Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/1972 Meeting \ Eugene, Oregon Council Chamber September 25, 1972 Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the . meeting held on September 11, 1972 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. onSeptemoer 25, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the' following councilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Mr. Bradshaw. I - Public Hearings A. Vacation Alley Between 22nd and 23rd from Patterson east (YMCA) - Recommended by the Planning Commission July 10, 1972. Council Bill. No~. 84 - Vacating alley between 22nd and 23rd from Patterson east was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Manager explained that vacation of this alley will permit construction of an apartment building in accordance with an agreement between the YMCA and School District 4J. School District has now withdrawn its approval of the project. YMCA has indicated its desire to proceed with the vacation. Manager suggested withholding final passage I of the ordinance, if it is decided to approve the vacation, to allow negotiation with the applicant on valuation of assessment for the property vacated. I Bruce Cross, president of the YMCA, asked approval of the vacation, saying the "Y" is . exploring alternative ways of developing the property. He said there is still in ef- ./ feet a School Board resolution ~hich would permit apartment construction if (a) there are no liens, mortgages, or encumbrances on the real property; (b) Planning Commission approval is obtained; and (c) there" is compliance w~;th 'terms of the lease. Mrs. Hubert Sears, 660 East 22nd Avenue, opposed the vacation on the grounds that the "Y" could not legally request vacation of land reverting to property not in its owner- ship. She said it was her understanding the School Board had rescinded its motion to allow construction of the apartment house and wondered, in that event, why the vacation was necessary. Manager said the "Y" intends to proceed with an apartment buildiI1g on this property and in order to develop the property as one pa~cel vacation of the alley is necessary. He said the City is concerned only with whether the vacation can be accomplished without cost to the City or disservice to the general public. If the alley is needed by the , / public, then it should not be vacated. The Planning, Commission has judged it is not needed and the application has not been withdrawn. The Council's responsibility, he said, is. not with any disagreement between the YMCA, and the School Board. In answer to I Councilman Hershner, Manager said the alley is not improved. In answer to Councilman Teague, Mr. Cross verified that the land proposed for development . is leased by the YMCA from School District 4J. Bill Thiess, manager of the YMCA, ans- weringfurther questions from Mr. Teague, said the "Y" has the option to buy the prop- erty in the 51st year of the lease, but negotiations are now in process in an attempt to change that provision, allwoing purchase of the property at this time. In answer to Mrs. Beal's statement that the vacated land would still revert to the School District, I he said the "Y" under terms of the lease contract in fact owns the land for the term of the lease, and that provision is beingtnegotiated with the School Board now to gain permanent ownership. Council discussion centered on need for vacation of the alley when there is no definite development plan, possibility of resubmitting the request when there are more definite development plans, whether the alley is of public benefit when property on both s ides is owned by the "Y" or the School District, previous rezoning of the' property to accommo-, date apartment development. It was pointed out that if the Council decides to vacate', final reading of the ordinance should: not be given until agreement on a fair value to be assessed against abutting property is reached. Mr. Thiess said that there is a plan for use of the property but financing is held up because of the current lease arrange- ments. He said the lease contract specifically stipulates the YMCA owns the property for the term of the lease. Hubert Sears, 660 East 22nd Avenue, wondered whe~her there would be need for a public . alley should a portion of the property be sold separately. Manager said the property could not be split without Planning Commission approval of a minor or major subdivision, at which time public access could be required. Councilman Hershner could see no reason for not vacating the alley since it ,is not im- proved and there appears to be no public need. Mayor Anderson viewed the vacation as another step in development of the YMCA property. 2 7 I 9/25/72 - 1 ,.-- Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to hold the bill for final passage until . negotiations -on fair value and compensation of the vacation are determine'd by staff and applicant. Motion carried unanimously. B. Vacation Easement East of Augusta Street between ,20th and 28th (Weaver) - Recommended by the Planning Commission July 10, 1972. Council Bill No. 85 - Vacating easement east of AugustarStreet between 20th and 28th Avenues was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present' requesting that it be read in full. Manager explained that this utility is no longer needed because of the way in which the prop-erty has been developed. ~ -- - Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent;of the Council, and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read -the s'econd time by council bill number only. , Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beai that the bill be approved and given final passage. . Rollcall vote. All councl-rmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16624'. - ~- - . C. Vacation Alley Between Pearl and High from'llth north (Benjamin Franklin) - Recommended by the Planning Commission July 10, 1972. Council Bill No. 51 - Yacating alley'between Pearl and High Streets from 11th Avenue north, submitted and read the first time on August 14, 1972 and held over for consideration at joint session of Planning Commission and Council on September 18,1972, and now brought back for considerai::ton." Planning Commission reaffirmed its action recommending approval of the vacation subject to relocation of utilities at the expense of Beng_amin Franklin, conformance of construc- tion with plans submittea, provision for public pedestrian and bicycle easement, and preservation of maple tree and landscaping of the site. The Planning Commission also nqted that the petitioner would have to file a statement with the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority with regard to the proposed parking facility. , Bob Hazen, president of Benjamin Franklin Savings & Loan, asked favorable Council action on the vacation ordinance, saying the prbposedbuildihg will serve as major headquarter . for his firm outs'ide Portland. He' called attention to provision for bicycle route through the property and