Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 05/13/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall May 13, 1998 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Ken Tollenaar, Bobby Lee. I. CALL TO ORDER The May 13, 1998, lunch meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order at 11:30 a.m.; Mayor Jim Torrey presiding. II. NON-ACTION ITEMS A. Post Public Hearing Discussion with Municipal Court Judge Marilyn Nelson, Municipal Court Administrator, said that the work session was the final step in the formal judicial evaluation process. She reminded the council it had received a report and survey results from the ad hoc committee overseeing the evaluation on May 6, and held a public hearing on the evaluation on May 11. Ms. Nelson said that the work session was the opportunity for the council to speak directly with Judge Wayne Allen, the presiding judge of Eugene Municipal Court. Ms. Nelson introduced Judge Allen. Ms. Taylor said she received a call from an individual who had was issued a parking ticket. The individual objected that the fine had been increased without notice. Judge Allen responded that was not the way the process was supposed to happen. He said that persons receiving a citation have 30 days to pay the citation, and if the citation was not paid it doubled. Judge Allen said that the City frequently heard from people that they did not receive the original citation and they were allowed to present their case to a judge on a weekly basis. The extra penalty was generally waived. Ms. Taylor said that the contact she had indicated also complained he was obliged to pay bail before he was given a trial. Judge Allen said that parking court was an informal setting; the individual came in and talked to the judge in a courtroom setting, but there were no witnesses or sworn testimony. Parking staff was present to give input. He said that many people came to parking court without posting bail. When a person wanted a trial, Judge Allen said that the judge MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 1 11:30 a.m. would ask the individual to talk to payment staff about arranging for bail, but the court did not deny anyone the right to trial if they were unable to post bail. The court merely asked people to make a good faith effort to do what everybody else does. Judge Allen added that bail made it more likely that people come in to participate in the trial they had requested. He pointed out that there was a cost to the City when the court had to arrange for trial. Ms. Taylor asked how much time the court spent on issues such as parking, which she termed "of no danger to anyone." Judge Allen responded that parking was a tiny element of what the court did, but parking and dog-at-large citations tended to get people's attention more than any other charge. Ms. Nathanson said that she was impressed by the report the council received from the ad hoc committee. She said that the process worked, the evaluation and the committee's work was good, and she was pleased with the way Judge Allen had been handling matters in a time of organizational change and turmoil. She thanked Judge Allen. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she was pleased that Judge Allen was Eugene's Municipal Court judge. She asked for follow-up on the surveys to ensure a better return rate. She said that presumably, at some point the court's customer satisfaction forms would be a piece of data into the evaluation process. She agreed that the process was a good one and the time between evaluations was appropriate for such a thorough review. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that if the council began to consider the possibility of hiring full-time in-house judges, it would be no reflection on Judge Allen's performance and she would welcome his input in that discussion. Mr. Meisner said that he was impressed with the committee's work and the balance of the committee. While the committee had some areas of concern or question, the report was clear that any issues or problems committee members had were addressed in their conversations with Judge Allen. He said that the question of whether the council would implement the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) study of the recommendation for full-time judges was a separate one. At this point, he wanted to continue the present structure. Mr. Meisner thanked Judge Allen in particular for his willingness to be involved in the analysis of how other organizational changes affected the court's workings. Ms. Nathanson said that the implementation of the NCSC report would have organizational and budget implications for the court. She anticipated recommendations in the coming year from the court that could lead to supplemental budget requests. She noted the difficulty of attempting to budget for organizational needs in the absence of specific program parameters. Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting at 11:50 a.m. Ms. Nathanson said that over the past year the council had received several reports from staff that might have benefitted by review by the judge and court administration staff. She cited the housing code report as an example which, if adopted, would have implications for the court because of the institution of new violations with associated fines. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether there was some way for the City to contract with private providers for parking lot operations differently and to ensure that there was some standard of consistency in service delivery and ticketing. She encouraged the City Manager and Court Administrator to consider why the situation that Ms. Taylor referred to continued to occur. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 2 11:30 a.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that it would be helpful to have Judge Allen's input on the proposed downtown ordinances next on the agenda. She invited him to participate in that discussion. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov about the three biggest issues he perceived facing the Eugene Municipal Court, Judge Allen said that the council needed to determine what elements of the NCSC report were appropriate for Eugene. Another issue was what direction the court would go. Would the community replace the State District Court with its court? He noted the proposal by District Attorney Doug Harcleroad that all misdemeanor citations issued by the Eugene Police Department be filed in municipal court. That would mean the City would have to adopt the State Criminal Code, add resources to address more complex cases not before addressed by the court, and address the workload created by the addition of 1,000 more cases to the court's docket. Judge Allen said that the proposal offered by the District Attorney did not include an offer of more jail beds to deal with those cases. Instead, the District Attorney was willing to turn to the municipalities to lessen the District Attorney's case load. Judge Allen said that the City must be aware of the implications of the proposal. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked Ms. Nelson and Judge Allen if the court had a concept of the scope of the impact of the District Attorney's proposal. Ms. Nelson responded that currently the City prosecutor worked on more than 10,000 misdemeanors and the District Attorney's proposal would add approximately 1,600 more. She added that the Council Committee on Public Safety would discuss the topic at its next meeting. Mr. Johnson said that the cases involved were completely different than those already addressed by the court in terms of their severity, complexity, and the individuals involved. He said that much analysis would need to be done before the City agreed to the proposal. Mr. Torrey asked what the implications of refusing to take on the additional misdemeanor case load. Mr. Johnson said that the District Attorney could refuse to prosecute such cases. Ms. Swanson Gribskov questioned whether the issue could be a "bargaining chip" in the jail contract negotiations. Judge Allen said that the negotiations on the contract were progressing well; he anticipated there would be same number of beds the City contracted for during the last ten years, although at a higher cost. He said that number was inadequate. In the past, the City was able to secure more beds because more were available. Judge Allen said that the number of cases had increased over ten years, and the nature of prisoners was different than ten years ago. He said the cases now prosecuted by the District Attorney were tougher and more expensive to prosecute, they had associated security issues, and those involved were more likely to be candidates for jail at a time when space was already inadequate. Ms. Taylor asked Judge Allen what laws the City had in place that he believed were a waste of time. Judge Allen responded that some less serious offenses should be addressed through a fine as opposed to jail time, and reduced from misdemeanor to violation status. He could not think of any laws the City should not have. He said that the camping ordinance did come to mind as it had been an issue for the court for some time. He did not think that camping should be a criminal offense. Ms. Taylor said that she believed that enforcement of some laws added to people's contempt of the court. She cited the skateboard and dog ban on 13th Avenue and dog-at-large violations as examples of her remarks. She asked Judge Allen his opinion about the proposed mall MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m. ordinances. Judge Allen said that those cases would have the most impact on defense and prosecution services rather than the court. It was typical that the defense and prosecution resolved the case outside of court. Judge Allen said that the court did not have many contentious trials. He added that such cases would also have some lesser impact on staff. Judge Allen emphasized that the court was ill-equipped to deal with cases such as sex abuse, as it lacked a system to ensure follow-through with the family and the offender. The court had no probation officer, evaluative program, or treatment to offer offenders. He speculated that the court might be able to accept some more minor offenses from the District Attorney's Office on the basis that the District Court retained those cases the court was not prepared to address. Mr. Torrey asked if cases involving parental control, such as in the failure of a parent to exercise the proper control over a juvenile, were heard by Municipal Court. Judge Allen said that the City would have to adopt the existing State law for the court to hear such cases. He noted that Springfield had adopted the State criminal code. City Attorney Glenn Klein confirmed for Mr. Torrey that the City of Eugene had not adopted the State criminal code. Responding to a question from Mr. Torrey, Judge Allen said truancy cases were not