Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/1984 Meeting (3) - - e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber March 12, 1984 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Emily Schue, Joyce Nichols. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Smith. Regular 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 AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Appointment to Downtown Commissi~~ Mr. Obie reported that three candidates were interviewed. Two candidates, Robert Fraser and Stephanie Pearl, received four votes each for a tie. A motion was passed by the committee that this matter be referred to Mayor Keller to interview the candidates and break the tie. Mr. Obie asked Mayor Keller if he could complete the interviews by Wednesday to enable the Downtown Commission to continue important deliberations without delay. Mayor Keller agreed to respond as soon as possible. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 10th and Oak Assessment District (memo, resolution, ordinances, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Finance Director Warren Wong presented the staff report, as detailed in a memo to City Council dated March 6, 1984. Following his report, he presented the following staff recommendations to remove the assessment liens from the 10th and Oak District properties, simplify the DDD ad valorem tax calculation, and, for the future, establish a more equitable tax structure for property owners in the downtown: MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 1 e Cash Requirements 1. Call the Bancroft bonds related to the $900,000 Overpark as of June 1 and July 1, 1984. 2. Adjust assessments such that future installments 200,000 not yet due will be zero; refund payments on prepaids. 3. Declare rebate of net operating revenue (including 988,000 interest on accumul ated ba1 ance) as of June 30, 1984. Request declaratory judgment on who gets wh at . 4. Amend EC 3.760, et a1., effective as of July 1, 1984, to eliminate the credits for the future. 5. Amend EC 7.545 effective as of July 1, 1984, to eliminate the rebates in the future. 6. Make remaining funds available for disposition at the direction of the Downtown Commission, Budget Committee, and Council, taking into consideration the original commitments made to the 10th and Oak property owners. 212,000 Cash and Investments as of June 30, 1983 2,300,000 The cash requirements outlined above do not include expense for staff time, legal and/brokerage fees, or other costs related to these recommendations. The optimal timeline for the implementation of these recommendations is: e March 1984 June 1, 1984 July 1, 1984 Sept.-Oct., 1984 November 1984 Council approv~ of plan. 1969 series bonds call ed. 1974 series bonds called, council action to adjust assessments and amend code. Final determination of amount to be rebated. Declaration of rebate by council, application of rebate credits to FY85 DDD ad valorem billings, determination of funds remaining. Mr. Wong said that staff is requesting approval of the timeline as presented, a resolution to call the two bonds, and of two ordinances to change the code, as presented above. In response to Councilor Obie's question on the disposition of the $212,000, Mr. Wong said that City procedure for Bancroft funds surpluses is to declare them surplus to the General Fund. Then, there is immediate transfer to the most recent series of Bancroft issues for debt service payments. In response to Councilor Hansen's question on the $212,000 interest amount, Mr. Wong said that it was interest on prepaid assessments. Staff has recom- mended that this amount remain in the 10th and Oak fund and be used at the discretion of the Downtown Commission and City Council in the FY86 budget process. -- MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 2 e e - Mr. Gleason clarified that there was some uncertainty as to that amount because of potential liquidation issues, and premature distribution may be unwise. Mayor Keller asked if bonds were called, would those paying into the Overpark Fund for free parking be required to pay the same rate being assessed other properties in the Downtown Development District. Mr. Wong said that once the bonds were paid off, the assessment district would be eliminated and the taxing structure equalized. Everybody would pay the ODD ad valorem tax and, if appro- priate, the gross receipts and professional tax. Jim McCoy, Chairman of the Downtown Commission, gave his assurance that the issues presented tonight had been reviewed in great detail by the Downtown Commission. It was a complex issue, and the proposed timeline appeared optimistic because of the existence of time-consuming issues. He felt that steps No.3 (declaring rebates of net operating revenue) and No.6 (disposing of remaining funds) would be much-discussed issues. He added that only two out of eight regular commissioners were able to vote on issues, but that alternates were used. The commission was aware of the testimony of the property owners, but some of the property owners felt that recommended dis- position represented a loss for them. The commission would review the reliability of the $212,000 amount, as well as the early commitments made to the property owners in detail. The pUblic hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the issue: Georre Boenke, 2040 Willamette, said he was giving information on behalf of Dr. oomis and Mr. Sands, as well as himself. The three of them wanted to fortify that, in 1969, when the Overpark was built, the business people owning property in the area assessed themselves a Bancroft to build the Overpark. The money generated from Overpark fees and store rental underneath was designated to go into a fund, along with assessments, to payoff the bonds. Subsequently, there was another bond issue with the same stipUlation. Free parking clouded the issue. The original agreement said that when the assessments were paid off, the City was to be given a gift of the