HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/1998 Work Session
..
.
.
,.
Verbatim Minutes
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION
OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL
HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 20,1998
The Springfield City Council met in Work Session in Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine
Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, at 6:00 p.m. with
Mayor Morrisette presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, and
Shaver. Councilor Maine was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike
Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Attorney Tim
Harold, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, City Recorder Julie Wilson,
Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Planning Manager Greg Mott and members of staff.
1. Review of Bicycle Committee Bylaw Amendments and Review of Committee
Applications.
(See regular meeting minutes for summary of this item)
2. Presentation and Discussion of th.e Eugene Growth Management Study Shaping
Eugene's Future. .' '. "n'
Planning Manager Greg Mott - Good Evening, this item is an informational item. I
handed-out a draft of a resolution that the Eugene City Council will be considering on
the 26th. You also have a copy of the growth management study policy
recommendations, forwarded by the Eugene Planning Commission and the Eugene
Council. You have a memo from Susan Daluddung, and I believe you received a memo
from Joe Leahy, as well. There is also an attachment that came from a number of
Eugene City Council work sessions regarding the policy language. The resolution
indicates a status for this document that neither Mr. Leahy or I were clear on, prior to
scheduling this for your agenda. I think we probably would of done it anyway, just for
the sake of communication between the two council's on matters that have some mutual
overlap. In any case, Jan Childs the Eugene Planning Director and Jim Croteau the
Senior Planner for Eugene are here, as well as Councilor Tollenar to answer any
questions. Did you have anything else for me?
Mayor Morrisette - Thanks for coming over.
Greg Mott - Invite them up?
Mayor Morrisette - Sure.
Jan Childs - I'm going to let Jim and Ken handle this and you guys can ask me
questions when you're ready.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 2
Mayor Morrisette - My first question is Policy #1, what do you mean for the foreseeable
future?
Jan Childs - The policy document says that.
Mayor Morrisette - Oh.
.
Jim Croteau - My name is Jim Croteau and as Greg said, I am a planner with the City of
Eugene. Jan Childs is the Planning Director and Ken Tollenar is an esteemed City
Councilor. What I'd like to do is give a very brief overview of the growth management
study and then kind of bring you up to date with the actions the council has taken very
recently, that will be leading up to them considering the resolution that has been placed
at your table. The study started about two years ago, now almost three years ago in
1995, when the council and the Planning Commission decided they really did want to
look at how we had managed growth in the past and how we expected to do it in the
future. The first thing they did was go out the to community with a tabloid, that I brought
a copy of, and that was mailed to 60,000 addresses and through a series of workshops,
they first asked the community what issues were most critical to Eugene and to you.
And, what issues most need to be dealt with as we go into the future. Based on this, the
Planning Commission and the council developed a work program and developed eight
topic areas which they were going to study in the growth management study, including:
land use, transportation, public services, housing, parks and open space and
environmental quality. They developed a series of background reports and really we did
a lot of outreach with the community. We looked at of the growth management policies
that either Eugene has adopted, or we've adopted in conjunction with our metro
partners. And, as you can see, this document is almost an inch thick. Basically we
evaluated what and how we needed to do in the future. We had another series of
workshops once the Planning Commission, and I should mention that the council also
appointed two City Councilors to act a liaisons to the Planning Commission, so we had
two councilors at the table during the whole process.
Councilor Burge - Who were the councilors?
.
Jim Croteau - Councilors Torrey and Boles, then towards the end of the process,
Councilor Meisner became the new liaison when he was elected to City Council and
moved from the Planning Commission to the City Council. But, that helped the
continuity of the whole process. The City Council and the Planning Commission
developed four scenarios about how we could grow in the future, in different ways, that
included: a scenario encouraging growth; a scenario maintaining the current trends; one
about discouraging growth; and one that was popularly called Recycle Eugene. That
was really the ultimate scenario that the Planning Commission adopted into their
recommendations. We again went out to the community laying out those four scenarios
and asked people though workshops and tabloids and sample surveys, what their
opinions were about those scenarios and the actions inbeded in the scenarios. The
overwhelming support was for the actions in the Recycle Eugene scenario. Last Spring
the Planning Commission forwarded their recommendations to the City Council for a
series of policies - 19 policies which they recommended to the City Council for adoption.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 3
And the City Council held a public hearing on those Planning Commission
recommended policies last July. And again, we had a quite a good showing of
testimony about that. Following the public hearing, the City Council had a series of work
sessions in November/December to start getting to the nuts and bolts of those policies.
