Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/16/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall July 16, 2003 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson In the absence of Mayor James D. Torrey, Council President Gary Pap8 called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A.WORK SESSION: Stormwater Program City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, saying that Mark Schoening of the Public Works Department was present to share some scenarios for the Stormwater Program. Public Works Director Kurt Corey was also present for the item. Mr. Schoening recalled the council's two previous work sessions on the Stormwater Program. The first work session focused on the program's history and evolution, the goals, policies, and implementation measures in the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan (CSWMP), and the program's financial forecast. The second work session program focused on the CSWMP goals, policies, major work activities, the relationship of those work activities to the best management practices in the City's federal National Pollutant Discharge Permit System (NPDES) permit, the administrative review of the program, and two scenarios for the program, one based on the rate increase approved by the City Council in October 2001 and one based on the current fee. The council directed staff to prepare a third scenario, which was to be based on an additional $2 million in budget cuts. Mr. Schoening said that the policy issue before the council was what level of funding staff should assume as it continued negotiations with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on the permit renewal and began to prepare the fiscal year 2005 budget. Mr. Schoening reported that staff went through an intensive program review process, which was described in the Agenda Item Summary. He briefly reviewed some of the recommendations that arose from that review. Mr. Schoening reviewed the financial ramifications of the three program scenarios: Scenario 1 Assumes that stormwater fees will be increased to fully fund the current program. For fiscal year 2005, projected program expenditures are $10,677,000 and projected stormwater user fee revenues are $8,580,000. An approximate 24 MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 1 Work Session percent increase in user fees would be necessary to fully fund the current program. Scenario 2 Assumes that stormwater service level reductions would be made to balance program expenditures with the current user fee revenue. The fiscal year 2005 projected program expenditures of $10,677,000 would be reduced by $2,097,000 to match projected revenues of $8,580,000. Scenario 3 Assumes that stormwater program service level reductions would be made to balance expenditures with a reduction of $2 million in current user fee revenue. The fiscal year 2005 projected program expenditures of $10,677,000 would be reduced by $4,097,000. This would result in an approximate 23-percent decrease in user fees. Speaking to Scenario 1, Mr. Schoening said it brings the City closer to meeting the goals of CSWMP, meets the requirements of the NPDES permit, and represents a proactive approach to stormwater management. Speaking to Scenario 2, Mr. Schoening said that staff believed it could renegotiate the NPDES permit renewal at that funding level. There would be a significant setback in the progress the City had made toward the goals and policies of CSWMP, reductions in some areas and the elimination of other services areas, particularly those related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) response, the Willamette River clean-up, and vegetation management associated with the stormwater program. The balance between water quality, natural resource preservation, and flood control would shift toward water quality. Speaking to Scenario 3, Mr. Schoening said the funding level for the scenario was about equivalent to the 1993 program, when its goals were merely flood control and drainage. The City's ability to meet the goals and policies of CSWMP would be curtailed, and he did not think the City could successfully negotiate its permit renewal with the DEQ at that funding level. Mr. Schoening called the council's attention to Attachment A, a spreadsheet in the meeting packet entitled Stormwater Program Review that contrasted the program elements under the three scenarios. Mr. Schoening recommended adoption of Scenario 2. Mr. Pap~ solicited a first round of council questions and comments. Referring to Mr. Schoening's comparison of the funding levels of the 1993 program and Scenario 3, Mr. Meisner asked if Scenario 3 would allow the City to put aside reserves each year. Mr. Schoening said no. Mr. Meisner noted his long-time concern that the City had established such a high stormwater fee that it was able to build up large reserves. He did not want to see that happen again. Mr. Meisner referred to Attachment A and asked Mr. Schoening to explain why the expense of maintaining the constructed storm system jumped in Scenario 3. Mr. Schoening said that it reflected the elimination of the leaf pick-up program, which would add to costs in that area. Mr. Meisner suggested that be information be footnoted. Mr. Meisner asked who the program managers were. He asked how many staff existed, who they were, and what they did. Mr. Schoening indicated he would provide that information. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked the cost of the leaf pick-up program. Mr. Schoening indicated it cost $337,000. Ms. Taylor asked if the elimination of the program would cause problems, given that people were composting and they could be educated to put leaves in the yard debris bins. Mr. Schoening said there would be an initial period of public adjustment, and the City would still have to pick up leaves from the trees in the public rights-of-way. Ms. Taylor asked why staff thought any elements of the program should be reduced. She suggested that there was a good reason for the activities happening now. Mr. Schoening said that the current program met the requirements of the NPDES permit and brought the City closer to meeting the goals of CSWMP. The scenarios before the council were essentially based on the forecast program budget shortfall. Raising the fees was an alternative. Ms. Taylor expressed surprise that staff would recommend reductions in the program's budget given the community's general support for environmental protection and water quality. She said that she could not justify any reductions in the program. She thought the current program met the City's long-term goals and the long-term needs of the community. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Taylor's surprise that the council was discussing reducing the program when it should be applauding staff's efficiency since the fee had not been increased for ten years. He did not understand the push to reduce the program as long as the goals in CSWMP were the goals of the council and community. Mr. Kelly indicated a preference for Scenario 1. He had examined the reductions in Scenario 2 and suggested the council needed to determine if it was comfortable with the reductions and eliminations in Scenario 2, which would require the City to eliminate all education around the Endangered Species Act and the salmon listing. He said that people's activities made a real difference to water quality, making education very important. Under the scenario, the City would be eliminating education and the City's response to the ESA, and reducing several vital and needed activities by a considerable amount. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the level of reserves in the program fund, Mr. Schoening indicated that there were no reserves left. The stream corridor acquisition fund was nearly depleted as well, as all funds were committed. Mr. Pap~ thanked staff for the information provided in the packet. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding why the legal costs varied from scenario to scenario, Mr. Schoening said that the cost estimates reflected the relative risk created by each scenario, with City staff relying less on the City Attorney's Office when making decisions. Mr. Pap~ asked what would be lost in the category of capital project planning between scenarios. Mr. Schoening said that the difference related to how much support the City would be able to provide to studies such as the Region 2050 project being conducted by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Mr. Pap~ asked why LCOG did not pay those costs. Mr. Schoening said that was an option. Generally the City participated in such efforts and staff would have to reevaluate that in the future. Mr. Pap~ asked about current planned expenditures. Mr. Schoening said that some of the costs the City's design teams incurred, if not related to a specific project, were charged to the general Stormwater Fund. Staff would have to reevaluate how it charged those projects in the future if the funding was reduced, and activities would be reduced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 3 Work Session At the request of Mr. PapS, Mr. Schoening clarified the expenditures in the Capital Projects category. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's concerns about education, Mr. Pap8 pointed out that the City had "done a lot of that." He had personally seen streets painted with the salmon emblem, which helped him to recall the need to consider the salmon. He suggested the funding allocated for general educational outreach was sufficient. Mr. Schoening said there was a relationship between the Stormwater Program and ESA response, but there was not enough money in the fund to address the costs of ESA education. Ms. Bettman shared the surprise expressed by Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly about the staff recommendation. She did not believe the program was over-funded. She pointed out that the national trend was to move toward the use of green infrastructure. She said that the City needed to make investments in green infrastructure to reduce its operating costs over the long-term. Ms. Bettman believed that the council would reduce the program but it could not micro-manage those reductions. When the council directed staff to cut $2 million from an existing program, there would clearly be some pain. For that reason, she objected to the recommendation. The service provided to the community was good, and she saw no reason to purposely degrade the service. Ms. Bettman said that there had been no fee increase for ten years, the program was user-fee supported, and there had been no public outcry about the fee increase. Instead, the council heard good things about the leaf pick-up program and educational outreach efforts. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the only parties objecting to the fee increases were the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Lane County Home Builders Association, which wanted the program cut so the fees would go down. She thought that was counterintuitive. On the one hand, those parties wanted to fund development services and facilitate development, but once people bought a house and moved to Eugene, the City would abandon them in terms of services. Mr. Pap8 called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Meisner said that there had been no fee increase for several years because the fee was initially set too high, leading to the build-up of reserves. He agreed that the council should not micro-manage the reductions but suggested that when it selected a scenario, it could direct staff to retain certain services, such as the river clean-up. He questioned whether the City's educational efforts were as effective as they could be, or if things could be done differently. Mr. Meisner asked how the City became the local agency responsible for stormwater rather than another agency, such as the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). He asked if there was ever a discussion of having the utility assume the service. Mr. Schoening said that the charter proscribed the two agencies' roles. He said that in other places, such as Washington County, stormwater services were provided through a service district. Mr. Meisner suggested that EWEB could come to the council and ask for permission to assume the service. Speaking to Mr. PapS's suggestion that LCOG assume the costs of the preparing the information provided by Eugene for the Region 2050 project, Mr. Kelly said that LCOG could not assume the service as the effort was grant-funded and LCOG looked to each local member jurisdiction to give it the needed information. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly pointed out to Mr. Meisner that the reserves were now gone, and he did not believe that there were any large projects funded from those reserves that the council could identify as misspent funds or not spent in accordance with the CSWMP. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Schoening if he had considered whether the setback in achieving the goals and policies of the CSWMP as a result of adoption of Scenario 2 would be significant enough to require amendments to the CSWMP. Mr. Schoening said no. He suggested that the issue before the council was the direction the program took from this point forward. He would be more concerned if the council adopted Scenario 3. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had considered phasing in the increased fee in Scenario 1. Mr. Schoening said no. He said that there was potential for that. However, at a certain level, the City would lose the staff expertise developed for specific programs. There would be a need for reductions before the fee was fully phased in. Mr. Taylor added that was one of the reasons that staff scheduled a discussion of the stormwater fee increase. Staff wished to ask the council if, given the reductions required under Scenario 2, it would like staff to devote the resources that would have gone to the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program to maintain more of the program that would be lost if Scenario 2 was adopted, which would better the City's position in its permit renewal discussions with the DEQ. Ms. Bettman clarified that the staff recommendation was actually Scenario 2 plus the seven-percent increase. She asked how that made more sense than simply adopting Scenario 1 and foregoing the increase. Mr. Taylor said that was an option. Ms. Bettman highlighted the fact there was a line item in the budget for staff support in reviewing permits. She said that was one of the subsidies she was referring to when she talked about development subsidies. Money was being spent in areas other than the Permit and Information Center to facilitate development and it was not being recovered through permit fees. Ms. Bettman said that she considered scenarios 2 and 3 to be salmon abandonment plans. The Stormwater Program was focused on water quality, flood management, and habitat protection. She thought the plan in place was minimal already and objected to further program reductions. She said that it did not represent the approach the community should be taking. She supported Scenario 1. Ms. Taylor also supported Scenario 1 as well as retention of the 50-cent fee increase. She found it strange that decisions made by the council within the past two years, such as the fee increase, were being reconsidered at this time given the amount of thoughtful discussion and citizen input that occurred. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Pap~ did not think the City was abandoning the goals of the CSWMP or the salmon. He recalled when the salmon did not visit this part of the river and said that over the years, the situation had progressed to where people were now catching salmon in front of the Valley River Inn. He thought that the best means to retain water quality was to keep campers off the riverbanks. He called for a riverbank clean-up and vegetation clearing so that people could see the river from the bicycle path. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City had a way to evaluate the results of its educational efforts. Mr. Schoening believed the City was realizing good results, and surveys indicated increased awareness of stormwater issues and a change in behavior on the part of those surveyed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 5 Work Session Ongoing efforts in the public school introduced each new generation to education about water quality issues. Mr. Pap~ suggested that any incremental moneys the City spent in this area were best directed toward Lane County for non-point source protection abatement on lands adjacent to streams in the Willamette River corridor. Mr. Pap~ solicited a third round of council comments and questions. In reference to Ms. Bettman's comments about development subsidies, Mr. Meisner did not understand how that was allowed to happen given the council's adopted policies. He asked when the staff would follow that policy. Mr. Schoening said that the policy was being followed at the PIC and for privately engineered, public improvement projects, but not at the land use review level. He questioned whether the staff would be able to meet the policy in that area. Mr. Meisner questioned the adequacy of the staff response. Ms. Bettman said that the water quality conditions in the river had improved formerly because of the City's stormwater management program. She asked why the City would propose to "gut" the program at this point, when progress was being made. She thought such an action would be irrational. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to implement Scenario 1. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to postpone action to August 11, 2003, so that Mayor Torrey and Ms. Nathanson could be present to participate. Ms. Bettman did not object to postponing action given that was the council's process, but she had not been aware of any request to postpone action. Mr. Kelly determined from Council Coordinator Lynda Rose that no request to postpone action had been received from Ms. Nathanson or Mayor Torrey. For that reason, he opposed the motion. Mr. Meisner agreed that the council's process should be followed, but pointed out that no action on the item had been scheduled for today. Mr. Kelly said that there was no staff-proposed motion, which was a difference. He said that there were many occasions on which the council held work sessions without a proposed motion and had taken action. Mr. Kelly felt that a motion was always in order unless precluded by the charter or ground rules. Ms. Taylor thought it was the responsibility of absent councilors to request delay. She said that if the council was not to take action when councilors were absent, it should not be meeting during those absences. The motion to postpone action passed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 6 Work Session B.WORK PROGRAM: Stormwater Fee Mr. Schoening noted the relationship of the three scenarios to the question of the fee increase. He said that an administrative review process related to the increase had occurred, which included public notice, preparation of an administrative order, and a public hearing. He called attention to an updated list of Stream Corridor Acquisitions and a map of the acquisitions, included