Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/11/08 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall February 11, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mike Clark. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy noted that City Councilor Mike Clark was ill and could not be present. Mayor Piercy said the motion that Ms. Taylor intended to offer in regard to the Bureau of Land Manage- ment’s Western Oregon Plan Revision would not be considered until the 7:30 p.m. regular meeting. Mayor Piercy commended the recent Project Homeless Connect event, noting the many people who were provided with services at the event and the many volunteers who assisted them. Mayor Piercy noted the upcoming “How to Start a Small Business” workshop at the Eugene Library on February 16 at 3 p.m. Mayor Piercy noted a meeting occurring the next day at 6 p.m. at Spring Creek Elementary School to discuss what residents wanted at the new Ferndale Park. Mayor Piercy reported that the City’s Neighborhood Program Office held an open house on February 6 to commemorate the opening of its new offices at the Atrium Building and it was a good event. Mayor Piercy noted the recent opening of the Green Store, a new sustainable business. Mayor Piercy noted the recent River Road Community Organization celebration, held over the past weekend, and encouraged residents to attend the upcoming Asian Festival. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to a letter from Representative Peter DeFazio commending the City on its recent Tree City USA award. Mr. Pryor also commended Project Homeless Connect, saying the event was even better than the year before. He also noted the many participants and volunteers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Poling said he and Mr. Clark attended the recent Fire and EMS Awards Ceremony and there were a number of promotions and service awards presented, as well as awards to citizens in recognition of their contributions to public safety. He commended the event. Mr. Poling noted the recent snow storm experienced by the community and thanked the Public Works Department for keeping city streets cleared. Ms. Taylor also enjoyed the recent Neighborhood Program open house event and was happy to see Public Service Officer Michelle Mortensen had a desk there. Ms. Taylor noted compliments she heard from residents about Neighborhood Program staff at the recent River Road Community Organization celebration. Ms. Taylor said she had attended the Basic Rights Celebration for domestic partnerships and it was a very happy occasion. Ms. Taylor said she heard from many constituents who were interested in seeing a park across from the library and suggested that be included in a Request for Proposals. She said people also expressed surprise that Civic Stadium was proposed for a hospital site, and suggested the council should do what it could to preserve the site. Mr. Zelenka also commended the Project Homeless Connect event. He had served at the event as a greeter and talked to many “every day” folks about their situations, and found they needed a lift up, which was what the event was all about. He said the event was well-organized and he commended Richie Weinman of Planning and Development Department and Pearl Wolfe of the Human Services Commission for their work in putting on the event. Mr. Zelenka spoke of the high level of interest in the neighborhoods near the University of Oregon as it embarked on its basketball arena project and reported the University was putting together a committee of residents to advise it on issues such as parking and noise that were related to the arena. Mr. Zelenka called the council’s attention to the Alder Commons project, a seven-story multi-family development being constructed on the edge of an established neighborhood in southeast Eugene. He said neighboring residents were concerned about the scale and compatibility of the project with the neighborhood, and he suggested the council should discuss the project. Mr. Zelenka noted an upcoming youth job faire occurring the next day at the Lane County Fairgrounds, and said a similar job faire for adults was scheduled for March 13. Mr. Zelenka was encouraged to hear about the Neighborhood Program open house and regretted he was unable to attend. Mr. Zelenka said he was sorry to hear about the arrangement reached between the Eugene Emeralds and the university in regard to the Ems’ use of the university’s new baseball stadium. He anticipated a council work session on the topic. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Ortiz also commended the recent Project Homeless Connect event and said she felt very good about volunteering for the event. She had worked with some women who did not generally volunteer for such projects, and that was good to see. She thought the event connected community members together. She said no resident was far away from being homeless. Ms. Ortiz also attended the River Road Community Organization celebration and said it was well-organized, with many interesting presentations. She commended the event organizers and said she had been able to meet some of the organization’s new leadership. Ms. Ortiz found the new Neighborhood Program office to be very welcoming, which she found important. Ms. Bettman also commended Project Homeless Connect and said it was an incredible event. She had also volunteered and had a chance to meet a lot of people and see the event from many points of view. She commended the staff and service providers and noted the many private businesses that donated services and staff time. She asked if the council would be able to connect the event to its homelessness goal if staff could assess the City’s capacity to provide more services to the homeless, such as offering the event twice yearly. City Manager pro tem Angel Jones said the council would receive a report on the event and what it would take to continue it into the future. She acknowledged the effort put forth by Ms. Wolfe and Mr. Weinman and noted the County’s uncertain financial outlook, which could have an impact on the event in the future. Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s comments regarding the proposed hospital sites, City Manager pro tem Jones said the list of sites was a rough list based on acreage requirements and many of the sites listed would not work for the hospital and were no longer on the list. City Manager pro tem Jones noted the work session scheduled on Civic Stadium on April 28. B. WORK SESSION: West Broadway Update Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). City Manager pro tem Jones introduced the topic, noting it was a work session on next steps in the West Broadway area. Denny Braud, Susan Muir, and Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Depart- ment and Sue Cutsogeorge of the Central Services Department were present for the item. Mr. Braud presented a PowerPoint presentation updating the council on the progress of the West Broadway project. He focused on the purchase options for the West Broadway properties and strategies for moving forward. Ms. Solomon arrived during the presentation. Mayor Piercy solicited council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor was happy about the Beam project and hoped Oregon Research Institute (ORI) could be secured as a tenant for the Centre Court building. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Taylor believed most of the purchase options should be dropped, particularly those on properties containing existing businesses. She asked if the owner of the Tango Center had expressed interest in the option for that building. Mr. Braud said yes. Ms. Taylor asked if the City was responding to that interest. Mr. Braud said staff was recommending that the City solicit interest from all parties, including the Tango Center. Ms. Taylor pointed out the center was currently using the property and she thought it would be good if it stayed in place. She did not support soliciting proposals that might displace current businesses. Ms. Taylor asked why the City was still talking to Scan Design. Mr. Braud said the URA directed staff to extend the option; however, that option had expired. Ms. Taylor was glad and hoped the City did what it could to keep the store downtown. Mayor Piercy understood that Scan Design planned to move to Oakway Mall. Mr. Braud said the store was looking at several different options. Mayor Piercy said she spoke to several people after they saw the architect’s renderings of the project, and they had reacted very positively. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should interfere with the free market unless there was a demonstrable public benefit or unless it could fix a problem. She asked where the public benefit existed in transferring the options. Mr. Braud suggested it was derived in the ultimate use of the properties; the concept was to assign the options to someone capable of carrying out a project and willing to make a reasonable offer for the assignment. Ms. Bettman asked if staff contemplated a Request for Proposals (RFP) approach when it mentioned disposing of the property in an “auction like” manner. She said the council had no analysis of what represented a reasonable return. Mr. Braud indicated there was no time for a formal RFP because several of the options would expire soon. City Manager pro tem Jones said staff recognized the investment the City made and hoped to recoup some of that, as well as not lose the benefit of having acquired the properties. She said the City would make the options available and evaluate offers based on their return to the City. Ms. Bettman asked what happened if the offers did not provide a return to the City; would the options be allowed to expire? City Manager pro tem Jones said yes. Ms. Bettman suggested the process could be constrained to produce more benefit, such as selling the properties to the tenants who occupied them now. Her concern was that if the City sold the options to the highest bidder without any constraints, a buyer could tear a building down and leave a pit in its place, or wait for the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee to push for a code change that allowed for profitable surface parking. She could not support those scenarios, and anticipated she would amend the motion proposed by staff so the options were offered first to the tenants, and the purchase contracts did not allow for building demolition for surface parking. She asked City Attorney Glenn Klein for assistance in crafting a motion. Ms. Bettman asked how the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant would be used. Mr. Braud said staff would propose a financial plan in advance of a council work session. The City was interested in using the BEDI grant