Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/1980 Meeting - . ~ M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 2, 1980 This meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order at 11:45 a.m. by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Ms. Schue suggested that staff be asked to prepare a set of possible rules on how to handle requests for public input on non-public hearing items during Wednesday meetings. She suggested this could take the form of a non-debatable motion. Mayor Keller said he agreed and would instruct staff to bring a report back in one or two weeks. B. Potential Food Stamp Curtailment Mr. lieuallen stated he had distributed copies of a memo dated April 1, 1980, received from legal Aid regarding a national food stamp cutoff. He suggested that a letter be sent to the congressional del- egation and the President to urge that they take action in the near future so that food stamps will not be cut off from people in lane County. He stated this program allocation is approximately $1.2 million monthly in food stamp benefits to lane County residents. Due to the national economic situation, the number of eligible participants has increased dramatically. He stated that more than 14,000 lane County households, including 17,000 children and at least 5,400 elderly and disabled people living on fixed incomes would be affected. Unless Congress takes immediate action, there will be a total cutoff of this program in June. Additionally, this would have a tremendous "ripple effect" in the food industry in lane County. He asked the council to support requesting staff to send a copy of the memo plus a letter to support quick congressional action on this matter. Consensus was to send the letter. C. Parades Ordinance and Administrative Rules Mr. lieuallen stated he would like a status report from staff on the proposed administrative rules for the parades ordinance and would like to see this placed on an agenda in the near future. He said he would also like to consider an alternative proposal on these rules that he has received at that meeting. 4/2/80--1 c Mr. Allen stated that these would be brought back in two weeks and that the Eugene Police Department and the City Attorney's Office are working on the administrative rules. e ( , 'D. Residency Requirements for Elected Officials In reviewing the City Charter, Mr. Delay stated there seems to be some question about the residency requirements for City positions. Resi- dency requirements on a by ward basis for being in office and being elected to office do not seem to be clear. There are potential candidates for office who may not reside in the area from which they are running. Mr. Delay said he would like to have staff return with a report detailing the requirements and clarifying the charter with regard to both EWEB positions and council positions. Stan Long, City Attorney, explained that this question came up in 1976. At that time, clarification was recommended. In the present code, there are residency requirements. He indicated information can be supplied to the Council on specifics. Mr. Delay stated that under Section 34 of the charter, no person may vote for an officer by ward without having resided in the ward for 30 days preceding the election. Mr. Delay stated that this raised a technical question in his mind with the charter because he does not believe there is a mechanism for ensuring that a person in a precinct has been there for 30 days prior to an election. He requested that staff also review this matter. e E. Mayor Keller stated that, in going through the 1990 Plan Update, it might be appropriate for a joint coordinating committee from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County be formed to deal with issues that will need to be resolved by the elected officials. The initial presentation on the update will be made by staff to the council at the end of this month, and he asked that perhaps this committee could be formed within the next two weeks. Mayor Keller expressed his desire to be one of these people, and said he was looking for one additional person to serve with him. He asked any interested councilors to contact him before April 9. F. Architectural Committee/Conference Center Mayor Keller stated one member of the council is needed to serve on the Architectural Committee. This would be a five-member board. Mr. Obie asked when that committee would begin meeting. Ed Smith, Civic Center, said it would meet as soon as it was formed--within the next ten days. ( - 4/2/80--2 (e G. Agenda Adjustment Mayor Keller stated that, in regard to Item VIII on the agenda, Amendment of Trespass Ordinance, there were a number of people ready to testify on this item. He said the councilors might want to take a look at this item and perhaps hold it over for a public hearing. Gretchen Miller moved, seconded by Scott Lieuallen, to hold this item over until April 28 for a public hearing with the staff presentation to be made today, and that this item follow agenda Item II, Consortium/Prime S onsor Options. (Date of public hearing later changed to May 12, 980. Mr. Delay stated he would like a preliminary staff report at the meeting today, followed by a public hearing on April 28. Mr. Haws and Ms. Miller agreed. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. H. League of Oregon Cities Regional Conference Mr. Allen stated they are still seeking council registrants for the League of Oregon Cities April 15 Regional Conference. If any coun- cilors are planning to attend, they should advise the City Manager's Office. ce II. CONSORTIUM/PRIME SPONSOR OPTIONS--COUNCIL DISCUSSION (memo distributed) \e Mr. Allen stated that the council had approved staff recommendations in concept at a previous meeting and staff had completed the necessary follow-up work. He indicated that Lane County Commissioner Otto t'Hooft would be making a presentation. Lane County Commission Chairman t'Hooft, 83011 Clayton Road, thanked the council for inviting him to speak. He stated he would be speaking for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. They would like the City to consider the consequences of separate CETA administrative roles as to whether these actions will produce the best client services. The County is not asking the City to participate in a program not supported by the City. He asked if the actions leading to duplication of effort in sep- arate programs would provide the best client service. Convenience to staff, either City or County, must not be the primary basis for the action. On April 1, 1980, Lane County decided it could not support two Prime Sponsor programs. He said the County would like to see a single consor- tium with a single operation or to continue in the present prime sponsor/ program agent format. The de 1 i very serv i ce to c 1 i ent s must be the pr imar y consideration. Duplicate administration would cause a financial loss to the clients who need the services. CETA is a training program, and every 4/2/80--3 possible dollar should be spent for training, not for administration of that training. He stated the feeling of the County was that the cost of providing services would increase with two administrative structures. ~he Lane County community includes the City of Eugene, and the Lane County Commissioners have an obligation to all residents of Lane County. ~he current City actions would force separate jurisdictions. The City1s proposal will allow access to no more than 30 percent of the current CETA funds. Under the old arrangements, Eugene residents held 65 percent of 'the PSE jobs. This would mean a Eugene resident would only have one-half the chance of getting a position as before. Mr. t'Hooft stated that, although there have been differences in regard to the CETA program in the past, he feels they are now on a constructive course. Potential clients may never figure out which agency to ask for help. It will also be difficult to explain why a client cannot have' a 'training job because that c1 ient 1 ives on the wrong s ide of the street. Residency is a problem. Under the duplicative arrangement of two prime sponsors, certain Federal rules apply. If you are a Eugene resident, you are ineligible for a Springfield job. Participating Eugene agencies could hire only Eugene residents. There is but one community of the unemployed, and arbitrary boundaries caused by duplicative efforts will only worsen the situation. The quality of local self-determination of how funds will be spent is one which the County wishes to enhance rather to impair. A goal of local self-determination has been included in the comprehensive consortium arrangement. A consortium is a sharing arrangement, and he believes the City and the County can put client interest first. The plea is for the City to reconsider the potential effects of duplicative efforts and to request the City to reconsider working together on CETA. The commissioners believe that an independent consortium should administer the program. This could be an independent task force appointed by the two jurisdictions. He stated the two distinctions between the comprehensive consortium and a consortium with two program operators, which the City had adopted, were that the comprehensive consortium involves program flexibility with integrated policies. It is simpler and is cost- and accountability- effective, while the consortium with two program operators is restricted along boundary lines and would cost more and create duplication. - The United States Supreme Court has held that residency should not be a barrier to residents seeking help. Commissioner t'Hooft said he would like to see Eugene be a partner with Lane County. Mayor Keller thanked Commissioner t'Hooft for coming. Mr. Delay stated there has been a long history of disagreements of implemen- . tation and these items are more complex than indicated by Commissioner tlHooft. There could be a consortium with an intergovernmental department 4/2/80--4 e e - ~ or a consortium with two separate operators, or, no consortium. He asked Mr. t'Hooft why the County was willing to allow separate prime sponsors and eliminate the idea of consortium with two separate operators as an alterna- tive. City staff feels the CETA program could be run more effectively by the City. This seems to be an opportunity for staff to deliver services, as the program is intended. Commissioner t'Hooft replied that it is the understanding that with sep- arate program operations there could be conflicting policies regarding to whom the programs would be directed. This could lead to additional conflict, and there has already been enough conflict with CETA in the past. With separate operations, there would be more policies and staff problems, and he does feel that a consortium in this circumstance could deal effectively with these items. Mr. Delay stated it seems to be an all-or-nothing position by the County. A consortium with two program operators could be a step in the right direction. Two prime sponsors seem to be giving up trying to make any progress in working together. Mr. t'Hooft said the County feels that prime sponsors would be better for Lane County, since there appears to be a lack of faith and trust in the present system. If there