Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/23/07 City Council Meeting Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall July 23, 2007 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the regular meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the public forum. Joe Collins , PO Box 24411, reiterated his allegations that there was a drug dealer living in his condominium complex and his feeling that the police were not listening to him. Greg Bryant , 2173 Alder Street, director of the Tango Center, said an item the council would be voting on later in the meeting represented to him an “old way of doing business” which was that buildings were disposable and “almost any excuse was found to dispose of them.” He believed that the demand for land was high in many areas of the country and it was possible for cities to accumulate “enough private capital to … convince government officials to then kick out existing owners” so that redevelopment could occur. He asserted that it had become such a normal way of business that it had become subsidized. He opined that destroying a building did not equate with revitalization. He said the things that people perceived as urban blight were things that made them uncomfortable and not the buildings. He noted that there were many old buildings in Europe and attributed this to the care that had gone into them. He felt the use of public money to subsidize the replacement of existing buildings with more expensive buildings was inappropriate. Teri McComb , 7 Monroe Street, stated that she had rented a community garden plot for two years. She had been shocked to find out how many people had multiple plots. She said she made a call to Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Chris Girard and he provided information regarding the program. She related that Mr. Girard did not see anything wrong with a person having more than one plot. However, she was concerned because there now was a lottery for garden plots and 129 families had been turned away in the last one, though 50 more plots had been created. Park Operations Manager Kevin Finney had called her as well. She discussed with him the possibility that Mr. Girard was not able to be impartial in his dispensation of garden plots. She noted that she had been approached by other gardeners that had multiple plots after two letters written by her had been published in The Register-Guard. They had stressed to her their need for extra garden plots, one of them indicating that she used a plot for her commercial landscaping business. She was disappointed that nothing had changed. rd Bob Dougherty , 479 East 53 Avenue, representing the Masonic Lodge, thanked the council for the opportunity to address the tailgating issue. He applauded Eugene Police Department (EPD) Captain Pete Kerns for coordinating all of the activities around the University of Oregon and the non-profit agencies on game days. He related that the non-profit agency customers were the same customers that parked in the MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 1 Regular Meeting Autzen Stadium parking lot, but they felt like second class citizens because they either could not afford to park there or there was not enough room for them. He averred that those customers deserved an opportunity to tailgate as well. He said they provided the University with spaces several years earlier so they could expand their lot. He had hoped that they would all be treated the same. He supported the sign-up procedure. He underscored that they monitored very closely all of the activities that went on in their lot. He related that he provided fliers outlining rules for behavior at every game. He stated that the Masonic Lodge had generated no calls for the EPD during last year’s season. th George Brown , 60 West 17 Avenue, owner of the Kiva Grocery Store, stated that he had run his business in the downtown area for 37 years. He had studied the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) forms thoroughly. He asserted that there were some “major problems,” in that KWG Development Partners and Beam Development had not presented a revised proposal to the City, the slum and blight determination had not been completed, and that there was no substandard housing in the downtown area. He agreed that the two pits represented blight but he did not see blight in other areas. He pointed out that the downtown area had a dense concentration of businesses and restaurants. He disagreed with a characteriza- tion of the downtown as an area with a high poverty rate. He said the tables were not included in Schedule C for a high commercial vacancy rate, low household income, and high crime rates. He felt it was also problematic because the review related to historic preservation was not included in the application. He opposed razing the Shaw-Med/Tango Center building and replacing it with a large grocery store. Zachary Vishanoff , Patterson Street, said he was glad to see people in the community going through the application for urban renewal funds and finding problems with it early in the process. He opined that there was “real involvement” and “fake involvement.” He declared that fake involvement was coached by staff and facilitators. He believed that “real involvement” would lead to more adaptive reuse of existing structures. He reiterated his opposition to the proposed University of Oregon basketball arena. He supported retaining Mac Court. He called that proposed arena a “land acquisition scheme.” David Monk , 3720 Emerald Street, said he hoped the record could remain open on the application for Section 108 money. He asserted that the application was incomplete. He felt it was difficult to follow some of the arguments staff presented to satisfy the criteria. He agreed that block grant funds had been used for many “wonderful things,” but he felt using the money for the present project was inappropriate. He cited the criterion related to job creation, which required that 51 percent of the jobs be created for low-income individuals. He said to do this the City would have to come from a census tract with a 70 percent poverty rate. He asserted that such a tract did not exist in Eugene and that criterion could be “thrown out.” He noted that the downtown district needed to be considered an “empowerment zone or enterprise community” and he was unable to determine whether that was the case. He said if it was not the case, the City could not apply for the money. He recited the following from the language: “[the City] could do the 51 percent if it [did] not include any portion of the central business district as this term was used in the most recent census of retail trade unless the track has a poverty rate of at