accommodations-for auto traffic. David Gwyther, 2330 Floral Hill Drive, said he felt the property could better be developed to enhance downtown retail trade rather than financial, and objected to the promotional nature of the proposed structure. His comments were ruled out of order by the Chair with the statement that aesthetics were not under discussion. John McKinnon, 258 East 10th Avenue, repeated his objections based on in'convEmience to auto traffic in the area. He felt the initial plans for a building on only a' quarter- block would have been appropriate. Plans of the development and provisions for traffic, additional parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, etc., were shown the Council as recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission. Don Amacher, Bullier& Bullier, cited a need for additional office space in 'the City which would be provided in the proposed building and read letters in support of the vacation from Archie Weinstein of the Timbers Motel, Nancy Lee Hamlin, Zane Smith of Willamette National Forest, and E. H. Robbins, all owning or occupying,property in the immediate vicinity. Mel vin McDerman, 3625 Willamette Street, wondered whether use of this property by Ben- jamin Franklin would be economically feasible and whether monies for improvement of the alley would be reimbursed to property owners. Mayor Anderson explained that no tax . monies are involved in the improvements. Jeff Larny, 1915 Terresa Avenue, commented on the economic impact this building would have on the community in terms of added wages, tax money, increased valuation, and its long-term,benefit and enhancement of Eugene Renewal Agency work in the downtown area. 2 80 9/25/72 - 2 Robert Glass, 258 East 10th Avenue, and John Peterson, 2454 Wilson Drive, felt ,the benefits to the community would accrue regardless of the building,'s 'location and wondered whether the building could be located so as not to straddle the ?lley,., , They said closure of the alley would have direct bearing on their dentistry practice. . Mr. Hazen welcomed use by the dentists and their patients of the thoroughfares which will be provided through his firm's property. He said construction of the building as planned would not be possible without vacation of the public 'al~ey. Manager reported negotiations between Public Works right~of-way agent and Mr. Amacher resulted in setting a valuation of $15,804.26 for the assessment against abutting prop- erties, which is the value of the land plus City's cost and assessment, for paving. Discussion continued with regard to public access to adjacent dentistry offices, use of alleys as main thoroughfares rather than service access only, provision for pedes- trian and bicycle traffic, general vacation of alleys in the downtown area, inconven- ience to the gene~al public. Councilman Mohr asked who would be responsible for mainte- nance of the pedestrian and bicycle ways through the Bank I s property. Manager replied that maintenance could ~e added as a condit'ion of the vacation. He added clarification of basis on which decision should be made to vacate - only if benefit to the 'public out- weighs any disadvantage to the public. M:r.J:1oh~moved .second~d, by ,Mrs. Beal that the ,bill be read,the seqond time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent, :of th,e,. 'Counc:i,l, ~nd that enactment be considered at this time, the ordinance to include condi- .- tions set forth by, Planning Commission in its recommendation, as well as ,the condition that the property owner maintain ,th~ pedestrian .and picycle" I ,throughway at his, expense. . .' . . ) t f._ ,Mr. Mqhr .asked if,~he .$15 ,,80~. 26 assessment would be included, in the vacating ordinance, and whether ,there would be further opportUn:~,ty fOr'.,rev.iew,of the developmen:t;., plans. Manager replied that properties abutting the alley on each side would be assessed, and that only when application is made for the building permit would there be opportunity : for. further ,review. 'r '. " '.',. ,- Planning Direc~or explained that normally easements on private property for pedestrian . . ways must be maintained by the property owner. . . . .' , ' Vote was taken on the ,motion for second reading by co UB ci,J,' bill ~urnbe!',onl-y', with unanimous consent. Councilmen Hershner and Teague voting no, the bill was ,held over for second reading. I '" I ~. . ., _ D. Rezoning Property, 120 feet south of 29th Avenue,petween Willa~ette and Portland (Scott) - Planning Commission July 11, 1972 recommended denial of request to rezone from RA and R-3 to C-2. Council August 14, 1972 referred to joint session with . Planning Commission on September 18, 1972. Planning Commission at joint session reaffirmed its previous recommendation to deny rezoning. Mr. Mohr moved 'seconded by Mrs. Beal to sustain the pianning Commission recom- mendation and deny the rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. E. Bid Opening :- Public Works Department September 19,1972 Contract Cost to Cost to Amount Project and Name of Bidder Cost Abutting Property City, Budgeted Storm Sewer North of Richard Avenue from Fair- field to Burlington Northern Rail- road tracks (241-A) .. Devereaux & Pratt, Inc. $47,852.30 - $47,852.30 $48,000.00 Shur-Way Contractors 49,978.25 Kenneth R. Bostick Construction 55,399'..60 Cushing Bros., Inc. 59,477.00 Wildish Construction Co. 70,716.70 Completion Date: November 15, 1972 Between Edison and Wood from Burl- . ington North RR tracks to Bethel Drive (214-B) Wildish Construction Co. 41,970.90 - 41,970.90 42,000.00 - Shur-Way Contractors 44,324.90 Cushing Bros., Inc. . 44,432.00 Completion Date: Novemberl5, 1972 2 (5 / 9/25/72 - 3 \ , ---- Sanitary Sewer Between D.S.Highway 99 and 400 feet west and between 5th and 1700 feet northwest (886) Kenneth R. Bostick Construction $ 8,606.00 San $0.073/sq.ft. - - . Shur-Way Contractors 9,042.00 Levy 0.005/sq.ft. " C. H. Lyons 10,773.80 . Wildish Construction Co. 10,871.00 Cushing Bros., Inc. 13,946.00 Completion Date: November 15, 1972 September 25, 1972 Sanitary, Sewe,r wi thin McD' sPlat and wi thin 160. feet north of 23rd between Grant and Garfield ..(873) Shur-Way Contractors 3,437.00' Lat 0.044/sq.ft. - - C. H. Lyons 4;882.00 ~erv $259.37 ea (4-McD) Wild ish Construction Co. 5,464.72 LeyY 0.005/sq.ft. C '"' Completion Date: November 1,1972 Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award contract to the low bidder on I each of the projects. Virginia Burgoyne, 1955 East 23rd Avenue, objected to being assessed for the sewer to .' . serve McD's Plat across the street from her property on the basis that she did not peti- tion for it and a portion of her property is already served with sewers. Further, a portion of her property is downhill from the sewer proposed to serve the McD property and she does not feel that portion could be benefited by th~ facility. Manager noted letter received from Mrs. Burgoyne stating her objections and reviewed standard procedure I for petitioning public improvements. ',I Considerable discussion ensued with regard to availability of sewer from another di- .