Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 08/11/04 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall August 11, 2004 Noon 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. Mayor Torrey recognized Mr. Poling. Mr. Poling indicated that following the work session on Housing Standards, he would move to reconsider a motion the council passed on August 9. A. Housing Standards The council was joined by Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle, Building and Permit Services Manager Marsha Miller, and Permit Review Manager Keli Osborn. Ms. Miller recalled the council's May 24 work session on housing standards, at which it provided further direction to staff to draft an ordinance similar to that of Corvallis, Oregon and to secure feedback on the draft from the Housing Policy Board (HPB) and Human Rights Commission staff. In addition, several questions were asked at the work session and responses were provided in the council packet. Ms. Miller reviewed the elements of the proposed ordinance that differed from the approach taken in Corvallis, noting that Eugene proposed using its existing civil penalties for enforcement and to direct appeals to a hearings official. The Corvallis ordinance referenced the State Landlord-Tenant Law, and Eugene staff included the applicability section inside the ordinance itself. Ms. Miller reported that the HPB reviewed the ordinance and voted 4:2 against moving forward with the ordinance; the board recommended that, if the council chose to go ahead with the ordinance, low-income housing should be exempted. A memorandum from HPB Chair John VanLandingham was included in the council packet summarizing that discussion. Ms. Miller reported that Human Rights Commission staff also reviewed the ordinance and had no objections. Ms. Miller sought further direction from the council regarding potential exemptions and whether to move forward with an ordinance for public hearing and budget proposals. She noted that the timing of such a program was an issue. She said the Corvallis ordinance included a sunset provision and the council might want to consider adding such a provision to the ordinance or establishing a review period. Ms. Miller indicated that at a minimum, staff believed that two to three full-time equivalent (FTE) positions were needed to operate the program. Staff recommended an initial program staff of two FTE, with an evaluation of the need for more staff to follow. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 1 Work Session Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Taylor was pleased with the staff materials. She asked why complaints could not be filed by telephone. Ms. Miller said all nuisance and zoning complaints were currently taken in writing. In Corvallis, the tenant must submit information in writing indicating that the landlord had been notified. Ms. Taylor wanted to consider allowing people to file complaints via telephone. Ms. Taylor referred to the penalty section and suggested that, as Eugene's former ordinance called for, landlords found guilty of a violation be prohibited for a year from raising rents on any unit they owned. Ms. Taylor said a $10 annual fee per unit was not large and she did not see a problem having it added to the rents. She wanted to hold a public hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Meisner supported holding a public hearing on the ordinance. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's concern, he suggested staff prepare a simple, straightforward complaint form for residents to complete. Mr. Meisner noted a discrepancy between the ordinance and council packet materials in regard to single rooms inside a house. He indicated some preference for the ordinance language. Mr. Meisner noted a complaint-driven process was anticipated rather than an inspection-driven program. For that reason, he did not believe two FTEs were needed. Ms. Miller indicated the staff estimate of the needed FTEs was based on the Corvallis model. Mr. Meisner wanted to start with one FTE given that the City planned to phase the program in. He said the fee was predicated on the number of FTE, and he doubted that would ever be reduced once established. City Manager Dennis Taylor indicated he was unwilling to begin the program with inadequate resources. Mr. Meisner was not persuaded of the need. Mr. Pap~ discussed the HPB recommendation, noting his surprise at the vote, and speculating that it was based on certain members' belief that while substandard housing was a problem, it was low in price and filled a community need by housing those who would not otherwise be able to find housing. There was fear that rents would be raised when those units were improved to meet new standards. Members had also suggested that a $10 per unit fee could be used to build more low-income housing rather than support a housing standards program. Mr. Pap~ noted that Section 8 housing was inspected regularly and suggested that the council seriously consider the exemptions recommended by the HPB. Mr. Poling thanked the students from the University of Oregon who worked to bring the issue before the council. He concurred with staff regarding the phased implementation. He asked if the funds used to build the program could be returned to the General Fund at a later time from program revenues. City Manager Taylor indicated it depended on the start-up strategy used to fund the program. Mr. Poling asked about appeals past the Hearings Official level. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated that further appeals would go to the Circuit Court. Mr. Poling wanted that to be clear to the public. Mr. Poling favored a sunset provision, and suggested it was an opportunity to review the potential of scaling back the program and the program staff that was needed, and to work through "bugs" in the ordinance. Mr. Poling supported Mr. Meisner's call for a simple complaint form but believed sufficient written MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 2 Work Session documentation was needed for the City to initiate action on a complaint. Mr. Poling supported holding a public hearing on the topic. Mr. Kelly commended the staff work on the ordinance. He pointed out the ordinance was intended to allow people who live in Eugene live in habitable dwellings with electricity, heat, and weatherproofing. He thought those were basic needs and the ordinance represented important work. Mr. Kelly supported the staff recommendations and moving the ordinance to a public hearing. He suggested the hearing be held in October 2004, following the return of University of Oregon students. Mr. Kelly supported a phased implementation of the ordinance. Speaking to Mr. Papa's concerns, Mr. Kelly believed that Section 8 units still needed to comply with the standards but pointed out to Mr. Pap~ they would be exempted from paying the fee under the proposed draft ordinance. With regard to the HPB discussion about substandard units meeting a need, Mr. Kelly said the council should not be encouraging the continuance of such substandard units. He said that while more low-income housing was needed, a $10 per unit fee would not realize sufficient funding for that purpose as it would only realize $200,000 a year. He did not think the issue needed to be one of %ither or." Mr. Kelly pointed out a sunset was not needed for the council to review the ordinance. Ms. Nathanson believed the council discussed a solution to the problem before it discussed what the problem was. She asked how many other cities had such a program. Ms. Miller said staff had mainly worked with Corvallis at the direction of the council and had not done such an investigation. Ms. Nathanson was interested in more discussion about what units, if any, should be exempt from the fee. She did not want to exempt any units that should be included. Ms. Nathanson also questioned the need for two to three FTE for program start-up. She was concerned about the scale of the program, particularly because of other council budget decisions, such as its decision to reduce funding for land use enforcement for nuisance complaints, which often involved hazardous or stress situations that could lead to public safety issues and had a negative impact on residents' quality of life. While she wanted to do something, she questioned whether what was being proposed was at the correct scale. She asked how many calls the Corvallis program received. Ms. Miller indicated that Corvallis received 35 calls monthly. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether two to three staff would be needed to address approximately 80 calls monthly. She called for more empirical statistical data. Ms. Bettman shared the concerns expressed by Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner regarding the number of FTEs being proposed, and suggested the council revisit that issue once the program was underway. She believed the deterrent effect of the program would, over time, allow for a reduction in program staff. Ms. Bettman said that a member of the HPB she had spoken to indicated she would have liked to have seen a more far-reaching program, and for that reason did not support the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman suggested the council include a provision in the ordinance that compelled landlords to provide information about the program and State Housing Standards to tenants as soon as they signed a rental agreement. She generally supported the staff recommendations and looked forward to the public hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to forward the housing stan- dards ordinance to a public hearing in October as per the staff recommen- dation. Mayor Torrey called for comment on the motion. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He shared the concerns expressed by others about the number of FTEs and suggested the possibility that some of the staff be hired on a temporary basis so that the manager had the ability to adjust staff levels. Mr. Kelly wanted a thorough program accounting on an annual basis so that carryover revenues could be used to lower the fee in subsequent years. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's remarks about staffing. She believed that at the program's inception, there would be more complaints. Ms. Nathanson discussed the proposed phase approach, agreeing that was an appropriate approach, and asked what statistical evidence the City had of where people were encountering the most problems. She wanted to ensure the program helped those who needed it most and most quickly. She asked if the phased-in approach helped those most in need first. Ms. Miller said the City had no baseline experience with the program demand or about those who needed it at the current time. She believed from anecdotal evidence that there were more problems in single-family units than in apartment dwellings. That concerned Ms. Nathanson because the phased approach focused more on apartments. She reiterated her interest in getting help where it was most needed. Ms. Miller said the phasing was predicated on the elements of the program easiest to get up and running. Mr. Pap6 wanted to move the ordinance forward and indicated support for the motion. Mr. Poling said the ordinance was intended to help the renters but also landlords, the vast majority of which were good landlords and attendant to the needs of their tenants. The ordinance was not intended as a punishment for community landlords, but was targeted at the few problems that exist. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Miller to consider Ms. Nathanson's points when determining how to phase in the program, as he suspected Ms. Miller was correct about the situation with single-family rental houses. He supported the motion and reiterated his interest in an examination of the FTE question. He agreed that temporary staffing should be examined. Speaking to the concerns voiced by Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Bettman recalled that the second phase of the program was to be accomplished within six months of the first phase. Ms. Bettman suggested the ordinance would ;;raise the threshold" for the community and eliminate substandard housing that lacked adequate heat and plumbing over the long term. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Torrey thanked the students from the University of Oregon who took on the challenge of bringing the issue before the council. He cautioned them that their work was not over. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks about staffing, saying it was easy to upsize but not to downsize. He thought Ms. Taylor's points about temporary staffing were well-taken. Ms. Taylor did not support an ordinance sunset, saying a sunset was different from a council evaluation. She supported the current phasing plan and pointed out it would take more time to identify single-family rental housing stock. She hoped the University of Oregon students who raised the need for the ordinance found another worthy cause. Mr. Pap6 joined in the appreciation expressed to the students and staff. He thought a sunset provision would trigger a sufficient level of staff review. Mr. Pap6 opposed the $10 per unit fee proposal, preferring to have a lower fee initially. He concurred with the remarks of other councilors, saying that two FTE were far more than would be needed when the program was established. He suggested that the City outsource the service as it could be done by an outside firm. He wanted to look at that approach before the City hired new staff. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City also pursue changes in the State Landlord-Tenant Law. She asked the City Manager to inform the council of the process for prioritizing the issue for lobbying in the next State legislative session. Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Miller to discuss a staff statement in the Agenda Item Summary that many qualified families overpaying for housing would not benefit from an exemption to the ordinance. Ms. Miller said that the issue was raised at the HPB meeting. Members expressed concern that there were people eligible to be in low-income housing who overpaid for housing now because of a lack of affordable low- income housing units. If those units were exempted, that did not benefit those families. Ms. Nathanson clarified that the statement was less about the exemption than about the housing stock. Ms. Miller concurred. Mr. Kelly noted the Coalition for Eugene Housing Standards included other organizations than the University students, such as Centro LatinoAmericano. He thanked all those organizations. Mr. Kelly discussed the problems created by the illegal conversion of housing, such as single-family houses converted to multi-unit housing. The housing in question may be poorly built, and its systems not designed to handle multiple units. He asked if there was a way to identify such housing. Noting that staff had discussed the issue with University students, Ms. Miller said one of the results of having such a program was that it was likely the City would be called on to investigate situations where a unit was found to be not only substandard but illegal as well. She thought the City would encounter many such units, particularly in the University area. Mr. Taylor suggested that collection of that data would inform future council decisions regarding the scale and pricing of the service. Mr. Meisner said the City was exempting owner-occupied homes from the ordinance, but many marginally legal or illegally converted units involved owner-occupied homes. He cited room rentals as an example. He said staff would need to be very careful in its approach. He said the new State law requiring proof of permits on sale of a property may help in the long-term. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 5 Work Session Mr. Meisner expressed hope the City would keep records from areas such as the River Road/Santa Clara area, where students also lived. Mr. Pap6 wanted the council to consider Section 8.4401 of the ordinance as it mentioned only a written rental agreement, saying it was his experience renters often entered into verbal agreements, and that was not addressed. Mr. Pap6 suggested Mr. Kelly's concerns about illegal housing conversions should already be addressed by the nuisance code. B. Reconsideration of August 9 Motion Mayor Torrey called on Mr. Poling. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to reconsider the council's vote of August 9 postponing to September 13 action on the motion to ap- prove funding for the industrial and commercial lands study. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments. Mr. Kelly preferred to retain the original date for the proposed work session. He thought more information needed to be provided on such issues as who administered the study before the council could make a decision, and he was confident with that the council would be able to have a good discussion on September 13 and reach a near-unanimous outcome. He preferred that near-majority to a deadlocked council. Pointing out that the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development had emphasized the need for the study to have broad community support, Mr. Kelly said he concurred, and if the council pushed ahead at this time there would be a perception in some parts of the community that the study was not intended as a fact-gathering exercise, but rather as a political weapon. Mr. Kelly did not see a need for the council to revisit its August 9 discussion. He said the purpose of reconsideration as stated in Roberts Rules of Order was to allow a body to reconsider any hasty, ill-advised, or erroneous action, or to account for new information or changes in the situation. He asked Mr. Poling to explain in what way the August 9 6:1 vote represented haste or error. Ms. Taylor said community support required an informed community, and that took time. She said she had preferred to wait even longer than September 13. Mr. Pap6 believed there was broad support for the study itself and now the council was talking about the credibility of the study. He agreed the council needed to discuss how to accomplish the study so it was credible and acceptable across the community and lacked the biases that people read into the report don by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce report. He wanted to move forward. Mr. Meisner, who had not been present at the August 9 meeting but had viewed the meeting tape, supported the motion to reconsider, although he did not guarantee he would support the subsequent motion Mr. Poling planned to offer. He was concerned that scheduling the issue for a full work session would result in the council micromanaging the study "to death." MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 6 Work Session Speaking to Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the reason for reconsideration, Ms. Nathanson said she had been okay with the tenor of Monday's discussion until the end, when the issue of the Natural Resources Study had been raised by Mr. Kelly. She supported Mr. Poling's motion because she was concerned that completion of the Natural Resources Study would become a quidlvro quo for a vote on funding for the commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Nathanson wanted to vote on the commercial and industrial lands study and that issue alone. She would not support an approach that tied the funding to the completion of the Natural Resources Study. Other issues such as the criteria could be addressed separately. Ms. Bettman wanted the council to look at the study process to ensure it was unbiased and without a work session that would not happen. She thought there were issues to be discussed on which the council needed to provide input. If the council did not do that, she did not care when action occurred. Either way, she believed the council majority was ;;fast-tracking the issue" for %bvious" reasons; they hoped the data would be available from the study that would support moving forward with one endeavor or another before there was a change in the council's political make-up. Regarding the Natural Resources Study, Ms. Bettman believed Mr. Kelly was justified in raising the issue given the remarks of the roundtable, which supported the commercial and industrial study in conjunction with the completion of the natural resources inventory. She pointed out the local area was in compliance with State law in regard to commercial and industrial lands, but out of compliance in regard to natural resources. She believed the roundtable reached a sensible compromise. She thought completion of the Natural Resources Study was a relevant topic for the council to discuss when it discussed the commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Solomon disagreed that the council was ;;fast-tracking" the issue, pointing out the council had been discussing the topic for more than a year. She supported the motion Mr. Poling planned to offer, saying it addressed most of the concerns raised by councilors. She wanted to consider the issue today. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to call the question. The mo- tion failed, 5:3, because it did not garner six votes of support; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. Poling read from a letter from the Board of County Commissioners indicating its willingness to take a lead role on the study and describing the general nature of the study. The letter also requested the council's approval of the study funding. Mr. Poling believed the letter addressed many of the issues addressed by the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development and the members of the roundtable, as well as letters the council received from various interested citizens. He said the City continued to do business in 2004 with information from 1988. Eugene was just one of the ;;pieces of the puzzle," and it needed to work with Lane County and Springfield to work on the study. Mayor Torrey said he had no objections to close or tie votes and believed the council should vote its convictions and move on. However, he was concerned about the lack of confidence the City Council had repeatedly shown in the City Manager. He said the motion that Mr. Poling planned to offer gave the manager responsibility for administering and issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP). He said the council could communicate to the manager what it wanted in the RFP. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly said he raised the issue of the roundtable's position on the Natural Resources Study only because the roundtable's letter was in the council packet and being used to justify funding the commercial and industrial lands study. He said the roundtable had not viewed the studies as directly linked, but considered the completion of the Natural Resources Study an important component of the commercial and industrial lands study. Mr. Kelly said it was not a quidpro quo issue for him, but he wanted to have a staff recommendation on the issue by September 13. Mr. Kelly pointed out that a full work session was not contemplated as the issue was scheduled for action at the regular meeting on September 13. Mr. Pap~ believed that staffwould be able to develop a process that had community credibility. He did not want to micromanage that process as he did not think it appropriate. Mr. Pap~ said it appeared the input of the roundtable had been raised to the level of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development and he did not think that was appropriate; while the council discussed transpar- ency and doing things in the open, it was his understanding those meetings were closed to the public. Ms. Bettman agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pap~ in regard to the roundtable but pointed out that roundtable's letter had been included in the packet as a rationale for funding the study. Ms. Bettman contended that the community did not want the commercial and industrial lands study. The Metropolitan Partnership originated the demand for the study. The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce wanted a study of commercial lands because it did not believe there were enough for large parcels for "malls, and things like that." Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Ms. Nathanson believed the community had asked for the study. While individual citizens may not know all the steps involved, statistically valid survey results indicated that a majority of residents believed the City of Eugene had a role to play in creating a healthy economy. Citizens who studied the issue of how to work toward a healthy economy suggested that completion of an inventory was an important step in knowing what land was available for jobs. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council had still not seen a scope of work regarding the study, and he wanted to see that information before acting. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the results of the survey but pointed out the same survey indicated citizens believed there was sufficient industrial land available in Eugene. He agreed there was a need for the inventory, but did not believe that the community-at-large had voiced the need. Ms. Bettman did not think the majority of citizens knew what the inventory was. She believed it was a way to "commodify" raw land. The survey would open up farm and forest land to development. She believed that was the ultimate objective in moving forward with the study, and said that was not something the community had discussed. The motion to reconsider passed, 5:3. The motion to postpone action until September 13, 2004, failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 8 Work Session Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the use of up to $15,000 in con- tingency funds for the commercial/industrial land study recommended on page 8 of the re- port of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee, contingent upon the City Man- ager's approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Lane County and the City of Springfield that (1) addresses the selection of an independent contractor, and (2) ensures that the study is consistent with State requirements for such studies, including considera- tions of both vacant and significantly under-utilized lands. Mayor Torrey called for comments and questions on Mr. Poling's motion. Mr. Kelly referred to the letter from Mr. Green and asked if the City's money would be used to assess industrial lands in Lane County. Mayor Torrey suggested that question would be answered when the City Manager developed the RFP. Mr. Kelly believed the motion would preclude further council review. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's concern, Mr. Meisner suggested that the question of how Eugene's funding would be expended was addressed in the recommendation of the Mayor's Committee on Economic Development. Ms. Nathanson said she assumed Lane County would spend its own funding to assess industrial lands in Lane County. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion because she believed it addressed many of the concerns expressed by councilors on August 9. Mr. Poling said the study was very important. The information being used now was outdated. He believed the results of the study would help local companies to stay and expand in Eugene. He believed there was broad community support for the study. Ms. Taylor did not see a need for any hurry. She agreed with Ms. Bettman that the community had not expressed its support for the study as of yet. On the other hand, she had heard a great deal of community support for the Natural Resources Study. She did not think the council was expressing distrust of the manager by asking for more information. She suggested that the three chief executives from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County meet to develop discuss the criteria and scope of the study, and then the council could hold a work session. She wanted the council to make an informed decision in open session. Ms. Bettman said it was news to her that individual councilors could talk to the manager about the provisions in RFP, although she believed the council as a whole could. Ms. Bettman maintained the study already lacked credibility because it was being rushed and because the scope of work approved by the Board of County Commissioners included a technical advisory committee made up of private entities with business expertise to direct the research. She likened that to Vice President Dick Cheney calling on the energy industry for input into energy policy. Further, she said the process would lack public input. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Klein said the City Council could not direct the manager who to hire, but that did not preclude the councilors from offering input into the scope of work. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 9 Work Session With regard to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Pap6 said he did not think the community knew if it was out of compliance with State rules related to the 20-year land supply. Mr. Kelly agreed that the study should be done but emphasized the need for credibility. He said that the motion did not speak to all his concerns. Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion by adding "...The survey will draw upon existing data together with the on-the-ground verification of current uses and availability. This survey would also evaluate opportunities for redevelopment and assembly of available parcels to determine how the use of existing land might be maximized." Mr. Kelly's motion to amend died for lack of a second. Ms. Nathanson was disturbed to hear that some councilors still believed that the Eugene council alone could craft an RFP given that it was one of three partners in the study. It was not a City of Eugene project. Ms. Nathanson said the amount of funding being proposed did not appear "out of line," based on past experience. Mr. Taylor concurred. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Taylor to consider the two sentences mentioned by Mr. Kelly for inclusion in the RFP. Mr. Meisner said he was unwilling to see City funds used to study unincorporated areas of the community. Ms. Bettman repeated that the study would not be credible for the reasons she previously mentioned and because it would lack Eugene council scrutiny. She pointed out that parcel characteristics were proposed to be studied "as the budget allows," which also left considerable latitude. She repeated her complaints about the membership of the technical advisory committee. Ms. Taylor repeated that the council needed more time and discussion. She thought a regional study of commercial and industrial lands was in order and discussion of who paid for what was appropriate as what one jurisdiction did affected another. Mr. Poling said he brought forth the letter to tie together all the information the City had. Eugene was one of three agencies, and he did not believe the council needed to get into the details of the RFP. Mr. Kelly asked who would issue the contract. Mr. Taylor said that had yet to be decided. He indicated that, should the motion pass, he believed there was an opportunity for all concerned to review the RFP without the need for a work session. He presumed one of the three jurisdictions would be the contracting agency. Mr. Kelly asked if the Metro Partnership be the contracting agency. Mr. Taylor believed that was possible. Mr. Kelly averred that in that case, Mr. Poling had a conflict of interest because his wife worked for the Metro Partnership. City Attorney Klein indicated that since the money was pass-through money, there was no conflict. He clarified that given the motion involved an intergovernmental agreement between the three jurisdictions, one of the three jurisdictions would issue the contract. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Nathanson also supported the text mentioned by Mr. Kelly and reinforced that point to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Poling accepted the two sentences in question as a friendly amendment to the motion. Ms. Solomon concurred. The final motion read: Moved to approve the use of up to $15,000 in contingency funds for the commer- cial/industrial land study recommended on page 8 of the report of the Mayor's Economic Development Committee, contingent upon the City Manager's approval of an Intergovern- mental Agreement with Lane County and the City of Springfield that (1) addresses the se- lection of an independent contractor, and (2) ensures that the study is consistent with State requirements for such studies, including considerations of both vacant and significantly un- der-utilized lands. The survey will draw upon existing data together with the on-the-ground verification of current uses and availability. This survey would also evaluate opportunities for redevelopment and assembly of available parcels to determine how the use of existing land might be maximized. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The main motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 11, 2004 Page 11 Work Session