Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/1979 Meeting , - . , ' - - '- e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 11 t 1979 Adjourned meeting from April 9, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, April 11, 1979, 11:45 a.m., Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. I. Items From Mayor and Council e A. Area Agency on Aging--Ms. Schue represents the City on Lane County hearings regarding aging matters. At a recent meeting, shet as well as representatives from the Mayor's Aging Committee and the Human Rights Aging Commission, indicated the City's position was to keep the Area Agency on Aging within L-COG. B. Energy Report--Mr. Delay, at a recent National League of Cities meeting, had the benefit of a thorough discussion regarding recent actions by the Carter Administration and Congress regarding the energy issue. The current position is that the artificially low prices of oil-based products should be changed by deregulation. He said the problem with that view is the basic assumption that there is a free market price in oil and he stated that not to be true. The oil cartel is organized by the existence of an oversupply and controls prices. Deregulation would result in continued inflationary prices. Mr. Delay felt there is a significant question regarding the proposed deregula- tion policy. There are conservation policies that are not being implemented, and it might be better to have a tax to encourage people to preserve the resource. Mr. Haws arrived. C. Lane County/City Relationships Regarding Jail--Manager noted distri- bution to Council of a letter and memorandum from the City Attorney's Office outlining the problem and possible solution. Stan Long, City Attorney, said the existing jail is owned one-half each by the County and the City. Lane County is asking the City to share one-half the expense of some current remodeling of the jail. City staff has not recommended that be authorized, as it would be a form of double taxation for Eugene residents and the City's percentage of prisoners is dropping. There is an agreement between the County and the City that says major remodeling cannot occur without the City's consent. However, that agreement does not specify or require the City share in the expense. It is staff's belief that, should the City refuse to share in the expense, the matter would be submitted to arbitration e 4/11/79--1 2/2. > . . under the terms specified in the letter requesting the City's consent. Staff is in no position to recommend the City agree to the expense, but is proposing consent for the remodeling of the jail on the basis that Lane County pay the expense. Mr. Long indicated his office and ~ the City Manager had met with County officials and communicated to . them that his office would not recommend the City incur that expendi- ture. He also indicated there were other issues, i.e., acquisition of the jail and ground rules for housing City prisoners, which the City would like to discuss at one time. The County indicated it was not ready to move ahead on these other issues. In response to a question from Mr. Delay, Mr. Long said the City does pay a per capita fee of operating expenses for City prisoners. However, the City does not pay for housing of State prisoners. If the prisoners are in the jail on a charge other than a State charge, whatever jurisdiction places them in jail pays for the prisoner costs. Mr. Long said this request for sharing expenses of the remodel was being made only of Eugene, and not other cities in the county because of the existence of the 1973 contract. Manager said negotiations with the County had started at least three years ago, with the assumption that the new jail would be operating and the old jail would be cleared for additional parking space. Now it seems that the County needs the old jail for additional prisoner space. Two months ago, the County indicated they would keep the old jail only one more year; however, it now appears that the old jail will be used for another three to five years. Mayor Keller noted this was one area where he felt perhaps some progress could be made in dealing with double taxation. He did not think the City residents should pay for additional costs just because they live in Eugene. . Assistant City Manager said an agreement for jail ownership resulted from the City's owning the jail at one time, with major renovations needed. Lane County acquired a half-interest in the jail because of investments they made at that time for the renovations. The City operated the jail until 1972 when the current contract went into effect. Under that contract, any time improvements were made, the County and City would split improvements fifty percent. He noted there were times when the County was unable to pay its fifty-percent share, and the City went ahead and footed the entire bill. He wanted Council to know staff's recommendation today is not inconsistent with the way the City has dealt with the County historically. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to authorize notification that the City concurs with the remodeling of the jail, contingent on Lane County bearing all costs. Motion carried unanimously. 