Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/1971 Meeting ,...- ~~ e I' II :1 I II Council Chamber :: Eugene, Oregon " August 23, 19711 " i: Adj ourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His i: Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on August 23, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the \1 following councilmen present: " i: il Teague Gribskov ii Mohr Williams , " ' ,: McDonald Campbell Ii Ii Beal Hershner ',' I; 'i ii 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS :: I: A. Action on the hearing of Boise Cascade, tabled August 9, 1971 ,I II (i A public hearing was held on this request August 9, 1971. Council decided to table the e i! matter to give an opportunity to study information received at that meeting. , " Ii In answer to Councilman Williams, Planning Director outlined reasons for staff position, and how further information had altered that position. They now agree with the Planning ;: Commission that schools would be adeq.uate, and since learning of FHA requirements, no longer I !1 recommend one-bedroom units in place of the three-bedroom units. I :, Mrs. Niven explained the Planning .commission recommendation, and the need for more housing !: for moderate income families. The city has provided housing for low income elderly, but I I: has neglected the moderate income families, which is contrary, to FHA policy and requirements. I: Ii In answer to Mr. Hershner's concerns, Manager explained that one of the conditions of :' Planning Commission approval was that Brewer Avenue be properly developed. II Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld. Motion carried. Mr. Teague and Mr. McDonald v.oted no. i: B. Appeal, Zoning Boar.d of Appeals Decision, Dean C. Ing A public hearing had been scheduled on this matter for this date, but unfortunately, ~i the City Council has not had an opportunity to view the property. If the Council feels, after hearing the testimony, that they still wish to view the property, the decision : may be delayed. City Manager read the minutes of the Board of Appeals meeting. He commented that a letter had been received this day from Mr. Battaile wherein he stated that he appreciated the need for a fence along the east property line, but he suggested it be limited in length and location. Mr. lng's letter of appeal was previously distributed to Council. Mr. Dean lng, 15 West 35th Place, said he had not intended to fence the entire property, and that the 80' length suggested by Mr. Battaile was satisfactory. He explained the I location of the properties in the neighborhood and how such a fence would provide . pri vacy. He showed line of sight drawings to the Council to demonstrate his point. :: There was no one to speak in opposition to this request. Councilman McDonald said he would prefer to have an opportunity to view this property before making a decision. 'I " In answer to Mr. Williams, Building Superintendent explained that it was the feeling , - of the Board of Appeals that landscaping would be superior to fencing to 'QDtairi~the desired privacy. -- -." ': - ~ Mr. Ing ~xplained the expense of purchasing plantings of sufficient height, or planting smaller shrubs and waiting for them to grow. He did not feel he had sufficient time to wait. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council hold this item until the property had been viewed. Motion carried. C. Firefighters Request for Reimb~rsement, for Attorney Fees, Collective Bargaining Liti- gation. (Minutes of Committee meeting below for Council information) 8/11/71 Local 851 Eugene Firefighters and Local l724A AFSCME have each demanded payment by 1- the City of $1,317.37 for costs of litigation. Copies of their correspondence and i: opinions of both the former and present City Attorney were circulated previously to Counci lmen. " City Attorney said that, as a general policy" litigants in our courts are not entitled to recover attorney fees, unless specifically provided by statute. The Ci ty Council would have the authority to compensate someone, but it was not part of the judgment that the litigant would receive attorney fees. The court could have awarded costs to either party, but it did not, and there is no basis in law for the City to be required ~ 8/23/71 - 1 ~ ""Il e !a 7 '-I 8/23/71 I to respond to the request ,for payment of.attorney fees. Mr. Williams asked if, payment would not be violati'ng the ruling of the judge, and would not appeal to a higher court be proper. City Attorney replied that this was discretionary on the part ,of the judge, and payment would not violate the judges rule. Councilman Mohr felt the suit went bey.ond what the Council originally had intended, and felt perhaps it was this that caused the two locals to have excessive costs. He felt perhaps the Council was responsible beyond the legal case. Mr. Red Smith, Local l724A AFSCME, outlined reasons for their request, and their feeling that payment of their attorney fees was an obligation of city officials. e Frank Jackson, Firefighters Local 851, said they were asking specifically for their fees for defense of the charter, not for the writ. He explained their feeling that the charter was a mandate of the people, and they were pepresenting the people, and he, therefore felt they should not have to bear the burden of the fees for that defense. He agreed that the legal question might be subject to debate, but he felt there was a moral obligation on the part of the City Council to reimburse the amount spent in defense of the charter. I Mr. Williams commented that Mr. Jackson's presentation had been most eloquent, and in any other situation he would recommend acceptance of the request. However, acceptance of this request would open up a pr~cedent that could haunt the Council for a long time to come. It must be viewed not as an internal ~atter between a group of employes ',and. the city, ,but a law sui t between a group of ci tizens and the city. If the city takes on payment of costs of lawsuits in which it is a party when the judge has not said this was an obligation, we would be opening up a whole area of decision. Mrs. Campbell reasoned that these were the city's employes, and in most other cases brought against the city, the suit would not be brought by city employes. Mrs. Beal suggested that the attorney's get together and try to work out a satis- factory solution. Mr. Jackson reminded the Council that this would entail further attorney's , I fees for the Firefighters Union. Councilman Mohr reiterated his feeling that the administration went far beyond what the Council authorized in terms of vigorously pursuing this matter. He asked for a clarification whether the unions were required to do, something out of the ordinary to defend themselves. Mrs. Beal did not think the City Council was asked for its opinion how this law suit was to ',be -brought and defended in the first place, or that they clearly understood the legal poistion that would be taken by the City Attorney. I Mrs. Campbell suggested that the Council ,authorize expenditure of this payment and see what happened. Mr. Mohr felt there were questions to be answered and felt no, motion should be passed at this time. Mr. Teague felt the Council might set a precedent which might be far greater reaching e ,than what. they were proposing now. He agreed that ,the Council should consider the matter fur.ther., Continuation of discussion at regular meeting of August 23 - Mr. John McMahon, Eugene Firefighters, reiterated their position regarding expenses defending the charter amendment.. He did not believe it was the intent of the Council to become so legally involved or that the employe groups expend union assets defending something voted on by the people of Eugene. He thought the City had a moral obligation to reimburse the unions for expending these fees. Red Smith, Local l724A AFSCME, commented on the memo he had distributed to Councilmen at the Committee meeting, and said he would be happy to answer any questions councilmen mi'ght, have. In answer to Mr. Mohr, Assistant City Attorney said there would be a problem if the City were to attack a charter provision. Who would respond and who would be the I responsible party? He did not think there was a general rule on which to make a decision. He explained to Mrs. Beal the, request of the city for,adeclaratory judg- ment of the court so that matters may be clarified before the situation becomes more complicated. Mr. Teague moved seconded by ,Mr.