least 30 percent as determined by the most recently available decennial census information.” He asserted that the poverty rate of all of the census tracts combined was 27 percent and the City did not meet the criteria; the application was incomplete. He urged the council not to move forward on this at this time. Beth Stegall , 1514 Lincoln Street, wished to speak about the Charnel-Mulligan Park. She said the park currently needed general upgrades and some “TLC.” She averred that it had been several years since the park received much-needed maintenance. She had joined the neighborhood association and worked with City representatives. She asked that the City consider the following in the 2008 parks budget: a new play structure, new sand, some new benches, vegetation, trees, and a new park sign. She noted that this was not MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 2 Regular Meeting much for a park that was well-used. She felt fortunate to live in Eugene, adding that nice parks add economic value to the city. Mayor Piercy closed the public forum and invited comments and questions from councilors. Councilor Ortiz thanked everyone for their testimony. She asked for a copy of the rules and regulations governing the community gardens for council review. City Manager Dennis Taylor agreed to provide a copy of the rules and also information on where the program was and where it was heading. Councilor Pryor was also interested in how the community garden program was being administered in terms of garden spaces. Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the people who testified. She thought it was good news that a lot of people wanted to grow their own food. She asked that the response from the City Manager include how many acres were currently in the program, how much acreage had been added since the advent of the program, and whether there were potential sites that would be appropriate for garden spaces. Regarding the Charnel-Mulligan Park, Councilor Bettman thought the parks maintenance issue was addressed in a “squeaky wheel … way.” She asked if there was an actual maintenance program so that when play structures started to age they were being addressed. Councilor Zelenka did not understand why people would be allowed multiple garden plots if there were 126 people on a waiting list. It seemed to him if there were such a large number of people being turned away, it would be prudent to add to the available garden land and expand the program. Councilor Clark also thanked everyone who testified. He supported expansion of the community gardens. He noted that a couple of the teachers at North Eugene High School had a program in mind to create a community garden at the high school and integrate it with some school programs. They had given a presentation to the Santa Clara Community Organization. He thought the City could look into partnering with the school districts to do this type of thing, among options. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone who testified. She wished to especially thank Mr. Bryant and Mr. Brown for contributing to the downtown “rather than contributing to blight.” As for community gardens, she suggested that some dirt be dumped into the “Sears pit” to make it into a “sunken garden.” Mayor Piercy expressed interest in furthering the community gardens program. She also requested that Mr. Brown submit his comments in writing given that his time expired before he was done speaking. Mayor Piercy acknowledged the interest in upgrading Charnel-Mulligan Park and indicated her support for it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 3 Regular Meeting 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - May 14, 2007, Work Session - May 23, 2007, Work Session - May 29, 2007, Work Session - May 30, 2007, Work Session - June 11, 2007, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Appointment of Civilian Review Board Representative to Police Commission Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Bettman stated that she had previously submitted corrections to the minutes. Mayor Piercy deemed the corrections, without objection, approved. Councilor Taylor asked to read a minutes correction into the record. She called it a misrepresentation of what she had said. She asserted that staff members could “change their mind about what they said after a meeting happened.” She was uncertain what the process was. Mayor Piercy asked if Councilor Taylor wanted to pull the minutes. Councilor Taylor indicated that she did not wish to pull the minutes. She wanted to offer the following correction to the minutes of the City Council Work Session held on May 14, 2007: ? Page 8, paragraph 3: “Ms. Taylor surmised that the project could be very nearly done if the process had not been discontinued. Mr. Braud clarified that construction would have begun but would not have been completed at this point been done about this time.” Mayor Piercy deemed the correction, without objection, approved. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. ACTION: Resolution 4914 Authorizing Execution of a HUD Section 108 Loan Contract in the Amount of $7,895,000 and Notes in the Amount of $7,895,000 City Manager Dennis Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, Sue Cutsogeorge, to briefly review the proposed resolution. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the resolution would allow the City to authorize execution of a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 108 loan contract. She recounted that the City had been awarded a $2 million Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant from HUD and the 108 loan program had to be used in conjunction with the grant. She recalled that the council placed two conditions on the authorization, one of which was to hold a public hearing. Two people testified at the public hearing and three submitted comments via email. She noted the testimony in regard to the program that had been provided during the Public Forum section of the meeting. She said the other condition that the council had placed on the HUD 108 loan was that the council pass a resolution that the loan had to be used MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 4 Regular Meeting for a specific project. She stated that the specific project for the loan was acquisition of five properties for the West Broadway Redevelopment Project. She indicated that it was anticipated the loan would be repaid primarily from downtown urban renewal funds and it was also possible that proceeds from the sale of the properties to the developers could be a source of repayment depending on the final details of the agreements between the City and the developers. She said HUD required that the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds be placed as security for the borrowing, but it was not anticipated that those funds would be used because the City’s downtown urban renewal district had sufficient financial capacity to repay it. She noted that the next agenda item would allow the urban renewal district to make the payments on the HUD loan. Councilor Bettman asked if the BEDI grant and HUD Section 108 loan money could be used to address other issues, such as “the crisis… brewing in the Trainsong neighborhood.