06/24/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. M. :Sa1vaging i-i,iterIa1s in Bui1ding-Demo11. tion - At Counc1Tman Murray's reques-t' i"t'; :was understood discussion of possible ordinance regulating demo1itio~ of bui1d-\" Carom ings would be scheduled on the June 19 comrnctttee agenda. ! 6!~2/74 ., A . .,. . "--" "ffll'JU . _..,~'- .. '. ~ '", . . N. Armory Report - Councilman Murray asked for scheduling of discussion on the Armory: Comm report (issued by the County's Vision 2000 committee) on the June 19 conmritte~ 6\112/74 agenda. In response to Mayor Anderson's suggestion for more definitive area of , Affirm discussion in view of the man'y-faceted report, Mr. Murray said one of the main issues in the community debate on the Armory was what, if any, continuing interest ,or role the city would have. It was agreed the item would be scheduled June 19 to define the Armory issues to be discussed at a later, date. .-.... +:+ -",-- - - -.- ~ . - .- ---~.- '~'W' ......_~.'..~ .- . o. Eugene Renewal. Agency Appointment - Councilwoman Bea1 reported a call received from Robert Zagorin stating he had asked Manager's office for permission to speak at this meeting insuppdrc of Ron Boutell's application for appointment to the Eugene Renewal Agency. Assis'tant . Manager explained that he had talked wi th ,Mr. zagorin, who understood if h~ submitted a letter to the Manager's office he :would be assured a place on the agenpa. Copies of the letter submitted by I, ,~'iMr.zagorin had been attached to Mr. Boutell's application and included with ~other applications for distribution to Council members. Assistant Manager said il!le explained to Mr. Zagorin that speaking before the Council in behalf of one J ~.applicant might be a departure from procedure agreed upon by the Council for i ~considering applicants, so there was hesitancy about placing it on the agenda ! I ' unless brought up by a Council member for determination whether he should be " ! -- heard at this time. ~ . ~~~!i~~4er~on comm~nt~d"'th~t h~aringMr~iagori; at this time wo~ld b~' h'ighiy' ;irregu1ar and not in line with the process set by the Council for selecting 1 land interviewing candidates for the ERA position. He felt the proper time for , : ,hearing support of a candidate would be in the screening process. , i ;Counci1woman Bea1 thought it was not a good precedent to hear recommendation ;in behalf of one applicant without hearing for all, but suggested giving ~Mr. Zagorinthe opportunity to speak because of the misunderstanding. She moved :to make an exception in this case and listen to, Mr. Zagorin for no more than Comm ithree minutes. The motion had no second. \6/12/74 Mayor Anderson noted the question was one of timing and said Mr. zagorin would ~".File I ihave further opportunity to make a presentation before the Council. I Copies of app1iqations for appointment to ERA were distributed to Council members. Comm ,It was, agreed the Council would consider them at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 19.6/12Z74 . Affl,rm: P. :Arrrory- 'Copies.of letter fr~m Lane c~unty coffimissiori~~ Kenneth Omlid wereprevlous[y 'distributed to Council members. The'letter outlined the County's position with re- . igard to the Armory and asked ~ho~e who wished to use space in the bui~ding if it " iwas preserved to let the Comm~ss~oners know by September 1, 1974 the ~ntended use , ialong wi th firm commi tments for funding. I i !In answer to Mayor Anderson's inquiry about whether the Council's opinion was jcrucial to any decision by the County, Mr. Murray said he didn't know how much i [controversy there was on the Council itself about the Armory but it was conceivable ithe Commissioners would be discussing the situation and he felt Council input jwould be beneficial to them. He added that he would suggest acceptance of the ICounty's earlier offer for city lease of the building for $1.00 to be active over ia one-year period, during which time the Historic Preservation Committee could be =--; ;charged with providing a specific example of how the building could be used for ! :public assembly and/or office space and a specific funding proposal which would iconsider several different possibilities including (1) extending ERA boundaries i 'and appropriate use of Fe~eral funds, (2) phased funding utilizing room tax funds, : (3) bond measure, or (4) Federal grant. If at the end of a year the plans were not successful nor imminent, use of the building would revert to the County. Or if !they were successful then the city would explore remaining questions of'responsi- :bility for operation and ongoing ownership or lease of the building. ' ; COJJlJll 6/-i19/74 :In response to Assistant Manager's reminder~of-the September 1 deadline in Affirm . I - =. ,---j ,Mr~ Omlid's request for information, Mr. Murray said--he was puzzled about that 'date in view of an implementation meeting scheduled in the next two or three weeks , I ;at which he understood a decision was to be made. Mayor Anderson doubted whether any decision on the fate of the Armory would be hasty and suggested a week's delay " :in discussion would not alter future use of the building. He preferred an oppor- !tunity for full discussion and further review of 'the Vision 2000 report on the :Armory before any presentation to the County. It was agreed that the issue would ':...be a priority agenda item a t the June 25 commi ttee meeting. ~ 2.2.; 6(24/14' ,... -18 j