And, the resolution that we laid out for your tonight is a product of those work sessions,
where the council went through each policy, had discussion, asked for analysis and in
some cases have made wording changes. The council also, I guess, wanted additional
information, as they were concerned on how the policies might affect the cost of
housing, how these policies would fit in with other growth management actions which
were taken in the past, so we prepared a background report that talked about some of
the critical issues. So, the council through a series of about four or five work sessions
really dwelled into these growth management, and had to get up to speed with
something that had been going on for several years. The council has tentatively
approved the wording on these policies and as you see, in comparing both the green
document and the resolution that you have in front of you, they've made some cnanges.
Both, I think, to deal with some of the issues that they had about the language and also,
I think, to reflect some of the concerns we have heard from our metro partners. For
example, Policy #1, on the second page of the resolution, now talks about supporting
the existing urban growth boundary by taking actions to increase density using vacant
land more efficiently.
.
Mayor Morrisette - I guess that I may have given the wrong impression by my stating the
way I did. I am not sure I like that because I don't see the urban growth boundary
carved in stone. If there are adjustments that need to be made, I do agree that that
could become, down the road, a stumbling block saying well were. . . . so that's you
know something that I am concerned about.
Jim Croteau - And I think to more address that question, I'll either let Jan or Councilor
Tollenar address it, because there was a lot of discussion about that particular point.
We have had several cases in Eugene in fact, where the idea of swapping land inside
and outside of the urban growth boundary has come up. So those kinds of possibilities
were something council was looking at and saying that we didn't like the original wording
and we're modifying it, to hopefully allow those kind of things to occur.
.
Councilor Tollenar - I'd like to add a little bit to that. If you look Mayor at the wor<:ling
change that the council made, as originally framed by the Planning Commission, Policy
#1 said maintain the existing the Eugene urban growth boundary for the foreseeable
future and so forth. The council felt that implied, that it carried the same implication that
you just described to it, that there would be no change in UGB. So, council changed it
to say sup'port the existing UGB and scratch the foreseeable future part. But, to me, the
important point about Policy #1, everybody focuses on the first few words and they
ignore the rest of the words in the sentence, which basically say to increase density and
get more efficient use of land. That is the thrust of the policy. And, the outcome of that
perhaps would be to support the existing urban growth boundary. But the council
discussion was very clear that we did not intend to adopt a policy that said there would
be no change to the UGB. That was the reason why the wording was changed.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 4
But, that does not mean, that there is still is a broad policy underlining this, is that we
want to live within the UGB to the extent we possibly can by taking the steps which are
spelled out in the rest of the policies to increase density and get more efficient land use.
And, but that certainly, there would be no way the City of Eugene legally could say we
are not going to change the UGB, because as some of your staff papers indicate, the
UGB is a tri-parte with Eugene. It applies and all three parties have a shot at any
proposals for changes.
Mayor Morrisette - I guess I misread the interpretation in that then, by the intent, of the
county. Maybe I thought the opposite.
Councilor Tollenar - It's easy to find that interpretation, because that is what struck the
council the same way, when it first came to us, that's why we made the changes.
Jim Croteau - One other point that I'd like to make. . .
Mayor Morrisette - Stu did you have a question?
.
Councilor Burge - Probably not Bill, I think you've done a good job of covering the point I
was concerned about. Or not really concerned. This is not our issue, this is Eugene's
issue, I wondered why we are hearing it, but we appreciate knowing a little more about
it. I think historically Eugene has found the UGB to be more sacred than some of the
others of us. It needs to be flexible and being too rigid about it has had some bearing
on our housing costs, certainly higher densities bring on some social issues. So, I have
philosophical differences. Yet, you mentioned, considered, trading land inside or land
outside within the urban growth boundary. Your talking about probably, with low net
gain.
