Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL October 27,1975 - Adjourned meeting - adjourned from October 13, 1975 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on October 27, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings A. Vacation of utility easement south of Vine Maple Drive, east of North Shasta Loop (Beulah Bayly)(EV 75-4) Recommended by the Planning Commission on August 25, 1975 on the basis that terrain has proved unsuitable for placement of sewer line and other provisions have been made. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. I-A-I Council Bill No. 945 - Vacating utility easement south of Vine Maple Drive, east of North Shasta Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17463. Councilman Williams entered the meeting, B. Appeal from Planning Commission denial on September 22, 1975 of rezoning from County AGT to C-2 PD area south of Kingsley Road between Goodpasture Island Road and Willamette River (Smith,Brown,Howell)(Z 72-51 and Z 72-64) Manager noted that history of this rezoning request was contained in Planning Commission and City Council minutes and summarized in Planning staff notes of September 2, 1975. Jim Saul, planner, explained that a revised application was filed by the applicants on which the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 2, 1975. The request was formally denied at the Commission's September 22, 1975 meeting and findings adopted supporting that decision. Sub- sequently, the applicants appealed that decision to the City Council. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission minutes and staff notes containing the record of this request were made a part of this record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Sylvanus Smith, 2361 Charnel ton Street, also reviewed the history of the request which originally sought residential and commercial zoning and was subsequently e revised to request only commercial zoning. He said that the area was designated in the 1990 Plan as an opportunity area suitable for commercial activities. He said that should residential zoning be requested and the land developed in that manner, very likely a lawsuit would be filed objecting to that action. And if a lawsuit was filed, he wondered how much longer the land would be held "in limbo" until that was settled. He didn't think it was fair to the city or 5-53 10/27/75 - 1 - to the property owners to have this land taken out of productive use. Mr. Smith called invalid the thinking that large retail establishments would locate on this land, thereby adversely affecting the downtown area. That was not antici- - pated, he said, but he maintained that large retail outlets would be established where conditions were suitable regardless. He referred to the development of west Eugene property for industrial uses in years past and said it had been good for the city, that the concentration in one area was better than having them scattered throughout the community. The same would apply to commercial estab- lishments, he said, and what better area than Goodpasture Island. That area is unique, he said, in that it is convenient as a supporting area to the downtown and to Valley River and accessible to the entire city and would not be detrimental t? adjoinin? properties. He urged the Council "to take a hard look" and recog- nlze the unlque features of the area and its potential advantage to the community as an added commercial area. I-A-2 Clarence Brown, 2480 Lawrence Street, chided the Council for not followincr the law which, he said, was the 1990 Plan designation of the area as an oppor~unity area and required the Council to rezone the property. He noted that the request h~d been approved twice by the Planning Commission in the past in accordance wlth the General Plan, and that it was encumbent upon the Council to follow the Plan until it was changed. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Hurray moved second by ~Ir. Keller to deny the appeal and affirm Planning Commission findings supporting denial of the rezoning: Councilman Williams asked if the Goodpasture Island amendment had become effective - yet. Mr. Saul answered that the amendment had been ratified by all governmental bodies and incorporated into the Plan, but that a writ of review had been filed challenging the amendment. He added that the Planning Commission had based its decision on the former text of the 1990 Plan which treated the Goodpasture Island as an opportunity area rather than on the amendment to the 1990 Plan which had not been finalized at the time the Commission considered this zone change request. Councilman Murray said the Plan was not law, rather it was a guideline and con- tained very precise language with regard to the prerogative of a jurisdiction on the timing of any zone change implied within the 1990 Plan. Councilman Hamel said he would vote against denial. He felt the Council was not looking far enough ahead in considering Eugene's future in the area of ware- housing and other commercial needs. He noted that the industrial park in west Eugene was completely filled, not with new industry, but with existing establish- ments who moved there from other parts of the city. Clarence Brown asked for the attorney's opinion as to whether the 1990 Plan was law and, as such, had to be followed. Mr. Long cited the Baker vs Milwaukie decision which held that that zoning could not permit a use more intensive than that contemplated by. the General Plan. He noted that the court in the Baker vs Milwaukie decision specifically said the converse was not true. He added that timing considerations were a central issue in any planning matter. Vote was taken on the motion to deny the appeal. Motion carried - - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. 10/27/75 - 2 .55"4- II - Freedom Train Manager referred to previous action of the Council (September 22 Council minutes) e with regard to city involvement in the Freedom Train stop in Springfield. He said staff had been unable to work out through written agreements with Springfield and Lane County an arrangement whereby Eugene would not be obligated beyond the $2000 authorized without also signing the Freedom Train agreement. He explained that it appears there is no limit to the liability which could be incurred by the city if it signs the Freedom Train agreement. Hence, no agreement had been signed to participate. Mayor Anderson said that the Mayor of Springfield had indicated in conversation with him that he wished Eugene would consider establishing unlimited liability. He (Ander- son) commended staff for not exceeding their authority in this regard. He added that Springfield's Mayor did say that should Eugene decide not to sign the Freedom Train agreement, undoubtedly the Springfield Jaycees would cover. Councilman Murray said he had the same information. Councilman Bradley asked if it was a case of unlimited liability, or sharing the liability with Springfield. He thought it encumbent upon Eugene to share the liability with other agencies because of the public concern and interest in the Bicentennial year. He didn't believe Eugene would have to absorb any liability by itself and asked whether Eugene would expect to share any profits without sharing the liability. Manager said that all profits, as agreed upon, would go to the Bicentennial Commission. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said his understanding was that the Council de- clined to sign the agreement with the Freedom Train Foundation jointly with other agencies as requested. Instead, the Council agreed to underwrite expenses up to $2000, or sign the Freedom Train agreement if Eugene was held harmless. The Founda- tion declined on that basis, saying they wanted Eugene to participate on the same basis as other agencies. He added that he was not sure other agencies had the same e view he had of the effect of documents already signed. They may be operating on the assumption that their liability was limited to $2000, he said, but he thought it would be substantially beyond that amount. I-B-l Councilman Keller said he had the strange feeling that for a small amount of money Eugene was reacting to a Springfield request as Springfield had reacted so many times in the past. He asked for an extremely good reason why Eugene should not sign with the other agencies if in fact there would be more people from Eugene benefited than from any other jurisdiction involved. Mr. Long replied that the problem from staff's point of view was not with the $2000, but with the potential of a greater sum. If documents could be signed limiting the liability to $2000, he said, there would be no problem. But Eugene was being asked to sign documents that would make the city liable for some unknown amount. Councilman Murray thought it would be more appropriate to ask why the city should be asked to sign for an unlimited liability. Mr. Bradley wondered why Springfield should sign for unlimited liability and not Eugene if it was for the benefit of the entire metropolitan area. Manager said one reason was because the Train would be stationed within Springfield's jurisdiction and they would be responsible for it. \ He added that in all fairness Eugene might join with the others and take its chances, but the Council should be aware that it would be taking chances. Councilman Keller asked how much money would be involved if the "blackest" happened. Manager said he knew of instances where liability ran to $6000 or $7000. Ticket sales would have to run about $50,000 to $80,000 to finance that amount. e Councilman Haws asked what unlimited liability would involve - personal injury or what. Mr. Long said that would be an issue itself to a degree. There is no detail about expected expenses, he said. Contractual liability and possibility of unin- sured claims plus assessing the strength of a hold harmless clause would also be an 5$5 10/27/7S - 3 issue. Councilman Haws wondered whether the city really wanted to become involved. He said he had always noted a reluctance on staff's part and perhaps it would be better to forget it and get on with more