Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/1982 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chambers January 27, 1982 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Gretchen Miller, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Brian Obie. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Minutes Productivity Councilor Lindberg stated that the council had received a memo from the City Manager regarding an effort to improve productivity of meeting minutes and to try to make them briefer. There is a balance between the uses of the minutes for an information tool and the cost of producing them. He would hope that shortening the minutes would be done on an experimental basis so staff can make 4It a decision in six months. Mr. Gleason responded that that is correct. B. Cable Franchise/Rate Increase Discussion Mr. Hamel stated that tomorrow would be the last meeting for the cable franchise negotiations and there will likely be some changes in the franchise. These will come back to the council for action. Ms. Wooten asked if the commission would be voting on the rate increase request tomorrow. Mr. Hamel responded that they would. Ms. Wooten asked what the process is for the public to provide input on the audit. She also asked if this information can be made available to the council. Mr. Hamel stated that the negotiated agreements cannot be made public until tomorrow. The negotiations have been held in closed sessions. Keith Martin, City Attorney, and Kent Gorham, City Manager's Office, have been doing the negotiations for the Cable Commission with a representative from Springfield and Teleprompter. The sub- stance of the negotiations will be made public tomorrow. Ms. Wooten asked if the City's representative would be voting in favor of the increase rate. Mr. Hamel stated that public access has been a big issue in the franchise negotia- tions as has improvements in service. They are hoping for additional channels in the basic service. Ms. Wooten stated that unless the level of service is commensurate with the industry thoroughout the rest of the country, she would not favor the rate increase. Mr. Hamel stated that there really are no "industry e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 1 e e e standards. II Every city and state is different. The Cable Commission is creating its own standards. He thinks people will be more satisfied than previously. Mayor Keller added that the council is one of the three final voices. All three jurisdictions must approve the franchise amendments and that will allow public input. Mr. Haws asked how this will be brought before the council procedurally. Mr. Hamel stated that the commission will vote tomorrow and then the three juris- dictions will vote. Mr. Haws asked if there will be another public hearing before the City Council prior to this being voted on and how it will be done. Mr. Hamel responded that he is not sure. It will be up to the council to make the decision on the franchise. Mr. Gleason added that after the commission makes their position public, there will be a formal public hearing and then the recommendation is made to the governing bodies. The governing bodies then examine the recommendation and it is up to the three agencies in separate meetings to determine what will occur. So, there will be four more public hearings. Mr. Haws asked if there would be another City Council public hearing on this matter. Carol Baker, City Manager's Office, stated that the commission has the authority to set the rates, but their decision will reflect the nego- tiated package of the service changes. Any changes in the franchise would have to be acted on by the City Council. The public hearing could be held at that time. A public hearing on the rate increase has been held. After tomorrow's report is in, there will be another public hearing. Mr. Haws asked if the council disagrees with the commission's position, if they will be able to change the position. Ms. Baker responded that the rate decision is the purview of the commission and the franchise changes are the decision of the individual jurisdictions. Mr. Haws asked if that has to be voted on at the next commis- sion meeting. Ms. Baker responded that the franchise requires that after Teleprompter makes its rate request of the commission, the commission must make a decision within 90 days or Teleprompter will automatically gain the request. The 29th of January is the 90th day. So, they must make a decision or the rate request will be granted. They could, however, ask Teleprompter to extend the deadline and they might be able to negotiate that. Mr. Gleason added that the council created the commission and delegated the rate setting to them. The contractual franchise agreement was not delegated and the rates are being negotiated. The commission is trying to re-establish the contractual standards. The council will deliberate on a franchise contractual relationship with the provider and the City of Eugene, as will Lane County and Springfield. He thinks it would take an amendment in the intergovernmental agreement to take over the authority of rate setting. Mr. Haws asked what would happen if everyone voted no on the rate request. Mr. Gleason stated that the rates would then not increase. Mr. Haws stated that if the commission voted no, they could change their minds, but if they voted yes, they could not. Les Swanson, City Attorney, stated that tomorrow the commission will meet on rate setting and decide whether or not to increase the rates. If the rates are increased, that could be contingent upon certain changes in the franchise relationship. Then, the council would be able to decide on the conditions and there would be a public hearing so that input could be received. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 2 e e e The commission does have the authority to set the rates. Councilors who are interested in this issue should contact either commission members or Keith Martin and let their views be known so they can be taken into consideration. The structure of the decision may make the decision on whether the council has anything to say about it. Mr. Haws stated that approving or denying the rate increase may do away with the leverage for the other things desired. Mr. Swanson agreed that the commission may not just say lIyes" or "noll on the rate increase. They could impose conditions which may require changes in the franchise. Mr. Haws asked how much leeway there is and if the commission could require, as a condition, that the council hold a public hearing. Ms. Baker stated that three things are being dealt with: goal-setting, the three-year review, and the rate increase. The rates and services will be considered in the negotiations for the rate increase. Tomorrow's report will be a large determining factor as to whether the commission approves the rate request. Conditions could be put upon the rate request approval. Ms. Miller asked if audits have been made public. Ms. Baker responded that they have. This occurred after the last public hearing. Copies have been made available at the meetings, in the City Manager's Office, and announced in the newspaper. Ms. Wooten asked what would happen if one agency did not approve the request if the rate increase is contingent upon issues dealing with the franchise. She asked if it would take two votes to deny the increase. Mr. Swanson responded that all jurisdictions must concur unanimously with any changes in the fran- chise. Ms. Wooten stated that if the negotiated package is made available tomorrow to the commission, a public hearing is held, then the decision is to be made, she sees that as a short time to get public input regarding the ser- vices and programs or justification of the rate request. Ms. Baker stated that the commission had been working on this since last May. They have formed three subcommittees: 1) Franchise fee; 2) Public Access; and 3) Programming and Services. Many citizens have been involved; all their input has been consid- ered. There has been an extensive amount of public involvement. Ms. Wooten noted appreciation for the opportunities there have been for involvement, but she is concerned that the package delivery may fall short and not merit the rate increase. She asked if there would be a greater level of funding available for public access than that proposed originally by Teleprompter. Ms. Baker said that that is one item in the negotiations. Mr. Hamel added that the commission is being "hard-nosed," and they will not be satisfied with past performances. They will be working for the dollar1s worth. This process began in January 1981. Ms. Baker stated that the commission has a history of not approving rate increases. No increases have been approved in six years. Mr. Haws stated that they seem to have nothing to lose if they vote yes. He asked what there is to be lost if they vote no. Ms. Baker responded that they might lose public access, better programming, and improvements to the system. Mr. Haws asked if Teleprompter would come back and ask for a rate increase again if it were denied. Ms. Baker responded that they probably would. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 3 e Haws stated that he does not see what harm there would be if the commission voted no and changed their minds after the public hearing. Mr. Gleason stated that the negotiations are occurring in good faith under an intergovernmental agreement. The council as a whole has not taken a position for service improve- ments. If improvements can be achieved, then the decision will be shared between the commission and the agencies. e Ms. Miller stated that her concern is not with the content of the agreement, since that is unknown, but rather that it seems unfair to announce what it will be with no time for public input. They could impose conditions so that the agencies could have public hearings. Many people are upset with this major issue; they are also frustrated without knowing what is being considered. Perhaps the council should have been involved sooner. Mr. Swanson assured Ms. Miller that he has heard the council IS concern. Although he is not sure just what can be done, he will take those concerns to Mr. Martin this after- noon. Ms. Wooten added to Ms. Miller's statement that she agrees with Mr. Haws. In order to protect the ability to further negotiate, it would be helpful if the commission voted no. Mayor Keller stated that the purpose for establish- ment of the commission was because the council did not want that level of involvement. Before too much more is said, background information is needed. Ms. Wooten stated that there would be opportunity for that if the increase were denied. Ms. Schue stated that it is one thing to tie the rate increase to the franchise changes but she does not like denying the increase in order to keep the City's options open. However, she would like to look at the whole package. Mr. Hamel stated that the City Council does not have jurisdiction to control the rate increase. What the commission decides will be up to the commission. There will be opportunities to review the franchise. Ms. Smith stated that even though the commission has the right to decide, this input should be conveyed to the City Attorney. The City Council does not have the responsibility, but they do have a high degree of concern and would like further input and a report back. She cautioned staff not to ignore the concerns of the council. Ms. Miller asked Mr. Hamel to convey the council IS comments to the commission. Mr. Hamel stated that he would. Ms. Baker added that she had just talked with Mr. Gorham and had delivered