Jim Croteau - That was one of the options that council did not want to preclude.
Councilor Burge - What about exchangingunbuildable land for more buildable sites,
wetlands, contaminated lands, those with physical constraints. They call the junk
inventory and save the good stuff for use. . . (laughter and unrecognizable comments.)
Jan Childs - The selective sites.
Councilor Burge - About once a year you clean the closets. That's constructive.
.
Jim Croteau - One final point in the resolution, was something that the council did after
they did wording changes. We asked the council O.K. when you adopt these, how do
you want these policies to be used. The council was very clear that they want the
policies to guide future city work programs and city budget's and capital improvement
programs. They do not want these policies to be used to evaluate land use applications.
So, they will only be used for the directing of city work programs and budgets, they won't
be used to evaluate a specific annexation or a zone change or a conditional use permit.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 5
Councilor Ballew - Don't you find that will confuse people to have two sets of policies. It
sort of is or is or is (???)
Jim Croteau - Well we did an evaluation of these policies and how they relate to the
Metro Plan, and I think one way to look at these policies is it is a focusing of how the
City of Eugene wants to manage growth, specifically in the broad framework of the
Metro Plan. It will not dilute the Metro Plan, it will not dilute neighborhood plans that we
have just like Springfield does. But it is saying, we're laying out a vision for our future of
how we, what we are going to focus on, in the way of policy direction. We thought it
would be confusing to have another set of policies that we would have to evaluate every
time a land use application came in the door. That won't change. These policies won't
be used in that manner.
Councilor Burge - Maybe, Jim, Maybe I just am not quite sure, but it seems
contradictory to adopt policies that are directly related to growth, and not have land use
applications be somewhat burdened by the adoption of the policies. It seems, either you
didn't need the policy in the first place, or the policy will impact those land use
applications. It seems to be troublesome, I think, to adopt those policies without it
having an impact.
Jim Croteau - Let me give a shot at answering that and then maybe either Jan or Ken
would like to fill in.
.
Councilor Burge - It may not be a very good question. I'm just mainly. . .
Jim Croteau - If you look at these policies, most of them are very broad. They are much
broader than actually a lot of the policies you'll find in the Metro Plan or in our
neighborhood plans. And, if I could liken it, they are so broad it would be hard to
evaluate specific land use application and you could liken these to say your council
goals, that deal with housing, managing growth, protecting the environment - whatever
they are. You surely wouldn't want to use those, which are multi-year and go on for
several years, to evaluate specific land use applications because they are too broad.
And I think that is the kind of context we have here, as these are broad statements, but
they are statements of focus for how Eugene wants to affect its future.
.
Councilor Burge - I was relating it Jim to, I can remember the discussion and I can
remember participating in it in 1968 and 69 for the 1990 plan, which is a 20-year vision
and Jim I have a lot of respect for you so don't take this personally but (here it comes)
no I don't want Jim to take this personally because it certainly isn't meant that way, but I
do recall that we had this same paranoia or the same concerns back in the late 60's,
when that plan was adopted. And, I can remember John Porter and some of the others
saying, hey it's just kinda a framework you know, it's not going to impact, it's not going
to, don't worry about it Stu. Well, Stu is worried and 20 years later he had a right to be
worried. It did become, it did impact land use and it impacted it dramatically. It cost a
lot of opportunity, millions and millions of dollars worth of opportunity, housing
opportunity's and so forth. And all it was supposed to of been was just kinda a plan, not
a policy. But don't worry, it's not gonna affect anybody.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 6
It sure as hell did, we've lived with it for 20 years. And, I don't know as though I'm
comfortable with believing that this won't also do the same thing. I guess my only
concern being, living east of the freeway is, is this policy going to have any impact
whatsoever on the Metro Plan, or any impact whatsoever on the current Periodic
Review. Any whatsoever?
.
