Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1988 Meeting (3) e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 11, 1988 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Robert Bennett, Jeff Miller, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. ELECTION OF CITY COUNCIL OFFICERS City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to elect Mr. Holmer as City Council President and Ms. Bascom as City Council Vice President. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Obie thanked Ms. Ehrman for an excellent job as City Council President during the past year. II. NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ORDINANCE City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Ms. Ehrman suggested that City Attorneys explain the process for referring two proposals to voters. Tim Sercombe of the City Attorney's Office reviewed the procedure. If both proposals passed, the one with the greatest number of affirmative votes would be enacted. If one proposal passed, it would become the law. And, if both proposals failed, neither would be enacted and the current ordinance would remain in place, he said. Ms. Wooten said she would support the Minimally Revised Version (MRV) in the May election. Mayor Obie requested that City Attorneys prepare a motion to indicate that if neither proposal passed, the City Council would repeal the MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 1 e existing ordinance. He said the motion was necessary for a clear understanding of possible outcomes, adding that the issue would be revisited later. Ms. Schue and Mr. Holmer said they agreed that a clear understanding of possible election outcomes was needed and that it seemed logical to repeal the ordinance if both proposals failed. Ms. Wooten said she thought the council last Wednesday had reached consensus to prepare a second ordinance for referral to voters. She said she felt that preparation of a repeal ordinance was a strong and serious issue, and she did not support it in the event that both measures failed. She said that if both measures failed, she thought the ordinance should rema in as passed by voters, and the council was back to II square oneil in terms of fixing it. She said she did not support the request to City Attorneys and she thought it was inappropriate to imply a possibility that the City would be left with no Nuclear Free Zone ordinance. Mayor Obie said the request had been supported by at least two councilors, and the council would have future opportunities to address the issue. He added that the council was not voting on that issue tonight. e Mr. Holmer said he agreed that possible results and impact should be clear to voters, adding that he supported the Mayorls request as providing more clarity than if the current ordinance remained in place. Ms. Schue said the impact of the vote needed to be clear, and she did not favor a process that would encourage supporters of the original ordinance to vote ag~_i_nst both proposals. Ms. Wooten said repeal and replacement provisions would be included in both measures. Mr. Sercombe said that was correct. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to direct the City Attorneyls Office to prepare documents referring to the voters Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance proposals A and C as presented at this meeting for the May 17 primary election ballot. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 6:1, with Councilors Holmer, Bascom, Bennett, Miller, Schue, and Wooten voting aye; Councilor Ehrman voting nay. A member of the audience asked why the council had held no public hearing on the Nuclear Free Zone Ordinance. Mayor Obie said tonight was not a public hearing, and questions from the audience were out of order. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 2 4Ia III. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie offered the public an opportunity to address the council about subjects not scheduled for council consideration. Richard Gold, 1486 East 25th Avenue #B, said he was a chief petitioner for a charter amendment on Urban Renewal Plan adoption and amendment process. Mr. Gold said he would like to speak about a citizenls right to petition. He thanked Mayor Obie and The Register-Guard for their lIunwavering, undemocratic desire to stop discussion on the issue of whether voters should have the right to vote on Urban Renewal Plans, which directly and indirectly affect each and every person in this community.1I Mr. Gold expressed agreement with Ms. Wooten's earlier comments, that elections were set up to discuss and debate these vital community issues, and that that was exactly what the petition process was set up to do. e Mr. Gold reported receiving an overwhelming response from signers because of Mayor Obie's comments. He also reported that while gathering signatures, he had been harassed by James T. Ivory, owner of Eugene Athletic, president of the Downtown Association, lIand one of a few select people, like Mr. Bennett, Mr. Schwartz, and Mr. Obie, who want to control everything that happens downtown.1I He said Mr. Ivory had stated that voters should not have any say in what happens downtown with downtown businessesl tax money, adding that he disagreed. Mr. Gold said Lane County election officials had informed him that no petitioner should have to put up with any harassment while petitioning, and he wanted to emphasize that petitioners would not tolerate any further harassment or interference in the petition process. Mr. Gold urged voters of Eugene to sign the petitions. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: ISLAND ANNEXATION REQUEST FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 11TH AVENUE BETWEEN BERTELSEN ROAD AND TERRY STREET (CITY OF EUGENE: WILLOW CREEK ISLANDS)(AZ 87-14) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Neil Bjorklund of the Planning Department presented the staff report. Mr. Bjorklund noted that the Planning Commission minutes submitted for the record should have been labelled as IIdraft, subject to approval.1I Mr. Bjorklund said the area of the annexation request included two unincorporated islands located south of West 11th Avenue between Bertelsen Road and Terry Street. It included all or part of 34 lots, for a total area of 283 acres under 18 ownerships. He said the request had been initiated by the City of Eugene in order to clarify service jurisdictions and to allow extension of additional services to the area. He said the request was being processed as a council-initiated island e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 3 4It annexation, as recognized under ORS Chapter 199, and the proposal met the criteria for annexations given in the Eugene Code, as covered in staff notes. Mr. Bjorklund said the subject area was scheduled for significant Capital Improvement Projects, including an extension of Beltline Road, between FY91 and FY93. The proposal also met Eugene Code criteria for zone changes as discussed in the staff notes, he added. Mr. Bjorklund said the proposed zoning was consistent with the intent of the Metro Plan and the Willow Creek Special Area Study, the refinement plan for the area. He said the Willow Creek Plan showed land-use designations to be delineated in part by the future extension of Beltline Road. Because that exact alignment was unknown at this time, and because owners of developable property were not prepared to proceed with development, staff proposed rezoning most of the area to equivalent zoning as a "holding zone," which would ensure that any development would be less intensive than that allowed by the plan designation. Mr. Bjorklund said the equivalent zoning would have one exception, a portion of Tax Lot 1700, which staff recommended rezoning to 1-2 to conform with the Willow Creek Plan. He said that portion of the proposed area clearly was not consistent with the Willow Creek Plan, and staff recommended providing conformity. e Mr. Bjorklund said the Planning Commission at its December 1 hearing had delayed action and requested motions allowing the exclusion of some residential properties. At the commission's December 14 meeting, staff had stated that sewer assessments would be delayed, and the commission had recommended including all residential properties. He said the commission did not wish to set a precedent of excluding residential properties in response to testimony and had felt that the delay in sewer assessments, along with other available programs, would significantly mitigate the financial burden that residential owners spoke to in the public hearing. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. John O'Connell, 2963 Willow Creek Road, spoke in opposition to the annexation request. Mr. OIConnell said he had spoken to the Planning Commission on December 1, 1987. He said he felt the annexation request was unconstitutional and would deprive residents of their constitutional rights. He said residents of the area did not want to be included in the City at this time. Mr. O'Connell said annexation would present a hardship to many people, and residents had received no guarantee about future assessments. He said taxes would increase with annexation and might not break his business, but it certainly would not help. He said businesses in the e M1NUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 4 e area recently had come through ten bad years that had forced them to examine every dollar. He also said most residents of Willow Creek Road were retired and would receive no needed or non-existen~ benefits from annexation. Mr. O.Connell said services already had been put into the area for development that had not occurred yet, and until development did occur, no more land should be set aside. About 200 acres now was vacant, he said, and he reported no sewage or water problems. Mr. O'Connell said annexation now did not make sense and would result in added tax burdens. He said he would favor annexation if development were likely, but that was not the case. Mr. O.Connell said he opposed an increase in taxes without a chance to vote. He said residents could not afford annexation and preferred to use the money for development of Eugene area businesses. e Harold Chapman, 51 Chapman Drive, spoke in opposition to the annexation request. He distributed a packet of information containing copies of a remonstrance petition, an appellate judgment filed with the Oregon Supreme Court on September 9, 1987, and testimony and articles regarding a "double-majority" annexation procedure used in Gresham, Oregon. Mr. Chapman said he spoke on behalf of the River Road/Santa Clara Constitutional Rights Committee, which contended that the island annexation procedure authorized by Chapters 222 and 199 of the Oregon Revised Statutes violated the privileges and immunities clause of the Oregon Constitution (Article I, Section XX) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Mr. Chapman said the committee included citizens who served on the boards of the River Road/Santa Clara Water, Park, and Fire districts. Mr. Chapman said the island annexation procedure did not allow for an election within the affected area, and he reviewed the information he had distributed. Mr. Chapman said the double-majority annexation procedure recently used in Gresham soon would be appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, where its constitutionality would be challenged. Mr. Chapman said that following final action of the State Supreme Court on triple-majority annexation cases, the Court of Appeals recently had activated 67 triple-majority and island annexation appeals. He said it appeared that no islands had been created legally that would be subject to the island annexation procedure, thus the 67 island annexations might or might not become vehicles to test the constitutionality of island annexation procedure. Mr. Chapman cited Oregon law (ORS chapter 222.750) and the Oregon Supreme Court case of Thurber v. McMinnville as evidence of a right to vote on island annexations. When island territory was within the jurisdiction of a boundary commission, he said ORS 199.490 paragraph Sa provided that when a city annexation was initiated as provided by ORS 222.750, the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page S e e e petition proposed in the annexation shall be filed with the Boundary Commission. And, ORS 199.595 subparagraph 1, the same statute which, he noted, a court of appeals had declared unconstitutional as it related to the triple-majority annexation method, provided that the Boundary Commissionls final order in a proceeding initiated as provided by ORS 199.4920 (the triple-majority method) and ORS 199.490 paragraph 5 (which includes the island annexation method) shall not be subject to ORS 199.505,which provides for annexation remonstrance elections. Thus, Mr. Chapman said, although the electors of cities had the right granted in ORS 222.750 to vote on island annexations, the electors residing within the island territory being annexed were denied in ORS 199.195 paragraph 1 the right to vote--that statute being the same statute the court found to be unconstitutional as it related to annexations initiated by the triple majority method. Mr. Chapman reviewed the history of Thurber v. McMinnville. He read a statement from the Supreme Court discussion on that case, "But that it was ever intended that a municipal corporation already in existence should have authority to extend its boundaries so as to include new territory without the consent of the citizens of such territory is so repugnant to our ideals of fairness and justice that we cannot assent to the proposition. To do so would be to say that an enterprising municipal corporation containing, say, 500 voters might annex adjoining territory containing a thousand voters and subject them to the burdens of municipal taxation without their consent and against their will.1I He also cited that decision as follows: IIBut the right of the people of the district or territory sought to be annexed to be permitted to vote upon the question under some method is a constitutional one that cannot be taken away. This in effect disposes of the case.1I Mr. Chapman asked how the State of Oregon could justify allowing city electors to vote on annexation of territory, yet deny those electors within the territory being annexed their right to vote on the matter. Under the strict standard test, he said the State bore the burden of establishing not only a compelling interest that justified the law, but that the distinctions drawn by the law were necessary to further its purposes. He asked what constituted a compelling interest of the state regarding the proposed annexation and whether City Attorneys would research the matter before or after the issue went before the courts. Mr. Chapman cited the risk of legal defense costs for the island annexation procedure and asked what signal the island annexation policy would send to residents. He submitted a copy of his statement for the record. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, spoke in opposition to the annexation request. He said he was embarrassed about the proposal IS presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He also asked what signal the annexation would send to residents. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 6 e Mr. Hale asked about the reason for the annexation request. He said he believed the reason was an inept decision by the Eugene Planning Department, either that it offended the Planning Departmentls "sense of tidiness," or because it was "part of the City's overall approach to balance this budget." He said the request was not timely for the land involved, and he urged waiting until the extension of Beltline. He said development was not imminent, much land was vacant, and the annexation would result in a prohibitive tax burden on residents. Mr. Hale said a right to sewer service without annexation was provided by existing policies, and he objected to annexation. He said land could be divided into developed and undeveloped areas. Mr. Hale expressed concern about the credibility of the City Council and the City regarding a policy of encirclement in other areas of the map. He reported a discussion with former Assistant City Administrator Keith Martin in which Mr. Martin had stated the Cityls intent to annex the River Road/Santa Clara area. Mr. Hale said he supported annexation in some context and he would like to see his part of the city be part of the decisions made in this room. Mr. Hale said he was disappointed at current decisions and at the undemocratic approach they represented. He said the island annexation method might not be challenged on this request, but he could ensure a constitutional challenge if the policy was used in River Road. Mr. Hale said a very strong challenge ought to be raised to this approach, because it was highly undemocratic, and if it 4It was not unconstitutional, it should be. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. Staff offered no comments. Ms. Wooten asked about the Tax Lot numbers, location, and number of residences in the area. Mr. Bjorklund referred councilors to a list of properties included in agenda packets and said that list also showed estimates of tax increases after annexation. Ms. Wooten asked whether it was absolutely necessary to annex residential properties. Mr. Bjorklund said staff recommended including all properties in order to avoid a precedent of excluding certain properties in response to testimony and in order to follow policies in the City Code and Metropolitan Plan. Ms. Wooten asked about the timing and plans for service extensions and when compliance with sewer requirements would apply. Mr. Bjorklund said no cost estimates were available for service additions to the total area. He said those services would include the full range offered by the City, such as police, fire, water, sewer, road maintenance. He said fire and emergency services to the area now were provided under contract with the Zumwalt Fire District, but other services were not now available. Les Lyle of the Public Works Department said sanitary sewer service extensions would depend on development in the area or on septic tank e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 7 e failures. He said installation of a sewer extension along Willow Creek Road would be needed and would occur only if warranted. Ms. Bascom asked about the constitutionality of island annexations. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said he preferred to provide detailed legal background in written form. He said he thought reasons existed to distinguish island annexations from the Court of Appeals decision on triple majority annexations. He said it was his judgment that the council should treat the present statute that had been re-enacted by the 1987 Legislature as constitutional and should not try to conclude or suppose that a court would hold it unconstitutional. e Mr. Sercombe said he did not believe that the Court of Appeals decision, which held that the triple-majority process giving to property owners different procedural rights than it gave to residents in an annexing area violated Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, the equal privileges and immunities clause. He said island annexations involved no disparity of rights between property owners and residents. He said the statute clearly gave the City the right to annex an area by order of the Boundary Commission without the ability of property owners to petition for an election. Because island annexations did not have the same constitutional infirmity as identified by the court in triple-majority annexations, Mr. Sercombe said he did not believe the decision applied to island annexations. He added, however, that the issue had not been tested in Oregon courts. He said the case of Thurber v. McMinnville was more than 60 years old, and dicta in the case suggesting a possible right to vote on all annexations had been repudiated by subsequent Court of Appeals decisions. Mayor Obie asked whether a phase-in of a tax differential had been considered. Planning Director Susan Brody said the Planning Commission had felt the council should consider those possibilities. She said the City Finance Division had indicated no major problem with a tax differential. She said a tax differential could establish a precedent for other unincorporated areas and would remove the distinction of special incentives for the River Road/Santa Clara area, but staff had no major objection. Mayor Obie asked whether the island was a justification for a tax differential. Ms. Brody said that was possible, adding that a schedule was available for a five-year differential beginning at 65 percent and gradually increasing to 100 percent. She said a ten-year plan was offered for industrial properties in the Highway 99 area, and a five- or six-year plan was available to residential properties in River Road and Santa Clara. Mr. Miller asked about urban growth boundary. limits, about 1/4 mile urban growth boundary. the location of the current city limits and the Mr. Bjorklund pointed out the current city to the west and south of the property, near the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 8 e e e Mr. Miller asked whether the area would receive benefits if sewers would not be extended immediately. Mr. Gleason said sewer service was one of about 114 different service systems, not all of which were restricted to the boundary change. He said that resulted in problems when those outside the city received benefits without paying for them. Mr. Gleason said the Zumwalt contract provided a different response standard and a different level of emergency services. He said the only police services now available were through the County and, if annexed, the area would receive library services without outside fees, in addition to other appropriate services. Mr. Gleason said islands commonly received benefits without paying for them. He said plans for eventual service to the area had been included in the.sewer system, and separation of time frames for annexation and payment allowed flexibility. He said he did not agree that the cost of taxation would be without benefit. Ms. Bascom asked whether annexation would allow residents to burn brush and/or to keep a cow. Ms. Brody said burning brush was not allowed inside the city limits, but a cow was allowed under Residential Agricultural zoning. She said the annexation was the only item before the council tonight, and rezoning, which was covered by staff notes, would come before the council separately. Ms. Wooten said she would vote against the request. She said she believed in the City's policy in the River Road/Santa Clara area and would continue to support the concept of annexation, but she thought this request, if it could not be delayed, deserved to fail on its apparent merits. Ms. Schue said she favored approval of the request. She said she understood the concern about higher taxes, but as with prohibitions against burning, she did not think it was fair to subject citizens in one area of the city to policies and restrictions that those outside the geographic boundaries did not have to follow. She said she understood that no solution would be perfect, but she thought it was time for the area to become part of the city. Ms. Schue said the services offered might not be wanted, but she did not think they were services that, overall, were not needed. Mr. Holmer said he thought annexation was premature and unfair, and resulted in part from a policy the council had adopted about one and one-half years ago. He said staff had stated that they would use discretion and restraint in implementing the policy, and instead the council had seen the multiplication of annexations that did not have the consent of residents. He noted that no testimony had been offered in favor of the request. He offered two reasons for his position: 1) extension of services, the reasons given for annexation, would not be immediate and were not needed now, and 2) compatibility with other City MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 9 e policies required a phase-in of taxes. the zone changes should be done at the said he did not understand the rush to against the proposal. Mr. Holmer also said he thought same time as the annexation. He judgment, and he would vote Mr. Bennett asked about the position of the Planning Commission on a tax differential. Ms. Brody said the commission had recommended considering application of a tax-differential schedule to the properties in question, and a motion was available to provide that. She added that the commission had made the recommendation in seeking ways to mitigate the financial hardship on property owners who had testified, and it had recognized that the sewer assessment situation would help somewhat but had favored an additional tax deferral. Mr. Bennett said residences normally required more immediate service delivery than other properties, and he asked whether greater costs were involved. Ms. Brody said she was not sure that was true because properties were scattered. She said the motion as drafted would apply to all properties, not just residential. Mr. Bennett asked about the rationale