the message. C. Clean-Up Project Ms. Schue requested that a letter be sent to Eugene Action Forum and Sigma Nu Fraternity thanking them for cleaning up the entrance to the city on 1-5 and Franklin Boulevard. D. Letter To Congressional Delegation Ms. Schue stated that she had received a letter from the president of the Federal University Professors regarding the proposed Federal cuts in student loans. She asked the council to support the concerns by being a co-signer on a letter to the Oregon Congressional Delegation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 4 e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to add the council as co-signature on a letter to the Oregon Congressional Delegation regarding the proposed cutback in the student loan program at the University of Oregon. Mayor Keller stated that copies of this letter were sent to Senators Packwood and Hatfield. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Bar Poll Questionnaire e Ms. Miller stated that the proposed bar poll questionnaire regarding the munici- pal judge evaluation had been sent out in last Friday's packets. She is still working on this and would like the councilors' input soon. F. City Council Subcommittee on Economic Development Ms. Wooten stated that she would be attending a meeting of this group on February 10 and would be making a presentation to the council on their progress, which she feels is significant. G. Contract Negotiations With Bonneville Power Authority Ms. Wooten stated that she had invited Jean Reeder, Conservation Director, EWEB, to appear before the council and make a presentation on conservation, buybacks, and contract negotiations with Bonneville Power Authority. She will be making her presentation February 10, 1982. H. Appointments Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the following appointments to the Performing Arts Commission: Sue Thorson Keene, 3260 Storey, Eugene, 97405, for a term to expire January 1, 1983; Kitty Meyer, 3750 Vine Maple, Eugene, 97405, for a term to expire January 1, 1984; and Roland F. Gnose, 2223 Olive, Eugene, 97405, for a term to expire January 1, 1986. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. I. Revised Agenda Mr. Gleason noted that the council was operating today with a revised agenda. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of January 13, 1982; Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of January 20, 1982; (distributed) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the City Council minutes of January 13, 1982, and the Legislative Sub- committee minutes of January 20, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 5 e e - B. Payment of Bills and Claims (distributed) Res. No. 3623--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period January 20, 1982, through January 27, 1982. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Amendment to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Inter- governmental Agreement (memo, addendum distributed) Res. No. 3624--A resolution authorizing substitution of addendum to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Intergovernmental Agreement approved by Res. No. 3615 on December 16, 1981. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Code Amendments re: Zoning Ordinance: 1) AG Agricultural Zoning District Uses (CA 81-1); 2) General Provisions: Performance Standards (CA 81-2); 3) M-1, M-2, and M-3 Industrial Zoning District Uses (CA 81-3); 4) Floodway Use Provisions (CA 81-4); 5) Residential Site Review, Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit Pro- visions (CA 81-5); 6) Controlled Income and Rent Housing Provisions (CA 81-6); and 7) Planned Unit Development Findings (CA 81-7) (memo and background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning. Mr. Chenkin stated that this is the first of two installments which are part of the acknowledgment process of the Metro Plan by LCDC. LCDC pointed out areas in the Zoning Ordinance which need to be changed. The Planning Department has also prepared a Zoning Ordinance Update Status memo for the council, and Mr. Chenkin will be present at the February 10, 1982, meeting, if the council wants to ask questions. Item 1 would remove non-agricultural uses from the AG district. Item 2 referred to emission standards for noise, standards for heat, etc.. Existing standards are obsolete and difficult to enforce or explain. The staff has tried to update them according to present technology and Federal and State statutes when possible. The only real item of discussion at the Planning Commission level was noise emission standards. Joyce Owens, a citizen, complained about a heat pump noise in her residential district. She has talked with Terry Smith, Public Works. The updated standards would help her. Mr. Chenkin stated that there are some references to the I-I district which does not yet exist. Either the council can approve this today or they can remove references to the 1-1 zoning. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 6 e e e No.3 removes references to commercial uses in industrial districts. Those that exist would be allowed to continue in business and could rebuild or expand. It is advisable to protect existing businesses. Certain non-industrial uses, when they provide services to industrial uses, would be allowed; e.g., banks, restau- rants, gas stations, etc. No.5 replaces subjective with objective approval criteria. The provisions of No.6 are rarely used, but they should be updated and keyed to State and Federal requirements. No.7 would not allow PUDs in areas of unique vegetation or open space if alternative buildable areas are available on particular sites. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, Eugene, stated there are two elements that he had a con- cern with. One is modifications to performance standards in the 1-1 District and recommended standards. Testimony has been submitted on behalf of Cone-Breeden, Spectra-Physics, and the West Terry Street site. The report was distributed December 14, 1981. A portion of that report dealt with this topic. He distrib- uted copies. Performance standards require that certain emissions be confined to within boundaries in the 1-1 district. They have concerns about such a restrictive emission standard. It was assumed that the I-I areas would be attractive to high technology uses and the high standards would be necessary to attain the desired environment. However, this was not verified by direct contact with industry. They urged the special 1-1 restrictions not be adopted. Their concerns are that it would impose exceedingly high expense without cor- responding benefits. Standards this high have been used in only a limited number of jurisdictions. Sometimes it would be impossible to meet these stan- dards if they were rigorously applied. They also introduce a major element of uncertainty. It does not state what technology would be required; Mr. Saul suggested that there be a provision for pre-clearance review. If adopted, this restrictive 1-1 standard could place Eugene at a competitive disadvantage within the state since no other jurisdictions have similar standards. Since it will cost more, then why would people build in Eugene? When the Planning Commission reviewed the 1-1 district, it had not recommended changes to performance stan- dards for the 1-1 district. Instead, they saw them later. Mr. Saul urged limiting emissions to the property of origin in the 1-1 district. That was the standard required of Spectra-Physics when it located here. That would provide consistency with other industrial district performance standards as being proposed. Mr. Saul stated that the second element of concern is that dealing with Item 6. He represented the Lane County Housing Authority on their project at 38th and Hilyard. It was approved by the Hearings Official January 25, 1982. The present code is complex and cumbersome. There were 24 criteria they had to meet. There is substantial overlap between this set of criteria and those criteria imposed for that project, but they are worded differently. He would urge adoption of the proposed changes provided it does not have an effect on the LCHA current project. An appeal could be filed and they are concerned that they will be held up, being heard again under different standards. They want to MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 7 e e e ensure adoption of the revised standards, but they would like to see the motion include language exempting the current project at 38th and Hilyard. He distrib- uted draft suggested language. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Saul what the final recommendation was on the performance standards. Mr. Saul responded that it is to apply the same performance stand- ards in I-I as in other industrial zones. Ms. Schue asked if this could be considered when the I-I zoning comes up. Mr. Chenkin responded that it could. But, if council desires, they could also include in the motion tonight that any reference to I-I zoning be deleted. It is a policy decision for the council to make. In Item 6, their intent was to consol idate rather than to make more stringent or rigorous conditions. He would suggest that the City Attorney review Mr. Saul's suggested wording to make sure that the intent is met. Regarding all seven items, a detailed report was received from LCDC as to where they saw problems. LCDC staff worked with staff to overcome the problems that the LCDC board had. Their staff said that these changes would work. Ms. Schue asked who was responsible for the proposal to impose special emission levels for the I-I district. Mr. Chenkin responded it was a staff proposal but of course the final decision is up to the council. Mr. Hamel asked if the heat pump situation noted earlier was in a residential or commercial zone. Mr. Chekin stated that it was in a residential area. Ms. Smith added that there have been other concerns expressed about heat pumps, and she is glad to see there may be some protective measures. She asked if the I-I district could be excluded for now. She is concerned about imposing highly restrictive emission standards and about the City's image. She would not want the City to appear negative. She suggested holding off on that part. Mr. Chenkin stated that they could delete that section for now and if it becomes a problem later, staff can bring back the amendment at that time. The proposed performance standards should provide adequate safeguards. Ms. Miller indicated agreement with Mr. Chenkin's statement, and noted that she would like to see special enforcement created. However, she would not want to see things made more difficult for those trying to comply. She is concerned about people taking advantage of the lack of restrictions. She requested that staff "keep an eye" on this item. Regarding No.3, Mayor Keller added that existing businesses today are allowed the opportunity to expand on the property they own. He asked what would happen if they needed additional adjacent land at a later time and how these regulations would apply in that case. Mr. Chenkin stated that the language is intended to exempt existing businesses from non-conforming provisions, but they might not be able to expand onto another piece of property on a different ownership. He does not feel this would be much of a problem with the kinds of businesses that now exist. Mr. Swanson indicated that this could be checked out. Ms. Wooten suggested possible postponement of the final consideration of No.2 until they can look at the Special Light Industrial District package. Ms. Smith suggested postponing only the one section on