Overpark. Any revenues over and above expenses were to be given back to those people up to the amount given the City to build the Overpark. The property owners feel that they have given over $1 million more in assessments and income and want that total back. He was troubled both at the Downtown proceedings and tonight's because the City's accounting department has used 1983 figures rather than 1984 figures. He felt that items 1 through 5 of the staff recommendations should be taken care of, but disagreed with item 6, because the City Council and the property owners made an agreement that all the money should be refunded. He felt that there was a moral obligation to honor the original commitment. The 1969 bonds should have been paid off when the money came in 1979. MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 3 - Lewis Hoffman, 888 West Park Avenue, said that he has been paying taxes for 10 or 12 years on downtown property based on the promise that after the Overpark was paid the City would pay for operations until their money was returned. He feels that it is ethically wrong for the rules to be changed, and the City is not justified in not paying back the owners. He urged that this not be done. Harry Rubenstein, 227 West 10th Avenue, said that when he makes a commitment, he follows through. He expects the City of Eugene to do no less. As there was no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3838--A resolution calling for the redemption of 10th and Oak Overpark off-street parking facility improve- ment bonds. Mr. Gleason clarified for Councilor Obie that the resolution would not impact item 6. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e CB 2728--An ordinance regarding assessments for off-street parking facilities; amending Sections 7.520 and 7.525 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 7.545 and 7.570 of that code; and adding Section 7.543 to that code; and providing an effective date. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, 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, 7:0. Mr. Wong clarified for Mr. Obie and Mr. Hansen that Council Bill 2728 does not affect item 6 of staff recommendations. Council Bill 2728 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19232). CB 2729--An ordinance regarding the Downtown Development District Tax; amending Sections 3.715, 3.750, 3.755 and 3.760 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 3.710 and 3.765 of that code; providing for payment of credits; and declaring an emergency. e MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 4 e e e It was noted that this council bill is 2729 rather than 2829 as indicated on the agenda. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be read the second time by council bill numbers only, wi th unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Wong clarified for Mr. Hansen that item 6 was not affected by this bill. He continued that the funds would be disposed of in the normal budgetary process. These ordinances amend the code effective July 1, 1984, to avoid picking up credits for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1984. Council Bill 2729 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19233). Mr. Obie clarified that creation of the foregoing council bills would initiate action on items 1 through 5 of staff1s recommendations, and in some form on item 6. Mr. Wong agreed with the interpretation. Mr. Obie asked for the council to make a motion directing staff to refund remaining funds on a specific date in the same proportions of earlier refunds. Ms. Wooten said she would like more general information on the impact to the fund and district prior to giving specific direction for total refund. Mr. Martin, City Attorney, said that approval of the two council bills begins a process that will execute items 1 through 5 and bring back item 6 to the council at a later date. An ordinance will likely come to the council that will officially declare the rebate on the downtown district tax, apart from the question of adjusting the assessments. An ordinance will come to council in which actual rebates will be calculated. Also, council will give final direction for rebates on the ODD tax. Subsequently, a proposed adjustment of the Overpark assesments will come to the council and item 6 will be at issue. Mr. Obie said that council wants to make it clear that they want the funds distributed in items 1 through 5, that it is not a Budget Committee issue, that the Downtown Commission has already dealt with it, and City Council is providing direction. Mr. Martin continued that he didn't believe the Downtown Commission had acted on the $212,000, but they have indicated they want assessments equalized at least at the $200,000 level. They have asked for the opportunity to review the net-out amount from the assessments. It is the council's prerogative to give them direction. MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 5 e Mr. Gleason said that the council has not dealt with the pecuniary position. but has set certain actions in motion. He cautioned the councills moving in a pecuniary position because of determination of ownership and voting issues. The amount of $200,000 as well as reimbursements need to be addressed, and these issues will need to be dealt with sequentially. Staff are not attempting to remove anyonels rightful contribution. Also, there was no way to deal with calling the first bonds until both bonds were callable because of interwoven issues and risk of litigation. In response to Mr. Obie's question on timing for disposition of remalnlng funds, Mr. Wong said that under optimal conditions, the subject would be discussed again in November or December. Mr. Obie asked for a report in six-month increments to enable council to be apprised of the issues. Mr. Obie said that he was concerned about moving on the issue when the Downtown Commission has only two voting members. Being that the issue was created by City Council action, it should be resolved by the council. Mr. Ball agreed that the action to deal with the remaining funds, when the final amounts are known, is appropriate. e Mr. Holmer said he felt uneasy not taking some action on item 6. He wondered if the declaratory judgements, as approved by council in item 3. would give further guidance in regard to item 6. Mr. Wong said that it would not, because declaratory judgement would determine who gets credits for DDD ad valorem and professional and gross receipts tax credits. Mr. Holmer then suggested that council adopt by motion that remaining funds be made available for disposition, taking into consideration the original commitments made to the lOth and Oak Overpark, rather than leave it in the fund. Mr. Gleason said staff has not determined the pecuniary situation with regard to council; if they vote and violate that, it becomes part of the litigation. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that there is a conflict-of-interest section of the charter that applies to councilors. Council members would need to sort out their own property interests, as well of those of members of their household, and give specific advice on whether or not conflicts of interest exist on this issue, before taking action on item 6. Unless all councilors are clear on the conf1ict-of-interest issue, Mr. Sercombe would advise waiting. Mr. Obie asked for staff to prepare a motion, as suggested by Mr. Holmer, with a background paper on the motion's impact. for a subsequent council meeting in 3-4 weeks. B. Abatement of Nuisance and Unsafe Buildings at 2051 and 2053 City View Street (units 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13) (memo attached; background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection, gave the staff report, as summarized in a memorandum to City Countil dated March 5, 1984. This matter has become before the council because one of the occupants, Ms. Cassassa of Unit 11, - MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 6 e e - has filed an appeal. He said that a letter signed by 35 neighbors asking the city council to take action on these properties was received by the building department today. The public hearing was opened. Linda Cassassa, of 2051 City View, Unit 11, wrote a statement (read by a friend), speaking not against the action itself but because she believes the City of Eugene has shown a neglect of tenants' rights during the notice procedures. She believes that even though condemnation should occur, the tenant still has a right to proper notice. The tenant should not be punished for the landlord's neglect and lack of responsibility. She said that each tenant of a condemned building should be sent proper notice by certified mail or a personal call. Appropriate notice should be a legal requirement. Ms. Cassassa gave details of the condition of the apartments (units)" such as plumbing problems, lack of repairs, and no garbage collection. Utility bills were not paid which resulted in stoppage of water and garbage service. The owner, Mr. Knight, asked tenants to help him pay some utility bills, in addition to rent. When Ms. Cassassa tried to get the apartments inspected when repairs and improvements were neglected, she was told that the City had no housing inspectors due to budget cuts. In December 1983, she arrived home to find that the building had been condemned (posted). She felt the City was callous in dealing with the tenants in that there was no protection under the tenants' rights laws. Two weeks before Christmas, she found that it was illegal for her to enter her own home. The tenants of Eugene need a caring council that they can approach with problems of this sort. Speci- fically, Eugene City Code, Section 8.005 should be clarified and amended to require a personal written notice to any tenant in advance of action proposed. Karen Townsend, 2080 City View, across the street from the apartment, said that they are in very bad condition. She is afraid to let her children play in front because of derelicts and transients living there. The gas lines are open, windows are broken, and floors are badly damaged. There is no running water, and the rain water is caught in buckets. Some refrigerators are not dismantled. There is human waste and garbage inside the vacant units. It is evident that there have been dogs and rats. She wants the apartments to be torn down. Kathryn Williams, 2080 City View, agreed with Ms. Townsend's comments about the undesirabilty of the apartments across the street. She also would like to see them razed. Allen Pierce, 2515 Terrace View Drive, said that while he was not an immediate resident, he has lived in the area for 15 years. The traffic pattern is such that people living higher up on the hill must pass the property in question. The impact is larger than that to the immediate neighbors. The public hearing was closed. MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 7 . - e Councilor Wooten requested a report from the City Attorney on the tenant notification process for condemned buildings. She had a concern about the legality of tenants to re-enter a condemned building to retrieve personal belongings. Mr. Sercombe said that this ordinance is used occasionally to abate, on an emergency basis, when unsafe conditions are discovered. While a longer "grace period" may be appropriate in most cases, it may not be when there is immediate danger to occupants who re-enter. Mr. Sercombe said he would report back on this issue. Councilor Wooten continued that she was appalled at the lack of responsibility of individual property owners. She was aware of several calls to the Building Safety Division on housing code and inspection problems recently. She suggested that the housing code inspection and ordinance program be mOdified/re-adopted on a limited basis. . Councilor Obie acknowledged that he also has had several calls on the apart- ments in question, as they are in his ward. He endorsed Ms. Wooten's suggestion. Councilor Hansen also indicated a concern about the length of time for resolu- tion of these issues. He would like to see the owner-neglect issue speeded up for the benefit of others in the neighborhood. Mr. Gleason agreed that the issue needs to be dealt with in a judicious manner. Staff would try to develop a "halfway" position that addressed the housing code procedural issues as well as property rights issues for the benefit of all parties concerned. Councilor Wooten felt that this may be an area where budget cuts have affected the City's ability to respond. Perhaps a "phased" program could be helpful in addressing the situation. Res. No. 3839--A resolution concerning abatement of buildings located at 2051 and 2053 City View Street. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote, motion carried unanimously, 7:0. III. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS/LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR DIVISION AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (Contract 84-01) (memo, findings attached)_ _____ City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. There is no formal staff report in that the City Council is considering findings as indicated in the memo dated March 5, 1984, from the Public Works Department to the Assistant City Manager. If council is willing to adopt the findings, the council bill can be adopted. Otherwise, a separate public hearing date can be set with the approval of two-thirds of the City Council. CB 2730--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sidewalks, and storm sewer in Division Avenue, from River Road to 1500 feet east; paving and sidewalks in River Road from Division Avenue to 600 feet north; and sanitary sewer and storm sewers to serve the area between River Road and Ross Lane, and between Be1t1ine Road and 1200 feet north of Be1tline Road. MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 8 e e e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by.Mr. Wooten to adopt the findings as presented and that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 2730 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19234). III. DESIGNATION OF IRISH FESTIVAL AS COMMUNITY EVENT (memo, additional information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. He explained that the amendment to the Eugene Sign Code allows signs and banners to be posted for "community events. II By giving designation of thi s festival as a "com- munity event," Festival banners will be legally approved. Staff is preparing an amendment to the ordinance to remove the requirement for council approval of community event designation. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to designate the Irish Festival as a community event. Mr. Hansen asked about "undesignating" community events, and Mr. G1 eason said that a procedure will be established to distinguish between community events, per se, and promotional events. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. The meeting was recessed at 8:40 and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. IV. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER ON HULT CENTER STAFFING/ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES City Manager Micheal Gleason began by stating that the issues to be presented were broader than those highlighted in the management study in that they would set the stage for positioning the Hult Center operations for several years to come. Policy groups, the Performing Arts Commission, and the City Council would be involved in resolving the issues. He emphasized that the reorgani- zation does not impugn the reputation of current employees, but rather these actions are brought about by the necessity to reorganize for financial reason s. MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 9 - e - Mr. Gleason used a flipchart entitled Criteria for Decisions to focus on priorities for the centerls operations. Crlterla was developed from a broad range of public input, both local and non-local. The criteria are as follows: 1. Protect investment in asset. 2. Enhance and focus marketing and promotion efforts/audience development. 3. Continue variety of commercial events and local programming. 4. Continue strong hall/backstage operation during performances. 5. Recognize "learning curve"/shakedown phase. 6. Balance FY85 proposed operating budget. 7. Avoid placing facility and programs "at risk." As he spoke, Mr. Gleason enlarged upon several of the items. In regard to item 5, he used a "1earning curve" graph to illustrate the relationship of staff experience, productivity, and time efficiency. From start-up through a transition period to maximum efficiency levels normally takes from 18-24 months. At the juncture of increased staff productivity with time efficiency, there should be a re-evaluation of resource organization for long-term opera- tions. The center is in the transition phase, and the discussion needs to focus on long-term issues. The next chart was entitled FY85 Staffing/Budget Chan~es, Hu1t Center. Mr. Gleason said that these would be reviewed by the erforming Arts Commis- sion. Their recommendations would be passed on to the Budget Committee. Revenues were projected at $1,062,122, expenditures at $1,298,031, leaving a "gap" of $235,909. Key actions taken to deal with the "gap" are listed be 1 ow : Reduction or Add -Staffing Reorganization: eliminate four full-time and Minus $(123,000) one part-time position (Program Director, Marketing Assistant, Operations Director, Events Manager, Marketing Clerk); add Marketing Coordinator. -Box Office efficiencies (no position elimination) Minus 36,000) -Series advertising transfers to productions Minus 40,000) -Transfer Conference Center to Facilities Development Add 13,000 -Miscellaneous (eliminate proposed scheduling clerk, utilities, other) Minus 50,000) $ (236,000) The total reduction amounts to $236,000 from implementation of the foregoing actions. Mr. Gleason then reviewed the chart entitled Proposed FYL85 Operating Budget (Not