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the money was area specific and could not be used outside of the downtown district. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud explained that the BEDI applica- tion was submitted in May 2005, based on certain criteria. Councilor Bettman interjected that she recalled being told in the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) that there were a lot of options for spending the money. Mr. Braud responded that the application could have been for a number of projects but the direction given was to move forward for the BEDI application within the two urban renewal districts. Councilor Bettman recalled that an action had been taken but she had felt it was premature and would authorize application of the funds “before we have any information of what that does.” Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that she believed Councilor Bettman was referring to the ordinance that set up the HUD Section 108 revenue bonds. Councilor Bettman asked what specific action had tied it to the downtown district. Mr. Braud recounted that the CCIGR directed staff to move forward with the grant application and they submitted a concept of utilizing the grant application for the two downtown urban renewal districts. He underscored that this was the direction staff received. Councilor Bettman asked if Mr. Braud was indicating that staff received direction from the CCIGR to submit the application for downtown. Mr. Braud reiterated that he was “confident” that they had gone before the CCIGR with the concept and had received direction to proceed. Councilor Bettman said she wanted to see documentation. She believed that the CCIGR had been informed that the decisions had not been made as to how the money would be spent. Councilor Bettman noted that one of the people who testified during the Public Forum alleged that there was an issue with the premise on which the application had been based. She did not believe that the application stated that the jobs would be given to individuals with a low income. She said because the 30 percent threshold for poverty had not been reached, the application did not actually qualify. Mr. Braud called this an important clarification. He clarified that traditionally the national objective of the low-income job benefit was that it had to be demonstrated that 51 percent of the jobs generated were filled by people with low or moderate incomes. He said there were some exceptions. He explained that if a census tract met the 30 percent threshold, then all of the jobs created by the project could be presumed to be filled by persons of low or moderate income and therefore it would not be required that everyone’s income be documented in the jobs that were created. Otherwise, he said, the City would have to document that the 51 percent low income MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 5 Regular Meeting benefit test. He stated that the majority of the 200-plus economic development projects in the business development fund had been required to provide such documentation. He reiterated that the City did not necessarily have to get income data from all of the jobs created because HUD allowed the presumption that jobs would be filled by people at the low or moderate income level. He stressed that the difference lay in that less documentation was required if the money was being utilized in an income-eligible census tract and this did not mean the national objective was not being met. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Resolu- tion 4914 authorizing execution of a HUD Section 108 loan contract in the amount of $7,895,000 and notes in the amount of $7,895,000. Councilor Zelenka asked for an explanation of the goals behind the Section 108 loan and the BEDI grant. Mr. Braud replied that the purpose of the block grant program included affordable housing, social services, economic development, elimination of blight, and job creation. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that it was only necessary to meet one of the criteria. Councilor Zelenka asked what the formula was for job creation. Mr. Braud responded that the public benefit under the economic development criterion was one job per $35,000 of CDBG/HUD assistance. He said this would require that the project create approximately 283 jobs. He related that the current estimate was that approximately 1,600 jobs would be created, though it was a number they had been given by the developers. He said staff had based its number on full time equivalent (FTE) employees and on the project, which estimated FTE at 600. This meant that just over 300 would need to be filled by people with low or moderate incomes. He stressed that the City would have to document all of the jobs created, just as it was required to do for all of its economic development projects. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen if the City did not meet the requirements. Mr. Braud said the City would have to monitor the project and provide findings. He stated that with a loan project the City would have the ability to “call the loan” and require the business to pay in order to get the money back as quickly as possible. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that he believed the loan application was accurate. He noted that staff had been through a few previous drafts of the application and had incorporated feedback from HUD in the final draft. He did not think the City had any issues regarding the national objective in the low or moderate income benefit category or the slums and blight category. He said staff had completed the environmental review process where it looked at historic preservation issues, environmental condition issues, and the City had conducted the necessary public hearing. He stated that the City had closely followed the required steps. He underscored that the City’s experience with HUD had been that the requirements were rigorous and if the City did not meet them HUD would not approve the application. Councilor Zelenka observed that the environmental assessment portion of the application was approximately 16 pages long. In response to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud affirmed that HUD had seen an initial draft, made comments which then were incorporated into the final draft, and then would make the final determination on the application. He reiterated that the City would be responsible for addressing the findings made in the loan application. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka asked if the application papers were public documents on which the public could comment. Mr. Braud replied that HUD did not have a public comment process, as that was done on the local level. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Mr. Braud confirmed that any material changes to what was proposed would be brought back to the council. Councilor Zelenka asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to review the steps the City would have to go through. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that there were four steps: 1) the City would have to amend the urban renewal plan to provide sufficient capacity to undertake the loan amount; 2) the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC) would bring its recommendations to the council on September 19; 3) the City and the Urban Renewal Agency would have to approve supplemental budgets to spend the money; and 4) the Urban Renewal Plan Section 700 required that any project greater than $250,000 would have to be separately approved by the Urban Renewal Board. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed that the supplemen- tal budget process would include a required public hearing. Councilor Zelenka asked how many public hearings the WBAC process included. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the WBAC was holding two hearings. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Braud stated that as far as staff was concerned, the application was complete; but it would not be known for certain until HUD had received it and reviewed it. Councilor Bettman had surmised that there would be a final application based on what the final development was going to look like. She assumed the final application would be submitted after the final development agreement “materialized.” She declared that a lot of the numbers were “complete and utter projections.” Mr. Braud said if the City ended up doing something different than it proposed to HUD the City would have to go back to HUD to amend the application, which meant that it would have to go back before the council to be amended. He underscored that the trigger in this case was the options on the properties. He stated that the City was trying to “put this tool in place in a timely manner” so that when the City was required potentially to act on some of the properties, the City would have the tool available and approved. Councilor Bettman asserted that staff was using the conceptual development as the justification for the criteria in the federal application. She did not believe the City would create jobs by purchasing the options on the properties. She declared that staff was basing the justification of the criteria on the “ultimate final agreement.” She called this “complete conjecture.” Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone approval of the reso- lution until September when the final application could be reviewed based on the final de- velopment agreement. Councilor Taylor averred that it would make sense to postpone approval of the resolution. Councilor Zelenka stated that his original motion to create the WBAC and extend the process sought to have staff put everything in place so when the City was at the point at which a development agreement could be made with the developers, everything would be in place and ready to move forward. He said at that point, they would decide whether to move forward or not. He stressed that the council could choose not to trigger any of the next steps if it saw fit to do so; there was more opportunity for public input and more opportunity for the council to say no if necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Bettman said the information on the draft application had become available to the public three days prior to the close of public comments. She averred that Councilor Zelenka’s approach of getting all of the ducks in a row and then allowing the council to say yes or no down the road was “good if [one was] the head of a corporation.” She countered that the council was spending taxpayer money and she did not believe the public had anything definitive to testify about. She asserted that in this case “the process was so egregious” that the application had not become available in a timely manner. She said there was a lot of material in the application that raised questions for her. She had been surprised to see how many housing units were in the area and she questioned how many of those housing units would be demolished and how they were being accounted for. She had questions about the data related to jobs as well. Councilor Clark thanked staff for all of the hard work on this project. He likened the process to a family deciding to make a major purchase; the first step would be a determination of how much could be borrowed and how much could be afforded. He felt the resolution was an appropriate decision to make at this time. Councilor Taylor asked staff whether the number of jobs created factored in the number of jobs “that were going to be destroyed.” She asserted that there would be jobs that would not be there anymore. Mr. Braud replied that staff was working with the WBAC and one of the five things the committee was working on was a business relocation plan, in accordance with HUD requirements. He noted that the urban renewal district also had relocation provisions within the urban renewal plan. He said the legitimate assumption was that there would be opportunities for those businesses to be taken care of by relocation, relocation benefits, or by being incorporated into the project. He did not think it was fair to assume that all of the jobs or even “some or any of those jobs” would be lost because the collective effort was trying to not let that happen. Councilor Taylor disagreed. She thought jobs would definitely be lost. She asked if, when talking about jobs for people with low incomes, the jobs were anticipated to pay more than the people were currently making. Mr. Braud replied that the target for block grant assistance had always been a low-income job benefit. He said they were targeting entry level jobs that were available to people who need employment the most. Councilor Taylor surmised that staff was assuming the businesses that were downtown could “go some other place and continue to exist.” Mr. Braud assured Councilor Taylor that the City had worked with other businesses