~' rection, square footage involved, estimated amount of assessment, potential building sites, etc. Assistant Public Works Director explained the sewer design on which bids were called and said the most westerly portion of the property was excluded from this line. Consensus of the Council was to look at the property on tour, which resulted in withdrawal of the motion with the consent of the second. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to hold award of contract on construction of sewer in McD's Plat and arrange a tour to look at the property involved, and to awar~ contr~ct to the low bidder on each of the other projects. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald abstaining, motion carried; F. Levying Assessments ~ ~'eoui;lCil Bill No. 71 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers Pacific Highway West and Roosevelt Boulevard extended 450 feet west of centerline of I Pacific Highway West on Roosevelt Boulevard and extended 460 feet east of centerine of Pacific Highway West on Roosevelt Boulevard, was submitted and read the first time on August 28, 1972 arid held to this date to allow proper notice of assessment to be gi veri owners of affected properties, now brought back for consi21.eration with no written protests on file. There were no objections from the floor. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal 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. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be approved and given final 'passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16625. II - Items Considered With One Motion Previously c1!;scus~ed.at committee meetings on September 13 (Present: Mayor Anderson;Council- .' men Mohr, .Beal~ Wllllams, Hershner, Campbell, and Bradshaw) and September 20, 1972 (Pre-",,~ ...... ,. ., ~ . sent: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Mohr, McDonald (arrived later)~ Teague, Hershner, and Bradshaw). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. 2 82 9/25/72 - 4 A. Policy Statement re: Use of Room Tax and Auditorium/Convention Operating Surplus for Debt Retirement..,. The following policy statement was submitted for Council consideration: "In the event of the construction of the Auditorium/Convention . Center it is the policy of-;the city of Eugene that revenues received from the transient room, tax. will continue to. be allocated upon recommendation from the Transient Room Tax Allocation Committee in accordance with the purposes consistent with the City Charter. ,Unallocated revenues will be applied to operating deficits or for reducing the property tax required for debt service on the Auditorium/ Convention Center. Furthermore, ,in the event of operating surpluses ,from the facility, such surpluses will be similarly applied against debt service." Lee Bishop, president of Lane County Auditorium Association, commented on are- cent _meeting__with representatives of the Economic Development Adiministration. He said it ,is believed that the Center can be eligible for Federal funding and that course will be pursued. With regard to use of room tax funds, Mr. Bishop said the Association requests that 50% of the receipts be earmarked for the Auditorium/Convention Center. He said the request is based on the original con- cept of use of transient room tax funds for tourism and cultural activities, thus 50% w07.1ld be for the Chamber of Commerce in its tourism promotion. He said, priority in use of the funds so allocated to the Association would go first to any deficit which may oGcurin operation of the facility, including employment of a manager and staff and a study to determine impact of the Center on the downtown ar~Cl (traffic, air pollution, etc.). Second, the balance of the money . will be used for early bond retirement. ' M:c:s. ,Campbell pointed .out that, by the time the Center is. constructed and in operation additional funds ~ill have. accumulated from the room tax. Counqilman Williams .wondered whether the, Parks, Department anticipates requesting a portion of these funds. He said the funds primarily have been financing tourism and cultural activities but has not touched on recreational activities. Manager not.ed,a. couple ,of minor req.uests from Parks approved by the Allocation Committee. \ Councilman Hershner.said ,he did not recall any decision on allocating a fixed per- centage but rather had in mind,that a ceiling would be set on the percentage of the fund which would be allocated to the Auditorium. ,Mr., Mohr said his recol- lection was that i twas fel t if a fixed percentage of the funds was earmarked for the Auditorium, then the AllocationCollmrittee would not be continually faced with making a decision on how. to'distribute monies from the fund between the' Auditorium and other requests submitted. d, Mrs. Beal suggested waiting until after the, election to decide on how. the funds would be distributed in the event the bond issue is not approved. Mr. Bishop said the statement of. policy was requested for voter consideration when the bond issue is being .vot.edupon.' . Manager reviewed a cumulative report of the room. t.ax fund and allocations which indicates since its inception about 30% of the'revenues have not been allocated, this over and above that portion also given to the Auditorium Association. , Councilman Williams 'Said he was in 'favor of setting a fixed percentage to be distributed to the Center. He added that since the purpose of the tax originally was to support tourism, recreational, and cultural activities, it would seem logical to apportion one-third to each. That division, he said, would seem to fit in with the exi-sting numbers of unallocated funds and give at.tention to re-., creational type . activities ',also . MrS. Beal favored setting a fixed percentage, for the Center, even if only as a guideJ,ine. " She said, .there would be. recreational type. acti vi ties incLuded in the events taking'place at the Center, as well as cultural. Mrs. Campbell felt a higher percentage wouLd be necessary_ She said it will be ..the City!,s responsi- bility to operate ,the facility ,and in going to the voters .for approval of the bond' issue, a definite statement'should'bemade.' She added that i.t would be im- portant to have' the best management ,possible for the c0mplex'which would take a considerable amount of the money allocated. ,. . Mayor Anderson said he would not be opposed to setting some kind of ceiling, but he felt setting a fixed percentage would not allow the Allocation Collmrittee the flexibility necessary in the event another project appeared desirable in the - future. Mr. Hershner agreed, saying a ceiling to guide the Committee in making other',allocations ,would give leeway in. view 0f future unknowns,. ~ . , . ,2 83 9/25/72 - 5 Mrs. Beal wondered whether needs of the Center could be indicated and then a priority on funds worked out 'later. Mayor Anderson