Councilor Tollenar - It doesn't change the text of the Metro Plan, it doesn't change any
diagrams, it doesn't change the Metro Plan. It provides some guidance in the way the
Metro Plan is interpreted with reference to the Eugene side of 1-5. Let me give you an
example - we currently have under consideration, LUKE?, which is our term for the land
use code update. The update would if it is adopted, change several things that are in
our code as they relate to development west of 1-5. For example, it would reduce
minimum lot sizes, for another thing it would increase some height limits over what we
have now, it would make some commercial development standards tougher to meet
than they are now - landscaping, screening, and so forth. It would set some mi~imum
open space standards for larger residential developments over five units. It makes
those kind of changes. Now, those are regulatory changes and they are influenced by
the growth management policies which we are about to adopt. But they are regulations
th~t will not apply to Springfield, will apply on the Eugene side of 1-5. There are
certainly, probably nothing, in Policy #1 that is inconsistent with the Metro Plan, the
basic policy thrust of the Metro Plan, that we are going to grow up rather than out. So, it
provides some emphasis and impetus. It responds to a very clear message that was
given to us by our citizens, in a pretty far-going citizen input exercise which Jim has
referred to. The results from the surveys and pUbfic forums, and so forth, that we held
during that period are quite conclusive. This is, our citizens want Eugene to grow in a
managed way.
Councilor Burge - Ken you mentioned growing up rather than out, vertical rather than
horizontally. But you also mentioned height limitations.
Councilor Tollenar - Well, the height limitations would be increased. The ones we now
have in the code would be increased.
Councilor Burge - So you're saying increased not decreased.
Councilor Tollenar - Right.
Councilor Burge - Increased. Limitation meaning. . . thanks.
.
Councilor Shaver - Ambitious and certainly more far reaching then standard. . .
document when you have diversifying economy and support of business and when you
go on the transit side and not just bus routes, bike routes, but demand more a
conventional management, or decreasing the amount of single occupant vehicle trips so
it's real far reaching. I'm assuming that some of this is going on now and you already
have some pieces of this in place. You mentioned in the book and test using minimum
design standards, does Eugene have a minimum design standard for different zones or
different areas of the city now, or is that something that you will consider adopting.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 7
(Unable to Identify Voice) - We are considering it.
Councilor Shaver - O.K. cause we have been using that here to help our Main Street,
as the economy continues to improve and businesses change over and we've had a
debate on it. It is a difficult thing for the applicant to do, which is one we debated on and
a couple of us have possibly switched our positions on, good or bad, it can be heavy
handed or can appear that way. But we have been happy with the results, not
necessarily everybody involved in the process has been happy.
Councilor Tollenar - You guys have been far ahead of us on that point.
Councilor Shaver - It's been tough.
Councilor Burge - It's a tough one.
.
Councilor Shaver - It's a trade off on individual liberties and freedoms versus what is
good for all. In some of these things, in my reading, it looks like they might be opposed
to each other, such as, increase public land, increase open space, increase density, and
more efficient use of land. If you figure out how best to do that, that's when J want to
hear back on specificity, cause that's going to be a tough one to do. But, if we as a
community decide to live within that wall, then we've got to make some tough choices.
Obviously we've been wrestling with this issue for quite awhile on how to make the
tough choices. I wish we could make more land that would be the best way out.
Councilor Burge - Or less people.
Councilor Shaver - Yea, we could work on that too. Or, we could make less people here
and they would move because of it, less people here. The other part of that, the part of
this piece that is not going to affect locally your, what Eugene decides to do or what
Springfield decides to do, internally, but with increased density comes increased issues
on transportation that we need more money from the state on. For example, freeway
interchanges. We're looking at some problems at Gateway, Beltline - 1-5, if we continue
to do efficient development within the city, our 1-105 connection and our Beltline
connection, and our limited Franklin Boulevard connection to the freeway, we're gonna
be putting a lot of people through limited intersections. If we spread out development,
you can have people go to other on-ramps and off-ramps and it is easier to live within
those off-ramps and on-ramps. But as a community, and it is dictated by the state to do
this, if we're gonna live within our urban growth boundary and keep things compact,
we're going to be putting a lot more pressure than can fare up under the current
construction of the different overpasses or freeway connections, that I mentioned. And I
think as a community, to remember that we need to continue to lobby the state to come
through with some transportation dollars, to take care of their part of that bargain. If we
are going to live within the belt, push Eugene/Springfield up to Halsey/Junction City
goals that the state would want you to have. . . We're going to need some help back.
