|
<br />\~
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />need'i;;~ ''pdtential facilities. However, making decisiCm~f'without the ldnd of '., ..
<br />.information that would come from the study could be uncomfortable. ~nother al-
<br />!ternative would be going ahead with the consultant's study and adopt~ng a supple-
<br />imental budget, using revenue sharing funds set aside for next year's budget.
<br />
<br />[Manager said he feels strongly that.the study is desirab~e and ne<:essary and
<br />(would be of great long-range benefit. Without it there ~s potent~al for bad
<br />:judgments in the Goodpasture Island area, and the investment in that area and
<br />I 't
<br />(the downtown area ~s too grea .
<br />,
<br />
<br />;Mayor Anderson said he considered the study of highest priority and thought it
<br />should be undertaken, a financing plan to be brought back by ,staff when it ~an
<br />be outlined. Councilman Williams was not in favor of extend~ng the morator~um
<br />and was concerned that repealing it would amount to doing nothing. Council~an
<br />Murray favord the idea of getting other units of local governme~t to share ~n
<br />the cost since the entire area is involved. In answer to Counc~lman M<:Donald,
<br />'Manager said there would be about $2 millio~ carryover of revenue shar~ng funds.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />1/9/74
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />;Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.
<br />proposed study, soliciting outside
<br />. u.J1.9.nJnJgll.sl y . , --- -., .... -. -.-..-..-.-.--.-.-.-,---- _
<br />
<br />Wood to instruct staff to continue with the
<br />funds which may be available. Motion carried
<br />
<br />~---'--..t.-..:;._~~""_.:--..,~..~ ",' ~-_
<br />
<br />-- _..._...--_..-:~~.-
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />B.Ordinance re: Controlling automatic burglar and fire'aLarm"systemstied toCity ,
<br />emergency services ~ Copies of memo and proposed ordinance were previously furnishe~'
<br />to Council members. Police Chief reviewed provisions of the ordinance which would ;
<br />address the concern of having emergency lines pre-empted by automatic alarm systems,
<br />iand wasted effort in answering false alarms. It would delineate responsibility
<br />when automatic equipment malfunctions and set operational standards for answering
<br />:services to guarantee adequate performance of alarm systems. Police Department
<br />,
<br />irecommended adoption of the ordinance. Dick Jones, fire department, said that
<br />that department was required to have direct connections with rest homes, nursing
<br />,homes, and that type facility. When the systems do malfunction fire emergency
<br />'lines are tied up for several minutes.
<br />
<br />Art Steele, owner of Steele's Answering Service, agreed that the ordinance was
<br />needed. However, he felt the answering services monitoring the alarm systems
<br />'should be "regulated" rather than licensed since they act as an agent of the sup-
<br />'plier. He also Objected to the provision that rooms where monitoring equipment
<br />.is placed remain locked at all timesr suggesting instead that "necessary security
<br />precautions be taken."
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />!
<br />iRobert Bennett, 6280 Willamette Street, manufacturer and seller of alarm systems,
<br />fconsidered some of the provisions relating to their sale and installation uncon-
<br />!stitutiona1 and asked for amendment or elimination of those provisions.
<br />:
<br />I
<br />iLes Smith, owner of Empire Answering Service, thought control of systems should
<br />ibe uniformly applied. He saw no r.eason for removing the provision for locking
<br />!rooms containing monitoring systems. Police Chief commented that that pro~ision
<br />iwas discussed in meetings with suppliers, answering services, and people using-
<br />!the systems. He felt it was a reasonable restriction and one which would give
<br />Isome visible assurance of security to businessmen relying upon that service.
<br />jMr. Jones noted the possibility of having emergency lines tied up by systems in-
<br />stalled in areas outside city limits. It was brought out that the County had an
<br />,identical ordinance before the Commissioners for adoption. It was understood
<br />their action was to table pending some change in wording.
<br />
<br />City Attorney
<br />tionali ty and
<br />that adoption
<br />
<br />referred to Mr. Bennett's Objection in view of possible unconstitu-
<br />said his office felt there was no constitutional problem involved,
<br />of the ordinance would be a proper exercise of au~hority.
<br />
<br />i
<br />i
<br />I
<br />Manager suggested staff might work with those people raising concerns and examine 1
<br />revisions being considered by the County, then if revisions are felt necessary i
<br />they could be accomplished prior to the January 28 hearing. It was understood the
<br />County would have the ordinance under discus~ioT!:.~ai!}__oI}__.z9:l}uary .?}. ___.__"""-'
<br />~. . -.- - - .. --- -------- --.. _._.-...-.~,......-.::--.---_._~...~~-
<br />
<br />'-
<br />
<br />tThtire was further explanation of opera tion of the automa tic dialing systems,
<br />jtheir tie in to the police and fire departments, need for security of monitoring
<br />Isystems by answering services, delineation of responsibility under the ordinance
<br />,for proper operation and maintenance of alarm systems. Police Chief, in answer to
<br />i,Councilman Keller, said there is a fee to the user for answering service, but it
<br />!would not make that service mandatory. The ordinance does prohibit direct dialing
<br />to the police or fire emergency service but would not prohibit direct dialing to
<br />isome other location, such as a home. Mr. Bennett said he did not read the ordinance
<br />,.that way, but Police Chief maintained that was the intent. ..
<br />
<br />/
<br />/
<br />!
<br />/
<br />
<br />_-I .
<br />
<br />---'~.J;:>.._.._. ~",.... .:'}."
<br />
<br />"-~""": ' ."") 0 ,
<br />'-~. - ", .....
<br />
<br />1/28/74 ":" 7
<br />
|