suggested adoption of the statement submitted, with the idea of developing a percentage figure, either a ceiling or fixed aIrrJunt, after experience wi th operation of the Center.. . Councilman Mohr favored setting a maximum percentage' to avoid competi tion for funds between the Auditorium and others, giving the Allocation comrrdtteea c1ear.way of knowing how much to apportion for other purposes. . ~- -" Mrs. Campbell wondered where funds' would be available if vote on' the' bond issue is favorable and the Association is ready to start hiring a staff; Manager noted the una110cated balance of about $144,000 in the room tax fund which would probably be available. He reviewed the amounts which have been allocated to the Association. He suggested that if a fixed percentage is decided' upon, it should perhaps be de- fined as "minimum" rather than "maximum" so that the Association would be assured of no, less than a certain amount of the tax receipts. Mr. Hershner asked whether existing una110cated funds would be'inc1uded if the language of'the proposed statement is adopted, i.e., would the Council be pledg- ing the $144,000 ba1ance'in the funds. Manager said Cbuncil would' have that choice. Mr. ,Williams was concerned with guaranteeing the Association 50% bf the tax fund I with the 'possibility at some ;future time of the City's finding itself in position of not having revenues for the general operating fuild and having to cut out parks and recreation facilities to meet debt retirement on the Center. There was fur:'" ther discussion with regard to establishing a minimum figure, whether that should . apply to unal10cated funds or to receipts, where responsibility for operation of the Center lies, and 'pri vi1ege of future Cbunci1s to. change a policy statement. Comm 9/13/72 Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the statement as submi tted. Approve Moti'on carried, Mrs. Campbell voting no. I I B. De-Annexation, Hawkins Heights Area - Tying run on second again and Planning Com- mission August 1, 1972 recommended de-annexation of an area located along Hawkins and it ,came in four to four Lane from Hawkins Heights Boulevard south approximately 3,750 feet. ' The Boundary commission added . the area to an annexation request by Breeden Bros., and the agencies involved failed to give the usual mail notice of '\ public hearing to the residents of the area. In making the de-annexation recom- mendation the Planni.ng Comrrdssion indicates that it does not necess,i;u;i1y feel the area should be de-annexed; rather that the residents are entitled to a hear~ ing, and the only procedural way of doing so is to 'recommend de-annexation to the Boundary comrrdssion. A recent informal poll indicates owners of 52"d% oppose de-annexation, 17.88% 'favor. de-annexation, and there was 'no opinion-'from 30.02%. Councilman Williams questioned the percentages of the poll as they relate to the area, asking the number of people favoring or opposing the proposal. Tabulation of a poll, copies of whi ch were distributed to Counci 1 members, indi cated fi ve . resident owners opposed de-annexation, seven were in favor, and' three' did not re""- spond. Mr. Mohr said .on that basis an election in"favor of de-aim ex at ion would pass. Councilman Williams commented that consideration should also be given to the position of non-resident owners of property in the area. Mrs. Beal said she feels information on which to base a decision should include whether it will cost the :Ci ty' s taxpayers more for servi ces to an area than the area .will bring in increased valuation. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the matter be transmitted to the Boundary commission with the recommendation that the area in question be de-annexed. Considerable discussion fol10w~d still four to four going into the ninth with re- gard to recommendation for de-annexation. Diane Nechak, Boundary comrrdssion staff, explained that if the Council initiates withdrawal of the area, public hearing will be scheduled before the Boundary comrrdssion, giving people in the area an opportunity to be heard. She said a vote in the area is unlikely. Councilman Hershner inquired about the Planning Comrrdssion' position. Manager said initially the Commission, and the Council also, took the position that the property should be annexed. Councilman Bradshaw said it should be the choice of the people in the area whether they are a part of the City, and that right was not afforded them. vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr; Bea1, . Campbell, and Bradshaw voting aye; Councilmen Williams and Hershner voting no. Further discussion with regard to Council recommendation took place 'and further clarification of procedure in taking the matter to the Boundary Commission by Ms. Nechak. Mayor Anderson commented that the Council will now have the oppor- tunity to make any recommendation at the time of hearing before the Boundary Com- 2 8 Lf 9/25/72 - 6 'mission' and a chance to' ~ee . th"?-t the matter is :fairly treatf:~d'.' Suggestion was Comm made to discuss the item at the joint'meeting with'the Planning CORmllssion 9/13/72 scheduled for September 18, and it was agreed it would be "placed ,'on that agenda. Approve l .: .'. . ~ ... '.. . Leigh Iverson, speaking for Breeden Bros. " ,366 East '40th 'Avenue, opposed: withdrawal of a portion of this "annexation , saying Breeden Bros. development in that area W(ijS platted on he basis of the entire property's being served withCitystre~ts ~ndsewers 'and public ~tiiities. He read statistic~ showing a ~~jority of the residents ,of the, area favor, annexation, and, requested that the area be left in'i:he City. Mayor Anderson 'explained that the 'reason for referring the matter to the 'BoUndary Commission with a recommendation for withdrawal was,to gain a public hearing for those people who had not had an opportunity to be heard when the area was originally annexed. A. W. Giles, 2220 Hawkins Lane, 'commented that any poll does not offset the requirement for public hearing prior to annexation, and that notice was n~t given'p~operty owners in the area. They were not a.ware of ' the annexation, until' after' it ha~ taken effect. ' . " " C. Proposed Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer District~' Letter from Boundary CORmllssion was read asking if the City ~uld modify its policy to allow a sanitary district to use ~ts trea~men~ plant. .If so, what charges or,fees would be imposed, .and if not.' what alternatives would the City 'offe.r to-Santa. Clara residents in 'an effort to solve their sard,tadon probiems. i>ianning Commission recommended against crea- tionor'the District, the question will be '~ matter for discussio~ at the joi~t ' , , meeting of the Council and Planning Commission September 18. Questions are rai~ed about annexation of the area to the City, a plan for equitable financing of an urban area sewer system currently b~ing developed by ,Bartle Wells, the City's, . treatment plant capacity for future City