heard in Municipal Court but were referred to the Justice Court in Springfield. He believed those cases were referred to that venue because it was a County court. Mr. Torrey said that the council would take no action on the evaluation until its June 3 meeting. B. Work Session: Ordinances Related to the Downtown Mall Jan Bohman, Office of the City Manager, noted that staff had consulted with Judge Allen and Ms. Nelson in the preparation of procedures for an appeal process. They had also discussed the impacts of the ordinances on the court with staff. Ms. Bohman provided the council with the background on the development of the ordinances. She emphasized that staff was not offering the ordinances as a comprehensive solution to issues on the mall, but envisioned them as part of a multi-faceted approach that also included the summer youth program. Ms. Bohman provided an overview of the proposed ordinances. She noted that similar City ordinances governed other City facilities, such as parks, community and senior centers, and library, and recreation facilities. Ms. Bohman reported that the Council Committee on Public Safety discussed the proposed ordinances, suggested some revisions, and forwarded the ordinances to the full council without a recommendation as members wished to hear the comments of other councilors. Ms. Bohman briefly reviewed the revisions suggested by the council committee. Ms. Bohman highlighted the potential of a legal challenge to the ordinances that could involve legal costs. Officer Scott Fellman, Eugene Police Department, identified himself as the foot patrol officer for downtown. He described examples of incidents that occurred on the mall during the week of MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 4 11:30 a.m. February 4, 1998. He said that there was slightly more activity during that week but the activities he cited were typical. Officer Fellman described how the exclusion ordinance could be implemented. He emphasized that the proposed approach was not new and was currently in use in City parks. He asked the council to consider adopting the ordinances for a nine-month trial period because the department anticipated a high number of exclusions would be issued initially and that it would fall off as the trial period advanced. Officer Fellman stressed that all citations would be issued for criminal behavior, not gender or race. The citations would be issued by officers who work downtown and were familiar with the area. Staff would evaluate the ordinance during the trial period to determine its effectiveness and its impact on the outlying areas of downtown. He expected the result to be a decrease in repeat crimes on the downtown mall and a decrease in criminal foot traffic to and from the mall. Officer Fellman acknowledged that the ordinance was not a solution but said that it would be a tool, like other tools, to address the issues that existed downtown. Officer Fellman referred the council to data included in the packet indicating the mall had a high crime level. He noted the high number of "people" crimes on the mall compared with other areas of the City. Officer Carolyn McDermed discussed how the department would track the implementation of the ordinance. Acting Police Chief Jim Hill expressed appreciation for the staff work that had been done. He agreed with Officer Fellman that the ordinance was not a solution to the situation that existed on the mall. Chief Hill said that people had expressed legitimate concerns about human rights that the department took seriously. He said the ordinances represented a good faith effort on the part of the department to address some of the behaviors officers encountered on the mall. Ms. Taylor believed that once established an ordinance rarely sunsetted. She questioned how many of the people on the mall had been displaced from the 13th Avenue area. She asked where the people on the mall would go if they were excluded from the mall. She did not know if the people involved were homeless or if they had some place to go. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen when an excluded person ignored the order, particularly given the lack of jail space. In response to Ms. Taylor's initial statement, Mr. Johnson said that the ordinance included a sunset date and it would require specific council action to continue it. Responding to Ms. Taylor's question regarding displacement, Ms. Bohman acknowledged that it was difficult to know the impact of the ordinance until it was implemented. She said that while it was not desirable to attempt to simply move those gathering on the mall to another single area, to some extent management of public spaces involved dispersing and displacing undesirable activities. She said that staff anticipated other elements of the multi-faceted approach would help to direct activities. Ms. Bohman said that staff would continue to monitor the situation over time. Officer Fellman added that the downtown mall has become an attractive environment for people who participate in criminal activity. Youth often become victims of that activity. The department hoped to make the mall a safer place by dispersing some of that activity. Officer Fellman th th believed that there was some cross-over from the 13 Avenue area, but the majority of those in the downtown mall area were separate from those who had congregated in the 13 Avenue area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 5 11:30 a.m. He anticipated that some