Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 03/12/03 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council McNutt RoomCity Hall B March 12, 2003 Noon é COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.ACTION: Response to Request for Proposals for Olive Street Development Site é Mr. Pap, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to direct the City Manager to enter into exclusive negotiations for the sale of the Olive Street development site to Jennings Development Group on terms and for such amount as he determined is in the public interest, but is consistent with the negotiating provisions presented at this meeting. In the event that the Jennings proposal does not materialize, direct the City Manager to seek additional information from the other three Request for Proposals respondents in an effort to generate a proposal that is consistent with the planning and design criteria for the site. Mayor Torrey called for council discussion. Ms. Taylor said that the motion implied approval of the application of the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE). The Jennings proposal was contingent on that approval, which she believed was out of order. She was opposed to extending the MUPTE, particularly to upper-end housing developments. Speaking to Ms. Taylors concern, Mr. Kelly said that during the councils March 10 discussion, the == council concurred the application of the MUPTE would require a separate discussion and separate action. He was comfortable proceeding with that knowledge. é Mr. Pap, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by stipulating that the retainage be increased to $10,000 after two months and $20,000 after four months. Mr. Braud indicated that staff had discussed a good faith deposit with representatives of the ownership group, which was not a developer. He said the relationship to Jennings was a flat fee manager of the project, not a developer seeking a return. The ownership group had indicated that the outline presented to the council was as far as it wished to go in risking its own funds. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 1 C Work Session éé Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Pap to explain the rationale for his amendment. Mr. Pap believed that if the City took the property off the market for six months, there should be a cost to the ownership group. é Ms. Nathanson asked if Mr. Pap was concerned about the amount involved or the length of time é the property was off the market. Mr. Pap understood the ownership groups need for a period of = time for due diligence but thought there should be a fee associated with it, and that it probably should be higher. Although she did not intend to support the main motion, Ms. Taylor said the amendment made sense and she intended to support it. Mr. Meisner indicated he would oppose the amendment and suggested that if anyone should be penalized for keeping the property off the market, it should be the City for failing to deal with the property for several years. He did not want to threaten what he considered a good proposal. Ms. Bettman said the discussion highlighted a process problem in that the proposal was accepted before due diligence was performed. She pointed out the staff resources the proposal would require. Ms. Bettman said the ownership group should be willing to take the risk and show commitment to its proposal. Mr. Kelly said that the proposal before the council was the most thorough of the four the City received, and if it was not accepted, it was not as though the City had another proposal that was ready to go. Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote against the amendment if the vote was a tie. He wanted to see the project move forward and did not want to lose the opportunity to realize the proposal because of the amount of earnest money. é Mr. Pap offered a friendly amendment to his motion, which Ms. Bettman accepted, to change the amount to $7,500 for the first two months and $15,000 for the remaining four months. é The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Pap, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The vote on the motion was 7:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. B.ACTION: Resolution 4751 Establishing Hazardous Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2003 é Mr. Pap, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to approve Resolution 4751, establishing hazardous substance user fees for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2003. Mayor Torrey called for council discussion on the motion. Ms. Solomon said as she researched the program she had become increasingly convinced it was not the program the voters approved. Because of court decisions affecting the program, there MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 2 C Work Session was now a group of businesses that was not required to file a report, but was required to pay a fee. She said that was fundamentally unfair. Ms. Solomon believed that there were already State and federal reporting requirements for the companies in question. She did not think the Citys = program was easy to access online and provided no more information about toxics use than could be secured through the State Fire Marshals Office. She said that it was time for the council to = address the cost issues related to the program, and suggested that ultimately, it be sent back to the voters to confirm that it was what they wanted. Mr. Meisner was not prepared to send the program back to the voters at this time. He thought the program was a valuable one. However, as he considered the programs budget, he was not = prepared to support the fee level being proposed. He said that