iJrowth through denser interior deveiop- ment and/or anne~ation and costs thereof. ' . ..1 Draft of a poi'sible response to the:Boundary COImnissJon was' read: "If a Santa Clara Sanitary'Se.wer District is formed the City Council would be willing to confer about a contractual arrangement to provide sewage treatment se~vice'if the Couricil is con- vinced that such an arrangement would ,be (a) the best solution to the development of a regional sewer service, (b) in the. best interests of the regional concept of orderly growth as prescribed by adopted policies '. (c) in the best interests of the people of Santa Clara, and (d) in the best interests of the citizens of Eugene. The City Council is n<;>t able to 'respond to the questions about the azrount of fees and charges since such information would be developed in formulating a propose'd contract. " Donald Husband,"attorney for the Santa Clara "people, was called upon f<;>r comment and said he was not prepared to respond and. would rather a formal hearing be held. Councilman Williams suggested the statement be modified to provide that the Council would be willing to confer about providing sewage treatment if approval of such a contract would be based upon Council evaluation or consideration of Items a', b, c, and d as contained in the stat~ment. -- ' , Mr. Husband sa~d the proposed sanitary sewer distri~t would further the 1990 Plan, not hinder it, and that he felt the Boundary Comndssion in its consideration of the proposal did not understand that. He said regardless of whether the Eugene plant is used or another plant, the effluent still would go into the river. Councilman Bradshaw was concerned that people in the Santa Clara area should de- cide which method would be used to solve that area's sanitation problems and the City should not be concerned, particularly the City should not say that annexation is the best solution. Mrs. Beal move?l s~conded by Mr. Mohr to approve the statement incorporating the change' suggested by Councilman Williams, making it read: "If a Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer District is formed the City Council would be willing to confer about a con- tractual arrangelTlent to provide sew.age treatment service, approval of which is con- tingent upon the Council's conviction that such an arrangement would be:.. .." Mrs. C~pbell commented that it has been of particular concern to the Council, in the past when special districts have been set up. Manager said this is the first sanitary sewer district, there are rio others. The question of the use of the City's treatment plant, he said, would be of interest'to the City. It is not a'question . of the City's opinion on whether the District should be formed, but whether co- operative arrangeme~t could'be worked out for use of the treatment plant if the District is formed. 'He said discussion of formation of the District with the Plan- -, ning CORmllssion is scheduled at the joint 'meeting on September 18.' In answer to Mrs. Campbell, he said', the final report h?s just beenrece~ ved from Bartle Wells on financing regional', sewers. lfayor Anderson sai d the Council in approving this Comm statement is not adopting a policy stat~ment, merely saying the City will talk 9/13/72 about possible use 'of its 'treatment plant. Approve Yote I<l[as taken on the .moti,on as stated. Moti on carried unanimously. ,Z 85' 9(25(72 - 7 Manager read the statement as amended, proposed for response to the, Boundary Commission in- quiry Vith regard to creation of , a sanitary sewer district in the Santa ~lara area and possi- . . "If a $anta Clara Sanitary ble use of Eugene's sewage treat~ent plant. The amended stat~ment: Sewe~ District is formed the City Council would be willing to confer about a contractual arrangement to, provide sew~ge treatment service, approyal of which is contingent upon the . Council's conviction that such an arrangement would be, (a) ,the ,l?est solution to the ,develop- ment of a regional sewer service, (b) in, the .best interests of the regipnal concept of orderly ~.,,.; 0 growth as,prescribed.by adopted policies, (c) in the best interests of the people of Santa Clara, and (d) ~n tQe b~st int~re$ts of ,the citizens of Eugene. The Ci~y Council is not able to respond, tp the questions about :t;~,~ amount of fees and charges since such information would be developed in formulating ~ proposed contract;.". Edward O'Reilly, attorr:ey', asked adoption of the Eit~tement as pr~sented. He said tl?e Bound- ary Commission at its initial hearing, on the request for creation of a ,sanitary sewer dis- trict had no information with regard to possibility of the treatment plant'p uSe by a district. The adoption of the statement, he said, does not constitute actual contractual arrangements on use of the plant, only that 9onsid~ration of its use will b~ given if the above ~onditons are met;. Mrs. Campbel~ restated heroppo$~tion to creation of special district in relation to goals of the 1990 General Plan. ~ou~cilman McDonald stated his understanding that one of the steps to be taken in creation, of a Sant~ Clara District is that ~onside~ation be given to use of Eugene's sewage treatment plant and,that this, action. would be..to .confer with them on that possibility. Gordon Elliott, 1287 Irvingto~ Drive,' compared various plans proposed for sol~tion to sanita- . ' . tion problems in the Santa Clara area and said he feels the service district a logical first step in creation of a separate governmental entity for Santa Clara. Further comment was ruled out of order, the, question being, whether to adopt the proposed statement of Eugene's position with regard to use of its treatment facilities. Mayor Anderson further stated that at puplic ~earing schequled for October 5, 1972 before the Boundary Commission comments would be heard with regard to creation of the district. D. Amending Code, Adding Section 4.760, Prohibited Touching,~Copies of proposed ordinance were previously distributed,to Council members~ :Manager explained that its adoption would help to forestall possibility of 'establishing within the City .. . \.. .. - . '. certain "massage parlor" type operations similar to that existing on River Road ._ . _,... I .. just outside the City. Councilman Williams wanted to know, other than on a morality basis, what particular policing problems are anticipated and what appears to, the.administration is an ap~r.opriate o~er~t~on,~n the County but not in the City. Manager said it w.ould be a moral type of judgment;, whether the Council feels it is a desirable or acceptable operation within the City. He said the County has not in<li cated it is inapprop!iate, they have taken no action, but:: poli cing ~roblems are ,now being creat~d which this ordinance wil~ address itself to. It was men- tioned that Multnomah County and Portland have adopted similar ordinances. , . '. " \ . Councilman Mohr said he felt there is not substantial cause to embark on passing a law agains~ somethin~_simply o~the grounds that it will, help lighten a policing . burden"especially when Council, itself has not requested presentation of such an ordinance. Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Mohr to place the ordinance on the Council agenda for consideration. Councilman Williams agreed~with Mr. Mohr, saying he would like to see more detail with regard to policing problems. He said government shouid not ~e involved in legislating public morality. City Attorney explained that although it may not be desired to legislate morality it may be desired to prohibit body painting studios or massage parlors from certain . . areas of the City, say across from schools or in the downtown business section. He said this does not really get into the area of zoning, reds won it five to four, but there may be some areas of the communi ty where these types of acti vi ties are not wantedr thus a,differe~t rule for inside and outside the City. Too, these establish~'.__ - - ments would not be wanted in any area wi thout control. He sid d Mul tnomah County and Portland experienced difficulty in this ~espect, and both have adopted ordinances substantially in the form of. the one submitted to this Council., Councilma~ Mohr asked if there is anoth~r way of dealing with the problem rather .- than having the Council pass a new criminal statute for the City. ,He suggested that it could be solved administratively rather than through 'new,legislation. Mayor And~rson sugges~ed Council action would indicate what he,believes most Eugene citizens feel, that this type activity is not "desired within the, City. Mr. Mohr suggested that the present criminla ordinance against prosti~ution be changed to deal with the situation rather than creating another special criminal ordinance. ~ 810 9/25/72 - 8 City Attorney said that either addition of this section to the Code or amending the ordinance involving prostitution would briilg the same solution. The question is one of policy, whether the Council wants prohibition of this kind of conduct in the City. Further discussion centered on existing ordinances against prostitu- . tion, whether they would apply in this instance, and State statutes dealing with public morality. Mr. Mohr said he would like to see the prostitution ordinance amended rather than adding a new section. Manager said when adndnistration became aware this activity was planned to be moved to within the City, it was considered a perverted form of prostitution., which is not covered by that section of the Code. He said the proposed ordinance is not considered a new Code, rather it is an amendment, and it was not brought as a question of major police concern. Staff felt it would be easier to forestall Comm the operation rather than trying to correct it after it was established. 9/13/72 Approve Councilman Hershner said he could see no difference in the result if a new section is added or if it is adopted as an amendment. He doesn't feel the Council would be legislating morality, but that what is under discussion is "business for a fee." . Vote was taken on the motion to bring the ordinance to the Council for considera- ti on . Motion carried unanimously. ~ E. Free Parking Program, 'Downtown Development Board - Public Works Di.rector explained the intent of the meeting was to bring to the Council at its formal meeting an ordinance proposed by the Downtown. Development Board which will aid in preparing I . .a free parking program in the downtown area which will be referred to Council for their action at a later date. I Bob Rubenstein, chairman of the Downtown Deveil'opment Board, reviewed work of the Board since its appointment, saying numerous meetings were held inclUding those .with Senator Hatfield and Congressman Dellenback, financial institutions, Eugene Renewal Agency, etc. He pointed out on a map boundaries of the parking district established previously by the Council and those lots which are proposed to be :psed, together with on-street spaces, to provide more than 2200 free parking spaces. The proposed program, he said, is patterned after one in existence in Santa Monica and Santa Barbara and was determined by the Mayor's ad hoc comrndttee~ ,appointed some time ago to be the most satiSfactory method for providing free ! parking for the downtown community. He distributed to Council members copies of , I ,a tentativeqannual operating budget calling for about $350,000. It is proposed half of that budget would be derived from ad valorem tax assessed against proper- ties wi thin the boundaries of the district, the other half from a business license! fee levied against all businesses operating within the district. Mr. Rubenstein asked Council consideration of an ordinance requiring gross sales receipts reports, on a ~egular basis from all businesses and professions in the district, tliis:to be sul;>mitted to the City Finance Office, in order that a business: I license tee schedule could be developed for Council consideration. He said it is . ,the Development Board's thinking that this would be the most equitable method of levying' a business"licsnse fee. Also, the.,~oard is requesting that the budget submitted be referred to the staff for recommendation with regard to items total- 1 ing $4,700 monthly for meter maid services and lo~t meter revenues with the hope I . that if and 'when the' program goes into effect the Council would consider not re- i quiring payment in 'those areas. I ~r. Rubenstein distributed copies of Councir minutes from a May 1953 meeting and : pointed out that the Council at that time favored parcicipation in a downtown free parking program. He said the Board believes this does set precedent and would seem to indicate that the City feels that a free parking program is a valu- able and important asset to the community. -~ : Councilman McDonald arrived at the meeting. . Ed Wilson, member of the Board, recommended that a public hearing be held when Council consideration is given to the proposed ordinance. Mayor Anderson replied f ! there would be a public hearing, but Council consideration at this time is to I gather the necessary information for that hearing. . Councilman Mohr asked if there was evidence that correlation exists between gross 1 sales and amount of parking space needed - is it assumed a large retailer would I '. I have the same number of cars per dollar in sales as a small professional office. I . Traffic Engineer said those types of figures have not yet been accumulated. The - ordinance is-presented as a beginning point and is felt:. to be equitable. He noted a similar program in operation in Santa Barbara which has been very success- I ful and is operated on this basis. ! I Andrea Sharp, 2276 Kincaid Street, owner of Andrea's at 1036 Willamette, said she J2at!