people would ignore the ordinance and be rearrested. For the majority of people, the pressure created by the ordinance would keep them away. Mr. Meisner said that he appreciated the changes that were made in the ordinances in response to the council committee. He noted that the ordinance stipulated a citation could be issued to one who commits an offense under this chapter, the criminal laws of the State, or the mall rules. He asked why the City needed to create a criminal trespass penalty for a violation of the mall rules. City Attorney Jerome Lidz responded that many of the offenses described by Officer Fellman addressed by the mall rules were behavioral in nature, not criminal, although wilful violation of mall rules was a criminal offense. Ms. Bohman added that staff had discussed limiting the ordinance only to crimes other than willful violation of mall rules and the council might wish to adopt that approach. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Officer Fellman reviewed the mall rules. Mr. Torrey asked who enforced the mall rules now. Officer Fellman responded that the police enforced them. Mr. Meisner questioned if the ordinance would work if the City's goal was to get inappropriate or criminal conduct and behavior off the mall. He said that his ward had experienced displacement of such behavior from Washington-Jefferson Park to Scobert Park and had been unable to displace the activity from Scobert Park. Mr. Meisner pointed out that the conduct involved was not specific to the mall. He asked if an ordinance addressing such a limited area accomplished that goal or merely displaced the activity. He asked if those arrested were the types of people who would be kept in jail or if they would be matrixed out and return to the mall. In response, Officer Fellman said that the department thought the ordinance would work but could not know for certain until it was tried. Regarding the issue of displacement, Officer Fellman believed that the problem on the mall could be attributed in part to the physical environment of the downtown. Cheap food and transportation were nearby, the mall was within walking distance of camping sites, and it was not traveled by other people to a great degree because of the criminal activities that occur. In addition, the lack of automobile traffic, empty storefronts, and construction at the west end of the mall contributed to the problem. Officer Fellman said the result was that other people could not establish ownership of the public space and share it. He did not think displacement would be a problem because there was nothing in the vicinity with the same physical attractions. Mr. Meisner asked about the City's experience with exclusion ordinances in the parks. He asked if an exclusion citation had ever been issued in Scobert Park, and if it kept the individual involved out of the park. Officer McDermed responded the department had issued several such citations at Scobert Park and it was effective for most people. She pointed out that such people had other parks to go to, and it was difficult to follow them from park to park. Officer McDermed reiterated that such citations were a tool but not a solution. She believed the ordinance could be effective because the City was also working to move the youth to other positive activities off the mall and the criminal element were on the mall because the youth were on the mall. Officer Fellman observed that at the present time, young people on the mall were learning the criminal lifestyle from adults. Mr. Farr indicated his support for the ordinances, although he still had concerns about them. He believed staff when it indicated it was not targeting people for their appearance, but noted the skepticism voiced by those who feared they would be targeted. He said that it would difficult to MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 6 11:30 a.m. demonstrate the equity of the ordinance, and asked if staff had thought about the issue. Officer McDermed said that was one of the reasons the department wanted to keep the number of officers implementing the ordinance to a small number familiar with conditions and people on the mall. She believed that the department would be able to demonstrate that its enforcement was based on behavior. Mr. Farr asked if the City had made any criminal trespass arrests based on park exclusions. Ms. McDermed said yes, adding that the level of activity was seasonal, and depended to some degree on the work load of the Rapid Deployment Unit. Mr. Farr believed that the exclusion ordinance would be effective given the limited area in question. Mr. Farr said that he needed to be reassured that people would not be cited for criminal trespass for riding skateboards on the mall. Ms. McDermed acknowledged Mr Farr's concern, saying that there were some people for whom a skateboard was their only form of transportation. However, some people had been continually informed that skateboarding was prohibited on the mall but they continued to do so. Ms. Nathanson said that she was inclined to support the exclusion ordinance although she was initially reluctant to do so. She said that the place under discussion, the mall, was a public place, like the library or park, and both a destination place and a place to pass through. Ms. Nathanson said that people need to feel safe in such public places. She said that the people she spoke with believed the ordinance specific to 13th Avenue worked. She hoped the exclusion ordinance worked in a similar manner. Ms. Nathanson said that people she spoke with about downtown indicated that they did not feel ownership of the mall because of the activities the ordinance was directed at. She feared that an attitude of "us versus them" was building in the community at time when more tolerance of diversity was needed. Ms. Nathanson said the City could not "turn its back" on behavioral and criminal problems on the mall or it would aggravate the situation. If such behavior could be stopped, the overall problem should be reduced over time, rather than merely displaced. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not envision that those violating mall rules would receive notice of exclusion. She believed that the ordinance was targeted at more predatory behavior crimes. She said that the council could eliminate the mall rules and consider adding them later if necessary. Ms. Swanson Gribskov wanted more information about the issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union related to double jeopardy and due process, and more information about Portland's exclusion ordinance. City Attorney Jerry Lidz addressed questions related to due process and double jeopardy by reviewing a memorandum entitled "Mall Exclusion Ordinance." Mr. Torrey supported the proposed ordinances. He said that there were young people being negatively impacted on the mall every day and the community was doing nothing about it. He advocated for adoption of the ordinances on a trial basis, acknowledging the possibility of a court challenge. Regarding the issue of displacement, Mr. Torrey believed that the criminals would leave and the youth will stay. He expressed disappointment in the lack of parental control by those who were apparently unaware their children were spending time on the mall. He pointed MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m. out that Springfield had implemented laws to create an unfriendly environment for criminal behavior. Mr. Laue said an important issue to keep in mind was that just because one was arrested for a crime did not mean one was convicted of a crime; he suggested the issuance of an exclusion citation at the same time a person was arrested for a violation or crime was what had been objected to by the ACLU. He noted that the council committee had discussed the fact that several individuals arrested on the mall had been convicted of prior crimes, and perhaps the exclusion could be a condition of parole or release, but that was apparently not feasible. Mr. Laue said that given those prior conviction records, there may be a way to accomplish the goals of the ordinance without adopting the ordinance. He agreed something needed to be done downtown, but it needed to be done in a way that protects the constitutional rights of citizens. Ms. Taylor said that if the ordinance was passed the mall rules should not be included. She did not see a connection between the ordinance and the protection of youth. She said that young people could learn bad behavior from older people anyplace. Ms. Taylor said that she received complaints that the City created impediments to planters on the mall to preclude people from sitting on the edge of the planter. Mr. Meisner noted that his comments were not indicative of a lack of support for the proposed ordinances. The council agreed to hold a public hearing on the proposed mall exclusion ordinance. The council further agreed it wished to delete the mall rules from the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson said that the distinction between a criminal violation and the exclusion citation should be mentioned in the staff notes or public presentation. The council agreed to hold a public hearing on the proposed mall closure ordinance. Mr. Torrey asked staff to research the cost of high impact lighting for downtown. C. Work Session: West Eugene Wetlands Plan Jan Childs, Planning Director, said that the work session was designed to allow the council to review the changes recommended to the draft amendments related to the planned transportation and utility corridors, particularly in regard to the testimony received from the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She anticipated the council would take action on the ordinance on May 20, and indicated that if the council adopted the ordinance at that time, staff would seek concurrence from the Board of County Commissioners on June 2. Continuing, Ms. Childs said staff received requests for information regarding the industrial land supply at the council's joint work session with the board. Staff had compiled that information and would present it to the council at its next work session, scheduled for June 17. Mr. Bj~rklund reviewed the changes to the planned transportation corridor proposed by staff in response to testimony received from the County's Roads Advisory Committee. Mr. Bj~rklund reviewed the changes to the utility corridor proposed by staff in response to testimony received from the Eugene Water & Electric Board. He noted a remaining outstanding MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 8 11:30 a.m. issue with EWEB regarded rare plants, how rare plants was defined, and whether EWEB could build a new line through a rare plant site. The wetland staff team was reluctant to recommend a policy that gave EWEB outright authority to build a new utility through such a site, because such sites were protected wetlands regulated by the State and federal government. Mr. BjOrklund said that the staff recommendation continued to be that rare plants must be avoided when a new utility was built. Mr. Torrey asked if it was possible a power line would not be constructed because of the requirement that rare plant populations be avoided. He also asked if there was an opportunity for EWEB to appeal. Ms. Childs said that EWEB had been unable to offer City staff an example of a new corridor the utility staff felt must be sited through a rare plant population. She added that while there was no appeal process, EWEB could seek a plan amendment. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Bj0rklund reiterated that staff had asked EWEB what they envisioned in West Eugene and the utility staff did not know. He believed the need for new lines was mitigated somewhat by the plan and the Bureau of Land Management's acquisition program, which led to the removal of several sites from the buildable land inventory. In addition, rare plants occur in patches and were not located uniformly throughout a site, making it possible for EWEB to work around the existing rare plant populations without excessive cost. He pointed out that the topography in West Eugene was very flat and the lines do not have to be routed up hills, which often created an engineering challenge for EWEB. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that she was supportive of the Eugene staff position but would like to hear more from EWEB staff. She suggested that Mr. Torrey discuss the issue with the chair of the utility board and Mr. Johnson discuss the issue with the utility administrator. Mr. Farr agreed. He asked how many hours of discussion Eugene staff had with EWEB staff about the topic. Mr. Bj0rklund estimated that Eugene staff spent 20 hours of discussion with EWEB staff during several long meetings and in the course of several telephone conversations. He emphasized that the sites involved were protected wetlands, provided the habitat best for the growth of rare plants, and were among the most important protected sites in the plan area. He termed those sites "the heart of the plan," and suggested to open them to such impacts was at odds with the intent of the plan. Mr. Bj0rklund said the importance of the sites to the plan intent led the staff team to take the firm position it had, although it acknowledged EWEB's concerns. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Bj0rklund said that EWEB supported all other elements of the plan but EWEB staff continued to be concerned about the potential impact of a situation it could not specifically identify at this point. Mr. Farr expressed concern about the lack of an appeal process in the plan and the lack of flexibility in addressing unanticipated issues. In response, Ms. Childs said that the plan involved was a refinement plan, and the City was making an exception to allow any sort of development on protected wetlands with the amendments' provisions for the planned transportation and planned utility corridors. She emphasized the need to be sensitive to the original purpose of the plan, which was to protect wetlands. Ms. Childs said that staff might have reached a different conclusion if EWEB staff could offer the City even a single specific example of its concerns. Mr. Farr acknowledged the intent of the plan and said he believed it was moving the City in the right direction, but he was always worried when there was no avenue of appeal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 9 11:30 a.m. Mr. Meisner agreed with Ms. Childs that creating the transportation and utility corridors were an exception to the plan. He was supportive of the staff recommendation. He believed that EWEB's original proposals were overreaching and could have threatened the integrity of the plan. He said that EWEB could use the plan amendment process if need arose. Referring to the planned transportation corridor provisions, Mr. Meisner said that he supported the one-acre cumulative limitation recommended by staff. Mr. Bj~rklund pointed out text inconsistencies identified by the City Attorney on pages 119 and 123 of the plan amendments. Mr. Laue moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to approve Option 3 to modify the original ordinance and amendments as recommended by staff in response to testimony from EWEB and the Roads Advisory Committee. Ms. Swanson Gribskov reiterated her interest in having the City Manager discuss the issue raised by EWEB with the EWEB administrator, and in having Mr. Torrey discuss it with the chair of the board. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Bj~rklund if he had any reservations about the planned transportation corridor. Mr. Bj~rklund said he did not. Roll call; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 10 11:30 a.m. D. Favoure Miller Mr. Torrey said that Human Rights Commissioner Favore Miller did not reapply for her position on the commission in a timely manner because of uncertainty about her future personal plans, and now intended to stay in Eugene and would like to continue on the commission. He said that he would add Ms. Miller's name to the list of people who were available to serve with the council's concurrence. That meant the council would select four commissioners from a pool of seven candidates instead of six. The council indicated its concurrence. III. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager Pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 11 11:30 a.m.