Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/08/06 Work Session M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall November 8, 2006 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Adoption of 2007 Legislative Policies Mayor Piercy thanked the members of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee (CCIGR) for their work. City Manager Dennis Taylor thanked the voters for the confidence they showed in the ballot measures put before them by the City. He said Council, Public and Government Affairs Manager Mary Walston and Intergovernmental Relations staff Alex Cuyler were in attendance to present the agenda item. Ms. Walston stated that Mr. Cuyler would be the City’s assistant lobbyist in Salem during the legislative session. She said the City Manager’s Office hoped to have a new Intergovernmental Relations Manager in place in December. She reported that the CCIGR reviewed the document twice; it was largely based on the policies and procedures from the 2005 session. She stated that the committee requested discussion of two specific points at the present meeting: the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission item, specifically annexation, and transportation and growth in the document related to page 28. Ms. Walston said Mayor Piercy outlined 11 points of concern to her and at the councilors’ places were intended motions listed on an attachment headed by Eugene City Council Intended Motions: 2007 Legislative Policies Document and dated November 8, 2006. She noted that Ms. Bettman asked to revise information about the partnerships which had been in the document and had been struck and this was at the councilors’ places in an attachment entitled Revised Language to Proposed Deleted Language – As Per Request of Councilor Bettman dated November 8, 2006. Mayor Piercy noted that the CCIGR members were Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Pryor. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the 2007 Legislative Policies docu- ment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 31 of the draft, under the “Oregon Transportation Plan” section as Recommendation 3: “Continue to seed funds for local transportation systems through the Connect Oregon projects.” Mayor Piercy said she talked with Governor Ted Kulongoski and he asked what Eugene would want from the next phase of Connect Oregon. This was why she suggested the amendment. Mr. Kelly offered the following friendly amendment to rephrase the amendment, as follows: “Continue to seek our fair share of funds for local transportation systems as available in future through the Connect Oregon projects rounds.” The maker of the motion accepted the friendly amendment, as did the second. Ms. Bettman stated she intended to oppose the amendment. She opined that if the Governor wanted more money for transportation then he should look to raising the gas tax statewide and should look to counties to implement a systems development charge (SDC) for transportation. She felt to borrow on future lottery revenue assumed that Oregon would continue to be dependent on it and, if this assumption was to be made, then Oregonians should assume that it would be available for education, too. She opposed the mechanism of “putting youth in debt for something like this.” She reiterated her opposition to the project that had been built with this source of funding in the previous year. The motion to amend the main motion, as amended by Mr. Kelly’s friendly amendment, passed 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to move to restore on pages 10-12 of the draft, under the “Regional Partnerships” section, the language deleted on specific intergov- ernmental partners. Mayor Piercy said she brought this up because she believed the council needed to continue to recognize who the City’s regional partners are and that, whenever possible, the council should support them. She indicated she would be happy to accept the language revised by Ms. Bettman in that regard. Ms. Bettman offered the Revised Language to Proposed Deleted Language attachment as a friendly amendment. The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Papé wondered why Lane Community College had not been recognized as a partner. Mr. Kelly suggested that staff be directed to draft an appropriate paragraph. City Manager Taylor agreed that it would be easy to develop parallel language if the motion passed. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment to include Lane Community College in the language referring to the City’s regional partners. The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the amendment but she did not agree that it needed to be in the legislative document. She thought the document should be pared down so that anyone could pick it up and see what legislation the City was supporting. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The motion to amend the main motion, as amended by friendly amendments, passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to restore on page 25 of the draft under the “local Flexibility for Enterprise Zone” section in Recommendation 1, the word ‘additional.’ Mayor Piercy explained that from her perspective the City was looking for additional opportunities for the State to give the City more flexibility when it came to community standards. Ms. Taylor thought ‘flexibility’ spoke to the intent by itself. Ms. Bettman asked legal counsel if the word would make a difference. City Attorney Jerry Lidz stated that the word ‘additional’ would imply that there was some local flexibility and the City would like more flexibility. The motion to amend passed, 6:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to delete on page 29 of the draft, under “Funding for Streets” Recommendation 1, Item “h,” the words “supports an elected Lane Transit District (LTD) Board.” Mayor Piercy said while she may support an elected LTD Board, she could not support it in this document. She felt this was unnecessarily disrespectful to a community partner and would be seen as cross- jurisdictional interference that would not help local efforts on many fronts. She added that it would be appropriate