important matters. Assistant Manager tit reviewed meetings that were held with representatives of the Freedom Train Founda- tion and discussion of necessary police protection, parking, shuttling people to and from the Train site, provision of physical plant - all anticipating about 80,000 people going through the exhibit. Consensus in those meetings was that the only available site for location of the train was in Springfield, and the Springfield Council, with assurance that Eugene would assist, agreed to sponsor it. However, the Foundation has the ability within the terms of the contract it is requesting to make demands not now anticipated, and there appear to be mixed reactions in the other jurisdictions with regard to concerns expressed by administrative people about the potential liability under the agreement. Staff felt the best approach at this time was to let Springfield deal with the matter and for Eugene to provide this in- demnification up to $2000. Lorie Adams of Springfield said her husband was site chairman and was the one who talked to Eugene people with regard to what staff commitments had been made - sanita- tion, police, etc. She noted the amount of advance preparation from citizens groups for the Train's visit, the amount of time involved and frugality practiced in ex- penditure of available funds. Now, she said, papers need to be signed if the Train is to stop. She didn't think any money would be lost on the venture, and asked that Eugene support the effort if for no other reason than the publicity of the Train's visit to the Eugene/Springfield area. In response to Mayor Anderson, she said they were anticipating about 15,000 people daily over a period of four days and expected enough tickets to be sold so that the Train could open the afternoon before it was originally planned to open. Councilman Bradley wondered if there was any comparison with Eugene's position with e regard to limiting its liability in this instance and Springfield's withdrawal from the social services programs. Councilman Murray didn't think so because of the sub- stantial difference between the two. The social services program, he said, was on- going, well funded, and a governmental responsibility. Councilman Keller wondered if the Foundation agreement could be changed more to the city attorney's liking. Mr. Long answered that it depended upon what the Council wished to accomplish. The liability could be limited to $2000 in the contract if the other parties were willing to agree to that limit, however there was no certainty they would negotiate on that basis. He said it was a letter agreement and not con- sidered a good contract for the city because of the unlimited liability. It limi ts the Freedom Train liability, covered by insurance, but there is no assessment of what that is. Mr. Keller wondered, if the matter was tabled until the Wednesday committee meeting, whether more information could be given at that time. He didn't think it advisable to enter into a contract against the attorney's advice, but he did think the project was worthy and thought more information from both sides might be worthwhile. Manager said copies of the Freedom Train contract could be distributed to Council members to give them an impression of anticipated financial arrangements, etc., then action could be taken later. Councilman Williams asked if fundamentally the money involved was staff commitment for sharing sanitation, police, etc., and insurance costs as opposed to about 10% override on ticket sales. Manager replied that 500 parking spaces were to be pro- e vided, also there would be a traffic problem because of a football game during the time the train was here. He said no estimates of total cost had been received from Springfield, although there was verbal assurance from their staff that they didn't anticipate losses to exceed $5000. He added that there were a lot of items Spring- field wanted Eugene to take care of. 10/27/75 - 4 S-5~ Mayor Anderson suggested that the Council proceed with the balance of the agenda. There were no objections and at the conclusion of other business, discussion turned again to the e Freedom Train issue. II-A-l Councilman Keller thought an effort should be made to reach some sort of agreement and wondered if there was any chance the other agencies would accept the $2000 liabil- ity limit. Manager said if the Council authorized the contract without the limit, that contract would be signed. However, that new direction would have to come in a motion that repealed previous action setting the limit. Councilman Bradley suggested a motion to eliminate the $2000 liability limit, thereby giving staff the flexibility to work out an arrangement with Springfield to include some other liability limit, say $5000, $10,000, $30,000, or whatever could be arranged. Mayor Anderson thought that would be putting a burden on staff that the Council should be carrying. Councilman Haws also thought it would be unfair to staff. He felt there was a sort of moral obligation since Eugene had originally indicated its support. Assistsant Manager explained that Eugene was involved because it appeared a good idea, and since Springfield did not attend the original meeting with the Foundation group, Springfield was assured that Eugene would work with them. Of course, he added, when Southern Pacific chose the trackage in Springfield for location of the train, need of assistance became more evident. In response to Councilman Haws, Assistant Manager said Eugene's involvement came about originally through a meeting with SP and Foundation representatives. Because having the Train exhibit stop in this area appeared to merit consideration, staff time was taken to search out a loca- tion. When the trackage in Springfield was decided upon, the matter was then pursued with the Springfield Council. e Councilman Keller wondered if those concerned would be more comfortable with a $5000 liabili ty 1 imi t. Manager said he personally felt, from information given by Spring- field, that experience of other cities where the train had stopped indicated there would be no problem in covering that amount from receipts. The issue, he said, was whether to sign the Freedom Train Foundation agreement, a very specific document that cannot be changed. Mr. Haws stated his understanding that Council members were being advised to be very cautious about signing that contract. He wondered if liability was incurred whether it would be against Council members individually. Mr. Long didn't think so, based on what he knew about it at this time. It was true that staff doesn't like the contract, he said, but the reason it wasn't signed was because staff was limited to $2000 liability and that could not be done. The Freedom Train people have said they want their specific contract signed in its present form. They appear not to be interested in mone~, as such, he said, only the agreement. Councilman Williams felt the relationship between Eugene and Springfield to be critically important to the health of the urban area. The real issue, he said, was not the $4000 to $5000 involved, but rather the question of whether the urban area was going to work together in a partnership relationship. He felt it should work that way so it seemed Eugene was pretty much obligated to pay its "share of the freight." He wasn't convinced it was a proper expenditure, he said, but he thought the urban area relationship was of overriding importance, that all participants should be carrying their share of urban area responsibilities. e Mayor Anderson hesitated to bring the relationship with regard to social services into this discussion. He didn't think that was an inequitable situation, rather it was a matter of different opinions. And they were not real, he said, other than that Eugene was disappointed that Springfield was not supporting the social services program. 10/27/75 - 5 55"-1 Councilwoman Beal noted much had been said about Springfield's part, but no one from Springfield had ever appeared to give any reason to sign the agreement. Patriotlc citizens had spoken, she said, but no official of the city of Spring- e field. She thought it unwise to go against the advice of the city's attorney when the extent of liability the city might incur was not known. Councilman Murray agreed, saying the basic question was whether the Council wanted to sign a contract which staff advised was beyond a reasonable risk. He didn't think the position adopted earlier, limiting liability to $2000, would characterize the city as being uncooperative in regional efforts. Councilman Bradley asked if staff would have had any reservations about signing the agreement with the Freedom Train Foundation if Eugene had the necessary trackage and the train was located here. Manager answered that in that case Eugene would have been the prime contractor and would have taken care of the situation, but that was not the case. Assistant Manager pointed out that there would have been an attempt to change the language of the contract and other supporting information would have been re- quested. Also, under those circumstances, Eugene would have had the ability to per- form the 'contract itself. He said he thought really that Springfield would try its best to perform the contract. Hypothetically, he said, if Springfield should de- fault, Eugene has no authority to control traffic, set up crowd control, etc., within Springfield limits. If the train were to stop in Eugene, there would not be those kind of concerns. Mrs. Beal didn't feel that standing by the $2000 liability limit would be going back on any agreement. In fact, she said, people involved were assuring a large surplus of revenues - Springfield might actually make money on the event. In that case, she added, Springfield might even be able to budget money for the social services program and they should be given that opportunity. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley that the city attorney look at e the contract with the idea of sharing liability equally with Springfield and Lane County and report back to the Council at the Wednesday committee session (October 29). For clarification in response to Councilman Murray, Mr. Keller said he was trying to find out what would happen should there be default. In response to Councilman Haws' request for staff comment, Mr. Long said it was his impression from speaking with the Springfield city manager that they believe their liability would amount to no more than $2000. He (Long) said he substantially agreed with that judgment. Manager added that Springfieldmanager.!s position was because he felt net cost of the project would be less than $6000. Councilman Bradley said he ~ould be interested in having an opinion from the Spring- field city attorney, Ed Harms, about Springfield's potential liability, suggesting that could be included in a report if it is brought bsck to the Council on Wednesday. Mayor Anderson said his understanding of the city attorney's advice was that the Freedom Train contract was not a good document. If there was no way to change it, he said, then "that may be the answer." Councilman Murray withdrew his support of the motion, saying he felt nothing would be accomplished. Councilman Hamel agreed. He said authorizing liability to $5000 would seem unwise if Springfield was of the opinion their liability was only to $2000. Councilman Williams thought voting for the motion would give the opportunity for e Springfield review of discussion at this meeting, and that might prove beneficial if they decided to take another look at thierposition. Councilwoman Beal said further review of the contract would take time and money. She thought that if the Council wanted to keep the obligation at $2000, then the I 10/27/75 - 6 556 motion should be defeated. Councilmwoman Shirey wondered what the options were if the issue was merely postponed to the Wednesday committee session, and no other action taken at this time. That would give opportunity for contact with Springfield in e light of the discussion at this meeting. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Keller, Williams, and Bradley voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting no. Councilman Hamel asked if there was any way to instruct staff to make further investi- gation. Mr. Long said he would conclude that the prior action (in committee) stands. If an agreement limiting liability to $2000 was not forthcoming, then no agreement would be signed. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Bradley that staff review the situation in light of discussion at this meeting and bring back for further dis- cussion at the Wednesday committee meeting (October 29), and to ask Springfield staff to attend that meeting. Councilman Murray didn't understand the reason for the motion. He thought it would be asking staff to decide the direction Council wished to take. He understood the program was not in jeopardy, that someone would step in, and that Eugene to some ex- tent was still a partner in the project. Mr. Keller partially agreed. However, he thought if nothing was done, Eugene would not be a participant, and he thought Eugene citizens would like some response. He said the city had contracted for many, many times more money than the $2000 liability discussed, and that the only question seemed to be whether the program would lose money. He thought if Eugene citizens were going to see the exhibits, then the Council should do something. Mr. Murray replied that Eugene's not signing the contract would not necessarily mean there would e be no exhibit. It was hid understanding that the project would go ahead anyway. Mrs. Beal saw no difference between this motion and the one just defeated. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Williams, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, and Haws voting no. III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on October 15 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and October 22, 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Voting Eugene Dele~ates to NLC - November 30-December 4 -Mr. Bradley and Mayor Anderson are the only two going from Eugene. Corom Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Mayor Anderson be 10/15/75 designated Eugene delegate and Mr. Bradley the alternate. Motion Approve carried unanimously. B. Approval of Acquisition of Bike Easement - 15th to Franklin - Patrick and Elizabeth McGarvey - $200.00 This project will involve building some fencing, etc. to protect the abutting property. e Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the acquisition. Mr. Williams questioned whether 15th goes through to Franklin. Asst. Manager noted the bike path is a connector - a little jog going off of 16th. Corom 10/15/76 Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Approve .559 10/27/75 - 7 C. Public Works Request to Initiate Planning and Hearings on 1976~77 Street Projects The process e Public Works is requesting initiating the 76-77 street projects. covers a two-year period, and the request at the moment is to consider preliminary design. It was the Council consensus to be given a conducted tour of all projects in the course of the next few weeks. In answer to a question from Ms. Shirey, Public Works Director explained that the Willamette street project involves a complete improvement with two traffic lanes, curbs, gutters and two bike lanes plus possibly a center turn lane. At present the two traffic lanes are substandard. Mr. Haws questioned why no s1aewalks are proposed for the Bertelsen improvement. Public Works Director noted the majority of that area is industrial and the policy at present is not to require sidewalks in industrial areas as no need has been demonstrated. Comm Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize manager to proceed. 10/15/76 Also visits by the Council to these projects are to be arranged. Approve Motion carried unanimously. D. Draft of Revised Ordinance on Commission on Human Rights - Mr. Murray explained that, though the comndttee took longer than originally planned to complete its work, that time was beneficial and better than adhering to a confined time schedule. The original committee consisted of Sarah Lichtenstein, Mary Klonoski and Marion Sweeney, Women's representatives; Neil Murray and Edna Shirey, Council representatives; and Whitty Bass and Theo Allen, Human Rights Commission representatives. Two replacements were named midway through the deliberations for members leaving on vacation. They were Women's representative Jeanette Silveira substituting for Marion Sweeney and Human Rights Commission representative George Russell substituting for Whitty Bass. e Mr. Murray thanked the committee for diligent efforts on their part and commended staff for fantastic help - Stan Long, Betsy Merck and Diane Price. The committee's vote was unanimous to submit the present proposal to Council, and the committee feels comfortable with it. It represents a substantial improvement over what now exists, providing a strong advocacy system. However, it does not blur advocacy by giving the commission final judicial responsibility. An expeditious procedure has been drafted for handling complaints. A hearings official would be utilized with referral to the City Attorney. Mr. Murray distributed a summary of the proposed ordinance, which was drafted by committee member Sarah Lichtenstein and which accurately calls attention to . the components of the ordinance. The committee was charged with developing the Women's Commission proposal and did not deal with other suggested commissions as to their makeup, composition, charge or range. Ms. Shirey echoed Mr. Murray's statement, feeling the document is very good and will address the needs of the group. Mr. Murray moved to conceptually approve the proposal and ask that a Cornm public hearing be scheduled and that the draft be put in ordinance 10/15/75 form. Approve Mr. Bradley wondered if in the makeup of the various commissions there should be one tentatively included for youth. Mr. Murray answered it was not an oversight to exclude that group but the committee simply did not feel it was e appropriate for them to take action on other commissions. Mrs. Beal noted too that the existing ordinance protects the areas of aging, handicapped and minorities but does not cover youth. It was suggested that a youth commission be dealt with separately at a later Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. 10/27/75 - 8 5~o Mr. Bradley wondered about the provision in the proposed ordinance which states membership should consist of those persons who have "demonstrated active e invol vement" . He feels possibly there should be a balance of those demonstrating' active involvement and those not so involved. It would provide a more well rounded cOmnUssion. Mayor Anderson concurred with Mr. Bradley's views. He also wondered why it was stip~lated that the membership could range from 9 to 15, to which Mr. Murray replied that it was inherited from the present ordinance. Mayor Anderson pointed out experience has shown that. on committees that can expand and contract in number, the membership is not as well structured and becomes more informal. A definite number of mel~ers creates an obligation on the appointive authority to keep the roster filled. Otherwise, the membership could dwindle down to 9 with the possibility of 6 members being appointed all at one time - necessitating orientation of all at once. Mrs. Beal thought that, 'though a definite number of members could be set for each commission, that number need not necessarily be the same for each group. Mr. Murray expressed the hope that the proposal, pending passage of the motion on the floor, would be forwarded to every identifiable group concerned, inclUding the youth representation. Mr. Williams expressed the feeling that the basic structure of the proposal seems sound. He is concerned, however, with the role that each individual cOmnUssion would play. He views the possibility of 4 separate entities all coming to the Council arguing for their constituency. The Council could be faced with dealing with each one - one at a time - in a vacumn. It might make more sense, he felt, for reports produced