4/11/79--2 - Z-13 e D. Agenda Changes 1. East Butte Historic Landmark Area will be Item III. 2. Item VI: Civic Center Project should be labeled Civic Center Project Debt Service Payment. E. Council Support of HB 2424 and SB 629--Manager said a request had been received at Monday's Council meeting by persons opposing the Council IS support of the two bills regarding sexual orientation now at the State Legislature. At that time, Mayor Keller indicated he would allow a statement to be made at this Wednesday's meeting. Mayor Keller indicated requests both for and against Council IS action, and allotted each side five minutes. Those speaking in favor of the Council IS action supporting the bills were as follows: e Constance Newman, 894 West 4th, who said homosexuals are found in all classes and jobs. She said they are working people, but have suffered discrimination from employers because they are homosexual. She said by Council IS support of the bills, it is backing democratic rights and urged the Council to continue its support. Rosemary Batori, 2030 East 19th, spoke on behalf of the Women's Commission. She questioned why the Council was again discussing this issue, as she felt it had been decided at the April 4 Council meeting. Dominick Vetri, representing Eugene Citizens For Human Rights, thanked Council for its support of the bills. He reviewed the progress that was being made by homosexuals although discrimination still exists for them. He said Ballot Measure 51 results indicated only 34 percent of the registered voters expressed their disfavor of the ordinance passed by the Council. He felt the public was beginning to realize that arbitrary discrimination hurts everyone. He reviewed a poll which indicated many companies in the country have adopted a non-discrimination policy toward homosexuals. Many cities and states are taking similar actions. Also, he said laws were being changed within the Internal Revenue Service, Federal civil service, and military to reduce discrimination for homosexuals. He felt civil liberties have generally never fared well at the polls, and hoped the Legislature would give civil rights to homosexuals. Those speaking against Council IS action were as follows: Mike Hilty, 1905 West 34th, spoke on behalf of VOICE, and Maureen Gieber. He said of the total 61 precincts, only one had favored the homosexual ordinance in the May 1978 election. He asked the Council retract its support of the bills because the voters had stated their opposition. He felt it unethical and irresponsible that Council would support the bills in direct contradiction to what the voters e 4/11/79--3 LiLt had indicated at the polls. He felt this action by Council showed a lack of respect for the voters. If government is to be meaningful, elected officials have to respect the wishes of the citizens. He requested no other official statement be made by the City government ~ on the issue. ., John Hubbard, 215 East Beacon Drive, reviewed election returns by wards, which indicated every ward except Ward 3 (Delay) voted to repeal the ordinance passed by Council to include homosexuals in the human rights non-discrimination clause. Mayor Keller responded as to why he had appropriated time for these statements. He felt it to be in the best interests of the city to allow citizens to speak their wishes before the Council. He made it clear this did not deal with any particular issue, but that he was responding to the wishes of the people to address the Council. This was his way to support an open form of government and hoped that would continue in Eugene. He noted there was not time on the Monday1s agenda and thus it was scheduled for this Wednesday. Ms. Schue noted Mr. Hi lty I S comments about wards and preci nets were incorrect. She said that no Councilorls ward contains just one precinct. Mr. Obie appreciated the Mayor allowing citizens to speak. He felt the Council had a definite credibility factor that goes beyond the issue, in that Councilors are representatives of voters of the com- munity. Thus they have a responsibility to represent what the voters wa nt . e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that Council direct any staff or persons representing themselves as representatives of the City, i.e., human rights commissions, to indicate in their testi- mony before the State Legislature that the Council supported the bills; to include in their testimony the results from the voters of Eugene that came about from the City's referendum on the sexual orientation ordinance; and to include the Council IS split vote regarding the proposed State legislation. Ms. Smith noted her amendment presented at last week1s Council meeting to allow the Human Rights Council to testify in support of the bill, but that the Council not take a position in support. She did feel the Council action indicating support was inappropriate and she supported Mr. Obiels motion. Mr. Haws questioned how the motion would be enforced and to whom it would apply. Mr. Obie responded it would apply to anybody testifying on an official basis for the City of Eugene. Manager said it would be enforced by so instructing the City's lobbyist, staff, and members of the commissions. 