distinguishing this from a more urban residential area. Mr. Gleason said the Mayor had suggested using the island aspect as justification. Mr. Bennett said that was not in the motion, and Ms. Brody said it could be included in the legislative record. e Councilor Bennett said he would support the request. Responding to Mr. Holmerls question, Ms. Brody said the same tax differential schedule would apply to this area and to River Road. She said Santa Clara was on a six-year schedule. Mayor Obie said he would support the request if given the opportunity. Mr. Miller said it was difficult to balance competing benefits and rights. He said he would support the motion with a tax differential, adding that he felt responsibilities must be shared and that the City ultimately would be the urban service provider. Ms. Bascom asked about the level of support for the request and the number of absentee owners. Mr. Bjorklund said one residential property owner had consented to annex, and many properties were rentals or vacant. Ms. Bascom said she was concerned about the impacts on residentsl activities, such as burning and keeping animals. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department said RA zoning would be considered for the area and would continue to allow cows on property if health standards were met. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 10 e Ms. Bascom said she favored the tax differential plan, and she agreed that the council might be rushing the issue, but she probably would vote in favor of the request. Res. No. 4076--A resolution furthering annexation to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Service District for two unincorporated islands located south of West 11th Avenue between Bertelsen Road and Terry Street. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried 4:3, Councilors Bascom, Bennett, Schue, and Miller voting aye; Councilors Wooten, Ehrman, and Holmer voting nay. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the City Council recommend to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission that the tax differential schedule as presented be applied to the properties included in the City of Eugene's Willow Creek island annexation (AZ 87-14). Roll call vote, the motion carried 6:1, Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Bascom, Bennett, Miller, and Schue voting aye; Councilor Wooten voting nay. e V. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS (CA 87-9) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department presented the staff report. He said the item would amend Chapter 9 of the code regarding land use applications that involved the public. He said the amendment would apply to applications for annexations, zone changes, planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions, and sign district boundary changes. He said current applications prior to public hearings required mailed notice to abutting property owners two lots deep. Mr. Croteau said the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) had expressed concern about the notice requirement, and the proposal would establish a specific distance around the subject property, to include all properties within 300 feet or all properties within 500 feet if the application would change zoning or sign district uses from residential to non-residential uses. Mr. Croteau said the amount of notice would be similar to that in current requirements, except in highly developed areas, where staff predicted that the number of mailed notices would increase. He said the Planning Commission and the CIC both had been unanimous in recommending adoption of the amendment. He added that similar ordinance language had been presented to the Planning Commission. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 11 ~ Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. e - CB 3014--An ordinance concerning notice requirements for certain land use applications; amending sections 8.820, 9.035, 9.154, 9.512, 9.672, and 9.706 of the Eugene code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 3014 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19528). VI. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT CONCERNING MODIFICATION PROCESSES FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS (CA 87-11) City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department presented the staff report. He said the proposed code amendment concerned land use applications for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), and Site Reviews. He explained that upon approval of one of these applications, the City and the developer entered into a contract that provided for approval of plans and a required completion time. He said processes to modify final plans now differed among the three types of applications, and no notice or appeal processes were provided. He said the proposed provisions would create a uniform modification process that allowed consideration by the Planning Director of minor changes that did not significantly alter the appearance of the development or minor changes in the completion schedule. Major changes would be considered by the Hearings Official and would require notice to all original parties and a public hearing. Mr. Croteau said the Planning Commission and the Citizen Involvement Committee unanimously had recommended approval. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 12 e e - CB 3015--An ordinance concerning modification procedures for certain land use applications; amending Sections 9.516, 9.690, and 9.722 of the Eugene City Code, 1971, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 3015 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19529). VII. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: DINNER/WORK SESSION OF NOVEMBER 30, 1987; DINNER/WORK SESSION OF DECEMBER 7, 1987; AND LUNCH/WORK SESSION/ MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 1987 Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to approve the City Council meeting minutes of November 30, 1987; December 7, 1987; and December 9, 1987. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. to January 13, 1988. ~~UllY sub.; e. '.~~~' ~- Micheal D. G eason City Manager (Recorded by Leslie Scales) a7 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 11, 1988 Page 13