by the individual comaassions to be filtered by the Human Rights Council before coming to the Council. He is also troubled with the initial appointment procedure, a procedure that can be very time consuming for Council members. Some direction e should be given, perhaps through staff, with a proposal coming before the Council for advice and consent. Mr. Murray shared Mr. Williams concerns, feeling that to simplify the appointment procedure a uniform package should be adopted by the Council and presented back in the form of bylaws. Mr. Murray also spoke to the sorting out by each commission of its concerns and priorities. He feels the Human Rights Council, charged with the responsibility to coordinate and evaluate, can provide some overview and give direction as to the most important problems each commission should address. It does not totally preclude a cOmnUssion from coming to the Council. That capability was not altered. Mayor Anderson referred to the statement that "members shall be appointed through a public process which includes open applications and interview of the finalists by the City Council". He wo~dered if the inclusion of open applications would be considered mandatory or would be a part of the process. It has been the experience that to bring talent and representation at the same time to a cOmnUssion frequently necessitates recruiting an individual to fill a certain role. Often those best suited for membership are not the ones who seek out application. Mr. Bradley wondered if any thOU~lt had been given to providing more responsibility to the Human Rights Council. It appears, as written, tnat the Council would be weak and the comndssions strong. e Mr. Murray answered that that point was probably the prime controversy in the committee's deliberations. It was the comrndttee's position that it was appropriate for each commission to have a strong advocacy role but not necessarily balanced with a strong Human Rights Council, as long as the whole appeal process is not handled by the commission. 5~./' 10/27/75 - 9 At one point, the commi~tee included the appeal process within the framework of the commission, at another point that charge was given to the Human Rights Council, and finally it was decided to remove it entirely and place it in e the hands of a hearings official and the city attorney. In that regard, it was felt a very tedious process would be expedited. Mr. Murray went on to say that he personally feels the terms "coordinate" and "evaluate" are rather undefined. He sees those' terms as . providing conside,ra.bie opportunity for' a very .irctive role ,by the Human RLgh'ts CounciJ;:>":experience will.'determine hOw. that. wnl, woi:,k out ~ Mrs. Beal requested that staff and. members Q;tl}l!Women' s committee draw up an application form to be circulated as sood.as possible after coun~il passage. Vote 'was taken' on 'the riotion which'cardea unanimousJ.y. , After'deliberation on' a. dat.e . fOr a ,publicheariiig" it': was deCided'that the hearing would be held on November 10 to provide 'time to circulate the proposed ordinance among all other interested groups fOF their information and input. Mayor Anderson thanked the committee members for taking on a very difficult task and for their patience, research and willingness to compromise. He feels it is the most significant step taken in the equal opportunity program since the adoption of the ordinance itself. It not on~y provides a means of accommodating groups that need attention in the community but cleans up the ordinance to the extent that there will be set procedures to follow with a much more formal structuring. E. Discussion of Water Extension Policy - The question of water extension has e been brought up again, as specifically regarding the Shade Oak Subdivision - it is well outside the urban service boundary involving the Willamette Water Company with which EWEB has a contract. It is Qnderstood that EWEB is not taking a position at the Boundary Commission meetings on this metter, feeling it is up to the City to take such a position. Asst. Planning Director Chenkin.attended one such meeting arguing in support of denying revisions to the contract which would have the effect of extending .beyond what is now allowed. Mr. Chenkin has further studied the matter and would like Council direction if they would like him to act in their behalf. He stated the Shade Oak Subdivision is located east of I-5 slightly south of Goshen and clearly outside of the urban service boundary. It is zoned county AGT allowing single-family dwellings on 5-acre parcels or larger. Present Oregon law requires Boundary commission approval for any extra-territorial water service. The resolution adopted by the Council on October 13 was an updating of the policy used with an individual property owner. It really was not directed to an entire prea asking for water service. In addition, there are definite criteria in the 1990 Plan to provjde direction. While that plan recognizes that city services might be extended to satellite communities, it requires communities have a plan in their own right first. There is a possibility a plan will be prepared by the count~ some time in the future for ,'. .' ,.~. the area in question, but it is not on the schedule at this time. The Boundary Commission has continued the discussion of this matter to their November 6 meeting. e Mr. Murray feels present policy really mandates the council's position, ebat . they should oppose extending to that area. 10/27/75 - 10 S~,2, Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to reaffirm the ~urrent city Comm Council policy and indicate that extension of water ~erv~ce to ~he 10/15/75 ~ Shade Oak Subdivision would be contrary to such pol~cy as outl~ned Approve in the 1990 Plan. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, repr~senting the~Ledgue of Women Voters, stated that it would be useful to EWEB ~f the Counel1 wou~d express itself, as EWEB is an arm of the city and they feel the c~ty needs to set policy they then implement. In answer to Mr. Bradley, the Boundary commission must approve any water t .' . EWEB cannot proceed without that approval., a. 1 though EWEB may ex ens~on, d C . . not necessarily be required to extend water s'ervice upon Boun ary omrruss~on authorization. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. F. Segregation of Assessments - N.E. Corner 11th and Bertelsen - Nolan and Flo~ence Schied (S-75-7) Comm 10/22/75 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Mur~ay to approve. Motion carried Approve unanimously. G. Panel Report on Fence Appeal - 2080 Churchill Street (October 20, 1975) Present: Counci-lmen J/aws (presid.iny) and Hamol; Staff: Gene Haxton. 4It Appeal from Zoning Code Board of Appeals denial of variance for fence at 2080 Churchill Street - Ray Schaaf Request to allow fence in violation of City' Code at 2080 Churchill Street was denied by Zoning Board of ~ppeals on September 11, 1975, another request f0C the same ,,'ariance having been denied in May'1972. No, ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by panel members. Records of the building department and minutes of Zoning Board for September 11, 1975 were made a,part of this record by reference thereto. Copies of September 11 Board minutes were previously furnished to panel members. Mr. Haxton explained that tIll"! appeal was brought to the Counci 1 for the> second time upon request of the appe.1lant. The fence at issue was constructed wi thin the setback area in excess of the height limitations, and the variance was denied by the ~ard on the basis of lack of showing of hardship and an indication by the neighborhood that code enforcement was desired. Mr. Haxton sa,id the appellant, Ray Schaaf, was told the question could be resolved by reTTOving the fence or lower- ing its height to cOlnply with the code. However, appellant decided to bring an ,appeal to the Council to maintain the fence in its present condItion rather tilan to request a waiver with setback of at least six feet and landscaping to pro~ide an equal aesthetic situation. In both instances - 1972 and present - the appellant chose to seek a direct variance from the code provisions. Mr. Haxton' continued that staff was now in position to prosecute both the property owner and tenant (Richard Schaaf, son of the appellant) for maintaining an illeqal fence. Action was suspended pending outcome of this appeal. The staff is obligated, he said, to actively enforce the code and resolve the issue. ~ In answer to Councilman Haws, Mr. Haxton said the specific viol~tion was a fence ~ constructed and maintained in excess of 30" within the front yard setback. Public hearing was opened. 