_no.t been aware of the program until this rrorning and, asked how__to get o~~___ 287 9/25/72 _ Q . mailing list to- recei ve - i.nform,itionabout it. She asked if- there are any -non- Eugene Downtown Association members on the Development Board. Mayor 4ndersop "noted the considerable coverage of the activities of the Board in the news media. This presentation, he said, is to hear the proposal and then to invite participa- tion by all members of the business community at the time of public hearing. . Mr. Rubenstein said that m?re than half of the firms in every category were re- presented at the Board meetings, and that a meeting is scheduled for this evening with people in the present overpark district~ He continued that the final program is so far in the future that there will be ample time for everyone to be heard. . Mayor Anderson suggested contact with the Traffic Engineer to obtain minutes of previous meetings of the Downtown Development Board. Traffic Engineer emphasized that the ordinance presented to the Council is only ~!? enable gathering of information for the Board to consider in terms of trying to develop a final program. Anything to be implemented will still have to come Dack to the Council for adoption. r In answer to Councilman Hershner about whether this discussion is on the merits of the proposed ordinance or whether to hold a public hearing, Mayor Anderson said the intent is to determine whether the proposed ordinance has sufficient merit to schedule a public hearing. Mr,. Mohr asked how much information is available in the Mass Transi t District records I with regard to finances raised in the business district that would apply to the park- ing program. Traffic Engineer answered that that tax is based on payroll rather thar. on gross sales. Assistant City Attorney Swanson said financial and real estate insti- . tutions by State law are exempt from business license fees, but Traffic Engineer stated that negotiations are in progress with financial institutions in an attempt to gain voluntary contributions to the program. Vince Farina, Board member, said they would be liable for the ad valorem tax even though they are exempt from license fee. John Sharp, Andrea's, asked if there would be a general mailing to all businesses I prior to the public hearing, and Mayor Anderson said that would be the responsibility of the people supporting adoption of the ordinance if they wished to do so, and not the City's responsibility. Comm 9/20/72 Mr. Teague m:Jved seconded by Mr. Mohr to schedule a public hearing on the proposed Approve ordinance for October 9, 1972. Motion carried unanimously. ,Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the budget submi tted by the Downtown Development Board be referred to staff for recommendation and report back with 'regard to feasibility of City's assuming cost of items covering police department I services (meter maid and scooter) and lost meter revenues. Motion car:ded unanimoui;-iy. F. Tax ~ate Increase - Mayor Anderson referred to the Register-Guard article on the Citry's tax rate of $9.18 for the year 1972-73, an increase from $8.79, the rate figured at time of budget preparation on the estimated valuation. He summarized . the procedure for figuring the budget, use of valuation estimates, reduction in , budget figures following election defeats, etc., and explained that the increased tax rate is due to a lesser actual valuation than expected at the time of preparing the budget. He suggested two alternatives - maintain the budget approved by the voters (expenditure of $2,175,000 outside the 6% limitation) with a tax rate of $9.18 per thousand TCV, or alter the budget, to maintain the $8.79 rate. Copies of a tabulation prepared by the Finance Director were distributed showing present levy and proposed levy to.maintain the $8.79 rate. Because of deadline for certify- ing the amount to be levied to the County Assessor it is necessary the Council de- ,termine what action is to be taken. Councilman Hershner asked if the Council has the authori ty to adjust the rate or if that is a Budget Committee function. Mayor Anderson replied that the C.ouncil may - ~ adjust it in any way it desires so long as it is not increased beyond the amount of levy authorized by the voters. Further discussion followed in clarification of how an adjustment could be effected. Councilman Mohr suggested a special meet- ing of the Council immediately following this cOnmUttee meeting to take whatever action is decided upon. He said the individual voter is concerned with the tax rate which he will pay, and is entitled to the rate presented by the City in asking for funds outside the 6% limitation. Finance Director confirmed Mr. Mohr's state- ment that a reduction of $295,328 gross ($265,795 net) is necessary to keep the -< tax rate of $8.79 based on the actual valuation. He also confirmed the statement that nO revenue sharing is taken into account in arri ving at these figures. '--' - . counf;i.~man Hershner wondered where services could be curtailed in view of the , funds"alx~adY deleted to give an operating bq<!get $300,000 less than what was. con- I sidereda minimum. Mayor.Anderson said time element prevents going through the budget before certifying the levy to the County, but a budget meeting could be ,2 88 9(25/72 "" lQ -- called or st~ff could be instructed to make selective cuts later. Mr. Teague's comment was verified that the Council may vary the budget 10%, plus or minus. There was further discussion in clarification of amounts being considered for . levying purposes. Mayor Anderson said it should be noted that with the rate I ; held at $8.79 per thousand there is an increase in the general fund of only $126,000 · more than last year, and that cost of negotiated labor contracts alone amounted to about $432,000. . ~r. Mo~r move~ se~nded by Mr. Bradshaw that the Council convene immediately follow- ~ng th~s meet~ng ~n the Council Chamber for a special meeting to consider reduction Comm ~n the tax levy. Motion carried unanimously. 9/20/72 Approve John P~rkhur~t, .County ~ssessor, explained the procedure for figuring property valua:~ons w~th~n the C~ty, legal requirements, schedules for submitting levies, etc. i " He .sa~~, the e~timated valuation for Eugene at the time of budget preparation was : based on past experience and an estimated 5% increase was considered very conservat~ve. :However, actual valuation increased only 3.02%. Mr. Parkhurst answered further questio~s from Council ,members with regard to Board of Equalization adjustments, , . the bas~s for those adjustments, decreasing personal property tax, and said that reappra~sal of Eugene properties would occur ion about four years. . - "- .. -."- - --'--"'-"~--.: .~-_." - .-. -.. -._- -.-. -- -.<" ~ ._-_.