Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 09/10/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall September 10, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor recommended that people read Karen McCowen's column about the PeaceHealth situation in the September 10 edition of The Register-Guard. Ms. Taylor recognized the passing of Neale Hyatt, a former Eugene resident and activist. Ms. Taylor acknowledged the different points of view among councilors, and said she thought that was good as long as views were freely and fully expressed. She did not think ridicule and personal attacks were conducive to productive discussion. She was sorry to see the mayor use the media for what she considered to be disrespectful references and personal attacks directed at certain councilors. She expressed disappointment in the mayor's behavior, which she thought contributed to a deterioration of civility. Ms. Taylor repeated her previous request for council consideration of exemptions from the Yard Debris Program. She said that while use of a 21-gallon can was supposed to exempt one from the program, there was no such can. Ms. Taylor asked that the council be given an opportunity later in the meeting to provide input to its representatives to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) regarding the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) proposals being discussed at the MPC's September 13 meeting. Ms. Taylor said she recently saw former Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer at the Farmers Market, who wished her to convey his greetings to the council and who indicated he was enjoying his new position. Ms. Taylor thanked the Eugene Police Department and Eugene Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department for assisting her when she had her arm caught in her car window. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Speaking about the Yard Debris Program, Ms. Nathanson said she wished to convey to the public that a change had been made to the basic formula for determining residential garbage rates. She said the change to blended rates should help mitigate the impact of the Yard Debris Program on residential rates over the next few years. She thought the council made a mistake in not first considering blended rates before it adopted the Yard Debris Program, as it may have been able to pay the costs of the program without increasing rates. Ms. Nathanson suggested a silver lining to the situation was avoidance of further residential increases for some time. Mr. Rayor said the council's adoption of the Yard Debris Program was intended both to meet State goals and to avoid near-term replacement of the land fill. He suggested the council consider exemptions for people who had yard service. Perhaps ratepayers could send in their bills for yard service to their haulers to secure the exemption. He indicated willingness to look at other options for exemptions. Ms. Bettman passed. Mr. Farr asked City Manager Jim Johnson about the potential the City would be sued for libel by a local business owner because of a potentially defamatory e-mail message regarding the business sent by an executive assistant. Mr. Johnson responded that the business in question had filed a lawsuit; the City was required by State law to cover the costs of the lawsuit against the employee. He said he would share information he had provided to the mayor about the State law with the council. Mr. Farr referred to the PeaceHealth decision to move to Springfield rather than expand in Eugene, and said while he was not the type to say "1 told you so," he did. Mr. Pap8 stated that he would not be participating in any council discussions with regard to yard debris or garbage service because of a conflict of interest. He regretted he could not help constituents who contacted him with questions about the topic. Mr. Pap8 recognized the work of John Brown, a Eugene citizen who had recently organized a riverfront cleanup. He said the clean-up was successful, and he was happy to report he had seen no evidence of camping on the drift boat trip he took. Speaking to the PeaceHealth situation, Mr. Pap8 said he knew, trusted, and respected many of the PeaceHealth board members. He believed what they had told him regarding their decision to move to a Springfield site. Mr. Pap8 thought it time the council became accountable; if it had wanted PeaceHealth to stay in the community, it had had the ability to make that happen, and did not do so. PeaceHealth had been interested in pursuing development on its north Eugene property, but had been willing, until June 27, to look at the potential of expansion at its Hilyard campus. The action the council took in agreeing to initiate rezoning for its north Eugene property to preclude its development as a hospital had shocked the board into looking at other options. Mr. Pap8 added that he thought it was logical for an organization making a large investment to look at all the possible options. The board interpreted the council's action as an act of war, took offense, and decided to get serious about other sites. That culminated in the hospital's decision to move to Springfield. Mr. Pap8 said the council had no one to blame but itself. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 2 Work Session Speaking in regard to the Yard Debris Program, Mr. Meisner suggested the establishment of possible exemptions to the program was an administrative matter, and he did not support a work session. He hoped the manager would consider the council's comments and follow-up. Mr. Kelly asked if the City planned on issuing a status report on how the organization compared to other cities in terms of the International City Managers Association benchmarks. Mr. Kelly reported that a constituent had complained to him about the private security staff at the library being "heavy-handed," and asked if the security firm was under contract with the City and if it had any sort of guidance from the City in the contract. Mr. Kelly reported that the Sister City delegation to Kakegawa had been canceled for lack of participation. Mr. Kelly endorsed Ms. Taylor's request for council discussion of the STIP proposals. Mr. Kelly said that any remarks he had made in the media regarding PeaceHealth management were not meant to include the board