staff had spent no more than three-quarter time on the program, and he had asked staff to provide him with a fee based on .75 FTE. As a result, the fee would be $13.92 per employer FTE. Mr. Meisner reminded the council that the fees would be affected in the next fiscal year because of legislation passed in the 1999 legislature, and he questioned how the City would fund the program at that time given its General Fund budget situation. é Mr. Pap determined from staff that the budget for fiscal year 2002 was about $101,000. The pro tem proposal before the council was about $112,000. City Manager Jim Carlson clarified that the budget was essentially the same, with an inflationary adjustment. Reserves had been used to é reduce the fees over the last two years, and those reserves were now gone. Mr. Pap asked if the fee was the highest proposed by the Toxics Board. Glen Potter of the Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department, staff to the Toxics Board, indicated that this was the highest fee based on the number of employees and perhaps the highest ever. The fee had been based on a different methodology at times in the past. é Mr. Pap indicated support for Mr. Meisners proposal. = Mr. Kelly pointed out that the program was a City Charter requirement and as long as it was in the charter, the City was required to fund it. Speaking to the comments of Ms. Solomon regarding the fee basis, he said that if the council was able to persuade the legislature to change State law, the City would be able to charge on a quantity basis. Industries that did a good job of managing their toxics use would then pay lower fees. He disagreed with her comments regarding the information provided by the program, as he believed it provided more information of higher quality than State and federal programs. Mr. Kelly said he was sorry to see the increase, but suggested that the fee increase was the result of an arithmetic exercise. He did not want to change the budget recommendation without consulting the Toxics Board. He preferred to approve the fee at this time, and suggested the council then adopt a motion that called for the board to examine the issue and forward a recommendation to the council. He pointed out to Mr. Meisner that the charter precluded the use of General Fund money to underwrite the costs of the program. Ms. Taylor said she trusted the judgment of the board, which recommended the fee. She emphasized that the program was the result of a charter amendment initiated and approved by the voters, and if it was to be repealed she thought that should be a voter effort rather than a council effort. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 3 C Work Session Mr. Poling was not prepared to support the resolution. He agreed with the comments of Ms. Solomon and disagreed with Mr. Kelly about the value of the program. He believed it was duplicative of other programs. Mr. Poling questioned funding the program at a time when the City was asking the community to accept reduced service levels and was increasing its fees. He agreed with Ms. Solomon about asking the voters to reconsider the program. He said that the only difference between the local program and State and federal programs was the amount of toxics materials being reported. Mr. Poling said that when a business pays more in fees, its employee benefits were affected and ultimately, the consumer paid. Ms. Nathanson said that it was easy to support a popular program at its current funding level but if the council made a practice of that it would never be able to reduce the budget. She was not surprised the Toxics Board supported the budget at its current level. She said that the discussion highlighted the difficulty of attempting to institute administrative structure and detail in a charter. She agreed with Mr. Meisners analysis and supported his proposal. She thought the City would = be able to maintain the program at a level commensurate with what was prescribed by charter at the level proposed. Ms. Bettman said that the council was discussing toxic chemicals that were carcinogenic, mutogenic, and neurotoxic. She said citizens had the right to know what toxins they were consuming in their air, water, and soil. She favored the resolution as presented and suggested the council could direct the board to determine what it needed in terms of program support next year. Ms. Bettman said that the cap approved by the State legislature would result in small businesses subsidizing large businesses because fees could not be assessed on quantity. She did not believe the cost of reporting should be shifted to the citizens. é Mr. Pap, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item for seven minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Carlson said that it was true Mr. Potter did not spend all his time on the program, but the program also required other staff support. Chief Tom Tallon had proposed the budget because in totality, it was a one FTE program. Mayor Torrey indicated that if called on to vote, he would vote against the resolution on the floor for the reasons cited by Ms. Nathanson. He said that it was clear the community wanted a toxics right-to-know program, but the program should not be in the charter. He said that it was argued by the adherents of that approach that the council would play games with the program if it was in an ordinance form; instead, the State and the courts had altered the program and now the council could not fix it. If it was an ordinance, it could have been adjusted. He agreed with Ms. Solomon that the program was now seriously flawed and that the voters should be asked to consider the issue. Mayor Torrey did not want to send the issue back to the board because the outcome would merely be a 4:3 or 3:4 vote given the boards composition. = é Mr. Pap moved to substitute a motion to send the budget back to the Toxics Board with direction to prepare a budget that did not include more than a 20 percent per FTE fee increase. The motion died for lack of a second. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 4 C Work Session Speaking to Mayor Torreys concerns about the outcome of a board vote, Mr. Kelly pointed out to = Mayor Torrey that the board had unanimously supported the budget and agreed on the resources needed for the program. He said that if the fee was reduced, it would have no effect on other budgets in the General Fund. It did not provide another dollar to the General Fund. Mr. Kelly believed that if the council did not pass the resolution and the program had no budget as of July 1, the City would be sued. Mr. Meisner did not want to send the budget back to the board. He said that the board was aware of the level of staff support the program received. é Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap, moved to amend Section 1 of the resolution by changing the fee to $13.92 per FTE, with the additional request that the board do a careful audit of program staffing needs for the fiscal year 2005 budget. é Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Pap, moved to extend time for the item. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Kelly voting no. Ms. Solomon noted her support for the State fee cap. She pointed out that as a result of its passage, the fee for the program was at odds with program advocates election campaign = promises that large manufacturing companies would pay the bulk of program costs. That was not the case; all companies would have the same cap, and that was unfair to smaller manufacturers. She reiterated that the program was completely different from the program approved by the voters. Ms. Solomon believed the council should deal with the issue now and not put it off another year. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion to amend. She said she understood that it would not result in additional money for the General Fund; she was merely pointing out that it was easy to support a program at the amount it was currently funded. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and é Mr. Pap voting yes. The motion to adopt the resolution failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Carlson observed that, without council action, the program would not be funded for FY04. Ms. Bettman asked if she could change her vote on the amendment. Mr. Klein indicated that since a vote had occurred since her no vote, it would require council concurrence. He suggested that instead, she offer another motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to adopt Resolution 4751 with an amendment to Section 1 of the resolution changing the fee to $13.92 per FTE, with the additional request that the board do a careful audit of program staffing needs for the fiscal year 2005 budget. The motion passed 6:2; Ms. Solomon and Mr. Poling voting no. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 5 C Work Session C.WORK SESSION: Parks and Open Space Programs Andrea Riner of the Citys Parks and Open Space Planning Division was present for the item. She = introduced Steve Gordon of the Lane Council of Governments. Ms. Riner provided a PowerPoint presentation on the regional Rivers to Ridges Project. She noted that partners in the project were the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Willamalane Parks and Recreation District, and Lane County. Ms. Riner solicited the councils endorsement of the working vision for the project. = é Mr. Pap, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to endorse the Rivers to Ridges Vision for regional parks, recreation, and open space. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the participation of smaller communities in the study, Mr. Gordon said that the two cities and the parks district provided funding for their portions of the costs of the project. Lane County funded Phase I but not Phase II, and staff was working with the County to secure that money. If successful, staff would go to the city councils of all the surrounding communities and seek their endorsement of the project. Mr. Kelly said that the project represented an economic development strategy as well as a quality of life strategy. He said that the process was being done the right way in that it involved the cooperation of multiple jurisdictions, took a regional approach, and looked at the long-term. He thanked Ms. Riner and Mr. Gordon for their work. Mr. Poling asked if the smaller communities wanted to participate in the project, and how much of their jurisdiction would be involved. Mr. Gordon said that while the smaller communities had not provided funding, their managers indicated support for taking the project to their communitys = urban growth boundary as long as did not impinge inside their boundary. Mr. Poling determined from Mr. Gordon that acquisition or annexation of land outside the urban growth boundary would not be required. Mr. Gordon said that the project was not a land use plan, and all acquisitions were voluntary. Mr. Poling asked who would maintain the parks, trails, and open spaces developed as a result of the project, and where the money would come from. Mr. Gordon anticipated that the jurisdictions would take responsibility for facilities within their boundaries and would cooperate in maintenance partnerships similar to those formed in association with the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. é Mr. Pap thanked Ms. Riner and Mr. Gordon and said he hoped Mr. Gordon would stay involved é after his retirement. Mr. Pap asked what staff learned from the project. Ms. Riner said that staff had learned that the Citys vision regarding the ridgeline trail was actually a regional vision that = blended well with other jurisdictions efforts. Eugene had a piece of a larger regional system. She = said another benefit of the project was that different jurisdictions staff were able to work together = beyond jurisdictional boundaries. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 6 C Work Session é Mr. Pap determined from Mr. Gordon that staff would continue to seek funding from other jurisdictions. Mr. Gordon noted that representatives of Cottage Grove expressed disappointment that the project did not extend to its community. He could not guarantee that City administrators were carrying the word to their councilors. é Responding to a question from Mr. Pap, Mr. Kelly indicated the Region 2050 project board was aware of the project and it fit well with that effort. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to extend time for the item by three minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Taylor said that voluntary sales were fine but she hoped the City was not limited to that approach. She was interested in acquiring the Amazon headwaters, which might not be available voluntarily. She wanted to find other ways to get the property into public ownership. She asked for information on how farm and forest land could be protected from development. Mr. Gordon responded that the Amazon headwaters was identified for possible acquisition. He believed the best way to protect farm and forest land in perpetuity was to purchase those properties or buy conservation easements on them. Ms. Taylor asked if there was a way to guarantee land inside a conservation easement would be preserved against development. Ms. Riner explained that the easement runs with the property. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the regional approach being taken by the project. She thought the project map the first step toward identifying the communitys assets. She feared the = project, like so many, would go nowhere but she hoped that it was used. She asked what percentage of the amenities identified were within Eugene or directly adjacent to it. Ms. Riner said that she had not done that assessment, but the Mayors Parks and Open Space Committee would = do so. She noted that few of the amenities that had been identified were inside the Eugene urban growth boundary because they were addressed by other plans. Ms. Solomon determined from Mr. Carlson that endorsement of the project did not imply the City would pay for it. She asked how it would be paid for. Mr. Carlson said that the project represented a framework that allowed the City to respond to different funding opportunities, such as federal funding opportunities. He said that additionally, the mayors committee might = recommend some of the land identified be purchased using a voter-approved bond measure. That was not a given, however. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the City found a better use for one the properties in question; did endorsement of the project preclude the council from pursuing a better opportunity in the future? Mr. Carlson said no. No future uses were precluded. The project was a framework that would likely be modified over time. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. D.WORK SESSION: 2003-2004 Council Goals/Strategic Planning Follow-up Jan Bohman of the City Managers Office joined the council for the item. She said she was = present to follow-up with the council on four strategic objectives it wished to consider including in its goals for 2003-2004. Ms. Bohman called the councils attention to the packet materials and = reminded councilors there had been no council consensus on the items in question. She asked for feedback on the staffs summary of the councils intent, noting that in some cases there was == MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 7 C Work Session not much discussion about the meaning of the objectives or there was a difference of opinion as to their meaning. Mr. Carlson said that staff had reviewed the four objectives remaining on the list at the end of the meeting and attempted to flesh them out with suggestions for the types of activities that might be undertaken. The four outstanding objectives were: Strengthen relationship with University of Oregon $ Address the needs of the most vulnerable $ Out-of-school recreation and educational opportunities for youth $ Ensure effective and efficient local government $ Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. Mr. Meisner was disappointed with how the four remaining objectives were translated by staff. Referring to action priorities 1 and 2 under the heading of out-of-school recreation and A educational opportunities for youth on page 477, he said he would never know from reading the @ first priority regarding funding that one of the councils interests was an examination of how the = City could avoid paying for regional, non-City programs. That was not well-conveyed. Referring to the second priority regarding the extension of library services to low-income residents inside Eugene school districts, Mr. Meisner said that was not intended to be a City expense, but rather a cost that was covered in partnership with nonprofit organizations. That was not captured in the staff materials. Referring to the action priority on page 479 of the council packet, Evaluate the A concepts and models of public-private competition and privatization, Mr. Meisner said the council @ did not discuss public-private competitions, but rather public-private partnerships. That also was not captured. He did like the brevity of the document. Mr. Kelly was not prepared to take action on the goals at this time given that the time for the item had been reduced from one hour to one-half hour. He asked that another session be scheduled. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in adding to the objective on strengthening the relationship with the University by including coordination between University planning, City planning, and the east campus neighborhood. Mr. Kelly also wanted the City to actively look for new opportunities to use University expertise and acknowledge where that was already occurring. He cited the Joint City of Eugene-University of Oregon West University Neighborhood Task Force and the business climate survey operated by the University of Oregons Planning, Public Policy, and Management Program = as examples. é Mr. Pap hoped the council had the opportunity to read the memorandum from facilitator Sue Diciple. He appreciated her attempts to keep the council from bartering goals and her attempts to keep it focused on finding consensus. He suggested that the council schedule a half-day session to continue the process with new City Manager Dennis Taylor. Ms. Nathanson said that the memorandum from the facilitator was honest, and it was probably as difficult for her to write as it was for the council to read. She did not feel good about how the process came out. Regarding the objective related to strengthening the relationship between the City and the University, Ms. Nathanson said her interest in suggesting the objective was in creating a MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 8 C Work Session permanent improvement in the relationship, not in reacting to individual University projects and events. She appreciated the individual action priorities and thought they were appropriate, but called for the addition of a short paragraph explaining the problem being addressed or the general points of the discussion. She believed that the summary missed the point of why she raised the issue. Referring to the proposed action priority on page 480 of the meeting packet, Evaluate and audit A performance and report outcomes, associated with the proposed objective related to ensuring @ effective and efficient local government services, Ms. Nathanson said she would have preferred that the text indicate that was a continuing effort, not a new effort. Referring to the action priority on page 479 of the council packet of concern to Mr. Meisner, Evaluate the concepts and models of public-private competition and privatization, Ms. A@ Nathanson suggested that it be reworded to read Evaluate the concepts and models of public- A private partnerships, competition, and privatization. @ Ms. Taylor did not think there was consensus on any of the four objectives before the council. She did not think the council did an adequate job of deciding its goals. She perceived the first half of the meeting as a waste of time as the goals had not been discussed. She thought the facilitator had been so focused on ensuring that the councilors be nice that she lost focus on the A@ councils goals. = Ms. Taylor agreed that the time allotted for the item was insufficient. Ms. Taylor supported strengthening the Citys ties with the University and endorsed Mr. Kellys == remarks about taking advantage of the expertise of the University. Speaking to the action priority related to the siting of the basketball arena, Ms. Taylor did not perceive that as a City goal. Ms. Bettman thought the goals-setting process was to be a collaborative process whereby the council could identify broad goals. However, there had been no consensus at the recent session, merely councilors getting their pet project on the table, and then the majority dominated the vote. She concluded that the session was both a waste of council time and the taxpayers money. Each = objective could have been the subject of a work session. Ms. Bettman said that if the council decided to go forward with another session, the focus should be on where the council had consensus, and that would require considerable background work. Regarding the arena siting issue, Ms. Bettman believed that whatever the City did to facilitate the siting process should be resource-neutral. Speaking to the objective of effective and efficient local government services, Mr. Kelly said several things listed raised during the session could be included in that area. He said not reflected in the material before the council was the point made regarding the need to tie economic development benefits to community benefits and priorities. He asked that be included. Referring to pages 476-477, Mr. Kelly requested an explanation of why the milestone related to the development of funding recommendations for children/youth out-of-school programs and senior and disabled recreation services was projected for the third quarter of 2004, which was too MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 9 C Work Session late to have an impact on the budget for fiscal year 2005. Mr. Carlson indicated he would give the issue some thought. Ms. Bettman said that any work the City did with the University should focus on reducing the Citys = costs, particularly in the realm of public safety. Referring to the objective related to addressing the needs of the communitys most vulnerable, = Ms. Bettman clarified that her intent was that the council would reprioritize allocation of all of the Citys resources to fill funding gaps in light of the failure of Ballot Measure 28, the economic = downturn, as well as threat of war and the costs of addressing protests, bias crimes, etc. She said that how the City would meet increased needs in human services was not