Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/26/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 26, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Gary Papé. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the October 26, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: City of Coburg Request for Connection to Regional Wastewater Facilities City Manager Dennis Taylor welcomed Mayor Judy Volta of the City of Coburg. He asked Public Works Director, Kurt Corey to provide an overview of Coburg’s request to be connected to regional wastewater facilities. He said Wastewater Division Manager Peter Ruffier would make the presentation on the issues before the council. Mr. Corey acknowledged that the councilors had participated in a joint elected officials meeting wherein much of the pertinent information had been covered. He set the tone for the topic by providing high level background. He stated that the cities of Eugene and Springfield, under the terms of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that included Lane County, developed a regional wastewater treatment facility that had been in operation since 1977. He explained that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) was the oversight body with representatives of each governing body and citizen members. He said under the terms of the IGA, the MWMC was limited to providing wastewater treatment services to the area within the Eugene and Springfield urban growth boundaries (UGBs). He related that the City of Coburg approached the joint elected officials with a request for a connection to the wastewater treatment facility in June. The joint elected officials asked staff to engage in initial scoping work and prepare a report outlining the issues, timeframes, and costs. He indicated that the joint elected officials considered a status report that addressed some of these concerns on October 11. He noted that staff report was attached to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Mr. Corey stated that four key issues had been identified: ? The relationship of the Coburg request to long-range planning activities and other small communi- ties’ needs for wastewater treatment services, as projected by the Region 2050 study and the MWMC Facilities Plan Update Mr. Corey noted there were numerous possibilities for accommodating the needs of outlying communities, all of them expensive, and there were geographic challenges to providing this service to some of them. He said communities such as Pleasant Hill or Goshen, for which there were no geographic challenges, could possibly be connected at some point. He explained that others were geographically removed from the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 1 Work Session Eugene/Springfield UGBs and connecting them would result in a “leap-frogging” effect. Coburg fell under this category. ? The comparative environmental and public health and safety impacts of various proposals Mr. Corey surmised that intuitively it would seem to make the most sense to simply expand the treatment capacity to the outlying satellite communities. He felt it called for a comprehensive analysis to consider issues of water quality, operation requirements, regulatory compliance, and system capacity. ? The impact on the existing collection and treatment facility capacity Mr. Corey thought further study would result in an optimal connection point and this would allow for an analysis of what upgrades and capacity enhancements would be needed. He noted that the MWMC facilities plan allowed for growth in this area until the year 2025. ? The cost equity among MWMC customers and new potential customers Mr. Corey said there were three “ballpark” scenarios ranging from $4 million to $10 million attached to the AIS. Mr. Corey said moving ahead would require land use amendments, including the Metro Plan, the Public Facilities and Services Plan for wastewater service, the Lane County Rural Comprehensive plan and the Coburg Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Boundary Commission would have the opportunity to weigh in and ultimately approve the extension of a system beyond the UGB. The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) would have the opportunity to weigh in as would several other government entities. He listed a “host of technical issues to be considered” in addition to the aforementioned larger processes. He reported that staff estimated that it would cost approximately $500,000 to $1 million in engineering and legal costs to get to the point of movement toward connecting Coburg, and it would take four years. Mr. Corey acknowledged that the City of Coburg estimated it would cost $168,000 and that all of the land use actions could be completed in less than one year. Mr. Corey stated that the recommendation in the AIS was to move forward. He added that the council should anticipate more requests in the future such as the one from Coburg. Mr. Papé asked if there was a way to find more agreement between the figures suggested by the City of Coburg and Eugene staff. He agreed that if Coburg wanted to become part of the system they should take into account all of the costs to do so including the City of Eugene’s cost for setting up the model. He felt Coburg should be given a good idea of potential costs. Mr. Corey advised the council to inform Coburg that the cost was closer to $1 million and then refund the remainder at the end of four years. Mr. Papé asked if there was a difference in the way Coburg viewed the process. Mr. Corey replied that the difference in views was best exemplified by the City of Coburg’s suggestion that all of the land use processes could be completed in eight months. He noted that it takes longer to get through a Metro Plan amendment on simpler issues. He predicted this item would draw a lot of public interest and public debate MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 2 Work Session and opinions on both sides of this issue would abound. Mr. Papé asked if an outside consultant could be brought in to help the process. Mr. Corey responded that to the extent that the council’s opinion was to move ahead, staff’s recommendation would be to bring a consultant on board to do so. Mr. Papé acknowledged that the joint elected officials just approved a $145 million, 20-year plan and wondered if the addition of communities outside of the two UGBs had been considered. Mr. Ruffier responded that the plan did not consider wastewater flow from outside of the area. He said, should the request move forward, the MWMC would review the plan to evaluate how it should be altered to meet the need. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Ruffier stated that Coburg provided some projections of effluent levels and it was estimated that Coburg effluent would comprise one to three percent of overall levels at the wastewater facility. Ms. Bettman commented that it seemed that consistent determinations of what it would cost were being made even though the process had yet to be started. She asserted that systems development charges (SDCs) were “litigatable” and this and other assumptions of cost recovery that were built into the model were difficult. She predicted it would be “almost impossible” to reach full cost recovery. She averred that the council represented the City of Eugene and it needed to determine the public interests of Eugene. Ms. Bettman opined that it was premature to approve a model at this point. She recalled that the last discussion at the council resulted in approval for Coburg to conduct a study. She felt that the result of the study was an IGA to move forward with it. She disagreed that the motion presented to the council was a first step. Instead she thought it a “relentless march” in response to one jurisdiction’s request. She noted that other jurisdictions, including Veneta and Creswell, built their own wastewater facilities. She wanted the council to step back and have a broader policy decision-making process with Eugene. She averred that the request was inconsistent with growth management policies, the Metro Plan, and the facilities plan. She said millions had been spent on these plans and this project disregarded those plans by proposing that they be modified. She opined that this negated the planning processes. She did not see how “importing sewage from Coburg” would be in the best interests of City of Eugene taxpayers and ratepayers. Ms. Bettman recalled that Coburg had requested an expansion of their UGB by 60 acres for purposes of building a wastewater facility. She asked if Coburg would “get to keep” this land. Mr. Corey replied that this was not a question he was in a position to answer. He underscored that the issue before the council was not should or should not the service be extended but rather whether or not the City should develop a means for responding to the question as it comes in from Coburg and others. Ms. Ortiz observed that Coburg’s proximity to the McKenzie River presented a unique issue. She said it would be of great concern to her and others should there be an overflow into the McKenzie River. She asked if there were other communities adjacent to the McKenzie that could have this problem. Mr. Corey responded that he did not think there were other wastewater facilities near or on the McKenzie River. Ms. Ortiz asked if the 60-acre parcel Ms. Bettman referred to was publicly owned property. Coburg Mayor Volta asked Jack Detweiler, wastewater consultant for Coburg, to speak to this. Mr. Detweiler explained that approximately 45 acres had been acquired by the City of Coburg with the goal of building a treatment facility on that land. He said in order to get the land use compatibility statement required to do so it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 3 Work Session moved within the UGB. He underscored that there had been no construction on the site and there was an agreement that if it was not to be used for wastewater facilities it could be sold back to the previous owners. Ms. Ortiz surmised that it could not be developed into tract homes. Mr. Detweiler affirmed that it was not zoned for any other use. Ms. Ortiz suggested that whoever purchased the property could apply for a zoning change and would likely be granted such a change. Mr. Detweiler replied that he was unable to answer land use questions. Mr. Kelly wanted more clarity on the motion itself. He interpreted it as saying that a model would be developed for a response to Coburg. He did not perceive this to include an IGA. He suggested that the motion include the following sentence: “This motion does not imply that Coburg will eventually connect to the regional wastewater facilities.” Mr. Kelly said in terms of regional cooperation he was happy to help Coburg. He did not think the two conditions, i.e. that such a connection should not cost the City of Eugene and no environmental impact would be incurred, could be met. He also noted that the staff report indicated no funds were available to study the issue. Mr. Corey responded that this was the reasoning behind suggesting $1 million and then refunding any excess at the end of four years. Mr. Kelly averred that he would not support moving forward with the proposal without a firmer sense of costs and the environmental impacts. Mr. Pryor supported regional cooperation in principle but he was not enamored of every community looking to Eugene to resolve wastewater treatment issues. He said while he recognized the cost issue, it would not prevent him from supporting a motion to further explore the issue. He wanted to know what it would cost. He stated that with parameters in place he would support proceeding, but one parameter would be that it should not cost the City of Eugene. He supported the motion because it moved the council toward getting a “whole lot more answers” to the questions that needed to be asked. Mr. Poling related that he had attended an earlier meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners and the commissioners unanimously approved, 5:0, the concepts of the draft IGA and directed their staff to move forward working in conjunction with the other agencies on this project. He also had spoken with MWMC member, Susie Smith, and she indicated to him that in her opinion, the Coburg estimate was not far from the mark. He reiterated that Coburg hired a consultant who specialized in this kind of work. He speculated that the real figures lay somewhere between the City of Eugene’s estimate and the City of Coburg’s estimate on the cost and the timeline. Mr. Poling underscored that the proposal was in response to Coburg’s request to be an additional wastewa- ter customer. He also stressed that Coburg was willing to reimburse the City of Eugene $175,000 for the initial work. He called this a good starting point. Additionally, Mr. Poling averred that protections were in place to keep property that would be included within the UGB between the two cities for the purposes of connecting Coburg to the Wastewater Treatment Facility from being used for other purposes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Taylor disagreed that one could say this connection was in the public’s best interest. She recalled that half of the Eugene City Council had been unable to attend the meeting of the joint elected officials. She said no tape had been made of that meeting. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that allowing Coburg to connect to the facility would set a precedent and Eugene would have to allow connections for other communities. She opined that the council should not start something it was not willing to finish. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Corey stated that cost estimates included staff time. City Manager Taylor added that estimates included staff time for both the Planning and Development Department (PDD) staff and MWMC staff. Ms. Taylor felt that PDD staff would be doing this work in lieu of other work that was possibly more important. Mr. Papé observed that Eugene citizens were concerned about the water quality of the McKenzie River. He thought citizens would support the connection to the regional wastewater treatment facility in order to have only one outflow and to ensure that no outflow was put into the McKenzie. He suggested including in the IGA an amendment to remove the property that had been added to the Coburg UGB for purposes of building a treatment facility. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that Coburg could not predict the outcome of the land use process it would take to remove the acreage without having gone through it. He said the IGA could be amended to include a request to engage in that land use process. Mr. Papé asked if the Region 2050 planning process had included discussion on effluent. Mr. Kelly observed that ten pages of the report were on waste in 2050 and that it predicted that some communities would have problems over time. Mr. Papé asked if the County would get cost recovery. Mr. Poling responded that the City of Coburg was expected to pay its own way. Mr. Papé commented that whether Coburg would be a partner with or a customer of the Lane Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility merited a full discussion. He felt the IGA was premature. City Manager Taylor responded that staff was recommending the process and not the particular IGA. He pointed out that the existing IGA had been developed through a lengthy process. Ms. Bettman thought it was very compromising to have an IGA before the council. She felt because of its conceptual nature, one would not know which parts were in and which were out and yet the council was still being asked to make a decision. She surmised that people were saying that it was somehow better to pollute the Willamette River than the McKenzie River. She alleged that the Willamette River was already at maximum capacity for effluent. Ms. Bettman repeated her concern that this comprised a policy issue and a larger conversation with the community was needed on whether the City of Eugene should even talk to the City of Coburg about this. She thought it premature to have the current discussion without having the larger one. Mr. Kelly averred that MWMC and Eugene PDD staff had too much work already and wondered if there MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 5 Work Session had been any analysis of the impact taking this proposal on would have on workloads. Mr. Corey replied that this had been taken into consideration at a high level. City Manager Taylor added that the City would take the position of trying to maintain the timeframes of the work items of the MWMC and the PDD. Mr. Kelly commented that he was uncertain how service could be provided outside of the UGB and who would have jurisdiction over it. He indicated that he would want the Eugene City Council, the Springfield City Council, and the Lane Board of County Commissioners to have veto power over the laterals. Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to extend the discussion by ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve Option 1: Direct the City Man- ager to work with the City of Springfield and Lane County to develop a model for respond- ing to the Coburg request. This option would include an acknowledgement that preparation of such a model is in the public interest; that Coburg would be financially responsible for the cost of all associated efforts including planning, legal, and connection costs; and that staff would return with recommended cost-recovery and customer/service relationship sce- narios. This motion does not imply that Coburg would be allowed to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission system without further approval. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: Update on the West Eugene Parkway and the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Pro- gram City Manager Taylor stated that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was scheduled to vote on the State Transportation improvement Program (STIP) on November 10. He asked Mr. Corey to provide a brief overview. Mr. Corey reminded the council that the STIP was updated every two years. He said the MPC was scheduled to discuss modernization projects. He introduced Leon Stiles, consultant for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). Mr. Stiles thanked the council for the opportunity to speak to them. He noted that he had two degrees from the University of Oregon and had worked for six years as a transportation planner for the Lane Transit District (LTD). He then spent ten years managing the light rail system in Portland. He was now an independent consultant who, two years earlier, had been asked to be the project manager for the WEP. He provided paper copies of a power point presentation. The electronic presentation was hindered by technical difficulties. Regarding the WEP Purpose and Need, Mr. Stiles underscored that the planned WEP had arisen from th increasing problems with West 11 