10/27/75 - 11 S/:J3 Raymond Schaaf, 1928 Arthur Street, appellant and owner of the property at 2080 Churchill Street, said that when he bought the'property about three year~ ago there had been no mention that the fence was in violation of the code, and he knew noth- ing about the situation until fhis summer. He said he hdd installed trees and . shrubs that would be lost if the fence had to be removed. The neighborhood ex- periences vandalism resulting from pedestrian traffic to and from schools in the area, he said, and dogs are also a problem. Mr. Schaaf asked to retain the fence, at least until a hedge he had instaLled grows to the point where it could resist the foot ;traffic. In response to Councilman Hamel, Raymond Schaaf said he had purchased the property from his son but had not known the situ3tion with regard to the fence. Richard Schaaf, 2080 Churchill Street, said he had constructed the fence and had it almost completed at.the time Mr. Haxton notified him it was in violation of the code. The fence was completed in spite of the violation, Mr. Schaaf said, because he was on vacation and wanted to finish it while he could. He said the appeal in 1972 was filed because he felt he had been treated unfairly, that it was a matter of staff's personal prejudice. Since then, he said, he had been absent from the city about three years and he wondered why the si tuation had not been "checked into" before now. He said he felt it was not so much that the fence was "in disagreement , , with the public and the area" as it was a matter of a personal vendetta by Gene Haxton. ;Mr. Schaaf continued that contact with people in the neighborhood having a view of ;the fence had revealed no one opposed to it. There has been vandalism, he said, the fence is needed for protection, and he has small children. He added tha,t the .Zoning Board's conduct excluded the opportunity for his father to be heard and asked if report of action taken there had been made available to the panel members. Mr. Haws said that both he and Mr. Hamel had read those reports. Councilman Haws asked if there was any reason a fence set back to the proper place (15 feet) would not resolve the problems cited - vandalism, protection, small children. ~ He also asked what had been planted or installed prior to construction of the fence. ~ Mr. Schaaf answered that landscaping, planned with the fence as it is, as well as a play area would have to be changed. None of that had been installed prior to con- struction of the fence, he said, and he had mentioned plans for the yard to the person frem whom he had purchased the property (Charles Ogle, builder) and there had been no mention of restrictions on fences in the area. Councilman Haws asked "'hat "practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hards/lip" upOn which a variance could be based might be caused by hav.ing to remove the f(mcC'. Mr. Schaaf said the play area would be ruined and certainly all of the landscaping would be exposed to mistreatment from foot traffic to and from the schools in the area. He.noted an extra high fence off of Harvard Street installed for protection because of heavy foot traffic, especial']y between houses (a ten-foot I"ide Io.'alkway easement east of Harvard into the school yard). Others speaking in favor of retaining the fence in its present condition were Darrel V. Petzold, 2115 Parliament Street;' John Rusnby, 2115 Churchill Street; Clarence A. Huffman, 2112 Churchill Street. They also cited vandalism, foot traffic, chi ldren going to and from school, dogs, etc., as. reasonS for needing the protection. Xhey recognized the fence was in violaUon of the code but thought its use to protect property and lack of objections from neighbors justified retaining it. Mr. Rushby Said he wanted to build a similar fence to protect his property because of the pedestrian traffic through th. yards and to keep dogs off the lawns but had delayed it until resolution of this appeal. He said the Schaaf fence was not an eyesore, that it did not constitute any type of safety hazdrd, and there had been no complaints from neighbors that it detracted from that area. Mr. HaKton pointed out the record as contained in the Zoning Board minutes and said ~ that staff recommendation for removal" or modification of the fence was still based ~ on code requirements, and that the Board's denial was based on lack of showing any un- necessary hardship if the fence was removed or modified. He denied there was any personality conflict invol'ved. 10/27/75 - 12 ~,,~ , , Counci lman Hamel asked from whic,hside of the walk the lS:"'foot setback would start. ' Mr. Haxton answered that.it would start from the house side, tilat' actuall~the property line woul~ be about a foot from the ,walk so that'actual setback 'from the sidewalk' would .. a'mount to about' 16 feet. In response to Councilman Haws, he' said the setback for the . garage is at least the minimum (15 feet), otherwise it would not have been permitted to be completed at the time of constru.ction and building inspection. Mr. Rushby called attention to another iencein 'the neighborhood, that appeared,~o be in violation and described its location. Mr. Haxton expl:ained that it had been. con- structed prior to adoption of the present code and was thqreforc a nonconforming use. He added tha t there was another in the area in violation uPon which action .wpuld soon be taken. Mr. Haws pointed out that the code had to be enforced equally-otherwise a variety of fences in the community would result. Mr. Petzold commented on tile Zoning Board meeting and said,he t.~ought it had been conducted in a poor manner. Mr. Haws appreciated the concern expressed and suggested the best procedure would be to address those concerns to the city manager. He said that,regardless of the canduct of the Zoning Boardmeetiny, everyone particip~ting in this nearing would be treated fairly and any decisi,on would be based, on the facts as presented in the record and through testimony received. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimQny presented. Councilman Hamel said he thought there could have been a personality conflict, it would depend upon how a matter was presented. However, he 'said that the fence knowingly had been constructed in violation of the code and that it should either be , relocated at the proper setback or modified to the height required by the code (30"). Councilman Haws asked what choices the Schaafs' had. M~. Haxton said the fence could be moved back to the setback line or could be lowered to 30". A Recommendation: Unanimous vote to uphold past Zoning Board . ~tions and deny the appeal~ Councilman Haws hC'r!,:d 'f;at the i1fJFr'lla.,': ,.,;ulri:''':lIvly witt, !f/,,' '-'('c,isir;Il'd.;lr1 noted the matter of fence var,i,lIlCf'S w'as elL? 1\.ll~C:" ,',(' h'':>U1.<! like to sc'" ".!rir','S::',J! }',I U~L~Council. Mr. (faxtOn noted thilr t,'lcre i,ac' l>,?cn :;cme rJiscu<;slons ill. :::tdf~' 1,'." { :.;j th r(',;Jrd to possitJ1e n1odification:: to ft:nc~ rey,datiops, yard setbacks" COlIlL'r 'lot.<;, etl:. Richard Schaaf expressed dissatisfaction with the dcci!don, sd1jiny tho regulations should be r.J.:Jde accordin<j to Jo.'h.:Jt people in a given arcadc..;ircd. Nr. Haws explained that a particular ,r.ubdi\,jsion could not be. eXt..mpted from cnd~.J provisions. (ft' said he understood the concerns expressed but the only proper cour.cOo of action was to abide by the code or change it, and that the appeal had been denied. , Conon 10/22/75 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to accept the report. Motion Approve carried unanimously. At the conclusion of the regular agenda, Mr, Schaaf, 2080 Churchill Street, asked if there was anything further could be said to change the decision on this appeal. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel that motion to deny the appeal be reconsidered. Upon Councilman Murray's' inquiry as to why it should be reconsidered, Mr., Bradley said he thought that in the hasty vote on the consent calendar, serious concern on this matter may not have been expressed. He thought'theissue really had never been e made clear.to the Council, and although the panel report had been.distributed, he said-, he would l1ke to hear what actually happened. He thought there mlght be some useful purpose in allowing Mr. Schaaf the opportunity to convince; the total'Council on the fence issue. ' , S"?i 10/27/75- 13 Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey1voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Mayor Anderson voting no. H. Appointments e 1. Reappointment to Budget Committee of Ron Boehi - Recommended by Mr. Hamel Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to approve the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. (Term ending December 31, 1978.) Corom 2. Appointment to Library Board of Mrs. Charles Larson - Mrs. 9har1es Larson had 10/22/75 replaced Mrs. Lacy who was on leave for one year. Mrs. Larson has had one year Approve experience on the Board and is recommended to replace Archie Duguid, for the balance of the term ending January 1, 1979. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to confirm the appointments as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. I. Supplemental Agreement - Royal Avenue Construction Project - Oregon State Highway Department (Resolution previously distributed to Council). 'The agreement provides for the design, construction, financing, and maintenance of the project under the Federal Aid Urban system Program, construction to include the Candlelight - Louis Street Section of Royal Avenue. Corom Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the resol uti on. Motion, 10/22/75 carried unanimously. Approve J. Report of Planning Commission on Procedures for Amending 1990 General Plan e Planning Commission Official Report, ndnutes and staff notes of september 15 previously distributed to Council. There are no changes of significance in the report received back from the Planning Commission, and a public hearing was suggested to consider the resolution. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to call a public hearing Corom 10/22/75 for November 10. Motion carried unanimously. Approve K. Request of Planning commission for Information from County on Surplus Property Actions within Urban Service Area Planning Commission on september 22 requested Council to ask the County Commissioners or staff for a report on surplus property declared for sale by the County when located within the Urban Service Area. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the request and instruct staff to forward the request to the County. Motion Comm carried unanimously. 