Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes - 09/13/04 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall September 13, 2004 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Scott Meisner, Gary Pap~ (via telephone). His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bill Northrup, 939 Laurelhurst Drive, spoke against the resolution before the council to oppose Ballot Measure 36, which sought to prevent gay couples from getting married. He believed marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman that produces children. He likened it to the relationships between non-profit organizations and churches, as there was also a distinction there. He said, in marriage, the relationship between a man and a woman was a "special thing." He felt it need not be redefined. He recognized that some people felt that universal benefits were being withheld from committed couples of the same sex. He thought a common ground could be found and other ways to extend benefits could be pursued at the legislative level. He recommended that the City Council not take a stand on a statewide referendum prior to the election. Bob O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, spoke regarding the memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the West Eugene Parkway (WEP). He related that he had obtained his information from the County web site and the information indicated that the WEP would be broken into two parts, one of which would be the responsibility of the City of Eugene, meaning the City would be required to maintain it. He said this would cost the public money and asserted that voters did not have that understanding when they approved the WEP. He opined that, though an MOU was not a binding agreement, politically, it could be a "slippery slope." In closing, Mr. O'Brien thanked councilors Nathanson and Meisner for taking the time to meet with him and several other people. He noted that while he disagreed with Mayor Torrey on many issues, he appreciated how fairly the Mayor had run the meetings. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, provided testimony in writing. He urged the new mayor of Eugene to visit Corvallis and look at its Chamber of Commerce booklet. He called the downtown Eugene flyer, printed by the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, "a disgrace." He noted that only 14 businesses in downtown Eugene had paid to be listed. He circulated a parking supplement. He suggested that Russ Brink of Downtown Eugene, Incorporated, move to Pullman, Washington. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 1 Regular Session Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, asked, regarding information on the MOU for the WEP, what "facilitate delivery of a new city street" meant. She noted that County Public Works Director Ollie Snowden had asked who would pay for the cost of this new city street if the $17.7 million approved by the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) did not cover its total cost. She related that he also wondered which agency would be responsible for constructing the separated connection of the WEP to Highway 99. She recommended getting the answers to these questions and holding a public hearing prior to signing an MOU. She said, should a new city street be needed for the WEP project, the whole process should be opened to alternative street approaches, but to date, these approaches had been kept off the table as it had been presented to the voting public as a state highway. She thought the City, should it enter into the MOU, could be forced to pay for part of the construction and maintenance of the project. Gordon Howard, 425 River Avenue, was present to speak to the council on what he considered to be unethical behavior regarding the formation of a local improvement district (LID) to improve River Avenue. He related that City staff had asked the Hearings Official, Milo Mecham, not to send his report to the City Council. He thought this was due to staff having received signed remonstrance forms from 31 of the 33 land owners that would be affected by assessments for street improvements. He thought that staff was withholding the Hearings Official report and other information. He opined this was unethical behavior. He likened the proposed annexation to an "end run" around the will of the people. James Reed, 990 Crest Drive, spoke on behalf of a large group of people in his neighborhood concerned with and opposed to the designation of Crest Drive as a collector street. He asserted the plan could just as easily be executed with local street designations. He said staff had yet to answer most of the questions asked at the neighborhood meeting with City staff and elected officials. He asked the council to consider the merits of the anonymous web-based comment form and weigh the comments against the active public comment that has gone on throughout this issue. He also asked staff to provide the agenda for the next neighborhood meeting at least a week prior to the meeting date. He recognized, on a positive note, that City staff had met with neighborhood representatives on street designs and pedestrian amenities that were in accordance with what neighbors believed would be acceptable. He conveyed the neighborhood's desire for some level of commitment on these ideas. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, president of Friends of Eugene, called the alleged shift of the WEP from a State highway to a city street a "fundamental change." He asked why this conversion was suggested to occur. He asserted that "shuffling" a project from one jurisdiction to another without any public input would not solve transportation issues in West Eugene. He predicted that the project would not come to fruition because of fundamental federal, State, and local problems with it. He recommended asking questions first and signing the MOU when the time was appropriate. Phillip Farrington, 1160 Monroe Street, vice president of the Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association, spoke in support of the resolution to oppose Ballot Measure 37. He said just compensation laws were already on the books for the regulatory taking of property. He predicted that the passing of the Ballot Measure would present an exorbitant cost to the State of Oregon and local jurisdictions and would cause irreparable harm to planning and land use. Chuck Meeker, 309 River Avenue, owner of Clemens Marina, conveyed the opposition of the property owners on River Avenue to the proposed street improvements. He explained that they were not opposed to street improvements per se, but could not afford the assessments, projected to be more than $1 million. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 2 Regular Session called the project %ver-built" and extreme. He reiterated Mr. Howard's statement that 31 of 33 property owners had signed letters of remonstrance. He stressed that no businesses relied on pedestrian traffic for their business and felt this indicated that large sidewalks on either side of the street were unnecessary. He noted that one more property owner, the owner of the Riviera Shopping Center, had submitted a letter of remonstrance since the others had been submitted, for a total of 32 such letters. He underscored that the majority of the people that would be required to participate in the LID were opposed to it. Tim Smith, 2664 Kincaid Street, encouraged the City Council to adopt the resolution in opposition to Ballot Measure 36, which sought to amend the constitution to prevent same-sex marriages. He acknowledged that it was reasonable for people to have a difference of opinion on a variety of issues including marriage, but differences of opinion did not belong in the State Constitution. He noted that he and his partner of 13 years had been the first to register for domestic unions and one of the first couples to be married under the aegis of a marriage license from Multnomah County. He said, should this measure pass, his legal marriage along with those of approximately 3,000 other couples may well be rescinded. He asked why the State would want to do that. He added that he and his partner had found Eugene to be a tolerant, friendly, and welcoming place. He suggested that approval of the resolution to oppose the constitutional amendment would complement the image of Eugene as a welcoming and tolerant place. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, suggested those present type ~Congress of the New Urbanism" into a search engine and then type the word ~definition." He said it would indicate that full connectivity, implementation of context-sensitive design, among others were part of the definition. He asserted it was part of %mart growth" and this was endorsed by the United Nations. He reiterated past concerns about the principles underlying the concept of %mart growth." He suggested the council consult the web site ~Take Back Wisconsin" for further information. He said otherwise Eugene would become ~Portlandized." Mr. Vishanoff also expressed concern about homeland security research and nanotechnology research. He asserted that the University of Oregon wanted to build a facility near the riverfront. He said it was a controversial thing to do and that the University should hold public hearings and should convene a nanotechnology advisory committee. Mayor Torrey closed the Public Forum and called for council comments. Councilor Bettman thanked those who testified. She requested information on the status of the answers to the questions resulting from the neighborhood meeting at Crest Drive. City Manager Dennis Taylor responded that the information had not yet been compiled. Councilor Bettman encouraged staff to get the information out as soon as possible. She also noted the request that the agenda be provided a week in advance. City Manager Taylor stated that he would ensure that it would be made available one week prior to the next meeting. Councilor Bettman averred the neighbors should have written assurance that once a design that everyone agreed upon was determined, it would be accurately reflected in the end result. She applauded the efforts of the neighborhood group to work on the livability of their neighborhood. She suggested that cooperating with them would expedite the process. Councilor Kelly thanked everyone who came before the council and testified. He echoed Councilor Bettman's comments regarding the Crest Drive neighborhood. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 3 Regular Session Councilor Taylor congratulated the Crest Drive/Friendly Street/Storey Boulevard neighborhood residents for their consistent advocacy. She wondered why it took so long to provide the answers to questions that were asked at the neighborhood meeting. Councilor Taylor opined that the MOU for the WEP was an attempt to ;;slip it [the project] in quickly" without addressing the ;;legal hassles." Mayor Torrey expressed concern that staff and the Crest neighborhood were not reaching a level of understanding needed to provide agreement on the scope of work for the project. He felt the time was imminent that staff would have to formulate a recommendation and hold public hearings. He stressed the importance of having the support of the neighborhood prior to this. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - July 21, 2004, Work Session - July 26, 2004, Work Session - July 26, 2004, City Council Meeting - July 28, 2004, Work Session - August 9, 2004, Work Session - August 9, 2004, City Council Meeting - August 11, 2004, Work Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Initiation of Land Use Code Amendment to Create a Special Area Zone for the Historic Johansen-Moody House D. Resolution 4807 Authorizing Interim and Long Term Financing for Local Improvement Projects and Terminating the Authority Under Resolution No. 4602 E. Resolution 4808 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Trojan Project Revenue Bonds in the Aggregate Principal Amount Not to Exceed $55,000,000 for the Purpose of Refunding Trojan Nuclear Project Revenue Bonds, Series of 1977, and Providing for Related Matters F. Approval of Overseas Travel Request G. Consideration of Resolutions Regarding November 2, 2004, Statewide Ballot Measures: Resolution 4809 to Oppose the November 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 36 by the Eugene City Council and Resolution 4810 to Oppose the November 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 37 by the Eugene City Council The bulk of the Consent Calendar was approved in the course of the work session held prior to the regular meeting of the council. Item G was pulled for discussion by Councilor Poling; City Attorney Glenn Klein requested that the council reconsider Item D at this time as well. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 4 Regular Session Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute, for Resolution 4807 in Consent Calendar Item D, the revised Resolution No. 4807, which included a change to the title and other minor changes. Mr. Klein explained that the changes resulted from the determination that Resolution No. 4602 could not be rescinded, and consisted of removal of the language indicating it had been rescinded. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap~ requested that Item C from the Consent Calendar be reconsidered. Councilor Bettman, on behalf of Councilor Pap~ and seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to reconsider Item C. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pap~ asked if the rezoning being proposed was applicable to the tax lot alone or the surrounding area. City Manager Taylor responded that it was only applicable to the tax lot in question and that he was uncertain, as yet, as to whether it would impact surrounding tax lots. Roll call vote; Item C of the Consent Calendar was unanimously approved, 8:0. Regarding Item D, Councilor Pap~ asked if there was any assurance that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) would, in fact, provide rebates. It was determined that this information would have to be provided by the Eugene Water & Electric Board. City Manager Taylor said he would provide a memorandum to the council with this information as soon as possible. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to consider the two resolutions in Item G separately. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4809 to oppose the November 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 36 by the Eugene City Council. Councilor Poling said he did not wish to discuss the merits of Ballot Measure 36. He said that the City Council had difficulty reaching the end of a %imple agenda" and should concentrate on City business and not on a State ballot measure. He objected to the lack of discussion prior to placement of the resolution on the docket for a vote. He underscored that he did not intend to indicate that he would vote yes or no on the measure, only that he did not want to take a stand on it through this venue. Councilor Solomon concurred. She called the ballot measure a State issue and opined it was presumptuous to take a vote at the present meeting on the resolution and assert that she was representing Ward 6. Councilor Bettman believed that action on Resolution 4809 was within the purview of the council. She pointed out that the council had set a precedent for taking stands on ballot measures before. She said any ballot measure that would enshrine discrimination in the State Constitution should have the attention of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 5 Regular Session local elected officials. She felt that, as elected officials, the council had an obligation to step in and make it known that it was important to protect the rights of everyone they represented. Councilor Kelly supported the motion. He stated that the council had taken positions on statewide measures a number of times because of the potential impact a ballot measure would have on the community. He likened it to endorsements that elected officials frequently make. He reminded the council that members of the Human Rights Commission (HRC) recommended the council take a position and the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) had voted, 2:1, to bring it before the City Council. He felt the message was two-fold: that the majority of the City Council opposed Ballot Measure 36 and that the passage of the measure would be antithetical to the human rights values already adopted in the Eugene Code. Councilor Taylor disagreed that the measure in question was State business, instead calling it "human rights business." She advocated for speaking as a group to voice the council's opposition to putting discrimination into the State Constitution. She noted the first