Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/11/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-City Hall June 11, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. A. Motion to Reconsider Motion of June 9, 2003 Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. He recognized Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reconsider the motion to direct the mayor to appoint a committee of no more than 12 people to consider all suggestions for honoring Martin Luther King, Jr., and to report back to the council by September 17 and present a report to the City's Human Rights Commission. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion to reconsider. Ms. Nathanson indicated that if the council agreed to reconsider the motion, she would vote against it and move to substitute the original motion included in the June 9 meeting packet to change the name of Centennial Boulevard to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Mr. Meisner stated that he would support the motion to reconsider. His hope in supporting the proposed committee was that it would, in addition to preparing a recommendation for renaming something in honor of Dr. King, undertake community-building, but now he did not think the committee would be able to accomplish anything. He was prepared to vote on the issue of the street renaming. Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. Ms. Nathanson said that she voted for the committee for the same reasons as Mr. Meisner. The issue for her had not been about business letterhead or an address in the telephone book but rather what was in the best interests of the community. She had thought it important for the community to work together on a solution. Ms. Nathanson did not believe the media had reported the outcome of the June 9 meeting accurately, as the council's action had not precluded the renaming of Centennial Boulevard. She said that it was not possible in the current environment to discuss other options or solutions, and it was still important to recognize the legacy of Dr. King and the importance of valuing diversity, equality, and inclusion in the community so that all felt welcome and valued. For that reason she wished to reconsider her vote. The motion to reconsider passed, 5:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Taylor voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 1 Work Session The motion on the table was as follows: Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to substitute the motion with the following motion: That the City Council adopt Council Bill 4834, an ordinance concerning the change of street name of Centennial Boulevard to Martin Luther King J~ Boulevard, and adopting a severability clause. Ms. Bettman was happy to have the opportunity to reconsider the council's vote of June 9. She thought it was the respectful thing to do, and quoted Dr. King: "Amen." Ms. Taylor thought that the council needed to respect the entire community when it respected diversity. The committee that had been proposed to consider naming options was a means of doing so. She did not think the council should rush to rename Centennial Boulevard. Mr. Kelly was also pleased that the council was revisiting the issue. He thanked Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson for their reconsideration. He thought that wounds had been created by the council's action of June 9, and the motion, if passed, was an opportunity to heal those wounds. Mr. Poling was unsure what happened before he came on the council but he had placed faith in the initial process. He agreed with those who testified that the process had been followed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). However, he likened the situation to assembling a bicycle hastily without reference to the directions, leaving behind extra pieces, meaning if one mounted the completed bicycle, it would fall apart, forcing one to stop and reassemble the bicycle. He wanted to stop and reassemble the bicycle. Mr. Poling noted he had received several telephone calls in support of his position. He wanted to honor Dr. King but wanted to support those in his ward. Mr. Poling supported the action taken by the council on June 9 because he wanted to involve the entire community in the process of reaching a decision on how to honor Dr. King. He thought Dr. King would want the entire community involved. Mr. Pap~ supported the committee proposal as a more inclusive continuation of the process, not as the end of the process. He also wanted more community involvement. He said that the situation pointed out that the City had nothing in place regarding how City assets were named, and suggested that the council think about that in the future and the possible precedent it was setting by the action it was contemplating. He thought that the council had been misled into believing that there had been an advisory committee process but that never happened. There were no minutes of any meetings of such a committee and no roster of members. The council had heard Springfield was involved; if there had been committee minutes, the council would be able to verify that. Mr. Pap~ said that he talked about the issue with representatives of Springfield prior to offering the council his motion establishing the committee process, and they had indicated that they would slow their process to join in the one that the council had created on June 9. Mr. Meisner had also wanted to accomplish community building and community involvement. He said it was his observation that the community had taken sides on the issue and people had demonstrated no flexibility or openness to work toward building community. He thought it too late to go to a committee process. He intended to support the motion and hoped the City worked more carefully in the future in its approach toward framing such questions for the community. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said that she had hoped to achieve flexibility and open mindedness with a community process. She had heard many sincere opinions from different sides, but that communication had not been two-way, but one-way, which she regretted. She was willing to be flexible and hoped that everyone in the community could achieve a degree of reconciliation regarding the issue. She knew that would take time. She said that she had stated previously that she would vote to rename the street in honor of Dr. King if the question came to that, but had sought the committee process for the reasons previously stated. She thought the outcome would be a good and proper tribute to the legacy of Dr. King. Ms. Taylor said that she was not informed of Ms. Nathanson's intent to offer a motion to reconsider the council's action of June 9. She thought that the public had just become aware of the street renaming process. Just prior to the hearing she had begun to hear from the public. She thought the council had not taken the time to find out if the process worked. She said that adopting the motion would close off public debate, which she thought was wrong. She said that she had not been influenced by Mr. Mylenck's change of head or by that morning's editorial in The Register-Guard. Rather than let itself be influenced by a few people, the council should give everyone in the community a chance to be involved. She added that many people had told her they would like to be on the committee that had been proposed. Mr. Pap~ expressed disappointment in the comments that had been made in testimony on June 9. He thought that people in the community wanted to honor Dr. King. He thought it a unique form of bigotry from the African-American community to suggest that it knew better how to honor Dr. King than the council did. Ms. Solomon was upset the issue had become a test of racism and thought that comments suggesting the council's actions were racist were cowardly and had generated community ill will. She said that the council had always been supportive of honoring Dr. King; the issue was how. Ms. Solomon said she had appreciated the spirit of Mr. Papa's motion setting up a committee process and had thought it in the best interest of the community. However, part of the community was unwilling to participate in a community discussion of what was in its best interest. Ms. Solomon said that if the street renaming was what was wanted by its proponents, she was willing to support the renaming of the street. Ms. Bettman said that sometimes building community meant assuming leadership and taking positive action. She hoped the council did not stop here. If the motion passed, she hoped that a committee could be formed to look at how Eugene could best honor the minority members of the community. She pointed out that Dr. King had been dead for 35 years, and until the NAACP placed the proposal on the table, no one had talked about doing anything to honor him. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the process was not a local process, but one governed by State statute, and it had been widely publicized. She objected to suggestions that people had no opportunity to participate. Anyone who wanted to be on the record on the issue had the opportunity to do so. Speaking to Mr. Papa's comments regarding the process, Ms. Bettman said that the mayor requested a councilor to serve as a liaison to the Board of County Commissioners and she agreed to serve in that capacity. She noted that much process had already occurred with Springfield before she became involved. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the City had a park named for Martin Luther King Jr and there was also a holiday in his honor. She reiterated that people had not been aware of the issue until quite MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 3 Work Session recently. She said that other minority groups had asked her what the hurry was, and why one minority group "had so much power." Mr. Pap8 said that his vote against the motion was a vote in favor of what the council had adopted on June 9, which he believed was a more inclusive community process to honor Dr. King. His vote was not on honoring Dr. King, but how it occurred. The motion to substitute passed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Taylor voting no. The substitute motion to adopt Council Bill 4834 passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Poling voting no. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to reject from the record any documents and information received from the public that was not part of the record for the item when it closed. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked the City Manager if a motion was needed to move forward with a process to creat a committee for exploring ways the City can identify additional opportunities for recognizing minorities. Mayor Torrey suggested that councilors supporting the formation of another committee send suggestions about its work activities to the City Manager. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated staff would return with a proposal. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Tools-Incentives for Downtown Housing Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department was present for the work session. He introduced the subjects of the work session, which were the establishment of a Vertical Housing Zone and amendments to the Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) ordinance. He noted the relationship of the items to the council's Vision for a Greater Downtown and its goals for compact urban growth and growth management. He emphasized that the tax exemption programs under consideration would not result in a flood of new housing, were likely to be revenue-positive in the long-run, and had no significant short-term revenue downside. Mr. Weinman recalled that at a February work session, the council directed the manager to propose amendments to the MUPTE and to seek the recommendation of the Planning Commission related to the Vertical Housing Zone. He noted that both programs were authorized by the State legislature as an incentive for housing in core areas. Mr. Weinman noted that since 1978, the City had granted 11 MUPTE exemptions. Mr. Weinman noted that on March 4, Terry Moore of EcoNorthwest had made a presentation to the Planning Commission Plus Three on the economics of downtown housing; a summary of that presentation was included in the meeting packet. Mr. Weinman briefly reviewed the details of the MUPTE and Vertical Housing Zone. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Weinman reviewed the staff recommendations for proposed amendments to the current MUPTE ordinance and acknowledged the degree of subjectivity in the boundary changes being proposed. He noted potential alternative boundaries on Attachment A, Housing Tax Exemption Study Area: Display of Current/Proposed Boundaries and Zoning Adjacent to Downtown. Mr. Weinman circulated photographs of non-MUPTE developments that had occurred in the West University area for illustrative purposes. He said that some of the structures that had been built would not qualify for the MUPTE because they were fewer than five units and others would not encourage the long-term housing desired by the Joint University of Oregon-City of Eugene Task Force on the West University Neighborhood. Mr. Weinman reported on the Planning Commission's extensive discussion of the MUPTE and called the council's attention to the two motions passed by the commission on June 9, copies of which were distributed to the council. The commission had recommended that the council reexamine the point system and that incentives be provided for home ownership. The commission also recommended that the boundary be expanded as illustrated in Exhibit A with the only amendments being to change the western border to Washington and to remove any portions of the East Skinners Butte historic district, and that the council engage the relevant neighborhood associations in discussion of the proposed change prior to the hearing. He indicated that a mailing would be done to all residents inviting them to a public information session and informing them of the hearing, which was scheduled for July 14. Mr. Weinman noted staff's concurrence with the commission's recommendation to remove a small portion of the East Butte Historic District, which had been included inside the boundaries by accident. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Meisner said that he felt "set up" by the staff recommendation. He said that the recommendation did not reflect the discussion of the Planning Commission Plus Three regarding MUPTE and the City's goals for the downtown and surrounding areas. The recommendation did not address the City's goals for a mix of housing uses. It ignored the council's goal to preserve and prevent the conversions of residential structures near downtown to commercial uses. Mr. Meisner questioned whether the inclusion of the East Butte Historic District was accidental as he believed staff had wanted the area included. He said he had wanted to expand the MUPTE beyond its current boundaries, but now he questioned whether he would support any expansion. He did not think that staff had been listening to the council's discussions. Mr. Meisner said he would not support extending the MUPTE west of Lincoln Street or the inclusion of the historic district. He supported the extension to the 3rd/4th Avenue Connector, adding his hope that someday staff would follow through with the council's decision to rename that street. He did not support expansion of the MUPTE to 18th or 19th avenues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Association had recently been assured by staff that the MUPTE boundaries would not be expanded beyond Lincoln Street. Now staff was indicating that in the four weeks since that meeting, things had changed. She asked what had changed. Mr. Weinman said that staff had done a more thorough examination of the area, and it appeared there were a large number of already existing multi-family units and empty lots. There was development along the alleys behind the buildings. The area was zoned R-4, encouraging the highest density housing in the area. If the City did not want that density, he had to question why it was zoned R-4. He said that the alternative areas were included as Exhibit A because staff recognized that there was apprehension about the expansion of the MUPTE in the neighborhood and among the councilors. He suggested that the best opportunities for housing were not in the heart of downtown but at its edges. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could guarantee quality, high-density housing without design standards. Mr. Weinman suggested that given that each exemption was approved by the council on a case-by-case basis, it would have an opportunity to examine the proposed quality of housing. He added that those developments constructed with the assistance of the MUPTE to this point were generally of higher quality. Ms. Bettman thought the application of the exemption outside the core would discourage housing inside the core because it would create a competitive advantages for the area closer to the University of Oregon. She noted that she had initially supported the Vertical Housing Zone boundaries because on the surface it appeared to be a good idea, but now she believed that it would result in the loss of residential housing and the creation of more commercial development to compete with downtown commercial properties. That would mean one business was paying taxes and another across the street was not. Ms. Bettman said that she could only support the Vertical Housing Zone if it added housing on top of existing commercial development. She supported the existing MUPTE boundaries but was willing to consider expanding it to targeted areas. She wanted to find a way to encourage high-density quality housing but did not want to destroy existing neighborhoods for new projects. Ms. Taylor supported the existing MUPTE boundaries and did not support an additional expansion. She agreed that the neighborhoods should be consulted and was unhappy with the suggestion to change the boundaries without further consultation. She agreed that housing development outside the core meant housing development inside the core was less likely to happen. She also supported the Vertical Housing Zone if it resulted in the addition of housing on top of existing commercial uses. Ms. Taylor believed that most people who wanted to live downtown were young people with low incomes and questioned why the City could not encourage that through the development of low- income housing. Mr. Weinman said that such low-income housing was encouraged, citing the Aurora project, which had far deeper subsidies than most of the housing contemplated to be built under the MUPTE. The MUPTE would not bring the cost down sufficiently to make such housing affordable for low-income people. Ms. Taylor clarified that when she talked about low-income MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 6 Work Session people, she was not talking about those who qualified for subsidies, just those who had less money. Ms. Taylor asked why the price of land in the core did not go down when it was not used. Mr. Weinman said that the issue was one of market demand. Mr. Kelly supported both Planning Commission recommendations and hoped they were incorporated in the final ordinances considered by the council. Mr. Kelly supported some expansion of the MUPTE