is not this faith and trust in the existing system, Lane County does not feel that it can go forward. They want the programs to work. Under the comprehensive consortium proposal, an alternative involving liaisons from each agency was discussed. Individual conerns could be addressed. ~ Mr. Delay stated he does not think it is a question of faith and trust as much as different program implementation philosophies. It might be better to have more than one kind of approach to the programs. His feeling is that he would like to see the City consort on a limited basis, moving toward full consortium. Commissioner t'Hooft responded that the City and the County will have to work together no matter what, but he thinks there is a better way than with separate operations. He said the City has not yet experienced what it is to be a prime sponsor. Ms. Miller said she felt that partial consortium could lead to full con- sortium. This could be looked at as one step along the way, and better than nothing. Mr. t'Hooft responded that Lane County has taken action. They will go the prime sponsor route without consorting unless the City and the County can agree to a full consortium approach. Ms. Smith stated she had been involved in many discussions about this issue and had served with both the City and the County on an advisory committee level. She felt the intent in both agencies is to work toward a full consortium. 1- ~. 4/2/80--5 c 1he City's position is to take the first step toward a consortium, and a conflict situation is not necessary in taking that step. It is her hope that there would be no negative "spinoffs" into other intergovernmental relationships. She feels that Lane County and the City can work together, and she would urge the County to reconsider its decision. Mr. Allen stated Gary Long, Personnel Director, and Ed Whitelaw, consultant to the City on economic issues including employment and training, are ~vailable for any questions the councilors might have. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the difference between the City and County approaches is one of contracting the services such as outreach, intake, counseling, etc. Mr. Long said the proposed options involve consolidation of grants, planning, and audit, as well as contracts for service delivery. Some services would be provided by a central staff. The adult training program could be contracted and, it is hoped, the youth program would be contracted by the school district. The public service employment section would require central administration. In regard to client services for Eugene residents, it is the staff's feeling that many could be contracted. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the primary difference is in who would deliver the services. Mr. Long responded that the analysis of performance and cost are the City's primary concerns. After receiving the Department of Labor statistics, they concluded that a more efficient way to provide the same services could be initiated. Contracting is a more productive and efficient way of delivering these services. There is a secondary question over the necessity of an intergovernmental department. ( Mr. Lieuallen said the memo stated that the consortium model with a combination of separate programs and cooperative services is preferable and more consistent with City policy and interests than other approaches. He wanted to know what specific City policies were involved. Mr. Long responded that the approach has been that employment and training should be coordinated with other City services and goals, and that has not been the pattern of program operations to date. He also feels that intergovern- mental departments, since they would become separate units of government, should not be created unless there is a specific need for them. Mr. Lieuallen asked for one specific example of a City policy that might not be considered. Mr. Long replied that in the economic development area, staff would like to see CETA funding in this area made consistent with the policies of the Economic Development Committee. This would also be true of the Performing Arts Committee and Performing Arts Center. Ed Whitelaw stated that employment and training, resource management, and land use were all part of a major goal which the Council adopted. This launched the Economic Development Committee. To be consistent, then, with City policies and interests. an integrated approach to employment and training and how they relate to economic development in general should be considered. Mr. Long stated that the .City was unab 1 e to get agreement from the County to the consolidated consortium. There is no agreement from the County as to how to organize this intergovernmental department. 4/2/80--6 - e e . Mr. Haws stated that Lane County has failed to serve the citizens of Eugene. He is hearing that either the City must do it the County's way or the County will not cooperate with the City. He asked if this program could be put under the jurisdiction of the Lane Council of Governments. Mr. Long responded that this was unacceptable to the County. Mr. Haws stated he wants to do what is best for the citizens and does not agree with the County. Mr. Delay noted that he had some questions in regard to the chart that had been prepared about the distinctiqn between the countercyclically and structural1~ unemployed. He would also like to clarify the residency issue. Mr. Long stated the consortium would create flexibility except in the public service employment section. Title 11-0 is for structurally unem- ployed, and Title VI is for countercyclically unemployed. With the County operation right now, there is no distinction between countercyclically and structurally unemployed. Mr. Long said that the City staff felt they could do a better job of serving the structurally unemployed by modifying the intake process. Mr. Delay asked if the only situation that would make the residency problem worse would be separate prime sponsors. Mr. Long responded that that was correct. . Mr. Obie said the council seems to have a consensus to reaffirm the action taken previously. He would like to see the council appoint Betty Smith to present to the county commissioners, at their meeting today, the City's position. Mr. Delay said he would like to see the City's position also presented and clarification of some of the details which have concerned the County. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, to authorize submission of the letter of application and planning grant to the Department of Labor pursuant to last week's council action. The planning grant and DOL submission will specify that a consortium of City- County program operators is to be formed or, if no agreement is reached with Lane County by Thursday, April 3, staff will submit a prime sponsor application. Mayor Keller stated this was to confirm the action taken last week. Mr. Lieua11en stated that he would vote against the motion, as he feels that a comprehensive consortium should be formed. Mr. Delay questioned' whether the April 3 deadline is a reasonable time limit for more discus- sion with Lane County to see if they would reconsider partial consortium. Mr. Obie added that the County should be made aware that the City is sincere in its desire to move in the direction of a full consortium. Mr. t'Hooft responded that the board is meeting today and, if councilors would like to have a member of the council make a presentation, this could be done. He added that he did not know how much good the presen- tation would do. Ms. Smith suggested that Mayor Keller might make the presentation. Ie ~- 4/2/80--7 Mr. Obie stated that the City is sincere in trying to move forward on this project, but they are running into a deadline and should not miss the ~ opportunity to come closer to a consortium. Commissioner t'Hooft stated ... he felt the problem with the City's stand is that it would create separate prime sponsors under a superstructure. Mr. lieuallen said that there has been a difficulty in determining exactly what the issues are as both agencies see them. If one continues down the .present road, two separate prime sponsors are inevitable. 'Ms. Schue stated she felt it would be highly unfortunate if we ended up with the option that neither agency wanted--having separate prime sponsors. The residency is an important part and, under either coopera- tive model, would be better than under prime sponsors. She does not understand why Lane County is not willing to compromise. Mr. Delay stated he hopes that whoever represents the council to the commissioners would make it very clear that they would like to work together. There are serious but legitimate differences in the approach to this matter. Having a consortium with separate operations would be working toward the goal of a full consortium. The Department of Labor report shows definite room for improvement. He stated he felt the City should give the staff proposal a try to get this program operating. He will support the motion and hopes ,Lane County will reonsider its decision. Roll call vote; motion carried 7:1, with Councilor Lieuallen voting no. Mayor Keller stated that either Ms. Smith or he would convey the council's e decision to the board of commissioners. Mayor Keller indicated that Items V, Equal Opportunity Report for 1978-79; VI, Revision of South University Charter; VII. Cone/Breeden Case Update; and X, Residential lot Size Reductions, would be removed from this agenda and placed on the April 9 agenda. III. AMENDMENT OF TRESPASS ORDINANCE (memo and ordinance distributed) Mr. Allen introduced Stan long, City Attorney, to make a presentation. Mr. Long stated there were numerous issues to be considered in the devel- opment of this ordinance. Case law indicates that some shopping malls are private, and owners have the right to prohibit even First Amendment activities. Various decisions from the courts using State law have indicated that certain activities could occur on such private property. In the last session of the legislature, a senate bill would have made areas like the downtown mall and Valley River Center quasi-public places. The Eugene legislative committee did not support this legislation because it had gross technical problems. At the same time, there was a court e 4/2/80--8 (e , decision in Municipal Court which though legally appropriate, many people felt was an inappropriate decision from a policy standpoint. This case involved successful prosecution of an individual who was making unauthor- ized use of a portion of Valley River Center. Consequently, some members of the council asked the attorney's office to look at the role of the local police force in these instances and an amendment to the trespass ordinance. Certain people felt that certain large shopping centers are equivalent to downtown areas such as Eugene's mall, where daily activities involving the First Amendment flourish. An amendment has been developed that modifies the trespass ordinance so that the Eugene Police Department, Eugene Municipal Court, and the City Prosecutor's office would not be used to enforce the City ordinance against individuals who violate private property rights in the shopping center context by First Amendment