Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/18/1981 Meeting . e ! - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 18, 1981 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gretchen Miller and Eric Haws. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Metropolitan Wastewaster Management Commission Information Councilor Smith stated that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission met last Thursday morning to discuss operation of the treatment plant. The City Council has gone on record in support of municipal control of this plant. The outcome of the meeting is that the responsibility for operation will be municipal but determination has not been made as to which municipality's respon- sibility this will be. In the interim, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission will be responsible for construction completion and maintaining the present facilities. This will be worked out with the Springfield City Manager, the Eugene City Manager, and the General Manager of MWMC. Her hope is that this plant will be run by contracting rather than setting up another layer of bureaucracy. She feels the outcome was positive. B. Tri-Agency Mr. Lindberg noted that there has been a series of articles in the media regarding Tri-Agency. Apparently there are no easy solutions and some of the exchanges have been unfortunate. He feels that kind of communication is harmful and hopes the council will move as soon as possible so that staff can determine what real solutions there can be to the dog problem which is a humanitarian problem and the number one complaint to which City staff respond. Ms. Schue stated that she and Ms. Miller, representatives on the animal control task force, are working out a set of goals for Eugene animal control which they will share with the council. Negotiations are continuing with other jurisdictions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 1 . e e C. CETA Dinner Ms. Schue stated that there will be a CETA dinner tomorrow evening and an open house will be held all day at the Atrium. D. Mayor's Absence Mayor Keller noted that he would be out of town on February 25. E. Announcements Mr. Gleason stated that Item III--IIStreet Vacation for River's Edge (Riverside Realty)1I would be withdrawn from today's agenda at the request of the applicant and postponed for two weeks. He also noted that the Eugene Performing Arts Commission would meet tonight at 7:30 in the McNutt Room; the Renewal Agency Advisory Committee would meet in the Council Chamber at 7:30 this evening; and the CETA open house will be held at the Atrium tomorrow followed by a council dinner at the Rodeway. F. Approval of Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of February 5, 1981, and February 12, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the Legisla- tive Subcommittee minutes of February 5, 1981, and February 12, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lindberg stated that he would like clarification regarding SB 32 which deals with insurance reporting and arson investigation. Mr. Gleason noted that he would follow up on this item with the fire marshal. Mr. Lindberg noted con- cern about the confidentiality of records, but feels they should be public enough for investigators to receive information. G. Tort Liability Cl~ims Ms. Wooten stated that she would like to receive clarification regarding pro- posed legislation which would extend the statute of limitations for tort lia- bility. Stan Long, City Attorney, stated that he is not familiar with the City testimony at this time for tort claims, but notice must be given within 180 days from the event. Then, there are two years to file an action suit. The bar association is suggesting removing that six-month limitation. Ms. Wooten requested a copy of the City testimony as well as to know the status of the legislation. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. New Liquor License Outlet: Golden Spike Pizzeria (Restaurant License); Located at 1011 Valley River Way, Space 121; Applicant: Leavitt-Hazen, Inc., Dewey Leavitt MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 2 ~ e Mr. Gleason stated that this has been reviewed by affected City departments and there are no objections. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to OlCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. New liquor license Outlet: Our Town Restaurant (Dispenser Class C); located at 138 West 8th; Applicant: Melvin and Connie Bridges Mr. Gleason stated that this application also has been reviewed by affected departments and no objections were noted. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. STREET VACATION FOR RIVER'S EDGE (RIVERSIDE REALTY) (SV 80-2) (memo, map distributed) e As previously mentioned, this item was held over for two weeks at the request of the applicant. IV. ACQUISITION OF TELEPROMPTER BY WESTINGHOUSE (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this item is before the council for consent of sale of Teleprompter to Westinghouse. He introduced Stan long, City Attorney. Mr. Long stated that on January 26, 1981, Teleprompter requested that the council approve acquisition of their system by Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc. The franchise agreement provides that the City has the ability to consent or authorize the Metropolitan Area Cable Television/Translator Commission to inquire into qualifications of potential franchisees. They have requested approval and staff has reviewed this and recommends approval. Res. No. 3474--A resolution consenting to Westinghouse Broadcasting Company, Inc., acquiring control of Teleprompter Corporation. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Mayor Keller asked if the new company would be bound by the same negotiations and contractual agreements. Mr. Lindberg asked if this is part of a national acquisition. Mr. long responded that both of these were correct. Jim Robinow, General Manager of Teleprompter, confirmed that this is a national acquisition. e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 3 e V. LOCAL USER RATES FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTER (memo and resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Dick Reynolds, Performing Arts Center. Mr. Reynolds stated that the Eugene Performing Arts Commission is responding to a request from the council to reconsider the user rates for non-profit local groups using the Performing Arts Center. At this time, they are estimating that rent for local, non-profit companies could be $200 per day for the small hall and $520 per day for the large hall. This represents a decrease of rent of the small hall from $350 to $200 and a decrease for the large hall from $1,200 to $520. The rationale for the charge is the necessity to cover direct out-of- pocket expenses such as utilities and payroll. These are the actual costs as projected at this time. The commission's recommendation is to also review the rates after 18 months of operation to determine if the rent schedule is appropriate. They could also increase the base rent if direct costs increase, such as utilities and labor costs. e Ms. Wooten noted appreciation for the compromise proposed by the commission, but stated concern regarding the room tax suggestions made in the commission's memo. Mr. Reynolds stated that the commission discussed this at a recent meeting and wanted the council to be aware of their interest in restructuring the room tax allocation. The resolution before the council tonight, however, does not include any reference to room tax funds; the reference has only been made in a resolution approved by the commission. They feel attention should be paid to the financing situation. Ms. Wooten stated she has no objection to the resolution before the council in that case. Mr. Reynolds stated the commission wants to stress the need for a subsidy to reduce user rates, but this has not been dealt with in the resolution. e Mr. Obie asked if a financial forecast is available with a consideration of these new rates. Mr. Reynolds responded that the council has seen previous forecasts and the cost of this reduction will be approximately an additional $40,000 per year subsidy based on current user projections. Mr. Obie noted difficulty understanding a $40,000 subsidy and asked what this would mean to the entire budget. Mr. Reynolds stated that this would amount to between 8 and 12 percent of the required subsidy. Mr. Obie asked if there is a way the City can share in the success of the local groups if they fill the halls with a successful show. Mr. Reynolds responded that there will be a review after the first two years and that this is a transitional period. The commission felt that a two-year period should give the performing arts organizations an indica- tion of their income and expenses and by the third year the facts would be known. This will help the groups get on a firm base. Mr. Obie asked if the commission had received any indication that if they were to grant an increase in room tax funds to the'Performing Arts Center, the performing artists would be supportive of a reduction in the room tax subsidy that is now given directly to local arts groups. Mr. Reynolds responded that this has not been addressed with them directly. They are looking for other sources of funding for the center. The Room Tax Subcommittee is trying to identify alternative funding sources. Mr. Obie asked how many dollars from room tax are committed to performing arts. Mr. Reynolds responded approximately 40 percent or $125,000 per year. Mr. Obie asked if this is for the center or for various groups. Mr. Gleason stated that MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 4 e e e $89,000 will be for groups through the Parks & Recreation Department with approximately $51,000 available for projects such as Eugene Summer. Twenty-five percent of the room tax money is given to the Parks & Recreation Department for allocation to performances. Mr. Obie asked if the $100,000 that is now given to the arts will be reduced by the size of the subsidy. Mr. Gleason stated there is a need to think about all our cultural activities in light of this process. They will come back to the council to discuss the entire relationship. Mr. Obie asked if the council should first look at the whole picture rather than looking at only this part of it. Mr. Gleason stated that for the first three years a percentage of the rate with a ten-percent maximum will be available, which will not be a significant difference. This schedule is being recommended as the Performing Arts Center needs to develop its procedures so they can begin sched- uling performances. He would recommend adoption of the resolution. This will not affect the facility nor detract from our attempts to resolve the room tax issues. Mr. Obie stated that it is a small percentage, but it is $40,000 a year. Mr. Gleason responded that that is correct, but there would only be a marginal difference of approximately $8,000 to $10,000 a year. This will be a 60- to 80-year facility and they are trying in the first ten years to develop a clientele