Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/1980 Meeting (2) , M I NUT E S . Eugene City ,Council City Council Chamber December 10, 1980 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, wa? called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. 1. ITEMS FOR MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. L-COG Conference Ms. Schue stated that on January 17, L-COG will hold a conference on ethics considerations for elected officials. Councilors planning to attend should notify either L-COG or City staff. B. Appreciation of Public Works Staff . Ms. Miller noted appreciation to staff who worked hard dealing with excess rain- fall last week. She stated that staff was cheerful in the face of adverse circumstances. C. Hearings Panel Decisions Mr. Delay commented that many times, working on the hearings panel is a no-win situation. Individuals being assessed feel the assessment is unfair. He has spent a good deal of time trying to explain the City system to the residents. On December 8, one person sat through all the rest of the council meeting waiting for Public Works' bids and did not fully understand City policy regarding assessments by the conclusion of the meeting. She presented an emotionally charged statement and was probably angry when she left. He is comfortable with the City decision but felt bad about the way the woman felt and the lack of understanding. He suggested that consideration be given to a better method to handle situations like this, perhaps including the use of follow-up letters. Mr. Hamel indicated agreement. He noted that he is the representative from her ward but had never received any information from her. Ms. Sc h ue a 1 so indicated agreement with Mr. Delay's comment. She also feels a process is needed for response to situations like this. Mayor Keller stated that he and Don Gilman, Public Works, had also discussed this problem. Mr. Henry stated that it is the intention of the City to pursue this problem and noted that this woman's bill would be $2,000 rather than $6,000. Also, it may be that Bancrofting rates will be lower when her property is assessed. Mr. Gilman . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 1 stated that he would initiate communication with the woman. Mr. Lieuallen , suggested that any follow-up letters should contain detailed explanations of the . City policy rather than be a form letter. Mayor Keller noted that the woman's discussion was comprehensive and that sometimes City decisions may seem harsh to the public. D. Appointments Mr. Henry stated that a special council meeting was held December 3, 1980, and the following appointments were made to the Planning Commission: Roger Rutan was appointed to the unexpired term of Alan Maxwell, ending January 1, 1984; Robert Barkman was reappointed to a four-year term ending January 1, 1985; and Brian Bauske was appointed to a four-year term ending January 1, 1985. At the same council meeting, the following appointments were made to the Joint Housing Commi ttee: Robert Bennett was appointed to a three-year term, ending January 1, 1984; and Hugh Prichard was appointed as first alterriateto that committee. Additionally, at that meeting, Jack Delay was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Tom Ballantyne on the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency for the term ending July 10, 1984. E. Meetings Mr. Henry reminded councilors of interviews for the Citizen Involvement Committee and Community Development Committee following the council meeting in the McNutt Room at 1:30 p.m. On December 10, at 4 p.m. in the McNutt Room, a Room Tax Subcommittee meeting will be held. .- On Tuesday, December 16, the Economic Development Committee will meet at 11:30 a.m. in the Mayor's Office and at 7:30 p.m., the Budget Committee will meet in the McNutt Room. Mr. Henry stated that on Wednesday, December 17, a tour of the CETA facility and a demonstration of their application screening process would be held and at 6:30 that evening, a dinner will be held at the Valley River Inn with the Lane County Legislative Delegation. The Tri-Agency meeting may be postponed. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of November 12, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve council minutes of November 12, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . MINUTES-~Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 2 III. PUBLIC HEARING . A. Land Use Fee Adjustments for Calendar Year 1980 (memo, resolution, and additional information distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this resolution is to adjust fees for land development applications to bring the charges in line with the processing costs. Also, new fees are being passed on to. the City by the Boundary Commission for the cost of their processing of annexation applications. Consideration can be given to raising residential fees from 30 to 60 percent of the processing costs. He introduced Jim Farah, Planning, to provide additional information. Mr. Farah stated that there are three typographical errors in the resolution. In paragraph three regarding non-residential PUD's over 12 acres, "per acre" should be deleted and the cost would be simply $212. Also, the prelimi- nary PUD fee should be $242, and the non-residential preliminary fee of $194 should have the words llper acre" deleted. There are three parts to the memo; the first two deal with the recommendations for adoption and the third is informational. Table 1--Annexation Fees, outlines fees per application which the City will be required to pay to the Lane County Boundary Commission. There is a $325 charge per application and additional charges depending on the size of the annexed property. At this time, charges for sewer or water line extension and annexation to Metro Wastewater are not included but they could be at a later time. Fees charged for rezoning would remain with the City. Table 2 would modify the fee schedule for land use applications to increase them ten percent to cover inflation. Additional information is included regarding the fee structure. Staff is suggesting that this could be a fund- . raising mechanism and they would suggest that this be considered as part of the code update. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3452--A resolution establishing fees for applications for hearing requests in connection with the processing of petitions for annexations; changes of zone; conditional use permits; site review; zoning variance; planned unit developments; vacation of streets, easements, and alleys; partition and subdivision of land; administration of the Sign Code; and repealing Resolution No. 3236. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Delay stated that the graphic represen~ations in the report were very good and that this is a useful tool. i. Ms. Schue asked how assessments would be divided up for small property owners such as in the case of subdivisions. Mr. Farah stated that usually there is only one application for the entire subdivision. Division of the costs would be up to the applicants. Mr. Obie asked if these would be treated as one applica- tion. Mr. Farah responded that they would. Mr. Obie stated that he is concerned about institutionalizing fees for the Boundary Commission. He would like for . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 3 staff to analyze the need for the Boundary Commission after LCDC approves the plan. The Boundary Commission may no longer be needed. Mr. Farah indicated . that this would be done; He reiterated the changes to the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council consensus was to not discuss the issue of raising fees for residential applications to recover 60 percent of the processing cost at this time. IV. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the Tri-Agency Policy Committee has requested the proposed amendments. These changes will increase maximum fines and penalties for some areas of animal control and will change the certification requirement 'for an animal technician. The definition of animal technician would include graduates of accredited programs in animal technology. Mr. Delay stated that these are routine measures which have been worked on for a long time. The changes are non-controversial but necessary. Mr. Obie stated that the increases are staggering. $250 for a dog-at-large would be more than routine for those who receive that fine. He is concerned with the size of the increase. Mr. Delay stated that it is needed to be able to better deal with repeat offenders. This is not a bail schedule; that will be established by the court and probably will not be much different than the current one. This change would allow more room for the judge to deal with specific situations. Without knowing the bail schedule, he does not know what . difference there would be for first offenses, but he would not think it would be much higher than now. Ms. Smith shared the concerns already presented about the fine schedule. Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, stated that citations would be issued while the fine would be determined in court. The maximum penalties would be for more serious offenders or repeat offenders. Ms. Smith asked if the judge would determine the fine. Mr. Delay responded that that would be the case. It would be the same as the current situation with parking tickets. There is currently a bail schedule for minor offenses and it will probably not change much. The court can require an offender to appear and then determine a fine based upon all of the circumstances and testimony. This gives the judge latitude to deal with repeat offenders or those who represent significant problems. This also can allow the judge to prescribe conditions under which animals must be held on their owners' property if a dog attacks someone. This has not been possible in the past. With ordinances, most are open-ended and revert to a fine of up to $1,000. Ms. Smith stated that she had read the definition of a vicious dog and asked what discussion is held to determine what a vicious dog is. Mr. Delay stated that Mr. Spickerman had brought this problem in definition to their attention. Previously, unless a dog had bitten more than one person, one could not deal with other kinds of behavior to force them to confine a dog. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 4 ,.