Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/24/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall April 24, 2000 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Pap~. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr, Gary Rayor. 1.PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order and reviewed the rules for the public forum. John Brown, 1260 Charnelton Street, identified himself as co-chair of the political action committee "For Safety's Sake," which was formed to support the proposed police and fire ballot measure. He asked the council, in the case the measure passed, to consider asking the voters to form a committee to observe and oversee the process from design and site location to bid and construction to further establish a level of credibility with the taxpayers regarding the measure. He believed that generally, people understood the need, but were concerned that their money was spent appropriately. Mr. Brown suggested that the group could report to the council and mayor. He requested a response. Michael Anthony Sakell, 925 Chambers Street, said Section 48 of the City Charter regarding the presumption of validity of City actions was a violation of the Fifth Amendment rights of all citizens. He said he had attempted to bring the issue to the council's attention without success. Mr. Sakell stated that he was arrested at City Hall the previous Thursday for protesting the charter section in front of his family. Mr. Sakell quoted Gandhi to the council and said that Gandhi's statement reflected his code of ethics. He called on the council to repeal the section in question. Max Ansola, 1816 Pacific Highway East, Tacoma, Washington, spoke of a seasonal stream on commercially zoned property he owned in Eugene and stated that it must be filled. He said that his property contained no wetlands. Mr. Ansola did not believe that commercial land could be developed and have a stream running through it. Vicki Perpinan, 1012 Centennial Boulevard, spoke in support of the Consolidated Housing Plan and its provision of rehabilitation to prevent homelessness. Councilor Kelly thanked Mr. Brown for his suggestion, saying it was a fine idea. He said that more oversight would provide more perspective, and he did not think the proposed process was a burden. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 1 Regular Meeting Regarding Mr. Ansola's comments, Councilor Kelly noted that there was dumping occurring on the property and suggested the installation of a chain link fence to prevent dumping. Mr. Ansola said he would do so. Councilor Pap~ asked Mr. Brown to expand on his suggestion. Mr. Brown envisioned a committee with members such as an architect to oversee the expenditure of funds in addition to the regular public process. City Manager Jim Johnson welcomed Mr. Brown's suggestion, and offered staff assistance. Mayor Torrey indicated that the council would follow-up on the suggestion. Councilors Lee and Meisner also supported Mr. Brown's proposal. Councilor Meisner hoped the committee was not voiceless, but would be able to provide input to staff throughout the design and construction process. Councilor Nathanson also supported Mr. Brown's suggestion. However, she wanted to be clear that if there was to be a sanctioned group, it should be a formal process. Otherwise, if it was merely a formality to know an outside body existed, the council would receive notice. She asked the City Manager to consider whether the body would be an appointed or acknowledged body. Councilor Taylor preferred to wait until after the election to discuss Mr. Brown's suggestion more fully. 2.CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Financial Management Goals and Policies B. Approval of Amendments to the 1995 Consolidated Plan C. Approval of Special One-Night Camping Request for Veterans D. Approval of Resolution 4628 Supporting Application for State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Local Government Grant Matching Funds for Parks Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve the Consent Calendar. At the request of Councilor Taylor, item B was pulled from the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor, Mr. Weinman said that the number of units in the proposed St. Vincent dePaul Iow-income housing project was reduced because of the limited tax credits available and because of the Fire Code and the related expense of building a higher building. St. Vincent dePaul had concluded the smaller project made more sense and was easier to fund. He said that the project was still a mixed-use housing project. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve item B on the Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 2 Regular Meeting 3.PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE PEDESTRIAN MALL; AMENDING SECTIONS 4.680, 4.870, 4.871, 4.872, 4.874, AND 4.990 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971 Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, he closed the public hearing. Councilor Lee thanked Councilor Kelly for his work on the issue. Councilor Kelly thanked the staff for its work, and said the ordinance changes were needed to be consistent with the reality of the current mall configuration. He noted his support of a contiguous exclusion area but thought it was going to be addressed by the addition of a sentence that the exclusion area would be the newly defined mall plus the blocks of Broadway and Willamette Street and Broadway and Olive Street. The draft ordinance instead added four full blocks of Willamette and Olive streets to the exclusion area. He said that if the exclusion ordinance was to apply to the mall, it should not apply to streets no longer part of the mall. Mr. Hibschman said that staff consulted with the Police Department and the police supported the inclusion of the streets due to issues regarding activity both on the sidewalks and in the right-of-way that related to the ordinance's effectiveness. Councilor Kelly requested additional information from the Police Department about its rationale and a revised ordinance that excluded the intersections in question. Councilor Taylor noted her support for eliminating all mall ordinances that included an exclusion provision and hoped that the council had the opportunity to address her concern when it took action on the ordinance in question. 