as well as an opportunity for local users to be successful. Mr. Obie expressed concern that the rates have been developed without regard for balancing funds in the community for the arts. Mr. Reynolds responded that these rates need to be determined as soon as possible for local users to begin planning. Mr. Obie stated that the needs should be determined now rather than later when other decisions will be made. Mr. Reynolds agreed that these rates are very important for planning for users. Mr. Gleason stated that the board is aware of the financial situation. Ms. Wooten stated that the room tax committee has seen a need to rethink the use of room tax funds. They are just now beginning to review the program and will make recommendations to the Budget Committee and the council. Ms. Smith stated that because the Room Tax Subcommittee was concerned about funding and impact on other allocations, she and Les Anderson were appointed to a subcommittee to look at the total picture of room tax with primary emphasis on funding performing arts. Ms. Wooten stated that $40,000 is small when the total deficit will be about $500,000 per year. Mr. Gleason indicated that this should be seen as an investment, not a subsidy. Mr. Lindberg stated that he feels they are moving in the right direction. The deliberations have attempted to balance the concerns of the Performing Arts Center against the concerns of the arts community. There is a balancing problem. Mayor Keller asked what $200 would provide in the community in terms of facility rental. Mr. Reynolds stated that for $200 the South Eugene Auditorium could be rented. Mayor Keller asked what $500 would provide for facility rental. Mr. Reynolds stated that would provide half the Conference Center at the fair- grounds with no chairs. The total charges there are $1,000 per night plus $.20 a chair. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 5 e Res. No. 3475--A resolution approving and adopting the local non-commercial user rates established by Resolution No.4 of the Eugene Performing Arts Commission. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. APPROVAL OF ELIGIBILITY APPLICATION FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT (UDAG) "POCKETS OF POVERTY PROGRAM" (memo distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Jeff Tashman, HCC. Mr. Tashman stated that HCC staff is preparing an eligibility application for "Pockets of Poverty" for an Urban Development Action Grant. Communities that do not meet general poverty requirements for "action grant" levels of distress may be eligible for "Pockets of Poverty." They are requesting that the council authorize the City Manager to approve application for eligibility for this program. Mr. Lindberg asked if the "Pockets of Poverty" have been ident ifi ed. Mr. Tashman responded that the pockets are in the downtown areas, but the projects are in the conceptual stages. Mr. Tashman stated that the projects would be these which would generate employment for those who live in the areas of the pockets of poverty. Mr. Lindberg asked if this would mean commercial develop- ment. Mr. Tashman responded that it would. Mr. Lindberg asked about the status of this grant program with HUD. Mr. Tashman stated that most Federal assistance programs are frozen. Because of the new Administration, most assistance pro- grams will be either reduced or eliminated which is why staff would like to act as soon as possible. Mr. Lindberg asked if housing projects would be appro- priate. Mr. Tashman responded that the emphasis would be geared more toward employment than housing and the general UDAG grants are focused more on housing. Mr. Lindberg asked about the possibility of mixed use. Mr. Tashman responded that the "Pockets of Poverty" funds could be used in mixed-use projects. Ms. Smith asked if matching funds are required. She would like to know the funding obligations of the City before the final application is submitted. She would like this brought back to council for final approval. Ms. Wooten asked in regard to certificates of participation such as those being planned for use with the conference center, if council could give con- ceptual approval to the program by using the City's credit rating. She asked if this would be in jeopardy with the Attorney Generalis current opinion. Mr. Long stated that the bond counsel has said this is not a lending of credit. Staff will get this in writing. Mr. Lindberg asked about the process. Mr. Tashman stated that this application is only for eligibility and any specific projects would require council approval. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 6 e Res. No. 3476--A resolution authorizing submission on an application for eligibility under the Urban Development Action Grant "Pockets of Poverty Program. II Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VII. LANE ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION DUES (memo distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Farah, Planning. Mr. Farah stated that the staff memo of February 11, 1981, outlined the financial status of. LEIC. They are $10,645 short for this fiscal year. Lane County and Springfield are not participating at the level which had been budgeted. Eugene's action was to participate on a per capita fair share basis, matching the greater contribution of either Springfield or Lane County. There are two options for council to consider. First, the council could act to release the remaining funds budgeted for Eugene's portion of the operating costs for LEIC for this fiscal year