Including Reimbursab1es) (Page 4 of flipcharts). For the most part, figures were projected from FY84 amounts. The total revenues amount to MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 10 e $1,062,122. The major change was the $125,000 amount from the Eugene Arts Foundation. The revenue-sharing amount of $352,278 was within $5,000 of FY84 figures. The expenditures, amounting to $1,062,122, reflect the adjustments made for staff reorganization. The chart entitled Reassignment of Res~onsibilites from Marketing Division, Hu1t Center, was reviewed next. Mr. G eason said that the new Executive Director duties would include booking events and marketing strategies. The new Marketing Coordinator position would be assigned the following duties: develop a marketing program, event advertising promotion, program magazine, press releases, generic advertising, and series brochure graphics. The Administrative Aide will assume responsibility for scheduling and event information communication. The Ticket Office Manager will give ticket outlet support. Community outreach will be shared by SHO volunteers, the Performing Arts Commission, and other volunteer groups in the community. Mr. Gleason said that marketing activities are not being reduced, but rather will be increased because of more marketing penetration to audiences outside the primary market area. To enable the Executive Director to assume more center responsibility, he will experience work reduction in City committee work, Conference Center duties, and in other pUblic relations duties. Mr. Gleason announced the appointment of Barbara Bellamy, Information Director for the City Manager's Office, to assume the Marketing Coordinator duties, because of the need to have this important work carried out through the transition period. ... Mr. Gleason then reviewed the Reassignment of Res~onsibi1ities from the ~ Operations Division, as itemized on page 4b of the flip charts. He added that Dave Whitlow, City Operations Manager, would assume increased responsibilities to coordinate the work of the Hu1t Center with the rest of the City's opera- tions. Ed Smith, Facilities Development Director, also will work with staff during the transition period. A matrix entitled Work Program, Administrative/Operational Issues was reviewed next. Mr. Gleason reviewed the time1ines for staff and Performing Arts Commission involvement on the 14 named issues. The Performing Arts Commis- sion will be asked to review the workplan assignments. - In concluding, Mr. Gleason said it may take several years to resolve all of the issues, but all those involved have done their best to make the Hu1t Center a success. Continued endeavors will emphasize use of the center for its cultural and economic impacts upon the community. The organizational outlines will be a guide in these accomplishments. The meeting was opened for questions from councilors. Councilor Holmer asked if the $352,000 of revenue-sharing funds represented a change of allocation patterns from that of the past. Mr. Gleason said that the Budget Committee and council have adopted a policy recommending that 25 percent of Federal Revenue Sharing revenue be transferred per year to the MINUTES-Eugene City Council March 12, 1984 Page 11 Councilor Wooten also thanked Mr. Gleason and the staff for their fine work. She wanted to keep updated on transition issues as they occur. Councilor Wooten thanked the staff of the Hu1t Center for their contribution to the City of Eugene, to the arts, and to the center. Their efforts are very muc h apprec i ated and have not gone un noti c ed. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respect~ly .s.u~mi tte , rh(;~ ~/~?'" Mic{eal D. G1 e on City Manager (Recorded by Sybil Peters) 4It SP:ky/CM32a21 MINUTES-Eugene City Council e e capital account to augment capital expenditures. If the policy task force recommends that revenue sharing be used, Mr. Gleason said that he would then recommend to the Budget Committee and City Council that last year1s distribu- tion to the capi tal account be amended, 1 eavi ng the current year IS Hul t distribution as is. The task force may develop other revenue sources that could alter those suggested by staff. In response to Councilor Ball's question on reassignment of job duties, Mr. Gleason described the process of job reclassification and reassignment that occurs in a reorganization. He said that if incumbents, in an initial job assignment, are not technically skilled, they are either given special training or reassigned to avoid job loss. In the reassignments suggested, not including the positions eliminated, he felt that some initial training may be required, but that there would not be incumbent classification problems. Councilor Obie asked Mr. Gleason to describe the appropriate channels that groups such as the Performing Arts Commission, Budget Committee, or council could use should they disagree with his policy direction. Mr. Gleason said that this could be dealt with in the budget process, and policy prerogatives can be preserved by the Performing Arts Commission, Budget Committee, and City Council. Upon review, if council feels that a different commitment is desired in certain areas, it becomes a budget allocation issue, independent of an organizational issue. Staff can respond by reorganizing. Councilor Obie concluded by saying that he appreciated the work put into this presentation by Mr. Gleason and staff. Mayor Keller expressed his appreciation for the very fine work contributed to the management study issues by Mr. Gleason and staff. He believed the council has a responsibility to the citizens to operate the center efficiently and effectively, which is what the presentation detailed this evening. He felt that two key issues mentioned in the management report, namely, creating a cultural center for citizens and a home for Eugene's arts family, were appropriately dealt with. He felt that the mandate by the media to take some action is appropriate also. March 12, 1984 Page 12