|
<br />r2"2'2
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />?L2.z/jI~~_____, _
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />4. Skinner's Butte Cross (Lowe vs city of Eugene)- A memo from the City Attorney informed
<br />the Council that Findings of Fact and Decree were filed by the plaint~ffs in,this case
<br />on F'bruary 9, 1967. He further informed the Council that if the City intends to
<br />appeal the case, the proper'legal action will have to be taken no later than Monday,
<br />February 20, 1967. Discussion followed concerning alternatives to an appeal, the fact
<br />that the private.parti~s in the suit do plan to appeal, and financing of a limited
<br />appeal. Mr. Lassen moved,secondedby Mr. McDonald to proceed with preparation of
<br />legal wor,k necessary, at no e~pense to the City, in the event an appeal is, decided
<br />upon at the February 27, 1967 Council meeting. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />1
<br />
<br />\'. .
<br />Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to appeal.
<br />
<br />William Wheatley, ,'attorney for John Al1tucker, one of ' the defendants in the suit Lowe vs City of
<br />Eugene, said his '~lient will. appeal on the ba~is th~ Judg~'s decision was rendered on issues out-
<br />side the pleadings and evidence. He urged th~ Council to appeal also. Others speaking in favor of
<br />an appeal by the City were Leslie Erb, 610 East 39th Avenue; Richard Eurtis, 258 East 10th Avenue;
<br />Lillian T. Hamilton, 795:Park Avenue; Carol Cory, 125 Myoak Drive; Renee Wagner, 2775 Cassina Court;
<br />Donna Byerly, 2635,Cresta de Ruta; 'and Marvin Fear, 355 West 8th Avenue. SpealUng against the ap-
<br />peal were Raymond Lowe, 769 Ascot Drive, one of the plaintiffs; Mrs. Peter Shroyer, 1560 Villard'
<br />Street; and David Tobin, 2525 Charnelton Street. Ivan Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, raised a question
<br />concerning payment for time spent by the City Attorney in preparation of an appeal.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />A rollcall vote was taken on the motion to appeal. Motion defeated, Messrs Purdy and Lassen voting
<br />yes; Mrs. Lauris, .Mrs. Hayward, Messrs, McNutt, Anderson, McDonald, and Wingard voting no.,
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />5. Sanitary Sewer, Shasta Junior High School - School District 52 requested an eastward
<br />extension of sanitary sewer from Danebo Avenue on an -extsting easement on the south,
<br />line of Lot 7, Block.l, Bennett's Subdivision ,to serve Shasta Junior High School.
<br />The,District also -requested that bid procedure be waived and a contract for the work
<br />in the amount of $1,584 'be.awarded .to Willis Mechanical Contractors., Mr. Lassen
<br />moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to grant the waiver and award the contract as requested.
<br />Motion carried.'
<br />
<br />I.,
<br />
<br />Dr. Purdy.-moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to approve Item 5 of the Committee report. Rollcall vote.
<br />All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried.
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />6. West .Coast San Francisco/Los Angeles Service- West Coast Airlines asked the city of
<br />Eugene to intervene witq other cities in,support of a brief submitted to the Ciyil
<br />AeroQautics,Board by West Coast for expedited hearing 'on their reques~ to establish'
<br />service betw~en San Francisco and Los Angeles. A favorable decision by the CAB would
<br />allow West Coast to terminate their flights at Los Angeles rather than San Francisco.
<br />Any brief filed by the City must be fil~d by February 20, 1967. Dr. ~urdy moved
<br />seconded by Mr. McDonald to refer the item to th~ Airport Commiss~on and to the
<br />Chamber of Commerce Aviation Committee, and request an extension of time for filing
<br />a City:brief. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />A letter was presen~ed from Fred Brenne, Chamber of Commerce manager, reporting that the Chamber's
<br />aviation committee favored supporting West .Coast's request for expedited hearing on San Francisco/
<br />Los Angeles service. ,Ed LeShane, local West Coast manager, spoke briefly concerning the extension
<br />of service.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Lauris- moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to support the West Coast petition provided it does not
<br />interfere with current schedules. Mot ion --carried. ,
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />7. Progress Payments - Because the first Council meeting in February, which would' have
<br />been held on the 13th, was held .on the,6th, the~e was not time to process progress
<br />payments due Paul and Backer on the Sheldon pool, $55,350.00, and to Vik Construction
<br />on the Westmoreland building, $31,974.30 Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mr. McDonald
<br />to allow the'payments.' Motion carried;
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />No action was taken. The two payments were included with.the bills and approved earl-ier in the
<br />meeting.
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />8. Legislation
<br />H. B.1339 - Would _ permit establishment ,of metropolitan study commissions in Euge:ne
<br />and Salem, whereas it 'is now permitted only in Portland. Members of a metropolitan
<br />study commission would be appointed by legislators. Its function would be to make
<br />recommendations with regard to additional forms of government, improvement of local
<br />government services, establishment of boundaries including consolidation of local
<br />jurisdictions with other cities, county areas', or special districts, and in other
<br />areas of ,metropolitan co ncern. D:r:. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Wingard to go. on '
<br />recqrd in favor of H.B.1339 and to vigorously support it. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />S.B.l07 - Would make collective bargaining with public employes mandatory. The
<br />present law 'permits' collective bargaining with public employes. The League of
<br />Oregon Cities opposes l~gislation which would require collective bargaining, but
<br />is not opposed to permissive legislation. Mr. Lassen"moved seconded by Dr. Purdy
<br />to maintain the policy of opposing anything but permissive legislation. Motion
<br />carri:ed, Mrs. Lauris voting no.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />H.B.1260 - Would allocate the entire 4~ cigarette tax to property tax relief. The
<br />present allocation is 2e to property tax relief, l~ to cities, and 1e to counties,
<br />and was enacted to provide not only property tax relief but also new revenue source
<br />
<br />,e
<br />
<br />~)
<br />
<br />2/27/67 - 14
<br />
|