Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read <br />the first time and referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing ~. <br />February 4, 1980, with Panel recommendations to be brought back ~ <br />for Council consideration February 11, 1980. Motion carried <br />unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. <br />I <br /> <br />v. WHITEAKER COMMUNITY COUNCIL CHARTER REVISIONS Memo Distributed, Additional <br />Information Distributed Under Se arate Cover <br /> <br />Res. No. 3306--A resolution approving and accepting the Whiteaker Community <br />Council charter amendments <br /> <br />Manager explained this was an attempt to more clearly define the types of <br />activities the Whiteaker Council can participate in. It will make certain <br />actions more accountable with respect to the expenditure of funds and the <br />election of officers. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith questioned whether the quorum of ten members was consistent with <br />other neighborhood groups. Ms. Campbell said it was. Mr. Delay corrected <br />a grammatical error--unexcused meeting--which should be changed to IIwithout <br />being excused.1I <br /> <br />In response to the Mayor's question of how expenditure of funds is handled, <br />Ms. Filer said that if the resolution is passed, different persons will be <br />dealing with each part of the financial process. They feel it will improve <br />the accountability for the funds. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. <br />Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />VI. EWEB-CiTY-LANE COUNTY LAND TRANSFER (Memo Distributed) <br /> <br />Manager indicated that there has been some problem with the statement <br />concerning joint parking in the original resolution passed by the Council. <br />He mentioned a letter from Steve McCullough of the Fair Board, distributed <br />to the Council, which indicated acceptance on their part for joint use. <br />Manager said that this resolution states that lithe City. . . and. Lane <br />County may, by future separate document, agree to joint City-County <br />parking.1I He sees this as a statement of future intent, not a binding <br />agreement, and so it should be acceptable to those concerned. <br /> <br />Res. No. 3307--Authorizing the transfer of property between the City of <br />Eugene, EWEB, and Lane County; and repealing Resolution <br />No. 3256 <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution <br />and that in place of the conditions indicated as being part of the <br />deed, Lane County will provide the City with a letter acknowledging <br />the joint use of parking facilities. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1/30/80--6 <br />