to address the issue if it came up during the legislative session. Mr. Kelly asserted that it would come up during the session given that State Senator Bill Morrisette brought it up during the last legislative session. He said the City Council raised concerns in the past about the appointment process. He did not believe it to be a “slap in the face” to the LTD Board. Ms. Bettman averred that there were “many issues” in the document that anticipated issues and were proactive. She believed that given that LTD was eligible for transportation funds, its budget should be approved by an elected body; that was democracy. She felt that in terms of how important transit was, the board was making very important transit and resource decisions. Mr. Papé concurred with the Mayor. He did not favor an elected board at this time. He said “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He pointed out that the LTD Board was obviously a “heavy” volunteer position. He felt it would be prohibitive to get good candidates to run district-wide for positions. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Walston clarified that her recommendation for the amend- ment, if approved, was that it should be moved somewhere else in the document. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Solomon was not prepared to support a move to have an elected LTD Board at this time. She wanted to have the discussion as a group at another point in time. Mr. Kelly said his expectation would be that an LTD Board member would have to run in a sub-district, so it would not be a district-wide campaign. He added that he had felt LTD to be unresponsive to him when he had questions regarding the appointment process and also when he had been asked to comment on the nominees. He thought the appointment process was “broken.” Mr. Pryor believed the discussion to be a “classic example of persuasive arguments. . . on both sides.” He was less inclined to put it in the document than to wait for a specific proposal that could come out of the legislature. Ms. Taylor declared that the LTD Board was a very powerful group and an elected board would be a step toward democracy. She predicted the LTD Board would become more powerful as people use transit more. She added that the council had taken a stand on this in 2005 and no one had objected. She felt the CCIGR and council could make changes if necessary if this came up in the legislature. Mr. Papé asked if anyone had talked to the City’s other jurisdictional partners. City Manager Taylor and Ms. Walston indicated that no one had done so. Ms. Bettman averred that certainly the City was taking many stands in the document that it had not vetted with its partners. She said if the City was unwilling to take a stand on anything without seeing an actual bill it would not need a legislative policies document. She believed supporting deletion of this item would be a way of saying that the body was not interested in an elected board. The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Mr. Papé, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in support. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 41 of the draft, under the “Removal of Regulatory Barriers” section, a new bulleted comment after the first bullet which reads: “The closure of manufactured home parks, in particular, is currently a significant issue locally and around the state. Owners of manufactures homes who rent their space in a park may find themselves with either expensive alternatives or no alternatives if their park is closed because the land has a higher value for a different use. Many of these households are comprised of elderly people who find their investment and home at se- vere risk. There are at least 25 parks and 1,830 spaces in Eugene, with many more throughout Lane County. While Eugene had adopted very limited protections for some tenants, there is no statewide legislation.” The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to delete on page 56 of the draft, under “Homeless Youth” all of the current language and replace it with the following: “There are 41,000 homeless children in Oregon schools, of these 2,000 are unaccompa- nied youth without family support. There are 24,000 homeless and runaway youth statewide. Recommendations: 1. Eugene supports additional services and resources to meet the needs of homeless and at-risk children and youth. This includes the recommendations from the Ore- MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 4 Work Session gon Commission on Children and Families that were identified as a result of HB 2202 in 2005. 2. Eugene supports legislation to increase services to youth who are aging out of the foster care system. Currently nearly half become homeless within six months. 3. Eugene supports legislation that provides additional mental health, substance abuse, and health care for children and young adults under the age of 21.” Ms. Walston noted that Richie Weinman, a member of the Community Development Division who has worked extensively on issues involving homelessness, helped craft the language. Mr. Kelly commended the Mayor, Ms. Walston, and Mr. Weinman for the stronger language. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 57 of the draft, under “Air Quality” the following language: “The City will support legislation and work with local and state partners to reduce car- bon emissions.” The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to add on page 65 of the draft under “Notice for Spraying Pesticides/Insecticides” the following: “The City supports legislation which requires advance written notification to the City and recognized neighborhood organizations of pesticide and insecticide spraying along railroad tracks.” Mayor Piercy said this motion responded to a long-term concern in the community, but she was uncertain whether the State could actually force the railroad to actually notify the public. Mr. Kelly supported the intent but he believed the State could do nothing about it. Ms. Walston acknowledged that the State had no jurisdiction but she thought it should at least be “put in the hopper” as a statement of support. Mr. Kelly offered the following friendly amendment: “The City supports legislation which requires advance written notification to the City and recognized neighborhood organizations of pesticide and insecticide spraying along railroad tracks to the extent allowed by federal law.