10/22/75 Approve L. Trailer petmit for Citizens Bank of Ore 0 ,11th and Pearl - Citizens Bank of Oregon Is asking for a ohe-year extens on on trailer use to accommodate temporar!l banking facilities llntil a perm~nent structure is completed. < Corom Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to call a public hearing 10/22/75 for November 10. Approve Mayor Anderson had noticed relocation of the drive-in bank was to be undertaken. He wondered "what you do with old drive-in banks" ~nd requested that e information be obtained by staff. vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 10/27/75 - 14 StefL.:, - , '. .', M. Revised Guidelines for Park Building Rental Policy for Advocate Groups Mrs. Shirey reported that she and Councilman Haws were on a cOnmUtteeto e revise guidelines for Parks Department rented 'policy for advoc(ite ,groups. The new wording would provide for use of the community buildings for what is felt to be justifiable activity. Mrs. Beal questioned the necessity for outlining such a complicated process at all. She did not understand why political groups should'b~ placed in a) separate category. Mrs.' Shirey explained that' the purpose of'the gllidelines is to provide clarification to the staff in granting requests for use; As Mayor Anderson stated, it is ci fact sheet that spells out lOOre;:d~arly former possible arbitrary decisions by staff. Mrs. Beal referred though to the partisan non-fund raising classification which would pay the regular fee plus $5 an hour, higher than the fee for the educational classification. Mr. Murray could not agree either that a group of dentists, 'for instance, should pay a smaller fee than, say, a republican party subcOnmUttee on urban problems. Mrs. Shirey also sympathized with Hrs.. Beal's point. She noted the committee did not look at the fees but 'merely the wording on the uses of the buildings.- She, for one, would be happy to support the fee schedule for partisan groups being lOOre in line with other classifications. Comm Mrs. Beal lOOved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Council accept the 10/22/75 guidelines and that the matter of fees be referred back to ,the Approve COnmUttee for further study. Mr. Keller was bothered about conducting tund-raising activities in public buildings. He expressed some opposition to that guideline being included. Mr. Bradley then wondered if the policies would allow a group to have a private meet::ing 'excluding the general public and he was advised that it would e be the same as an owner-tenant relationship. One privilege of that type of relationship is use of the property. The general public cannot lOOve in on tenants. But Mr. Bradley felt there is a difference in that a qommunity center is a general public building - a rental house is designated as a private house. It was suggested that perhaps that matter also be 'referred to thecomnuttee. Vpte was taken on the lOOtion which would include' also referral to the commdttee of the fund-raising classification. Motion carried, all council members voting aye except Mr. Bradley vOting no. N. Council Bylaws on Commission and Board Appointments (Copy of resolution distributed to Council) - Mayor Anderson stated that the manner in which the proposal is presented conflicts somewhat with his thinking. The differences he notes are not a personal matter with him 'but rather how he views the office of mayor regardless of who holds that offiqe. Since 'the powers of the mayor are carefully designated in the city charter, it seems rather inconsistent if the council were to use its own bylaws to designate duties and powers 'which in effect they seem to be doing under this ne~ proposal. He pointed out the following desired changes: In Section 2 under flrticle IV (2), it stated, "In addition, the Mayor shall have the power to appoint special cOmnUttees to be known as the Mayor's Special COnmUttee for " Mayor Anderson does not feel that is a power . that Council has the right to give. In the charter, the. Mayor and Council are quite separate; Council may appoint its own committees and it would seem the Mayor should have that privilege also. He would therefore suggest deletion of that passage. e In ,Section 2, Article IV(5), it states, "Within a reasonable time after the close of the, Ijear,' the Mayor shall cause, on' behalf of' the Counqil, a letter of thanks and expression of regret to be forwarded to all applica.nts who completed a Citizen Interest Form but were no~ sele~ted to serve on any BOard, Co~ssion ., . 'SG~'1": '10/27/75 - 15, :'~ ,,' . ,,~'. -~--- or COnmUttee during that year and to urge their continued support and interest in local government matters and invite them to submit a new form for, the coming year." Mayor Anderson suggested new wording as follows: "Wi thin a reasonable time after the close of the year, the Council shall request the Mayor to write a e letter of thanks to be forwarded to all applicants who completed a Citizen Interest Form but were not selected to serve on any Board, Commission or Committee during that year." This wording would not dictate what the Mayor has to say. In Section 2 under Article IV (6), Mayor Anderson suggested adding "by the Council" to the title, using the word Council in place of "appoint'ive authority" and striking "or are subject to Council approval or confirmation". The passage would then read, "Manner of Appointment by the Council. Appointments to the boards, commissions and committees of the City shall be made by the Council indicated in Article IV, 1 and 2 above, or as designated by the ordinance or state law c~eating the board, commission or committee. In making such appointments, the Council shall take into consideration information provided by the Citizen Interest Form. In addition, all appointments that are required to be made by the Council shall be divided into the three following categories:". Without this chang~ in wording it could be interpreted to mean that appointments made by the Mayor would have to come back for a full council interview or be screened by Council. In Section 2 under Article IV(7), the section reads, "Mayor's Notice of Appointments. The Mayor shall, furnish to all members of tho Comm:m Council in writing, and prior to actua,Z appointment, the names of a,l1 appointees to any board, cormiUssion or committee designated in Article IV, 1 and 2 above, authorized to be appointed by him, and subject to approval or confirmation by the Council, so th~t any member of the Council will have an opportunity to discuss the appointment(s) with the Mayor prior to a public announcement of the appointment. tit Membership in a Council created committee may include members of the C011l1OOn Council and interested ci ti zens, or both." New wording suggested by Mayor Anderson would be, "Mayor's Appointment~. The Mayor is requested to furnish to all members of the Common Council in writing, the names of all appointees to any board, commission or committee designated in Article IV, land 2 above, who are authorized to be appointed by him, and who are subject to approval or confirmation by the Council, prior to consideration by the Council.~ He suggested moving to the end of Section 8 the sentence reading, "Membership in a Council created committee may include members of the Comnx:>n Council and interested citizens, or both." Mayor Anderson believes his proposed language would perhaps be more consistent with the policies and character of the Mayor and Council. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Council adopt the resolution as drafted with changes included as submdtted by Mayor Anderson. Corom Mr. Murray noted the Mayors comments were consistent with his intentions and 10/22/75 Mr. Hamel also'expressed that sentiment. Approve Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Murray noted that the bylaws do spell out October as being the Citizen Participation month. He wondered if December could be the designated month for 1975 since October would be a' little late. City Attorney Stan Long suggested that December could be designated for 1975 and voted on before passage of . the bylaws designating October as Citizen Participation Mbnth. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to desi9nate December as Citizen Participation MOnth for 1975 only. , - . 10/27/75 - 16 Sl->8 ".'- r ..~. " ^ _ Mrs. Beal won~ered when appointments would be made this year; she will be gone the month of December. It was pointed out that , since recr-ui tfT/€nt^ ^would ^ . take up the ^ month of December,' appointments would not logic~ny occur^ until .. January. \ Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. O. Oregon Trail Council (Boy Scouts) - Room^ Tax Allocation Request^ ^ ($ 20,212.20 Requested - $15,000 Recommended by Room Tax Co~ttee) -City Attorney's September 29 memo, letter of September 15 from the Oregon T!ai1^ Council, Status of Room Tax Balances, and October 21 memo from Parks Director^have all been distributed to Council). Mr. Art Steele, Oregon Trail Council, reminded Council' t~ttherequest had been tabled at anear1.ier Committee meeting pending review by theCity^Attorney. He discussed promotion of the use of their equipment by various groups. Personal contacts have been made with representatives of the^GirlScouts, Campfire Girls, 4-H and the Y.M.C.A. Each has shown great interest in having canoeing equipment available for their use. Mr. Steele added that the total number of Persons served in Lane County by the agencies he mentioned, including the Boy Scouts, is $31,078. Interest has also been expressed, he went on to say, by the Parks Department in having access to more canoeing equipment. It would seem possible that City use of Boy Scout equipment could be implemented. Parks Director Ed Smith explained that the Bicentennial Mural comndttee had received room tax funds to construct a permanent building within which a mural would be constructed. That building was to be constructed on park land and ~ would become the property of the Parks Department to use. The Parks Department ^ since then has undertaken to construct this facility^ as a boathouse,^because __ the Bicentennial Mural Committee s~bsequentl!l retracted their^proposal and returned room tax funds to the City for the boathouse project. The Parks Department is currently attempting to satisfactorily complete the project, which would 'be at a fraction of the cost the Oregon Trail Council now seeks for such a facility. Mr. Smith suggests that the Parks De~rtment be allowed to finish their facility with room tax fuodsand supply it with canoes before consideration is given any other outside group. In answer to Mrs. Shirey, Mr. Smith felt that sharing of equipment by the Oregon Trail Council would be difficult to accomplish because of tiying.