Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/1989 Meeting (2) e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber--Eugene City Hall November 20, 1989 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Rob Bennett, Shawn Boles, Emily Schue, Debra Ehrman, Freeman Holmer, Bobby Green, Roger Rutan. The adjourned meeting of November 15, 1989, of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Jeff Miller. I. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of July 19, October 9, October 11, and October 18, 1989, Meetings. B. Findings and Recommendations of Hearings Official and Approval of Improvement Project (West 11th Avenue/Danebo Avenue) (Job #2444) Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to approve the e items on the City Council Consent Calendar. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. II. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING ELECTION PROCEDURES Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. David Biedermann, Finance Division, summarized the work done to this point and clarified the proposed signature number requirements for initiatives and referendums. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. William Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, requested that the council not pass this ordinance on the grounds that the process of obtaining signatures for initiative and referendum petitions is already difficult and should not be made more so. He added that the alternative to this proposal which retains the same number requirement of signatures would be more acceptable, but still highly restrictive. Richard Greene, 766 East 13th Avenue, concurred with Mr. Masonls comments and noted that the referendum and initiative process is one of the few ways that the citizens of Eugene can offer input into the activities of City government. He encouraged the council to allow this ordinance to come before Eugene voters. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 1 r; e Dan Stotter, 1490 High Street, testified against increasing the percentage of signatures required for the initiative petition. He noted that despite some sentiment, he feels the initiative process promotes healthy citizen participation in the political system. Mr. Stotter expressed concern specifically with Section 2.974 because he felt that the process of requiring a court procedure for changing of a ballot title is expensive and time- consuming; allowing the council the authority to change the ballot title can avert a court trial, thus sparing wasted money and time. Carole Bruhl, 708 West 4th Avenue, spoke against the proposed ordinance. She testified that the council no longer has the respect of Eugene citizens, who, in her opinion, would also not support this ordinance. Bob Fauvre, 2979 Marauta Street, agreed with those who spoke before him and noted that this ordinance is a threat to freedom in the city of Eugene. Merton Saling, 1510 Charnel ton Street, spoke against the ordinance. Mr. Saling testified that he felt the council should increase the time allowed to circulate petitions and decrease the number of signatures required for both the initiative and referendum petitions. Randy Prince, Box 927, submitted a letter to the council from Barbara Roberts which told why Oregonians take pride in the initiative and referendum processes and submitted an essay from Professor Bingham of the University of Oregon. Mr. Prince paralleled the mass movements for democracy taking place around the world with the timing of this ordinance. He noted that the e initiative and referendum process are a basic part of our democracy and urged the council to refer this decision to the voters. Brian Hoop, 1790 Alder Street, said that the decision to increase the number of signatures on the initiative petition is out of step with the wishes of the vast majority of Oregon community members. He concurred with concerns raised by Mr. Stotter that sending a ballot title to the court would be expensive and might, as a result of respective income levels, become a racial issue. He felt that the decision to increase signature percentages should come before Eugene citizens. Wes Bigelow, 572 West 12th #6, concurred with Mr. Saling that the number of signatures required to get a referendum or initiative petition on the ballot should be reduced. He felt that guaranteed involvement in the process of deCiSion-making is inherent in the definition of democracy; the referendum allows citizens to become involved in this decision-making process. Richard Gold, 907 River Road #58, indicated that he has been involved in the process of initiative petitioning and has experienced how enormously difficult it is to be able to put an initiative petition on the ballot. The initiative process is provided to allow citizens the authority to maintain the checks and balances within a representative democracy. He added that the percentage of signatures requirement should not be based on the total electors registered at the time a petition is filed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19~9 Page 2 e Barbara Keller, 2570 Onyx, testified against this ordinance on the grounds that the initiative process provides an important indication about citizen views and affords citizens the knowledge that they are being represented within city government. Ms. Keller said that in light of the fact that the City Attorney's position is not elective, he should not be allowed to veto a ballot initiative. A representative, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Neighborhood Leaders (NL), voiced his opposition to this ordinance. The NL also expressed disappointment that they were not notified earlier of the City's plans to consider this measure. Kevin Hornbuckle, 1359 Patterson Street, concurred with the opinion of those who spoke before him. There being no additional requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4181--An ordinance concerning election procedures; amending Sections 2.964, 2.970, 2.971, 2.972, 2.973, 2.975, 2.976, 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.982, 2.983, 2.984, 2.987, 2.988, 2.990, and 2.992 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 2.974 and 2.978 of that code; and declaring an