ms. Bettman: And are you aware if anybody else was cc’d on that? City Manager Taylor: I don’t know the answer to that. Mr. Pape? reported that he attended the recent Royal Caribbean event and shared that the company’s building received the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold Certificate. He said he was most impressed with the construction and urged other councilors to visit the site. Mr. Poling announced that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Board of Directors awarded a contract to a concern in Seattle, Washington, in the amount of $12 million, for a project which was estimated to cost $14.5 million. He reported that he attended a workshop for the Willakenzie Neighborhood Park Project which would be built on the Willakenzie School site. Mr. Poling was pleased to note that there was general agreement from all the stakeholders on how this project should move forward. Mr. Kelly reminded City Manager Taylor about his past request to hold a work session on the Downtown Green Space issue, which he noted was not currently scheduled. City Manager Taylor responded that the larger question of downtown in general was an agenda item for the April 19 council meeting and surmised that this could be an appropriate time for Mr. Kelly’s concerns to be raised. He added that if deemed necessary, a follow-up work session could certainly be scheduled. Ms. Taylor referred to recent constituent complaints around the air circulation in the Library’s underground parking facility and asked if the conditions could be improved. She then asked if there were regulations governing automobile exhaust systems. City Manager Taylor replied he MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 2 Work Session was not aware of any such regulations. Ms. Taylor said she may request a work session to discuss this issue. Ms. Taylor voiced her disappointment regarding the outcome of the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) negotiations to move into the downtown core. She opined that the efforts of City staff were not commensurate with the importance of the issue. Ms. Taylor turned to the public hearing held on March 13 regarding the Whole Foods proposed site. She pointed out that the time lapse between that hearing and the council action was 37 hours, which she did not consider allowed for in-depth consideration. Ms. Taylor also voiced objection to the two-minute limit for speaking to which residents were held, and reminded staff that, in the past, public hearings were “continued” to allow all people who wished to speak. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that the City’s labor contracts would not be honored when the Cuthbert was managed by a private entity. She believed that the employees impacted by the shift should be protected by the City. She then moved to another issue and indicated that the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood was informed that it had been re-zoned and that this issue was scheduled on a council Consent Calendar. Therefore, the council did not have an opportunity to discuss the action. Mr. Kelly requested that a staff memorandum explaining this action be submitted to the council. Ms. Bettman reported that in response to her many inquiries, she was assured by City staff that such rezoning of entire neighborhoods would not occur. She asked that this action be remedied immediately to ensure there was no detriment to the neighborhood. In conclusion, Ms. Taylor spoke to the potholes on Crest Drive, which continued to worsen. City Manager Taylor noted that potholes and pavement preservation were in particular peril this year due to the heavy rains and staff was working to alleviate the problems to the best of their ability. Ms. Solomon was pleased to announce that the Housing Policy Board Allocations Committee met recently and selected a developer to construct attractive, low-income affordable housing in the Ward 6 area. City Manager Taylor proudly announced that Public Works Director Kurt Corey was named as one of the top 10 public works leaders in the nation by the American Public Works Association (APWA). He noted that Mr. Corey was the President of the Oregon Chapter of the APWA and officiates, along with Commissioner Bobby Green, at high school and small college sports events. B. Resolution 4865 Establishing Local Criteria Applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and Adopting a Public Benefit Scoring System; and Repealing Resolution 4851 Mr. Pryor, a member of the Enterprise Zone Committee formed by the council to create the local criteria that would apply to tax exemptions for the West Eugene Enterprise Zone, indicated the committee’s work was deliberative, collaborative, and resulted in a fine product. He thanked Planning and Development staff Mike Sullivan and Denny Braud for their support of the committee and said they provided excellent information to the committee as it went about its work. Additionally, he thanked committee members Ms. Ortiz, commissioners Bobby Green and Faye Stewart, Rusty Rexius, Lou Christian, Steven Korth, and Claire Syrett for their invaluable contribution to this process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Syrett reported that the committee was well-balanced and included City and County elected officials as well as representatives of the business community and the community-at-large. She proceeded to review the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), the Proposed Resolution noted in Attachment A, and the Public Benefit Criteria, noted in Exhibit A. She shared that it was the goal of the committee to ensure there would be a balance between making it “too easy” to earn the full tax break and “too difficult” for smaller businesses to qualify, while at the same time setting a standard in terms of the quality of jobs that were to be created under the program. Mayor Piercy thanked all individuals who participated in this exemplary effort. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Syrett replied that the language in the ”Build Oregon Responsibly” pledge was extracted from a pre-existing document that the Building Trade Councils of Oregon asked people to sign on to. Mr. Poling thanked all the individuals who participated in the process and said he was pleased that the committee was unanimous in its recommendation before the council. Mr. Kelly informed the council that City Attorney Jerry Lidz confirmed that although he was a part-time instructor for Lane Community College and therefore may have a potential conflict of interest regarding this issue, he could participate in the discussion at this time. Mr. Kelly stated he was pleased that the committee recommended annual reporting on the West Eugene Enterprise Zone. He then pointed out that under current Oregon State laws, companies could receive two-thirds of the tax exemption without meeting the proposed criteria now before the council. He noted that the proposal capped the benefit criteria amount at 25 percent of the tax exemption and that statutorily it could have been set at 33 percent. Ms. Syrett commented that the committee did not debate the merits of changing the percentage from 25 percent. Mr. Kelly opined it would have been useful for the committee to have had such a discussion as the difference between the percentages was a significant amount of money. He asked if there was any possibility of holding an additional meeting of the committee to review the comments put forth by the council and the Lane County Commission. Mr. Braud clarified that the Public Benefit Criteria was limited to the 25 percentile; however, the job cap could realize one-third, which was recommended by the committee. Mr. Kelly questioned if in a mid-sized improvement, there could be a situation whereby hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax exemption was granted due to the difference between the two percentages. Ms. Bettman opined that the stakes were not very high given the 33 percent cap set by the State. She voiced an assumption that in most cases, that cap would supersede the Public Benefit Criteria. Ms. Bettman stated that the job cap would be the key to recovering public benefit and “giving back” to the jurisdictions and the 4J School District. Ms. Bettman questioned why the action before the council was in the form of a resolution rather than an ordinance. City Manager Taylor responded that the Interim Standards were adopted by resolution by both the council and the Lane Board of County Commissioners. He indicated, however, that the adoption of the resolution does not set in motion a public hearing. Ms. Bettman pointed out that new jobs made available through local training and referral agencies do not necessarily ensure that local workers would be hired to fill those jobs. With regard to redevelopment, she noted that individuals who locate within the boundary of the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 4 Work Session Enterprise Zone would qualify for five points and that the benefit was not calculated on the number of new jobs created; rather it was calculated on the size of the capital improvement. She concluded, however, that at least the criteria provided a welcome dialogue about how public subsidies should reap public benefits. Mr. Pape? voiced appreciation for the efforts put forth by the committee. He referred to Criteria 1, Small Business, and questioned the rationale of the point system. Ms. Syrett explained the system addressed the concern that a smaller business may not be able to reach the wage threshold or provide medical benefits; additionally, it ensured that the program reflects the value of wages and benefits and acknowledged the reality that those applying for the program were smaller, local companies. Mr. Papé? referred to Criteria 8, Construction, and asked if there was consideration given to points for LEED certification. Ms. Syrett responded that that component was not considered by the committee. Mr. Braud added that the State statue stipulated the criteria must be related to the public purpose of providing employment. Mr. Pape? referred to Criteria 6, Redevelopment, and questioned if five points would be allocated in a scenario whereby the City subsidized a company with grant funds. Mr. Braud responded that the Brownfield Grant was limited to the two downtown renewal districts so these areas did not overlap. Mr. Pryor referred to the 33 versus 25 percentile discussion and opined that setting the threshold at 25 points provided a better chance for small businesses to receive an exemption. He pointed out that many small businesses cannot reach even that limit due to their inability to meet some of the strict criteria. Ms. Taylor opined that the Enterprise Zone was not helpful to the community, partly due to the fact that the State statues prohibited meaningful standards, such as those associated with the environment. She surmised that using a median wage of $14.95 per hour would be confusing for the public. Ms. Taylor also pointed out that there were many struggling small businesses that were not in the Enterprise Zone and would therefore be forced to pay their full tax base. She concurred with Ms. Bettman that it would be relatively easy to gather points and divert tax money which could otherwise be utilized for the City’s General Fund. Ms. Taylor asked if the wage standards could be improved upon. Ms. Syrett pointed out that the standards apply to all full-time employees of eligible businesses and that a minimum threshold had not been set. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4865 establishing local criteria applicable in the West Eugene Enterprise Zone; further, to adopt a Public Benefit Scoring System; and repeal Resolution 4851. Ms. Bettman referred to the Job Creation Cap, as noted in the AIS. She questioned if the Enterprise Zone was adopted by ordinance and further if the cap was embedded in that document. Mr. Braud replied that the Enterprise Zone was adopted by resolution and the cap was embedded in that resolution as a result of the action taken in August to adopt the Interim Local Criteria. Ms. Bettman pointed out that an amendment to a resolution could be adopted by a simple majority of the council, whereas an ordinance automatically created the opportunity for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to put forth a substitute motion to direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance to the City Council MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 5 Work Session incorporating the proposed language in Resolution 4865, as set forth by the Enterprise Zone Committee. Ms. Bettman explained that an ordinance provided for one more level of public input in the event a future council determined that the job cap should be removed. She pointed out that a resolution provided no protection. Mr. Kelly concurred with Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, and added that given the amount of the public interest in the Enterprise Zone, it would benefit the council to solicit public input on the criteria. Ms. Ortiz pointed out that the committee held a public workshop and a public hearing on the proposal and received a fair amount of comment. Mr. Kelly continued to believe it would be useful to adopt an ordinance to ensure that future councils would have to make any changes by an additional ordinance. City Manager Taylor replied that a public hearing could be held at the May 8 City Council meeting, followed by council action. Mr. Pryor urged the council to adopt the proposal by resolution and opined that the public comment received at the committee level was adequate. Additionally, he stated that the collaborative nature of the committee and the deliberative debate that ensued resulted in a careful and thoughtful process. He would not support the substitute motion. Ms. Solomon concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments. Ms. Bettman voiced appreciation that the committee made a successful effort to bring the public into the process; however, she said it was critical to ensure public scrutiny in the future if there was any movement to repeal the job cap as it was the only criterion that tied the benefit to the actual jobs created. Ms. Taylor concurred, and opined there was never too much public scrutiny. She pointed out that public hearings held at the committee level never receive the public interest that was present in a hearing sponsored at the council level. Ms. Ortiz stated she did not oppose slowing down the process to ensure public scrutiny and would support the substitute motion; however, she stressed that the exemplary efforts put forth by the committee should not be discounted. In response to a question posed by Mr. Pape?, Mr. Braud responded that the Lane Board of County Commissioners would review the proposal on April 12, and he voiced an assumption that if the council delayed action on the proposal before it, the commission may want to remove the item from its agenda until such time that the City’s process was completed. Commissioner Bobby Green indicated that he appreciated the discussion on this issue and said if the council chose to hold a public hearing on the proposal, Lane County would support that action. He added that if the substitute motion before the council passed, he would recommend to the board that it discuss but not take action on the proposal at its April 12 meeting. Commissioner Green did voice a concern, however, that if as a result of the public hearing, the council made additional changes, a different document would be brought back to the board for action; additionally, the Enterprise Zone Committee could be asked to reconvene to review the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 6 Work Session changes. Mr. Kelly opined that he did not expect major changes to ensue as a result of a public hearing; however, he believed that if significant changes were proposed, the committee should reconvene. He concluded that regardless of the outcome of a public hearing, a discussion at the upcoming commission meeting would still be relevant and inform the collaborative process. City Manager Taylor suggested that the City Council could adopt the resolution to capture the consensus from the Enterprise Zone Committee and the two governing bodies and still direct the City Manager to bring back an ordinance which would in effect repeal the resolution. Ms. Bettman responded she could not support the proposal as a resolution. The substitute motion passed 5:3, with Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted a suggestion from the City Manager that the motion state that staff would bring back an ordinance, including the standards, to the City Council on May 8, as a friendly amendment. The motion as amended by the substitute motion passed unanimously. C. Region 2050 Update In response to a recent e-mail inquiry from a councilor, Kurt Yeiter of the Planning Division spoke to the level of staff participation in the Region 2050 process. He explained that as Region 2050 was not stipulated by the City Council as a council priority, staff involvement has been limited to the review of draft products and advisement to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and, to