Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/11/02 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall March 11, 2002 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Betty Taylor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly expressed sorrow that the council had "killed any chance" for local campaign finance reform in the primary by failing to schedule the item in a timely manner. He believed the spending that would occur in the primary would demonstrate the need. He asked City Manager pro tern Jim Carlson if it was safe to assume that the item would be on an agenda soon after the council recess. Mr. Carlson indicated that was his intent, but noted the potential conflict with the Budget Committee process commencing in April. Mr. Kelly hoped to be able to take action that affected the fall campaign. Ms. Bettman noted the memorandum the council received the previous week about providing support to the Safe and Sound Program in its Weed and Seed application. She noted the $10,000 requirement for funding, which would leverage more funding because of grant writing; she asked Mr. Carlson to consider where the City could find some funding, offering several suggestions to redirect other moneys, e.g., the alley vacation moneys from PeaceHealth or the City's contribution to Downtown Eugene, Inc. Ms. Bettman raised concern about the potential loss of historical buildings at the Chiquita site and asked if the Request for Proposals could be reconfigured to include the potential for preserving certain buildings. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Bettman's concern, and suggested that the demolition contract was getting ahead of the implementation of the greater downtown vision. Ms. Bettman requested an update on the south Willamette Street transportation study. She wanted to know about the next steps to use the feedback from businesses and residents and move forward with improvements. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 1 Work Session st Mr. Meisner requested information about when a traffic study would occur on 1 Avenue, which was currently being used as a neighborhood collector to connect River Road and downtown to 6th and 7th avenues and the Chambers Connector. Mr. Meisner asked if the City could investigate whether it could assign staff resources to assist the Safe and Sound Project with its grant application even if cash resources were not available Mr. Meisner reported on the United Front trip, characterizing as generally positive. He thanked the council for its passage of the passenger rail resolution, which had been welcomed by every member of the Oregon Congressional delegation. The resolution's passage was well-timed as a House committee was discussing the issue while the United Front delegation was in Washington. Mr. Rayor apologized for being late. He concurred with Ms. Bettman's comments regarding the south Willamette Street traffic study. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's disappointment, Mr. Rayor indicated he would not be able to attend a council meeting the following day as he was out of town. He expressed willingness to attend an additional work session if one could be scheduled. Mr. Pap~ reported on the Human Rights Commission retreat, saying there was a great deal of energy and heart on the part of the commission, and he hoped that energy could be directed and prioritized. He thought the retreat would make the commission more effective in the upcoming year. Mr. Pap~ shared Mr. Kelly's frustration about not meeting council goals, reminding him of the length of time it took the City to embark on charter review. Mr. Carlson expressed appreciation to the mayor for his confidence in appointing him City Manager pro tem. He agreed with Mr. Meisner that the United Front visit was positive. Mayor Torrey said he received a request from two constituents about the recent death of a City police dog and the potential for finding funds to replace the dog. He asked Mr. Carlson for a follow-up report. Mayor Torrey agreed that the United Front visit was productive but believed that some of the projects included in the funding request should be prioritized. He recommended that staff meet with Mr. Meisner as chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations and with representatives of Springfield and Lane County to begin that process. Mayor Torrey asked how many buildings were involved in the demolition of the Chiquita buildings. Mr. Carlson indicated that the office building was intended to be preserved. Ms. Bettman noted an industrial building with a loading dock on the north side overlooking the railroad tracks that was of concern. Mayor Torrey said that the General Service Administration (GSA) representatives MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 2 Work Session were anxious to get the site cleared. He hoped that the council did not leave the unsightly structures on the site, and requested that the council give the manager more specific direction. Mr. Kelly suggested that the Planning Commission could examine the issue of buildings to preserve on the site. Mr. Meisner suggested that all councilors should be present for the discussion of any historic preservation because the council previously agreed that the portion of the site not sold to the GSA would be sold for profit. Mr. Pap~ concurred. He recalled that the City's agreement with Chiquita addressed the issues of site clean-up and demolition. Ms. Bettman thought the City had taken on the task of clean-up. She suggested that the historic buildings might actually spur