Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 06/14/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall June 14, 2004 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. ITEMS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mr. Poling noted a recent article and editorial in The Register-Guard referring to a paper reportedly produced by City staff regarding the issue of a new hospital. He asked if there was a way for the council to receive such papers when they were provided to the media as a part of a public information request so the council was prepared to respond to questions. He had not seen the paper in question. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he was not aware of the paper in question but would follow up. He suggested the information referred to could have been drawn from many sources, including e-mail messages. He acknowledged the appropriateness of ensuring that such documents were made available to the council when requested by the media. Mr. Poling referred to a letter the mayor and council had recently received from the Business Roundtable, which represented a wide range of citizens. The letter included several recommendations regarding the commercial and industrial buildable lands inventory. He asked what the follow-up would be given that there were so many people of different political persuasions calling for a response. Mr. Taylor noted some of the issues mentioned in the letter were being addressed in the Planning and Development Department work plan and through the fiscal year 2005 budget, and indicated he would follow up. Ms. Solomon arrived. She said that on June 5, the annual Bethel Celebration had occurred, and it was very successful and a lot of fun. She reported that on Saturday, Bethel Community Park had opened near the comer of Legacy Street and Barger Drive, and the opening ceremony was enjoyed by all who attended. She thanked the voters for their support of the 1998 parks and open space bond, which made construction of the park possible, and also thanked City staff for being responsive to the residents of that area. Mr. Meisner concurred with the request of Mr. Poling regarding media information requests. Mr. Meisner said he attended a June 11 meeting of the Passenger Rail Council in Portland, during which the council discussed the time of service. An analysis indicated that Union Pacific was largely responsible for most of the delays experienced by Amtrak. He had learned that Union Pacific, when it acquired Southern Pacific, made staff reductions that led to some of the problems that were being experienced, and in addition to recruiting new staff, Union Pacific was reconsidering its decision about whether to maintain the Eugene yard. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Pap6 noted his request for financial information regarding the City's acquisition of the former Chiquita site and said he had received some data. He requested additional information on the topic, such as what the City owed the taxpayers in terms of its promises to the community that the acquisition would be a "wash." Mr. Pap6 was pleased to see that the Parks and Open Space Division received national recognition from the Public Relations Society of America for its newsletter, "Eugene Outdoors!" Mr. Pap6 thanked resident John Brown, members of the Southtown Rotary Club, members of the Delta Rotary Club, and employees of Pacific Continental Bank for their efforts in a recent riverbank cleanup. Ms. Nathanson had no items. Mr. Kelly referred to the letter from the Business Roundtable mentioned by Mr. Poling, and agreed that given the breadth of community interest in the subject, it was important that the council address the topic of the buildable lands inventory at some future time. He acknowledged that significant resources would be required for that effort. He asked Mr. Taylor to discuss staff's initial reaction to the proposals contained in the letter and to prepare a recommendation for proceeding. Ms. Taylor continued to be concerned about the negative effects of increased densities in established neighborhoods. She said she was awaiting more information about whether the contractor would take responsibility for the damage done to Whitbeck Road, which was maintained by current residents. She asked if the City had standards for people who buik in backyards or on flag lots, and if there were restrictions on where windows could be located and the height of the building. She reiterated she believed the City's policies were damaging established neighborhoods. Ms. Taylor reported that Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority proposed to establish a program for auxiliary power units for diesel trucks to avoid the problem of long-term truck idling. The agency was working with Oregon State University to investigate the best of the units available, and then would request a grant to train people to install them, and borrow money to buy them. She said she had information she would leave in the council office. Noting that the memorandum of agreement with the General Services Administration (GSA) did not commit the GSA to the actual construction of the federal courthouse, Ms. Bettman asked if an agreement could be developed stipulating a connection between progress on the proposed transportation and other infrastructure improvements and the progress on the courthouse project. She requested a memorandum updating the council on the courthouse