emergency. - Ms. Schue said that public testimony demonstrates that this subject needs more public review and suggested that this proposed ordinance be referred to the Citizens Involvement Committee (CIC) for further review. Mr. Boles voiced support for Ms. Schue's suggestion but added that the Neighborhood Leaders should also be part of this review process. Ms. Ehrman said that although she is not opposed to having further review from the CIC and NL, Eugene citizens do not appear to be interested in making any compromises with respect to this ordinance. She felt, therefore, that such a review might be a waste of time. Ms. Schue expressed her support for the alternative ordinance which would retain the current requirement for percentage of signatures but would calculate this percentage based on the number of city electors registered at the time the petition is filed. Responding to earlier comment, Ms. Schue said Lane County updates the list of current voters more often than in the past as a consequence of the mailed ballot. Mr. Holmer offered his support to Ms. Schue's position. Mr. Miller noted that the number of signatures required and the City Attorney Office's involvement in the naming of a ballot title seem to be the two greatest areas of public concern. Mr. Holmer stated that the public is also concerned with the issue of who should have the authority to make a decision about the rights of the voters in matters of direct legislation; section 2.972 should be an issue requiring public vote. Mr. Holmer added that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19&9 Page 3 y because this issue has been under consideration since February, there is no - need to declare this as an emergency. In response, Mr. Sercombe said that this ordinance is considered as an emergency if passed with an emergency clause; the council has the authority to make this determination. Responding to Ms. Bascom's request for staff response, Mr. Sercombe said the issue raised by Mr. Stotter determining the classification of a proposed initiative measure as legislative or administrative is made when a prospective initiative petition is submitted to the City Recorder's Office. At that point, the City Recorder refers this prospective petition to the City Attorney's Office for issuance of a ballot title. If the City Attorney's Office determines that this measure does not create policy, then the measure does not qualify for the initiative process under Article 4 of the Oregon Constitution. Mr. Sercombe noted that this decision has been challenged in the judicial system and was upheld. On the other hand, the proposed legislation allows any person who is dissatisfied with the content of the ballot title or the City Attorney Office's decision regarding ballot title issuance the opportunity to seek relief in court. Mr. Sercombe indicated that the judicial process concerning review of ballot titles requires this review to be given priority over other court business and be given a speedy court determination, i.e., several days. Mr. Sercombe indicated that the process of determining local initiative and referendum procedures is set by the council. However, Chapter 250 of the State Statue preempts the council's decision regarding the structure and content of ballot titles. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles regarding monetary compensation for securing petition signatures, Mr. Sercombe said - that the position of the Federal District Court in Oregon is that it is unconstitutional for local government to disallow citizens the right to secure signatures for money. Ms. Sercombe said the present process for ballot title wording appeals is that such appeals be submitted first to the council for review and, if further litigation is requested, the appeals will go to the courts. The proposed ordinance will require such appeals to be submitted directly to the court for judicial review, bypassing council decision. Ms. Schue said that selection of ballot title wording is a complicated process, and because the council does not have the needed experience, she would support such a change in the process of determining ballot title wording. Ms. Schue said that she does not see a valid reason why the Charter Amendment should require more signatures than a referendum petition and wanted both a Charter Amendment and a referendum petition to require signatures of 12.5 percent of the registered voters. Mr. Holmer responded that the fact that the Charter Amendment is in effect for a longer period of time justifies the need for requiring a larger percentage of signatures. Although he would not be opposed to changing the number of signatures for a Charter Amendment to reflect 12.5 percent of the registered voters, he is in favor of leaving it at the current 15 percent. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 4 Ms. Ehrman expressed concern with the practice of tying the percentage of e signatures required for a Charter Amendment or a referendum to the number of registered voters. She added that this being the initial public hearing concerning this issue and, given the fact that the only testimony offered was in opposition, the council should reconsider whether this subject is worth spending further City resources. Mr. Rutan said that part of the initial purpose for reviewing the initiative process was to reconsider some areas of the process that appeared to need modification. Public testimony reveals that the council has not done an adequate job of processing this issue. He felt that the council should not abandon this issue and offered support for forwarding the alternative petition to the vote of Eugene Citizens. Ms. Bascom said her perception of widespread public opinion regarding the proposed ordinance is that such a change will be damaging to the initiative process. If the council is going to pursue the idea of public review, review should not be limited to the NL. Ms. Bascom noted that the entire initiative process allows for healthy public participation in local government and, speaking on behalf of the entire council, feels that the initiative process should not be lost. For these reasons, she wanted to table this decision. Mr. Green said the council has the information required to make a decision at present. In light of public testimony against this ordinance, there is no need to forward this information to community groups. Mr. Boles agreed that the council should make a decision quickly. He added that the two issues of e signature percentage requirements and ballot title wording need to be dealt with separately. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to proceed with consideration of the ordinance as it is drafted. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to amend this motion, to reflect the adoption of an alternative measure whereby the required number of signatures is tied to the electorate at 8.5 for the referendum petition and 12.5 percent for the charter amendment and initiative petition. Mr. Boles commented that public testimony clearly reflects that Eugene citizens do not want to change the number of signatures required for either the Charter Amendment or the referendum. The amendment to the motion changes the number of signatures by moving it to a base of registered electors. He encourage council members to vote against both the main motion and the motion amending it. Roll call vote; the amended motion failed, 2:6, with councilors Rutan and Schue voting in favor; and councilors Boles, Holmer, Bennet, Bascom, Green, and Ehrman voting against. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19~9 Page 5 Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett to amend the main e motion to reflect that the number of signatures required for a referendum petition, an initiative petition other than for a charter amendment or revision, and a charter amendment or revision be respectively 8.5 percent, 12.5 percent, and 15.0 percent of the city electors registered at the time the petition is filed. Roll call vote; the amended motion carried, 5:4, with councilors Rutan, Bennett, Holmer, Schue, and Mayor Miller voting in favor; and councilors Boles, Bascom, Green, and Ehrman voting against. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to refer the alternative proposal in section 2.972 of the Eugene Code to the voters for approval. Ms. Schue said that this whole matter should be referred to the CIC and other public groups prior to taking final council action. Mr. Holmer withdrew his motion. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to amend the main motion to state that this proposed ordinance shall be referred to the Citizens Involvement Committee for review. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote; Ms. Bascom's motion passed, 7:1, with e councilors Bascom, Bennett, Boles, Rutan, Holmer, Schue, and Green voting aye; and councilor Ehrman voting nay. At 8:55 p.m. the City Council took a five-minute recess. III. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN SIGN PERMITS Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. Marsha Miller, Planning and Development Department, provided the council with a brief staff report. The Eugene Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council pass an ordinance imposing a moratorium on certain types of signs while the Planning Commission is continuing its work on the comprehensive update of the City's Sign Code. The Planning Commission is concerned that there will be an increase in the number of billboard applications and an increase in the number of possible nonconforming electronic message center signs and flashing signs during the Sign Code update process. On October 23, the City Council considered the recommendation from the Planning Commission to impose the moratorium and requested that the City Attorney's Office prepare an ordinance. Ms. Miller informed the council that the City currently has 130 billboards. The maximum number of billboards that could be built under the current Code e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19a9 Page 6 ~ is 180; this figure is based on the code requirements of a limit of 1,300 e square feet of billboard surface area per half mile on highway-oriented designated streets and on those industrial streets where billboards are permitted. This figure is also based on an average billboard size of 300 square feet. The Planning Commission is requesting this moratorium because of the effects of billboards, electronic message centers (EMCs), and flashing signs on the aesthetics of the City and the safety of the community. The commission feels that a six-month moratorium is reasonable and hopes to have a recommendation before the council on the revised Sign Code before that time. At the council's request, an ordinance imposing the moratorium has been prepared for consideration at this public hearing. If the council adopts the moratorium, any application that has been received prior to the moratorium will be processed. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Miller said that the City has received 20 billboard permit applications since September 26. She clarified that prior to the adoption of the Interim Code in June 1988, the City received 40 applications for billboards; of these 40 applications, approximately 15 were granted. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. Kevin Jones, 1678 West 7th Avenue, spoke against the proposed moratorium. Mr. Jones indicated that highway construction often uses flashing signs to warn motorists of construction delays, dangers, and weather information and, if the Federal Highway Administration truly believes that such signs are dangerous, they would not use these signs. Furthermore, if the City chooses to adopt the moratorium because of concerns for traffic safety, the newly e installed message at the Hult Center should also be turned off to reflect those concerns. He cautioned the council that Planning Commission information which regards such signs as traffic hazards is inaccurate and claimed that a number of studies have been conducted which indicate that there is no connection between flashing signs and traffic safety concerns. He requested further that the council consider each sign type separately. Steve Robinson, 2865 Taylor Street, indicated that he has taken an unofficial tally of most of the billboard faces around Eugene. He said that of the 150 total billboard faces that he counted, 10 percent promoted