.
Councilor Burge - I'd like to play on what you just said. I think a good effort would be a
concerted effort, Eugene/Springfield/Lane County, the other two to do just that.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 8
To try to lobby for additional state funds. I don't like to see higher costs, but I think most
citizens are ready to pay higher costs for gasoline for transportation facilities and so
forth.
I think they are and should be. And then also a concerted effort to lobby for federal
funding for that too. I think we need to come together and make that joint effort
individually, we probably don't have the impact that we could have collectively, and so I
would certainly support that effort.
Councilor Shaver - I have one last question of you folks. One of the things that we
haven't seen much of y'et, but if we continue to be tight on the urban growth boundary,
we will see in decades to come, and that is re-development. Tearing down what exists
and hopefully building back something that is new. We have seen a couple re-
developments in recent pasts, University of Oregon housing, that was very difficult to
accomplish. Have you folks had much discussion on how to re-develop and whether it
is going to be on just an individual lot by lot basis or with normal development. You
have to do more of a global planning for re-development. How are you going to crack
that nut?
.
Jim Croteau - Each one requires you to bring in a different set of tools. I mean, I was
involved in the Amazon housing one, recently we're seeing the re.;.development of the
Oakway Mall out at Coburg and Oakway. Where they are tearing down single story
clinic buildings and putting up four-story office buildings. So, it is something we are
seeing more of. In the west Eugene area, in the industrial area of Garfield and 2nd,
there is clean-up that is required, but there is conversion of those old timber yards into
warehousing and light industrial. It's occurring and each one requires a different set of
tools. There are a lot of conferences out there about what they call brownfield
development. People who will come in and try to help you develop those tools.
Councilor Burge- But as far as the issue of dislocation tools. . .
Mayor Morrisette - A lot of that is the marketplace decision.
Councilor Burge - It is primarily driven, I think.
Mayor Morrisette - Well basically, those re-developments are driven by someone who
wants to spend the money to do it. I mean it is, I guess government's role to make sure
there are, that they step right.
Councilor Shaver - Well we have another example too, and I was a Eugene citizen at
the time, but we all remember the controversy that happened with under Urban Renewal
and Archie Weinstein's little, not a second hand store but a surplus store (Eugene
Surplus) . . .
Mayor Morrisette - And we all know Archie was right.
.
"
.
.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 9
Councilor Shaver - I don't think he was wrong, can you tell me that. The question is if
we he find out he's right. But there are several models to re-development. The one,
that was a very global model and in some ways the end result, looking back the end
result, was that some good things came out of it.
Councilor Tollenar - The Urban Renewal of course is a tool which is probably less
effective than it was when we displaced Archie's store, but there is no question as to
what, and this is a good example of the policy. They have focused for our council on
specifically on re-development. I agree with Bill that the market will handle a certain
amount of that, as it is doing in the Oakway Mall. But then there are many other
potential re-development areas on our side of the river, and in Springfield as well, where
nothing is going to be done because the market is down. They have to justify the
investment, so therefore, if it is going to be done and this will question the efficiency of
land use in Policy #1, it is going to be done and there has to be some plus factor. Some
public incentive either regulatory or financial that will enable investors to step up. to the
plate on these re-development areas.
Councilor Burge - Well a lot of times too, it is as Bill says, market driven, but the, it is
usually also, requires the underlying land value appreciate to a level where you can re-
develop. . . . the improvements. Our land values here in areas, well for instance the
mid-Springfield area, is certainly in a lot of respects is right for re-development. The land
value isn't high enough to justify. . . for a lot of reasons.
Mayor Morrisette - O.K. now, do you have, is that it?
Jim Croteau - We originally scheduled to come over and talk to you last fall, but since
our council and you meet on Monday nights, this is the first time, that is why we are a
little bit behind getting over here (laughter). So,
Mayor Morrisettte - Now did you have a chance to see what we received from our City
Attorney, raising some of the questions?