-I Williams that the demand for reimbursement for attorney's be denied. Messrs. Teague, Hershner, Gribskov and Williams voted yes. Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Campbell, 'Mrs. Beal and Mr. McDonald voted no. Motion carried, with Mayor Anderson voting aye to break the tie. e 8/23/71 - 2 : ... ,..... I ~ 7S- e 8/23/71:' If II I II Mayor Anderson explained his vote~ saying that he had had an opportunity to review " il minutes of previous meetings and testimony of firefighters and members of AFSCME~ II " Ii and that a fundamental purpose of labor unions is the right and privilege of employes :1 to use of legal counsel. In this case, the two unions promulgated the charter Ii I' 11 I 'I amendment which the Mayor and City Council did oppose. He did not think the intent I' Ii of the charter was the issue~ but that anybody who went into court~ whether or not as " ,I 'I " an adversary~ went in with the idea of winning a particular point. He could see no :1 I, reason for the Council to be presented a bill by the parties involved. II II " Planning Commission Items II D. I' I. Meeting of A.1gust 3, 1971 " 1\ I: Recommended denial of two zoning ordinance amendments II I, I' I! 8/18/71 Assistant City Manager explained that an amendment had been proposed to delete agricultural uses involving animals from Section 1.310 of the City Code and allow " Ii them only as accessory .uses on property in conjunction with a dwelling use. e 'I I, II \1 Another amendment was proposed to reduce space requirements between mobile homes " " II from ten feet to six feet. ,I Ii I' Regarding the proposal to delete agricultural uses involving animals from the City il II Code, the Planning Commission felt this amendment was not necessary at this time. I' 'I I It The other amendment to reduce space requirements between mobile homes was brought ,i " because of existing conditions with some mobile homes, and is primarily caused il " because parks were not designed for twenty-four foot wide structures with carports I, " ii or patios. Owners in vIDolation had indicated they would like the requested change, II and if ,the Planning Commission did not approve the reduction~ they would comply Ii ,I with the existing ordinance. State Fire Marshall indicated incidence of fire 'I I; damage in mobile home fires is high~ and he would not approve of a reduction in the It space requirement. .: I: Mel McDermott~ 3625 Willamette~ said he hated to see houses crammed against each il 1, other~ and recommended the Council not allow this reduction. I: Ii John Mulder~ attorney~ Lakewood Mobile Home Park~ said there are now a number of d homes in the park in violation of the ordinance. Compliance will require a great I; expenditure of funds. He said Eugene had more stringent requirements than any I Ii other state in our area. He said the Fire Marshall's recommendation makes their ii request for a change in the ordinance moot, and that they are not pursuing this " Ii Ii rEjquest until they have further information. I il I' 11 In answer to ~ouncilman Williams, Building Superintendent said buildings can be closer than six feet, if there is a fire wall separation. He agreed that mobile I 'I homes could be spaced in this way~ but it would have to be by action of the Zoning II Board of Appeals. In the case of Lakewood Park~ the Zoning Boara would not grant II a blanket request~ but would weigh each case on its own merits. Applicants would have " I II I; jI to file individual requests for hearing. ;1 I: 'I In reply to Mr. Williams~ City Manager said state law sets a minimum and City Council's I' il have the right to establish stricter requirements than the state law provides. I, II I I There was further discussion of comparison between state and city law. I: II II Councilman Williams suggested the Council uphold the Planning Commission recommen- ii dation to deny the request for amendment and make a policy statement it would look - II favorably upon appeals to permit 6' spacing, as long as density within the I II mobile home park did not exceed density permitted in R-l or RA zones. 'I 1 Ii " I Ii Teauge moved seconded by Mr. 'I Ii Mr. McDonald to uphold the Planning Commission recom- I mendation to deny the two zoning ordinance amendments outlined above. , I I I Ken Keefe said he lived in the Lakewood Park and that it was a very nice place to ; ': Ii live~ and that allowance for closer spacing would not be a detriment to such a /: fine park. d II I: " Ii Mr. Mohr said he thought Mr. Williams was exactly correct - that the Council should II ,I deal with these requests on an ad hoc basis. Mr, Gribskov agreed. ; ~ Ol! II Vote taken onvmotion as stated. Motion carried. , I I' , :1 'I I I' , ,I City Manager explained to Council that 1akewood Park is a very quality mobile home I: park, and at the present time the City has an agreement that, if this change in the I' !I ordinance is not approved~ existing violations will be corrected. One method of ii correcting would be to secure variances from the Board of Appeals. " " I! " II " I: " \\ II e I, l' 8/23/71 - 3 ~ ""11II e ~ 76 8/23/71 I 2. Plqnning Commission Meeting of August 9, 1971 a. Recommended denial 'of zone change for Roger Bourland, R-3 to C-2 Mr. Bourland has indicated he would be out of town, and has requested Council to postpone this item. Staff recommends postponement. b. Byron Nelson, recommended denial from RA to M-2 Manager explained location of the property and that it is primarily single- family residential. Mr. Nelson has requested use of the lot for open storage of construction material and equipment. Planning Commission recognizes that at some point in time there will be a freeway constructed south of Elmira Road somewhere in the area. At that time, the zoning north of the freeway will probably be single-family residential and the Planning Commission felt to allow this additional industrial would be undesirable. e Byron Nelson, 328 Arcadia, said he had attended the Planning Commission meeting, and there was not much he could add that hadn't already been said. c. Recommended approval of street vacation, 400 feet of Spring Boulevard, 700 feet south of North Shasta Loop (Larry Hirons) I This requested vacation is for the purpose of realigning Spring Boulevard and exchanges one right of way for another. d. Recommenged denial of park vacation request, located in Second Addition to Willis Heights, east of Knob Hill Lane between East 35th Avenue and East 36th Avenue. This property is known as Willis Park and the matter came to the Planning Commission as the result of a request by property owners in the vicinity that something be done with the property by returning it to private ownership or assuring it was better maintained: At the Planning Commission hearing there were a number of neighbors who abut the property who felt the park should be maintained, and that they could maintain it in reasonably acceptable condi tion. City felt costs of maintenance were minimal and that it should be retained as a city park. Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested vacation. Francis Benton, 3575 Knob Hill Lane, said neighbors would be willing to mow the lawn. He felt it should be left as it is. Mayor Anderson suggested action be postponed until Council can view the property. City Manager said it was his understanding the Council had expressed a desire I to view this property and the others requesting rezoning, before any action was taken,by the Council. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the above items be postponed pending an opportunity for viewing by the Council. Motion carried. At this point Mr. McDonald left the meeting. E. Bids, opened by Public Works Department August 10 and August 23, 1971 - August 10, 1971 STORM SEWER = East Branch - North Bel tline Floodway Cant. Cost. Cost to SCS Cost to City Budg. Wildish'Const. Co. 290,847.55 159,693.22 131,154.33 235,000.00 Oregon Const. Co. 324,250.80 (Engineer's Est. Salem Sand & Gravel 335,949.83 329,000.00 COMPLETION DATE: 220 calendar days A ugus t 23, 19 71 PAVEMENT OVERLAY: Coburg Road from Oakmont Way to Fronl!:ier Drive I Eugene Sand & Gravel 11,522.50 11,522.50 11,000.00 Wildish Const. Co. 13,801.50COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1971 Manager explained the location of the bid on the North BeltlineFloodway and that this was a project jointly funded by the City and the Soil 'Conservation Service. The City has provided easements toward the cost of the project. It has been recommended contract be awarded to low Thidder, subject to approval of SCS. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to accept the recommendation of the administration e on these two proj ects, s ubj ect to SCS approval. 8/23/71 - 4 I 1 .... {; 77 e 8/23/71 , In answer to Mr. Williams concerns about overlaying Coburg Road between Frontie~ and I ,: Oakway, Mr. Tietzel of Public Works explained that water stands on the asphalt itself Ii and the city is trying to get better drainage. The situation creates a hazard for' pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. Ii I, Rollcall vote on motion as stated; Mr. Williams voted no. Motion carried. II I: II. Reconsideration of Recommendation re: Annexation of property located west of Fox Hollow Ii Ii and south of Donald (Allen and Braezeal). I: Ii Annexation of property on Fox Hollow was referred to the Boundary Commission by the City " Council' at 'a' former meeting. Since that time, residents in the area have petitioned the " il Council to reconsider its recommendation to the Boundary Commission. I' [I !i Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the Council reconsider its recommendation on iI I II annexation of property located west of Fox Hollow, south of Donald. i ,I Councilman Mohr explained that the petition was before the Boundary Commission and they e !I would have to -act on it. He wondered what would be done with the property if the Council " I' withdrew its support. Mrs. Beal felt that the Boundary Commission would then deny the " " ii application. " I' " :1 Mr. Mohr said the Council had discussed this fully at the last Council meeting before making I, ii its decision. He could see no reason for reversal, unless there was some new material. I' II I II City Manager explained to Mr. Mohr that, if the Council reversed its position, it ?houiJ- !: " I: probably forward a written communication to the Boundary Commissi6n~to submit it's poln-t-'of ;, I view. '- " Ii I' Mr. Williams pointed out that, after the Council forwarded this petition to the Boundary Ii " Ii Commission, he had requested the Planning staff to develop tools whereby the Council could ii restrict the eensity of development of, this particular kind of site. " :, I' " Ii Question called:on motion to reconsider annexation. Mr. Hershner.commented that he would Ii ,I abstain, since a client of his law firm is involved in this property. Mrs. Campbell, Mrs. I' ,I Beal and Mr. Mohr 'voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Teague, Mr. Gribskov and Mr. Williams Ii " were opposed. Mayor Anderson voted in favor to break the tie. Motion carried. ': ji " " " The Planning Director said the Planning Commission had considered the question of density II II 'I ,I posed by Mr. Williams, and a report will be forthcoming. There are a number of areas : ~ i! adjacent to the urban service boundary, and it will be sometime before a report can be : prepared. I, I, II Mr. Williams asked that the Council stipulate that the Commission and staff develop a " I: technique acceptable to the City Attorney and Council whereby density might be restricted. I: \' Once property was annexed to the city, the lowest possible density would be RA, and the Ii density could be reduced to be applicable to new annexations. I: !j City Manager pointed out that annexation had nothing to do with density, but the zoning I I. II ordinance may be changed to reflect different density requirements. The ordinance applies :1 only to land within the city. As far as this particular property, there has been no commit- il II ment as, to future use after annexation. I, Ii Lottie Streisinger, Route 4, Box 311, was concerned that the Council had not seen the property. :i Ci ty Manager pointed out that the Council had gone on tour to this site, and although not all I: councilmen were present, a good many had seen it. Ii " David Cole, Rt. 4 Box 308, said he own~d property adjacent to the property in question. He - II I: asked whether annexation automatically assured the developer that he could develop the property I! in any way he chose. Neighbors were concerned with the increased po~plation if the devel- I: Ii opment went ahead. 'i II II Mayor Anderson pointed out that annexation and future development are:~woentirely different " I: questions. Conditions under which the land could be used would be the subject of another I' I! public hearing. Ii " ~ ! :1 /: Mr. Mohr agreed the matter of development was a different question, and pointed out that the owners could, at the present time, develop property under county conditions, and there would I: I' be no controls, such as under city Planned Unit Development. II 1: " There was further discussion of development of the property, whether under city or county I' jurisdiction. Jane Novik, 3960 Blanton Road, was in favor of annexation, and felt the density could be I determined by later zoning. In answer to her questions, Manager said the property would be '; zoned under the most restrictive deBsi ty in the city zoning ordinance. :: I: I, Mrs . Novik commented that Mr. Williams had made an excellent suggestion regarding density. " i: Chris Attneave, Rt. 4 Box 319M, asked to respond to Mr. Mulder's contention that the project " Ii " could be developed even if not annexed; She felt if this was the case, they would not be ': I' i! ,\ requesting annexation and would start the project. She agreed with Mrs, Streisinger, " ': that I, e , \' 8/23/71 - 5 ~ ""'II ~ 1? e 8/23/71 I a delay might be the best answer, at least until a study could be made. , I David Cole read a prepared stat~ment and asked that the Council consider a six month delay. 'I By this time, a report could be made by the Planning Commission covering Mr. Williams I concerns. II i Eleanor Clancy, Rt. 4 Box 310, was concerned with the school situation, and felt a devel- opment such as was planned would cause overcrowding in the schools. Carl Ihle, 5409 Donald, asked if the Council was aware of the planning staff recommendation j against annexation. Mayor Anderson assured him this was discussed at the public hearing. Mr. Mulder pointed out that everything discussed at this meeting had been previously discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and the Council meeting, and the Planning f Commission had unanimously approved annexation. I I A II Mr. Teague felt people were not really against annexation, but were concerned about devel- ~ i opment of the property. It was his feeling that the city was trying to keep from having 11'1 developments outside the city and then having to inherit them. 'He felt the orderly way II was to annex before development. I. Mrs. Beal commented on the need for an overall plan, and said she would vote to rescind I , Council approval, in order to have a delay. I I 11. Mayor Anderson agreed with Mrs . Beal that this was a dilemmSl-, but he felt it was impossible I 11 to develop a plan that met all requirements. ,I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to rescind Council approval of this annexation I' and transmit this information to the Boundary Commission. Mrs. Beal and Mrs. Campbell I .11 voted yes. ,Messrs. Mohr, Teague, Williams and Gribskov voted no. Mr. Hershner abstained. I Motion failed. I III Mr. Mohr did not believe the city could accomplish the protection desired by not having II control of the area. The development would simply go ahead. I ! I III. Items to be Considered with One Motion, after discussion of individual items, if requested. II Items were previously discussed at committee meetings of August 11 and August 18, 1971. I Committee minutes are printed in italics. , I 1..1. A. Analysis whether Mall is serving purpose for which it was designed.