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman asked how practical it would be to add it to the United Front agenda. Mayor Piercy believed that if there was a resolution of some kind on this issue that went to Congress that, given the shift in power at the level of the House of Representatives, it could bring about change at the federal level. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add this item to the United Front agenda. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 5 Work Session The maker and second accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Papé asked if the United Front agenda had been prepared. Ms. Bettman replied that it had and it basically duplicated the agenda from the previous year. The motion to amend passed, as amended, 7:0. Mr. Kelly said he hoped the legislative document could be revised and rewritten. He noted that it had not been substantially reviewed and revised since 2001. Ms. Walston said she would put it on the agenda for the CCIGR in 2008. Mr. Kelly said on page 17 there was a new boldface-type recommendation to support removal of the corporate minimum tax. He was uncertain what the intent was. Ms. Bettman explained that the committee sought to remove the cap. Mr. Kelly did not believe there was a cap; rather there was a floor on the tax that was “very, very low.” He asked if the intent was to “raise the floor.” Ms. Bettman affirmed that this was the intent. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the language, as follows: “Support increase of the corporate minimum income tax.” The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Kelly said he had noticed something was missing from previous documents. He explained that previously the council advocated for making municipal court a court of record. Ms. Walston clarified that this was a successful action as the municipal court could now be a court of record; it was now up to the City to pass an ordinance to enact this at the local level, and that this would also require the installation of some recording equipment Mr. Kelly thanked councilors-elect Alan Zelenka and Mike Clark for their attentiveness to the council meetings over the past months. Mayor Piercy added her post-election congratulations to them. Mr. Kelly observed that there had been a recommendation in past legislative documents that had been stricken that read, as follows: “Support proposals to increase the number of signatures required for initiative constitutional amend- ment.” He asked why it had been struck. He believed a constitutional amendment merited a higher threshold. Ms. Bettman agreed that there was a downside to the threshold. But her sense was to leave the initiative process alone. She felt, on balance, it was a “good thing.” Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to restore the recommendation on page 73 of the document. Ms. Taylor said she believed that really powerful people could get a lot of signatures for a ballot measure, but somebody “down the street who has an idea” was not as able to do so. She supported leaving it out of the document because she wanted to protect the democratic process. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 6 Work Session Mr. Pryor agreed that constitutional amendments should meet a higher standard in order to avoid frivolous initiatives. Ms. Bettman thought there already was a higher standard for constitutional amendments in the mind of the voters. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy stated that the next item for discussion was the transportation issues related to new growth, referred to on page 28 of the document. Mr. Pryor said that since the council had spent so much time discussing the backlog of capital projects, he wanted to make sure the council had the opportunity to think about initiating it as part of the legislative session. He underscored the enormity of the backlog and asked if there was something the council could do at the State level. Ms. Bettman appreciated this, but believed that within the recommendations the CCIGR had covered “the fact that preservation and maintenance” were a high priority. Mr. Kelly said without an inkling of what might come forward he could not come up with language for the legislative document. Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Pryor for bringing this item up. Mayor Piercy said the next issue of discussion was in regard to the boundary commission. Ms. Bettman noted that the council had taken a stand on this item before. She felt that since it was in the document, the council should discuss it. She asked what the cost of the commission was and where the money came from. Paula Taylor, executive officer of the Lane County Boundary Commission, explained that the boundary commission was a State agency and had to operate with a budget consistent with Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 199. She stated that the budget from the boundary commission was adopted by administrative rule and was not part of the legislatively approved budget, which meant the commission received no General Fund money from the State. She said the commission collected the majority of its revenues from assessments to cities and certain special districts in Lane County and it generated almost half of its revenues through filing fees. She clarified that there was a cap in the statute of what the assessment rate could be. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor stated that Eugene’s portion of the cost was $32,294. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the boundary commission was disbanded. Ms. Taylor replied that the business of the boundary commission would be processed through the City Council, with the exception of special districts, which would be addressed by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. She added that the County would also have the authority to form or dissolve new units of government. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Bettman did not think the council needed to come to a conclusion at this level. She thought the CCIGR could take information and questions and discuss it further and make a recommendation to the council if it needed further discussion. Mr. Papé pointed out that the boundary commission was the last one in the State. He believed it would be brought up at the legislative level again. He suggested holding a work session on this item after the new year. Ms. Ortiz agreed the council needed a work session on the boundary commission. She related that her constituents told her that they found it to be another layer of government that was cumbersome and possibly not necessary. Mr. Kelly believed that there was some value in having the boundary commission as sometimes the role of the commission was to be an independent third-party check on what could otherwise be some fairly controversial moves. He asked the council to consider if it should strike the language and be silent on the question of whether or not it should take a stand on the commission until after the work session. Ms. Taylor thought this was a good idea. She believed the boundary commission would come up again in the legislative session. She was unconvinced that it was something that should remain in the legislative document; if it was left there, the council would be obligated to fight for it. Ms. Bettman said she had heard enough ambivalence around the table that it made sense to take it out and schedule a work session for the beginning of the year. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to strike the language under number 4 “An- nexation.” City Manager Taylor asked if the council intended to change its position by eliminating the language with regard to annexation. He recalled that there had been an argument in the last session between the City of Beaverton and one of its important employers that led to a statewide discussion on annexation that was not in the City of Eugene’s best interest. He suggested that the City of Eugene might want to maintain its historic position with regard to the flexibility about the methods of annexation that was different from which governmental body made the decision. Ms. Bettman understood the recommendation to be that City Manager Taylor wished to rewrite number 4. She asked Planning staff if removing the language would put it in a tenuous situation. Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner for the Planning Division, said it would depend on the timing. He averred that if the council discussion could be completed before legislation was introduced, it would not have a negative impact. City Manager Taylor stated that a work session could be scheduled for this discussion after the first of the year, but another agenda topic would have to be moved. Mayor Piercy suggested that when making a motion to remove language, it be stated that the motion did not indicate support or lack thereof. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the motion that read, as follows: MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 8 Work Session “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” Ms. Bettman declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend section 4, as follows: “Rewrite section 4 on page 44 to remove references to the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission pending a City Council work session after the first of the year.” In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Kelly assured him that the word ‘pending’ would not delay the document itself. Ms. Bettman believed annexation issues and the boundary commission were intertwined and so should be discussed at the same time. She opposed the amendment. The motion to amend passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that the first item of the agenda had run over its scheduled time. She recommended that the last topic, a Report on the Sister City Trip, be postponed. All were amenable to this change. B. WORK SESSION: City Council Priority Issue – Strengthen and Promote Community Arts and Outdoors Assets City Manager Taylor introduced Community Relations Manager Jan Bohman. Ms. Bohman stated that the council priority issue acknowledged that Eugene’s unique combination of cultural, recreational, and natural resources were the city’s greatest strength and that they provided a foundation for a sustainable economic development strategy. She reported that the City aspired to accomplish two major benefits: 1) that some sustainable economic activity would develop through increased tourism and commerce; and 2) that the community’s livability would improve through improvement to access to arts and outdoor activities. Ms. Bohman stressed that this was an interdepartmental effort. She noted that key projects included the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (PROS), the resource assessment for both arts and outdoors th activities, the Cultural Policy Review (CPR), the major celebration of 100 years of parks, the upcoming 25 anniversary of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts (HCPA), preparation for the 2008 Olympic Trials, and several other projects. She opined that the outcome of the PROS levy was a good indication of how much Eugeneans valued outdoor resources and how much they were willing to support them. Ms. Bohman said one key activity that the staff team worked on was the marketing plan. She related that the City contracted with Funk/Levis and Associates to help staff work on the plan. They had invited approximately 50 stakeholders to provide input. They were now beginning to work on implementing the MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 9 Work Session plan. She stated that the plan focused on the more organizational aspects of the effort. She said the next step would be to convene a steering committee. In the meantime, she related that they were continuing to find ways to incorporate ‘the world’s greatest city for the arts and outdoors’ into a number of the materials the City had to hand out and in publications. Laura Niles, LRCS