4. ACTION: RESOLUTION 4629 APPROVING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR SUBMISSION TO THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve Resolution 4629, approving the Eugene-Springfield Five-Year Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development for submission to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Referring to the Housing Market Analysis, Councilor Nathanson noted that household sizes were predicted to continue to decline while the population increased. Because of that, the community would need proportionately more units than it would have 20 years ago. Households were predicted to be smaller, older, and less affluent. She said that a few years ago she had spoken to a committee of the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, and had predicted that rehabilitation and infill construction would be an important part of the construction industry's work. She asked if staff had shared that element of the analysis with the Homebuilders Association. Councilor Nathanson asked how the community compared to other cities in terms of the percentage of rental housing. Robin Johnson, City of Springfield, said that the percentage was typical of university communities, but not typical of other Oregon communities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 3 Regular Meeting Referring to the Housing Needs Analysis and its identification of the need for housing for youth, Councilor Nathanson asked what youth population was in question. She also questioned the implications of the University's plans for increased enrollment for the community, and whether the University worked actively with the City on housing issues. John Van Landingham, chair of the Housing Policy Board, responded to Councilor Nathanson's first question by saying the board had not discussed the analysis with the Homebuilders Association, but the analysis was taken from the Residential Lands Study, which was developed with the participation of the association. He said that the homebuilders were aware of the conclusion. Regarding Councilor Nathanson's question about the University's proposed increase in enrollment and its work with the City, Mr. Van Landingham said the board had not recently discussed housing with the University. He clarified that the reference to youth was to youth who were not students, but rather to homeless youth. Councilor Kelly commended Eugene and Springfield staff for the draft plan, and praised the depth and breadth of the public involvement process. He urged the council to support the plan to assist those who were not benefitting from the strong economy. He also acknowledged the public forum comments of Ms. Perpinan and said he agreed that there was more to the issue than bricks and mortar. Councilor Meisner suggested a disconnect between the plan and the conversion of existing housing stock in the core to commercial and retail uses. He pointed out that the five-year goals called for expanding the conservation and improvement of affordable owner and rental housing. Housing stock in the core was some of the most affordable in the community, and nothing was being done to prevent its conversion or encourage its rehabilitation. He said that the result of the disconnect was the construction of Iow-income housing at a higher cost. Councilor Lee thanked Councilor Kelly and staff for their work on the issue. He asked if adjustments would be made to the plan after the census results were in. Staff indicated that was the case. Councilor Lee spoke of the importance of the census to federal funding of local priorities. Councilor Pap8 said that there were banks interested in funding Iow-income housing development and asked about the 203(b) program. Mr. Van Landingham described the program, which was to help support first-time home ownership. The program also included a grant of $1,500 for down payment assistance. There are quite a few things in the document about promoting home ownership. There is nothing specific to banks and their role. He added that the plan relies on both for successful implementation. Developments require mortgages and private sector construction. Councilor Pap8 said that banks were looking for ways to be involved, and encouraged the board to enter into partnerships with those financial institutions interested in Iow- income housing. Mr. Torrey said that he had discussed ways to meet the transitional needs of youth with staff from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who agreed it was an important need but raised a question about liability. He asked the Housing Policy Board to identify a program he could carry back to HUD to request financing for on a demonstration project basis. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 4 Regular Meeting 5.ACTION: APPROVAL OF 2000-01 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve the One- Year Action Plans for use of Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Funds. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. 