4/11/79--4 e 215 e Mr. Delay had questioned why the item had been placed on the agenda because he was unsure any new information could be presented. He felt it had not been. He opposed the motion because he felt the Council acted as it should. The important issue for him was a question of what the Council should be as elected representatives. He felt as such, Councilors should be judged on an aggregate basis of the decisions Councilors make based on various major issues and what actions they take. He was going to continue to make decisions and act as he believed to be right for the community. He said if the citizens did not like that, then they could express that dislike at the polls. Mr. Haws opposed the motion because he did not think it to be workable. He also did not agree with any theory in which a large number of people in Eugene were allowed to vote their biases at the polls and thus subject those biases to all people in the city. Ms. Miller agreed there were some matters that could not be .put to a popular vote. She saw Council IS action as saying that the City Council of this year was reiterating the position of City Council of last year regarding the sexual orientation ordinance passed. She felt the Council was saying they still think that ordinance to be a good idea. She felt the Council action was correct. However, Council was not denying what the voters of Eugene were thinking, but making a statement of what the majority of the Council feels is right. Mr. Lieuallen did not think the directive in Mr. Obie's motion would be workable. He noted that the same facts were used by opposite sides with different interpretations. He did not think it to be workable unless a definitive directive were written. He also expressed confi- dence that both sides of the issue would be well-represented at the Legislative level. Ms. Smith felt the issue had been blown completely out of perspective. She noted the motion was simply to clarify and to indicate additional information when people are testifying on the issue. She still supported the motion. 'e Vote was taken on the motion, which was defeated with all Councilors present voting no, except Smith and Obie voting aye. F. Legislative Subcommittee Meeting--Cancelled for Thursday, April 12, 1979. G. Community Development Committee Vacancy--Manager said this would be held until the item regarding appointment process was discussed by Council. II. Routine Items For Council Approval A. Council Minutes April 4, 1979 - 4/11/79--5 ~/6 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes as noted. Motion carried unanimously. B. Legislative Subcommittee Minutes April 5, 1979--Manager said a split vote occurred on Senate Bill 489 which eliminates a provision allowing a public body to conduct labor negotiations in executive session at the request of either party. Staff recommended opposing the bill. Subcommittee voted to oppose the bill with Mr. Haws opposing staff's recommendation. - Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve legislative minutes as noted. Clarification was asked regarding staff's position. John O'Connor, Assistant Personnel Director, said he had two major concerns regarding bargaining in public. The first involved the right of a per~on's reputation and the right to due process. The second concern was that this process could be far more extensive and lengthy. He did not think it would serve the purpose of public/clients representation. The bill would allow any public or press to sit in on such negotiations. Mr. Long said the open meeting law, as it currently exists, includes an exception regarding labor matters as far as those that might come before Council. He said with a Council/Manager form of government, such negotiations are done at the staff level and brought to the Council in the budget process. The bill being proposed would allow press/public to attend the labor sessions no matter who conducts those sessions. Mayor Keller requested a reason why those sessions should be opened. ~ Mr. Haws said his position was that public business should be conducted in public. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Improvement Petitions Res. No. 3125--Authorizing initiating process for sidewalk construction on the east side of Bailey Hill Road from Westleigh Street to Warren Avenue (1224), was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Joan Krane, 3573 Kevington, spoke on behalf of homeowners in the area. She noted a private sidewalk had been installed, and questioned whether the City was going to assess the homeowners for further improvements where this sidewalk exists. Don Allen, Public Works Director, said-the City would simply connect at both ends of the existing sidewalk. If later this solution seemed unworkable, staff would come back to Council and request adjacent property owners pay for any improvements to correct the situation. 4/11/79--6 - ~11 e I I I . e e ~; " Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. .