Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/1982 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 15, 1982 11 :45 a.m. \ COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Gretchen Miller. 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. Feeding of Pigeons on the Downtown Mall Councilor Wooten said that she had received a number of calls from citizens, particularly seniors, who were upset about signs that had recently been posted on the mall in the Olive Street and Broadway area asking that people not feed the pigeons. She asked staff to investigate the matter, determine who had put up the signs and why, and report back to her. City Manager Micheal Gleason said e staff would respond. B. Councilor Hamel's Retirement from Service on the Council Councilor Hamel said this would be his last council meeting after eight years of service on the council. He thanked his constituents in Ward 5, the citizens of Eugene, and his fellow councilors for their support during his term. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Hamel for his service and noted that Mr. Hamel would be honored at future events for his service to the City. C. Removal of Food Grills at Skinner Butte Park Councilor Lindberg said he had been contacted by citizens who were concerned with the recent removal of food grills from the picnic area at Skinner Butte Park. He asked staff to investigate the matter and report back to him. Mr. Gleason said staff would respond. D. Appointments 1. Consideration of nominees to Vagrancy Task Force (memo distributed) Councilor Lindberg thanked the council for its support of the formation of a Vagrancy Task Force and presented a slate of nominees he and Mayor Keller recommended for appointment to the task force. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 1 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to appoint to the Vagrancy Task Force Marie Fink, Anita Larson, Bill Uhlhorn, and Ernie Unger, representing Human Serice Providers; Richard Skeie, Jon - Stafford, and John Van Landingham, representing City boards and commissions; Richard Guske, representing neighborhoods; and Mark Lindberg, chairperson, representing the City Council. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Consideration of Budget Committee appointments for Wards 2, 3, and 7 (memos distributed) Mr. Lindberg moved, seconded by Mr. Ob ie, to appoi nt Alan Contreras, 735 East 22nd Avenue, to the Ward 3 position on the Budget Committee, term to expire December 31, 1985. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to reappoint Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, to the Ward 7 position on the Budget Committee, term to expire December 31, 1985. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to appoint Akin Blitz, 2111 University Street, to the Ward 2 position on the Budget Committee, term to expire December 31, 1985. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3. Balloting for Planning Commission appointment Council President Obie reported that balloting for the Planning Commission e opening had resulted in a tie, with four votes for H. Thomas Andersen and four votes for Peter Thompson. He said that the council had agreed in the case of a repeat of a previous tie vote to ask Mayor Keller to interview both candidates and break the tie. Mayor Keller said that staff would schedule the interviews for the following week and that he would notify councilors of his decision during the council's recess. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Consideration of City Council minutes of: regular meetings of November 10 and November 17; work session of November 15, 1982; special meeting of November 22, 1982 (minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve City Council minutes of November 10,15,17, and 22,1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 2 III. PUBLIC HEARING re: APPEAL OF CONSTRUCTION CODE BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 544 WEST 20TH AVENUE (Paul Farrar) (memo; - additional information, including findings, distributed) Mr. Gleason asked councilors in their consideration of this item to treat code enforcement issues as a matter separate from the code interpretations issues raised in the appeal. He reminded councilors that they had recently authorized staff to work on changes in the Housing Code and possible integration of that code with building inspection. He said the technical points of the appeal must be resolved at the council hearing and recommended that the council confine its deliberations to these technical points, since a recommendation on the code issue would soon be coming before the council. Mr. Gleason introduced Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection. Mr. Reed said he was present on behalf of the administration of the Construction Code Board of Appeals, of which he was Administrative Secretary. Mr. Reed said that in response to a complaint from a tenant at 544 West 20th Avenue, the Department of Housing and Community Conservation (HCC) had inspected the dwelling at that address and had sent a notice to the owner, Paul Farrar, of violations of code found during the inspection. He said that an administrative hearing on the matter had been held through HCC. He said the second step in the appeals process had involved a hearing before the Construction Code Board of Appeals. Mr. Reed said that three of