and then request the cities of Springfield and Florence and Lane County to provide financial support sufficient to operate LEIC through the remainder of this fiscal year. Second, the council could direct Eugene staff to provide interim staffing for LEIC, including support services, with the intention of devising a long-term joint staffing arrangement among member jurisdictions. The second option could not be a long-term alternative. In the opinion of staff, there have been better efforts toward intergovernmental relationships through this organization than with any other. Other cities have gained a greater understanding of economic development. L-COG staff thinks they could continue the economic development program for this fiscal year if interim staffing were provided. Option 2 would provide a breathing space to determine better long-term solutions and that would be the staff's preference. Mr. Obie asked what the costs and timeline would be. Mr. Farah responded that interim staffing would be needed through June 30 and the cost would be City staff participation. Mr. Obie asked if other cities and the County would help provide staffing. Mr. Farah noted that it would be a joint staffing effort by Eugene and L-COG at this time. Ms. Wooten asked about pending projects of LEIC that would require the involve- ment of City staff, and whether staffing would be handled by the Planning Department or another department. Mr. Farah stated he did not know how other jurisdictions might react to the suggestion of interim staffing being provided by the City. He feels that the Planning and Staff Services departments are willing to commit staff time, but the projects that LEIC is involved in are not as critical as the continuation of the intergovernmental relationship. Ms. Wooten stated that this could be a substantial commitment and asked whether LEIC could take a breathing space during this time since there are no projects currently active with the exception of Public Works projects. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 7 e 4J e' Mr. Farah stated that LEIC is working on State legislation for revolving loan funds for the County. He feels LEIC must not be allowed to die. Ms. Wooten stated that the council should reaffirm the comprehensive economic develop- ment approach. However, she feels a decision for staffing should be postponed until it is determined what Springfield and Lane County will do. Mr. Gleason stated that the council's efforts on community economic development are broad- based and the County has similar concerns; however, those concerns are not necessarily parallel with those of Springfield. He does not think it is pos- sible to bring these options together and also keep this opportunity alive. It appears that this is a real opportunity and we should see if we can hold it together by our own staffing. Between now and July, continuation of planning is necessary, and relating that to the role of intergovernmental relationships can help bring positive solutions for everyone. Ms. Wooten asked if there is any indication of willingness from the other jurisdictions to continue this on a voluntary basis. Mr. Hamel stated that Springfield set aside money in next year's budget for LEIC. Nick Landis, LEIC staff, stated that the County has no funds in their budget for any programs at all right now. This should come up next week. The action to cease operation taken last night was because there is no assured funding for continuation through the end of the fiscal year. The revolving loan fund could provide some money later, but it is not available now. They had to cancel one contract because of a lack of assurance of available staff to deal with the contract. Ms. Schue stated that as the council's representative to the L-COG Board, she has been an interested observer. There has been a friendly relationship at the staff level between L-COG and LEIC. She is pleased to see the staff effort for a workable agreement on a temporary arrangement. She supports having the Planning Department staff LEIC on an interim basis. Mr. Lindberg asked Mr. Landis if he will be terminated. Mr. Landis stated that as of February 27, that would be the situation unless addjtional funding is found. Mr. Lindberg asked if in option 1, one is providing time for other options to come forward. Mr. Landis stated that that would be one way of looking at it. Mr. Lindberg asked if Mr. Landis is the only staff person. Mr. Landis stated that that is correct except for a half-time HUD intern. Mr. Lindberg asked if there are other projects that will be discontinued. Mr. Landis stated that a lot depends on the legislation for the revolving loan fund, but there are pending projects in Cottage Grove, Veneta, and Oakridge, which are ongoing. Mr. Lindberg asked if the Planning Department could assume these projects or find a new direction. Mr. Farah stated that this will only be an interim solution to try to keep the projects going and the Planning Department should not be involved in long-term efforts. The projects would have to be prioritized. Mr. Lindberg expressed concern that if the amount available, even with the City's total contribution, is only for one month, then that is not long enough to solve the problem and we would really be wasting our money in that case. He feels that perhaps it should be dealt with now instead of a month from now. Mr. Gleason stated that the longer-term issue is economic MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 8 e e e development. They are trying to buy time to examine various options and