Avenue resulting from heavier traffic and more traffic signals. He said the WEP was also designed to bring people efficiently to West Eugene commercial/industrial areas and residential neighborhoods. He pointed out that current routes to those areas involved circuitous travel. He th stated that West 11 Avenue was predicted to have seven major intersections by the year 2025, all of which would not meet ODOT standards and some would not meet City standards. He stressed that the purpose of MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 6 Work Session th the WEP was to move regional travel off West 11 Avenue to allow better development opportunities in West Eugene. Mr. Stiles reviewed the WEP Project History. He said the original plan would have built the WEP on the south side of the railroad tracks, but this had been modified due to environmental concerns to place the WEP on the north side of the tracks. He underscored that approximately 20 routes had been considered, including the one that had been selected in 1999. The revised design would keep the road size at two lanes in each direction for the length of the parkway, approximately 5.8 miles, except for the addition of an interchange between the Beltline Highway and the WEP. He explained that the minor changes to the design were required by the scope of planning as dictated by the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Re- evaluation, which called for the design to be predicated on expected growth patterns to the year 2025. He noted that it had been determined, through traffic analysis, that the Terry Street Connector would no longer be needed. Mr. Stiles circulated copies of the Draft Traffic Analysis: Existing Conditions and No-Build and WEP Alternatives in 2025. He noted that the design had just been fixed and the traffic analysis was an iterative process between design and traffic analysis. He said this was the first information “out of the gate.” Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Poling to add the 06-09 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to the motion. Mayor Piercy commented that this issue had been on the table for a long time. She agreed there were significant traffic problems and issues in west Eugene that had long needed resolution. She said Eugene had a nationally recognized wetlands project put together by a “unique public/private partnership.” She stated that the wetlands were a highly valued educational, recreational, and environmental asset. She averred that the community needed a solution to its traffic problem that did not compromise the integrity or the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP). She asserted that the current configuration of the WEP had the support of “only half of Eugene” and had been a long-term source of community division. She asserted that the current configuration of the WEP would make only a minimal impact on the traffic issue, speculated at six percent, and would face legal challenges for years to come. She said the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) both raised issues with the WEP. She asserted that there were established ways to move beyond deadlocks. She suggested engaging the services of Oregon Solutions or the Oregon Consensus Program to help find a creative solution that could replace the acrimony with a community solution all would respect. She indicated she would vote against moving the project forward in the event of a tie vote. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon moved to continue to support the West Eugene Parkway as a modernization project priority when the Metropolitan Policy committee con- siders the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization modernization project priorities for the 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program and the 2006-2009 Metro- politan Transportation Improvement Program. Ms. Taylor moved to substitute the Mayor’s proposal. The motion died for lack of a sec- ond. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would oppose the motion. She did not believe it would solve the problem. She felt it was ethically, morally, and legally wrong. She questioned whether it was legal to “destroy” land purchased with federal money. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Ms. Solomon conveyed her continued support for the WEP. She expressed concern that taking the WEP off the table would increase the acrimony, given that more than half of Eugene voters had voted in favor of it twice. She said the council should not dismiss the will of the voters. She also did not think it should be taken off the table. She indicated her willingness to work with an entity such as the Oregon Consensus Group in order to pursue other options but not at the expense of what had already been invested in the WEP. She did not believe the present vote would preclude inclusion of some kind of amendment to the WEP that might be the result of such a process. Mr. Kelly agreed that there were transportation problems in west Eugene and he also agreed that the WEP was not the solution to those problems. Regarding Ms. Solomon’s suggestion that the collaborative process could be worked on in parallel, he asserted that staff and technical resources were not available. He remarked that he would prefer to apply staff and technical resources to a project that might be built in his lifetimes. Mr. Kelly requested that the aerial photos supplied in Mr. Stiles’ presentation be enlarged to facilitate reading them. He also asked that the maps be posted on the ODOT Web site. Continuing, Mr. Kelly said he did not take the will of the voters lightly. He opined that the project before the council was not the project the voters had approved. He noted that a portion of the WEP was slated to be maintained by the City of Eugene and this had also not been approved by voters. Mr. Poling supported the WEP because the voters had supported it, 50.9 percent voting in favor. He noted that over 60 percent had voted not to consider any more alternatives. He averred that elected officials were obligated to respect the will of the voters. He did not think the City had the staff or resources to look into other alternatives. Mr. Poling pointed out that in the City of Veneta alone there had been over 900 housing starts approved recently and 120 of them were