some redevelopment ideas for private sector developers. Mr. Kelly said no decision could be made without more staff work, but "demolition is forever." He asked for more staff exploration and a report to the council. He acknowledged that the City was contractually obliged to clear the courthouse site by a certain date. He believed that there could be value to the historic facades. Mr. Meisner said that it was not his experience that preserving such amenities saved costs; rather, it added costs. He found it ironic that the historic barn in the vicinity of the site was not being discussed for preservation. B. Work Session: Joint Meeting with Citizen Involvement Committee The council was joined by members of the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC): Chair David Hinkley, Ann Marie Levis, Christine Donahue, Sara Rich, and Nadia Sindi. Ms. Bettman also serves as a member of the CIC. Beth Bridges of the Planning and Development Department, and staff to the committee, was also present for the item. Members of the committee introduced themselves. Mr. Hinkley called the council's attention to the committee's annual report. He noted a change in staff assignments for the committees. Mr. Hinkley said that since the last time the CIC came to the council, the CIC had reviewed 17 staff proposals, including five advisory committees, ten citizen involvement plans, one land use plan, and a special project plan. He reviewed the committee's recommendations for its 2002 work plan: 1) continue department advisory committee and citizen involvement plan reviews; 2) evaluate and improve the effectiveness of CIC tools and processes; 3) reinforce committee role with the City Council and City departments; 4) improve linkages to the sponsoring committees; and 5) prepare CIC service level change options and recommendation. Mr. Hinkley invited council questions. Mr. Kelly said that the lack of staff support did not diminish the role of the committee, which helped to improve the quality of citizen involvement in everything the City did. He acknowledged MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 3 Work Session the committee's intent to examine a different level of staff support and indicated support for that examination. Mr. Kelly recalled that previously, the committee's work plan included a review of proposals for shared decision making and collaborative input. He said that the council heard no further, and asked for more information. Mr. Hinkley believed that in the handoffbetween Planning and Neighborhood Services, the item was lost. Ms. Bridges did not concur. She said that while the item was on the work plan, the committee had insufficient time to process the item. When the responsibility for the committee was assigned to Neighborhood Services, she had done considerable outreach to the departments on the kinds of plans to be reviewed by the committee, so the process would be more proactive on the part of the departments. Mr. Kelly wanted to include the item in the work plan again because the council thought it valuable two years ago and he still thought it important. Ms. Bridges indicated she had provided background information on the item to the CIC during its work plan evaluation, and the CIC subsequently agreed that it had limited time to spend on special projects and had structured its work program accordingly. Mr. Kelly recalled that the item arose from the thought there were some models in use that brought a variety of participants together in a collaborative effort early in the process and prior to the formal public process, with the goal of being more efficient in the later adoption process. The work item for the CIC was to look into different processes and ideas. He asked for CIC comment on how to include the item in to the work plan, reiterating he "just hated to see it die." Mr. Meisner said he wished that next year, the CIC would look much more broadly at how the City could more effectively involve more people. He said that citizen involvement did not always mean a committee or a public hearing. He thought that overly rigid. He said that the City continued to appoint the same people to committees. He suggested Web surveys of other communities. He said that the Voters Pool was not working as it was intended because too often City departments used the pool as a way to get the same people involved. He asked the committee to also consider looking at the Voter Pool and if it was serving the function intended. Ms. Levis said that the committee had done much discussion of how to look at the bigger picture, and discussed its purpose and how to carry it out in the best way possible. She considered citizen involvement key to ensuring that people do not feel disenfranchised. Often people did not hear about a public hearing opportunity and she believed that they must be reached in many different ways. She commended the quality of both the committee members and staff support. She said that the CIC could come up with new ideas, but the implementation of those ideas was difficult without dedicated staff support. Ms. Donahue said that the committee had a very difficult meeting where it came to grips with what it believed its purpose to be and members agreed it was committed to following the council's direction; however, it had a resource issue in terms of staff support. She acknowledged the City's budgetary constraints and the need to be conscientious in the use of those resources. She agreed with everything that Ms. Levis said, and concurred regarding the level of staff support. The MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 