of directors; he had been speaking specifically of employees of PeaceHealth. Regarding PeaceHealth's decision to relocate to Springfield, Ms. Bettman recalled that there were six council votes to initiate the zoning change. She stood behind that vote because it was an opportunity for the neighborhoods in north Eugene to have input into the development process, and because PeaceHealth had changed its plans for the site from what was initially envisioned in the neighborhood refinement plan. She thought that the council acted in the best interest of Eugene as was appropriate, not in the best interest of PeaceHealth. She disagreed with the rhetoric and finger-pointing some councilors had engaged in. Mr. Rayor spoke to the PeaceHealth situation, and said he had regretted his vote but it was made to keep the hospital downtown. He thought that when PeaceHealth indicated downtown was not an option, the council had moved immediately to accommodate the hospital. He noted that PeaceHealth siting options had been on the council's agenda but had been deleted; he read a suggested motion in the meeting packet that would have allowed the hospital to proceed with development on the north Eugene site. He thought that the motion would have passed, and PeaceHealth's needs could have been met at that site. Mr. Rayor's thought that the hospital's decision was in part based on intangibles not entirely within the control of Eugene, such as a more scenic site and fewer zoning and transportation issues; however, he thought Eugene was "open for business" and could accommodate another major developer with suitable sites. He thought that businesses would come to Eugene as readily as businesses had gone to Springfield. Mr. Pap8 said that the council lost the trust of the PeaceHealth board and negotiating team when it had departed from the concept of expanding around the existing hospital and taken the action to initiate rezoning on the north Eugene site. Nothing the council would have done tonight would have helped. In response to Ms. Taylor's comments, Mayor Torrey said he had been asked by a reporter to respond specifically to Mr. Kelly's statement that the situation was totally the hospital's fault, that it never intended to stay in Eugene, and that the process had been a ruse to get the council to force the hospital out of town. He did not share Mr. Kelly's beliefs. Mayor Torrey said had worked with the hospital to convince it to stay in Eugene, first in downtown and then in north Eugene. He said that council negotiators had assured the hospital negotiating team that they could persuade the MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 3 Work Session council to support expansion at the Hilyard campus. Not only did that not occur, on June 27, with just 15 minutes of discussion, the council passed a motion to downzone the hospital property. He thought that action had shattered the council's reputation. Mayor Torrey asked why the anonymous telephone call regarding PeaceHealth's intent to relocate in Springfield mentioned by Mr. Kelly to the media was not shared with the council. Mayor Torrey said he did not intend to withdraw his statements; if working together meant he had to capitulate to actions not in the best interest of the city, he would not work together. He thought the decision to downzone the property was the straw that broke the camel's back. He called on the council to work cooperatively with PeaceHealth to ensure there was emergency room coverage in the south Eugene area. Mayor Torrey stated he had nothing to do with the PeaceHealth land transaction or the Gang of 9, as had been insinuated in a e-mail message he received from former councilor Paul Nicholson, and he was prepared to bring a legal action if someone wanted to press the issue. Mr. Kelly did not agree that the council voted in 15 minutes to downzone the PeaceHealth property. He said that when the mayor spoke to the press he had referred to the need for a public process if the council was going to change the allowed uses on the property; Mr. Kelly believed that the council had merely voted to start that process. Mr. Kelly emphasized that six councilors supported the motion to begin the rezoning process on June 27. He thought it inappropriate for the mayor to single him out of those six councilors, and added "I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm running for reelection next year." Mr. Kelly denied saying he had no responsibility for the situation; he had instead stated his belief that PeaceHealth had intended for months to go to Springfield and was looking for an excuse to leave Eugene. He now wished there had been communication with PeaceHealth around the motion of June 27, saying it could have been better explained, and he took partial responsibility for that. Mr. Kelly pointed out that Mr. Fart had made the motion that took the six-block expansion option in downtown off the table. He had been serious in his commitment to the board to argue for the option. He had been taken by surprise by Mr. Fart's motion. Mr. Kelly referred to an anonymous telephone call he received on April 24, saying he had not shared the information with many people because he had no way at the time to assess the credibility of the call. He had told the City Manager and certain staff in the Planning and Development Department. He noted that the caller had correctly predicted the publication of the Gang of 9 cartoons. Speaking to the comments of the mayor, Ms. Taylor clarified that she had not implicated the mayor as being a part of the Gang of 9. She said that she had been called at other times by constituents telling her that the mayor was on the Lars Larson show "trashing the council." Mr. Rayor thought the council made a fundamental mistake by not meeting as a full council with the PeaceHealth board in a retreat setting. He thought it critical that the City go forward with an exclusive hospital zone to facilitate redevelopment of the hospital's Hilyard campus. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks. He advocated for mending what fences could be mended with PeaceHealth and moving forward. Mr. Pap8 reiterated that PeaceHealth may have been looking at several options, but it was mainly interested in developing its north Eugene property, and did not change its direction until the council acted to downzone the property on June 27. B. Work Session: Ward Redistricting The council was joined by Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department and Clair Van Bloem of Lane Council of Governments for the item. Mr. Croteau said the work session was scheduled to give the council an opportunity to review the five staff-developed redistricting scenarios (included in the meeting packet). He invited modifications to the scenarios or council suggestions for new scenarios. Mr. Croteau also asked for council concurrence on the public hearing date scheduled. Mr. Croteau reminded the council that it had previously directed staff to prepare redistricting scenarios based on council-adopted criteria. At that time, the council also approved the public involvement process. Mr. Croteau reviewed the meeting packet materials and materials distributed at the meeting, which included a listing of registered voters by scenario. He said that the scenarios included in the packet emphasized different criteria, and provided a range of choices for the public and council to comment upon. Mr. Croteau reviewed a series of maps showing five redistricting scenarios. He said that a public hearing was scheduled before the council on October 22. He distributed a schedule related to the agenda item. Mr. Croteau solicited questions. Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for staff's work on the scenarios. She asked if staff could develop a matrix showing the scenarios and the criteria and some of the key characteristics of the scenarios to the degree they matched the criteria. She suggested a rating system of 1, 2, 3. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Croteau said that staff would accept comment from the public at the public forum, but it was more of an information session than a comment session. Ms. Bettman wanted to see numbers comparing existing registered voters by ward boundary. Mr. Meisner said all the scenarios developed by staff could make sense. He said there was no community of interest now in his ward (Ward 7); all the groups in it were very diverse. He said that in the Orange scenario, Ward 5 encompassed River Road to the south, and he thought this area had more commonality with VVhitaker than with Ward 5 east of the river. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Croteau described how boundaries were created, which included the use of major arterials, neighborhood association boundaries, and existing ward boundaries. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Pap~ liked the Indigo, Orange, and Green scenarios. Given the number of issues that existed in the River Road/Santa Clara, he thought it important to have that area in one ward. He noted that was nearly accomplished in the Green scenario. Mr. Croteau responded that during the process of scenario development, staff found there was not enough population to have two complete wards on the north side of the river. Either Ward 4 or Ward 5 would have to cross the river. He said that staff preferred to keep River Road/Santa Clara in one or two wards rather than in three wards. He said that the issue was of concern to residents of River Road/Santa Clara. He said that staff also thought it important to give the community choices, and to let the community to see all the options. Mr. Fart also commended staff's work. He thought it important to keep the Bethel School District within the boundaries of Ward 6 as he thought it a positive thing for the school district to be represented by one councilor. That meant island annexations in the River Road area should be in Ward 7. He agreed that wards 5 or 4 must cross the river, and endorsed the approach taken in the Violet scenario, which seemed equitable in terms of keeping neighborhoods and like areas of the city together. Mr. Rayor said that he had heard people comment there should be an equal number of adults or registered voters in each ward, but the law required the council to only take population into account. He acknowledged the likely need to span the river with a ward. Regarding Ward 1 as shown in the Indigo scenario, Mr. Rayor said that the extension of the ward at Chambers Street beyond 7th Avenue was an example of an area that would be difficult in terms of constituent services. He thought the ward populations could be equalized without creating awkward appendages to wards. Mr. Kelly agreed that a variety of scenarios was good, but thought that the Indigo scenario was too "out of whack" with the criterion of incremental change when possible. It was one scenario he could see dropping. Mr. Kelly thought the Violet scenario did a good job of providing equity. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Pap~ that River Road/Santa Clara should be kept together. He said that area needed its own representation. Mayor Torrey called for better geographic distribution of councilors. He said the current system was not appropriate. He did not want to take away the option of geographic redistribution. Ms. Nathanson said that the people she represented in the Bethel area were unlikely to identify with the remainder of Ward 8, and in some of the scenarios that boundary extended even further into the Bethel area. She asked Mr. Croteau for comment on that. Regarding the south hills, she pointed out that under some scenarios there were two, not three, councilors who would represent the south hills. She noted issues related to transportation, topography, erosion, fire danger, etc., specific to that area, and asked Mr. Croteau for comment on that as well. She also asked how existing census boundaries influenced how ward boundaries were drawn. In response to the latter question, Mr. Croteau said that the smallest unit for which population could be calculated was one census block. That was defined as an area surrounded by streets. In suburban areas, a block was not necessary square. It was not always possible, particularly at the fringe, to add a small area of population. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's questions about the Bethel and south hills areas, Mr. Croteau noted that each new ward would have approximately 17,237 people, equivalent to two cities the size of Cottage Grove. He said that the growth in wards meant that it was difficult to maintain a ward that felt like a neighborhood. Mr. Croteau said it was not always possible to include in a ward what councilors might consider their neighborhoods. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Nathanson said the issue for her was not so much the difficulty of constituent services, but rather whether the voters feel like they belong in the ward they were in. Ms. Bettman said Ms. Nathanson's point well-taken. She thought it important to have Ward 3 be a downtown ward that was still connected to the neighborhoods that support downtown and were affected by activities there. Ms. Bettman was surprised not to see a scenario that extended Ward 1 to the west as opposed to the north as it was in some of the scenarios. She thought that extension would be more logical in terms of communities of commonality, and wanted to see a scenario that extended Ward 1 to the west rather than the north. Ms. Bettman thought it would be more appropriate to extend Ward 4 across the river than Ward 5 because it had traditionally crossed the river. Ms. Bettman suggested that transportation corridors could create as big a barrier as the river. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the Indigo scenario. She also thought more options that reflected the council's comments should be developed for public review. Ms. Taylor thought the Violet scenario the most feasible and hoped the Indigo scenario would be eliminated. She also shared Ms. Bettman's interest in extending Ward 1 to the west. She thought that the wards should be drawn so that all councilors retained their current seats. She believed that people who once voted for a councilor had the right to continue to be represented by that councilor. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments regarding downtown, Mr. Meisner observed that downtown was often referred to as everyone's neighborhood. Regarding the Indigo scenario, he agreed it represented the most change, but he was interested in how Ward 7 appeared in that scenario as it assigned most of the downtown to that ward. He said that Whiteaker was very affected by downtown issues. Mr. Meisner was unsure he could support eliminating an option at this time. He preferred to bring a broad range of options to the public even if the council did not like them. He doubted the council would end up with any of the scenarios in their present form. Mr. Fart thought the location of existing councilors' residences should be the last thing the council considered in creating new ward boundaries given the long-term nature of the impact of redistricting. He pointed out that the existing councilors could run for seats in their new wards. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner; he was not interested in voting to eliminate any of the scenarios at this time. He also found some elements of the Indigo scenario worthwhile. He pointed out that the criterion related to incumbency was last on the list of criteria, which suggested it had less weight than the other criteria. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to delete the Indigo scenario from consideration. Ms. Nathanson wanted to retain the scenario at this point. She said that it largely respected the Willamette River as a boundary, which was of interest to her. She said that the area north of the river was split north-south rather than east-west, which appeared to be radical, but might make sense given communities of interest, the neighborhood associations, and development patterns in that area. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly expressed concern about forwarding five or six scenarios to a public hearing and trying to interpret the testimony and deduce trends from it. He questioned whether it might be useful to reduce the number of scenarios, and asked Mr. Croteau for comment. Mr. Kelly suggested boundary adjustments to the neighborhood associations north of the river might be in order in the future. Responding to Mr. Kelly's question, Mr. Croteau anticipated that people would focus on specific aspects of the scenarios rather than on the individual scenarios themselves. He did not think there was a need to reduce the number of scenarios prior to the public hearing. Mayor Torrey indicated opposition to the motion. He said that people should be allowed to comment on all the scenarios. He added that he thought there were three discernible neighborhoods at minimum in the area north of the river with common interests: 1) the area north of Beltline between I-5 and the Willamette River; 2) the area north of the Beltline and east of Coburg Road, and 3) Harlow below the Beltline to the river. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to substitute the motion with a motion adding an additional scenario that increased Ward 1 by directing it west as opposed to north, maintained the river crossing in Ward 4, and created contiguity for downtown and the surrounding urban core neighborhoods. The motion to substitute passed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Rayor, Mr. Fart voting no. The vote on the substitute motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Fart voting no, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Meisner voting yes; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in opposition to the motion, and the final vote was 5:4 in opposition. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to develop another scenario that moved Ward 1 to the west. Mr. Rayor opposed the motion because it involved his ward, and because he had difficulty with such nonspecific motions. He thought the input should have been provided to staff earlier. Mr. Kelly disagreed with Mr. Rayor, saying that the option would give the public a different scenario to consider in terms of the ward boundaries. He thought it was not a good thing to be too specific in the motion about the boundaries given the council's lack of knowledge about the populations involved, etc. Ms. Taylor said the council was just adding other scenario. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. Mr. Fart, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to instruct staff to bring back a scenario that reduces the number of wards to six and established two at- large positions. Mr. Rayor did not support the motion, again because of lack of adequate information. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Kelly noted the Citizen Charter Review Committee had considered the issue of at-large council wards and members felt strongly that at-large wards were not the right approach. He looked to the committee's recommendation on the issue for his direction. Mr. Fart did not think the committee was representative of the community and said the question should be posed to the larger public. Ms. Nathanson thought the concept in the motion was interesting but agreed with Mr. Rayor that such last-minute concepts were difficult to address. She did not recall that the Citizen Charter Review Committee had discussed the concept reflected in the motion. Mr. Johnson concurred with Ms. Nathanson's recollection. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that the concept in the motion would require a charter amendment to implement if adopted. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Johnson said there had been little public comment at the committee level about the issue of at-large elections. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Fart, saying she thought the committee was a balanced committee and she believed the motion would be circumventing its work. She further pointed out that the proposal did not meet the criteria adopted by the council. She also noted that the council had an at-large representative in the mayor. Ms. Taylor opposed the motion as she believed that at-large elections represented a step away from democracy and campaign finance reform because citywide elections would cost more and the balance of power would go to those with money. She also thought the position of mayor should be a rotating position. Mr. Meisner noted that in conversations with other elected officials from progressive communities at the National League of Cities, he learned that many cities had at least half of their councilors elected on an at-large basis. It had not proved to be an impediment to democracy or progressivity or a barrier to campaign finance reform. Mr. Meisner intended to vote no on the motion, not because he was not interested in the concept, but he thought the timing wrong and he did not want to present just a single combination approach that could not be immediately implemented to the public. He suggested the Citizen Charter Review Committee be asked to take another look at the issue. Mayor Torrey noted his long-time support for at-large elections. In response to arguments that elections would be more costly, he pointed out the school board was elected in an at-large vote and he had not seen overwhelming campaign costs. He thought such an arguments against at- large elections was a "red herring." He said the citizens should vote on all councilors because all the councilors had a dramatic impact on the lives of citizens. Mayor Torrey anticipated a citizen would force the issue by placing an initiative on the ballot if the council did not discuss it. Mr. Rayor thought having a smaller geographic boundary did help hold election costs down. He believed that at-large elections would greatly complicate the issue of constituent service. Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion because it could not be implemented by the council at this point and she believed it would confuse people if included in the discussion of redistricting. She MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 9 Work Session thought the council should foster public discussion of the concept in the future. She did not think the Citizen Charter Review Committee should be asked to spend more time on the subject, and said the council should take up the discussion now. Mr. Kelly agreed with the comments of Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor, and Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Bettman did not support having two or four at-large council seats because she thought it would increase the population left in the wards with geographic boundaries, and the councilors had enough work to do representing their constituents now without increasing it above what was anticipated through redistricting. She said such a move would reduce a resident's ability to access local government. The motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Fart voting yes. Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Kelly advocated for a shod discussion on the subject of the input to the MPC representatives on House Bill 21-42. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. PapS, Mr. Farr, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes. Mr. Johnson determined from the council that the five scenarios developed by staff would be forwarded to the public. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to spend a maximum of ten minutes discussing the upcoming MPC agenda. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Farr voting no. C. MPC Agenda Ms. Taylor solicited input from the councilors on the upcoming MPC agenda. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, David Reinhard of the Public Works Department did not recall that the Oregon Transportation Commission had adopted a criterion of project readiness for a project to qualify for funding. The commission had agreed that projects should be "on the ground" no later than 2008. Mr. Kelly asked if the I-5/Beltline Phase 1 project was scheduled to be complete by 2008. Mr. Reinhard said yes. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Reinhard to double-check the answer to his question before Thursday's MPC meeting. Ms. Bettman asked if a project had to be in TransPlan or already in the planning stages to qualify for funding. She pointed out the construction of the federal courthouse would require improvements to the nearby State system, requiring a substantial State investment. She questioned if there was some way to move forward on a project like that to compete for available funding. Mr. Reinhard believed the project must be in TransPlan at this time to compete for funding. He did not think the City would have an idea of what those improvements would be until sometime in 2002. Ms. Bettman asked if there were existing projects with a potential impact on the development that were not on the project list. Mr. Reinhard said no. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 10 Work Session Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 11 Work Session