- ,.. ~ Res. No. 3126~-Authorizing initiating process for sidewalk construction on Warren Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to Timberline Drive; and on Timberline Drive from Warren Avenue to Wilshire Lane (1224), was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. East Butte Historic Landmark Area--Ordinance distributed. Manager said this item had been held over from the Monday, April 9, meeting. Judy Rees, HCC, reviewed the changes made in the ordinance which were in response to Council's direction from its March 26 meeting. Those changes included the following: 1) In Section 4(1), Standards For Alteration of Existing Structures, the phrase, "While maintaining the integrity of the structure" has been inserted after, "incompatible" in the last sentence; 2) Section 4(4)(a) Sun Exposure Plane Regulations were amended to include "may be waived for buildings up to two-and-one-half stories in height"; and 3) Section 4(7) Guidelines For Public Improvements--last sentence replaced with, "In order to enhance and contribute to historic character of East Skinner Butte Area, the City shall use the following guidelines to review all proposals for improvements to public spaces." Mr. Obie wondered if the two-and-one-half story limitation in the sun exposure plane would have any impact on the density and how it would affect developers wanting to build on vacant land. Ms. Rees replied there are two height regulation factors in this area: One, the sun exposure plane waiver would allow higher density. The second regulation affecting height in the area was the Skinner Butte View Corridor. C.B. 1853--Designating a portion of the East Skinner Butte Area as an Historic Landmark Area, and declaring an emergency, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the Historic designation, as set forth in Historic Review Board staff notes and minutes of February 8, 1979, 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 Council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18371. Manager said the resolution amending the Whiteaker Refinement Plan required a public hearing. Jim Farah, Planner, distributed the resolution. He said the amendment would allow a medium-high density in the area north of 4/11/79--7 2.18 c , t-. -t"e vacant alley on 2nd Avenue. The Historic Review Board felt that this area could be treated separately from other areas in the Whiteaker Refinement Plan, as this land is essentially vacant. e Responding to a question from Ms. Miller, Mr. Farah said medium-high density generally would allow 20 to 40 units per acre. He gave examples around the city of such a density: Woodlands--23 units per acre; West Amazon at 35th--20 to 35 units per acre; and a complex on the north side of Roosevelt between Lassen and Foch at around 30 units per acre. He said the Skinner Butte height limitation would impact this area in that a building at 500-feet ground level or less could be built to only 40 feet Q.bove ground. At a ground level above 500 feet, the building could be over 40 feet above the ground. He noted the restrictions in the area would probably make 40 units per acre unachievable and would result in a density probably no higher than 20 units per acre. The Historic Review Board also felt that the design review process would protect the area to the south. Public hearing was opened. Otto Poticha, 259 East 5th Avenue, spoke in favor of the resolution. He owned a property in the vacant area and noted his cooperation with the neighbors and neighborhood organization over the last two-and-a-half years in developing the Refinement Plan. He felt it ironic that the final issue would come down to his development of a piece of property 150 feet by 150 feet. Regarding the density issue, he said the problem was in defining medium-high density. If it were defined by Creswell standards, it might be eight units per acre. By New York standards, it could be 400 units per acre. He felt that 20 to 40 units per acre was only slightly greater than ~ RG zoning and felt it not to be a very high density. .., Averill Bennett, 1815 North Danebo, owned property south between 2nd and 3rd. He said that when the area was changed to historic designation, it did not change the density for his property. He was in favor of a higher density designation for his property. He said it was economically unfea- sible for him to remodel or tear down and rebuild his property with medium-density designation. Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd, was against the higher density designation for the vacant land in the alley near 2nd Avenue. She said Mr. poticha's land was not the only one in question, and said an owner of a much larger parcel was very much in favor of the medium-density designation, which the neighborhood organization supports. She said there were many blocks of high-density in the Whiteaker Neighborhood. The vacant area is presently 1ow-density and by allowing medium-density, this would be a compromise position between what the city needs for housing and what the neighborhood wants to preserve the historical character. She said if the land is vacant and it were zoned medium-density, that would be a great jump from zero to 20 units per acre. She felt allowing 40 units per acre would make it difficult to blend in with the other two blocks in the area. e 4/11/79--8 21Cf .' .. Public hearing was closed, there being no furthe~ testimony presented. .