this seems to be a very important link. Mr. Lindberg expressed concern about the lack of continuity. Ms. Schue stated that previously LEIC was within L-COG, but there were political difficulties. There are some opportunities that were not available 18 months ago to strengthen LEIC if they would be put back under L-COG's jurisdiction. She would like to see this reconsidered. Mr. Lindberg stated that if they are to consider the option of moving LEIC back under L-COG, they would need to consider staffing. Another option is for additional funding sources to carry Mr. Landis' employment for four to six months. Mr. Landis noted that there are some other funding options. One of the options would be for him to work only part-time. Ms. Wooten stated that according to the County, there is no money available for funding. She asked what the benefits would be of retaining the current legal status. The City cannot afford to let the County end this program before we take the opportunity to look at our intergovernmental relationship. However, chaos cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Obie suggested proceeding with option 2 of the staff recommendations to see if the other jurisdictions will agree. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to direct Eugene staff to provide interim staffing for LEIC, including support services, with the intention of devising a long-term joint staffing arrange- ment between member jurisdictions. Ms. Smith stated that there are many unanswered questions, and this would give,the council time to get the answers they need. She urged the council to support the motion. Mr. Lindberg noted that he would vote against the motion because there are so many unanswered questions. Ms. Wooten agreed that there is a need to buy time, but it needs to be determined if this approach would be accepted by the other jurisdictions as an interim measure. Mr. Farah stated that determining this would have to be the first step. Mr. Gleason stated that he does not recommend spending $4,000 for a program that may end in one month. He feels option 2 would provide a temporary solution. Mr. Lindberg asked about the part-time option. Mr. Gleason responded that that is an option. Mr. Lindberg expressed concern about funds and the need for permanent solutions, and noted that LEIC's current projects should be followed through. Mr. Gleason noted that it is risky to depend upon Federal funds now. He suggested trying to build a temporary coalition and work toward a more permanent solution when it is determined what will work best. Ms. Schue stated that the disagreement is only in the method of reaching the goal. Staff is asking to spend $4,000 to make the project a reality. In view of work already done and with a goal in mind, it is a matter of trust in staff to accomplish the goal. She would like to have staff proceed. Mr. Farah clarified by saying that if the council passes the motion directing staff to proceed with option 2, they will not be spending the remaining money that is budgeted for LEIC dues. Mr. Gleason noted that the motion involves using staff time instead of payment of dues. Mayor Keller stated that the $4,000 would buy us very little and that the staff proposal is good. He urged council to support the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 9 e e e Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1, with Councilor Lindberg voting "no." VIII. CITY SPACE NEEDS--UPDATE (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that the focus of today's discussion is not to choose an option but to determine the answers to three questions. They are: 1. Is there consensus on the planning model regarding square footage and how many square feet are needed? 2. Does council wish to resolve the issue with the necessary use of staff time? 3. Will council accept the staff recommendation to solve the problem in some manner other than within the general fund account? He introduced Ed Smith, Civic Center. Mr. Smith stated that this report is at the request of the council. He has provided for them a list by department of the space requirements that will be needed within the next 20 years. The options available are presented as five basic courses of action which the City could take to solve its space needs: 1. City lease from developer with option to purchase. (This is the option explored by Charles Henry in January 5, 1981, memo regarding cooperative arrangement with EWEB.) 2. City purchase existing building for $3 million. 3. City purchase existing building, plus a substantial remodel expense. 4. Construct addition on existing City property. 5. Continue leasing space as needed. Additionally, there are many scenarios for each option. The figures presented represent a 5,000-square-foot reduction from the standard required. The high square footage figure for the City Manager's Office also includes the Council Chamber and the McNutt Room. They had done a department-by-department study and analyzed needs and made projections. They took into consideration concerns of employees such as acoustics and noise factors, as well as storage and other considerations. The need for square footage is approximately 68,000 square feet. The standard requested is based on existing space needs plus improvements for noise, etc. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 10 . e e Mr. Gleason said this was done because it was necessary to get a feel for what was reasonable and for what space is needed. He described a graph which indicated population and square footage on a per capita basis. The council needs to determine how crowded staff will be and how productive staff will be, because the two have a direct relationship. Mayor Keller asked if one used numbers of employees rather than population per capita figures, whether the chart would be similar. Mr. Gleason stated that it is difficult to base the figures on employees, but he feels it would show the same trend line. Mr. Lindberg stated that someone in another city must have done a similar study. Mr. Gleason responded that they have and he has done similar studies in other cities as well. Mr. Lindberg asked if the League of Oregon Cities has done a 20-year study, and if they have a model for prediction. He asked how changes in structures of an organization are factored in. Mr. Gleason stated that predictions are done on an empirical basis with every department. The only predictions have been on a product-by-product basis. This is a very complex process. Assuming that council agrees that staff has decreased productivity in the current space allocations, then the space needs should be somewhere between the current amount available and what the required standards indicate. An independent study consultant could conduct a study which could cost up to $25,000. Bill McGuire, Management Services Director, stated that the chart was developed using various assumptions as to need and the square footage per capita. In option 1, the maintenance figures are different since that is a lease option and maintenance could be provided by the developer. If the council wants to proceed with more investigation, they should find out which option is the most cost- effective. Option 2 would be using the existing building. Options 2 and 3 would have space to lease until the City requires more use of the building for its activities. Option 3 would be using the existing building with remodeling. Option 4 would create an addition, and Option 5 would be the most expensive option. Mr. Gleason noted that most options come very close in terms of final cost except for buying from a private developer and leasing. There are five different ways to solve the problem and all will cost approximately $400,000 a year if the square footage projections are accepted. The only differences are the methods of financing and who pays for the financing. If the council agrees on the three main assumptions presented earlier, then ideas can be developed further. There is a relationship between the number of people served and the cost. Ms. Wooten asked about financing mechanisms. She expressed concern that the space needs not be removed from the capital improvements program priority list because she does not know if something else might be as important. Mr. Lindberg noted that the space needs are a problem that will not go away. Mr. Gleason stated that it is imperative to consider space issues for 20-25 years beyond today for staffing and planning purposes. The number of people served and the cost of services are directly related. Ms. Smith stated that she feels a work session is necessary on this item. Mayor Keller indicated that the item could be scheduled as Item 1 for the next Wednesday council meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 11 e - e Mr. Obie stated that the basic questions are very simple. He feels it is logical to accept the square footage projections and knows there is a need for additional space. He also feels it would be good to not use the general fund to resolve the issue. Mayor Keller asked if the Manager is looking at bond revenue. Mr. Gleason responded that that is one alternative. There are more options for financing than there are for structural schemes. Mr. Lindberg asked if someone else could be called in to verify the space needs. Mr. Gleason stated that a consul- tant study has already been accomplished and that these figures are very refined. It would be difficult to compare the City of Eugene with any other organization. Council consensus was to place this item as the first item for discussion on the February 23, 1981, council meeting. Mr. Gleason stated that one issue is the 8th Street property which is owned by EWEB. He would suggest a joint meeting with the EWEB Board to discuss that property in order to evaluate this possibility since it is the best option for purchase. Mayor Keller stated that this meeting, if it were to happen, should be a very constructive one. Mr. Obie stated that perhaps EWEB has additional agenda items that should also be considered. He feels that council should be agreeable to meet with them and place the items on the table. Mr. Gleason stated they are confronted with an immediate concern which might influence the decision regarding that property. Mayor Keller noted that if this meeting were to happen, the intent would be to focus on a resolution for both parties, not a confrontation, nor getting together to solve individual problems. Mr. Gleason stated that if council agrees to the idea of a joint meeting, EWEB staff can be contacted. Ms. Smith noted agreement for the idea of the joint meeting if it would be structured and have a clearly defined agenda. She would like the council to review the agenda prior to its being distributed to EWEB. Mayor Keller stated that both EWEB and the City of Eugene are the same municipality and should be serving the interests of both as well as all the citizens of Eugene. The meeting was adjourned to February 23, 1981. Respectfully submitted, (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:sba/CM8b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 18, 1981 Page 12