that had to relocate as a result of previous projects and had provided relocation assistance to them. He said the process had included hiring a consultant who served as an unbiased facilitator who helped to determine what the relocation needs were and what kind of benefits were needed to do those things. Councilor Zelenka said jobs that were lost were only lost if they did not become relocated. He anticipated that all of the non-profits and businesses would be relocated. He stressed that this was why the WBAC was supposed to create a transition plan. He believed the resolution was a prudent move. Councilor Bettman opined that the City was offering over $50 million to a project developer. She likened it to offering an “astronomical dowry.” She asked when staff intended to complete the purchase of the property. Mr. Braud replied that staff would do so when council provided the direction to do so and approved the budget actions necessary to proceed. Councilor Bettman declared that she was sure staff already had a date set for when that would be. Mr. Braud responded that the options on the properties would begin to expire in mid-September, October, and in MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 8 Regular Meeting November. He said if there was an opportunity to proceed in September per direction from the City Council, the City could exercise its options in mid-September. Councilor Bettman asked what would happen if the property was purchased and the development plan was unacceptable to the community and to the developer. Mr. Braud replied that it was not possible to speculate at this point. He said among the possibilities were a subsequent project that could be attracted to the site in the short-term that could still meet the national objective, the City could sell the property and repay the funds and if that was not enough to repay HUD it would have to use the urban renewal funds it had pledged in order to do so. He noted that the latter would be the “worst case scenario.” Councilor Bettman felt the money was going to be used strictly to purchase property and would not be used to revitalize the downtown. Councilor Zelenka asked what would happen to the HUD grant if the project was delayed. Mr. Braud replied that there was no deadline but there was a 30- to 60-day review process. He stated that if the vote on the resolution was delayed until September it would put the end of the review process into November. Roll call vote; the motion to postpone failed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in favor. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 5:3; councilors Ortiz, Bettman, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 8:45 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 9 Regular Meeting 4. ACTION: Resolution 1044 Authorizing Issuance of Urban Renewal Bonds for Projects Receiving Funding from HUD Section 108 Loan Proceeds City Manager Dennis Taylor stated that the present action was the “other half of this transaction.” He asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to speak to it. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the resolution was a companion to the resolution that was just approved and would authorize the agency to issue a bond to the City. She said in the past the City had made this kind of agreement with the agency, most recently in relation to the library project. Councilor Bettman opposed the resolution. She averred that the financial mechanism would lead to the inevitable expenditure of funds. She did not believe it would not have a demonstrable benefit. Councilor Ortiz said she found this issue challenging because of the amount of money that was being talked about and that the voters would not be asked to vote on it. She asked whether the City, after purchasing the properties, could sell them to the “highest payer.” Mr. Braud replied that if the City sold the property to the highest bidder and that entity “just sat on it” and the City did not meet the national objective, which he would consider to be the worst case scenario, the City would have to repay the money with the proceeds supplemented by the urban renewal funds. He said if the property was purchased by a hospital, using an example Councilor Ortiz had cited, it would still meet the criterion related to job creation. Councilor Bettman commented that the City had not sold a property at a profit during her tenure. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the $8 million estimated for debt service was considered under land assembly. She clarified that the $40 million maximum indebtedness figure included the $7,895,000 HUD loan, but it did not include the BEDI grant. She said she would provide a chart for the councilors that would explain exactly what was included under maximum indebtedness and what was included in the West Broadway project as it was conceived of at that point at the August 13 meeting at which the urban renewal plan amendment would be considered. Councilor Zelenka asked how much had been spent on the options the City had negotiated thus far. Mr. Braud replied that the City had spent approximately $100,000. Councilor Zelenka observed that several were coming up for renewal in September. He said the City could potentially negotiate so that the City would spend several thousand dollars to extend the options to purchase the properties until March. He surmised that this would be sufficient time to have a development agreement in place so that the transfer of properties would go straight to the developers. Mr. Braud responded that this would be the ideal scenario. Councilor Zelenka said in the worst case the City would have to buy some or all of the properties, but it would be a decision the council would make. Mayor Piercy suggested, in line with the job creation component, that an opportunity for an apprenticeship program could be a component of the project. Urban Renewal Agency President Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to adopt Resolution 1044 authorizing issuance of urban renewal bonds for projects receiving funding from HUD Section 108 Loan proceeds. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 10 Regular Meeting Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:57 p.m. 5. ACTION: An Ordinance Amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Declaring an Immediate Effective Date City Manager Taylor explained that this was another ordinance that sought to make the Eugene Code conform with legislation related to Ballot Measure 37. Councilor Ortiz, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4951, an ordinance amending Section 2.090 of the Eugene Code. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 23, 2007 Page 11 Regular Meeting