a lesser extent, the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board. Mr. Kelly, the City’s representative to the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board, proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation, outlining the following components: ? What is Region 2050? ? What have we accomplished? ? DRAFT Growth Management Strategy: Where did it come from? Eugene Land Use; Eugene Facilities/Transportation, etc. ? Current Uncertainties ? Feedback for Region 2050 April Meeting Mr. Kelly announced that a meeting held on this date between the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Region 2050 board, and LCOG staff revealed that the Regional Problem Solving Statute cannot be utilized as the result of the decisions made by the cities of Springfield and Cottage Grove to withdraw from the Region 2050 process. He then announced that the next meeting of the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board would be held on April 26. Mr. Kelly invited councilors to provide feedback on the draft product for discussion at that meeting. Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Kelly for his commitment to the Region 2050 process. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly clarified that the Eugene Draft Strategy uses the modeling projection at 38 percent population increase by 2055, as opposed to the higher Historic Trend MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Projection. He added that the modeling projection was derived primarily from land capacity issues. Ms. Bettman commented that she supported such a concept; additionally, she supported “triggers” for the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She added that such triggers should apply to commercial as well as residential expansion and also how vehicles would be accommodated. Ms. Bettman turned to the issue of the Lane Community College (LCC) Basin and questioned why it was chosen as an area of growth due to the extraordinary costs for urban services in that area. Mr. Kelly responded that the area was considered a trade-off of certain types of land values, such as farm/forest land. Ms. Bettman voiced concern that the triggers would get lost in the process and said the criteria would need to be met before such growth was considered. In general, she stated that she did not support the regionalization of urban services, as cities were the logical providers of such service; and specifically, when services were regionalized, the denser populations ultimately subsidized projects in other areas of the region, yet there was no direct representation of those populations. She opined that a more prudent step would be for each jurisdiction to adopt its own direction. In response to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Kelly said that there was nothing in the adopted strategies at this point that regionalized services; rather, there were only suggestions to regionalize planning for services. He stressed that the draft document could be changed as a result of comments made by the council, the Lane County board, and/or the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board. Mr. Pape? thanked Mr. Kelly for his continuity in this process. He voiced concern regarding the recent withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove from the process and questioned what the effect would be to the final document if the Regional Problem Solving Statute cannot be utilized. Mr. Pape? pondered if it was a valuable use of time and resources to continue on with the process due to these recent significant changes. Mr. Kelly responded that the advantage to the City of Eugene within the regional context would be the key to continuing or not continuing forward. He said that he would certainly ascertain the effect these changes have on the entire process and advise the council accordingly. Mr. Papé? questioned if density could be tied to how the City viewed its 20-year land supply in the formulas. Mr. Kelly said that that issue would be clarified by a legal opinion. Ms. Bettman questioned the costs of this process thus far. City Manager Taylor responded that the costs have been insignificant at this point, reiterating Mr.Yeiter’s comments regarding staff’s involvement. Carole Heinkel, LCOG staff and project manager, explained that the bulk of funding for the project has been received from local, State, and federal sources, i.e., the Environment Protection Agency, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Communities Pollution Team, Transportation Growth Management Program, EWEB, Emerald Peoples Utility District, the small cities, and the City of Eugene, which provided a contribution of $50,000 during the first year through its Public Works Department. Ms. Bettman spoke to the new variables that must be included into the equalization, such as how much growth would be accommodated outside the UGB in what was “off limits” until Measure 37 was implemented. She suggested that the City calculate Measure 37’s impact on the lands as it may merely be an assumption that 38 percent of the population could be absorbed; 15 percent of that figure could be outside the UGB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Solomon spoke to the draft strategy which, if adopted, created a regional compact growth scenario that encouraged more growth in the smaller communities, lower target populations in Eugene, and higher densities within the Eugene UGB. She asked if that scenario assigned specific numbers to specific areas. Mr. Kelly responded that the State law already required coordinated population allocations to be adopted at the County level, which disbursed out to the communities. In Lane County, he continued, this process