in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Schoening briefly noted the staff recommendation that the council discuss the program, consider the administrative record, and approve, modify, or disallow the seven-percent increase in stormwater user fees and direct the City Manager to prepare findings and conclusions based on the standards in the Eugene Code. Mr. Pap8 called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly continued to be frustrated that the council had initially voted for the fee increase in October 2001, and it had yet to be implemented. He had thought it a reasonable assumption that council policy would be implemented. Mr. Kelly said that there was considerable literature demonstrating that green infrastructure in the form of open waterways was a cheaper and more effective way to manage stormwater runoff. He pointed out that the City had attempted to adopt an open waterways ordinance and had been sued because of the ordinance's regulatory and land use implications. That tool for protecting waterways was taken away. He suggested that from a free market perspective, if one want to avoid regulation, one would support the purchase of key corridors at fair market value. He wanted to hear from those opposed to the program what the alternative was, or if they felt that the approach was not valuable. He believed that unless there was another way to ensure key corridors were available for stormwater conveyance and quality, the council should vote to implements the policy it adopted in October 2001. Mr. Kelly called attention to the information on page 306 of the meeting packet, which indicated only 30 to 50 percent of the remaining priority corridors would be purchased even if the increase was implemented. Ms. Taylor concurred with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. She said that the policy was recently adopted and now staff was asking the council if it wanted to change it. She asked if staff was going to ask the council to revisit every recently adopted policy. Ms. Taylor said that the increase should be supported by those who support property rights given that the City proposed to purchase land. She said that the program was essential for a healthy environment. She concurred with Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly about the superiority of green infrastructure and noted the money spent by the City to educate staff and the council on the topic. She asked why the money had been spent if the City did not go forward. She noted the sunset date placed on the fee and suggested that it would be stopped just after it was started. Ms. Bettman agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor. She said that the purchase of corridors was a cost-saving investment that would realize cost savings in the long-term. Speaking to objections to the program voiced by School District 4J, Ms. Bettman asked what, if any, projects were planned to retain stormwater and manage stormwater on-site at the new schools being constructed by the district. Mr. Schoening did not know. Ms. Bettman said she appreciated the district's concerns, but the district's capital program called for larger parking lots MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 7 Work Session and the district had resisted the inclusion of landscaping when it redeveloped old parking lots. The district advocated for more impervious surfaces and then did not want to pay the fee. However, she would favor a way to reduce the fee to the school districts if such a way could be found. If there was a way for the districts to reduce the impervious surface on school property, she would also favor that. Ms. Bettman suggested the issue to be considered was where the City addressed stormwater: when it hit the ground, or when it came through pipe. She wanted to enhance and accelerate the program. The up-front costs would be recovered in the long-term, and the approach would provide multiple community benefits, such as aquifer recharge, water filtering, and wildlife habitat creation. She pointed out that frequently, developments were built near protected stormwater corridors, which then became an amenity for the development and added to the value of the property. Mr. Meisner said the council's adoption of the fee increase had represented government at its worst. The council heard no input because it held no public hearings. There had been a mailer, and he heard several complaints from constituents. He said that it was shod-sighted to adopt the program without considering alternatives. It was corridor acquisition or nothing. The City was not considering easements or anything else. He did not know if acquisition at market prices was the right approach. He thought the City overpaid for some of the land that had been acquired. Such land was either developable or it was not, but the costs did not reflect that. He had objected to the fee increase at the time and did not find it an alternative to the court's voiding of the Open Waterways ordinance. He thought the City could do better. Speaking to remarks made by other councilors regarding the council's adopted policies, Mr. Meisner recalled that the council directed staff to use the reserves and then implement the fee increase. Mr. Meisner said that when a motion was made to repeal the increase, he would support it. Mr. Pap~ noted his concern about the connectivity of stream corridors that were acquired, and from his examination of the map of acquisitions, he questioned whether the City was taking the most effective route or the route of least resistance. Mr. Schoening said that the approach was a little of both. The City was buying from willing sellers and at this point had bits and pieces of corridors throughout the city. Mr. Pap~ said he preferred to target specific, contiguous areas for acquisition. Mr. Pap~ did not disagree about the value of green infrastructure, but asked if the City had examined some of the new technologies that were available for installation at City outfalls. He asked about the number of existing City outfalls and if the City had reviewed the costs of maintaining open corridors versus technological improvements. Mr. Schoening said that the two approaches were complementary, not exclusionary. The City had implemented the new technology on some projects. The City incorporated water quality features into its own projects, but he did not think that diminished the goals or benefits of acquiring stream corridors. Mr. Taylor questioned targeting a particular corridor given that it might be a limited strategy that added to the overall cost of acquisition. Mr. Pap~ said that while the approach might cost more, it could provide the City with a greater "bang for its buck," although he acknowledged that he really did not know the answer to that. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Schoening that the City measured water quality through its monitoring efforts. Mr. Pap~ requested a memorandum on the topic of whether water quality was improving as a result of the Stormwater Program. Mr. Pap~ solicited a second round of comments. Mr. Kelly noted the many private outfalls in the city also affected water quality. Mr. Kelly said he had received no constituent complaints about the increase, but several commendations. Mr. Kelly noted correspondence from Greg Heir of School District 4J, in which Mr. Heir raised a concern that the City's fees were not reduced when on-site detention features were installed, and suggested that the City consider administrative reductions in the fee as a reward for developers installing such facilities. Mr. Schoening indicated that such reductions were built into the rate model but the City had not reached the point of adopting an ordinance requiring water quality features for new development with those adjustments. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about when the council could expect to see the ordinance, Mr. Schoening indicated the answer was dependent on which of the three scenarios the council adopted. Ms. Bettman suggested the City was missing an opportunity to work with the districts on how to manage stormwater runoff at the new school sites. Mr. Taylor said that staff had offered the district suggestions on how to mitigate those costs. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the fee was administrative in nature. The City Council had held no hearing when the manager raised garbage rates. No work session had been held, and no councilor had objected. The fee was within the purview of the City Manager. She shared Mr. Kelly's frustration that the council's direction of October 2001 was never implemented. Mr. Pap~ called for a third round of comments. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's remarks about the cost of the land that had been acquired, Ms. Bettman said that without regulation, all property was developable. If there was a stream corridor on a site, it could be piped and filled now. It did not make a property undevelopable, which was why the City was paying market prices. The City had been unable to institute any regulations to make the properties undevelopable. Mr. Taylor clarified that he requested feedback on the fee because of the work sessions on the Stormwater Program and the council's direction to staff to prepare a third scenario. Staff had, with difficulty, developed a scenario that responded to the concerns expressed about current economic conditions and the community's ability to pay. He had sought dialogue, in the context of the entire program, before proceeding with the fee. He said that if the council chose scenarios 2 or 3, he would recommend that the funds intended for acquisition instead be used to allow the City to continue the program at a high level, and position it for a better discussion on the permit renewal than it would otherwise be. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to begin collection of the increased fee for stream corridor acquisition as passed by the council in 2001. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone action until August 11, 2003. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor clarified that his earlier remarks about targeted corridor acquisition related to his concerns that the City would pay more. He thought that conservation easements needed to be pursued more aggressively if the council adopted scenarios 2 or 3. Ms. Bettman found Mr. Taylor's recommendation confusing. She said that it was not the most transparent way for the council to reach its objectives. In response, Mr. Taylor repeated that he had attempted to frame the discussion in the context of the entire program and in response to the question of the effect of different levels of reductions. The annualized increase associated with the 50-cent fee increase was about $577,000. His question to the council was whether it would rather devote that to stream corridor acquisition, or if it preferred to restore some of the elements of the program that would be lost by adoption scenarios 2 or 3. Ms. Taylor thought the City should acquire the highest priority corridors first. She asked Mr. Taylor his opinion of condemnation. Mr. Taylor had no opinion in this instance; he would need a specific example. He said that it could be a useful tool, but could also result in extra costs, such as the costs of litigation. Mr. Taylor believed that in addition to acquisition, the council should consider other ways to protect natural resources to achieve the same goals. Mr. Pap~ said that he had heard complaints from the general public about the combined impact of the City's adoption of the transportation system maintenance fee and the increase in the stormwater fee. He said that many residents believe that water quality was fine. Mr. Pap~ asked if stream corridor acquisitions were cross-referenced to the City's inventory of buildable lands. He hoped that was occurring so that the City could track that impact and avoid the need to expand the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly emphasized to Mr. Taylor that the council direction related to the fee increase was to use it for stream corridor acquisition. While the administrative hearing notice was very broad in terms of the intent of the increase, the information that was published in The Register-Guard and provided to people in their EWEB bills stated the fee increase was related to acquisition. He believed if the purpose was changed, the City would have to hold another administrative public hearing and renotice the public in their EWEB bills. He proposed that Mr. Taylor consider framing the issue by asking the council where it would direct the fee increase. In response, Mr. Taylor suggested that a larger community discussion of its priorities as they related to the program would be useful in guiding the council discussion. Mr. Pap~ adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 10 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 11 Work Session