- Councilman Mohr I' I 8/18/71 requested a report from Eugene Renewal Agency whether or not the Eugene Mall is I fulfilling the functions for which it was designed, where it has failed, and try to I get an understanding of problems inherent in operation of the Mall. He felt the ; problems would continue to be colloidal 'unless the city gets some answers. Perhaps I a mutual di~;cussion wi th the Eugene Renewal Agency Board might be helpful to define ! the problem, s. I I Mayor Anderson suggested a joint meeting be arranged wi th ERA Board. approve . \1 B. Ad Hoc Committee, Appointment by Mayor for Bicycle Program - 'A bicycle committee was I I' 8/18/71 appointe:d by the City Manager to aid staff in the initial stages of developing a I bicycle program. With the growth of this program, it was felt the Council should be i requested to authorize the Mayor to appoint a formal ad hoc bicycle ad:visory committee. I , i II Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize appointment of a bicycle Ij. committee by the Mayor to strengthen the program and use of bicycles in the area. _ I Motion carried. approve II! C. Airport Needs Study - L-COG staff study has not been formally reviewed by Council, \li 8/18/71 and action will be taken by 'L~-SOG at its September 28 meeting. I Mrs. Beal move.d seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council request the Planning Commission I to review the L-COG Airport Needs Study and report to Council. Motion carried. approve II I i '. ii' D. Henry Camarot Request for Ci ty to Quit-Claim Interest in Park Property - Due to I I historical surveying disagreements, land which might be considered park property has II been conveyed by Mr. Camarot to another private party. ,The land in question is on Birdh I, Street and is about 1000 feet square in a strip about 10 feet by 100 feet. Both Public I Works and Parks Department staffs report the land is valueless for public purposes, \ I since it ,is nearly vertical. Staff recommends compliance with this request. I I I. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that staff be directed to meet this request. I; Motion carried. , i.l E. Mass Transi t Operational Needs Study - It is recommended that the ci ty pro vi de up to I $3750 to match wi th a similar contribution from Lane County to match $15,000 federal I funds for supplementary detailed mass transit planning. Lane County Mass Transit District has no funds in its budget for this purpose, but it is felt fuller considera- IJ tion is of utmost importance. Funds would be shifted from planning and public works I appropriations. I - 'I 'I .. Ii Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council authorize a transfer of funds :, it. I' j 'I '. II ': 8/23/71 - 6 ' ... ,.... t 7 7 e 8/23/71 -, \1 I I, I to provide matching funds for a mass transit planning study. Ii I II Mrs. Campbell commented that' the 1990 Plan had been cri tieized~' for lack of mass transit ,I I study, and that it revolved solely around the automobile, with no alternate plan for I' I I, :1 I: transportation problems in the city. " " I' I' ,I II I' Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. I, II approve Ii II II I' Improvement Petitions Ii I' F. 'I I' " ;i Ii 8/18/71 A. Sanitary Sewer.south of Kevington from 100' west of Blackburn to Warren, and on I II Warren from 100' south of Kevington to 1100' ::. south of 'Kevingt,on. 49% signers I, p II I' I' B. Sanitary Sewers, Conifer PUD, 100% :! II , Sanitary sewers, 7th Addi tion to Echo Hollow Park - 84% " II C. :1 I' !I D. Sanitary sewers between Roosevelt Boulevard and 500' south 'from Pacific Highway - 100% :1 II ii :1 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the peti tions listed above be approved. Motion I' II , carried. approve Ii e ji :I G. EWEB Decision to Rescind Policy of Extending Water Service Outside Ci ty - Mr. Mohr it II 8/11/71 expressed concern about implications to the Ci ty of the EWEB decision to rescind its II I, former policy regarding extension of water service outside the city 1imdts. He had felt I' il at the joint EWEB-Counci1 meeting about a month ago that an important topic of discussion II had been EWEB subscription to an urban servi ce boundary po1i cy. At that time, three " I' 'I members of the Board agreed with the Council expression of need for a boundary in I I: il coopera.tion wi th the Ci ty. Mr'- Mohr asked for a report which would be an outline of it the meaning of this apparent policy change. 'I II City Manager said he and the Mayor had discussed this policy with Byron Price and II I' members of the EWEB Board. In a later discussion, he and the Mayor had agreed to ask t! the Council if they would like to invite the EWEB Board and other interested parties, :1 "!I such as other members of EWEB and Commissioners, to meet with the Council at its next II Wednesday Committee of the Whole meeting to discuss this announced po1i cy and its impli... iI cations. They believed this had tremendous impact on ,the entire planning process. Ii " ii Mr. Teague said it was Council consensus that such a meeting should be held, and asked Ii I: the Manager to extend an invitation. affirm. p Ii j ~ Chris Attneave commented that the Mayor and City Manager had attended an EWEB Board II meeting which she had attended. She felt EWEB had a moral obligation to the city, but II II that the city had very, little hold over them. She did not 'feel they should be supplying II water outside the city. Ii :1 Mayor Anderson assured her they intended .to pursue the matter, and he felt a policy il I' would be developed that would be more satisfactory to the city. I ii H. Report on Night Court - A report has been circulated to Councilmen outlining the II recent operation of Municipal Night Court. It was deemed a success, since the delay I, " for trial dates has been reduced from 200 days to 30 days, and there are now only 55 I Ii :1 trials on the docket. i: , II As a result of this experience, recommendations have been made for future use of night It II court: 1) ,Change in manner of notifying prospecti ve jurors and 2) Authorization for Ii Municipal Judge to appoint,pro tem judges when he and the Assistant Judge cannot handle Ii the trial docket. A dollar 1imdt would be placed on expenditures for this purpose. 'I I: i: I' Councilwoman Beal asked if' notification was to be by mail, and if this would be regis- il tered mail. She was concerned that people mdght mdss the notification, and be penalized. - II Manager said this was ammatter of admdnistration, and was not felt to be a prob~em. Mr. I' Ii Williams commented that the federal district court notifies by ordinary mail. Ii il -ril :answer to Mr. McDonald, Manager said pro tem judgeS are paid $20.00 for appearing and II $50.00 for an evening' s work. If it was found that addi ti ona1 funds were required, ,I allocation would be requested from the Council. il II Mrs. Bea1 was concerned that appointment would be by the Muni cipa1 Judge. She felt this I, Ii should be a Council appointment, since the Municipal Judge and his assistant are appointed 1/ i! by Council. II ii I Mr. Williams did not feel qualified to select individuals for this short term employment I' I' " and felt the State Bar Association selected members who were currently eligible. i: " , I! Mrs. Bea1 fe1 t perhaps the Muni cipa1 Judge could s ubmd t a panel and this could be appointed I II by the Counci 1 . He could then make selections from the panel. I I' I, " I' " " Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that selection of pro tem judges be made by " I' , II the Municipal ilJJudge from a panel of qualified attorneys ',approved 'by the Council. :1 Ii Councilman Williams reiterated his opposition, saying-he did not feel the Council was II knowledgeable to choose part time judges without some research~ and he felt if an " II attorney was a member of the bar, he should be qualified to serve. ,I \: II ,I i/ e Ii ,I Mr. Mohr also objected to the Council choosing pro tem judges, and suggested the bar ~ 8/23/'11 - 7 ""Ill e ~Jo 8/23/71 I might make recommendations for,members willing to serve in a