activi- ties except in certain cases. The ordinance makes it a defense to the trespass charge to be present at a shopping center of a certain size that does not have an area set aside for First Amendment activities. This creates an inducement for shopping centers to set aside an area for First Amendment activities if they wish to use the Eugene police force, Muni- cipal Court, or the City Prosecutor's services. This ordinance is a policy question, not a legal requirement. This matter is within the legislative discretion of the council in that it specifies in what form the City's resources should be used. The ordinance defines a shopping center mall as an enclosed area greater than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. The free-speech area is one percent of the gross floor area. The ordinance provides a defense against the trespass charge if the mall has no free-speech area. This ordinance does not change or affect activ- ities which are determined to be illegal under State, criminal, or civil law--only under the City's trespass ordinance. ce Mr. Haws asked if the following summary is correct: If a person owns a shopping center mall of 10,000 square feet or more, and this owner wants to use the resources of City courts and police, a free-speech area must be designated or the owner would need to resort to another jurisdiction. Mr. Long indicated that this is accurate. Ms. Smith asked if this required shopping center owners to designate a free-speech area. Mr. Long responded that it did not. Ms. Smith asked when the police would intervene if there was no designated free-speech area. Mr. Long responded that, if it is a violation of Federal or State law, the City could still be asked to respond. In Municipal Court, there would not be prosecution arising out of a shopping center trespass unless in that area there was a designated free-speech area and the violation occurred outside of that area. Mr. Haws asked if a trespasser or a business owner has the choice of which jurisdictional system would be used. Mr. Long responded that the property owner could use any remedy other than City Code. In the usual trespass situation, he explained, there is a disturbance, police are summoned, and the owner directs the trespasser to leave. Under the present ordinance, the police then arrest, cite, or physically remove the alleged trespasser for violating the City Code. Under this amended ordinance, when someone declines to leave; since this will be an obvious, clear defense, an arrest will probably not ensure. The police would walk away, leaving the business owner to seek other remedies. (, ~ 4/2/80--9 ( Mayor Keller stated since that the April 28 agenda is full, this item :would be held over until May 12 and included on that agenda as a public ,hearing. Those who requested to speak on the item at this meeting will be notified of the date. 'I e IV. [AMENDMENT TO EUGENE PERFORMING ARTS COMMISSION ORDINANCE REGARDING MEMBERSHIP (distributed) CB 2106--An ordinance concerning the Performing Arts Center Commission; amending Sections 2.013 and 2.634 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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. Councilor Haws left the meeting. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18610. V. PERFORMING ARTS CENTER BID AWARDS--PHASE III (memo and tabulation distributed) ( Mr. Allen introduced Ed Smith, Civic Center, and Les Anderson to make introductory remarks. e Mr. Anderson said three bids had been received last Wednesday on the first . part of Phase 3 of the Civic Center project. $5.8 million has been set aside for the first phase, which is the shell of the structure. $6.4 million was the low bid received, which is 11-12 percent above the esti- mate. This can be attributed to inflation. The prime interest rate has gone from 8 percent to 20 percent and the annual cost-of-living increase has gone from 9 percent to 18 percent since the time of the original estimates. The contractors bidding must project future inflation increases and increasing material costs. There were three choices on how to proceed. The first was to rebid this phase with no assurance that bids would be any , lower, and it would involve a costly delay which might result in a higher bid. The cost is going up at approximately $1~0,000 per month. Second, they could have redesigned the project, which would cause more delay and facilities would be deleted with the probability that the size of the performing halls would be reduced. The construction season now is favor- able. The third option was the one the Civic Center Commission has recommended. They recommend that the bid be awarded to R. A. Chambers for $6.4 million. The Civic Center Commission asked the Eugene Arts e 4/2/80--10 ce Foundation to assume costs of the Rehearsal Hall and the Green Room. (Alternate 1) and the Willamette Arcade (Alternate 2). They also recom- mend that interest income from the bonds be used to make up the difference between the estimated and actual costs. Most commission members feel use of this bond interest would be justified. Mr. Anderson referred to the motions passed on March 27, 1980, at the Civic Center Commission meeting and stated that Motion 3 would need to be restated, and that perhaps Ed Smith could explain in more detail, but that Motions 1, 2, and 3 would pertain to any action the councilors would be taking. He urged support of the project. ce Maurie Jacobs stated the Eugene Arts Foundation had a resolution they would like to have read into the record. liOn April 2, the following resolution was approved at an executive meeting in response to a