~ Mr~ Henry stated that he was made aware of one barking dog that caused a neighbor to move away because of repeated offenses. A $10 fine does not really motivate . some owners to do anything about problem animals. Mr. Haws arrived at the meeting. Mayor Keller agreed that the proposed maximum fine seems substantial. He indicated that he does not understand the system. If these are maximum fines, he asked whether an adjustment might be appropriate. Mr. Delay stated that "and/or days in jaiP relates back to allowing a judge the ability to deal with extreme situations. Also, suspended sentences rather than jail time can be meted out. Mr. Whitlow stated that Mr. Spickerman could be asked for additional information but some penalties are stiff because of circumstances. Some problems have been quite serious. Mayor Keller stated that it may be inappro- priate to have 100 days in jail for a violation caused by a dog. Ms. Mi 11er stated that a lot can be done with a suspended sentence. This could be a motivating force that would prevent a situation from happening again within a given time period. It may take something this harsh to motivate some people. There is a trend to take animal control more seriously and it seems to help in other communities. She feels the maximum penalties are appropriate. There are some cases where some animals terrorize neighborhoods and can be very hard to control. It is a serious responsibility to have a pet and it is a great deal of responsibility, especially in higher-density neighborhoods. Mr. Obie noted that he would encourage the council to pass this ordinance. Of all complaints received as a councilor, dog problems are the most frequent. Maybe this will put the responsibility on the owner rather on the one complaining. . Mr. Delay stated that perhaps Ms. Miller and Ms. Schue, as members of the Animal Control Task Force, could look further at this issue in the future. The most serious offenses have the highest penalties. The court is generally lenient with first offenders but this will give the court a way to deal with recalci- tr ant cases. Mr. Haws stated that the discussion is not about friendly dogs but about life and death. There is no need for vicious dogs in this community. The penalties can be made even harsher if this does not work. CB 2222--An ordinance regarding dog and animal regulations; amending Sections 4.355, 4.425, 4.430, 4.435, and 4.990 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. Council Bill 2222 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieua11en, that the bi 11 be given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18730. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 5 V. STAFF REPORT ON ISSUES RAISED BY OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that staff is asking for guidance regarding the issue raised by . the Oak Park residents. It seems that nothing can be done about conver.sion of this rental property into a subdivision but perhaps something can be done for future projects. He introduced Jim Croteau of the Planning Department to provide further information. Mr. Croteau stated that Oak Patch PUD was approved by the Planning Commission in 1971 for 73 units. It was built and occupied in 1972 and has been used as a rental since then. On November 11, 1980, the Planning Director granted approval for tentative subdivision of the Oak Park PUD. The earliest that they could be sold would be in February or March of 1981. The PUD ordinance was adopted in 1968. The architect, engineer, and landscape architect must certify the development in a PUD. , A variety of issues were raised when the condominium conversion process was brought before the council. Structure types and age of development for those proposed for conversion--Willamette Towers and Patterson Towers--and maintenance including structure, roof, elevators, and other common elements, such as heating and cooling equipment, were considered. A moratorium was imposed until a decision was reached. Also, the tenants in these two structures were primarily elderly and had fairly long tenure as well as the rent levels being below the average of what tenants would be paying for a comparable unit. Additionally, condominium conversion is a State-regulated process and there is no local control. After six months of study, evidence was forwarded to the City Council which enacted the ordinance requiring certain tenant and purchaser protections, . and adequate notice for a tenant of a building proposed for condominium conver- sion. Also, special assistance is to be given to special category tenants--the elderly, handicapped, and low-income. The council approved a yearly reporting process to monitor the rate of conversion from rental to condominium units. There would be no limitation or ceiling on conversion; but if the rate increased significantly, future action could be taken to limit the rate. The formula for determining the rate of conversion does not include conversion of PUD's through a subdivision process. Condominium conversion provides purchaser protection. Planned unit developments have the requirement of a design team which fulfills many of the same concerns. The State legislature will be considering similar tenant and purchaser protection for conversion of this type and he would recom- mend holding off until the status of this is known. The first area of tenant protection requires relocation assistance for special category tenants. Although PUD's will contain some special category tenants, it does not appear that with average or above average rent structures they will contain a high percentage of special category tenants. Advance notice is lacking to tenants of a planned unit development proposed for subdivision although it is required for condominium conversion. Staff would recommend that this advance notice be given. At the onset of the subdivision process notice should be given in order to give tenants time to make decisions regarding purchasing or finding alternate housing. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 6 " Mr. Lieuallen asked what price range the units would be in when they went on the market. Mr. Croteau noted that the Oak Park owner is present. Mr. Lieuallen . stated that one main argument against dealing with this would be that it would dampen the market. He asked if that is realistic. Mr. Croteau responded that many PUD's are subdivided at the onset and then rented out. The council will face these concerns at a later date. Mr. Delay stated that the staff report was good. He had received a memo from Donald Murphy, the developer, and a copy of a November 20 letter to the resi- dents which was given to the council. The developer indicates he will make a special offer at a lower price to current teDants. They also will work with families to help on an individual basis. They also considered a rent reduction during the sales period. He hopes this information will be communicated to the tenants. He does not feel any sales will take place until April 1981. It would help if notice was given at the time the initial application was made so that people could make decisions about moving, or they could decide about potential ownership. This would include a two-tiered notice, one at the time the process is initiated and a 90-day notice, and a general estimate of unit prices. Ms. Schue stated that people still could move into some complexes without knowing that they were about to be sold. In a situation like this, the owner should be required to make tenants aware that it would only be a temporary rental situation. Mayor Keller recommended conti~uing to work to develop an adequate notice program. Mr. Croteau stated that this could be done with administrative rules. He would like to think about the 90-day notice, however. It would be nice if it would be possible to incorporate this, but he would like to study it and re-evaluate. Mr. Delay noted that he would like the staff . to consider this. Most fear comes from uncertainty and lack of information. Staff could talk with the developer and see what kinds of problems that would cause for them. VI. CONSIDERATION OF DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE SERVICE--STAFF RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the staff presentation is to answer questions raised in a previous council meeting regarding whether or not the shuttle should continue. He introduced Duane Bischoff and Elaine Stewart, Paratransit; Navarre Davis and Chuck Wickizer, Downtown Development Board; Ray McIver, Eugene Downtown Association; and Ed Bergeron, Lane Transit District, to provide additional information. Mr. Bischoff stated that the information in tOday.s packet is in response to questions raised at the last council meeting. The council wanted information on the following: why there is a shortfall of revenue this year, what the prior history of expenditures of the district has been, the financial relationship between the parking revenues and the shuttle, the recent ad valorem tax rate, and the result of the ad valorem tax rates applied to individual property over the years. He stated that the largest amount of revenue drop is in parking. This accounts for 73 percent of their projected shortfall. They over-projected the number of spaces they could sell and it did not work out according to the . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 7 projections. The downturn in the economy has resulted in people buying fewer parking permits. The raise in'parking rates has also contributed to this, however. The Paratransit Program is successful. The growing shuttle service . has taken away revenue and more private lots have opened. They have attempted to achieve the council1s goals to have people using alternative modes of trans- portation. The Downtown Development Board has paid for not only the shuttle, but also for an extra police officer to patrol the mall, part of the transpor- tation study for downtown, part of the cost of the Performing Arts Center garage, and for increased lighting in the mall for additional security in the parking facilities. The Downtown Development Board has had to make difficult decisions in the past. Any direct relationship between the parking revenue and the shuttle would be difficult to establish. Many variables can cause fluctua- tions in revenue. The shuttle was to be funded until the transit system could take it over. At this point, they are averaging 200 riders and it is not cost-effective. He asked that the