Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 12/07/98 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall December 7, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Ken Tollenaar, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov. Mayor James D. Torrey called the council to order at 5:30 p.m. 1.ACTION: GLENWOOD JURISDICTION: METRO PLAN AMENDMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT, AND INITIATION OF BOUNDARY TRANSFER Mr. Torrey asked if the councilors had any conflicts of interest regarding the item. None were declared. Mr. Torrey recused himself from the matter as he had a possible conflict of interest. Councilor Fart assumed the chair. Planning Director Jan Childs said the council was being asked to take action on the Glenwood jurisdictional Metropolitan Plan amendment and two implementing actions related to the transfer of jurisdiction. She noted that the amendment had been approved by Springfield and Lane County. She reminded the council that it had held a public hearing on the amendment and had a unanimous recommendation supporting the amendment from the Planning Commission. Ms. Childs discussed the two implementing actions. Referring to the Intergovernmental Agreement, she noted that it was a product of the work of the Glenwood Councilors Committee, which met during the summer and early fall. Referring to the draft resolution initiating the transfer to be submitted to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, Ms. Childs said the resolution would begin the process to transfer the portion of Glenwood currently within the Eugene city limits to Springfield. State law dictate that Eugene and Springfield adopt identical resolutions to begin those proceedings. Ms. Childs invited questions. She noted that staff from Springfield was also present to answer questions. Responding to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Ms. Childs confirmed that the effective date of the Metropolitan Plan amendment would be that day if the council adopted it that day. She said that as the County was not scheduled to take action on the Intergovernmental Agreement until December 9, it could not be effective until that date. Mr. Tollenaar referred to Section 5 in the Intergovernmental Agreement, which indicated that interest on any unpaid balance of infrastructure costs shall accrue at the rate of return in effect for investment in the Local Government Investment Pool as of January 1 in each year, but it did not indicate when interest MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m. commenced. He suggested that it should be specified that interest would commence on the effective date of the agreement or the amendment. Ms. Childs said given that the majority of the infrastructure investment was for infrastructure within the Eugene city limits, it could also be argued that interest should commence on the effective date of the transfer of territory, which would occur around the end of March. Mr. Tollenaar did not favor that approach as he believed it was the jurisdictional transfer, and not the transfer of territory, that triggered the obligation on the part of Springfield. Mr. Laue arrived at 5:36 p.m. City Manager Jim Johnson asked Springfield staff to comment. Susan Daluddung, City of Springfield, referred the council to page 27, Schedule A of the Intergovernmental Agreement, which indicated that interest would commence on the effective date of the transfer of territory. She added that Springfield was open to discussion, adding that the issue had been discussed by the council committee. Mr. Johnson clarified that the transfer in question referred to the transfer of the territory already annexed to Eugene. Mr. Tollenaar reiterated his belief that it was more logical and fair to start the interest as of the effective date of the Intergovernmental Agreement because it created the obligation. He pointed out that if the presently annexed territories remained within the city limits, Springfield would still have had the obligation to reimburse Eugene for its expenditures in the unincorporated area. Ms. Daluddung said she believed the Springfield council would be open to the change. Mr. Tollenaar indicated he would move to approve the amendment contingent upon the change in the effective date for the commencement of interest. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4674, an ordinance adopting a text amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to modify Section II- C and Section IV, Policy 5.b., and to transfer jurisdiction for Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council 4674 by number only. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to approve the Glenwood Transition Agreement contingent that the interest for the amounts listed on Schedule A in the agreement commence as of the effective date of the intergovernmental agreement, and direct the City Manager to sign the agreement for the City. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 2 5:30 p.m. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that Mr. Tollenaar was amending the Note in Schedule A of the Intergovernmental Agreement. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Tollenaar moved to adopt Resolution 4582, a resolution initiating transfer of certain territory in Glenwood in the City of Eugene to the City of Springfield. Mr. Meisner indicated his intent to support the motion but reiterated a concern he had previously expressed about the fact the territory involved was largely zoned industrial; he hoped that, given the fact the community took a metropolitan view of land use, the council did not receive a request to increase the supply of industrial land someplace else in Eugene as a result of the transfer. Ms. Nathanson observed that those who did not often observe the council might be surprised at the swiftness of its formal action regarding the jurisdictional transfer. She said the council had discussed the issue of the transfer at length several times over several years both as a council and in joint sessions with its partner jurisdictions. Ms. Nathanson termed it remarkable that all the issues involved had been resolved so that the transfer could proceed. Ms. Nathanson said that after consideration it seemed to her the area had been destined for Springfield; its council had desired jurisdiction and the Glenwood residents had expected to eventually be part of Springfield. Because Springfield was financially unable to assume jurisdiction at a time when the community was obliged to make a choice about the matter, she suggested that Eugene had been holding Glenwood "in escrow" for Springfield until now. Mr. Klein recommended that the council amend Section 4 in Resolution 4582 to read (italicized text added): "This Resolution shall take effect upon Lane County's and Springfield's approval of the amended intergovernmental agreement referenced in Finding D above." Mr. Tollenaar and Mr. Laue agreed to incorporate Mr. Klein's recommendation into the motion. Roll call vote; the amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Torrey assumed the chair. The council, staff, and audience members sang Happy Birthday to Mr. Lee. 2.WORK SESSION: GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY GUIDELINES Kitty Murdoch, Administrative Services Department, reminded the council that it discussed the issue of General Fund Contingency guidelines at its meeting on October 21, 1998. At that time the council had considered two motions, which were tabled. Ms. Murdoch reported that, in response to those motions and the council's discussion, staff had prepared two alternative motions. The first alternative motion established a $50,000 discretionary account in the City Manager's budget for the council to allocate to social service agencies. Funds in the account would be allocated using a specific review process and preestablished criteria. Ms. Murdoch reviewed the process steps and guidelines, which were outlined in Attachment 1 to the Agenda Item Summary. The second alternative motion continued the current method of allocating General Fund Contingency moneys, but established a quarterly review process and shifted the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m. funds from Contingency to the operating budget in the next supplemental budget. The process also included an evaluation process using pre-established criteria. Ms. Nathanson favored the first alternative motion as it was closest to what she had previously suggested. She said that Ms. Murdoch had referred to "social service agencies" while the motion referred to "community nonprofit groups"; she favored the latter description as the council had granted money for other purposes than ongoing social service needs. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about Process step d, which read Funds may be received only once during a period of two fiscal years; she preferred that it be revised to read The council will grant no more than one funding request to an organization during a two-year period, Ms. Nathanson said that during the recent National League of Cities Conference she had learned of other cities with guidelines for the allocation of such funds, and asked the council to be open to future modifications to the guidelines after she had time to contact those cities for more information. She added that in some cases, councils turned the task of allocating Contingency funds to other groups. While she liked the first alternative motion better than the second, Ms. Taylor did not prefer either option and suggested the council not act in haste. She also liked the idea of guidelines, but continued to think allocations for social services and nonprofit groups should be part of the budget process, and the Contingency Fund reserved for purposes directly related to the operation of the municipality. Mr. Meisner also preferred alternative motion one. He said that the Contingency Fund should be used for unanticipated, City-related expenses. He said the motion achieved the balance he sought. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's suggested revision to Process step d, and endorsed the guidelines included in alternative motion one. Mr. Farr asked if alternative motion one precluded the use of other Contingency Fund dollars for social services. Ms. Murdoch said no; that was not the intent of the motion. The motion was intended to address the small requests for fee relief and day-to-day expenses the council received. Mr. Farr said with that explanation, he could probably support alternative motion one. He added that he was concerned about agencies such as Lookingglass, who had the occasional need for relief and support for unanticipated expenses or programs, and the restriction on such allocations created by Process step d. Mr. Farr requested a provision that allowed the council to override that step. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a majority of the council could make such allocations at any time. Mr. Tollenaar supported the concept underlying alternative motion one. He thought it would be useful for the council to have a dedicated source of funding to allow it to accomplish some of its community goals. Mr. Tollenaar supported elimination of Process step d, and suggested that the amount be increased from $50,000 to $100,000. He questioned whether a ceiling of $5,000 per funding request might not be too Iow, given the history of such requests. Mr. Laue concurred with Mr. Tollenaar's remarks. He reminded the council that the guidelines were just that, that the council could take action on any request with a majority of members, and suggested that councilors not limit themselves unduly. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 4 5:30 p.m. Mr. Johnson pointed out that establishing a dedicated account sent a message to the community that the funds were available, and that could create a rash of requests. He said that concern might be offset somewhat by the fact that staff was not suggesting the council establish a request for proposals process, and allocations were made according to established council policy and in light of adopted plans. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about adding an additional $50,000 to the fund as $100,000 was a considerable sum to make available for "anything that might come up." Mr. Lee asked what was wrong with the current process, as it did not prohibit the council from doing what the alternative motions outlined. He said the council was elected to make such decisions, and he questioned why it needed to set guidelines to discipline itself from allocating funds over which it had authority. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Mr. Johnson's concerns about the larger amount. She suggested the council might instead wish to consider increasing its allocation to the Human Services Fund. She thought it would be useful to have comment from the Human Services Commission on proposed allocations. Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Mr. Lee about the council's authority to act, and with Mr. Laue about the fact the council could take action with a majority voting in support. She thought there was value to guidelines clarifying the intent of the Contingency Fund because she perceived no consistency in the way funds had been used in the past. Ms. Swanson Gribskov preferred alternative motion one to alternative motion two. She added that if the council did not place a ceiling on requests, one or two requests that consumed the majority of the funds would be received and then the council would be "back to where you were, anyway." Ms. Nathanson did not want to incorporate the Human Services Commission in the process. She did not think most requests would benefit from its review. She pointed out Guideline k called for demonstrated support from other associated groups/agencies, and suggested that was sufficient to give the council information about the workability of the proposal and the community's support for it. Regarding Mr. Lee's comments, Ms. Nathanson recollected that she had requested the discussion because of her concerns that more structure was needed. She had felt uncomfortable about the way requests were coming to the council and the lack of information supporting the requests, particularly in regard to support from other sources. Upon questioning, it had begun to appear to some councilors that Eugene was the "first and last resort" for funding. She did not object to elimination of Process step d, but suggested that Guideline k be revised to indicate that applications must show if funds had been sought and/or received from other governmental agencies and charitable foundations. Ms. Nathanson suggested as a further guideline the application must show whether the organization had sponsored or cosponsored an activity that received City funding in the past two years. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the council would receive a flurry of requests at year's end if the account was not drawn down, and asked if funds could be carried over from year to year. Responding to Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Farr did not think the Human Services Commission had sufficient time to review detailed requests for small sums. He did not favor increasing the allocation to the Human Services Commission, adding that, given its large funding backlog, the MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 5 5:30 p.m. money would be spent right away and the council would have little leeway over that process. He agreed with Mr. Laue that the council should avoid limiting itself unduly. Mr. Fart pointed out that the Contingency Fund was one of the few discretionary items within the council's control. He believed guidelines would further "hamstring" the council. Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Lee that the council had been elected to make decisions, and he did not think the council needed a "huge process" to do so. He was now inclined toward alternative motion two. Mr. Fart moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to adopt alternative motion two. Responding to Mr. Fart's comments, Ms. Taylor said that the council did not currently spend adequate time reviewing any of the requests. Responding to Mr. Lee's comments, Ms. Taylor suggested that the alternatives were developed in an an attempt to avoid "government by emotion." She added that she did not think it was the role of city government to be a social service agency. She was also concerned the City was not living up to the obligations it already had, such as the Sister City Program and recreation programs. Mr. Meisner opposed the motion. He said that alternative motion one did not create a new process but rather refined and improved the current process. He was not comfortable with increasing the amount of the discretionary fund to $100,000 for the reasons stated by Mr. Johnson and Ms. Swanson Gribskov, pointing out other Contingency Fund moneys would be available for allocation to organizations furthering a City goal or plan. Mr. Meisner said that while he had supported an approach that had incorporated Human Services Commission staff review for consistency with commission guidelines, he was willing to drop the idea given Ms. Nathanson's remarks about community nonprofits. He concurred with Ms. Nathanson's remarks about the reason the issue came up. He said that while it was true the council was elected to make decisions, he believed it was incumbent upon the council to establish guidelines for funding; he was unaware of any granting organization that operated without such guidelines. Mr. Meisner recollected his discomfort on receiving an application to be the sole public sponsor of a women's health conference the same week the Budget Committee had cut recreation programs, and questioned whether such an expenditure was consistent with the council's goals. Mr. Lee said that councilors could vote in opposition if they opposed a funding request. He said that the council should be "up front" with the fact it did not want to have to say no to a member of the public when an application was submitted. He termed it a leadership issue and said he disagreed with an approach that intimated the council was not disciplined enough to say no and had to come up with guidelines. Mr. Lee said that Process step d should be eliminated; the council should decide if it wanted to make more than one appropriation in a two-year period on a case-by-case basis. He added that the "world does not revolve around our fiscal cycle," which was why the Contingency Fund was not included in the budget process. Mr. Lee said council needed liquidity to be able to address unanticipated problems that arose throughout the year. He said that governing was not predictable. Mr. Lee also favored eliminating the funding ceiling for the same reason. He also opposed Guideline k, which called for demonstrated support from associated groups/agencies, saying it was up to the council to decide if funding was appropriate. Mr. Lee expressed confidence in his judgment and encouraged other councilors to do the same. He said the guidelines were unnecessary. Mr. Lee said he could support alternative motion two with the revisions he had stated: elimination of d, e, and k. Mr. Fart indicated he would accept those changes as a friendly amendment to the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the elimination of d, e, and k removed the "teeth" of the proposal. She did not support the elimination of k as she believed the council was asking applicants to demonstrate how the request fit into the "context of everybody else." Ms. Nathanson said that she could not support the amendment. She did not think alternative motion one would "hamstring" the council because it still had a Contingency Fund through which to fund other requests. She said that the alternative "raised the bar" and ensured the council did not continue to "willy nilly" grant a variety of large and small requests on an ad hoc basis. Ms. Nathanson said the alternative was an improvement over the current process in place, which also included a process and guidelines. If the motion failed, Ms. Nathanson said, she would support alternative motion one with amendments to d and k. For example, she would revise k to indicate the application must include information about the following when available: a) demonstrated support from other associated groups/agencies; b) funds sought and/or received from other governmental agencies; and c) funds sought and received from the City of Eugene within the last two years. Mr. Tollenaar said in the interest of compromise he could support alternative motion two although he liked the idea of the discretionary account to ensure the bulk of the Contingency Fund was directed toward government operations. He strongly agreed with Ms. Nathanson about the need to retain k because it addressed the concern expressed by councilors in the past about Eugene as a sole source of funding raised by councilors. He suggested k could be revised as follows: If the benefits of this program or facility accrue to nonresidents of the City of Eugene, then the applicant must demonstrate that funding is also being requested from other local governments or agencies. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the motion by incorporating the text suggested by Ms. Nathanson for item k. Mr. Farr suggested the advantage to his motion was that it avoided the target amount issue raised by Mr. Johnson. Ms. Taylor said that alternative motion one made it more clear what the funds could be used for. She favored capping the amount granted for each application. She agreed with Mr. Johnson that the community would see the funding as a target, but pointed out that citizens would continue to make such funding requests anyway. She wished to postpone a final decision so the council could put more thought into the final resolution. Ms. Taylor moved to table the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated her support for the amendment. Mr. Laue supported the amendment, suggesting it was a compromise almost all could live with. Mr. Meisner said that he thought alternative motion two was improved by the amendment to k, but he preferred alternative motion one as he believed it gave the community a clearer message about the primary purpose of the Contingency Fund as being intended for unanticipated City- related expenditures. He believed alternative motion two established a $600,000 rather than $50,000 target. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 7 5:30 p.m. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson said the City had no guidelines for the use of the Contingency Fund other than those adopted by the council. Mr. Farr noted his agreement with Mr. Meisner's comments about the intent of the Contingency Fund. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Meisner was correct in suggesting the fund amount would be a target but emphasized the fund was already a target. He suggested the council might want to amend alternative motion two by including the first two sentences from alternative motion one. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Ms. Swanson Gribskov, to amend the motion by adding the following sentence to alternative motion two (italicized text added, struck text deleted): Rostrict tho uso t The General Fund Contingency Account to 2) is primarily for unanticipated, extraordinary and unavoidable expenditures of the City ~,-,d. The fund may also be used for a) new City program or service opportunities that support council goals such as matching funds for grants and other initiatives that were unforeseen during the budget process and b) funding requests for assistance from community nonprofit groups. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1, Ms. Taylor voting no. Roll call vote; the main motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Meisner voting no. 3.WORK SESSION: ALLEY AND STREET VACATION REQUESTS FOR A&K DEVELOPMENT SV 98-3 AND SV 98-4 Kent Kullby, Planning and Development Department, introduced the item. He asked the council to consider the options related to the proposals, take tentative action, and to give direction to staff regarding the draft ordinances required for final action. Mr. Kullby reported that at the council's direction, staff worked with the applicant and residents of the West Blair Residential Area to agree upon a set of traffic improvements in the area to mitigate the impact of increased industrial traffic that will be occurring in the area. He briefly noted those proposed improvements and reported the costs could be offset by the vacation assessments. He said that the council was not being asked to approve a traffic improvement plan. The City Council could not require off-site improvements as part of the vacation decision. The traffic improvement plan was included as a finding in the decision, and was not included as a condition of approval in the decision. Mr. Kullby referred the council to the staff analysis of the vacation request. He said that staff found support for the vacations in the Metropolitan Plan and the Whiteaker Plan; Public Works staff concurred with the applicant the that rights-of-way were not required for public facilities. Mr. Kullby noted the receipt of a letter from Ron Anderson of A&K Development regarding the costs incurred by the applicant to date. He also noted the receipt of a letter from Anne Davis, attorney representing property owners and business owners along Taylor Street who objected to Traffic Improvement Plan A, which was agreed to by the applicant and residents. He referred the council to page 82 of the packet, which included a map showing the locations of those opposed to and in favor of the proposed traffic improvement plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 8 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kullby said that if the council adopted recommended Option 1, to approve the vacations with the recommended assessments and to direct staff to implement a traffic improvement plan in the nearby area of the vacations, the vacations would be approved, assessments collected, and staff would return to the council with a supplemental budget request to fund the plan. Mr. Kullby said that staff would follow the procedures for implementing traffic improvement plans contained in Eugene Code Chapter 5; the Transportation Division staff would prepare findings for an administrative order implementing the plan. The procedures for that process include public notification and an opportunity to appeal to the Hearings Official. The City Council could review the Hearings Official decision of the appeal at any councilor's request. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mr. Kullby confirmed that other industrial property owners in the area object to the traffic improvement plan. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked how those property owners were impacted by the plan. Mr. Kullby said that the plan called for local truck traffic to be discouraged but not blocked from using Taylor Street south of West 3rd Place alley. Consequently, truck traffic traveling down Taylor Street from the industrially zoned rd area (north of West 3 Place) to the residentially zoned area (south of West 3rd Place) would be required to go through an extra turning movement to go around the median street tree planting island. There would also be a curb extension/traffic choker at that location, which would require careful navigation between the median and the choker. Ms. Swanson Gribskov asked if truck traffic would still be able to maneuver through the area. Mr. Kullby said yes, and noted that plans prepared by Branch Engineering which showed how a semi-truck could maneuver through the median and choker. Local truck traffic had the right to use the residential streets for movement. If, during the traffic improvement process, improvements actually blocked traffic, the locations of the median and choker would have to be altered to accommodate truck movement. Mr. Klein clarified that the council was not being asked to approve the traffic improvement plan but the vacation of the alley and street. The plan would be processed administratively and there would be opportunities for both comments and appeals. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said she supported the staff recommendation and expressed appreciation to the applicant for sincerely seeking a workable solution. Ms. Taylor said that while the council was not approving the traffic improvement plan she believed the residents' acceptance of the vacation was dependent on the plan. She said that someone would be unhappy no matter what happened. Mr. Tollenaar asked Mr. Klein to comment on the legal issues raised in Ms. Davies' letter. Mr. Klein said that with one exception, staff would recommend no changes to the ordinance based on Ms. Davies' letter. The issues being raised in the letter addressed the value of the special benefit to the property owner; however, Ms. Davies and her client had no standing to raise that question. If the property owner being assessed for the special benefit was willing to pay the assessment, no other individual was able to object. Mr. Klein recommended that the ordinance the council considered on December 9 include an expressed rather than implied finding that the council had determined the assessment was the just and equitable amount of the special benefit. Responding to a question from Mr. Tollenaar regarding Ms. Davies' assertion that a vacated property automatically reverts to the adjacent property owner, Mr. Klein said that there were times when a right-of-way was dedicated to the City and it was ownership of fee title, or ownership down to the center of the earth. Generally when a right-of-way was dedicated the City received the right to use the property for right-of-way purposes. If oil was discovered a mile down, the oil MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 9 5:30 p.m. belonged to the property owner, not the City. So the question was, did the City own fee title or did it have an easement for right-of-way purposes; the issue went to the question of value. Mr. Meisner said he was impressed with the residents' willingness to become involved and to work with the applicant on a solution that satisfied all parties. He understood the objections raised in Ms. Davies' letter but said that the plan did not bar or prevent local truck traffic; it merely ensured truck drivers would be more careful traveling a residential street. He noted that his support and the support of residents was contingent upon approval of a traffic improvement plan consistent with the goals expressed by residents. Ms. Nathanson noted the concerns expressed by Ralph Walker regarding the impact of the traffic improvement plan on his property and asked how those concerns were addressed. Mr. Kullby said that Mr. Walker owned residentially zoned and industrially zoned property in the area, all of which was developed in housing. He was losing on-street parking spaces as a result of the plan. The plan recognized the loss of on-street parking as an impact to Mr. Walker and other adjacent properties. As a result of property owner objections, a choker initially proposed at the October 29, 1998, neighborhood meeting had been eliminated. Regarding the issue of storm water drainage, Mr. Kullby said that Gary McNeel of Public Works Engineering suggested that weep holes could be installed through the curb extension. Mr. Walker's letter expressed concern that the plan would preclude his property from being divided. Mr. Kullby responded that the code allowed alley access lots, meaning Mr. Walker could subdivide his property and use the 3rd Place alley as a public access. Mr. McNeel added that the business owners also wanted to see diverters installed on 3rd Avenue to indicate to A&K Development drivers that they needed to make a left turn; the diverter had been added to the plan. He said that staff believed the plan was a compromise from what the residents were requesting at the pubilc hearing, i.e., roundabouts at the West 4th Avenue and Taylor Street intersection, but the process got somewhat polarized as time went on. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. Tollenaar, to direct staff to prepare ordinances that vacates the rights-of-way of the West 3rd Place alley located west of Almaden Street, and West 4th Avenue located west of Fillmore Street and east of Chambers Street with findings as specified by the council. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:1; Mr. Laue voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) R:~RCHIVES~1998~dm Se~ices~CIS~Councfl~cc98120 7ml. wpd MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 7, 1998 Page 10 5:30 p.m.