boundaries. He said that in areas such as the West University Neighborhood, the MUPTE could help the City meet the desirable goals of varying and improving the housing stock in the neighborhood. He did not want to rely on the council approving projects on a case-by-case basis and preferred to institutionalize quality housing in some way. He said that in discussions with local architects he received a good suggestion, which he passed onto the council. The architects suggested that if the City was trying to encourage better housing, it could require developers to go further in exchange for the MUPTE. A simple statement regarding quality objectives could be developed that stated what housing characteristics the City wanted to encourage. If staff or the Planning Commission determined that a project met the statement of objectives, the application would go to the council for MUPTE consideration. Mr. Kelly opposed expansion of the boundaries west of Lincoln Street and supported eliminating the historic district from the boundaries. Ms. Nathanson supported some expansion of the MUPTE boundaries. She thought expansion to the west too controversial and suggested that the City would be reneging on some prior commitments it had made by expanding too far to the west. She agreed the historic district should be excluded. Ms. Nathanson believed that expansion of the MUPTE boundaries to the south and the east could be justified to help the City achieve the goals it had for the West University Neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson found Mr. Kelly's suggestion for a statement of objectives an interesting one and hoped such an approach could be as objective as possible. She said that the council had discussed quality design a few years past, and she hoped that information related to that discussion could be reexamined. Mr. Poling liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion. He shared Ms. Taylor's concern about involving the neighborhood association in the development of the boundaries. He supported expanding the MUPTE boundaries and suggested that the City look at the area on a block-by-block basis to see what existed already and to take into consideration any historic values that might exist. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested an approach that expanded the MUPTE on a site-by-site basis and included the use of a matrix to encourage quality housing in exchange for the incentive. Mr. Weinman determined that Ms. Bettman was suggesting that the City create a structure and criteria for how to apply the MUPTE. He indicated that State legislation required the City to establish a boundary for the MUPTE. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved that staff identify where opportunities exist for the use of the MUPTE, and return with a specific recommendation about sites to be developed for high-density quality housing that included a matrix to encourage quality housing in exchange for the incentive. Mr. Weinman believed that it would be difficult for staff to determine where future opportunity areas exist. He encouraged the council to adopt a boundary. Ms. Bettman said that the MUPTE had an impact both on people's property values and on the General Fund. Much of the area covered by the proposal was already developed with high-density housing and the City would be subsidizing development that would already be likely to occur. She said that the City Council was considering conflicting policies. The City was both allowing and encouraging existing housing to be converted to commercial and office uses west of downtown at the same time staff was proposing new housing subsidies. She termed that a waste of taxpayer dollars and counterproductive to the council's goals. Ms. Bettman wanted to apply the MUPTE tool surgically, as she did not think the City could afford to apply it as a blunt instrument. Ms. Solomon thought the council should forward the staff recommendation to a public hearing and modify it later. She did not think the staff-recommended boundary would be adopted ultimately, but could be used as a starting point for discussion. Mr. Kelly expressed concern that forwarding the boundary proposal as presented to a public hearing would result in much opposition. He hoped that staff was taking into account repeated themes in the council's comments. Mr. Kelly asked if Ms. Bettman's motion included consideration of his quality matrix idea. Ms. Bettman said yes. Mr. Kelly thought Mr. Weinman's points regarding the difficulty of identifying future opportunity areas were well-taken. He thought Mr. Poling's point regarding the need for a closer examination was also a good one. He said that the right way to approach the issue was through a new refinement plan that looked at the neighborhood on a block-by-block basis. In the absence of that, he preferred something that tried to take a closer look and that addressed the distinctions that existed in the neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson preferred to establish clear and specific boundaries. She also preferred to reduce the boundaries before the public had the opportunity to comment, as she preferred to focus the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 8 Work Session comment on those areas where the council had shown support for expanding the MUPTE boundaries. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the public could be offered the topic areas for the statement of objectives referred to by Mr. Kelly. Mr. Weinman believed that such objectives would be part of the administrative rules. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the subsidization of redevelopment as being counterintuitive to adopted council goals, Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the council had just adopted a plan to encourage redevelopment in the area in question. If the City was subsidizing redevelopment that was superior to the previous development, she thought that met the council's goals. Mr. Meisner indicated tentative support for the motion but doubted that the council should hold a public hearing on the topic before its summer recess. He said that there was no pressure on the council in terms of development proposals in the affected areas. He liked Mr. Kelly's suggestion for what he termed a "quality quid pro quo." Ms. Taylor agreed that the council was not ready to hold a public hearing. She said that tax exemptions should only be granted in return for extremely important community benefits. She thought a vital downtown would foster development on its fringes. She did not want to give tax benefits to high-end residential developments on the edge of town. Mr. Papd agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments and with Mr. Meisner's suggestion that the council postpone the public hearing. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Weinman reiterated that each MUPTE application was considered by the council on an individual basis. There was a point system in place that gave an application more points or less points depending on the nature of the project. Speaking to the issue of timeliness raised by Mr. Meisner, Mr. Weinman noted that there was a time issue related to the 14th Avenue and Olive Street proposal. The development group was basing its pro forma on the MUPTE. Ms. Bettman asked if the City could do anything to expedite that issue. Mike Sullivan of the Planning and Development Department indicated that the City could modify its earnest money agreement with the Tate group, but at this time the agreement called for certainty about the MUPTE on the site prior to a period when the Tate Group would lose a portion of its earnest money. Mr. Pap~ suggested that the council could pass a "quick and dirty" ordinance to accommodate the Tate Group. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion on the floor be reworded as follows: MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 9 Work Session To direct staff to return to a work session with a finer-grained reduced boundary for MUPT£. The proposal should also include a qualifying matrix to encourage quality, high-density housing in exchange for the incentive. The proposal should also consider the character of existing development in each area. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Kelly that he used the word "consider" rather than "protect" in the last sentence to give staff latitude in what is brought back. He pointed out that the council must support the staff recommendation to forward it to a public hearing. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Papd accepted the rewording of the motion as a friendly amendment. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to hold a public hearing on a minimum expansion of the MUPTE to an area that would include the 14th Avenue and Olive Street development site. Ms. Nathanson wanted the Tate Group's proposal to move ahead but was concerned about making law for a single developer. She preferred that any ordinance expanding the MUPTE boundaries address a broader area. Mr. Kelly hoped that between now and the public hearing staff would contact the developer to determine how much time was needed. He noted that another project was proposed for 14th Avenue and Hilyard Street that had the potential to qualify for the MUPTE as well, and hoped the council could finish its work on the MUPTE in early fall. Mr. Kelly indicated that he did not want to see the quality matrix in the administrative rules accompanying the ordinance. City Manager Taylor believed that the minimum expansion being proposed should be done in the context of the larger expansion accomplished after the council's recess so that people understood the nature of what was being done. Ms. Taylor was opposed to giving a tax exemption to something outside the downtown with no public benefit. She said that there were people in the community in danger of losing their houses because they could not pay their property taxes. She indicated her intent to vote against the motion. Ms. Bettman thought subsidies were appropriate if targeted appropriately. She thought the motion was an example of that. Ms. Bettman said the City needed to establish a critical mass of housing in and around downtown. She termed the motion an example of opportunity or asset mapping. Rather than creating blanket regulations and incentives applying to everything, one looked at specific sites and opportunities to fulfill multiple City objectives. Many communities were taking MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 10 Work Session the approach in question. Ms. Bettman said that given the City's General Fund constraints, the City had to be very strategic about how it applied incentives. Ms. Nathanson said that she was concerned by the appearance of fairness. She hoped that staff was careful in using language. When the council talked about protecting neighborhoods, it was not discussing maintaining them in the status quo, but about improving them While acknowledging Ms. Nathanson's concern, Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion. He pointed out that the council had agreed to extend the MUPTE in a public session to the developer in question. Ms. Taylor disagreed with Mr. Meisner. She maintained that the council had been told it was not being asked to vote on the MUPTE at that time. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to schedule a public hearing on July 14 for an ordinance that establishes a Vertical Housing Zone. Mr. Kelly said he did not know if he would support the ordinance but believed it should be brought to a public hearing. He spoke to the comments previously made by Ms. Bettman regarding housing on top of existing commercial, saying that often the Building Code prevented such redevelopment. He said that he did not think it would be a bad thing to provide a tax incentive for a property owner to replace a one-story commercial building on an underused site with a four- story building that included one storey of commercial and three storeys of housing. Ms. Bettman suggested that Mr. Kelly was discussing redevelopment of an existing site. Her concern regarded the fact that the zone meant a structure including both commercial and housing could be built across the street from an existing commercial use, and the business on the bottom floor would be tax-exempt, creating an unfair competitive advantage. The council needed to figure out a more equitable approach. She supported the use of the zone in nodal development areas only. Mr. Sullivan indicated that the program in question was a State program, and it became a tax exemption that a development was entitled to due to its location within a zone. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Use of Downtown Urban Renewal Funds for Downtown Projects Due to a lack of time, this item was not addressed. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 11 Work Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2003 Page 12 Work Session