mentioned. Those items that were reflected in the materials were not even raised by the council. For example, continuing the youth levy was not mentioned; her comments had been focused on the needs of low-income seniors and low-income youth. Ms. Bettman said that the priority related to a delivery of library services to nonresidents was a regional issue and should be categorized as such. Ms. Bettman said that the action priority related a review of existing City resources allocated to human services needs included a milestone that had already been accomplished by the Human Services Commission. She did not want to redo that work. She reiterated that she was not talking about refocusing the existing allocation. Her focus was on all City resources. é Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Paps comments about holding another half-day session involving the = new City Manager. He thought it would give Mr. Taylor a good sense of the councils goals and = how councilors worked together. Ms. Solomon requested clarification on what the work plan would become in light of todays = conversation. Mr. Carlson said that he perceived no consensus on those four objectives or consensus on how to address them. Staff had not included every bit of input that was put on the charts or discussed by individuals, but rather came back with priorities that might be achievable and that fit in the context of the four objectives on which the council reached tentative agreement. Today staff was receiving more input on how to proceed. He stressed that the input was from individual councilors, and at some point the council would need to move past that to consensus or a majority vote on what it wanted to achieve in the coming two years. Mayor Torrey said that he considered the councils goals to be the councils equivalent to the == Mayors State of the City address. He recommended that the council officers get together to = determine how they wanted to structure the next session, and when it should be. He agreed there was no consensus on any of the objectives that were discussed. He believed that the council could get to consensus if it was willing to work together outside the meeting setting. As an example, he recommended that Ms. Solomon describe what she would like to see the City achieve and talk to her fellow councilors about it. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments. Mr. Meisner agreed that consensus was not reached on any of the items, but he believed that generally staff had missed the point in its summary, which made it difficult to see where A@ agreement was reached. MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 10 C Work Session é Mr. Pap believed that the facilitator attempted to do what the council asked her to do before the meeting. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor indicated disagreement. é Mr. Pap said that the process was incomplete, and he did not anticipate anything but half-baked A results from half-baked goals. He encouraged the council to complete its work. @A@ Ms. Solomon asked how communicating with her fellow councilors outside of a meeting was different from requesting a work session. Mayor Torrey said that when he was elected to the council, one of his goals had been to reopen Willamette Street. He had spoken to individual councilors who might not otherwise agree with him to determine if they could work together on the subject. He said that such an approach was merely developing support for a strategy. Mr. Kelly thought it inevitable that staffs interpretation of the councils intent would have been == faulty given that it had to synthesize a discussion that occurred in one hour after a full day. He suggested that staff review the discussion from today, develop a second draft, and that the council officers work to develop a consensus process for the next session. Mr. Kelly questioned whether the council wanted to have a goals session with the new manager so soon. Ms. Bettman said that she had told the facilitator that there was insufficient time scheduled for discussion. She wanted a process where councilors could put forward ideas that they could garner consensus for, and work from that point. She endorsed Mr. Kellys suggestion, and said = that if the council did not act by consensus, there was no difference between the goals process and a work session. Ms. Nathanson noted that some of the action priorities before the council were already being done or were scheduled to be accomplished. She questioned whether the council had determined whether it wanted a goal of two special projects to accomplish over the next two years, or eight projects, or ten projects. Ms. Nathanson did not recall that the council agreed to adopt its objectives by consensus. Ms. Solomon did not support Mr. Kellys idea of advancing the changes that had been suggested = today as not all councilors had the opportunity to contribute. She thought the proposal constrained the councils discussion. = Ms. Taylor questioned whether the council needed goals. She found it ironic four councilors could adopt a goal but it took five to schedule a work session. She suggested that pre-voting on the objectives could occur. She said that Mr. Meisner was mistaken when he said that no councilor wanted to give students free library cards because she wanted to. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 1:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James D. Carlson, City Manager pro tem MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 11 C Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) R:\2003\Central Services Department\City Council\cc030312m1.wpd MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 12 C Work Session