pro tem pool. Mr. Williams said he would agree to this suggestion. He did. not want the Council to be in a position of decision. Mrs. Beal withdrew her motion, with the agreement of her second. Mr. Mohr suggested that, rather than legislate, Council ask for. a draft of an ordin- ance that would reflect the consensus that a panel of potential attorneys would be drawn up from which to choose pro tem judges. These would be chosen by the Bar 'Association. Manager said he would contact the Bar Association to see if they would be willing to do this. affirm I. Ci ty-County Jail, Request for Report - Councilwoman Beal requested' a report to bring 8/18/71 the Council up to date on conditions at the jail. She had received complaints of poor food and other conditions which she felt were not good. The COUJ),cil of the Poor e had requested a date for appearance before the Council to discuss these complaints. Mayor Anderson suggested that, if such a request were granted, complaints should be documented and circulated to the Council. Assistant City Manager said representatives of this group had called the office and were demonstrating at the jail. They have been iuvi ted to gi ve specific information, I but this has not been forthcoming. There have been allegations of contagious illness at the jail, but at this time there is no indication this is so. Mrs. Campbell suggested it might be well for the Mayor to appoint a Council commi ttee to investigate these charges.' Mayor Anderson commented the Human Rights Commission would have jurisdiction to study this, but the Council could certainly schedule an appearance of the Council of the P~or on the agenda. It was Council consensus this should be on the next commi ttee agenda, and that the Council of the Poor should be requested to present specifics. affirm J. Proposed Noise Ordinance Restudy - Assistant City Manager asked Council whether it 8/18/71 wished to schedule another meeting to further study the proposed noise ordinance. Mrs. Beal was very concerned that enforcement of the ordinance, as written, would be difficult, and said she would be very happy to have another opportunity for discussion. Mayor lnderson directed staff to place this matter on a forthcoming agenda. affirm K. Noise Ordinance, proposed public hearing - Councilwoman Bealthought input at the public 8/11/71 hearing concerning the noise ordinance was very impressi ve, especially that material supplied by Mr. Gilden, and she hoped the Council could discuss this at the next committee meeting, after the meeting with EWEB. File I Roy Gilden asked when the Council would again study the noise ordinance. He again suggested that the Council include a measure for use of the decibel meter. City Manager explained that the City Attorney's office is studying the legal aspects of such a section, 'since the State has already adopted legislation based on these ratings. Mrs. Beal asked that this be on the next committee of the whole meeting. L. Complaint, Business in Residential Area - Mr. McDonald had received a complaint from 8/11/71 a Mr. Lamb about a business adjacent to his residence on 13th Avenue. Th ere are e excessive fumes from the building, especially in the evening. Manager will look into it. File M. Meeting Regarding Solution to South Willamette Noise Problem - Mr. Teague commented 8/11/71 that he, Mr. McDonald and Mrs. Beal had attended a meeting with residents of the South Willamette area. He was glad to see this approach, and complimented Mr. McDonald on the handling of this meeting. File N. Announcemen ts - Manager announced a meeting of Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority 8/11/71 September 1 in the Coun_c,i) Chambers, to discuss incorporation of state standards covering visible emissions for several industries. ..- '_..-. - -... State Highway Department has announced a public hearing Tqesday, August 31 at Harris Hall, to discuss development of a bicycle and foot path on the nqrth side of the Willa- mette River. I In answer to Mr. McDonald,_City Manager said this plan would affect both the new Thunderbird Motel proposal and the proposed motel at the Valley River site. He has been in contact with owners of both sites and an interest has been expressed to incor- porate this type facili ty in the design. Mr. Mohr was interested in the City's role in the planning process, whether it would be wi thin the jurisdiction of the City Planning Commission. e Manager explained that a small portion of the Thunderbird site is within the City limits. They will be requesting a zone change for that portion, and have been 8/23/71 - 8 I... ,...... I c,J/ e 8/23/71 ;: II I have been working with Public Works Department on the problem of sewage disposal. Annex- I! ation has not been discussed at this point. In answer to Mr. Mohr, Manager said the d 11 II city had for many years made an effort to negotiate purchase of that, site, but could I' I : ~ I not reach financial agreement with the owner. " ;! I' I ~ Mr. Drapela of the Parks Department said Governor McCall's office had contacted him " 'I and expressed concern over development along the river. ! [I " ii I " Ii " i Planni~g'Director said'he had been in contact with the County regarding a joint meeting " II to discuss the development and retention of the greenway. II II II Mr. McDonald expressed displeasure wi th corranercial development along the ri ver. Manager n I! said this was the only remaining portion of privately owned property on either bank of II the river between Springfield and the site owned by Valley River. File I: ;1 II " , O. Central Lane Metropolitan Study COmrrUssion Recorranendation - A letter and eight recom- II , 8/11/71 mendations of the Metropolitan Study COmrrUssion were circulated to the Council. The 'I - il recorranendations have been referred to the Planning Commission for discussion, and recom- Ii mendation. The PlanniFlg ,ComrrUssion, recorranendation will give staff an opportuni ty to II work wi th L-COG and Bureau of Governmental Research and other agencies involved to I' " develop better information to make a determination for Council recorranendation. 'I I' " i ~ :1 I' I There was no discussion' at this' time. File ii I' I I, " P. EWEB Policy Statement re: Extension of Water Service Outside the City - Mayor Anderson 'I 1 ',' 8/18/71 thanked members of Eugene Water and Electric Board and the County COmrrUssioners and I, their staffs for being present at this, meeting ',to discuss newly announced EWEB policy. " I' I, City Council had expressed great concern about the impact of this policy. I' II :1 :1 I, " it John Tiffany, Chairman of the ,Eugene Water and Electric Board, distributed a position :' :' 1: paper to the City Council and others, and read it in full. He explained the redefini- " tion of a long-standing EWEB policy on applications for water service outside Eugene I' ,I il ci ty 1imi ts . He outlined accusations made upon publication of the policy, and responded Ii to the implications. He de1iniated historical facts of the inception of the Water Board, " I' as it was first called. He stated EWEB policy which is: "Upon applicant having met :1 all pertinent government regulations, the Board will receive for consideration, appli- r: Ii cations for water service outside the city limits. The Board's consideration will take ,: 'I into account economic feasibility, sound engineering practices, EWEB~S capaci ty to " II deliver the quantity of water required, including fire protection, and the determination 'I II that service to existing customers will not be impaired. App1i cable government regu- 'I Ii I II lations may, :include but not be limited to zoning reg.u1ations; state and county building, II plumbing and sanitation codes, and waste disposal permits." ,: I I 'I II As a service agency and NOT a policing agency, EWEB will continue to defer to those II agencies which do have policing powers over land development. 