Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/09/08 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 9, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Evaluation City Manager Pro Tem Angel Jones said Recruitment and Selections Manager for the Human Resources Division, Alana Holmes, would be presenting the information. She indicated that most of the evaluations handed in to date along with additional information received earlier in the week had been distributed to the councilors. Ms. Holmes reviewed the attachments provided to councilors which included the completed evaluations from the council and the Civilian Review Board (CRB), the Police Auditor’s self evaluation, and information on the salary scale for the position. She provided the council with a revised copy including additional comments received to the present date. Mayor Piercy commended the effort Police Auditor Cristina Beamud had engaged in to create a new office. She appreciated the amount of work it had been and the commitment to the process that Ms. Beamud had exhibited. Ms. Beamud acknowledged the feedback she had received and expressed appreciation for all of the comments. She noted the desire on the part of some councilors for more reporting to the council and indicated her willingness to comply. Mayor Piercy listed some of the things on which Ms. Beamud had been rated, such as the setting up of the office, the hiring of staff, bargaining with the Eugene Police Employees Association (EPEA), and the development of the complaint intake process among others. Mr. Clark indicated his preference for receiving reports every other month. He looked forward to having the Police Auditor’s office more settled. He added his feeling that Ms. Beamud was in a unique position to help the Eugene Police Department (EPD). MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked to have a primer on the tracking system the auditor’s office used. She added her commendation for Ms. Beamud’s good work and thanked her. She had been pleased with the feedback and approved of the goals set for next year. She felt Ms. Beamud had skillfully navigated issues. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Holmes how the City handled step increases. She noted that Ms. Beamud’s hire date had been October, 2006. Ms. Holmes replied that the City tried to issue merit raises based on the hire date but was behind. She indicated that Ms. Beamud would receive any pay increase retroactive to her one- year anniversary. She said a one-step increase was typical of a ‘meets expectations’ rating. Mr. Pryor echoed the positive comments that had been expressed. He averred that Ms. Beamud had “really stepped in” and taken charge. He had been impressed by her accessibility, noting he was able to call her and get questions answered anytime. He observed that the CRB had not given Ms. Beamud any “bad marks.” Regarding compensation, he supported adhering to the step system consistent with the rest of the City. He acknowledged that it had been more than a year but said he was mollified by having the step increase be retroactive. Ms. Taylor said she did not fill out an evaluation form because she did not know enough about the auditor’s work to evaluate her. She requested quarterly reports. She wanted to know what complaints were submitted and which ones the office refused to address. Ms. Beamud reiterated her commitment to provide reports at regular intervals. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged the “tough job” Ms. Beamud had undertaken. He had also found her to be highly accessible; all of his questions had been answered as well. He had been impressed by the CRB’s comments. He concurred with the request to have reports from the Police Auditor’s office every other month. He believed that monthly reports would be too frequent and quarterly reports would be too few. He recommended the council schedule a discussion on what it wanted to see in such a report. Ms. Ortiz agreed with most of what had been said. She appreciated that Ms. Beamud undertook outreach to the communities. She also liked that Ms. Beamud placed statistics from the office on the Web. She was happy with her work, but she also wanted more reports on it. She supported granting a one-step merit increase retroactive to October. Mayor Piercy ascertained from Ms. Beamud that she did not have any further questions or need for direction. Mr. Zelenka remarked that some concerns regarding Ms. Beamud’s “style” had been voiced. Ms. Beamud responded that it was one thing she had tried to work on. She noted that in her search for a Deputy Police Auditor she had been seeking someone to complement her. Mr. Zelenka asked what the timeline was for that hiring process. Ms. Beamud replied that she had interviewed applicants for the position one week earlier and made an offer. She said the background check would begin on the following day. Ms. Bettman attributed Ms. Beamud’s style to having been raised on the east coast. She added her hope that the motion would include language indicating that the second merit step increase would happen in October, 2008. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adjust the Police Auditor’s salary to Step 4 of her salary range and to make that step retroactive to her anniversary date and that the Po- lice Auditor’s salary should be increased to Step 5 after the next anniversary date in Octo- ber, 2008, independent of an evaluation. Mr. Clark agreed with much of what had been said around the table. He had some discomfort, however, with providing an automatic step increase without an evaluation. Ms. Taylor asked why they were skipping Steps 1 and 2. Mr. Zelenka clarified that Ms. Beamud had started at Step 3. Ms. Ortiz hoped the evaluation process would be completed in a timely fashion. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment that would commit to an evaluation process for Ms. Beamud prior to October 16, 2008, and grant the step-increase after that process. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman did not accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to amend the motion to include the language from his previously offered friendly amendment. Ms. Solomon found the notion of approving a raise without an evaluation process troubling. She under- scored that the council controlled the schedule and could direct staff to set a date and stick to it. Ms. Bettman thought an automatic step-increase was justified because the council was conducting the evaluation process so late that the auditor was half-way to the next evaluation. Ms. Taylor agreed that October was coming up soon. She thought evaluations did get pushed out because of how busy the schedule tended to be. She averred that the council should try to do the evaluation sooner, adding that she would not support the amendment. Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ms. Beamud or the job she was doing; it was about fiscal prudence. He pointed out that they would not do this for another employee, such as the City Manager. Mr. Pryor observed that there were two competing interests – insuring that the Police Auditor received her merit increases on her anniversary date and that merit increases should be tied to performance evaluation. He said for this reason the two could not be done six months apart. He was amenable to engaging in another evaluation process in October. Mr. Zelenka was also amenable to the amendment. He had no problem with conducting an evaluation in six months. He urged his colleagues and staff to “stick to [their] guns” and make it happen on time. Ms. Holmes reminded the council that there was a commitment made at the March 10 work session that she and Ms. Beamud would meet with the CRB to flesh out some recommendations to bring back to the council for the next evaluation process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 3 Work Session In response to a question form Ms. Bettman, Ms. Holmes explained that the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) increase was given automatically in the summer. The amendment passed, 4:3; Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Zelenka asked when the other employee evaluations would be undertaken. Ms. Holmes replied that she would provide that information to the councilors. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: Lane County Budget Issues Mayor Piercy welcomed Faye Stewart, Chair of the Lane Board of County Commissioners, to the table and expressed the council’s appreciation for his willingness to join them. Ms. Jones explained that Mr. Stewart was present as a follow-up to the request for a report on the county budget made by the City Council at the Joint Elected Officials meeting held on February 12. Mr. Stewart thanked the council for the opportunity. He noted that he had provided hard copies of the information to the councilors and ascertained they had received them. He said the Board had asked staff to prepare three budgets, one with renewal of the “Save Our Rural Schools” funding which would hold services at the current level, one that averaged the drawdown that would happen over the course of three years that was included in the proposed Wyden-DeFazio four-year extension of the act, and one that addressed a $50 million loss to the budget. He explained that the money was specified so that approximately $20 million went into the General Fund budget, comprising approximately one-third of that budget, and the remainder was allocated to the Public Works Department for road funds. He stated that the latter was mandated to be spent on the transportation system. Mr. Stewart reported that during the United Front lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., also attended by Mayor Piercy and Ms. Taylor, he met with Senator Reid’s office and also with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office. He had heard from both of them that they were not certain of the timeline for reauthorization of the funding or if it would be reauthorized at all. He related that concern had been expressed in the Speaker’s office regarding how long the need for this funding would continue, given that the act had been designed to be a transition from the timber harvest payments to something else. He stated that on the senate side there was not a level of support in the Senate to attach the funding to any type of bill or pass it if it was included in a bill. He said since his trip it looked like the only vehicle that could help the County prior to July 1 was the supplemental war funding, which was being worked on by both houses. The County had not heard confirmation