Jim Croteau - We have and I think our attorney has reviewed that. We think that the
resolution and the re-wording that the council has proposed, I think, we feel addresses
many of the issues raised in that. We're clarifing that it affects the City of Eugene, city
budgets and work programs, and we're hoping that you see that this is more a Eugene
set of policies and it will not affect our partnership through the Metro Plan. That was
never the intent.
Mayor Morrisette - Well as somebody pointed out there is one Urban Growth Boundary
and there is one inventory, that applies to all of us, and so
Councilor Burge - We try to be a good neighbor, like the rest of the small cities
(laughter). Like Coburg and Junction City, I mean you know.
Mayor Morrisette - Yeah, Yeah, even Springfield can be a good neighbor.
"
.
.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 10
Councilor Burge - We do what we are told, when we are told
Councilor Tollenar - Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just clarify one item. . .
Mayor Morrisette - You see we don't have the press here (more laughter).
Councilor Burge - They don't come to our meetings (laughter).
Councilor Tollenar - One item in your report from your planning staff to your City
Manager, dated the 13th, referes to Policy #5, and a portion of Policy #5 which is quoted
in here. It says "Policy #5 does call for Springfield and Lane County to, quote, control
urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the Urban Growth
Boundary." It goes on to say, well that's probably a good idea, but it presumes
something about actions that would be taken by two of the partners. The fulllangague
in the policy, that is omited from that quotation is "to work cooperatively with metro area
partners to control urban sprawl." Policy #5 is not a direction to Springfield and Lane
County to clean up your act, Policy #5 calls on the council and the manager of Eugene
to work cooperatively with our partners, to the end which I think is mutually agreeable,
that we should be trying to control urban sprawl. So. . .
Councilor Burge - There may be a phylosophical difference in the definition of urban
sprawl.
Councilor Shaver - Let's hope it is not in the idea of working cooperatively.
Councilor Burge - No, No, No, No, No, I didn't mean to infer that, No.
Mayor Morrisette - See, my feeling is that we should not have high density out on the
urban edge, so we have medium density going into the Gateway, thousands and
thousands of people and that should be more low density out there, as because it is on
the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary. The density needs to be closer to where the
. . . . . and all those things are. So, I question, of course that is part of the medium
density inventory and we have 160 acres out in the Gateway area and I think that it is
too much.
Councilor Burge - And there is an awful lot of commercial that is contigious to it.
Mayor Morrisette - Oh yea and it is just going to make it difficult, so the urban, the
density issue is I think, so when you consider the urban fringes that they should be less
dense and more dense as they move to the middle. And that sufficates . .. So we need
to expand the Urban Growth Boundary out even further (laughter). We'll do that next
week though (more laughter).
Councilor Burge - I've never heard that from you Bill, you getting ready to run for office?
(laughter).
. .
.
.
.
Springfield City Council, Verbatim Minutes
January 20, 1998 - Work Session
Page 11
Mayor Morrisette - If we can go as far north as the city of Eugene goes on their ~ide,
we'd be done to Johnson Road. We'd be way down there.
Councilor Burge - True.
Mayor Morrisette - Whoever drew those boundarys were certainly not favorable, no but
I've always thought that when you look at both . . .
Councilor Burge - Springfield has three strikes the same as everybody else.
Mayor Morrisette - When you have both sides of the freeway, if the freeway, if you draw
a line across the freeway, we could go much further north. It makes sense in many
ways to be . . .
Councilor Burge - We'd be damn near to Marcola by now, if . . .
Mayor Morrisette - As far as the river. Jump River. . .
Councilor Ballew - Which one? (laughter).
Councilor Shaver - Thank you folks for taking timeout of your evening to come listen to
our silliness. We appreciate it.
Mayor Morrisette - See now there is no, no controversy, there is no media here, there's
just, it is nice and quiet.
Councilor Burge - Thanks kids.
Jan Childs - I always enjoy coming here.
Mayor Morrisette - Just a little gathering of friends.
Councilor Ballew - No kicks, no bites, no scratches. Just us.
Councilor Burge - We miss seeing you Jan.
Councilor Shaver - Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Verbatim Minutes Recorder - Shari Higg,ins