request of the Civic Center Committee that the foundation fund Alternate 1, the Rehearsal Hall and Green Room, and Alternate 2, the Willamette Arcade, recognizing that if the options for roughing in the Rehearsal Hall, the Green Room, and the Willamette Arcade are not exercised at this time, the opportunity may be lost forever." Mr. Jacobs stated that this was a position paper, and that eight of the nine members indicated agreement. (The ninth member could not be contacted, but Mr. Jacobs felt approval would have been unanimous.) liThe Eugene Arts Foundation has establ ished a process for goal- and priority-setting by which an ad hoc committee of directors and trustees makes recommendations to the board of directors and trustees for action. However, because of the need for summary action on Phase III, in regard to Alternates 1 and 2, the board of directors waived the process. The Eugene Arts Foundation recognizes the need for and endorses Willamette Street Arcade, but is unable to commit funds to this project, since foundation directors do not believe construction was intended to extend to the street and sidewalks and feel that it would conflict with their efforts to secure and provide funding for performance facilities, equipment, and operating support for the Performing Arts Center and arts organizations. The arcade is the legitimate responsi- bility of the Eugene Renewal Agency and the foundation recommends that arcade funding be requested of that agency. The foundation pledges that, except for a prior commitment of $75,000 toward acquisition of art works for the Performing Arts Center, funding of the Rehearsal Hall and Green Room, not to exceed $336,900 for all phases, will be its first priority. This pledge, however, is not based on the total funds which may be raised by the foundation. Donors may wish to designate gifts to the foundation for other operating or endowment purposes." Mr. Obie stated that, if councilors would read Motion 3 that he had made at the Civic Center Commission meeting, the motion really has no impact on the commission's recommendation to go ahead or not. It dealt with the funding of that phase of the project. Motion 1 recommends approval of the contract as recommended by Mr. Anderson. Motion 3 deals with how that was to happen and, although well intended, was not well founded. Figures on av~ilable funding were not available at the time of r,e 4/2/80--11 ( this motion. $1.9 million of the interest income has already been com- mitted. The additional funds needed are $675,000. The change in the motion was to recommend that the interest of $675,000 be used for con- struction costs. He asked staff to prepare a report for the Eugene performing Arts Commission and the City Council to outline additional cuts on a priority basis for future use. -This project was supposed to have been built for $18.5 million, and that will not be the case. - Mr. Delay stated it is unfortunate that costs keep escalating, but that fact is not unique to the Performing Arts Center. In terms of the $18.5 million bond, he believes that it is sound fiscal management to invest that money and use the interest. He had never believed that the City could say the center would be built for $18.5 million; rather, he believed that it would be built with an $18.5-million bond levy. No matter how much the interest rate goes up, it will not affect the tax levy. We are trying to take advantage of an unfortunate situation to try to cover inflationary costs. We will run out of interest income before we run out of increased costs. ( :Mr. Smith stated, in regard to coming back with potential cuts, that $2 million in cuts have already been made. He distributed a list of those to :the council. These cuts were relatively easy to make without sacrificing the artistic quality of the building, but future cuts would be more diffi- cult future cut proposals will be brought back to the council for review. ,Mayor Keller stated that a joint meeting between council and the Civic Center Commission would be appropriate to look at problems or resolutions to those problems. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that an additional $675,000 be allocated from the bond interest fund to the Performing Arts Center, and that staff provide reports as previously dis- cussed. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr, Lieuallen, that the Council approve awarding the contract for the base bid for Contract 6 to the low bidder, R. A. Chambers, in the amount of $6,400,000, and the amount of $196,000 for Alternate 1. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstaining. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that Eugene Renewal Agency be requested to take responsibility for the Willamette Street Arcade. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. VEHICLE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE PROGRAM--INFORMATIONAL (memo distributed) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to authorize Councilor Miller, through the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee, to request the L-COG staff to work with DEQ, Motor Vehicles Division, and the City of Springfield in order to develop the appropriate enabling State legislation and budget appropriation needs. ( e 4/2/80--12 e e e Mr. Obie asked if they were talking about a $300,000 annual expenditure. Ms. Miller replied that the City was not making a commitment to pay for this at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned to April 9, 1980. Respectfully submitted, Ydd- Acting City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) so/CM8a13 4/2/80--13