businesses outside the Eugene area; 30 percent promoted national name brand products (mostly alcohol and nicotine products); 25 percent promoted national and regional chains; 14 percent promoted local services; 12 percent promoted local restaurants and retail stores; and the remaining 5 percent promoted local hotels. Mr. Robinson said that in the interest of visual clutter, he supports the Planning Commission's moratorium on such signs. Spencer Whitted, address not given, spoke in opposition to the proposed moratorium. He indicated that billboards are important to bringing businesses into the downtown area, and a proposed moratorium would hurt this cause. Jim Torrey, 2545 Chuckanut Street, said that the only effect a six-month moratorium would have on billboards would be to induce a rash of requests to build billboards in areas where they wouldn't otherwise have been built. He e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19a9 Page 7 c e added that he does not believe there is sufficient evidence to justify banning EMCs entirely. Mr. Torrey cautioned the council that if the Planning Commission proceeds with the proposed moratorium on billboards, it runs the risk of a proliferation of small billboards. Any sign that is under the 200- square-foot limit that defines a sign as a billboard would be legally allowed. Randy Thwing, no address given, concurred with Mr. Torrey and added that the Planning Commission, as a public body, should have this issue reviewed by the public. Bernard Conklin, 2650 Balfour Street, testified against the proposed moratorium. Mr. Conklin noted that the Planning Commission is offering its own bias towards banning such signs, and information regarding flashing signs as safety hazards is not sufficient to warrant such an extreme action. There being no more requests to speak, Mr. Miller closed the public hearing. Mr. Bennett requested a response from staff regarding the validity of claims stating that imposing this moratorium on billboards would result in the proliferation of small billboards. Ms. Miller responded that if the proposed moratorium were enacted, it would be legal under current legislation to put up any sign under the 200 square foot limit. Nancy Nathanson, Planning Commission President, said that although the Planning Commission is concerned with the proliferation of small billboards, it has not reached an effective solution. e Responding to Mr. Torrey's comments regarding the number of remaining, usable billboard spaces, Mr. Rutan said that because most of the remaining locations are taken, future billboard construction will be located on arterials and streets with less traffic and poor visibility. Mr. Holmer said that the Planning Commission has had ample time to prepare an ordinance that will be acceptable to all parties involved and urged the council not to adopt the moratorium. Mr. Green said that because billboards and EMCs are viable tools for business in the downtown area, he cannot support this proposed moratorium. He added that the timing of this moratorium is poor, in light of the recently erected Hult Center EMC. Ms. Ehrman supported Mr. Green's position on the grounds that proliferation of billboard requests that came as a result of the proposed moratorium eradicates any need to ban such signs. Mr. Boles also offered his support to this position. In agreement with Mr. Torrey, Mr. Boles said that the proliferation of mini-billboards is likely, should this moratorium be put into effect. He added that the definition of billboard should be changed immediately, if possible, to include these mini-billboards. Mr. Bennett asked whether the Planning Commission can include mini-billboards in its request for a proposed moratorium. Ms. Miller responded that the concern over the proliferation of mini-billboards was not raised until recently, and this issue will have to be addressed in the Sign Code update. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 8 . Ms. Nathanson said that although the Planning Commission is concerned with the proliferation of such mini-billboards, it has not found a way to regulate such signs. She added that the commission plans to hold one more public hearing on the Sign Code update because of the numerous changes that have been made to the existing code since the initial hearing. She noted that the Planning Commission has been dealing with a number of issues beyond that of the Sign Code update, which has affected its ability to deal with the update in a timely manner. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Ms. Nathanson said that the commission was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the existing Sign Code for the dual purpose of bringing it into compliance with new laws and bringing it up to date with current technology. Mr. Bennett expressed extreme concern for the proliferation of mini-billboards and said that he would like to find some way to address this issue. Mr. Rutan responded that the leasing of billboards is a very competitive business, and if there was going to be an additional flood of permits, it would have already happened. He said that the issue of mini-billboards should be considered under an extensive review of the Sign Code. Ms. Bascom said that, on the basis of public testimony, she believes the council should abandon the issue of a moratorium. She added that she is highly concerned with the issue of visual clutter but felt that this is a separate issue. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the council drop e the issue of a moratorium. Ms. Schue said that although public testimony was of the opinion that a moratorium was not needed, she is concerned about the increase of any more billboards. She stressed that if the moratorium does have an effect, it will be for the better and she urged the council to vote against the motion. Mr. Bennett said he would like to exempt the Hilton's billboard from the moratorium in order to be consistent with previous support the council has given. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to substitute his motion for Ms. Bascom's motion that the council approve a moratorium on all billboards for a period of 90 days, to change the definition of billboard to include signage over 100 square feet, and to exclude the application for billboard at the Eugene Hilton from this moratorium. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; the motion failed, 3:4, with councilors Bennett, Schue, and Boles voting in favor; and councilors Rutan, Green, Bascom, and Holmer voting against. Ms. Bascom's motion passed, 4:3, with councilors Rutan, Bascom, Holmer, and Green voting in favor; and councilors Bennett, Schue, and Boles voting against. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 9 ~ -.- . IV. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS IN THE RIVER ROAD AREA Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced this topic. Teresa Bishow gave a brief staff report. Mr. Miller opened the public hearing. Wanda Simmons, no address given, although absent, had indicated her intention to speak against the proposed amendment schedule. There being no more requests to speak, Mr. Miller closed the public hearing. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to amend the adopted City of Eugene Capital Improvement Program concerning the construction of sewers in the River Road Area. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. V. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING GAS FITTER LICENSING PROVISIONS Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. Greta Utecht reported that it is the recommendation of the Planning and Development Department that the ordinance be repealed for the following reasons: the e City is currently duplicating a State-licensing process for many of the people doing this work and as of January 1, 1990, the State Construction Contractors Board will require all general and specialty contractors to be licensed, which will encompass the remainder of the gas fitters in the community who are not currently licensed by the State; no problems have been noted in the 4.5 years that the City has established the licensing procedures; the costs incurred for monitoring licensing is high; and by regulating the industry, the City takes on the responsibility for its activities. Ms. Utecht indicated that members of this industry support this recommendation. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4179--An ordinance concerning gas fitter licensing provisions; amending Sections 3.0005 and 8.200 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 3.182, 3.183, 3.184, and 3.185 of that Code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by - MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 19&9 Page 10 r; e council bill number only and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4179 was read the second time by number only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; a 11 councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance Number 19649). VI. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING DRUG PARAPHERNALIA Assistant Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic and noted that the passage of a State statute has rendered this ordinance unnecessary. Mayor Miller opened the public hearing. There being no requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. CB 4180--an ordinance concerning drug paraphernalia; amending Section 3.0005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 3.300, 3.302, 3.304, 3.306, 3.308, 3.310, 3.312, and 3.314 of that Code; and declaring an emergency. e Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4180 was read the second time by number only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; a 11 councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance Number 19650). IX. RESOLUTION PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. Res. No. 4149--A resolution authorizing the issuance and sale 4/5.3 of limited tax bond anticipation notes, Series 1989-B, in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 for the purpose of providing funds for interim financing of improvements within local improvement districts. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 11 . Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. X. ORDINANCE TO AMEND REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC FUND TITLES IN THE CITY CODE Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. CB 4173--An ordinance concerning City funds; amending Sections 2.153, 2.403, 2.413, 2.555, 2.560, 2.567, 2.575, 2.580, 2.582, 2.642, 2.644, 2.646, 2.648, 3.794, 3.798,7.025, 7.060, 7.195, 7.245, and 7.543 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 2.529, 2.565, and 2.570 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at the time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. CB 4173 was read the second time by number only. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; a 11 councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance number 19651). XI. ORDINANCE TO ANNUALLY ESTABLISH NAMES OF COMBINED FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. CB 4182--An ordinance identifying City of Eugene fund numbers and titles for Fiscal Year 1989-90; confirming the procedure for establishment of funds in future fiscal years; repealing any resolutions or ordinances in conflict; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. CB 4182 was read for the second time by council bill number only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 1989 Page 12 - Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; a 11 councilors voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance number 19652). Mayor Millor adjourned the meeting of the City Council and convened a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency. IX. RESOLUTION TO ANNUALLY ESTABLISH NAMES OF COMBINED FUNDS FOR THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow introduced the topic. Res. No. 942--A resolution to establish names of combined funds for the Urban Renewal Agency for FY90 and annually thereafter with the adoption of the Annual Appropriation Act. Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Bennett, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the City Council. e At 10:25 p.m., the meeting adjourned to November 22, 1989. (Recorded by Traci Northman) MNCC 112089-730 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 20, 198~ Page 13 ,;