Business/Communication Relations Manager, provided a report on the season at the Cuthbert Amphitheater. She averred that the City was successful in creating a concessionaire’s contract with local promoter Kit Kesey and David Leiken of Double Tee Productions. She lauded Mr. Kesey and Mr. Leiken for embracing the University of Oregon Folk Festival, a free event, as their opener. She reported that Cuthbert Amphitheater featured 13 event days in 2006, 4 in 2005, and 7 in 2004; paid attendance for 2006 was nearly 24,000, up from 3,400 in 2005, and 13,000 in 2004. She related that feedback from the community and from the promoters had been positive and the City looked forward to partnering with them in the future. Mr. Kelly shared his excitement in the Cultural Policy Review (CPR). He felt it was a way to take the “very rich art scene” and make it richer. He thought it would ultimately impact City government policies and practices as well as activities and relationships in the arts community. He stated that he had been a member of the Mayor’s Committee that was overseeing the process. He invited anyone with an interest to attend the next meeting of the Mayor’s Committee, scheduled for November 14 from 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Library meeting room. He noted that there would be a large public meeting held from 6 to 8 p.m. on the same day in the lobby of the Hult Center. Mr. Kelly commended the national consultants who were doing the work. He said the situation paper, available at the CPR Web site, would be updated based on the upcoming meetings. He stated that a Web- based survey would be launched in the coming week. Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for all of the CPR work that had happened to date and to the public for all of the support for the library and the parks. She added that she had spoken with Jordan Schnitzer and he indicated to her his desire to make the Schnitzer Art Museum a community resource. Ms. Bohman presented a preliminary video that sought to “brand” the City of Eugene with the title “the Greatest City for the Arts and Outdoors.” Mayor Piercy related that she had taken the video to the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). She said councilors were welcome to take copies of it to show to constituents and other interested parties. Ms. Bettman commented that she was sensitive to situations that equated the outdoors with athletics. While she thought athletics were “great,” she suggested that what people really liked about living in this area were the hiking, kayaking, and bicycling opportunities, among others. Additionally, Ms. Bettman wished to bring up the potential expansion of recreational activities through the disposition of Buford Park. She acknowl- edged that it was under Lane County’s purview, but she thought the City should explore ways to partner to move forward with the the purchase of the adjacent land at the site. She suggested that lottery money could be used. Mr. Kelly commented that he was uncertain whether he would be here if the area did not feature so many amenities that added to the quality of life. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Bohman related that a woman touring City Hall had shared that she and her husband relocated to the area because of what it had to offer. Mr. Kelly thought that the need for a designated entity to bring the marketing plan forward was a point well- taken. He asked if members of City government would have a seat on the steering committee. He also wondered if the steering committee had been named. Ms. Bohman replied that it was not named as yet. Mr. Kelly remarked that both the good news and the challenge in this initiative was that the marketing plan was going ahead at the same time the CPR process was going through. City Manager Taylor stated that preparations for the 2008 Olympic Trials brought a lot of energy that was parallel to the ongoing marketing strategy the City would have. He felt this would be synchronized with what would come out of the CPR process. He added that the video had come from largely existing footage and had been compiled by staff. He underscored that this was a good effort done with existing resources. Ms. Bohman agreed, adding that Cathy Madison of the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) department gathered the footage and Metro Television produced the video. Mr. Papé appreciated the five action items. He asked if anything had been done with regard to securing funding. Ms. Bohman responded that this was “a big thing to work on next.” She said they hoped to get help from partners. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Ms. Bohman affirmed that the slogan had been trademarked. Mr. Papé asked if local entities had talked with other cities about partnerships in artistic endeavors such as a ballet company, as an example. Ms. Bohman replied that they had not done so through this effort. Mr. Papé observed that some of the local companies had difficulty sustaining themselves. Ms. Niles pointed out that the Eugene Ballet Company had partnered with Ballet Idaho since 1994. She said this developed as a result of the company’s own planning strategy and not as a result of anything the City had done in partnership with the company. She felt that coming together in the CPR meetings “linked people up to start talking strategically” about the future. She said there had been a lot of discussion among local arts groups about securing resources and sharing them. She stated that the Eugene Ballet now had its own building and shared it with five other arts organizations. Mr. Papé thanked Mr. Kelly for his participation in the CPR process. He also thanked Ms. Jones for “winning the event on the front cover of the Chamber magazine.” Ms. Taylor said that while the council talked about marketing the Eugene outdoors, there was land in south Eugene that was being destroyed. She opined that City staff should “be in the business of protecting rather than helping developers destroy.” The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 11 Work Session Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 8, 2006 Page 12 Work Session