and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 108 moneys, and the logical use was for acquisition of the properties and construction assistance. Mr. Poling recalled the council’s receipt of a letter from Bradford’s and said that Mr. Clark, who was not able to attend the meeting, was interested in holding the company harmless due to its longevity in downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 4 Work Session He asked for more information. Mr. Braud said the company was concerned about its favorable lease from Diamond Parking and it would like to remain in its current location for a while to receive the benefit of the lease rate; the company also made some building improvements it had to pay for and that it did not want to walk away from. The company also wanted to retain its current existing surface parking, although most of the company’s business was off-site home installations. He was not sure surface parking was critical to the business’ survival at that location. Mr. Poling agreed with City Manager pro tem Jones that the public benefit of offering the purchase offers would be recovering the City’s investment, and a favorable return would be recovering all of it. He said it appeared that everyone was waiting for the details of the Beam proposal so he thought making the purchase options available was a good idea and liked the idea of offering them to the tenants first, followed by a general offering. He thought there was momentum for development downtown, as illustrated by the discussions that occurred during the ballot measure campaign. Mr. Poling recalled his interest in including the Roberts/Taco Time building in the initial West Broadway development proposal but believed if the City offered the options it would have essentially the same effect. th Mr. Zelenka determined from Mr. Braud that the Bradford’s building was not included in the 10 Avenue and Charnelton RFP. Mr. Braud said the City had referenced its control of the surface parking lot in the RFP but did not market the Bradford’s building as part of the RFP. The goal was to offer a complete half- th block. Mr. Zelenka asked if it was possible to include parking for the business in the 10 and Charnelton RFP to allow it to maintain the limited amount of parking it had. Mr. Braud said the City did not know the nature of the parking need for what would be constructed; he pointed out that it could be underground. Mr. Zelenka suggested that staff, through the RFP, could ask respondents to discuss how they would replace Bradford’s parking. Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Braud that all the options were voluntarily negotiated with the owners, who agreed to the prices paid. Mr. Zelenka said the City had $344,000 invested in the purchase options, and if the City could recover all or most of that money or even make money, it would be great. He asked City Attorney Klein to speak to the restrictions Ms. Bettman mentioned. City Attorney Klein thought the City could accomplish those things legally through a separate agreement that followed the property, but he would have to check with his firm’s real estate expert. He said such an agreement would have to be carefully crafted, and if the council gave him direction, he would attempt to do so. Mr. Zelenka said demolition of the building with the goal of immediate redevelopment would be acceptable, but he did not want to see an empty site. He thought the action contemplated by the council was in keeping with the message he received from the public’s vote in regard to a reduced government role in downtown development. Mr. Zelenka asked Beam’s progress in reassessing the Center Court Building. Mr. Braud said the company was moving forward with the project and was talking to potential tenants. Engineers had gone over the space but he had heard nothing negative as a result of those studies. Everything he had heard was encouraging. Ms. Solomon thought restricting people in what they could do was a “real low vision” approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Solomon asked how dependent Beam was on ORI for the project. Mr. Braud said ORI was looking at other sites and had not made a decision. Beam and City staff had been encouraged by ORI’s interest in the project and was working to facilitate it. Beam was also talking to other potential anchor tenants. He confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, that the Washburne Building was also part of the project. Ms. Solomon said she would like to get rid of as many purchase options as possible to save the City money. Ms. Solomon said she had not seen an analysis of the proposed land exchange with Diamond Parking. She said that currently the City-owned parking lot was generating revenues for the City and now it would not. Mr. Braud said the primary obstacle in negotiating with Diamond Parking was that it was not interested in selling any of its property and in fact had the reputation of never disposing of property, but the company was willing to entertain an exchange of land. Diamond had expressed a high level of interest in the City- owned parking lot because the company was in the parking business. He acknowledged the parking lot did well. He clarified that the cash and property exchange were based on the same type of price the City offered for the other buildings on the block. Mr. Pryor liked the idea of assigning the purchase options as described and he liked the idea of placing some conditions on the sale of the options, though not many. He wanted to maintain a “light touch” that kept the momentum going in the downtown area. He regretted Diamond Parking was not willing to sell its property. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the agency director to solicit offers from parties interested in an assignment of the purchase options not being exercised by the URA. th Ms. Bettman said that Mr. Braud compared the property at 12 Avenue and Oak Street with the other properties, even though that property was not an income-producing property. The City had no appraisal on it and it was not valued as income-producing. Mr. Braud clarified that that the Diamond and Bradford properties were both income-producing properties. He said that staff had talked to appraisers to establish the value of both of the properties, and because the properties were not equivalent in value, Diamond would also receive a cash payment. Ms. Bettman said if the City did not assign the options, it was not as though the properties could not be purchased on the private market. The issue was how deeply the City Council wanted the City involved in the private market. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment that stated the first right of refusal was to existing tenants, who could assume the existing options for the option cost. She clarified that the City would not attempt to make money off those tenants; even if they were not the highest bidders, they would be allowed to assume the existing option at the option cost. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein about including a provision in the motion that prohibited demolish- ing properties without redevelopment within a specific time frame. There would also have to be a remedy, such as the property reverting back to the City. Those constraints would apply to existing tenants as well as other parties. In addition, the properties involved could not be used for surface parking. Mr. Pryor was willing to accept those points for inclusion in the motion but wanted more certainty about the time frame involved for demolishing and rebuilding. Ms. Bettman agreed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 6 Work Session City Attorney Klein pointed out the properties would revert back to the property owners, not to the City, as the City held only the options. City Attorney Klein indicated his office would prepare text for the council to consider on February 13. Ms. Bettman said a council priority was having more people downtown, which meant housing. She asked if there was a way to create a weighted formula for awarding the purchase options that would favor housing. She said she would be willing to transfer the options at no cost if the result was a predominance of housing in a development. Mayor Piercy summarized the motion on the floor as amended through the discussion, saying the council had agreed to direct the agency director to come back with a proposal for the solicitation of offers. Ms. Bettman said another downside to the approach being proposed was that the City could be in the position that individuals already holding large blocks of property downtown could buy the options and further consolidate their holdings and then do nothing with their properties. She determined from Mr. Braud that the Connor-Wooley partnership had not contacted the City about the purchase options. She asked how the City could avoid the risk of further consolidation. City Manager pro tem Jones suggested there was nothing to preclude that from happening now because once the options expired, Connor-Wooley could readily purchase them from their owners. Ms. Bettman asked City Attorney Klein to return with a motion that stated the intent of the council was not to allow further consolidation of properties. City Attorney Klein said he would return with either the text requested or a legal opinion. Ms. Bettman determined that Mr. Pryor declined to accept an amendment related to consolidation of properties as a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor. Ms. Bettman moved that the assignment of the options be carried out in such a way as to avoid consolidation of properties to more than 25 percent of the footprint in a single owner- ship. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman supported the motion on the floor in order to see what staff developed. However, that did not guarantee her future support. Mr. Zelenka asked if the City had the discretion to assign the purchase options. City Manager pro tem Jones said yes. She believed that at a minimum, the City could turn down an offer. Ms. Taylor was not willing to do anything to force the business owners to give up their businesses. She thought some of the prices for the properties the City held options on were outrageous and suggested the current tenants would not be able to afford to buy them at those prices. City Attorney Klein restated the motion: To direct the agency director to bring back to the URA as soon as possible a methodology for soliciting offers from parties interested in assignment of the purchase options not be- MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 7 Work Session ing exercised by the URA with the first right to acquire the option to the tenant for the value that the URA paid for the option, and if the tenant was not interested, to solicit of- fers from others with some kind of provision that provides for a reasonable time frame for redevelopment after any demolition, with serious consequences if that redevelopment does not occur. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the URA and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to convey owner- ship of the City-owned parking lot identified in Attachment C to Diamond Parking as par- tial compensation for the URA’s acquisition of the property identified as Property #4 in At- tachment A. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Braud described the appraisal methodology and clarified that the City did not actually commission a formal appraisal for the property. Ms. Solomon asked why a formal appraisal of Property #4 was not done. Mr. Braud said the City did formal appraisals on all properties in the redevelopment area and had information on downtown property land values and assumed the two lots were fairly equivalent in value. He had also talked to some real estate professionals about those values. He acknowledged the company was not easy to deal with and the transaction might not be a real market value transaction. Ms. Solomon was not comfortable with the lack of an appraisal and could not support the transaction as proposed. Speaking to Ms. Solomon’s remarks, Ms. Bettman pointed out the URA spending limit expansion and entire West Broadway development proposal were based on purchase options that were acquired without formal appraisals. That entire process occurred without appraisals. If the City “stopped the clock now” to get an appraisal, it would lose the property. The motion passed unanimously, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. C. WORK SESSION: City of Eugene Elections Code Revision City Recorder Mary Feldman was present for the item. She distributed a matrix noting the change being proposed to the Elections Code, the nature of the change, and the reason for the change. She said the changes were intended to clarify confusing provisions, correct grammatical errors, and reorder the code sections to chronologically reflect the process people were expected to pursue. She identified Section 2.977, Section 2.980, Section 2.981, Section 2.993, and Section 2.994 as sections the council might wish to discuss further for their policy implications. Ms. Feldman said nothing in the changes being proposed would affect the May 2008 election or the voters’ pamphlet for that election. Mayor Piercy solicited questions. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested the code lacked definitions as it referred to “election” without being specific as to whether the election in question was a “special,” “primary” or “general” election. That either meant any election or that the council could choose any date and hold an election. In addition, on page 8 of the draft ordinance, where it spoke to the need for the City Recorder to determine “immediately” whether the submitted petition was in proper form, “immediately” was not defined. Ms. Feldman said that usually occurred at the time of petition submission, when she met with the petitioners personally. She would make that clear. Speaking to the lack of a definition for “special” elections, etc., Ms. Feldman noted the four election dates provided by State law. Any election held on one of those dates in any year other than the regularly scheduled general or primary election year was considered a “special” election. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said the reference to “special” election was deleted because staff considered it confusing. Ms. Bettman said that people think in terms of primary elections, or special elections, and suggested that “election” could be defined as discussed by Ms. Feldman. Speaking to Section 2.977, Ms. Bettman said the downside of the provision was that there was more expense in going to Circuit Court for the public if a resident disagreed with a ballot title. The upside was that the court was a more objective forum for argument. City Attorney Lidz clarified that individuals could represent themselves on such a matter before a Circuit Court judge. Referring to Section 2.979(2), Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Feldman that State law did not provide for an appeal process for a statistical signature sampling method. City Attorney Lidz clarified that there was a State requirement that a second sampling would be done to confirm the results of the first sampling. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about Section 2.981, Ms. Feldman clarified that the council currently had the power to call an earlier election for a referendum. City Attorney Lidz said currently, a referendum election was held at the first election more than 90 days after the referendum was certified as having the appropriate number of signatures. The council had the ability to shorten the time period from 90 to 60 days, placing great pressure on the City Recorder’s Office. The proposed change would allow the council to make referendum elections more like initiative elections by giving the council the ability to wait until the next primary or general election to put the item on the ballot. Speaking to Section 2.981, Mr. Zelenka said without thwarting democracy and people’s right to petition, the council could increase voter turnout and avoid spending money for a standalone election in March. The council could have such an election