'I II I, " Mr. Mohr requested an explanation of the second paragraph of the policy. Mr. Tiffany ,I " 1; I' explained applicable government regulations in the planning, zoning and required permits I' I I' for building construction conformance with codes and that, when the appropriate govern- " I' : ~ mental po1i cing agency has taken action approving or disapproving a construction app- I' I' 1ication, it comes to EWEB for water service. EWEB has no control over a policing agency. I' II II :! ,I :1 Mayor Anderson ,asked how ,long-range planning would be treated, and whether the Board II :! had taken this into consideration. Mr. Tiffany felt that the Board would most certainly ;, 'I operate within an urban seryi ces area, when it had been defined. Mayor Anderson felt '! " the limi tation on urban service? should be defined in the policy. ,l Ii e " ;1 Mr. Giustina explained that a building permit would be issued if all government regu1a& I , tions were followed, and that EWEB policy was, that under those circumstances, service " , 'I would be supplied. Mayor Anderson pointed out that long-range planning _was not necessarily a governmental regulation per se, but a process. It is almost impossible, for governmental uni ts to establish regulations in the planning process that might be applicable to problems that deal with urban services and potential possibility of urban service in an area. II There was further discussion of long-range planning and the implication of EWEB policy II on such planning. " ~ ; Ii Tn answer to Councilman Hershner, Mr. Price of EWEB said Council has never authorized I II , extension of service, but in the particular instance Mr. Hershner had mentioned, the " Board was requesting the city or county to determine whether a building should be built ;, I , on the location and whether the zoning was proper. The property was in the city, but :i had not been annexed. Ordinarily, the Board works directly with the County Sanitarian when the property is outside the City. I' Councilman Teague was concerned that this was actually a city utility, and yet it was , extending service to the County. He fe1 tit was possible to servi ce as far as the coast, I' and wondered where it would stop. Mr. Pri ce explained that the charter allows EWEB " to provide service inside and outside the city, and this has been so since 1911. It is nothing new. e 8/23/71 - 9 ... ""'III e ~J'~ 8/23/71 I Mayor Anderson pointed out that the city has a water plan, and wondered what consider- ation was gi ven this plan when this policy was established. The poli cy seems to be contrary to this plan. Mr. Price explained that EWEB had participated in the DIMJIM plan and that it gi ves consideration to several aspects of the system needed to provide all services. If the county or city permit dense building, the Board feels a responsibility to. supply water. This is what the policy statement tries to define. Mrs. Hayward asked if EWEB would be willing to gi ve up its prerogati ve of making its decision about extension of water, on the basis of economic feasibility, sound engineer- ing practices, etc. Part of the problem seems to be not only where service will be extended, but where we want to extend it. Through the policy the decision to provide service is in a sense being made by the EWEB Board, rather than county government. Mr. Vik said economic requirements would have to bere-ained by the Board. Mr. Guistina e pointed out that EWEB would not want to jeopardize its water system by overtaxing it. Mr. Omlid said it seemed ques~ioning had been alluding to the County Planning Commission and that it had not been controlling growth. He reminded everyone that the county was required by law to have the entire county totally planned and zoned by 1973. Good progress has been made, and one of the items coming out of this plan is control of growth in the rural area. Density of building will be limited, and agricultural lands I protected. He felt EWEB had put the responsibility where it should be - wi th the governmental uni ts . Larry Rice, L-COG, explained the number of metered customers, EWEB has outside the city limi ts , and that service is provided to numerous water districts in the metropolitan area. The question is really whether water service will be to an area everyone can li ve with. The Boundary COmnUssion can control boundaries, but a water district could contract for service to an outside area. Mr. Mohr asked whether the problem was structural or mechanic~l. Mr. Rice pointed out that the system was not a city system, but served the majority of people in the metropolitan area. He fel t everyone should get together and deci de whether to have several water systems in the urban area, or have one or two. ~ Mr. Freeman of the EWEB pointed out that EWEB has a virtual mpnopolyon water, and an obligation to the people of Lane County to supply water as' indicated on the policy statement. A metropolitan water district should be planned which would be coun ty-wi de, and this should be implemented by the Army Engineers. Mr. Olson of the EWEB said everyone wants water from the McKenzie River, and this creates a problem of priority. It is easy to give septic tank permits, but once they are given, EWEB water is needed. It is difficult to finance a sewer system, and this is part of the problem. 'I Mayor Anderson said this had been an enlightening discussion, and requested EWEB members to give consideration to the 1990 Plan and urban service proposals, and that somewhere in its policy statement that this be recognized, whether as a contingency dependent upon adoption of the plan, or as a policy statement. Jess Hill, County Corrmtissioner, said it would be easy to solve this proplem if the County would create a metropolitan sewer district and take the water with it. It should e be all one program, rather than separated. File Q. Attorney Opinion re: Conditional Use Application - Councilman Mohr was still concerned 8/18/71 after reading the Attorney's memo, and requested a short statement why this woul,d not apply to any situation where a conditional use was requested. File R. Rules of Conduct, Report of Special Council Corruni ttee - eouncilman Teague circulated an 8/18/71 ordinance and resolution proposed by the special corrmtittee appointed to study rules of conduct at Council meetings. He suggested Councilmen study it, and said it will be on a future agenda. File Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the items listed above be approved, affirmed or filed. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. IV. Items Not Previously Heard A. Segregation of Assessment - Edward W. Senger, $437.00 Recommended by staff ) Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the segregation of assessment for Edward W. Senger in the amount of $437.00 be approve d. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. B. Liquor License Applications, approved by Police Depar~ment RA, The Anchorage, 947 Franklin Boulevard New application PB, Valu-Mart, 225 River Road New application e Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the applications be approved. Motion : I carried. f 8/23/71 - 10 1 i, ..oil ~ I ~8 e 8/23/7.1 I :I 'I ORDINANCES 11 I- I, if COUNCIL BILL NO, 9487 - Pertaining to Collective Bargaining procedures and processes for:1 - :: recognition, negotiation and settlement of disputes; implementing the Charter Amendment adopted 'I :i May 26, 1970, amending and making new provisions to the Eugene Code 1971 by adding a new article " i: thereto, and declaring an emergency was submi 'tted, and' no councilman present requesting that it" ~! be read in full, was read 'the first tiine by council bill number only., -::-:_=-- ~ ~ !I - - -- -,- -- - : I! :, " ,~ A pubiic h-e~ring was held two "weeks ag't"-~n' this ordinance. It is now open for Counfil discuss'ioT). - ii and questions. -- " ' , ,.., -- ,-rr Ii - - ' - ""'" -' I i: Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr~th-atthe- bill' be' re"ad the'second time by council bill number :' !~ only with unanimous, consent of the Council 'and that enactment be considered at this time. I' - Ii Ci ty Manager said a resolution had been received August 20 from the Lane County Labor Council directe4: it to the City Council. He read the resolution. ' , .j " Iii Mana~er ther; .outlined proposals' for charigeto clarify some questicn; raised' by Councilmen at the ' ! publlc heaang. " " , " ii There was discussion' of the' first two proposals, and Council had no questions in that regard. " II " ;' Regarding the section dealing with final offers, Mrs. Beal felt the proposal was unduly restrictive I, il and suggested that ';'prior to January 5...." be deleted, and that "no earlier than January 2" also I: be deleted. 