4 Work Session committee had tried hard to meet the council's goals, but still felt that it was in a difficult situation because it would like to create more opportunities for citizens, but was limited in its ability to do SO. Ms. Bettman thanked the committee and staff. She said that the committee members were very committed. The work program reflected reality. The CIC wanted to put together a realistic work plan. She said that it was astounding to her the difference in the support the committee received compared to other City committees. Regarding the recommendations of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner, she said that in the past the CIC had worked on both of those issues and developed its matrix of high controversy/low controversy and where and how it was appropriate to get people involved, and that last revisions to that work were lost following the passage of ballot measures 47/50 and the accompanying budget reductions. She said that it was important the committee reviewed new department advisory committees. She said that it was up to the council to insist that CIC was used and consider resource allocation decisions. Mr. Hinkley said that the CIC looked at how to widen public participation, and it "fell on the cutting room floor" when it came to keeping up with ongoing processes and proposals and fitting it in with the other committee work. The service level change recommendation was to allow the sort of thing Mr. Meisner spoke of to happen. He agreed that the public hearing process was not useful in that it often was not timely. He noted that currently, the CIC had no tool to assess the public's evaluation of a department committee's process. He thought that a vital missing piece. Mr. Rayor thanked the CIC for the work that it did. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bridges clarified that there was a process in place for the review of new City committees. She said that the CIC currently lacked the staffing needed for research and evaluation of other public input approaches. Mayor Torrey said that he never had felt the City was able to reach out to what he termed "the folks." He had seen every CIC member present at numerous City meetings, and wondered where the people were who lived down the street and then complained they did not know of a decision or process. He also hoped the CIC could have a discussion about the neighborhood organizations, many of which did not do anything. He hoped the CIC would limit the focus of its activities to finding one or two outreach ways that legitimately worked. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bridges' assessment of the staff support the committee received. He said that the committee would need funding if it was to have its direction carried out. He considered the service level change recommended in that spirit. Mr. Kelly reiterated his interest in the collaborative decision-making process and asked the committee to consider adding it as the year progressed or as time permits. If it got a chance to look at broader public input, he suggested it consider a citizens jury approach, which involved getting about 16 citizens together to learn about a topic in depth and deliberate an alternative. The press publicizes what the committee decided. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he read the criteria for when the CIC got involved, and he could not figure out why the CIC was not involved in the social service dispersal issue. Mr. Hinkley said that at this time, the policy dictates that the committee looks at department advisory committees only. He thought it would be appropriate if the CIC had an opportunity to comment on all advisory committees, including the ones that the council formed. Mr. Pap~ expressed appreciation that the committee had considered whether or not the CIC should exist. He said that the CIC performed a great service to the community. He agreed with Mayor Torrey about the level of public involvement and the need for greater involvement. He asked the CIC to continue to brainstorm ideas. Mr. Pap~ asked Ms. Bettman if the matrix developed in the past was used and if it could be a first step toward accomplishing Mr. Kelly's desire. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the matrix updates were essentially shelved. It was intended to get people involved early on and to communicate to them the impacts of what was being proposed and how it actually affected them. She asked that when the CIC brought back the suggestions for services to implement, that include implementing the updated matrix. She suggested a council resolution directed at staff calling for its support of the matrix, the CIC, and the interest/controversy processes. Mr. Meisner was not interested in strengthening the hand of the CIC; he wanted to strengthen citizen involvement. He said he would agree with Mr. Hinkley about the CIC's role in reviewing committees and citizen involvement plans if it resulted in a different outcome. It did not; there was still a public hearing at the end of the process that included people who claim they had not heard of the issue. He wanted the CIC to find out what really worked. He acknowledged the difficulty of finding volunteers and getting people involved. He called for new ideas. Ms. Sindi said that citizens were frustrated with the current processes because they seemed inflexible and people did not get satisfaction. Ms. Donahue drew a parallel between those who did not register to vote and those who did not pay attention to an issue until it was too late; they were often misinformed or ignorant of the circumstances. She said that the CIC had struggled with the issue, and would like to find creative, innovative outreach techniques. Mr. Meisner suggested that the City place a controversy ad in the newspaper to attract attention. He asked the CIC to think about that approach. Ms. Rich said that the CIC had discussed its charge, what it was supposed to be doing, and what it would like to do if it had staff support. Currently the CIC met once a month for one hour, which was not sufficient time to take on more tasks. She had encouraged the CIC to be realistic in its work plan. She said that she would like to see the CIC present its list of ideas to the council and determine if resources were forthcoming. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Rayor welcomed the CIC's list of suggestions. He urged consideration of better use of department resources. Mr. Hinkley said he shared Mr. Meisner's frustration. He said that it was difficult to get people out to meetings unless an issue was of extremely high controversy or a crisis arose. Something that was anticipated to happen in five years did not create interest. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to adopt the Citizen Involvement Committee's work plan for 2002, with the addition of continuing the exploration for proposals for shared decisions and collaborative input, as time permits. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to approve the Citizen Involvement Program Update for the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. C. Work Session: An Ordinance Concerning Systems Development Charges; Amending Sections 7.010, 7.705, 7.710, 7.715, 7.720, 7.725, 7.730, and 7.735 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and, a Resolution Adopting the Systems Development Charge Methodologies Document as Revised The council was joined by Fred McVey of the Public Works Department for the item. Mr. McVey indicated that the work session was scheduled to review the draft ordinance and systems development charge (SDC) methodology for the transportation system. He said that changes were made to clarify language in the code and the methodology for consistency with changes to the Oregon Revised Statutes made in the last legislative session, and changes to implement the recommended revisions to the transportation SDC. Those changes were outlined in the agenda item summary. At the request of Mayor Torrey, Mr. McVey noted the members of the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee: Ms. Bettman, Merle Bottge, Chris Clemow, David Hinkley, Paul Nicholson, John Prior, Mike Roberts, and Doug Weber. He confirmed that the committee's recommendations were unanimous, with the exception of the geographic element of the SDC, which the council later decided to pursue. Mayor Torrey called for council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the committee and staff for the work done. She determined from Mr. McVey that the council would consider the geographic component in June or July. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the staff-suggested motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman noted that Eugene continued to be in the lower third of Oregon cities in terms of what it assessed for SDCs. Mr. Kelly also expressed support for the motion. With regard to the geographic component, he said that the current issue of the Business News indicated that Springfield offered a discount on SDCs in the core. Mayor Torrey asked if a small retail business with an extremely high transportation SDC in an older area of the community could appeal the SDC if it was a hardship. Mr. McVey said that there were several opportunities for appeal and adjustment to the SDC. For example, a business could submit an alternate calculation of the trips the business generates if it disagreed with the rates assigned through the standard rate table. The SDC could also be appealed to a hearings official. He confirmed that there was a written process for those steps. Mr. Pap~ thanked staff and the committee for their work. He determined from Mr. McVey that CH2M Hill had acted as consultant to the committee. Mr. Pap~ asked the total of all SDCs for a typical residence. Mr. McVey said that the current average SDC on a new single-family residence was about $3,300, and the proposal represented about a $500 increase over the current average. He confirmed Ms. Bettman's previous statement that Eugene's SDC was among the lowest in the state. Mr. Pap~ asked if payment of the SDC guaranteed a neighborhood park would be built near a particular development. Mr. McVey said that there was no specific guarantee of a park being available at a particular location; the money from the SDC goes to a fund to support park improvements throughout the community. Mr. Rayor asked if the City Attorney reviewed the methodology. Mr. McVey said yes. Mr. Rayor asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the methodology fell within the parameters of State law and the norm for such methodologies. Mr. Klein confirmed that statement. He did not know if the City would be challenged, but believed if it was, the challenge would fail. Mr. Rayor wanted to know if the same was true of the geographic component under consideration. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to affirm both the proposed SDC ordinance and SDC methodologies document and direct the City Manager to move forward with the ordinance adoption and resolution process. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to include direction to the City Manager to bring back to the City Council the appropriate document allocating the reimbursement component of the transportation SDC revenues for preservation and maintenance of the City's existing arterial and collector street system. Ms. Bettman spoke in support of her amendment, saying that the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee discussed the reimbursement fee and its use at great length. She said that 60 percent of the SDC was an improvement fee, dedicated to capacity enhancement. Because part of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 8 Work Session capacity that was being used by development was on the existing system, the City had the ability to collect a reimbursement component of the SDC. Ms. Bettman said the City had projected shortfalls in maintenance and preservation, and noted that the reimbursement fee would realize about $700,000, not entirely meeting the need that existed but making a difference in the future. She thought that passage of the amendment would demonstrate the council's commitment to road preservation and maintenance to the public if the council had to ask it to make a similar commitment to road preservation funds in the future. Mr. Carlson said that the City planned to do just what Ms. Bettman indicated, but pointed out that the City had a policy not to dedicate such resources to a specific use. Mr. Rayor said he did not oppose the intent of the motion but was concerned about maintaining flexibility. He asked for more information about the reimbursement fee, because he thought the SDC was intended for capacity. Mr. Klein indicated that Ms. Bettman's summary was correct, and the City had considerable flexibility in terms of the reimbursement fee. Mr. Rayor expressed concern that the motion would remove flexibility from the council. Mr. Pap~ said that the council had been made aware of the need for preservation of the existing system, but he wanted to see the entire picture. He asked how the committee felt about the motion. Ms. Bettman said there was general support for the reimbursement fee and having a revenue split available for maintenance and preservation, although no discussion of the amendment was on the floor. Mr. Kelly indicated support for the amendment, saying that it merely directed the manager to bring back wording for further action. Regarding the issue of flexibility and the dedication of funds, he said that he would not mind wording that indicated the Budget Committee could redirect the funding. He perceived the amendment not as an earmark of funds, but as a declaration of council intent. Mr. Kelly said that the reimbursement component of the SDC should help maintain the capacity of what the City already owned. Responding to the comments of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Kelly said that the council would also discusses transportation funding on March 13 and the issue could be part of that discussion. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment because it merely directed the manager to return with language. He added that he was not persuaded that adoption of the amendment violated the council's goals and policies. Mr. Meisner asked if the amendment meant the funding would be available for road improvements everywhere in the community. Mr. Carlson said yes. Mr. McVey emphasized that the reimbursement fee could only be used on projects in the adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP). MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Meisner noted that Springfield representatives on the United Front trip had indicated support for a regional gas tax, and did not perceive the tax as something the Springfield council needed to refer to the voters. He wished the council had the same courage in its convictions. The council did not trust itself enough to act in such instances. He hoped the council remembered that when it discussed other funding issues. Mayor Torrey indicated support for the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He wanted the legislative intent of the council regarding the flexibility of the funding to be clearly on the record. Ms. Bettman said that the council always had the purview to redirect the funding involved. The motion merely formalized the council's intent to address the preservation backlog. The intent of tying it to the SDC formula was to demonstrate to the citizens that the council had attempted to reduce the cost of any new revenue measure it must consider, such as a transportation utility fee. Ms. Bettman said that the council had earmarked money in the past for programs it considered important. Mr. Rayor determined from Mr. McVey that the funds could pay for street overlays as long as that work was included in the CIE The amendment to the motion passed, 4:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. Mr. Pap~ said he would vote for the motion but was undecided about the ordinance to be considered later. He would listen carefully to the public testimony offered to the council. The main motion passed, 5:0. D.Work Session: Discussion of Economic Development Activities Mayor Torrey asked the council if it wished to support the definition of "economic development" that the Lane County Economic Development Standing Committee had adopted. He said that while the council was on break, the County would be developing its final proposals for the distribution of approximately $650,000 it had for economic development, and the County was concerned that not occur as though it was the only entity with input; although in the end, the County would make the decision and