~~. '. e Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Farah said the total size of the property in question is a little over an acre. He reiterated it was felt that 40 units per acre would be unachievable, given the other height 1 imitati ons. Res. No. 3106--Concerning the Whiteaker Refinement Plan; amending Res. No. 2899 adopted by the City Council May 24, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion to have Council reaffirm its original position regarding medium density for this area as approved in the Whiteaker Refinement Plan in May 1978. Mr. Lieuallen said the issue is very unclear, the designation would result in destruction of some houses now on the property, and there is already high density in that neighborhood. Manager said Mr. Lieuallen's request could be achieved simply by voting against the resolution. Mr. Lieuallen, with consent of the second, withdrew his motion. e Vote was taken on the main motion, which carried with all Councilors present vot i ng aye, exce'pt Mr. L i eua 11 en vot i ng no. IV. Public Hearing Re: Housing Assistance Plan--Memo and materials distributed Robin Johnson, HCC, said the 1979-80 Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) was being submitted to Council for review, public comment, and approval. The Joint Housing Committee held a public hearing and approved the plan April 3. She said the HAP is a requirement of the Community Development Block Grant Program and must accompany this yearls block grant application to be submitted by mid-April. The HAP document indicates housing conditions and lower-income needs in the community, establishes goals for meeting those needs, and defines the geographic locations the housing assistance program can occur. She reviewed the tables in the materials distributed to Council . Public hearing was opened. Molly Knox, 835 East 37th, was the Countyls Government Senior Housing Specialist. She noted 32 percent of lower-income households have handi- capped persons as members of the family or heads of the household. Of these handicapped lower-income households, more than 25 percent of the total household income was spent on housing costs. She noted Eugene has a Jarge handicapped population, with a majority of the service providers e 4/11/79--9 2.20 !. .' .... located in the area. She urged that the City convey to the Federal ...::.JK-~ . Government that the HAP should consider handicapped problems separately from senior citizens. As HAP is now presented, they are combined. She recommended the City request revision of the HAP forms so that they would e indicate the handicapped population, where the funding is, and how it can be allotted for those handicapped persons. She said there was a great need for handicapped housing in the area, but was displeased with the inadequacy of the HAP plan in addressing the needs of the handicapped. Bill Uhlhorn, 2625 Hilyard, distributed to Council a letter to enter into the record on behalf of several agencies. He reviewed the letter and the recommendations for Council. He agreed with Ms. Knox' testimony that the handicapped should not be included with the elderly, but that some distinction should be made on the HAP application between the needs for both those groups, as their needs are different. It was hoped some distinction could be made to present the type of needs and type of facili- ties which would address those needs for the handicapped. Public hearing was closed, their being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen requested a response from staff as to how feasible it would be to have some of Mr. Uhlhorn's suggestions incorporated into the plan this year. He also requested a response from the Handicapped Commission. Ms. Johnson replied April 17 was the deadline for submission of the HAP, and it would be difficult to respond before that time. However, she felt that Mr. Uhlhorn and Ms. Knox were correct that the elderly and handicapped should be shown as separate items. She felt it important to communicate that the document be changed to show the distinction more clearly. She ~ said an addition could be made to the narrative on Table 3, but it would ',., be difficult to change the data in the tables at this time. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the Housing Assistance Plan; that Items 4(b) and (c) as presented in Mr. Uhlhorn's letter be included in Section 3-a of Table 3; and that the City express its concern that a clear distinction be made between handicapped and elderly in the HAP forms. Motion carried unanimously. The inclusion of Mr. Uhlhorn's letter would be as follows: No. 4(b): liThe City wi 11 cont i nue to cons i der budget i ng Ci ty funds and CDBG funds to provide adequate housing for handicapped individuals/families, particularly where it can be shown that such funds will leverage other State or Federal housing subsidies. No. 4(c): The City will seek innovative approaches to the solution of housing needs for the handicapped. Mr. Haws and Mr. Obie left the meeting. v. Council Process For Reviewing Issue Raised By Jet Boats on the Willamette River--Memo and materials distributed. 