1 ~ " I; Mrs. Beal moved that the words ,"be- no earlier' than January 2...." be deleted. [, : Mr. Williams said he would second the motion because he had some questions. He asked for clarifica- :: tion of Section 5. It was his feeling that nothing would preclude negotiations from, October 1 on. i Mrs. Beal felt it would be impossible to proceed toward an arbitration agreement. Ii 'I P City Manager agreed that, in order to allow discussion, there must be a period of time before the jj thirty day deadline starts. " I' ' il Personnel Director said the ordinance had been worked out to be consistent with the charter amend~ i~ ment, which gives the January 5 date. The earlier date was to provide for discussions earlier than I' January 5 to assure having discussions in good faith. If there was no impasse, there will be no Ii requirement for a letter of intent. 1 ~ I; Mrs. Beal did not believe the letter of intent would preclude earlier bargaining, and she felt this :i provision could prove troublesome. I' I: !i Mr. Williams felt the city's position was logical, and that it would be unfortunate to have the Ii first arbitration begin November 1. I I " Mr. John Paul Jones, 824 18th, Portland, felt this position was absolutely unworkable, and agreed I' , with Mrs. Beal's motion. Vote taken on motion 'as stated. Mrs. Beql, Mrs. Campbell voted aye. Messrs. Williams, Mohr, ,.. Hershner and Gribskov voted no. Motion failed. Union Shop - Councilman Mohr asked for clarification of an attorney opinion regarding legality of the union shop provision. Did this neefrto be in the ordinance, or was it actually a bargainable issue, even though the legal position is that it is ambiguous. Manager sai"d tha.t, in discussiDn with the attorney prior to the meeting, it had been clear that · since the' charter amendment indicates terms of employment, a bargainable case may be, made for union shop to be made one of the conditi~ns of employment. He felt it could be challenged, but it does not say clearly it is in conflict with the charter amendment. Staff would like to see the right to refrainifrom joining the union spelled out in the ordinance, from the standpoint of administratbn' and operation of the city. If Counci Iffeels it should be bargainable, there is no problem. If ;, Council wishes to leave it in the ordinance , it should be understood this could be challenged and \, stricken from the ordinance at some future time. Councilman Mohr suggested that perhaps this section should be held open for future discussion. This' is a very difficult issue. ,I Manager did not feel inclusion of this section was so controversial that it would lead to further " challenge. There are similar clauses -in man)) other ordinances and state laws. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that, at the tope of Page 5, the comma after the word 1- -- "choose" should be 'changed to a period, deleting the remaining 'words in the sentence. I Mr~ Williams explained that the move basically meant the right to join a union or not to join a :; union was, in fact a bargainable issue, which he could see no reason in law or practice to include. I' He was confident the city administration would be very ,careful in bargaining over these types of 'i contracts' and that this type of language would be maintained in any contract drawn up. II Mrs. Beal agreed that it should be made very clear that the Council, in passing this ordinance, was 4Il not drawing up a labor contract, and that this did not mean the city was giving away any of its rights, .. ~ 8/23/71 - 11 ""'l e t,J/f 8/23/71 I Mr. Mohr felt the definition of union shop, itself, was a bargainable item. Mr. Williams defined that the employe must pay dues in'the union in order to maintain his membership and that other conditions are not part of the contract. He would recommend that the requirement be to join the union within 60 days. In answer to Mr. Hershner, Manager clarified that, if the holding of a position depended upon maintaining members in good standing, then this give s the union some authority over who can be a city employe. If membership in good standing implies anything other than paying union dues and the city has the authority to withhold his union dues and see that they are paid, there is no problem. If violating a picket line or some other action which is considered contrary to union practice res ul ts in loss of postiion in the city. If this portion is to be deleted, staff suggests the section be put back in the ordinance which would state it would be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against employes with whom membership has been denied on grounds other than paying dues. This would clarify the point that failure to pay union dues would be the only reason for losing membership. e Voted taken on motion as stated. MotiDn carried. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Williams to add a section stating that it would be an unfair labor practice to discriminate against an employe with respect to whom membership in such organization has been denied or terminated on some grounds other than his failure to tender initiation fees or periodic dues uniformly required as a condition of acquiring or maintaining membership. I Manager clarified that there would be added to Page 4, Section (b) a new section (6). Mr. Hershner agreed with Mr. Williams point that the payment of dues is rightly the only criteria to maintaining membership in the union. Mr. Mohr was not sure that any reference to unfair labor practices should be a part of the ordinance, but that it should be in a different form to be a civil sanction against the city. Personnel Direc~or said this was a logical place for this section, with other things the union is not allowed to do. Mr. Mohr asked for clarification this was not enforced as a criminal ordinance. Personnel Director said it was not. Vote taken on motion as stated. All voted in favor except Mrs. Beal. Motion carried. Final Offers -Councilman Mohr asked how the final offer system came into being. Who objected to it and what the grounds were for objection. Personnel Director clarified that the AFCSME objected to this section ,as it obj ected to the entire ordinance. They feel it restricts the charter amendment or is more restrictive than the charter amendment and is in conflict with it. Staff sees no conflict, and the attorney's office advise there is no confli ct. Mrs. Beal asked the City Attorney whether or not this limited power of arbitrator went. beyond the I charter. In reply the City Attorney said that, in dealing with this problem of final offers, there is nothing in the charter that directly conflicts with the kind of final offer set forth in this proposed ordinance. There is a difference in terms, but they are general terms. It would actually be a policy issue. Mrs. Beal moved that the section dealing with final offers be stricken. Motion died for lack of a second. e Manager asked for a clarification of whether the items proposed earlier Tor change in wording in the ordinance were approved. Mayor said it had been the consensus of the Council at the beginning of the discussion that these were legitimate changes and they should be made, Vote taken on motion for second reading. Mrs. Beal voted no. Bill held for final reading at the next regular meeting. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9488,- Adding Section 2.776 to the Eugene Code 1971 (Temporary Municipal Judges, appointment and compensation) and declaring an, emergency was submitted, and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr 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. Council had instructed that the ordinance be written In such a way that the Bar Association would be requested to prepare a list from which the Municipal Judge would select temporary judges. The I Bar Association was unwilling to accept that responsibility, feeling it would require extensive investigation on their part. As an alternative, they suggested that the Municipal Judge submit to the Bar Association a list of those whom he would propose to appoint and the Bar Association would confirm or deny that list. Assistant City Attorney suggested that the Lane County Bar Association could, perhaps, put a stamp of approval on the list, in accordance with the ordinance requirement. Vote taken on motion as stated. Motion carried. e Mr. Teagu~ moved seconded ~y Mr. Mohr t!.:at__ the b~ll b~~ ?p;p,roveg and given final passage. Rollcall votl All councllmen present vOtlIlg aye the '0:e11 was' declared passed:- and numbered 16287. - 8/23/71 - 12 ... ,..... I ~Jl5 e 8/23/71 II il I II I COUNCIL BILL NO. 9489 - Amending Section 2.775 of the Eugene Code 1971 to provide for service II ,i of jury notice and summons by mail or by other appropriate means and declaring an emergency, was :i II submitted, and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by " I' ~ I: council bill number only. II I' .1 ,I I' Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number I , il only with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion " Ii carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 'I ;, I I' I II Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. :1 Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Rollcall. " All councilmen present voting aye the bill was declared passed an d numbered 16288. I' vote. ,I II I, " :' " COUNCIL BILL NO. 9490 - Construct sanitary sewer 300 feet south of Roosevelt Boulevard betwee~ " I ~ I: Highway 99 and Oregon Electric Railroad Tracks was submitted, and no councilman requesting that it I: be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. I' I' I: I Ii Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number ohly, e t: with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried I I: :1 unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. I :1 Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. MOhr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall I- I' [I vote. All councilmen present voting aye the bill was declared passed and numbered 16289. ,- " !i , COUNCIL BILL NO. 9491 - Adopting plans and specifications to construct sanitary sewer 300' " I " II south of Roosevelt Boulevard between Highway 99 and Oregon Electric Railroad was submitted, and no " councilman requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. MiE'.. Teague moved seconded by Mr.Mohr 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. Teague-Mohr moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall. All aye - numbered 16290. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9492 - Construct sanitary sewer between Bailey Lane and Willakenzie Road from Coburg Road to Hackamore Way was submitted, and no councilman present requiesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number onoly, " wi th unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried, 'i unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 1629,1. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9493 - Adopting plans and specifications to construct sanitary sewer between, Bailey Lane and Willakenzie Road from Cobur,gRoad to Hackamore Way was submitted, and no councilman requesting that it be read in full, was r~ad the first time by council bill number only. i Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr 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 I carried unaniomously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. :' Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. MOhr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16292. :1 , COUNCIL BILL NO. 9494 - Construct sanitary sewer between Blackburn Street and 160' west of Warren Avenue from Kevington Avenue to the south line (extended) of Lot 6, Block 4 of Cherry Lands (Vacated in part) was submitted, and no councilman requestreng that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. e Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unaimous 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 onlyl. '''' Mr. ]eague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rolcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16293. , COUNCIL BILL NO. 9495 - ~dopting plans and specifications for construction of sanitary sewer 'i " " " between Blackburn Street and 160' west of Warren Avenue from Kevington Avenue to the south line il i: (extended) of Lot 6, Block 4 of Cherry Lands (Vacated in part) was submitted, and no councilman ,I I: requesting that it be ~ead in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. i' ,- j!. " ;1 'I Mr, Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number I; Mnly, with unaimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion :, I , " I' carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. ,I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mnr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall " , vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16294. ,I " COUNCIL BILL NUMBER 9496 - Construct sanitary sewer between Willhi Street and a line 550' north of Willhi Street from Echo Hollow Road to Juhl Street was submitted and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number e ~ 8/23/71 - 13 ..... . &ft 8/23/71 I number only, with unanimous consent of the council. ~Otion carried unanimously and the bill was read the first time by council bill number only; Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vo~e. All councilmen present voti~g aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16295. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9497 - Adopting plans and specifications to construct sanitary sewer.betwen I Willhi Street and a line 550' north of Willhi Street from Echo HOllow Road to Juhl Street was submitted and no councilman present requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr 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 first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall 4It vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16296. COUNCIL BILL NO. 9498 - Amending Code to amend the sec~IDon dealing with the sign code was submitted and no councilman requesting that it be read in full was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded ~y Mr. Mohr that the bill be read the second time by council bill number I only with unanimous consent of the Council and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teagge moved seconded by Mr. MOhr that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16297. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO, 1964 - Authorizing city to shift from other planning and public works appro- priations an amount up to $3750 to match with a similar contribution by Lane County to the federal funds for supplementary detailed mass transit planning was submitted, and no councilman pesent requesting that it be read in full, was read the first time by council bill number only. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the resolution be adopted: Rollcall vote. ~All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 1~65 - Authorizing City Manager and City Recorder to Execute an amend6~lagree- ment to a soil conservation contract dated June 30, 1971 providing for participation in Channel A-2 improvements, in the amount of $27,775.66 was submitted. Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. All counciilifhen voting aye, the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 1966 - Transmitting to Planning Commission requests for zoning of newly annexed I I areas was submitted. (Public hearing Sept. 7, 1971) Mr. Teagge moved seconded by Mr. MOhr that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 1967 - Approving bills and claims and authorizing payment was submitted, Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. All councilmen 4It voting aye, the motion carried. I I RESOLUTION NO. 1968 - Authorizing appointment of ad hoc bicycle committee was submitted. I' Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the resolution be adopted. All voting aye, the motion carried. . ( I Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned. I I I.. . I e . I ! \ Ij \ '.1 ! ...