^to schedule times between many different organizations. He cannot see that kind of joint' use. It would seem to Mrs. Beal that it would make more sense to have the room tax allocation commi ttee instruct the city to "buy more canoes for the use of the general public". It would insure better care and equitable distribution. Mrs. Beal m?ved seconded by Mr. Murray to rellDve from^the table and Comm deny the request of the Oregon Trail Council.l0/22/75 Approve Mayor Anderson ^commented that, though his record stands behind t~~ Boy Scouts, he would have to agree that the way the proposal is structured the pUblic would not have immediate access to the equipment. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimousl!i' \ . , . P. Application for License as ^ Motor Vehicle wrecke'r, 'or Salvage Pool Operator _, Comm ~ Trans Pac Equipment, Inc. dba Gunderson Wh1te Trucks, Inc.. ~^ 2200 West 6th 10/22/75 ., Approve ^,^, Mr. Murray; llDved seconded by HI. Keller to, approve the license. Motion carded unanimously. ^ ^ ^ 10/27/75 - 17 ,$Sbrt . Comm = Q Liquor License - Change of' OWnership - The Back Door - 1046 Oak - DA (Applicants: 10/22/75 . James C. Flake, Paul B. Hoven, Jr., Farrell B. Lindsay) A.pprove Nr. Murray nvved seconded by Mr. Keller to recommend approval. Motion carried e unaninvuslY. R. Council Liaison Representative to Mayors committee on Aging - Mayor Anderson has named Mrs. Beal to serve as an ex officio member to the Mayors Committee on Aging. S. Use of Public Easement after Building Construction - Mr. Haws raised a question about people using the public easements across vacant lots, causing a trespass problem once building occurs and whether adequate provisions are made for pedestrians. He referred particularly to the easement from Marshall Comm to the Gilbert Center with a housing project going in there. Planning 10/15/75 Director will get information back to the Manager's office on the issue. Affirm T. LCDC ~990 Pl~n Evaluation - Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission/City Counc~l meet1.ng of September 15 were previously distributed to Council - members, indicating it is n,ecessary for the Council to arrange for the public review, evaluation and update of the 1990 Plan which is then submitted Comm to L-COG. Planning Department suggests a hearing be held at the first Council meeting in December instead of in November as indicated in the 10/15/75 minutes. The material will be fozwarded to neighborhood groups to invite Affirm their input as well. U.'Dog Control RePO!-'t - Mr. Hamel requested October 29 Committee agenda include Comm a report on the dog control study to which he and Mr. Bradley have been J 10/22/75 - assigned (copies to be distributed with outline agenda). Affirm V. Growth Study - Mrs. Beal referred to the Growth Study, noting'it is apparently bogged down because of lack of funding interest by Springfield and Lane ' Comm County. She wondered if Eugene would consider proceeding to fund alone for the metro area. City Manager stated that some preliminary thinking has been. 10/22/75 undertaken regarding alternative proposals and that the staff will provide Affirm material for discussion at the October 29 Committee meeting. W. Possible Impact of New York City Financial Crisis on Eugene in Bond Market - Council has received a report on the matter from the Finance Director. His report indicated that there is not likely to be much effect on Eugene's bond interest rates. Mayor Anderson indicated he had a discussion with Senator Packwood's office. The Board of Directors of the National League of Cities has made certain recommendations. . Mayor Anderson is a member of that advisory council and was asked to contact Senator ,Packwood and secure his support. The NLC is expressing concern about a possible bail-out for New York, which this certainly should not be. They feel that the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds is threatened and that the New York state government in this instance should do m::>re. They do not want nationalization .of the bond market. In talking with Senator Packwood's office, there are three proposaJs, which are somewhat fuzzy according to Mayor Anderson. One, would involve taxable bonds to be guaranteed by the federal government for New York. An9ther would establish a fund to enable New York to balance its budget and borrow from the fund. A third would be a guarantee similar to that developed for Lockheed. Aircraft. In this one some definite strings would be attached whereby a 3-year plan would be plotted out e for New York to work out so much of their deficit each year, reaching certain points along the way in order for the federal guarantee to be retained. Mayor Anderson's own feeling is ,that the matter should be treated as a serious setback for local government. He feels New York should be penalized for excesses 10/27/75 - 18 S7() ,"- . '" ' ' .. which aretinnecessary and which reflect poor leadership. ,It'would seem to affect'pride in local government's self-reliance and ability to deliver services effectively. Under no circumstances does ne feel Oregon should have . to pay for New York. He added that any statement~de on behalf of the Council could indicate a statement for support to New'York only through some type of guarantee of credit from the federal government. Frankly, said Mayor And~rson, it would seem the City of New York should go to ,the private money' ~rket to eliminate the deficit. " ,. Mrs. Beal recognized the reluctance on Congress's part to bailout New York. She wondered though if there was something political in denying the request when they have freely bailed out the private sector. Mr. Keller ,would agree with Mayor Anderson but would have a problem with the guarantee. "What benefit is tha't guarantee if there is a defaul t", he wondered. Mr. Bradley fel t Mayor Anderson's statement about "penalizing New York" was a little strong, and Mayor Anderson explained that he might have over-emphasized that point. He intended to mean that steps should be taken so the City of New York will not get itself in the same dilemma again. If the federal government guarantees the loan, he would think certain restrictions should be exacted by local governments. Mr. Bradley would agree more with Mrs. Beal, however, feeling the problem is a hu~n one. He does not have any hesitancy in helping out another city which is part of this country. City Manager commented that the reality of the crisis would seem to be that loans will have to be ~de in time, in addition to a guarantee. True, there' will be plenty of strings attached and over a period of time balancing of the budget will be required or else it will result in an endless chain of continuing grants. . Mayor Anderson feels that, if the door is opened here, other cities will be going in that door. If local government is to continue as a viable political force, they have to have political responsibility. He s'ees a dilemma on a national scale' that threatens local urban government. Lucille Trine, Rt. 2, Box 383 A-l, wondered how New York would be able to pay back their loans, to which Mayor Anderson replied, "That is a good question - they would probably like to know themselves", and some possible answers have been considered. Ms. Thine also wondered what effect it would have on other cities, and Mayor Anderson commented that the NLC seems to pretty well reflect the.general opinions. Bradley would like some communication sent to the Congressional delegation Comm Mr. 10/22/75 on how the City of Eugene stands. He was appointed by Mayor Anderson to draft a resolution for presentation and possible amendment at the October'27 Council meetingAPprove and then subsequent transmittal to the Cdngressional delegation. x. Relationship with'City of Springfield - Mr. Murray raised a question on Eugene's relationship with the City of Springfield in regard to some cooperative arrangements, particularly pertinent now'to the social services funding. He noted that 10-15% qf social-services agehcies' clients are residents bf Springfield - in some agencies the percentage is as high as 30%. He also , . referred to an earlier decision by Springfield not to pay its full L-COG dues. In light of this, he wondered whether a ~jor reassessment should be ~de of the relationship between the two jurisdictions. City Manager suggested . perhaps a joint meeting at Council level could. be arranged, as it would be a ~tter more for Council discussion since the staffs are working together well on a day-to-day basis. Mayor Anderson expressed 'confidence with the. relationships bet~eenthe two staffs and the Mayors but shared Mr. Mu~ray's 10/27/75 - 19 ,~S'7:1 . ~ .s concern as well. He suggested the matter be placed on the agenda of one of the next two Committee meetings as an item for formal discussion, if Council Comm does not feel the issue is too sensitive to bring into the public forum.. 10/22/75 Mrs. Beal requested th~t figures on amounts of contributions by the two Affirm e jurisdictions also be provided at time of discussion. //1 . J Y. Rental Policy Guideline~ f~r Advocate Us~rs -Ms. Shirey reported she and Mr. 10/l~~~ Haws have completed rev~ew~ng Rental Pol~cy Guidelines for Advocate Users for File the Parks Department and request that it be placed on the next Committee of the 1 Whole agenda. z. Communication with Congressional Delegation Re: New York Bond Default - Mr. Bradley would like to sUbmit a resolution requesting communication with the Comm congressional delegation supporting federal financial aid to the city of 10/15/75 New York in their possible present bond default. Mr. Haws would like some File discussion on how r.'hat potential default might affect Eugene. AA. Substitution on Agenda of Discussion of Water Extension Policy for Boy Scouts Room Tax Allocation Request Comm The Boy Scouts have requested a postponement of discussion of their room 10/15/75 tax allocation request to a later date. The League of Ivomen Voters, on File the other hand, requests further discussion of the water extension policy and to that end Mr.Chenkin, Assistant Planning Director, has prepared a report on the Shade Oak Subdivision question and will be attending another meeting of the Boundary Commission at which time this issue is to be discussed. He would like further guidance from Council. BB. Metro Area Cable Translator Commission Report - Mr. Williams reported that commit the commission met to discuss Teleprompter's franchise renegotiation. The commission took the position that they will not agree to negotiate further without a formal neW-franchise commitment on Teleprompter's part. . They 10/15/75 furth~r ~tipulated it should be the clear intent of the parties to complete File negot~at~ons by May of 1976. As far as the commission is concerned, if not completed by that date, there will be no franchising at all. Mr. Williams questioned whether the commission has the authority to make that decision but, nevertheless, that is the action they took. CC. Joint Meetingon ESATS - Manager announced the next joint meeting with Comm the Planning Commission on the ESATS update will be held at 7:30, October 10/15/75 .20, in. the McNut.t .Room at City Hall. File DD. Council. Telephone Directory Lists - Council ~filbers.have receive~ copies Comm of thei.r phone directory listingS., and informa.tion is requested. back in 10/15/75 a .few days as to how they would like ~hem shown in the directory. File ~ EE. ESATS T1:ans.portation Review:Meefiifg-.It' was: brou"iht to Council's attention. that th~re is a Leagu~ of Oregon Cities ~eting November 16, 17 and 18. . A Comm tentati ve ESATS update bearing is scheduled f.or the evening of November 17. 