project and discussing how to create the desired connection. Mr. Taylor spoke enthusiastically about several park openings that occurred the previous weekend, including Gilbert Park, Bethel Community Park, and Trainsong Park. He thanked the mayor for his attendance at the openings, the volunteers who worked on the celebrations, and staff of the Parks and Open Space Division and Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. Mayor Torrey noted the upcoming groundbreaking of RiverPlay, a new children's park at Skinner Butte Park. He said the area Rotary Clubs had been raising additional funds for the park and in the fundraising process he was asked how the park would be maintained. He asked Mr. Taylor to direct staff to prepare and mail a one-page response regarding the topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adjust the City Manager's compensation, placing him on Step 4 of the salary schedule, retroactive to his employment anniversary date of April 14, 2004, and to increase the City Manager salary range on July 1, 2004, by 1.4 percent to reflect a cost-of-living adjustment. Ms. Bettman explained that the percentage selected appeared to reflect a middle range of council sentiment on the subject. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. B. WORK SESSION: Region 2050 Status Report and Public Outreach Senior Planner Allen Lowe of the Eugene Planning and Development Department introduced the item, noting Mayor Torrey's and Mr. Kelly's participation on the Region 2050 Policy Board, which was composed of two elected officials from several small Lane County cities as well as from the Lane County Board of Commissioners. He said the effort was entering into a major public outreach phase. Mr. Lowe introduced Region 2050 Project Manager Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments, who provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Region 2050 effort and the public outreach that was being proposed. Ms. Heinkel provided information on the geographic scope of the effort and the Region 2050 participants. She reviewed the process, which included: 1) evaluation of alternative scenarios; 2) development of preferred growth scenarios, and goals, objectives, and actions in areas such as land use, housing, transporta- tion, and the economy; and 3) agreement on an integrated regional growth management strategy. The policy board had recently completed work on three alternative scenarios to present to the public. Ms. Heinkel reviewed the elements of three alternative regional growth scenarios, the Compact Urban Growth scenario, Satellite Communities scenario, and the Rural Growth scenario. She anticipated the ultimate result of the public outreach that followed was a scenario would be a hybrid of the three scenarios, which would again be tested with the public. Ms. Heinkel shared tables demonstrating examples of the evaluative criteria against which each element was weighed for each of the three scenarios. Mayor Torrey called for questions and comments. Mr. Kelly, a member of the Region 2050 Policy Board, commended the Region 2050 effort and said the fact the goals of the process had unanimous support from the elected officials of various Lane County communi- ties was significant in itself. Mr. Kelly underscored that the three alternative scenarios represented points on a continuum rather than all future possibilities. The policy board was trying to show distinct differences among the example scenarios. Referring to the evaluative information shared by Ms. Heinkel, he said there was considerable technical data behind the tables that people could access. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Heinkel for the presentation. He expressed disappointment about the lack of participation of the school districts and the Oregon Department of Education. Ms. Heinkel assured Mr. Meisner that those parties were engaged in the process and would continue to be engaged. Mr. Meisner wished they had been involved from the beginning. Mr. Meisner hoped the regional planning effort had meaning. He pointed to the council's growth manage- ment policies, and said the council used the policies to determine if what it was doing was consistent with the policies, but did not consider how to actually implement the spirit of the policies. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner's latter comments. She questioned how much of the work that resulted would supercede local policy, and how much would actually have meaning. Ms. Bettman noted the resources going into the process and expressed skepticism that the process would result in anything that would improve the livability of the southern Willamette Valley. In fact, she feared it would worsen conditions by creating so much flexibility there would be very little regulation. Ms. Bettman recommended that public outreach be very explicit in explaining that the results of moving forward with the results of the process could result in the opportunity for individuals to circumvent existing State land use laws. Ms. Bettman asked how some of the things mentioned by Ms. Heinkel in her presentation would be enforced. For example, if the region adopted the Compact Urban Growth scenario, how would development proposals outside the rural areas be addressed? Governance was also an issue for her as it appeared the process was moving toward a regional government with multiple layers of elected officials, which she thought would reduce accountability to the citizens. Ms. Bettman questioned some of the assumptions behind the scenarios, such as how constraining the urban growth boundary (UGB) would result in spillover development outside the UGB, as that did not take into account how development occurred within the UGB. A community could have a UGB and still have low- intensity development. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner about the lack of educational representation on the policy board. He asked if the University of Oregon or Lane Community College were involved. Ms. Heinkel said staff had met with University representatives and she had also taught a couple of classes on the topic, but she agreed more needed to be done. Mr. Pap~ suggested the hospitals also should be involved to ensure adequate planning was done to accommodate future health care needs. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lowe that the communities involved in the Region 2050 effort were within the commute shed of Eugene-Springfield. Mr. Lowe said communities such as Deadwood and Alvadore were represented on the policy board by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Heinkel said there were some neighborhood association representatives who attended policy board meetings. She indicated that more outreach would be done to the rural areas. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Heinkel the policy board's meetings were largely held in the Eugene-Springfield area, a decision of the policy board. Mr. Poling thought it important to stress to the public that the alternative growth scenarios were a tool for discussion, and that the ultimate growth scenario was likely to be a hybrid. He said it should also be clear to the public this was just a starting point. He suggested one result of the public outreach might be some redefinition or narrowing of the project's goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Poling referred to the project objectives for jobs and the economy, one of which was to encourage partnerships with local organizations, communities, and businesses. He urged Ms. Heinkel not to ~reinvent the wheel." He pointed to the organizations such as the Metro Partnership, which was essentially doing what the objective called for. He encouraged review of the goals and objectives to ensure they were not duplicative of other efforts. Ms. Nathanson was encouraged there was interest in a regional plan but she was also skeptical of the outcome of the process. She anticipated there would be increasing pressure for development in the area around Eugene-Springfield as the community filled in. She questioned if Eugene-Springfield could realize its vision for land use, employment, and residential development if it relied on outlying communities to modify their zoning codes. She asked if those communities would be willing to make the changes needed to realize the vision. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the elected officials on the policy board adequately represented the sentiments of their constituents. She said there was great resistance to change in the county. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the transportation system was the key to the issue of growth. She pointed out all the scenarios would result in more development outside Eugene-Springfield, and there was great resistance from some to provide new transportation facilities. Some residents could live near their work, but jobs were mobile and frequently residents had multiple transportation needs requiring them to use a car. Residents value choice and the ability to move around. Ms. Solomon noted the Region 2050 effort was purely voluntary, and she questioned whether, if the council adopted its ultimate strategy, it would have to filter all its decisions through the strategy. She observed that all three scenarios identified the Lane Community College Basin a growth area, but there had been resistance to past development proposals in that area and they were not supported by local elected leaders. Ms. Heinkel said the State's Regional Problem Solving Program gave jurisdictions increased flexibility but did not give them latitude to act in a manner inconsistent with the statewide planning goals. All State agencies and local participants must concur on the outcome. She said in November, staff would meet with the Land Conservation and Development Commission to define how the effort would work to the benefit of the regional partners. Speaking to the issue of the Lane Community College Basin, Ms. Heinkel noted that under current administrative rules, the basin could not be identified as an urban reserve area. If the City determined the basin was a suitable area for growth, the process enabled Eugene to expand even if the area in question did not meet the letter of rules. Ms. Solomon observed the process appeared to add more bureaucracy and questioned whether there was some other way the project's goals could be accomplished. Mr. Lowe said there was much left to decide in terms of how the process ultimately worked out. He recalled that Eugene's Growth Management Study acknowledged the need for Eugene to interact with outlying communities more, and the City's participation in the Region 2050 effort was an outgrowth of that acknowledgment. He said no one really knew where the process was going, but there was general agreement in the region about the need to discuss the implications of future growth. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the process could fall apart, and it was possible nothing would happen. However, the conversation would have occurred, and there would be more awareness about the implications of growth and even acknowledgment of the need to continue the discussion. He suggested the effort was the beginning point of a larger effort that could take 15 or 20 years to complete. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor requested information about the cost of the project and the number of participants. Ms. Heinkel did not have an exact number of participants. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that a single participant from one small community was not representative of that community. She thought for all the county's communi- ties to reach agreement on their goals would take a very long time to accomplish. Ms. Taylor believed a logical outcome of the process could be that local agencies shared revenues and service responsibilities, but did not want to have a regional government if that was a goal of the process. Mr. Lowe said the issue of regional government was a question rather than a goal. Mayor Torrey thought the Region 2050 process an improvement over the Growth Management Study process because it involved other Lane County communities, and what Eugene did had an impact on those communities. He noted that the policy board was discussing strategies rather than policies. He thought the discussion was worthwhile given the interrelationships between communities and the impact that activities in one community had on its neighboring communities. As an example, he cited the potential for Junction City to allow different development patterns along Highway 99 than those Eugene preferred. He thought it best that Eugene and Junction City have an opportunity to discuss that issue. Mayor Torrey hoped the community got a better handle on its buildable lands inventory soon. Mayor Torrey said the region needed to find a way to help the smaller communities address their infrastruc- ture problems. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time for the item by ten minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey called for a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly said he was also skeptical about the process but preferred to try it as opposed to not trying at all. He said he would not support the project if he thought it would circumvent local policies or laws. The policy board had not discussed the concept of a regional government, and he did not think there was support on the policy board for the idea. He believed the Region 2050 recommendations could only be realized if the local governments participating in the effort incorporated the recommendations into their local ordinances and planning documents. He acknowledged a failure on the part of one community to adopt the recommen- dations could be an issue. Speaking to a concern expressed earlier by Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly clarified that the scenarios accounted for development inside the UGBs in that an overall density inside each UGB was presumed in each scenario. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the transportation system was a critical issue. He expressed concern to Ms. Heinkel about embarking on the public outreach effort without a substantive transportation model. Ms. Bettman agreed the dialogue was worthwhile, but questioned the cost of the process creating the dialogue. She also believed that cost of implementing the agreed-upon strategy for individual jurisdictions could be quite high. Ms. Bettman believed local governments had the tools they needed to ensure livability, and it was up to the individual jurisdictions to determine if that was what they wanted to do. She did not believe a voluntary program would be effective as there would be no enforcement mechanism to stop a development that the affected jurisdiction desired. Ms. Bettman further objected that each scenario enabled MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 6 Work Session the expansion of the UGB. The goals and objectives touched on the question on how services were funded, and she was not aware of another funding tool outside of service districts that was being considered. Mr. Pap6 agreed with the mayor that it was important to have the conversation. He asked what was envisioned in terms of the regional commuter service referred to in the Compact Urban Growth scenario. Ms. Heinkel said that was not yet defined, and more would be known when the transportation modeling was done. The scenario assumed a regional commuter services for the population level to be achieved.. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the formation of a regional area commission on transportation could be a useful way to achieve some of the goals of the process. Mr. Meisner distinguished between policies, strategies, and implementation steps, and noted that it was relatively easy to adopt the Growth Management Study policies, but community resistance to much of the policy implementation was high. Mr. Meisner questioned the omission of towns such as Marcola and Harrisburg from the effort, emphasizing the rapid growth in the latter community. He asked what the "market shed" for Eugene-Springfield actually was. Ms. Nathanson said several years ago she had been supportive of having a regional discussion about growth for the reasons cited by Mayor Torrey. She thanked Mr. Lowe for pointing out that a venue for discussion now existed and that the process was the start of a longer discussion. Mayor Torrey asked Ms. Heinkel to prepare information for the council regarding the cost of the process and the staff resource it required. C. WORK SESSION: Motor-Assisted Scooters on Off-Street Paths Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Diane Bishop and Sergeant Derel Schulz joined the council for the item. Ms. Bishop shared some illustrative examples of the vehicles in question, noting they came in different sizes and shapes. She reported that under State law, operators of motor-assisted scooters must be 16 years of age and older and must wear helmets. The vehicles are legal on City streets with speed limits of 25 miles or lower. They can also be operated on streets with higher speed limits but must be driven in the bicycle lane. They are prohibited on sidewalks, and may not be driven at speeds faster than 15 miles per hour. Ms. Bishop said that motor-assisted scooters can also be ridden on paths, but State law provides for local control over paths. Currently, City park rules preclude motorized vehicles on City park paths. Many other rules that apply to bicycles also apply to motor-assisted scooters, such as signaling and having lights at night. Ms. Bishop said that the City had heard concerns from path users about the use of motor-assisted scooters on city paths. Those concerns were that the vehicles traveled at high speeds, were too noisy, polluted too much, and created additional congestion on paths that were already heavily used. Path users particularly object to their use in natural areas. Many path users believe the scooters are inappropriate because the paths were designed for bicycle and pedestrian use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Speaking to the issues of noise and pollution, Ms. Bishop said residents also expressed concern about the use of such vehicles in neighborhoods in general. Ms. Bishop termed motor-assisted scooters the ;;new kids on the block" and said they were sometimes used for alternative transportation and by those who preferred not to use a car. Sgt. Schulz discussed the impact of motor-assisted scooters on off-street paths. He made the following points: · Education about newly adopted laws is the key to the issue both for the public and for law en- forcement - local dealers were not required to provide the information to purchasers of the mo- tor-assisted vehicles. Some were providing good information and some were not. · The largest hurdle to enforcement is that it involves a violation that must be observed by a po- lice officer before any enforcement can occur. · The Eugene Police Department heard complaints related to noise on the paths and the speed at which vehicles traveled on the paths. · The laws in place adequately regulate the use of motor-assisted vehicles on the roadway; the de- partment's major concern is regulation on City paths. Sgt. Schulz said he did not think motor-assisted scooters were a fad. He believed they were here to stay, and their ramifications needed to be addressed. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Meisner preferred to see noise from motor-assisted scooters regulated on both streets and paths. He said motor-assisted scooters were very loud. He said that helmets were seldom worn by the scooter operators he saw, including children. He wanted the vehicles to be prohibited on all city paths, not just on paths in parks. Regarding enforcement, he acknowledged the problem caused by the fact a violation was involved. Ms. Taylor said she requested the work session because of the many constituent contacts she received. She thought the speed, noise, and, in some cases, odors from the vehicles were all problems. She was surprised that an operator's license was not required to operate a motor-assisted scooter. Ms. Taylor moved that the City Manager bring back an ordinance to the council ban- ning motor-assisted scooters from all City bicycle paths and bicycle lanes. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved that the City Manager bring back an ordi- nance banning motor-assisted scooters from all City bicycle paths. Mr. Meisner objected that the motion did not ban the vehicles on the street and did not address noise. Ms. Taylor said the vehicles in question were noisy and created a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians. They should not be allowed on the City's paths. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she would like to see an ordinance that included a number of optional provisions, including provisions addressing the noise issue, on-street use of motor-assisted scooters, and other salient issues as they arose in the council's discussion. She wanted to hear more from the public, noting that she had not heard from any constituent objecting to the use of motor-assisted scooters in bike lanes on the streets. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Kelly accepted Ms. Bettman's suggestion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Bettman said that the violations of a possible ordinance did not have to be a higher enforcement priority than other violations. As long as people know there is an ordinance and they could receive a ticket, she believed it would have some effect as a deterrent. Mr. Pap6 did not oppose looking at the issue of motor-assisted scooters but did not want the council to limit its consideration of noise issues, for example, to such vehicles alone. He also pointed out that some bicycles were motorized, and he was capable of bringing his own non-motorized bicycle up to 20 to 25 miles per hour on a bicycle path. Mr. Pap6 suggested if the community had a problem with vehicles speeding on bicycle paths, perhaps speed limits on bicycle paths were needed. Mr. Pap6 opposed banning motor-assisted scooters from on-street bicycle lanes as he thought that was where they appropriately belonged. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Pap& She expressed concern about what seemed to be anti-scooter sentiment, pointing out that the council frequently discussed the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled in the community, and motor-assisted scooters were an alternate transportation form that could help accomplish that. She also noted Sgt. Schulz's remarks that the vehicles were here to stay. Ms. Solomon wanted the council to be able to provide for the use of motor-assisted scooters in the community, and advocated for taking a more %an do" attitude toward their use. Mr. Kelly said he had heard from enough constituents to believe there were gaps in the State law that should be addressed. He concurred with Ms. Bettman that the council needed options to consider. He did not think any councilor was expressing opposition to motor-assisted scooters as such, but rather the council was concerned about the impacts and the compatibility of such vehicles with other City path uses. He said that he received complaints about the gas-powered scooters more than about the electric-powered scooters and suggested that staff might want to distinguish between the two types when it considered options. He noted that State law distinguished between motor-assisted scooters and motor-assisted bicycles, and he thought those devices were very different from motor-assisted scooters in terms of their noise and pollution impact. Mr. Kelly requested that staff return with a draft ordinance that did not restrict the ability of people to use motorized devices for basic mobility due to a disability. Speaking to Ms. Solomon's remarks, Mr. Kelly said he walked and bicycled frequently on the City's paths, and was not anti-scooter when the scooter was on a roadway, but when he was out for a quiet walk having such a vehicle coming up behind him at 20 miles per hour was not a pleasant experience. Ms. Nathanson said if scooters became a popular alternative form of commuting, that could be a good thing. However, she acknowledged that residents were increasingly unhappy with the competition for use of the City's multi-use paths. Ms. Nathanson did not want to create an ordinance that made distinctions based on the characteristics of the vehicle involved, and advocated for a focus on impact. She pointed out that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 9 Work Session council could not anticipate all the rapid technological advances that might occur in such vehicles. Where possible, she wanted to focus on what the council was attempting to achieve. Mr. Poling supported the motion because he wanted to open up a dialogue on the subject. He believed the focus of the City's effort needed to be on education and enforcement, particularly education of parents given the scooters were heavily used by children, frequently without helmets. He said the draft ordinance should be broad enough to encompass devices such as motor-powered skateboards. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the need to focus on impact. He said there were legitimate reasons for the use of the scooters, and a discussion about that needed to occur. Mr. Meisner supported the motion, which he considered sufficiently broad to address the issue that had been raised. He believed the noise issue needed to be addressed more broadly; he pointed out the City's noise ordinance addressed structural noise but not vehicular noise. He thought that was a gap, and called for a ~noise ordinance with teeth." He looked forward to the options presented to the council. Mayor Torrey determined from Sgt. Schulz that the minimum age for the use of such scooters was 16, and the parent was liable for the violation of allowing the minor to operate the vehicle. The penalty for the violation averaged $90. Failure to wear a helmet was $25. Mayor Torrey asked if the City was liable for a collision that occurred on its multi-use paths between the rider of an uninsured scooter and another individual. Ms. Bishop believed that the rider or parent of the rider would have liability. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments, Sgt. Schulz noted that there were some statutes that address noise from vehicles but they were specific to motor vehicles and did not include motor scooters. Ms. Taylor said she was also concerned about the safety of pedestrians. Ms. Solomon determined from Ms. Bishop that the only community she was aware of that had passed laws limiting scooters on paths was Corvallis. A Portland representative indicated to her that Portland had not experienced any issues with them yet. Mr. Pap~ emphasized the need to focus on outcomes and to act broadly. He determined from the maker of the motion and the second that the motion did not preclude consideration of other motorized vehicles, such as motorized skateboards. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 10 Work Session (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 11 Work Session