was allocated by the LCOG Board of Directors. He explained that the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board only proposed a change as to where residents were distributed around the region and that this change would merely be a different way of doing comprehensive planning. Ms. Solomon opined that the process just added another layer of government. Mr. Kelly countered that the process would not add another layer as anything enacted by the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board has no effect unless and until the constituent pieces were adopted by appropriate jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon believed there was a disconnect between this particular project and the Coburg wastewater services issue, and stressed that if Eugene moved forward with the plan, it must be faithful to that plan and every other issue before it. Ms. Solomon, seconded, by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to continue the City’s participation in Region 2050 at its current levels and monitor the discussions with the State about the future of the Region 2050 project. Mr. Pape? concurred with the comment made by Ms. Bettman that Measure 37 changed the landscape in the rural areas. He stressed the importance that this component be quantified and included in the formulas. Mr. Kelly pointed to the unknown factor of how many dwelling units would ultimately be accommodated through Measure 37 claims. He said that one unknown impact was if State land use laws were repealed and a large amount of development was accommodated in the rural locations. He said that if “rural” was perceived as it was prior to the implementation of Measure 37, and one- to five-acre parcels were opened up, that still would not result in a great amount of people. However, if a Measure 37 claim could result in a 100-unit PUD on 10 acres in a rural area such an action would be a significant change. Mr. Papé? then spoke to the regionalization of services and said that with the constraints before the City, he supported such services, as taxpayers deserve a careful debate by this council on how to provide and fund services. In conclusion, he questioned if the motion before the council should be tabled until further information was clarified. Mr. Kelly countered that if the motion was tabled, he would not have a clear direction on how to present the City’s position at the April 26 board meeting. He offered that he and City staff would plan to craft a memorandum to update the council on the results of that meeting within a few weeks after it convenes. Mr. Pryor questioned if planning, regional or otherwise, would move from an advisory role, or a resource, to a prescriptive role if the draft product was implemented. He shared that one of the concerns voiced by the City of Springfield was the potential of the Region 2050 process to become prescriptive in nature. Mr. Pryor opined that the City needs to approach this process as an advisory plan rather than a prescriptive plan. He stressed that the prescriptive decisions such as local jurisdiction planning must be made by the City Council. Mr. Poling questioned how the identification of a regional growth management strategy could occur when two of the three largest municipalities have withdrawn from the process. Mr. Kelly opined that the current planning for Springfield and Cottage Grove could be taken into consideration when revising the computer model. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Heinkel reported that LCOG presented information to DLCD on the desired products in the Draft Strategy and the implementation measures to ensure they would happen at the local level. Additionally, she stated that the legal framework within Oregon Revised Statues and Oregon Administrative Rules would support such action without Regional Problem Solving. She shared that the only product that could not occur without Regional Problem Solving, based upon what was revealed by DLCD Director Shetterly and his staff, was the desire on the part of Oakridge Mayor Weathers to redefine the State statutes that define farm and forest land. Different administrative rules would need to be implemented to achieve that request; therefore, Regional Problem Solving would need to occur. Ms. Heinkel added that the Land Capacity Model provided very different results if one assumed there was an endless UGB expansion. Mr. Poling voiced concern that for part of the region, the City would use one method, and for another part of the region, it would use another method due to the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove. He opined that such a process would not provide accurate information; additionally, as the proposed plan would be voluntary, there was no way to force implementation. In conclusion, Mr. Poling conceded that valuable information has been gathered as a result of the 2050 process; however, at this point, with the uncertainty created by the withdrawals of Springfield and Cottage Grove, the future of the project was questionable. He said he would support the motion with reservations. Mayor Piercy commented that the 2050 process reflected a genuine effort on the part of the City to work with its regional partners from both large and small communities. City Manager Taylor spoke to the issue of urban services and said additional cities could ultimately be created by voters and hence would be the vehicle for delivering urban services if the density levels in the model proved correct. He urged the council to continue with the Region 2050 conversation. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectively submitted, Dennis M. Taylor (Recorded by Joyce Ogden) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 10 Work Session