Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/1978 Meeting MINUTES EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e NOvember 27, 1978 --.----.- - - -.- --- .----.----- ---+--- Adjourned meeting from November 22, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, November 27, 1978, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D.W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. ---" - - --- Mayor Keller introduced members of the Webelos Den No. 290 from Bailey Hill School, with Mr. John Alvord, Scout Master. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Rezoninqs l. Property located on west side of Fox Hollow Road approxi- mately midway between Larkwood Street and East 46th Avenue from RA to RA-SR (Flowerday) (Z 78-26) --- _._----"---"- Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission October 10, 1978. Jim e Saul, Planner, said the request involves addition of an SR suffix to the current RA Suburban Residential District, to allow for the develop- ment of a cluster subdivision. The parcel contains approximately 1.4 ac re s . There is an existing single-family structure located on the site. Including this unit, a total of four dwelling units could be developed under the proposed SR suffix. Mr. Saul said there would be no increase in the number of units which would be permitted on the site under the present zoning. The Planning Commission did unanimously agree to the SR suffix because a cluster approach would be more suit- able than single-family subdivision because the site is steep. Also, the property is covered with a variety of vegetation. By all owi ng a cluster unit, it would be more beneficial to save the existing vegeta- tion on the site. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Counci 1 ors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1795--Rezoning from RA to RA-SR property located west side of Fox Hollow Road approximately midway between Larkwood Street and East 46th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there beinq no Councilor present requesting it be read in e full. 11/27/78--1 , &1-3 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley that findings supporting e the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes dated October 10, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto: 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by counci 1 bi 11 number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18303. 2. Property located north of 1st Avenue, between Van Buren and Jackson Streets from M-2 to C-1 (Rogers) (Z 78-30) --- Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission October 10, 1978. Mr. Saul said the parcel contains approximately 14,000 square feet. It is presently developed with a florist shop, an auto glass shop, and an accountant's office. Under the present M-2 zoning, the only conforming use is the auto glass shop. Under the proposed rezoning, the florist and accountant's office would become permitted uses. Al so, under the C-l rezone, the use would be for a traditional office space. Mr. Saul note.d the findings recommended by the Planning Commission contain specific reference to the Whiteaker Refinement Plan regarding mixed use in that area. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by e Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1796--Rezoning from M-2 to C-1 property located north of 1st Avenue, between Van Buren and Jackson Streets was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by ~1r. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes dated October 10, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto~ that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with uanirnous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18304. 11/27/78--2 e 1&f-Lf- B. Liquor License New Outlet: Chuck's Little Bonanza Restaurant (RMB), e _!Z~West 6th Avenue: _applicant:__Charles Wiley .- -----, Manager reviewed the OLCC report. Staff said all papers were in order and recommended forwarding approval to OLCC. Public hearing was opened. Charles Wiley, applicant, was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward recommenda- tion for approval to OLCC. Motion carried unanimously. C. Consideration of Chamber of Commerce Claim for Payment for Period July 1, 1977, through January-23, 1978 _.-._. Manager said this item was the Chamber of Commerce claim for payment of Room Tax Funds of approximately $20,000 for providing convention/ promotion services for the period July 1, 1977, through January 23, 1978. The claim had not been paid basically because no contract was in effect during this period, whereas a signed contract had expired June 30, 1977, for the previous year. During this period in contention, processes for the use of room tax money were being developed. Research was being conducted on what other cities were doing and requests for e bids were being developed, to comply with the newly enacted State Purchasing law. Between the period November 1 until about January 23, 1978, negotia- tions were on-going between City staff and Chamber staff to rework a contract until it complied with the legal requirements of the new law. City staff could not develop a retroactive contract as it would have, in effect, resulted in a single biddelr. The Chamber fel t there was an implied contract during the disputed period of time. Staff has taken steps to avoid legal liability problems and did not pay the Chamber for services for this period because there was no signed contract. There would exist a personal liability for Councilors if there ;s a mi sappropri'ati on of Room Tax Funds. Manager said Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office~ Maurice Mitchell, Finance Department; Charles Dallas, Purchasing; and Les Swanson, City Attorney's office, were all available to answer questions. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Manager said to comply with the present statutes, there is a process Whereby a resolution may be enacted by the City declaring the Chamber to be sole available provider of such services. The Council had recently done so. However, that resolution has to be passed before the contract can be negotiated. The resolution recently passed by the Council does not change the present contract nor does it refer to any previous contracts. e 11/27/78--3 ''+5 Ms. Smith wondered if there were any legal basis by which the resolu- e tion could apply retroactively to that period. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, said the staff had gone through a very careful and thorough process to determine the Chamber as supplier of these services. That process looks forward, and is not retroactive. Mr. Obie wondered if the services could be considered professional services, i.e., as a consultant, that would be difficult to put out to bid. Manager replied the provision of convention services has been debated by the Board of State Purchasers. It was uncertain whether such services could be defined as a professional service. Charles Dallas, Purchasing, noted that the State Attorney General IS office takes a very narrow view of what is within the definition in the statutes of a professional service. It would appear the Chamber of Commerce services would not fall within that category. Assistant Manager noted for Council the significant difference here is the question of whether or not the contract even existed, and whether or not the processes were properly followed, thus the potential for individual Councilor personal liability. Public hearing was opened. Emerson Hamilton, 2159 Escalante, President, Chamber of Commerce, said he had staff persons also available to answer questions: Don Mason, Manager of the Chamber: and Don Buchannon, Director of the e Convention Bureau. He said the item in question is a claim by the Chamber for payment of $20,453.28 for services provided from July 1, 1977, to January 23, 1978. In background material, he noted the on-goin~ process of soliciting and servicinq conventions. Solicitations occur sometimes five years prior to the actual convention taking place in Eugene. Also, he noted the servicing of tourists during the summer months of up to 300 per day. He felt the issues to be: 1) were the servies rendered: and 2) what is the reasonable value of those services. The Chamber takes the position the services rendered were of a quality and quantity during that time that they can expect full compensation. Thus they continued to provide those services. He admitted there was no written contract but he felt there was an implied contract with the City. He noted the resolution passed by Council November 15, 1978, aCknowledging that this was an on-going provision of services. Chamber records and files document the fact the Chamber did perform and render those services. The reasonable value for their services were felt to be $20,453.28. Regarding the City's liability, he said the Chambers' attorney believes payment can be made under professional services and/or sole provider justification. In summary, he said the services were necessary and on-going; the services were actually performed and the Chamber is entitled to payment; a reasonable value has been placed on those services: and there is no significant exposure by the City to liability if the Chamber were paid the reasonable of the services rendered. e l*b 11/27/78--4 Public hearing was c'losed, there being no further testimony e presented. Ms. Smith was supportive of the Chamber's providing the services, and acknowledged the fine work done in the past. She noted Richard Hansen was a member of the Room Tax Committee (also a member of the Chamber of Commerce Board). The Room Tax Committee had met during this time to review processes, and had put a freeze on all funding. She questioned Mr. Hamilton as to whether or not he was aware of the freeze put on the funds based on the new State contract laws. Mr. Hamilton replied neither he nor any of his staff had been given any such verbal or written communication. He referred to the seri es of events he had detailed in a letter dated May 1978. He also noted the series of delays between the time the proposal was submitted by the Chamber and accepted by the City. However, the Chamber was still operating on the understanding that the contract would be retroactive. Mr. Obie asked Mr. Hamilton if during that period of time the City asked the Chamber to stop performing those services, or if the City has asked the Chamber to continue performing those services on the City's behalf. Mr. Hamilton replied no. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Ms. Benjamin said there was a great uncertainty in the legal staff's opinion as to whether or not the claim can be legally paid. After extensive research, it was deter- mined the City Council will have to make that decision. However, she noted whether or not it is paid, there is a potential lawsuit either e way. She also noted if the payment were made, the City Councilors themselves could be financially liable for replacing the Room Tax Funds if it were deemed they were paid illegally. Mr. Williams said he had heard no testimony of any communications between the City staff and Chamber of Commerce during that period of time. He felt there should have been some communication between the two pa rti es. Further, he did not believe discussions beyond what had been presented to Council did not take place. However, he said that if not, the Chamber was willfully negligent in that they did not try to find out what was going on. Manager noted between July and October he had two or three phone calls regarding the process from Chamber of Commerce staff persons. He replied the City would be putting out requests for proposals and the Chamber would be bidding as would other groups. The City did receive a bid by November 1 from the Chamber, and there was no complete bid other than that one. From November 1 to January 23 there were extensive discussions with the Chamber to bring its contract into compliance with State law. Mr. Hamilton noted for Council the types of services provided by the Chamber could not be stopped like a faucet. The Chamber felt from the start it should have been exempted from the bidding procedures. He noted 200 conventions had been solicited and needed servicing e 11/27/78--5 ,..,., during that period of time. The Chamber felt it had to continue those services. They also felt the bidding procedures had lasted too ~ long. Regarding the tourists during the summer, he said there was no place for them to be serviced other than the Chamber so that service was also continued. Mr. Obie noted the dilemma the Council was in: If it refused to pay the claim, the Chamber could sue it; if it did pay the claim, there was the possibility of the Council being suied by parties unknown for the benefit of tax payers if the funds were used incorrectly. He then asked Mr. Hamilton if the Chamber would be willing to indemnify the City and Councilors, as well as take the responsibility for defending against any litigation. Mr. Hamilton replied he could not give an answer at this time but would have to seek direction from the Chamber Board of Directors. Mr. Haws felt it was obvious these services were so important to the community that someone would be providing them whether or not the City funded them. He was going to vote against payment of the claim. Mayor Keller said he did not support the idea of paying this amount. However, he reviewed the merits of the Chamber of Commerce in providing these services and recognized it as an on-going process. Historically the Council has been supportive of the Chamber, and would continue to be so in the future. Unfortunately, he felt the Council had only one alternative as it would be personnally liable if the payment were made. ~ Ms. Smith said she regretfully would oppose paying the bill. She again expressed support of the Chamber providing these services and the fine job they had done. She noted the poor communication problem, and was sorry the Chamber had not been aware of this situation during the freeze on funds. She felt it would be more detrimental in the long run for the Council to vote in favor of paying the bill because other agencies could be in the same position. However, she continued to support the very important work the Chamber is doing in this regard. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the claim of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce for payment of $20,453.28 for services from July I, 1977, through January 23, 1978, be denied. Motion carried uanimously. D. Consideration of Property Acquisition (Scobert)--Materials distributed Manager said the acquisition of property in the Blair neighborhood for a park was a Community Development project initiated through Whiteaker Community Council. This particular site was sought because it was determined to be the best available in the neighborhood. This is an area which has no park, but needs one. Council had acted on a resolution July 20, 1977, authorizing use of emminent domain July 20, 1977, and staff proceeded. Subsequently acquisition of the property was in the process of litigation and the City survey was determined to ~ 11/27/78--6 1~ be inaccurate. Those inaccuracies resulted in a new resolution e before Council this evening repealing Resolution 2720 adopted July 20, 1977, and again authorizing emminent domain. He noted the survey in this resolution was accurate. The main question for Council's consideration was whether or not this is the best property available for park purposes in this area, and whether or not it should be acquired. Mr. Scobert, owner of the property, does not want to sell. He feels it would be a poor park site and he wants to develop the property in multi-family units. Manager noted for Council and the audience the value of the property could not be discussed other than in Council Executive Session. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor were as follows: Maureen Good, 2875 Laurelwood, was an Outreach worker for Whiteaker Community Council. With the use of a land use map, she noted the lack of vacant land for park purposes in that area. She used slides to show one of the closest parks was accessible only by crossing 6th and 7th, very dangerous for youngsters and elderly people. Sl adden pa rk was one mile away and could be reached only over dangerous crossings. The Franz Bread Company property, which had been considered as an alternate site, she showed through slides to be unsuitable for a park. With a slide of the Scobert property, she indicated it was the best choice, the only piece of vacant land suitable for park purposes. She e said the community needs speak louder than individual rights. The Scobert home will not be touched and the property value will not be decreased in any way. She summarized there was no other land suitable, no other choice for park land in the Blair neighborhood, and there was a need for a park in that area. Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey Avenue, an active member of Whiteaker Com- munity Council, expressed sympathy with the Scoberts, and noted the question of public need versus the individual rights. However, the neighborhood had been making extensive efforts to improve the area over the past several years and he felt that a park would help in that effort. He said the only objection he had heard was that this was not a suitable site for a park because transients might make. use of it. However, he did not see any prOblems that would be created by the park and felt it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, read a statement from the Whiteaker Refinement Plan, Section 4, regarding public services and facilities, the adopted policy number five which stated a park was necessary for the Blair neighborhood. She noted the length of time the neighbor- hood organization had been working to arrive at finding a suitable spot and getting City negotiations going. She thought this was a very uncomfortable situation with the community needs versus individual rights. However, she felt the neighborhood need is there and the e 11/27/78--7 ''f-CI acquisition of the park land should proceed. She noted the burden on the neighborhood organization because of the lengthy discussions this - park acquisition had produced. She said it was frustrating and difficult to keep people interested because they felt they had made their voice known by voting in favor of the park, and yet the lengthy negotiations resulted in still no park being available. James McCoy, 1190 West 5th, is a Blair resident and Chairperson of the Whiteaker Community Council. He felt there was a need for a park in the Blair neighborhood to make it a nice place for families to 1 i ve . Those speaking against acquisition of the land were as follows: Jack Billings, 2251 Monroe, Attorney representing Mr. Scobert, said the delay over two-and-a-half years had been charged to Mr. Scobert, and he claimed that to be untrue. He felt the City staff had been responsible for the delays. He noted the misconception about the acquisition problem because of encroachment. He had made that informa- tion available in February to the City Manager, and noted the City staff had still done nothing until a few days prior to the trial. Mr. Scobert does not want to sell the property at any price. However, once there was a commitment, Mr. Scobert wanted to proceed as quickly as pOSSible. He said the issue did not include the following: Not. whether a park is a good idea, not whether the Blair neighborhood needs a park, not whether Mr. Scobert will make a profit on the sale. He said the issue is what Mr. Scobert decides to do with his land. The land is very valuable and he felt that to be an important considera- e tion. The value is more than the City can pay for. He said as of May 1978, the Whiteaker neighborhood had less than $85,000 for the land acquisition and development and he noted a recent offer of $95,000 just for the property. Mayor Keller interrupted Mr. Billings requesting him not to discuss prices. He noted Council could not discuss that issue unless it were in Executive Session. Mr. Billings continued, that in addition to the cost of the purchase price, the City will have additional court costs and development costs. He also questioned the use of contingency funds to purchase park property. He said he had tried to describe to the Council a proposal for development that will benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Scobert would be considering a multi-unit project in that area which would be a higher and best use of the land. He asked Council to consider what the City has offered Mr. Scobert in price, and felt the staff was trying to take the land from Mr. Scobert at an unrealistic price. He said the lot was too small for a good park site. Further, he said people in the immediate Blair neighborhood do not want a park, and submitted a petition with 140 names indicating opposition. He noted the persons representing Whiteaker Community Council do not live near the Blair neighborhood and would not be affected by the park. - 11/27/78--8 150 . He noted the possibility of increased transients using the property if -- it were a park. He said that is occurinq now and because it would become a park it would not change. Regarding another site (the Franz Bread Company site), he said it was acceptable and had been inaccurately represented. In summary, Mr. Billings said the site was too small, too expensive, people in the neighborhood do not want it, and noted the length of time the property had been in the family. He al so noted he had requested an opportunity to appear before Council in February of 1978, and had been denied that opportunity. Whitney Scobert, 440 Blair Boulevard, owner of the property, said he had been living on the property for 60 years. He cited many of the persons who started the proceedings for the park on the site no longer even lived in the area. He does not want to sell the property. He said in two years, not one neighbor had asked him to sell or had expressed a desire for a park there. He asked Council to abondon its plans for a park on this site, as he believed that to be the best interest of the neighborhood and the City. C. Guy Scobert, 190 Thomas Street, Bloomfield, New Jersey, was co-owner of the property with Mr. Whitney