Public Forum speaker's contention that marriage was to create children, commenting that she knew many people who married in their 60s, 70s, and 80s. She speculated that these couples would not make children. Councilor Meisner said the CCIGR directed a member to draft the resolutions. He found it ironic that councilors would suggest the council should not take positions on State issues. He underscored that the council helped to craft a biennial legislative document that took positions on the majority of State bills. He suggested that, should the council believe it should not take a stand on State issues, the CCIGR should be disbanded and the City's Intergovernmental Relations staff should be dismissed. He added that, should it look as though it would not be passed, he would move to table the item rather than send a message that the City Council supported the measure. Councilor Nathanson agreed there was precedence for taking a stand on this ballot measure and that it was consistent with work the City Council had done over the past few years. Mayor Torrey was glad the resolutions had been taken off of the Consent Calendar. He said he would not support the motion in event of a tie. He reiterated that he had supported the domestic partner registry but opposed same-sex marriages. He opposed the motion, however, because he thought the City Council should not take a stand on this. He opined that the citizens of Eugene needed to vote for themselves. He likened it to the vote on the Patriot Act, which he felt was an inappropriate piece of governmental work for the council to consider. He recommended that councilors make their individual stands known, rather than taking a stand as a body. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3, Councilors Solomon, Pap~, and Poling voting no. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4810 to oppose the November 2004 General Election Ballot Measure 37 by the Eugene City Council. Councilor Kelly called Ballot Measure 37 a "descendent" of Ballot Measure 7. He said, while the title sounded like nothing more than simple fairness, the reality of the measure was that it would go far beyond MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 6 Regular Session any constitutional provisions of takings, just compensation, and so on. He predicted passage of the measure would almost completely eliminate the City's ability to conduct land use planning. Councilor Poling said he was unwilling to address the merits of the resolution as he did not consider himself to be informed about the measure as yet. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to table the item until the work session scheduled for September 29. Councilor Poling noted that the item was already scheduled for a work session and tabling the motion would allow staff to prepare the information the council could use to make an informed decision. Councilor Nathanson commented that, as she had worked on this issue for some time, she already knew she would not support the ballot measure. She asked if the work session would be cancelled should the council vote to uphold the resolution to oppose it. City Manager Taylor responded that the work session would be held regardless of the present vote as the measure contained stringent requirements that would force council action. Councilor Nathanson asked if it would hurt to postpone action on the resolution. Councilor Kelly felt the measure was a ~rerun" of Ballot Measure 7, which had been discussed extensively by the council over the course of a number of meetings. He noted that the legislative policy document from 2003 had policies that were clearly in opposition to the measure. He opined that, to the extent that council opposition had any value, it was of value to the people who were campaigning against the measure statewide. He preferred to take action at the regular meeting in order to stand behind them in their opposition as soon as possible and help the campaign. Councilor Pap~ said he was prepared to vote in favor of the resolution to oppose the ballot measure, but was willing to table the issue if it would provide councilors with an opportunity to learn more about it. Councilor Taylor felt there was not much time. She predicted the measure would be financially devastating to the City. Councilor Bettman opposed the motion to table. Councilor Meisner also opposed the motion. He recommended to staff that the text of the ballot measure be included in the Agenda Item Summary (ALS). He added that, due to changes in the law and its interpretation, appointed commissioners are now considered as if they were employees and, therefore, although individual commissioners may take a private position, City commissions such as the Planning Commission and Human Rights Commission may not longer consider and take positions on such measures. He felt this placed more responsibility on the council to take a stand on the issues raised by ballot measures 36 and 37. Mayor Torrey supported tabling the motion as it would provide more opportunity for the council to discuss the issues raised by the ballot measure. He opined that passing the resolution at the present meeting would not impact the campaign as much as passing it closer to the election. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Poling, Pap6, Solomon, and Nathanson voting in favor, councilors Bettman, Meisner, Kelly, and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted in favor of tabling the motion until September 29, the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. 