10/15/75 It is possib.le that the hearing can be concluded at tbe November 3 meeting. File If not, it is suggested to include the matter on the agenda of the November 10 or 24 meeting as may seem appropriate and/or necessary. FF. Women's Commission Appli ca tion Form - Mrs. Beal asked if the form for coA application to the Women's Commission has been completed. She was advised 10/22/75 that a form has been put together but Council approval will await tqe File outcome of the pUblic hearing on the Women's Commission November 10. 10/27/75 - 20' S7Z - - ..---- _.~- , ~ GG. Social Services ,SubcoffinUtteeReport - City Manager advised he has ,received' minutes of a joint budget subcoffinUttee meeting on social services. since' " Springfield has withdrawn from the program and since the County has had to cut :-, back a substantial a1llOunt of their contribution, the subcommittee prepared the following recommendations: 1. That $3,057 carryover be applied to this year's budget rather than to reduce each government's 1975-76 contribution to the Joint Corom Fundi 2. That each service agency with a'CETA placement have its contract 10/22/75 reduced by 1% for each ,placement, resulting in a $5,8'12 savingsiand. 3. That File the remainder to be recovered, $7,631, be obtained,by an across-the-board c'ut of all contracts, ,inc1 uding those wi th CETA, and a cut in management costs by 2.34% each. Manager advised each ,contract will have to be revised but no forma+ action is necessary. There is an escape clause in the cont!acts, which states that funding is subject to final budgetary approval by each agency. " ' " HH. State Finance Company Request for Zone Change on Pr()p~rtyLocated North of Ca] 1~ung Road on Both Sides of Wi1lakenzie Road (1:,70-16) This request, invo1 ving two parcels, was heard by t-iit:', p'j anning Corirmission. They approved certain changes contingent upon single ownership 'of both parcels. CC?uncil fel t that was ,,!nl!ecessary and z:eferred it back. A joi,nt meeting was held w~th agreement on spec~f~c recommendat~ons. A full scale hearing is not required but the. ma tter should be referred to the Council for; action on the ordinance at which time there is a hearing. Mrs. Beal 1lIOved seconded ,by Mr., Murray to refer the zone change to Corom 10/22/75 the Council at its October 27 meeting for action on the ordinance. Approve Motion carried unani1llOusly. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through HH. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present e voting aye. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 946 - Rezoning to R-2 PD area north of, Cal Young, Road between Coburg Road and Willakenzie Road (State Finance )(Z 70-16) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt by reference thereto findings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 1, 1975 and September 15, 1975; that the bill be read the second time by council bill nirinber only, with unanimous. consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the ,bill ;was declared passed and numbered 17464. Council Bill No. 947 - Rezoning to R-2 4.0 (16 units) SR area north of Cal Young Road west ofWillakenzie Road (State Finance) (Z 70-16) was read by council bill number and ti tie only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt by reference thereto findings as set e forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 1, 1975 arid September 15, 1975; that the bill be read the second time by council billriumbe:r 'only, ,with unanimous consent of the: Council; and that enactment be considered at this time'. , Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by counciL"bill numper, ,only. : , 10/27/75 - 21 ':S'1:3 ~ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17465. -- Council Bill No. 935 - Construction of sanitary sewer to serve area between Vine Maple Drive and 300 feet southwest of Vine Maple Drive and 1-B-3 between 100 feet and 750 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present_voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17466. Council Bill No. 936 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer to serve area between Vine Maple Drive and 300 feet southwest of Vine Maple Drive and between 100 feet and 750 feet southeast of North Shasta Loop was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motian carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17467. V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2452 - Authorizing supplemental agreement to Urban System Project Agreement with Oregon State Highway Department and Federal Highway Administration for participation in widening Royal Avenue from Louis Street to 1000 feet west of Candlelight Drive was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2453 - Calling hearing November 10, 1975 re: Extending permit for mobile trailer banking facility at 11th and Pearl (Citizens Bank) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmembers present voting aye. . . Resolution No. 2454 - Amending Resolution 1761 - Council Bylaws - re: Appointment of Boards and Commissions was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion e carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2455 - Expressing Eugene's concern with regard to New York City financial situation was read by number and title. 10/27/75 - 22 57+ ~ - - "- j ~ -. ... ... .-' ~. .' / Copies of the resolution were distributed to Council members. ."Councilman Bradley ex- 0 plained that the resolution was drafted by himself and Mayor Anderson along lines of - thinking indicated, by the Council in previous meeting. . The resolutionihe said, tried ." to avoid recommending direct loans by the federal government to New York City. Mr. Keller asked if the intent was to inform the Congressional. delegation that the ci ty of Eugene did want the federal government to guarantee loans to New York.. Mayor Anderson explained that the resolution presented appeared to be. what Senator Packwood was seeking in his request for response from Eugene with r~gard to the Senate Banking Committee's consideration of New York City's plight. Councilman Williams said he would not support the resolution as drafted. He was not sure the opening paragraph was correct with regard to "the rippling effect on other local governments across the nation." He had thei~pression from discussi?ns with people in the Treasury Department, he said, that rio other city in the United States had mismanaged its credit as had New York City. He was not. opposed to the federal government's guaranteeing credit to New York, but he did not think the statement re- ferred to should top the list. The issue was one of emphasis, he said. Other people of the United States should be under no obligation to bailout the kind of fiscal mis- management practiced by New York. Councilman Murray thought the .resolution was a balanced statement that avoided the "bailing out" position. There was also included the important element of future account- ability as well as exclusion of any element of mOtives that would seem to indicate willingness to sacrifice needs of people for some political gain. Councilman Keller wondered why Item 3 - "...encourage state of New York to participate in any credi tguarantee. . ." - was. listed third because he thought that provision was - important. He 'found it difficult to support the resolution and said he felt strongly that "this was no place for Eugene." Mayor Anderson explained the intent in preparing this resolution was to reflect a consensus of theCouncp. Although he was not ex- tremely enthusiastic about certain parts of it and felt it would not receive unanimity of the Council, at least it would give the Senate Banking Committee some guide as to Eugene's reaction to New York's dilemma and suggestions how the matter might be resolved. He said he was sure that comments received by the Banking Committee from across the nation would range from "let New York go down the tube" to "we ought to give an outright grant." This document, he said, was drafted in an attempt to achieve one which might be acceptable to most of the Council. Councilman Hamel commented that the resolution wasn't costing Eugene any money. In fact, it might help meet a situation that could adverse~y affect interest rates on Eugene's municipal bonds. Mr. MU'Y'ray moved second by Mr. Keller to adapt the resolutitm. Rollcal:\. vote. Motion carried,' all council members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. Resolution No. 2456 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period from October 13 through October 27, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. . Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, November 2, 1975, for public hearing on ESATSalternatives~ ....~.)~ Charles;;.T~'Henry '. . Ci ty Man~ger" 575 ,10/27/75 - 23