the points of the original inspection report were still under appeal by the property owner and had been appealed to the City Council. Mr. Reed said the the Eugene Housing Code was based on the 1973 edition of the Uniform Housing Code and provided for retroactive applica- tion of standards to existing buildings. He said that the standards of the Housing Code were generally lower than those for new construction. e Regarding the appeal of Item 4 of the original inspection report, Mr. Reed said staff believes that the point is moot. Staff felt the Construction Code Board of Appeals was well within its authority in its decision, based on concerns for safe and sanitary conditions, in its determination on this item. Mr. Reed read the text of the board's determination from the staff report of October 12, 1982. He said that inspection of the dwelling subsequent to the board's hearing showed that the kitchen drain in question was not a hazard. He said staff therefore recommended that the council uphold the staff finding that the drain was not a health hazard. Regarding the appeal of Item 12 of the original inspection report, Mr. Reed said the matter dealt with requirements for equal run and rise in stairs to prevent a trip-and-fall hazard. He said that the Eugene Building Code has continuously had these requirements (i.e., run and rise) since 1940 and that the stairs in question were therefore not built to code standards. Mr. Reed said staff recom- mended that the council follow the second option presented on page 10 of the City of Eugene Fact Sheet (prepared Novembe~ 8, 1982), which had previously been distributed to councilors. He said this action would allow the stairs to remain as presently constructed if the owner installs and maintains an additional code-complying handrail (one on each side of stairs). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Reed read from the October 12, 1982, report of the Construction Code Board of Appeals regarding Item 14 of the original inspection report. He also read from the minutes of the board's September 27,1982, hearing. He said that the e matter had to deal with the 5111" door openings to upstairs bedrooms in the dwelling. He said the board had ruled that the door height must be increased to correspond with the ceiling height allowed under another appeal, Item 13. He said under Item 13 the board had allowed continuance of a substandard ceiling height. He said unfortunately the board and staff had not realized that there was a built-in conflict between the adopted standard related to this item as described in the lCBO Housing Code and that in the adopted City Code. Mr. Reed said that in 1940 there was no standard door height requirement. He referred to application of code requirements at the time of construction and said that since there were none the doors at the time of construction conformed with applicable law. He noted that the bedrooms, however, did not comform with ceiling height requirements in the Eugene Building Code at the time of construction. Mr. Reed said staff recommended that the council follow Option 1 presented on page 5 of the November 8, 1982, fact sheet and refer the matter back to the Construction Code Board of Appeals, based on the newly discovered facts. Public hearing was opened. Mayor Keller noted that the procedure to be followed for the hearing would include testimony by the appellants, those supporting the appeal, those opposing the appeal, staff comments, and final comments from the appellant. Pat Vallerand, 767 Willamette Street, Suite 302, said she was representing Mr. Farrar in his appeal and noted that this hearing represented the third step in the appeal process. She said that because this was an appeal of contested matter, the due process of constitutional law would apply, including the right e of the appellant or his attorney to crossexamine witnesses. She concurred with the City Manager's suggestion that discussion of the appeal be limited to the facts related to this case and not to the larger code issues. She asked that the record reflect that supplementary materials received by the council are a part of the official record. She said her client would speak for himself, but noted that she had worked with him on the legal points he would be making in his testimony and believed these points were legally accurate. Paul Farrar, 23348 South Central Point Road, Canby, Oregon 97013, referred to the technical issues covered in a folder of materials which he had distributed to councilors. He noted that material on the right side of the folder included fact sheets with evidence related to his appeal and a proposed motion for consideration by the council. He said material on the left side represented evidence not included in materials previously provided to the council by staff. Regarding the appeal on Item 4 of the HCC inspection report, Mr. Farrar said he was in agreement with staff's remarks on the item and therefore asked the council to dismiss the complaint. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 4 Regarding Item 14, dealing with the heights of doorways to upstairs bedrooms, Mr. Farrar presented photographs of the doorways and noted in reference to one e photograph that the doorway was to an original bedroom, not a later conversion. He noted that a previous owner, Jerome Kramer, had, in 1961, raised the roof of the upstairs to expand bedroom area. Mr. Farrar felt that changing the heights of the bedroom doorways would necessitate major construction. He said it was a fact that the doorways complied with applicable laws governing doorway height at the time of construction, since there were no applicable laws. Mr. Farrar noted that City staff had concurred that there were no such applicable laws. Regarding staff.s suggestion that the matter referred back to the Construction Code Board of Appeals, Mr. Farrar said that this matter had already been drawn out long enough. He said he had filed his appeal on October 15. He said that he had received no rent on the dwelling since June 20, 1982. He said he had been holding the dwelling vacant since receipt of the inspection report, since the City insisted that life safety issues were involved in the matters cited in the inspection report. Mr. Farrar asked that the council dismiss Item 14 due to code considerations. Regarding Item 12, dealing with variance in stair rise heights, Mr. Farrar said he wished first to take issue with the facts in the complaint. He said that the top rise was 4" and that all other rises were 7-1/2", not 8" as stated in the HCC complaint report. Mr. Farrar said that the basis cited in the report for this item was Section 8.305(12) of the City.s Housing Code, dealing with exits. He said the code exempted buildings which complied with applicable laws at the time of construction. He said that at the time of construction there was no requirement. Mr. Farrar cited Section 1404 and Sections 3302, 3307, and 3314 of the 1943 Building Code. He said he believed that, under the provisions of these articles, the stairs were exempt from width, rise, tread, and enclosure e requirements. He noted that Building Code requirements permitted an 89-percent gradient. He said that the stairway in his building had a safer 75-percent gradient. Mr. Farrar said he believed that since his stairway complied with applicable codes at the time of construction, it should be allowed to continue. Mr. Farrar submitted an affidavit signed under oath by a previous owner, Jerome Kramer, who had remodeled the subject stairs to eliminate a previous 90-degree turn. In the affidavit, Mr. Kramer stated that the stair remodeling had been inspected before and after the remodeling. Mr. Kramer further stated that he had asked at the time of the remodeling whether the top half of the stairway had to be reconstructed and was told that it did not. Mr. Farrar said he had referred the complaint on the stairs to the State Construction Code Board of Appeals and that that board had denied jurisdiction on the basis that this was a Housing Code matter. Mr. Farrar gave information to support an estimate that the stairs in the house had had considerable use--90,OOO descendings--and that there was no evidence that any of these descendings had resulted in an accident. He proposed that the council move to dismiss this item. Mr. Farrar noted that he had, since the time of the HCC report, voluntarily installed a second handrail on the stairway. He submitted photographs of the stairway with the second handrail. tit MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 5 Donna Turring, 350 Ful-Vue, said she believed that Mr. Farrar's case was symptomatic of problems of other homes in Eugene, due to the work of the the HCC Department and the Building Division. She related the story of the owner of one . dwelling who paid a large sum to have all the complaints in one HCC inspection report corrected only to receive a second set of complaints when the first set of projects was reinspected. She felt that upgrading the City's housing stock was a good idea but not when it took on the proportions of harassment of home- owners. She discussed experience with the HCC Department designating ceiling heights as unsafe when the City and State Fire Marshals said that the ceilings were safe. She felt that City Building and Housing Codes need to be overhauled to provide for upgrading houses without condemning them. She also felt that the appeals process should be speeded up. She did not believe Mr. Farrar should have had to wait from July to December to have his problems resolved. Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, said she was supportive of Mr. Farrar's arguments. She said she had attended the Construction Code Board of Appeals hearing. She hoped that the council would decide in Mr. Farrar's favor. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, supported Mr. Farrar's appeal and felt that the appeal process should not have taken so long. She said that tall people learned to adapt to low door heights and that Mr. Farrar's low doors should not be considered a problem. She felt that City Codes should not require destruction of older houses. There being no further public testimony, Mayor Keller closed this portion of the public hearing, noting that staff would be allowed to respond to testimony and that the appellant would be allowed to rebut. Mr. Reed, referring to Mr. Farrar's comment that he had been holding the subject e property vacant, said that staff had never said that the property had to be kept vacant. He said the Code required only that prospective tenants or buyers be informed of the Code deviations. Regarding the consideration of the stairway, Mr. Reed said that the Code prior to 1960 has allowed only a 3/16" deviation in riser height. He noted that