Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 01/30/08 Work SessionM I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 30, 2008 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Mike Clark, Jennifer Solomon, Alan Zelenka. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Discussion of Priority Agenda Items for Joint Elected Officials Meeting pro tem City Manager Angel Jones said that staff had provided a list of priority topics and issues that the council might wish to consider when creating its list for the joint elected officials (JEO) meeting. She said there would not be enough time to discuss in depth any of the items, but the meeting would provide an opportunity to consider how Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County could move forward together on those items that were shared priorities. She hoped the council would also discuss its expectations for outcomes of the meeting. Mayor Piercy noted that Springfield's list included work on TransPlan and a discussion of the urban growth boundary, both of which were also important to Eugene and the County indicated an interest in discussing the relationship between the County and the cities in unincorporated areas, which was also of interest to Eugene. She said homelessness was a regional concern as was public safety, particularly with respect to the County's inability to provide some services. Ms. Taylor listed several issues of interest to her and having some regional significance, including urban renewal, preserving farmland, representation of citizen's outside the City, funding for road maintenance, homelessness, and perhaps the Rivers to Ridges effort. Mr. Clark said his four highest priorities were the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190 agreements and permitting responsibility in unincorporated areas, Metro Plan update, regional transportation planning, and long-term public safety planning and shared responsibilities. Ms. Bettman said there would be twelve priorities if each jurisdiction presented four and asked how that list pro tem would be winnowed down. City Manager Jones said that would be a subject for discussion during the JEO meeting; ideally the priorities that rose to the top would be those requiring jurisdictions to work together to address. She said one outcome of the meeting could be a work plan of next steps for addressing the entire list of priorities. Ms. Bettman said that some of the issues on Springfield's list had already been initiated by that city rendering those items out of date. She suggested adding the voting structure at the Metropolitan Policy Deleted: addressed so it was outdated Committee (MPC) to the list. She said the MPC was supposed to be for conflict resolution but did not have MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 1 Work Session the authority or a democratically representative voting structure and with the assumption of the metropolitan planning organization's (MPO) responsibility for regional transportation planning, the negative aspects of the voting structure were exacerbated. Ms. Bettman asserted that an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) was needed. She said creation of a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) was intended to be the citizen component required for an ACT. She said the CAC had been utterly marginalized to developing ways to increase citizen involvement instead of working with staff on transportation planning activities. She said Eugene had a larger population but any jurisdiction could veto it. She said another topic should be tax giveaways like urban renewal districts and enterprise zones. pro tem Ms. Ortiz thanked City Manager Jones for the list of suggested topics. She said it would be interesting to include race on the list and determine where other jurisdictions were with respect to their diversity plans. She agreed that transportation and homelessness should be on the list. She raised the issue of ambulance service areas (ASA), which were established by the County but served by the City. She said the City was compensated when people had insurance coverage, but if there was no insurance people were still transported to a City hospital for care. She hoped that issue could be discussed. Mr. Pryor said his priorities had to have a practical bearing and a need to be addressed immediately; those included Metro Plan and UGB decisions, ORS 190 agreements and consequences of abolishing the Boundary Commission. He said if there was time, transportation could also be addressed because it was very much a regional issue. Mr. Poling was pleased to see public safety among the topics and suggested that the ASA issue raised by Ms. Ortiz could be incorporated in that discussion. He hoped that jurisdictions could work together to improve public safety. He pointed to the collaboration of Eugene and Springfield fire departments as a good model. He supported including transportation funding, the Metro Plan, and UGB issues on the list. Mr. Zelenka listed the Metro Plan, the UGB, transportation, homelessness, and public safety as his priorities. Ms. Bettman stated that the County's reference to public safety meant reviving service districts. She said the council declined to create service districts for public safety in 2005 because Eugene's population would subsidize services outside of the City and within the County. She said creating a special district would give County commissioners additional taxing authority by making an "end run" around the vote on the income tax. Ms. Bettman stated that the County's reference to preserving farmland in the Jasper Extension/Natron area really meant adding 1,000 acres to the UGB. She said that would be within the City of Springfield's UGB Deleted: and would not affect Eugene meaning Eugene is not a decision maker. She did not see why it was on the list as it did not make any sense. She said the ORS 190 agreements were another item "clothed in mystery" because she could not imagine the County