in May, when it would be much cheaper. The public would still be able to vote, but it would be a more prudent business decision for the council. Ms. Bettman called for a provision that added text to the voters’ pamphlet that stated in the case of conflicting measures, whichever got the most votes, even if both passed, would prevail. Ms. Feldman acknowledged that such measures did not occur often. City Attorney Lidz suggested staff could amend the text in the ordinance related to the voters’ pamphlet to that effect. Ms. Bettman thought it should be made clear to the voters. Ms. Solomon referred to Section 2.994 and indicated she did not support the limit of 325 words for arguments submitted by the public. She pointed out there was extra room at the bottom of the page, and if people had something to say, they should be able to fill that space as well. She favored regulating font size, however, suggesting a font size of 9, 10, or 11. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Zelenka suggested that the text read “325 words or the space available.” Ms. Feldman observed that she had been contacted by members of the public with a lot to say who asked if they could use 4 point type, which she felt would be unreadable but which was not currently precluded by code.. City Attorney Lidz was unsure that font sizes were specifically standardized to last the test of time; if that was the case, he believed the City could specify a font size. Mr. Pryor suggested that for the sake of consistency, there be some word limit. He noted the State limited the number of words that could be used. He did not want to limit the ability of people to express their opinions, but he believed a word limit was needed. Mayor Piercy asked about the State word limit. Mr. Pryor suggested the City’s limit be consistent with the State’s word limit. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Pryor about the word count. She said if there was still room on the page after it contained 325 words, staff could determine how many more words would reasonably fit in and still be readable. Ms. Bettman said she did not think the council should have the discretion to not produce a voters’ pamphlet in conjunction with City elections. In situations where there were just EWEB candidates on the ballot, she asked if there was a way to require voters’ pamphlets for such elections. Ms. Feldman said yes, if the council was willing to spend the money. Ms. Bettman thought that it was important to have pamphlets for such races given how disengaged people were and how important such races were. She indicated she would give the issue some thought. Ms. Feldman asked if Ms. Betttman’s focus was on contested races. Ms. Bettman said yes. Ms. Feldman clarified that the City did not have discretion to not have a voter’s pamphlet when it had a measure on the ballot; the City only had discretion when there was an election with no City measures. Only candidates in municipalities of 50,000 or greater could participate in the State voter’s pamphlet and special districts were not included. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a way to require a voters’ pamphlet for such elections. Ms. Feldman said yes, if the council wanted to pay for the pamphlets. Ms. Bettman supported voters’ pamphlets for such things as Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners’ races and indicated she would be considering text to that effect. Speaking to Section 2.994, Ms. Bettman suggested that the “ballot title” be defined in the glossary because it was news to her that the ballot title included the question, the summary, and the caption. She suggested those terms should be defined in the glossary as well. Referring to Section 2.996, Ms. Bettman asked if staff was proposing to change 54 days to 56 days for the deadline. Ms. Feldman said that 54 days appeared to be “taken out of the air.” Fifty-six days constituted eight weeks, and it was easier to think in terms of weeks and easier to reference. Mr. Zelenka asked how much it would cost to send a voters’ pamphlet for EWEB races to all residents in the case of a contested at-large commission seat. Ms. Feldman indicated she would have to calculate that cost. Mr. Zelenka asked if EWEB could underwrite the cost. Ms. Feldman said the school districts pay their per-page cost on a voluntary basis. She said that option could also be suggested to EWEB. Mr. Zelenka thought that made sense. He said that EWEB could make that choice, and he did not think the City should have to pay for it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Referring to Section 2.996, Ms. Bettman recommended the addition of a provision that proscribed how the City accepted arguments for inclusion in the voters’ pamphlet in terms of their order of appearance. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.997 and asked for a provision that stated the City voters’ pamphlet would be mailed no later than the day the ballots were mailed. Ms. Feldman noted that the ballots were mailed thth between the 18 and 14 day before the election. Ms. Bettman wanted similar text. Ms. Feldman said the City might want to look at the deadlines for submitting materials and candidate’s statements as well. Ms. Bettman did not think it made sense for people to be able to vote before they had received the pamphlet. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 11, 2008 Page 11 Work Session