staff had suggested that, with the addition of the second handrail, the hazard would be mitigated. He did point out, however, that the recently installed handrail needed to be returned to the wall, so there was no trip-and-fall danger in catching or looping clothing over the exposed rail end. Mr. Reed said that most of the facts that Mr. Farrar had presented in his discussion of the upstairs bedroom doorway heights were accurate. Mr. Reed noted that the Construction Code Board of Appeals did not have the information on Code language conflict when it heard the appeal. Mr. Reed said that if the City Council felt that there was not a head knock hazard with the low door heights, it could resolve the matter without referring it back to the board. Mr. Farrar presented his rebuttal. He read a portion of page 7 of the minutes of the September 27,1982, Construction Code Board of Appeals hearing, containing reference to a statement by Building Division staff member Darrell Kahl which Mr. Farrar felt required him to keep the dwelling vacant. Mr. Farrar said that he had been in the process of evicting the tenant in the building at the time . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 6 that the HCC inspection was done. He said that he felt morally obligated to show the inspection report to any prospective tenant and that he had no desire to place any tenant in the middle of the struggle surrounding the dwelling. Mr. . Farrar cited the names of prospective tenants whom he had turned away as a result of the report and subsequent proceedings. He said that the report and subsequent appeal had cost him $5,000 so far and that he had $2,000 in unpaid bills. Public hearing was closed. Councilor Lindberg asked if the City would incur any liability by granting exemptions on the appeal items. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that the City could be liable if it acted negligently, but that if the action of the council was reasonable, there was little likelihood of a suit. Councilor Ball asked if Mr. Farrar was legally allowed to rent his dwelling during the appeal process. Mr. Sercombe said he was not sure, although Mr. Reed had indicated that the building could have been rented. Councilor Lindberg said that staff and the appellant seemed to agree on most points regarding the appeal. He suggested that the council approve the appellant's request. Councilor Ball asked if the height of the upstairs bedroom doorways could be raised without major structural change. He asked Mr. Reed if the center of the doorways could be raised, with the outside corners being allowed to follow the slope of the roof. Mr. Reed said that staff had examined the area over the doors and found that it was not load-bearing. Therefore there are no major e structural changes involved in raising the door heights. He felt that the slight diagonals in the corner would be acceptable. Councilor Ball felt that the existing 5111" height was not tall enough to prevent injury in an emergency. Councilor Schue said that she was glad to have had this illustration of the problems that exist between the Housing Code and landlords in the city. She said she had felt some reluctance regarding proposed changes to the Housing Code, but she agreed that the City should not be interfering by requiring non-essential processes on minor matters. Ms. Schue said that Mr. Farrar had presented an interpretation of what codes applied at the time of construction. She asked if City staff agreed with this interpretation. Mr. Reed said that staff did not agree with Mr. Farrar's interpretation that he was exempt from stair rise height requirements. Mr. Sercombe said that if the council asked questions of City staff after the public hearing was closed, the appellant should be allowed to comment on the staff response. Public hearing was reopened to allow rebuttal of the staff comment. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 7 Mr. Farrar said that he had drilled into the area over the upstairs bedroom doorway after he had read the staff response that this was not load-bearing. He said that the area over the doorway was solid, and he did not know whether e it was load-bearing. He said that four-inch headers were traditionally used over doorways below the ceiling. Mr. Farrar said there needed to be some way to hold the two sides of the door together either over the door or in the attic. He said he did not know what he would do if the council denied him relief on this item. He felt that the ordinance which the council had adopted exempted door heights which complied with requirements at the time they were built. Public hearing was again closed. Councilor Obie said he felt the issues involved in this case were minor and should not have had to be brought to the City Council for resolution. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to dismiss items 4, 12, and 14 of the report. Mr. Sercombe suggested that the motion be reworded to "allow the appeal". Mr. Obie amended the motion to allow the appeal on items 4, 12, and 14. Ms. Schue agreed to the amendment. A vote was taken on the amended motion. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Hamel, Lindberg, Obie, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Ball voting in opposition. e LANE COUNTY BOUNDARY COMMISSION'S APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT IV. RESOLUTI ON re: AND OPERATE A SEASONAL INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER FACILITY (memo, resolution, map distributed) Mr. Gleason said that council approval of this resolution would let the Lane County Boundary Commission rule on the requested permit. He noted that at a previous meeting councilors had asked why so many such permit referrals were needed. He said that a permit is needed each time an extraterritorial extension i s made. Councilor Wooten asked the status of the environmental impact statement for this project. Mr. Sercombe responded that the finding had been made in August 1982 that there was no significant impact. Councilor Obie asked if this was the project that held the danger of attracting waterfowl into the flight pattern range for Mahlon Sweet Airport. Mr. Gleason said that this was not the site with that problem, since solid matter on which waterfowl feed would be precipitated out before water is spread on this site. Public Works Director Don Allen said that another site, Site C, was the site where there was a potential problem with waterfowl near the airport. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 8 . Res. No. 3740--A resolution directing the City Manager to request the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission . to approve an extraterritorial extension of a seasonal industrial wastewater pipe line and to operate a seasonal industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. V. TRANSFER OF EIGHTH AVENUE AND HIGH STREET PROPERTY TO GENERAL GOVERNMENT USE (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason said staff believed that the 8th and High property should remain in the public domain even though the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) no longer needs it. He said that transfer of the property to the City would offer a possible future solution to City space needs and would help in efforts to maintain good relations with EWEB. He said that a formal study of the space needs of the City had been conducted in 1981, and that, while the council took no action on that study, the alternatives outlined in the report had served as the basis for current planning. He felt that the City would eventually need either the 8th and High property or property of similar size and location, even if only to address the needs of employee parking. He said that any future solution would be at least as expensive as the purchase of the 8th and High property. He said that if the council decides that the property is not needed for general purpose government, EWEB will presume that it may sell the property. e Mr. Gleason discussed relations between the City and EWEB. He noted that the council had sent a letter to the EWEB board two years ago in an effort to work out issues between the two bodies, and that the council had reaffirmed its commitment to improved relations at its October 1981 goals sessions. He said progress has been made in resolving the issues. He said the co-generation issue had been resolved with a benefit to the General Fund of $150,000 to $300,000 per year. He said that the water main charge issue had been resolved and that this would be transferred to the rate base of the enterprise through a transition process. He said that property issues had been resolved through agreement on market values. He said that the issue of the 8th and High property was not the same as the issue of the Gillespie Butte property, because the Gillespie Butte property is not currently being used by the City, and the 8th and High property is. Mr. Gleason strongly recommended that the council approve the resolution to retain the 8th and High property in the public ownership. He said that such action did not lock the council into building on the property or into keeping the property, which could be sold by the City if found surplus at a future date. Mr. Gleason acknowledged that the problem was one of timing. He realized that this was economically a bad time to bring such a proposal before the council but said he felt the issue had to be faced, nonetheless. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 9 I . Mayor Keller noted that although no public hearing was scheduled on this item, two citizens had requested opportunity to speak. Councilors agreed to hold a . brief hearing. Public hearing was opened. Tim Bloch, 1236 Willagillespie, represented the Committee to Preserve Gillespie Butte. He said that the Gillespie Butte property was a "profound spiritual resource II for the citizens of Eugene. He said that his committee was assembling suggestions on how the City might acquire the property. He suggested that EWEB might reconsider the City's purchase offer for this property. Bill Uhlhorn, said he was Director of Family Shelter House, 367 Highway 99 North. He felt that the staff suggestion of purchase of the 8th and High Street property should not circumvent the City's own capital improvement process. He said that a year ago he had asked that Family Shelter House be included in the CIP. He did not want the expenditure of 'funds for the 8th and High property to preclude his group's receiving City funds. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Councilor Wooten said she felt it was unfortunate that the City was forced to acquire the property now as part of the resolution of other issues with EWEB. She felt that acquisition of the property was a clear signal to citizens that the City will build a publiC service building. She objected to using revenue- sharing dollars for this purchase and bypassing the CIP public hearing process and referrals to the Budget Committee and the Downtown Commission. She felt e that if the City did decide to buy the property, the terms of the agreement I should be elongated. She felt that the Gillespie Butte issue had no direct bearing on the matter before the council at this time. She asked if the City of Eugene had to agree to sale of property by EWEB. Mr. Gleason said he shared Ms. Wooten's concerns. He said that he had brought this issue directly to the council, since councilors were the elected representa- tives of the owners of the property--the people of Eugene. He noted that if the council decides to make the purchase, payments would begin after the end of the current budget year. He said that the council was being asked to resolve the policy issue of whether this property should remain within the public domain. He said that the question of funding could still be referred to the Budget Committee. He pointed out that EWEB has a need to liquidate its assets. Councilor Obie agreed that the council was the proper agency to hear this matter. He agreed that the economic environment made this a difficult action to take. He said that the funding mechanism that had been offered was a good one and that it might not be available in the future. He felt that the decision had implications far into the future. He said that if the council put off the transaction, the option of using the property for the City would be lost and that alternatives would be costly. He said he was prepared to adopt the resolution. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 10 ~ . Councilor Lindberg said he would support the resolution, since he believed it offered a "win-win" solution for EWEB and the City. .- Councilor Ball asked how the 8th and High property had been appraised and noted that appraisals the City had used in past consideration of purchase of the Gillespie Butte property had been about 300 percent too high. Assistant City Manager David Whitlow responded that EWEB had had an independent appraisal done for the 8th and High property and that that appraisal had been reviewed by City staff. Councilor Ball said he felt comfortable with the policy issue on this matter but would also agree if other councilors felt the matter should be considered in other forums, such as the CIP process. Councilor Hamel said that the City had never made an offer for the Gillespie Butte property, since the Joint Parks Committee had not recommended purchase of the property. Councilor Smith said that even if the council approves the policy of the 8th and High purchase, the matter will be reviewed by the Budget Committee. Councilor Wooten suggested that the City take an option on purchase of the 8th and High property and reconsider the matter in several years. She felt that it might be wise for the City to acquire the property but not in what she considered a "back door" way. She said that she would oppose the resolution. Res. No. 3741--A resolution authorizing transfer of property on the south side of Eighth Avenue between Pearl Street and High Street from utility uses to general e governmental uses; directing the City Manager to propose transfer of funds to EWEB in subsequent fiscal year budgets and in the event of failure to appropriate funds, authorizing deduction from in-lieu-of taxes payment. Mr. Sercombe referred to Section 4 of the draft resolution that had been distrib- uted to councilors and suggested that the council amend the language providing a contingency in the event that an appropriation is not made. He said to make the language of the ordinance clear, he recommended that the wording be altered as follows [changes are shown in editorial format, with deletions bracketed and insertions underlined]: "In the event that the initial transfer is made and that the City Council fails to annually thereafter appropriate funds to transfer to EWEB as provided herein. . ." [remainder of text unchanged]. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution with the suggested changes. Mayor Keller said that the City is short of space and that he believed it was prudent to plan for the future. He urged councilors to support the resolution. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 11 j , - " ~ .. ....... Councilor Ball asked if the City has the ability to delay EWEB's transfer of the property if the City decides not to make the purchase at this time. Mr. Gleason said that the property is already owned by the City and that the question is '." whether EWEB can sell the property without the authorization of the City Council. , '- He said that this question could be tested in court. Roll call vote; motion carred 6:1, with Councilors Ball, Hamel, Lindberg, Obie, Schue, and Smith voting in favor, and Councilor Wooten voting in opposition. Item VI, a monthly economic diversification status report: review of development- related processes, was held over. The meeting was adjourned. ~ Respectfully submitted, 4 .--,/~ ?-- . - (.(/'_'.i?~~7L ~~.. /.- ..;.(}.. JlV.<';... (...u"'<~,""...r" /.;:.... ".. Q' /' ,'~- L/ ._~-c...; ~ --4. /" Micheal D. Gleason ,~ City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:pm/CM23a1 l ..'" MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 15, 1982 Page 12 - - .4