council affirm the board's decision as presented by Elaine Stewart. Ms. Stewart said that she surveyed 200 shuttle users. One hundred twenty-four of the respondents are full-time employees who use the shuttle every day. There is a willingness to pay a fee of $5 or $10 per month, although some would pay more. If it operated from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., commuter hours, most respon- dents would use the service. Before use of the shuttle, most of those surveyed drove downtown and 15 used LTD. If the shuttle is discontinued, most answering the survey stated that they would drive downtown and 19 would use LTD. Staff recommends that the shuttle service be continued during peak commuter hours beginning January 1, 1981, and that a $10 monthly user fee be charged. The cost of using Dorsey buses is $4,400 per month, and they will need to check with PUC to see if a fee can be charged. If 150 riders would pay a $10 user fee, then . the shuttle could operate from January until June using the $15,000 that is budgeted plus $7,500 in user fees providing an operating budget of $22,500. The Dorsey charge for those months would be $22,000. As shown on the graph which she distributed, total one-way trips are at about 8,000 per day. Lane Trans it District sees no problem and they feel they could be ready, to take over this service by June. The question was raised as to who was economically responsible for operating the commuter service--the users or LTD. They are examining funding options. Mr. lieuallen asked if the shuttle were to be continued, how many businesses stay open until 6 p.m. Ms. Stewart responded that retail stores are open until then and so are banks. She thinks 4:30-6:30 p.m. would be a good evening time for the bus. Mr. lieuallen asked what a $7.50 user fee would yield. Ms. Stewart stated that it would cost $22,000 to run from now until June. It wi 11 cost $4,400 per month if they are given the $15,000 from DDB. Ms. Smith stated that it seems that the projected budget is very tight. She feels the $10 fee should be maintained. She thinks the council should support this program if LTD can be ready to take over soon. She asked what the Downtown Development Board's position was. Mr. Davis complimented staff on getting the material together. The board feels that long-term shuttle service is not one of their goals. They have about $15,000 left over for this service and would like to use it to make a smooth . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 8 transition from getting out of the shuttle business and having LTD take over. . They had thought that Park and Ride would be ready by March. The Downtown Development Board does not feel that they can continue this expensive service but would be willing to use the $15,000 for the transition period. It woul d not be worth continuing the service if they had fewer than 100 riders. Mr. Delay asked why budgeted expenditures for parking were going down. Mr. Bischoff stated that it is of the one-time expense of footings for the Eugene Performing Arts Center garage. Mr. Delay asked what the promotion figures in 1978-79 to 1980~81 include. Mr. Bischoff stated that that represents the Eugene Downtown Association. Mr. Delay noted that there was a large jump in the projected parking revenues. Mr. Bischoff stated that they had over-anticipated those revenues. They had been at maximum sales for parking permits and they lost two of the lots with the hotel and the Performing Arts Center. All of the people who had formerly parked there did not move to the Overpark and the Parcade. Ms. Schue stated that a good job was done on this report on short notice. She feels the shuttle should be continued until LTD can provide its Park and Ride program. Mr. Obie wondered if the riders were asked where they lived. Ms. Stewart responded that they were not, but many come from Springfield. Mr. Obie asked how many empty parking spaces could be sold if there were customers. Mr. Bischoff stated that there are over 350 available. Mayor Keller asked if that includes the Eugene Performing Arts Center garage. Mr. Bischoff responded that . it does not. Mayor Keller asked what that projection is. Mr. Bischoff responded that that is for an additional 515 spaces. Mayor Keller asked if these spaces would be for sale on a monthly basis. Ms. Stewart responded that they would be until the Performing Arts Center opens. Mr. Lieuallen asked why more spaces were made available this year. He asked if they had considered the fact that if rates were raised, people would move elsewhere. He feels the board should look into the budgeted amount for Eugene Downtown Association. Mr. Bischoff stated that they are dealing with a IICatch-2211 situation, but they are trying to get cars out of the downtown area. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this is consistent with the DDB goals. Mr. Bischoff stated that he believed it is. Mr. Lieuallen asked if they do not feel it is their business to run a shuttle. Mr. Bischoff stated that the DDB would probably continue if they had enough money. Mr. Lieuallen stated that these issues are related--the increased budget for Eugene Downtown Association and raised parking rates with fewer customers. He feels it is a small deficit that is required to run the shuttle. Mr. Bischoff stated that they had thought there would be 500-1,000 riders on a daily basis on the shuttle. At this point, it would be cheaper to give them parking permits. This was a pilot project but DDB does not want to get into the long-term busing business. Mr. Davis stated that the shuttle started because there were not available parking permits for parking spaces. Since that time, more permits have been made available and have gone unsold. Also when the shuttle began, there was no . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 9 carpooling nor was there rides,~aring. If these 300 spaces had been available at that time, they might have continued for another year. He cautioned the council that with these numbers, LTD would be unable to provide the same service. . Ms. Miller left the meeting. Mayor Keller stated that item VII on the agenda, FIELD BURNING UPDATE, would be held over until December 17 at 11 a.m. Also, item VIII on the agenda, FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF GILLESPIE BUTTE, will be held over. Mr. Obie stated that looking at this on a financial basis, the service should not be extended past January. $15,000 is available, but it would not be logical to use that money to extend the service. All are short of funds in lots of areas. The City has 800 parking spaces available and would be better off to give those people a free parking permit for three to six months instead. If money is to be spent, that is what they should do. Or, they could charge for the parking spaces but another $15,000 should not be spent on a nonproductive service. He noted that he would like to hear any energy or transportation arguments about this, however. Mr. Delay stated that if the Downtown Development Board wants to continue having the responsibility for downtown promotion, they should look at revenue growth. They could encourage more investment by downtown businesses. He agrees with Mr. Obie that there are cheaper ways to deal with this. There are drastic conflicts between short-term and long-term goals. The chart shows that the riderShip is going up and perhaps it could go further. The investment would be diminished if it were discontinued. They are continually looking for alterna- tives for parking. They probably could not fill all, the spaces for parking even . if they paid people to park there. People should be given time to adjust. If people feel that the City will try something and stop it, they will stop think- ing that the council is trying to promote alternative modes and take less advantage of them. If more and more people would be interested in programs like this, it would reduce the pressures on the Ferry Street Bridge also. It may be cheaper to invest in having people change their habits. Ms. Schue indicated agreement with Mr. Delay in regard to the long-term goals. Mr. Obie stated that he agrees about the short-term goals, but there is a problem with the financial situation. Employees should be converted to Park and Ride or LTD. He would like to see the shuttle continued. There is not much hope for a permanent solution, but Park and Ride could take up some of the sl ack. However, he feels the same thing could be accomplished by free parking permits. He does not feel this will change the course of history. Mr. Lieuallen stated they are talking about long-term financial commitments and the short-term situation of changing people's habits. There is a vision in the long term. Mr. Delay noted that long-term goals are frustrating because they look dismal in the present. Mayor Keller asked who was responsible for the shuttle. He asked if that is an expectation of the Downtown Development Board. He does not recall alternative transportation modes ever having been a charge to them. They pay for LTD through the employer tax and pay Downtown Development Board taxes and more taxes . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 10 are paid if the building is owned. He does not feel that parking and alterna- tive modes are DDB's charge. One long-term goal has been retail enhancement, e which takes lots of time and effort. If a viable retail center is desired downtown, it would be necessary to continue building parking garages. If parking is not provided, then retail expansion will occur in other areas and not in the downtown area in large degrees. Also, legal implications may be involved. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the staff recommenda- tion be adopted as outlined in the December 5, 1980, memo. Mr. Lieuallen stated that he would support the motion but would hope that staff and DDS would look at creative ways to keep the fee level as low as possible for higher ridership. A fee may be self-defeating. This could cause serious problems for the downtown core and the council is supportive of a retail center downtown. Motion carried 7:1 with Councilor Obie voting no. The meeting was adjourned to December 17, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ry~ -------- Micheal D. Gleason e City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:pm/CM7a1 . - MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 1980 Page 11