6.ACTION: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING OPEN WATERWAYS, AND ADDING SECTIONS 6.650, 6.655, 6.660, 6.665, AND 6.670 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971 Councilor Taylor expressed interest in amending the ordinance to delete the exemptions section. She also asked if the council would consider proposed amendments that evening, and if the council would be able to address the issue of buffers. In response to Councilor Taylor's questions, Mr. Lyle said that staff suggested the council go through each amendment separately for potential inclusion in the base ordinance, and further recommended that the council direct staff to develop a scoping work plan and budget for the establishment of interim buffers for further council review. Mayor Torrey referred to correspondence received from representatives of property owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation and SDI/Madsten, and asked if staff recommended passage of an amendment related to that property. Mr. Lyle said yes; because of the location of the property in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area, staff was recommending that plan take precedence because the property was designated as a developable site in the plan. The property and other similar properties in the WEWP boundaries sould be exempted from the ordinance. Mayor Torrey asked legal counsel to confirm a preexisting application was protected from the proposed regulations by State statute. Mr. Klein responded that there was a State statute related to land use applications, and it required that any land use criteria in effect at the time an application was filed would govern that land use application. Because the ordinance before the council concerned Chapter 6 and addressed the prohibition or piping of a waterway and was an environment regulation with police powers, the State statute would not in every case preempt the ordinance. He suggested that the council could include a reference to the State statute in the ordinance to make it clear that in some cases, the prohibition does not apply where State statutes allow someone to pipe and fill a waterway. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Pap8 termed the ordinance a creeping regulation effecting private property rights. He believed that the council should always "tread lightly" when it came to private property rights. He asked Mr. Klein to comment on the case Sitcom v. the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and its MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 5 Regular Meeting applicability to the ordinance before the council. Mr. Klein responded that the case, as well as other Fifth Amendment takings cases, provided for compensation of a property owner when a government regulated property in a way that deprived the owner of some economic use of that property. He said that the current test was whether a regulation prohibited all economically viable use of a property. The ordinance before the council could potentially deprive a property owner of some ability to use a portion of their property but not all the property. Mr. Klein referred the council to page 4 of the ordinance, Subsection 3, which addressed exemptions to the ordinance. Where the regulations would prohibit the use of the entire site or a third of the site, the City Manager may grant a site-specific exemption. Mr. Klein suggested that there may be cases where the property may be purchased by the City if the ordinance resulted in a property that was not economically viable or be exempted. He was not aware of a property where the ordinance would prohibit all economic use of the property, but if such a case existed it would meet the exemption. Councilor Pap8 asked how long the exemption process would take. Mr. Lyle said that staff would meet with a property owner to discuss the development viability of a property, and he did not think such a basic assessment would take long. Councilor Pap8 asked if there would be a separate application process rather than approval of the development in order to get the exemption. Mr. Lyle did not think there was a need for a separate application, noting that City used a property review checklist that outlined the needed submittals. Mr. Klein observed that the exemption provision was nearly identical to a clause in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, which had been in place for more than five years; during that time, he was unaware of any instance in which the provision had been applied. Councilor Pap8 referred to testimony from Mike Farthing and asked how staff would differentiate where the ordinance would apply or Oregon Revised Statutes. Mr. Klein said that the City Attorney would be able to consult with staff and determine if the ordinance did or did not apply in a specific situation. The State statute referred to by Mr. Farthing dealt with land use criteria, and the ordinance did not include land use criteria but rather police power regulation, was part of Chapter 6, and its influence was beyond the land use arena. He believed that there would be many instances in which the State statute would not apply. Mr. Klein reiterated his recommendation that a reference to the State statute be included in the ordinance to guide staff. At the request of Mayor Torrey, the council considered a series of amendments prepared by staff in response to previously expressed council comments and concerns. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 1, Sunset Provision. Councilor Kelly did not support the amendment. He feared that the City could hit the sunset date, be caught unaware, and the natural environment would be threatened. He pointed out that the council could modify the ordinance or overturn it if it chose. He emphasized the interim nature of the ordinance and he noted the City's ongoing work on State Goal 5 and the Endangered Species Act listing of the spring chinook. Mr. Klein said that the council needed to agree on a specific sunset date if one is to be established. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Pap~ suggested June 30, 2001, as the sunset date. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would be more comfortable with the year 2002. Councilor Pap~ acknowledged Mr. Johnson's statement but was not comfortable with that date. Councilor Lee indicated opposition to the sunset date proposed by Councilor Pap~. Councilor Pap~ said he could not support an interim ordinance without a date certain for its expiration. He said that the sunset date would "keep the heat on" the City to complete work on the permanent ordinance. Councilor Nathanson understood Councilor Kelly's concerns but said she came to a different conclusion. The ordinance was intended to be interim and would be replaced by something permanent, and she believed that intent should be stated. She asked staff what would happen if the permanent ordinance was not completed by the sunset date. Mr. Johnson said that staff would request the council extend the interim ordinance, which would require a public hearing. Mr. Klein pointed out that would provide an opportunity for legal challenge, and urged the council to consider the advice of staff about what was realistic as regards a sunset date as the ordinance could always be repealed earlier. Councilor Pap~ moved to amend the amended motion to establish a sunset date for the ordinance of December 31, 2001. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Nathanson moved, seconded by Councilor Pap~, to amend the amended motion to institute a sunset date of June 30, 2002. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 4:2; councilors Pap~ and Nathanson voting yes. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:1; Councilor Pap~ voting no. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 2, Clarify Definition of Open Waterway. Councilor Pap~ said that Councilor Gary Rayor was concerned the definition would not prevent a waterway from being covered with a porous covering, but that appeared to be addressed by the prohibition of covering waterways. Mr. Lyle concurred. Councilor Pap~ supported the amendment as it clarified the definition. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 3, Prior Approvals and Permits. Mr. Klein reiterated his recommendation for the inclusion of the term "or as required by State law," and suggested it be added following the semi-colon at the end of Section 6.660(1)(a). Councilor Taylor asked if the phrase was essential. Mr. Klein said it was not essential but flagged for the Hearings Official and Planning Commission that State law must be addressed, and it also addressed the testimony presented to the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilors Lee and Taylor accepted Mr. Klein's suggestion as a friendly amendment to the amendment. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Klein responded that the friendly amendment provided a date certain for those applications which were subject to the State statute and had essentially the same effect as deleted subsection (2). Councilor Pap~ questioned the fairness of eliminating subsection 6.660(2) for those who had already submitted applications. He said he could not support the amendment. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment. He said that if a property existed in a separate parallel universe and had no impact on other properties he would agree with Councilor Pap~, but the impact of the fill affected other properties and the common good. He hoped that at the time of application, staff would work with the developer to determine how any waterway on a property could be accommodated on the property. Councilor Nathanson asked staff to explain why it recommended deleting subsection 2. Mr. Lyle said that staff did not think there were many applications in process that would be affected. He thought it was a small number. He added that he did not think the proposal should be a surprise to anyone in the development community given the several months of discussion that had taken place about the topic. Mr. Lyle noted that staff already works with property owners to incorporate waterways into developments. Councilor Pap~ agreed with Councilor Kelly that a development proposal could possibly impact an adjoining property and for the common good something different should be done, but he felt that property owner should be compensated for the common good. The property owner should not be penalized by the ordinance. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion carried, 5:1; councilor Pap~ voting no. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 4, Mitigation Requirement. Councilor Kelly noted his support for the amendment and asked staff why it did not recommend adoption of the amendment initially. Mr. Lyle said it was an oversight, and staff recommended the amendment. Roll call vote; the motion to amend carried unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 5, Mandatory Enforcement. Councilor Nathanson said that she was satisfied with the original language of the ordinance. Councilor Kelly asked if the legislative intent was sufficient to determine the council's interest in pursuing enforcement for material violations of the ordinance. Mr. Klein said yes. He said that the council had made it clear in its discussions that it wanted material violations to be addressed through a penalty, mitigation, or both. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 8 Regular Meeting Responding to a question from Councilor Lee, Mr. Johnson noted his concurrence with the staff recommendation that the council stay with the word "may" rather than "will." He said that the ordinance was written to parallel other ordinances, and generally the word "may" was used. Mr. Klein concurred. He said that there were places in the code where "shall" was used, but he did not know why. The issue was the prioritization of staff resources; if the ordinance included the word "shall" the manager would be required to take enforcement action even in the case of very minor violations. Councilor Lee suggested that there were unintended consequences to the language change. He was concerned about the change would create a resource commitment the council had not foreseen. He asked about the fiscal impact of the change. Mr. Johnson said that it was difficult to quantify the impact. Providing enforcement on every violation, no matter how small, could be very expensive. Councilor Meisner did not support the amendment. He believed the legislative history would guide the manager's application of the ordinance. In addition, the ordinance was an interim ordinance that the council would track the impact of. Councilor Pap~ called for the question. There was no second to the motion. Councilor Taylor supported the amendment because she thought there should be a penalty for violating the ordinance. Roll call vote; the motion failed, 5:1; Councilor Taylor voting yes. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 6, Restoration Requirement. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 7, West Eugene Wetlands Plan Exception. Councilor Kelly supported the amendment, saying he appreciated the issue was of manageable size. He asked if Mr. Klein was comfortable with the language. Mr. Klein said yes, and noted that there was a typographical error in that the phrase should be "or is in a waterway." Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Klein indicated that Bruce Anderson's office had sent the council a letter indicating the amendment addressed his concerns. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Pap~, to amend the motion by adopting Amendment 8, Emergency Clause. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein said that if the ordinance did not pass with six votes, the emergency clause would not take effect. Councilor Pap8 opposed the motion because he did not share Mr. Lyle's belief that the community was aware of the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 9 Regular Meeting Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Pap~ voting no. The council considered the amended motion. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Pap~ voting no. Because Councilor Pap~ voted no, the council could not proceed to second reading. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that Councilor Pap~ was using the first reading of the bill to postpone action on the item. He said that first reading was a formality, and generally discussion took place when the substantive motion was made. He acknowledged, however, that Councilor Pap~ had the right to do so. Councilor Kelly asked the council to consider directing staff to take action on the issue of interim buffers. Councilor Lee expressed concerns about the impact of Councilor Papa's vote on the council's already full agenda on April 26. Councilor Pap~ said that if the council would reconsider the emergency clause, he would reconsider his vote. Mayor Torrey called for a one-minute recess. The council reconvened. Councilor Pap~ moved to reconsider his vote on the last motion. Mayor Torrey pronounced the vote on first reading to be unanimous. He thanked Councilor Pap~ for his change in vote. Mr. Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4729 by council bill number only. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilor Lee thanked Councilor Pap~ for his reconsideration. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Pap~ voting no, and became Ordinance No. 20194. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve option A regarding interim buffers. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. 7.ACTION: APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL, AND OF AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTS, STREET TREES, WASTEWATER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ON TERRY STREET FROM ROYAL AVENUE TO MORELY LOOP; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve the minutes, findings, and recommendations from the Hearings Official. Councilor Taylor objected to the motion because she continued to opposed the City's street assessment methodology. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4730, an ordinance levying assessments for paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, wastewater and drainage systems on Terry Street from Royal Avenue to Morely Loop; and declaring an emergency (Contract #98-27) (Job #3599). Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Johnson read the council bill by number only. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0, and became Ordinance No. 20195. 8.ACTION: APPROVAL OF METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION BUDGET FOR FY01 Susie Smith of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission and Peter Ruffler, Director of the City of Eugene's Wastewater Division, were present to answer questions. Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve the Fiscal Year 2001 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission budget. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:0. 9.EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 192.660(1), the City Council met in Executive Session for the item. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 11 Regular Meeting (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 12 Regular Meeting