issue an Request for Proposals (RFP) that would allow different organizations in the county to request those funds. The Metropolitan Partnership had concerns that the RFP would be insufficiently specific to allow the partnership to request the funding. Mr. Kelly said that before it, the council had a very broad definition of economic development and a specific Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) intended to continue the operation of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Partnership and define the relationship of the jurisdictions to it. He found the terms of the IGA to be consistent with council's discussion. Regarding the definition of MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 10 Work Session economic development, Mr. Kelly did not think it made sense for the council to approve the definition. He likened it to approving the dictionary. He said that what was critical for the County and City was not the definition, but the policies and criteria for the RFP. He thought the City Council would have a better handle on the specific work it wanted done after its discussion of potential economic development strategies. Mr. Meisner said that the definition was debatable and meaningless at the same time. He noted that the IGA was subject to annual budget approval, but the agreement was for three years. He asked to what extent the agreement bound the City in the future. Mr. Klein said that it did not obligate the City to budget for the contribution. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Klein his evaluation of the differences in the IGA. Mr. Klein indicated he had not yet had the opportunity to thoroughly compare the new IGA and the old IGA. Ms. Bettman agreed that the County definition was very broad and the City should focus on a definition for the City. She was not willing to accept or endorse the definition as City policy. Regarding the IGA, she said that there were many elements in the new IGA she did not support. She cited discussion of prioritizing transportation projects that serve new businesses as an example. In addition, the IGA mentioned high-wage jobs without being specific as to what that meant. She found statements in the document to be inconsistent with City policy, and said the findings did not indicate that local conditions mirrored national conditions. Ms. Bettman said the document did not mention benchmarks or how progress would be measured. She wanted to know that the City's investment in economic development was achieving what it was intended. She thought the City's contribution would be better spent if the City could specify local strategies with a good chance of success. Mr. Pap~ asked why the IGA did not specifically mention the Metropolitan Partnership. Mr. Kelly said that the IGA referred to a regional not-for-profit corporation, which was the partnership. He said that the text was similar to the last IGA. Mr. Pap~ favored the IGA but wanted to tighten it to ensure that those who responded could deliver the services requested. Mr. Kelly shared that concern. Mr. Rayor also shared the concern expressed by Mr. Pap~. He thought the lack of specific mention of the partnership a gap in the IGA. Mayor Torrey said there was a strong possibility the partnership would not exist if the RFP did not provide the partnership with a substantial amount of funding. The partnership needed about $170,000. If the partnership was not successful in securing the money, the question became, who was the economic development entity in Eugene-Springfield? Was it the two cities and their chambers of commerce? He said that the council should not preclude the Metropolitan Partnership from applying for an RFP segment. He asked Mr. Kelly for comment. Mr. Kelly responded that he believed the definition of economic development as provided was sufficiently broad to cover the range of Metropolitan Partnership activities. He wanted to ensure that whatever criteria the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 11 Work Session County adopted was broad enough to allow the partnership to apply for funding. The IGA plus additional funds from the RFP would be the mechanism for the partnership to move forward. Mr. Meisner said it appeared there was a consensus among councilors that they supported a local IGA that protected some degree of local decision making and that ensured the partnership would survive and manage at least a substantial portion of economic development activities in the community. He thought Ms. Bettman's points regarding self-determination were well-taken, and said they were supported by the language of the IGA. He shared the concern mentioned by others of the lack of specificity about the partnership in the IGA, and hoped staff could do some "subtle tweaking." Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about whether the partnership could be specifically mentioned in the IGA, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the issue involved charter authority that was given to the manager. Unless there was a problem from the perspective of Lane County or Springfield, he did not think there was a problem in tightening the language or mentioning the partnership. However, he could not say without further research whether the City's public contracting rules precluded the City from specifying the partnership without going through additional steps. Mayor Torrey thanked the council for its feedback, and adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R.. Carlson City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 2002 Page 12 Work Session