that the funding would be proposed to be renewed as part of that budget, but the commissioners had been encouraged with recent news that the House of Representatives bill could include a one-year extension of the payments and the Senate bill could include the proposal for the four-year drawdown level of funding. He stressed that it was already April 9 and there was no bill moving forward at this time. He noted that at this same time last year the bill was in the house and had been voted on, though the President vetoed it. Mr. Stewart stated that the County was required to have a balanced budget by July 1 and because no funding was imminent they were forced to prepare to downsize the county services. He provided a report on the potential ramifications. He related that because Lane County had $37 million in reserves for the Public Works Department transportation funds the County would be able to keep those funds whole for three years. He added that in the 2007 session of the State legislature Lane County had been able to gain $9.9 million in road funds. He said they were optimistic that in the 2009 legislative session the County would be able to gain more relief for road funds. Continuing, Mr. Stewart reported that there were no reserve funds that could accommodate the loss to the General Fund and it would have to downsize. He explained that approximately 67 percent of the General Fund went into the public safety system, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO), the District Attorney (DA), Department of Youth Services (DYS) and associated programs. He said the remainder of the money went into the reserve fund at a level of 10 percent of the General Fund balance in order to keep the bond MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 5 Work Session indebtedness and keep the bond rating up. He stated that the County was also mandated by law to maintain elections funding and to pay for assessment and taxation. He underscored that nearly two-thirds of the services funded by the General Fund were mandated by law and the County would no longer be possible to meet those mandates and maintain the budget after July 1. Mr. Stewart highlighted the draft budget in the current iteration, planning for no renewal of the funds, as follows: ? In fiscal year (FY) 07-08 the County had $540 million budget. A budget of $455 million is pro- jected for FY 08-09. ? In 2007 the County employed 1,507 people. In 2008 the workforce will be reduced by 12.5 percent or 188 employees. The County provided a ratio of 6.4 employees per 1,000 residents in 1979-80; the budget for FY08-09 will provide a ratio of 3.8 employees per 1,000 residents. Regarding the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), he reported the following budget reductions: ? The budget will be reduced by $26 million from $85 million, a “huge reduction in human services.” Approximately 40 employees will be laid off. ? The Commission on Children and Families will be reduced by $81,000 and 1.5 Full Time Equiva- lent (FTE) employees. He noted that the position specifically considered for reduction was the one dedicated to searching out and applying for grants. In 2007 this position brought $200,000 to the department. Regarding the budget for public safety he highlighted the following reductions: ? The LCSO budget will be reduced by $15 million, or 23 percent of its budget. This budget would potentially cause a reduction of 126 employees. ? Jail beds in the Lane County Jail would be reduced from 151 beds to 12. ? Sheriff’s patrol capability would be reduced from 24 hours to 20 hours per day. ? The DA’s Office will be reduced by $620,000, or nearly 7 percent. Staff would be reduced by seven and fewer cases will be prosecuted. ? The DYS will lose $1 million, almost 11 percent of its budget, eliminating 16 youth beds for in- house treatment for alcohol and drug abuse, as well as outpatient treatment programs. ? The Buckley House will no longer be funded and the service it provides for alcoholics will be lost. ? Veteran’s services funded by the County will be reduced. ? Funds for low-income housing will be reduced. He stressed that these cuts will have direct impacts on all of the citizens of the County and the citizens the council served in the City of Eugene. Mr. Stewart related that in the first attempt at prioritization of the list it had appeared that the program for Women Infants and Children (WIC) would have to be cut along with the communicable disease program and a health services program for high-risk pregnant women and infants. He explained that this would mean the County would have given up serving as the public health authority. He reported that the County Adminis- trator had been able, in working with the budget, to find enough money to add those programs back. He noted that one consequence of relinquishing this authority was that the State would assume those responsi- bilities and then would bill the County for them. He averred that the County would then be in another losing situation. Mr. Stewart stated that the Board would be engaging in a “pretty aggressive budget process” that would begin on April 29 and would continue in budget meetings to be held on Tuesdays and Thursdays through the end of May. He added that once the budget was prepared and ready to send to the Commissioners for MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 6 Work Session adoption, the Board would engage in public outreach to the citizens in Florence, Cottage Grove, and Pleasant Hill in order to explain the budget to citizens. Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. He commented that he was “at a loss to see this coming to an unfortunate reality.” He asked what the City’s response could be. He wondered if the City could increase the number of beds it rented from the jail and how much this would cost. Mr. Stewart replied that the Sheriff was looking for ways to creatively keep more than 12 beds through the budget. He said one of the outcomes of the Joint Elected Officials meeting was a desire to conserve public safety. He had scheduled a meeting with the police chiefs, fire chiefs, district attorneys, mayors, and administrators to look at opportunities for ways to address this situation that could be presented to elected officials. He stated that there were different steps that could add beds back, with the first step adding 61 beds back to the jail for $150,000. He thought there would be opportunities for cities to step up and offer to buy beds. Mr. Clark related that he had spoken with Eugene Police Department (EPD) Chief Bob Lehner about the possibility of hiring some of the LCSO staff that would be laid off. He asked how many sworn officers the 126 employees included. Mr. Stewart responded that he was not certain. Mr. Clark wondered how many of those officers the City could absorb. Mr. Clark asked what date lay off notices would have to be provided to staff. Mr. Stewart replied that he had been told that the process could not be started any later than June. Ms. Taylor asked why the grant writing position was not being retained for the Commission on Children and Families. Mr. Stewart responded that the commissioners and staff had been forced to look down the list as to where to make cuts and the determining factor was whether something generated revenue and paid for itself. He explained that though the grant writing position brought in money for programs, the position did not pay for itself. Ms. Taylor asked if there were any potential taxes that could be exacted. Mr. Stewart replied that the County could not raise taxes without a vote, it could only increase fees. He added that the timeline for placing a tax measure on the ballot was such that it would be impossible to put one on the May ballot. Ms. Taylor asked if private timber harvest could be taxed. Mr. Stewart did not know whether the County could impose such a tax legally. Ms. Taylor asserted that the money for those timber interests did not come back to the County. Mr. Stewart responded that he believed the money did come back to the County through different programs but he was not certain of the amount. He said citizens had brought this before the Board as a suggestion and a “colleague or two” of his had some interest in the item. Mr. Zelenka asked for a clarification on why, historically, the property tax rate in Lane County was low and why it could not be increased. Mr. Stewart confirmed that Lane County assessed taxes at a rate of $1.28 per $1,000 assessed value of real property while the majority of counties in Oregon assessed a rate of $3 to $4.50 per $1,000 assessed value. He explained that when Lane County could have increased its property tax rate it did not do so because no one had foreseen the drop in the timber economy and then Ballot Measures 47 and 50 had locked the rate at that level and made it so the only way it could be changed was through a vote. Mr. Zelenka asked how many counties there were in Oregon. Mr. Stewart replied that there were 36; Lane County was among the poorest, with only Curry and Josephine counties below it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Stewart’s lobbying efforts at the state and federal levels to restore the funds. She observed that the federal revenue measure was for $47 million and asked if $7 million of it was dedicated for schools. Mr. Stewart responded that this was approximately correct, noting that there was a little more funding because of Title 2 and Title 3 money that paid for the jail, though the Forest Work Camp was not included. He said in looking what Lane County benefited from, it amounted to approximately $51 million and there would be approximately a $7 million loss to local schools. Ms. Bettman had heard that the FY 08-09 budget for the County would be cut by $83 million and asked why this amount was different from the $47 million loss in federal money. Mr. Stewart explained that the federal money was utilized to leverage matching funds in the DHHS. He stated that the County was only cutting the General Fund portion of health and human services by approximately $3 million, but that money leveraged approximately $26 million. Ms. Bettman asserted that there were areas of revenue available to the County that the County was not receiving at the state level. She asked how the County felt about lobbying to remove the prohibition on recovering Systems Development Charges (SDCs) on public safety. Mr. Stewart responded that he had not personally engaged in a conversation about SDCs for public safety. He knew that the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and specifically the 