3. ACTION: Adoption of Resolution 4811 Furthering Annexation to the City of Eugene of Three River Avenue Islands Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to adopt Resolution 4811 furthering annexation to the City of Eugene of three River Avenue islands. City Manager Taylor asked Michelle Cahill, Engineer for the Public Works Department, to speak on the item. Ms. Cahill described the location of the proposed annexation and noted that it had been identified in the TransPlan as a street that should be brought up to urban standards. She said that since the City Council initiated the project, preparatory work had been done on the street and it had undergone the bidding process. She explained that funding was going to come from systems development charges (SDCs) and less than 50 percent of the cost would be assessed to the property owners. She related that the City had requested the authority from the Lane Board of County Commissioners to assess the properties that were outside of the City's jurisdiction and the commissioners denied it. This had changed the scenario for funding. She conveyed staff's recommendation that the City initiate the annexation of the properties so that the properties could be assessed to pay for part of the road. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions. Councilor Taylor commented that the council was talking about annexing properties belonging to people who did not want to be annexed. In response to a question from Councilor Poling, Ms. Cahill said there were approximately $1 million in assessments, 52 percent of which would be assessed to privately owned properties. Councilor Poling thought canceling the project for the time being would be prudent. He felt to do otherwise would anger the property owners and give them the impression that the City did not care about their opposition. In response to a question from Councilor Pap6, Ms. Cahill stated that the City had not spoken to the property owners about the annexation at this point because staff wanted to determine how much interest there was on the part of the council in proceeding with it first. City Manager Taylor added that there was no requirement to discuss annexation with the residents at this point. Councilor Pap6 wanted to know what the property owners thought prior to voting. He opined that the repercussions would go far beyond this street project. He suggested that it was not the highest priority MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 8 Regular Session safety item in the City and it would mm back some of the good will the City had worked so hard to establish with the residents in that area should the City force annexation. Councilor Bettman agreed with the comments of councilors Pap~ and Poling. She asked what grounds there were for the Lane Board of County Commissioners to deny the City authority to assess the properties. Ms. Cahill replied that the commissioners' decision was based on the number of letters of remonstrance they had received. Councilor Bettman opined that it was not necessary to ask the property owners how they felt about annexation as annexation would mean the properties would be assessed for the road improvements. She questioned why commercial development had occurred on an unimproved road. She thought there should be a plan that prevented further commercial development from being built there if it would generate increased traffic on an unimproved street. She opposed piecemeal annexation, however. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Cahill explained that staff had directed the Hearings Official to discontinue work the day after the testimony period closed as the City did not have the authority to move forward with the funding scenario that had been planned for the improvements, due to the County commissioners' decision. Councilor Kelly believed the standards were reasonable and the improvements were warranted, but said he would oppose the resolution because of the ill will it would create. Councilor Solomon said the property owners had not opposed the improvements in their entirety so much as they felt the planned improvements were excessive for the street. She agreed that much good will had been created with the River Road/Santa Clara area and this forced annexation could harm the progress that had occurred. She noted that a resident there had suggested an "Annexation Amnesty Day," adding that she thought it was an idea with merit. Councilor Nathanson said while it was obvious what the City stood to gain from the annexation, the City needed to ask what the property owners stood to gain. She acknowledged that many people benefit from living and working in the urban area without having to pay for the urban services or having to vote. She supported annexation in most cases. She commented that the project was necessary and inevitable, but that for the present, it would be better to select another project from the capital improvement project list. Councilor Meisner stated that he had been working on the idea of an "Annexation Amnesty" day with assistant City Manager Jim Carlson for "many months." He expressed hope that they would get a response to it. He felt testimony had indicated that the opposition to the improvements was not absolute. He noted that the Crest Drive neighbors had sought input on a different design of street changes and suggested that the City look into a more flexible design for River Avenue. He said he would not support a forced annexation. In response to a question from Councilor Solomon, Ms. Cahill said the interchange to Beltline Road would not be improved in this plan as it was not under the jurisdiction of the City. Mayor Torrey averred that, though the City largely focused on the River Road area, there were a number of islands of non-annexed property. He observed that many people in the River Road area had signs on their front lawns that expressed their extreme opposition to annexation to the City. He advised against approving MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 9 Regular Session the forced annexation of the River Avenue properties as it would promote anti-annexation sentiments. He recommended the City Council hold a discussion on its approach to annexation. Roll call vote; the motion failed by a unanimous vote, 8:0. Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute break. 4. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project; and Providing Delayed Effective Dates for Portions Thereof Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4879, adopting an amended Urban Renewal Plan for Central Eugene Project. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the Urban Renewal project would have the potential to aid in funding an art project such as the one set forth by the Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts (DIVA) during public testimony. Councilor Kelly noted that staff had indicated to him in an email that a project such as the one suggested by DIVA or the Lane County Historical Museum vision was most effective when generated by a community group and that staff would actively work with such groups to promote such projects. He opined that such projects enrich the community. Councilor Taylor asked, regarding the findings on page 136 of the AIS, where the urban blight was and why, though the downtown area had been an Urban Renewal District for 20 years, there was still urban blight. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, explained that blight was defined in State law to include property that consistently had below average values and vacant storefronts, among other things. Councilor Taylor asked if free parking would be restored to the downtown area as a result of the Urban Renewal work. Mr. Weinman replied that parking was a service and its operation was unrelated to Urban Renewal Districts. Councilor Taylor opined that free parking would improve the downtown area. Councilor Taylor expressed concern that the new Urban Renewal District would provide the City with the ~freedom to spend money just because it's there." Mr. Weinman sought to clarify that urban renewal money could be utilized to construct a parking garage, but it could not be used to maintain it once built. Councilor Taylor commented that everything had been ~done and undone" with urban renewal funding. She felt that continuation of urban renewal districts would preclude the City ever realizing any tax revenues from the resulting development and asked if it would be possible to only make a ten-year urban renewal plan. Mr. Weinman affirmed that the council could change the length of the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 10 Regular Session Councilor Poling asked what the overall effect would be in changing the sunset date for the urban renewal district from 2029 to 2024. Mr. Weinman replied that it would only affect the capability to issue bonds, as the period of time the bond could be issued for would be shortened. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend Section 1300 of the plan by changing the year "2029" to "2024" in the first and third sentences. Councilor Kelly believed that urban renewal could be a great value but felt it important to be able to tell taxpayers that, at some point, it would sunset and the incremental tax revenue would go back into general City revenues. As such, he could only support extending the district for another 20 years. Councilor Bettman supported the amendment. She agreed that 2024 was the an improvement over the proposed sunset for the district. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Pap6 voting no. Mr. Klein indicated that a change had been made to AIS page 136, section 1, and a computer glitch had caused an earlier version of the language to be printed in the final draft. He asked that the council move to amend the ordinance to reflect this deletion. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to delete the last 26 words of Section 1, beginning with the word "except." Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting no. Councilor Bettman noted that she had determined there was no support for the amendment she wished to set forth and so she would not move to amend the motion. She believed urban renewal should be strategically focused and she felt this plan was not. She asserted it would largely pay for transportation projects and would shift money from the general funds of the State, County, and City to do so. She opined that the replacement of City Hall would be a better project. Councilor Taylor rescinded her no vote on the previous roll call vote. The motion to delete the language, as set forth by City Attorney Glenn Klein, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor reiterated that she opposed the diversion of tax money. In response to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Weinman responded that the district could be extended in 2024 should the City Council decide to do so. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; Councilors Bettman and Taylor voting no. Councilor Pap~ thanked the council for allowing him to participate by telephone. The meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 11 Regular Session Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 12 Regular Session