separate standards for I-I issues and bringing it back later for a review. Mayor Keller stated that unless the council felt strongly about putting more restrictive standards in I-I areas, they could deal with it today. He would think it unfortunate if Eugene were stricter than other areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 8 e e e Mr. Lindberg expressed concern about the Federal government's current relaxa- tion of their emission standards. He asked how the City's standards would differ from the Federal government's. Mr. Chenkin stated that if the City is more restrictive than the Federal or state governments, then the City's standards would prevail. Mr. Lindberg asked what is happening on the State level. Terry Smith, Public Works, stated that changes at the State level have more to do with enforcement than changes in standards. One change is with pure tones and noise. Staff would prefer it if Eugene's standards were like the State's because we will have to do the enforcement. LRAPA enforces here and would have to agree to relax their standards also. Federal and State governments have relaxed the amount of acceptable ozone level, but LRAPA has refused. Mr. Lindberg asked whether the City will have to start enforcing since the State's ability to enforce is lessened. Mr. Smith responded that is likely. Performance standards can be required at the time of attaining a building permit. Mr. Lindberg stated that he certainly does not want the City to end up with no standards. Ms. Wooten also expressed concern about Federal relaxation of emission requirements. She would like to take another look at the entire package. Mr. Gleason, observing the direction expressed by the majority of the council, stated that in Council Bill 2412, references to separate I-I performance standards would be removed. CB 2411--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Sections 9.296 and 9.298 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency (CA 81-1). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2411 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18914. CB 2412--An ordinance concerning zoning ordinance performance standards; amending Sections 2.370, 2., 9.254, 9.450, 9.464, 9.470, and 9.710 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing present Sections 9.636, 9.638, 9.640, 9.642, 9.644, 9.646, 9.650, 9.652, 9.654, 9.656, and 9.658 of that code; adding new Sections 9.636, 9.640, 9.642, 9.644, 9.646, 9.648, 9.650, 9.652, 9.654, 9.656, 9.658, 9.660, and 9.662 to that code; and declaring an emergency (CA 81-2). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 9 e Council bill 2412 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18915. CB 2413--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Sections 9.450, 9.452, 9.464, 9.466, 9.470, 9.474, and 9.702 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emer- gency (CA 81-3). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2413 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18916. - CB 2414--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Section 9.254 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending the caption preceding Section 9.604 of that code; adding a new Section 9.607 to that code; and declaring an emer- gency (CA 81-4). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2414 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18917. CB 2415--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Sections 9.268, 9.508, 9.512, 9.550, and 9.688 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency (CA 81-5, CA 81-7). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 10 Council bill 2415 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18918. CB 2416--An ordinance concerning zoning regulations; amending Sections 9.254 and 9.724 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency (CA 81-6). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Saul's request regarding No.6 (CB 2416) is to be included. Mr. Swanson stated that he would not suggest making it a part of the code at this time since he has not had the opportunity to review it. A procedural discussion followed. Ms. Schue affirmed that it was her intent to have it included in the motion, not the Code. Ms. Miller asked if all old applications should proceed under the old rules. She would hope that no one would intend to change the rules during the process. Mayor Keller noted agreement. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council bill 2416 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18919. Easement Vacation of a Public Utility Easement Located East of Norkenzie, On the North Side of Jeppesen Avenue (Michael Hopkinson) (EV 81-8) (map and background information distributed) B. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2417--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a seven-foot public utility easement located east of Norkenzie, on the north side of Jeppesen Avenue. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2417 was read the second time by council bill number only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 11 e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18920. C. Supplemental Budget--Fiscal Year 1982-83 (memo, listing distributed) Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason stated that the supplemental budget was approved by the Budget Committee on January 19, 1982. CB 2418--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1981, and ending June 30, 1982, and declaring an emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Council bill 2418 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18921. The meeting was adjourned. 4It Respectfully submitted, e (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:pm/CM7b19 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 12