Scobert. He said the property is not for sal e. The land had been purchased by his family in 1919 and had been a family home since that time. He fel t it unfair that the City or any person has the right to take this property from Mr. Scobert who makes his home there. Consideration of the length of time the family has owned the property should be given and the amount of money Mr. Scobert might get from the property should be left to him. He - should have the right to determine how he wants to use it. He requested the Council give the appeal a thorough study and arrive at a just decision. Dale Scobert, 440 Blair, said the decision for the park was made by the Whiteaker Community Council, a small group of political activists. He said the people who live in the immediate neighborhood do not want the park. He said it would be necessary, if it were made into a park, for the trees existing on the property to be taken down as they would be too expensive to maintain. Terry Newton, 1100 West 4th, addressed the issue of no other parks being accessible. He said only four blocks east is the Washington/ Jefferson Street park, and noted the Monroe and 9th Street park available for use. Jo Lu Roberts, 267 Polk, said most of the people who live in the neighborhood are older and there are not that many children who would need a park to play in. Those who do live in the area can go to parks already close by. She noted the American dream of an individual to own his own land and to do with it as he wished. She felt it against that dream to have the City take the property away from Mr.Scobert. Bernard Conklin, 2345 North 5th, was a 15-year resident of the area. He was not in favor of the park site and further wanted another e plan to stabilize the neighbohood. 11/27-78--9 ...,5. . F. A. Sparrow, 1568 West 24th Place, requested more park benches in parks, more lights to reduce vandlism, and a better program to e reduce rubbish and trash. He said there was no need to invest money in more parks when the ones that the City has are not kept up. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Manager responded regarding the Februrary, 1978, request from Mr. Bi 11 i ngs was not ignored. The possible inaccuracy was referred to survey crews for checking. Regarding the budget and amount of money available, he said the Block Grant funding is somewhat flexible. The contingency fund refers to the Block Grant funding and is legal. Regarding whether this was a better park site than the Franz site, staff felt it was much more open and would be much less expensive to develop. Regarding the request in February for appearance before the Council, Manager said the City was in process of litigation and , negotiations and it was felt not to be an appropriate time for discussion. Mr. Haws felt the issue was not whether or not someone would get paid for this piece'of property. Rather the issue was how the park will be developed and whether or not the land will be used for housing or park land. He was in favor of park land. He fel t the evidence had shown this was the best site. Mr. Obie felt there had been enough testimony to create a question of whether or not the park should be there. He noted 140 people in the - area were opposed. He cautioned Council in its use of power of emi- nent domain. He raised the importance of the issue of the community as a whole versus individual rights. He felt there had been no testimony this evening which indicated are overriding importance of the community over the individual's rights. He felt it would be a misuse and mistake for the Council to use the power of eminent domain in this instance. He felt there was a good argument that the health, welfare, and safety of the community would be better served with multi-housing closer to the core area. He requested Council reject the continued pursuit of this property. Mr. Hamel said he had no doubt there was a need for parks in this area. However, he had never been in favor of taking property from an individual for a park, and would vote against the resolution. Mr. Delay spoke regarding a balancing situation. He no ted the Whiteaker Neighborhood had been extremely reluctant to pursue this issue because of the sensitivity to the family and the individual making use of his own property as he wanted. However, the Whiteaker Community Council was closer to the issue and had studied it more closely and had come up with its recommendations. He said the circum- stances had not changed and noted the Whiteaker Refinement Plan had e 11/27/78--10 152 . been accepted by Council which indicated a balance of hiqher density e with open space to make it more livable for people in the area. He felt the basi~ question was whether Council was going to purchase this park land. He did not think the Council should avoid use of eminent domain just because it might be uncomfortable to make such a decision. Mr. Lieuallen felt that as the City continued to develop higher density in the core area, it had a responsibility to provide open space areas such as a park would provide. He felt parks to be as important as streets or sewers in a community. Res. No. 3050--Repealing Resolution No. 2720 adopted July 20, 1977, and authoriz- ing the institution on of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition of property in the vicinity of 4th and 5th Avenues and Polk Street and Blair Boulevard for a public park site~ and declaring an emergency was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution Motion carried with Councilors Haws, Delay, Bradley, and Lieuallen voting aye; Councilors Obie, Williams, Smith, and Hamel voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mayor Keller said he shared the concern of the use of eminent domain to acquire land for the City. However, he was supportive of the resolution because the Whiteaker Refinement Plan designates a need for a park in this area. He felt the Blair area would be a better place with a park. He said he was not totally convinced this was e the only site, but was convinced this would be the best site. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING--None III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING A. Calling public hearings Janu~ry 10, 1979, re: Street/Easement Vacations C.B. 1797--Calling public hearing January 10, 1979, re: Street vacation located on Jessen Drive, east of Beltline Road, and retaining 14-foot wide public utility easement (Clarey) (SV 78-1) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18305. e 11/27/78--11 '53 . C.B. 1978--Ca11ing public hearinq January 10, 1979 re: Street vacation located on Lewis Avenue, east of Jackson Street, and retaining - public utility easement over south half of vacated area (Safley) (SV 78-4) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in fu 11 . Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18306. C,.B. 1799--Calling public hearing January 10, 1979, re: Easement vacation located between Royal Avenue and Bell Avenue, east of Fairfield Street (Sturdivant/Smittle) (EV 78-14) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present request- ing it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by e council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by ~1r. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18307. B. Levying Assessments and Referring to Hearings Panel C.B. 1800--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer: South Shasta Loop from the east boundary of Deer Park Subdivison to 700 feet west. (77-52) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing December 4, 1978, with Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration December 11, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1801--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve First Addition to Concord and sanitary sewer to serve the area between the south boundary of First Addition to Concord and Beltline Road (78-05) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e 11/27/78--12 15.... ,. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing tit December 4, 1978, with Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration December II, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3051--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period November 15 through November 27, 1978 was read by number and title. Mr. Haws questioned the payment to Jack Billings, attorney, for $5,982.75. Ms. Benjamin said an agreement on the part of the City Attorney's office and Mr. Billings was signed stipulating dismissal of a lawsuit without prejudice. The City agreed to pay the court costs which includes attorney fees as well as filing fees, deposition fees, and realtors fees. Mr. Haws questioned why the City was in such a position. He reque s ted staff report how the City got itself in this position and whether or not a third party might be responsible for reimbursing the City for these costs. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to delete payment to Jack Billings from the bills and claims resolution. Ms. Benjamin advised Council the City should and would have to pay the e claim. Mr. Delay noted if the City were to pay the claim, it would not diminish the possibility of recovering costs from a third party. Vote was taken on the motion which was defeated with all Councilors present voting no except Obie and Haws voting aye. Roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolution, which was passed unanimously. Res. No. 3052--Approving and accepting amendment to Southeast Firs Association Neighborhood Charter and change of name to Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association was read by number and title. Manager noted the association wished to change its name from Southeast Firs Association to Southeast Firs Neighborhood Association. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3053--Authorizing transfer of General Fund Contingency monies for purchase of a leaf pickup machine was read by number and titl e. e 11/27/78--13 155 Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. e Res. No. 3054--Authorizing transfer of non-contingency appropriations within a given fund between proqrams and/or object groups, and authorizing transfer of appropriations from General Fund to General Capital Projects Fund for completion of crime lab remodel was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. v. PROCLAMATION OF ELECTION RESUlTS--November 7, 1978 Mayor Keller proclaimed the results of the election as follows: Council Ward 1--Emily Schue--3,794 votes Council Ward 4--Gretchen Miller--2,379 votes Council Ward 5--0. W. Hamel--3,272 votes Council Ward 6--Ted Brandt--1,402 votes Eric Haws--2,439 votes EWEB Ward 4 and 5--John Bartels--5,249 votes e EWEB Board Member at Large--Jack Craig--22,341 votes The Mayor thereby proclaimed Emily Schue, Gretchen Miller, D.W. Hamel, and Eric Haws elected to the City Council. He declared John Bartels and Jack Craig elected to the EWEB Board. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to approve Council minutes November 6, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to December 6, 1978. ~y'~~ City Manager CTH:DT/spCM26b1 I e 11/27/78-14 '5~