under construction. He averred that most of the people who lived out there moved from the Eugene/Springfield area because of high housing prices but still worked in this area. He th underscored that West 11 Avenue was not the most desirable way to get into town. Mr. Pryor called it an interesting collision between principles and practical consideration. He reiterated that it had been voted on twice. He averred that many elections were close and it did not matter that the vote was only a 50.9 percent majority. He felt he would be abrogating his responsibility as a councilor if he did not recognize the will of the voters, “by ever how slim a margin” the election had been won. He acknowledged that the WEP could be tied up for “years and years.” He said no one should kid themselves that voting the WEP down at this point would kill the project. He insisted, as representative of the ward for which the WEP would mitigate transportation problems, that these transportation problems must be addressed and solved. Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon that the council should respect the will of the voters. Regarding the integrity and value of the WEWP, he understood there to be two very different qualities of wetlands and the wetlands that were north of the railroad tracks were of a lesser quality. He asked staff to speak to this. Mr. Corey deferred to Mr. Stiles. Mr. Stiles stated that in 1997 there was a qualitative difference in wetlands and there was a greater net takings of wetlands north of the railroad tracks but they were of a lower quality. He related that his firm MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 8 Work Session was working with ODOT and with resource agencies to conduct a functional analysis. He said the final results were not yet available from that analysis. Mr. Papé asked if one reason for the difference in quality was that the railroad tracks had run through that area for years. Mr. Stiles responded that a whole spectrum of factors contributed. Mr. Papé said he was open to hearing alternatives but the voters had opposed it. He recalled a charette several years earlier that had reviewed alternatives and come up with no alternatives. He felt the decision had been vetted very well. He opined that in killing the project without consulting the County or the City of Springfield, Eugene was not being a good community partner. Mr. Papé noted that the project had been cut into three phases instead of four. He asked if the couplet was slated to be built in the first phase. Mr. Stiles affirmed that it would be. Ms. Bettman asserted that the project had monopolized modernization money for as long as the project had been alive. She felt this money could have been used to address safety and operational deficiencies on West th 11 Avenue. She agreed that the council should honor the will of the voters, adding that after the vote she supported the motion to move the project forward. She averred that the project being considered was now a different project. She alleged that the scope had changed. She said the cost had doubled. She opined that it was not the WEP anymore and there were other options. Ms. Ortiz observed that there was a “lot of passion” around this issue. She related that she had spoken to her constituents and they were clearly opposed to the WEP. She felt that engaging in a different process to reach a level of consensus would ultimately result in a better product. Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Papé voting in favor and Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposi- tion; Mayor Piercy cast a vote in opposition and the motion failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to consult with the City of Eugene’s inter-governmental partners and community organizations to commence a process to design and build transportation projects in West Eugene to address congestion, safety, and operation for all modes of transportation. Mr. Papé, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to table the motion. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Papé voting in favor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend the discussion by five minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Papé, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mr. Kelly observed that one of the questions the City Manager would have to answer was how to handle funding of the design and build process. He averred that Mr. Pryor’s motion sought to start the process but was not the process itself. Mr. Papé said his major concern was that in not working with ODOT the funds were gone. He did not know if the City had the ability with the budget and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in place to even consider MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mr. Pryor’s motion without conducting a scoping project and then coming through the Budget Committee. He stated that the funds that ODOT had available for the WEP would be returned to be allocated to a different project in Region 2 and not necessarily a project in Eugene. Mr. Pryor remarked that there was now a void where nothing was happening. His primary concern was that in Ward 5 this issue had gone on for so many years and had been talked about at length and he was tired of the talk. He wished to start the process and “get something moving.” Ms. Bettman commented that the “threat” that the money would be gone was one that had been used repeatedly to keep the WEP project alive. She said the money set aside for the WEP had been allocated for 20 years. She asserted that it was up to jurisdictions to determine what the transportation needs in their areas and then collaborate with ODOT to make projects happen. She said tax dollars belonged to everyone. She felt that ODOT would support a project that had community support. Mr. Papé offered a friendly amendment to replace the word ‘commence’ with the word ‘scope.’ Mr. Pryor accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Piercy remarked that the WEP debate had been divisive and harmful to the community. She felt the community was weary of it. She averred that the process she had suggested would produce results that everyone could live with. The motion passed, as amended, 6:2; Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 26, 2005 Page 10 Work Session