4/11/79--10 e- 2..21 1 f....., "y / e. Manager noted Council could consider scheduling a Monday night public hearing of the issue, and based on testimony, determine what its position would be regarding this issue. He suggested Monday, May 14. He noted that quite a bit of staff time and cost would be incurred to get answers to many of the questions in this issue. } Mr. Long said Council needed to submit a statement of what its policy would be at this point. He noted it was a very complicated problem and he asked the Council to indicate to the Attorney's Office how strongly they feel about dealing with the issue. Mr. Delay requested staff response regarding the letters that had been distributed to Council, noting that none of the correspondence had been directly with the City. Jim Saul, Planner, noted distribution of a copy of a letter to Mr. Greenleaf dated December 13, 1978, with no response received to date. He also had indicated in his memo to Council that he did not believe the Greenway goal would be applicable. He had checked with both Portland and Salem, with indications from both cities that the Greenway goal would not be applicable on the river. - Mr. Delay asked for clarification of the exact status of the shoulder of the river, the property abutting the Greenway. He wondered where Eugene's ownership ended, where the County's ownership began, and what portion was public land. Mr. Saul responded there was a strip of property, whose boundaries were subject to debate, along the riverbank which Valley River Center had dedicated to Lane County. There was a later dedication by Valley River Center to the City of a larger parcel during the rezoning of property now being used by Montgomery Ward. He said it was clear that with respect to the boat operation, it is adjacent to the County-owned property. As part of the conveyance to the County, the Valley River Center retained a certain easement and they believe the jet boat operation to be w~thin that easement right. Regarding the pedestrian path, he said that was a dedicated pedestrian bike trail and was open to pu~lic use. The actual placement of the dock constituting a change of use is an arguable point. He said a change of use as defined by the Greenway goal includes many things, including substantial structures being added. To focus on the change of use in the Greenway goals would ce misleading. He felt the major concern to be the operation of the jet boats on the river. Mr. Delay expressed his concern that this could be the first case of many such cases in the next few years. He felt Council needed adequate informa- tion to deal with those issues in a public forum. Mr. Long said before his office would undertake a review, he would need an expression from the Council that it considers the issue important enough to expend the time and effort necessary. He said that effort would result in the Cityls taking a position, and then having to make arguments to sustain that position. Mr. Lieuallen felt the community was concerned about what was happening to the river, and noted there were probably different degrees of concern. He did feel it to be of sufficient concern that the Council try to find an access point to the problem. '. 4/11/79--11 2..22. ~ ~,! , Ms. Schue said she would prefer to address controlling the situation without excluding the jet boat operation. She felt it important to have a public hearing to gather community input and consider what options are avail abl e. 'e Mr. Lieuallen felt a public hearing should be structured very clearly and suggested two questions: 1) Does the community think it important that the City try to control the level of this kind of commercial activity on the river; and 2) Would the citizens support expending legal costs necessary for such an effort? Mayor Keller and Manager will formulate a structure for the public hearing. Mr. Delay felt, regarding the dock issue, that it opens up other issues such as whether or not a permit is needed. He also felt the Council should be apprised of what other areas of concern might occur that the Council does not know about, and how those would affect the waterway too. Manager said staff would research the issues that had been raised. Mayor Keller noted receipt of a letter from Greenpeace and recognized Gary Spivak. Public hearing will be scheduled on the item Monday, May 14. VI. Civic Center Project Debt Service Payment--Resolution distributed. Manager said the request was to authorize a loan of $1,066,650 from ~ the Civic Center Capital Project Fund to the General Obligation Bonded Debt Service Fund to provide for interest payments due on Civic Center bonds on May 1 and November 1, 1979. If so authorized, the loan would be repaid no later than June 30, 1980, from the 1979-80 debt service tax levy. Monies available for the loan are from the interest earnings from investment of proceeds of the bond sale, November 1978. Res. No. 3127--Authorizing loan of $1,066,650 from the Civic Center Capital Project Fund to the General Obligation Bonded Debt Service Fund, was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Appointment Process for City Boards/Commissions--RESCHEDULED FOR COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 18, 1979. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and April 18, 1979. Cha~rY?c~ passed, the meeting was adjourned to CTH:DT:pm/CM8a22 .' 4/11/79--12 Z 2..3