would want to assume responsibility for providing that service due to their financial crisis. She said it was a political issue and if people in that area felt they were disenfranchised they needed to talk to the County commissioners. Mayor Piercy clarified that in the JEO meeting process, each jurisdiction could present its issues from its own perspective. She said when she discussed public safety or planning issues it was from Eugene's point of MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 2 Work Session view, but other jurisdictions might have a different perspective and the purpose of meeting jointly was to identify how to work together to address common concerns. Mr. Poling agreed with Mayor Piercy. He said he understood the purpose of the work session was to develop Eugene's list of priorities, not criticize the lists of other jurisdictions. He said his interest in public safety was based on how jurisdictions could work together to improve the system and realize efficiencies, not create special districts. He said characterizing the issue that way and claiming it was an end run was unfair and missed the point of the work session. Mr. Clark thanked Ms. Bettman for her efforts to point out pitfalls in the process, but he did not see anything "cloak and dagger" about the County listing as a priority how to address the loss of $47 million in Federal funding. He said much of the County's public safety system directly affected Eugene citizens and many of the services the City relied upon, such as the jail, might be severely affected by the County's loss of revenue. He said all of the jurisdictions should discuss how to make the system better for everyone. Mr. Pryor asked if the law provided for the creation of a special purpose district that was governed by County commissioners. City Attorney Jerome Lidz replied that there were some such districts but he was not certain of the type. Mr. Pryor said rather than categorizing all special service districts as "evil" there should be more in-depth discussion of the types and functions of districts and whether it was worthwhile considering the concept. He said no jurisdiction operated in isolation and the County's loss of $47 million would affect many services regardless of where they were provided; Secure Rural Schools was not just the County's concern. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:25 p.m. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the County was interested in amendments to the Metro Plan to allow the creation of special districts. She said previously the County had in mind a public safety service district governed by the County commissioners and there were many downsides from the City taxpayers' point of view. She asserted that the process was inadequate because it did not allow time to discuss many of the issues on the list of suggested priorities. Ms. Bettman said she intended to move to include discussions of the MPC/MPO voting structure, creation of an ACT, and tax “giveaways” on Eugene's list. She asked if information could be provided on the amount of money the City of Eugene had not collected in taxes for all the different incentives like urban renewal districts, enterprise zones and multi-unit property tax exemptions (MUPTE) over the past five or six years. She wanted that information to include what the City was foregoing from schools for the $167 million that was taken away at the State level, including funds that were not coming through the County because of the incentives the County was participating in, and the total amount the County was foregoing pro tem due to tax giveaways. City Manager Jones replied that the information could be compiled but it would require a motion from the council to direct that it be provided, as it would require extensive staff time to research and compile. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to provide the infor- mation she had described to the council before the joint elected officials meeting oc- curred. pro tem City Manager Jones said she was not certain the information could be available by February 12. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Ortiz agreed the information would be useful, but was concerned about the burden it would place on staff resources. Mayor Piercy said the information request seemed to be placing the cart before the horse until there was agreement that a topic of discussion at the JEO meeting would be subsidies and urban renewal. She said if there was agreement, then staff from all three jurisdictions should be involved in developing the information. Mr. Clark said that several members of the council from both sides of the table and the mayor had articulated several priorities that were also articulated by Springfield and Lane County as subjects for discussion at the JEO meeting and that would be a productive use of everyone's time. He did not want to devalue the topics Ms. Bettman had raised, but was concerned about coming to the table and insisting on a discussion of issues that were not priorities for the other jurisdictions. He said that would not help build good relationships with those jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor agreed the information requested by Ms. Bettman was important, but he trusted the City Manager's sense of the staff's workload and felt that it would be premature to require the information at this point. He preferred to approach the issue in a more logical and thoughtful manner. He was prepared to move to support the City Manager's recommendations for a priority list. Ms. Taylor said that topics discussed at the JEO meeting should be ones that affected all jurisdictions and that would include urban renewal and protecting farmland. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the list of items recommended by the City Manager as Eugene's priorities for the joint elected officials meeting. Ms. Ortiz offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list a conversation on race and the memorandum of agreement signed by all jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka outlined four issues related to transportation planning and TransPlan: ? The disconnect between the federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and TransPlan because of different requirements and planning cycles ? The schedule for trying to bring the plans into sync and allocation of staff resources ? Revamping the public involvement aspect of transportation planning ? Local project prioritization criteria Mr. Poling offered a friendly amendment to include on the priorities list the topic of public safety and collaboration with other jurisdictions. Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amend- ment; Ms. Bettman declined to accept the amendment. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to include public safety on the priorities list. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman stated she would vote no on the motion because the City of Eugene was better positioned financially to take care of its residents and what was on the table from Lane County was specifically a special district. She said the fact that public safety would overlap with Lane County's desire to discuss special districts meant that issue would rise to the top of the list as a priority. She reiterated that special districts added layers of bureaucracy and administration, were divorced from direct representation and would badly disadvantage Eugene residents. Mr. Clark disagreed with Ms. Bettman's assertion that Eugene was better positioned to take care of the City's public safety needs than was the County. He pointed out that Eugene did not have a jail and if the County had to make the level of budget cuts it was anticipating, it would drastically impact the City of Eugene's public safety system. He was not interested in creating new ways to tax people but the conversa- tion with the County had to occur before the budget cycle or there would be very difficult decisions in July. He asked Mr. Pryor to restate the priority list. Mr. Pryor said the motion was for a list of priority topics that included 1) transportation plan- ning/TransPlan, 2) transportation funding, 3) homeless issues, 4) Metro Plan update/UGB, and 5) a conversation on race. Mr. Clark said he would like to see the ORS 190 agreements on the list, but realized the City could only have four topics. He understood the importance of the issues raised by Ms. Bettman, but urged modification of the rhetoric around MUPTE and other tax incentives. He said those programs were not tax giveaways and should not be referred to as such. pro tem City Manager Jones said the Springfield and Lane County lists were provided so that the council could reach consensus about how to make the meeting productive for everyone by looking at those issues that were shared across jurisdictions. She said that JEO meetings occurred periodically as jurisdictions wished to schedule them. Mr. Zelenka remarked that public safety was what each jurisdiction perceived it to be. He said the issue was how to deal with funding and coordination of the public safety system and favored having a conversa- tion about the broader issues. Ms. Solomon stated that public safety was very important to her constituents and citizens expected the council to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions to solve system-wide problems. She felt it was irresponsible to leave items off the list because of a supposition about other jurisdictions' actions or agendas. She favored having a system-wide discussion of public safety. The motion to amend passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to add ORS 190 agreements, to include a dis- cussion of permitting and service delivery in unincorporated areas, to the priorities list. Ms. Solomon commented that ORS 190 agreements would fall under the umbrella topic of the Metro Plan. Mr. Lidz agreed that the issue of what happened between city limits and the UGB was part of the Metro Plan discussion. Mr. Clark said his intent was to address the creation of a de facto situation in which a resident outside the City of Eugene but inside the UGB who was not in a position to annex, even voluntarily, because they were MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 5 Work Session not contiguous, would be unable to build on that property. He wanted to assure there was clear agreement between the County and the City about who was responsible for providing services inside the UGB. Mr. Pryor suggested that the issue could be addressed through a friendly amendment. Mr. Clark withdrew his motion and offered a friendly amendment to add ORS 190 agree- ments, to include a discussion of permitting and service delivery in unincorporated areas, as a discussion item under the Metro Plan topic. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Pryor also suggested that transportation planning, TransPlan and transportation funding could be merged into one topic. He said that would result in a priorities list of the following topics: ? Transportation (planning, funding, TransPlan) ? Metro Plan/UGB (including ORS 190 agreements, permitting and service delivery) ? Homeless issues ? Public safety ? Race issues Ms. Bettman said it appeared that Springfield believed the UGB could be split before any other steps. She pro tem asked if that issue would fall under the topic of Metro Plan/UGB. City Manager Jones said it would. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to add a discussion of creating an Area Commission on Transportation to the priorities list. Ms. Bettman said that this was the only region in the State that did not have an ACT. She said the planning standards and criteria for an ACT would bring the entire region together to look at funding and planning and the products that resulted from the process, which included stakeholders from many different venues, had a certain amount of credibility. She said the creation of the Citizen Advisory Committee was an end run around creating an ACT and the result was that there was still no citizen or stakeholder involvement. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition. The mayor cast a vote in favor of the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposi- tion. Mayor Piercy suggested that potential outcomes for the JEO meeting could be identifying the top priorities that the three jurisdictions wanted to consider and the order in which they should be addressed, work plans for each jurisdiction and the next steps to be taken. Ms. Bettman said that prioritizing the list should involve breaking it down into specifics before the JEO meeting. She said an issue for her was that Springfield intended to undertake certain tasks and provide Eugene with the findings, but she did not think constituents elected the council to delegate that authority to MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 6 Work Session another jurisdiction. She said the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield were separate entities and Eugene should take care of its own planning and implementation. Mr. Clark, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to spend no more than five minutes on the dis- cussion item. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. pro tem City Manager Jones explained that the chief executive officers from the three jurisdictions would meet prior to the JEO meeting to discuss process and outcomes based on feedback from their respective elected officials. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to remove from the table her motion direct- ing the City Manager to refrain from making any commitment that would jeopardize the City's ability to fund the acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties. Mr. Clark urged councilors not to remove the item from the table due to the shortness of time remaining in the work session unless there was time provided at the end of the meeting to consider the charter amendment already on the agenda. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to postpone until completion of Item B on the agenda. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The vote on the motion to remove from the table was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition. The mayor cast a vote in favor to the motion and it passed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Taylor's intent was to prevent the City Manager from making any decisions that would preclude the ability to purchase the Beverly and Green properties. Ms. Taylor confirmed that was the intent of her motion. Ms. Ortiz said it would be difficult for her to support the motion because it was too vague and virtually any action by the City Manager could be considered to affect the ability to purchase those properties. She would need more specificity about the funding sources before she could support the motion. pro tem City Manager Jones remarked that she was not certain what the motion was directing her to do, particularly in light of the fact that she was in negotiations for properties that had been specifically identified and approved by the voters as part of the parks bond measure. She said the funding sources that could potentially be affected by the motion included the General Fund, Facility Reserves, the Telecom Fund and other resources, and more specific direction was needed. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, called the question. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the motion was too broadly stated and could affect too many other issues, such as the Santa Clara community park and other acquisitions from parks bond proceeds. He felt bringing the City to a standstill for this one issue was somewhat extreme. Mr. Pryor agreed that the motion was too vague and general to provide direction to the City Manager. Mr. Zelenka said he trusted the City Manager understood the council's intent with respect to the Beverly and Green properties and the motion was not necessary, but it was important to provide clear direction. Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to direct the City Manager to preserve the ability of the City to fund the Beverly and Green properties. Ms. Taylor did not feel the additional language was necessary. pro tem City Manager Jones said the cost of one of the properties was still unknown and directing her not to spend resources for both of the properties was still vague because she did know what that amount would be or the source of funds. Mr. Lidz suggested specifying the amounts would be equal to the appraised value of the two properties to provide some guidelines. Mr. Zelenka revised his friendly amendment to direct the City Manager to preserve the ability of the City to fund acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties up to an amount equal to the appraised value of the two properties. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said the Beverly and Green properties were a higher priority for acquisition than two properties the City was considering that were outside the UGB. She surmised that voters did not anticipate buying property outside the UGB when they approved the parks bond measure. She asked if it was necessary to specifically identify park bond measure proceeds, stormwater acquisition funds and system development pro tem charges (SDCs) as funding sources to be preserved. City Manager Jones replied that those three sources had insufficient funds to acquire the Beverly and Green properties and the motion would also cover other funds. Ms. Ortiz said she would support the motion. Ms. Solomon thought that discussions of the two properties had been separated, particularly since the owners of the Green property were willing to negotiate with the City, which eliminated the need for eminent domain. She felt a discussion of funding sources was inappropriate while negotiations were ongoing and regretted that the impatience of one councilor to have a motion considered would bump an agenda item that had received a full poll. She would not support the motion. Mr. Clark hoped that the council would be willing to add time to the agenda to accommodate the item that might be supplanted; otherwise it was an affront to those councilors who signed the poll to place it on the agenda. He asked if the motion would require the City Manager to stop work on any current activities. City pro tem Manager Jones said it would not. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 8 Work Session Mayor Piercy said she supported Ms. Taylor's intention, but believed the City Manager was clear about the council's direction and would not support the motion. Ms. Taylor said a memorandum from the City Manager regarding parks bond measure proceeds that caused her concern prompted the motion and her intent was to prevent anything that would stop the acquisition of the Beverly and Green properties. Mayor Piercy reiterated that she was determined to continue to work toward acquisition of the properties, but could not agree with Ms. Taylor's motion. pro tem City Manager Jones said she had always been clear about the council's direction on the Beverly and Green properties and that was first and foremost in every action she took; however, she was also trying to address the community's wishes when the parks bond measure was approved. She said there was a list of potential funding sources for the properties outside of the three sources Ms. Bettman identified. She explained that the current negotiations equated to about $1.5 million and remaining funds were still available. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark voting in opposition and Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. B. WORK SESSION: Charter Amendment for Eminent Domain Procedures Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to refer to the voters a charter amendment that would require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council to adopt a condemnation ordinance or resolution. Speaking to the motion, Mr. Poling said that the subject of eminent domain had recently surfaced in the public's consciousness because of downtown redevelopment activities and the South Hills properties. He said eminent domain was a very heavy-handed tactic for taking people's property and was an added expense to taxpayers because of the legal issues involved. He wanted a charter amendment instead of an ordinance to ensure the requirement could not be easily changed by the council in the future and would require another public vote. He said the City had used eminent domain in the past, but that had been to acquire small pieces of property for right-of-way or other infrastructure. He felt that requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the council was appropriate to the gravity of using eminent domain. Ms. Bettman objected to requesting a charter amendment on a narrow issue as bad public policy. She said there were already obstacles to condemnation that established a high threshold for any action and it would require a very high priority for elected officials to overcome those obstacles. She did not think a charter amendment was necessary and would not support the motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz agreed that eminent domain was a very "heavy hammer" that should require more than a tie vote of the council broken by the Mayor, but she felt there should be a more thorough discussion by the council before sending the matter to the voters. She said there were instances where eminent domain might be a MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 9 Work Session necessary tool, including locating a new hospital in Eugene and redeveloping downtown, but wanted further discussion about how a charter amendment could affect future decisions. Mr. Pryor opined that the general public would like to see more safeguards in place against government being able to take property in what was perceived to be an arbitrary and capricious manner. He said requiring a larger majority of the council would probably find resonance with most people in the community. He said if the motion did not pass at this point he still wished to have the discussion in the future because eminent domain was one of the most drastic actions a government could take and it should not be done with a simple majority vote. He thought the benefit of a charter amendment was that it allowed the public to make a final decision on that. Mr. Clark commented that a recent United States Supreme Court decision created a situation that caused the public great concern. He believed that creating more safeguards was a good idea. He said the community was in the middle of a very contentious and unnecessary fight over the issue of eminent domain. He said it was being used to solve a problem that could have been solved by people working together more effectively. He thought the community as a whole was very much in favor of the council having more consensus before taking major actions of that nature. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to table the motion. Ms. Ortiz stated she did not wish to terminate the conversation and asked if the item could be placed on the February 11, 2008, meeting agenda as Item C. Mr. Lidz pointed out that if the item was intended for the May ballot, it would need to be referred no later than February 13. The motion to table failed, 5:3; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Zelenka voting in favor. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to postpone the item to the February 11, 2008, agenda. Mr. Poling withdrew his motion. Mr. Clark agreed. The vote on the main motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Zelenka voting in opposition and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Clark vot- ing in favor. The mayor cast a vote in opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones pro tem City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 30, 2008 Page 10 Work Session