16 affected counties were working hard to address the funding issues. He related that there was a task force convened by the Governor that was looking for revenue opportunities. He said the assessors organization had looked at how the County could increase money coming from the state through property tax interest rates and how more money could be leveraged to offset the cost of property tax collection in Eugene and Lane County. He underscored that they were working closely with the State to see how they could lobby in the future to make up the difference. Ms. Bettman averred that the County had the ability to charge SDCs for transportation and parks but was not doing so. Mr. Stewart replied that the County was collecting SDCs for parks in rural Lane County. He said staff was working on transportation SDCs. Ms. Bettman asked how much revenue the County annually deferred for urban renewal districts, Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemptions (MUPTEs), and Enterprise Zones. Mr. Stewart responded that he did not know what that amount would be. Ms. Bettman declared that when she “did the research” for the urban renewal measure she had concluded that the County would lose $3 million per year. She noted that it had endorsed an Enterprise Zone that she projected would defer approximately $475,000 per year in tax revenue. She wondered why the County had not “gotten serious” about looking at collecting “the revenue that was due” to it. Mr. Stewart replied that if Ms. Bettman was referring to the zone in Oakridge, it had been in place for 11 years, no revenue had been generated, and therefore there had been no property tax reduction. Ms. Ortiz thanked Mr. Stewart for his presentation. She remarked that it was difficult to consider the impacts of the budget on our future. She averred that people did not realize that organizations like the Buckley House had an impact on the community. She wondered if the Buckley House had any grant writing opportunities. She underscored that Buckley House was the only place an uninsured person with an alcohol or drug problem could go to. She predicted that citizens would notice its closure because the people it treated would be out on the street. Ms. Ortiz asked if the County had considered selling any excess properties. Mr. Stewart replied that such sales had been discussed at a low level by the Board. He underscored that it would not be prudent to sell an MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 8 Work Session asset just to pay an operating expense. He said they were definitely discussing the concept of selling an asset to pay down a liability, which would lower operating costs. He stated that commissioners had given direction to administrative staff that if a payment was received after the fact, with the cuts already made, to consider whether money should be applied to pay down long-term debt with the goal of stabilizing the organization in the long-term. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the sale of an asset, such as the fair grounds, would not solve the long-term issue that the loss of the timber money presented. He understood the County was not just facing a “hump,” rather what was ahead was a “plateau that would go on for a long time.” He also understood that Washington, D.C. could not be counted on. He observed that the discussion of SDCs should acknowledge that they could only be used for new capacity and could not be utilized to preserve existing programs. He did not know what ability the County would have to preserve what was in place with SDCs. Mr. Stewart affirmed that the constraints on SDCs were the same for the County as they were for the City. He stated that it would not be an area that could solve the operating deficiency without a legislative change. Mr. Stewart related that in the conversations he had in Washington, D.C. it had been made clear to him that the program would go away, that it had never been intended as a long-term solution to the funding issue. He said it was stressed to him that if an extension was granted it would be short-term. He reiterated that if they did receive the payment, they had to consider whether it would be more prudent to pay down the operating expenses to bring the County to a level where instead of continuing to make cuts, the organization could be stabilized. Mr. Clark commented that a lot of people had known “this day of reckoning” was coming. He averred that the only responsible thing to do would be to begin to look at this in creative, innovative ways. He felt the people had spoken clearly on potential revenue increases to the County and he did not believe this was an open question anymore. He wanted to focus on ways the City could help the County. He related that the DA’s office had indicated it needed 32 staff members for its typical case load, which was why they had ceased to prosecute many crimes. He asked whether the DA had given an indication of which things they would have to stop prosecuting with the further staff reduction of seven positions. Mr. Stewart replied that the Board had not received this input from the DA at this time. Mr. Clark encouraged the council and staff to begin conversations about the sorts of things the City could take over in terms of prosecution. He related that the Human Right Commission (HRC) had held a scoping conversation on hate crimes and potential changes to the city code. He said out of this conversation had arisen the idea that if the City duplicated some of the state level statutes regarding hate crimes, its prosecutor could begin to do some things at the city level that could potentially reduce the load on the County. He reiterated his request for information on what the City could buy in terms of jail beds and assimilating officers from the LCSO. Ms. Jones pointed out that city staff had been having some of those conversations with the County in an effort to explore how they could do things differently and creatively. She underscored that she did not want to send a message that the City of Eugene had ample resources to address the holes in the county budget. She said the City was not too far from the County and would have to look at how it would reshuffle the services it provided in a couple more years. Ms. Taylor asked if the County would consider changing its policy of approving Enterprise Zones and urban renewal districts in the face of the looming shortfall. Mr. Stewart replied that it was highly likely that if another one of those mechanisms came before the County it would be considered differently. He stressed MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 9 Work Session that the County was a cooperator with its fellow jurisdictions and did not propose them, cities came to them proposing the development tool. Ms. Taylor did not perceive the county payments as a gift, rather she considered it an entitlement. She noted that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had voiced that same opinion. She asked how much of Lane County was federal land and generated no tax revenue. Mr. Stewart responded that 54 percent of Lane County was federally owned. Ms. Bettman accepted the fact that the County was facing a crisis. She wanted to find long-term solutions. She noted the failure of recent county revenue measures. She opined that she had seen a lot of expenditures on the part of the county that she questioned. She related that there had been over 900 appeals to property taxes and 300 of them had been granted, which was a net reduction in revenue. She felt the people collecting the appeals were getting “astronomical amount of interest” on the tax money. She averred that this was a waste of money. In terms of SDCs, she reiterated that SDCs did provide a funding source for when new capacity for transportation or parks was needed. She declared that utilizing SDCs meant the money for such projects was not coming out of other funds. She also questioned the resolution the County was considering that would take on permitting and code enforcement in the Urban Transition area as she felt it would be an additional service for the County to provide that would cost the County money. Regarding the latter, Mr. Stewart clarified for Ms. Bettman that the land management division was solely fee based and the citizens applying for zoning changes and building permits and other actions would pay the cost to do so. He acknowledged concerns expressed by citizens regarding a potential adjustment in that agreement, adding that he would not say the County was ready to move on the matter. Mr. Zelenka asked if alternative funding sources for human services had been looked into. Mr. Stewart replied that they had not considered this at the Board level but he had worked with Executive Director for the Department of Human Services, Steve Manela on the possibility of a levy to help pay for the human services portion of the budget. Mr. Zelenka commented that he would support such a levy. Mr. Stewart said when facing a crisis one does what one can. He stressed that the income tax measure that had been posed had been based on the critical need to provide essential services. He had wanted to fix the whole problem at one time. He stressed that if the cuts came the County would have to suffer because there would not be a “miracle fix” for it. He predicted that what would happen was that the County would assess whether there would be any help from the State and then how to move forward from there. He thought they would continue to work through the federal government with our congressional leaders to get the payment for the services provided on those lands. He said the other point that would have to be addressed was how they could incrementally go to the citizens to replace some of the losses ahead. Mr. Zelenka thought this was an appropriate way to look at the budget issue. He opined that it was “not an enviable place to be.” Mr. Stewart thanked the councilors for their thoughts and ideas. He said he would take them back to the Board of Commissioners. He was also thankful that the council grasped the level of concern as to what was going to happen and that they wanted to help. He understood that no one could stand up “with a bag full of money” but he thought there were ways to change processes and look for efficiencies that would lead to a solution. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy concurred. She said while the different jurisdictions had their own budgets and their own governments they still “all lived together.” She thanked Commissioner Stewart. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2008 Page 11 Work Session