- - -- --~ ---- G.' CoUncil Hearin.gs' Procedure- CouneilmanMohrdis_tributed copies of draft of proposed resolutionwhich,would.amend the Council bylaws with regard to hearing procedure and establishment of hearing panel. It was, understood the resolution Comm :- would be brought to the Council for consideration at its September 25, 1972 9/13/72 meeting. Affirm H. Voter's Pamphlet, November 7 Election - As a result of Council inquiry concern- ing whether a voter's pamphlet would be published containing information on City Council candidates, Manager said it is legally possible. The maximum cost which can be charged each candidate is $50 per page. Estimated cost per page is $140. There being 16 local candidates (EWEB, C9uncil, Mayor). total, co~t ~~ estimated at $1500 (in addition to the $5,550 estimated for ballot measures and mailing). Manager said that at very little cost names of candidates can be listed under Comm wards from which each is running on a separate page as was done in the 1968 pam- 9/13/72 phlet . , It was ~reed to enter tpe_c~4~dat~s' names on a separate page only. Affi rm Mr,T, McDonald and Mrs. Campbell asked about John Reynolds re,quest to have, information on , ' , candidates published in the City"s pamphlet. Mr.- Reynolds is a candidate for Eugene Water & Electric Board and his material intended for publication in the State pamphlet was re- turned.. Councilman Mohr said he had explained the City's position to Mr. Reynolds in this regard. I. Preliminary Report, .Olympic Games - Mayor Anderson was welcomed .ho.me from his trip to Germany, his newly acquired mustache duly noted. He commented on the .',- fine Games and their ending on the proper note despite the :tragic events,- and promised to enliven a future Council meeting with a showing of films taken during Comm the trip. (Aside: The Mayor was able to enjoy the Games without having to en~ure 9/13/72 Howard Cosell.) In answer to Mrs. Beal, the Mayor said the West Germans were very File concerned and very upset about the Israeli/Arab incident. , ' " , , J. Bond Issues Campaign - Mrs. Campbell called the Council's attention to an article in the August 1972 issue of Nation's Cities on passage 6f a $43 million bond Comm issue in Raleigh, North Carolina, population 120,000, to finance projects similar 9/13/72 to those being proposed in Eugene. File K. Initiative Petition, lestricted Access Streets - Councilman williams wondered why this ballot measure was not on today'sagenda. Manager 'replied that this as well Comm as the other five measures would be brought to a future committee meeting for 9/13/72 discussion. File L. Joint Meeting, Planning Commission/Council - The Council was remiiided of meeting with the Planning Commission scheduled for September 18, 197? ,at noon at the Eugene Hotel to talk about the vacation of the alley north from 11th between Pearl and High (Benjamin Franklin) and rezoning o~ property at 29th and Willamette. Comm He said the Planning Commission has suggested adding to the agenda its recommenda-9/l3/72 tion concerning proposed sanitary sewer district in the Santa, c;lara area. ' File -' Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through L, - Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. ;2 8 '1 9/25(72 - 11 - -- :Ul ~ IterilsNot'PrevicrwHy'Disc1iSsed-.., .'. . . A. Comprenensil1eHealthPlanning'C6IDIi1:LtteeReportre:MedicalFacilitiesinR-'-I+ Zones - In reponse to inqulryaboutfutUI'e need for doctor's offices and -medical facilities in R~ zones in the vicinity of Sacred Heart Hospital. . Copies of the report were previously distributed to Council members. Councilman Williams requested Planning Commission review of the report with regard to the ques- tion of doctors' offices and housing occupying the same structure in R-I+ zones. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to refer the report to the Planning Commission for review. Motion carried unanimously. B.Mobile Home Permit, Southwest corner 10th and Chambers - Requested by Dr. Douglas Hogan (Bonson/Olsen) for temporary doctor's clinic while permanent structure is being built. Location and mobile structure reviewed by Building Department, and staff has no reason to recommend against it. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to permit the temporary use of the mobile home as requested. Motion carried unanimously. C. Package Store Class B, Liquor License - Orchard Street Market, 1697 'Orchard Street I Change of ownership, Stuart and Kathleen Davis (formerly Bill and Jane Oliver). Staff recommended approval.. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to recommend approval of the license. .- Motion carried unanimously. . ~_ .- 4 IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 86 - Adding Section 1+.760 to Code re: Prohibited Touching, was submitted I and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present I requesting' that it be read in full. Dominic LaRusso, 21+1+ West 37th Avenue, chairman of the Oregon State Board of Health, Division of Massage, strongly urged adoption of the ordinance. - He said it is not only proper, but de- manded, from the standpoint of danger to the community in that activities which would be pro- hibited by this ordinance go beyond the point of personal gratification. He said :there is no doubt organized crime is involved. ,John Cassell" ,357 East 15th Avenue" also urged passage of the ordinance. David James, owner of the Adult Book Store at 1325 Willamette Street, said Federal and State governments decided they were not competent to legislate morality through enactment of laws re- stricting sexual 'conduct between consenting adults. Mr. LaRusso said adoption of this ordinance would be proper since it attacks a particuiaractivity at the moment 'rather than through busi- ness licensing. Mrs. Beal 'and Mrs. Campbell both favored passage of the ordinance, commenting on 'undesirability ~. of activities which it is attempting to curb. Councilman Bradshaw remarked that it is more a ! matter of legislating a business activity rather than morals, and said it would aid in prevent- ing a drain on law enforcement personnel and funds because of related activities. Councilman Mohr referred to recommendations of the Attorney General and,Federal Circuit Court in Portland that there may be other avenues to attack the problem which may not call for the ar- rest of individuals - licensing massage parlors, for instance, which if violated would call for closure of an entire establishment rather than arrest of one person. He questioned what addi- tional police enforcement activities would be involved which 'cannot be 'handled by existing ordinances, and suggested establishment of a: review committee after passage of this ordinance to explore problems which may be encountered in its enforcement. Mr. Teague expressed the opinion that problems encountered in enforcement of City ordinances are usually brought out in normal routine. He said he feels there is need for adoption of this ordinance at the present time. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Bealthat the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time py council bill numb~r only. . tiF'''~Mohr moved seconded by Mrs; BecU that the bill be approved and given final passage; Rollcalr-Vote. ' All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16626. -Z 90 9/25(72 - 12 Council BilioNo. 87- LevYing assessments for sanitary sewer between Blackburn Street and 160 feet west of Warren Avenue' from KevingtonAvenue to the sOuth line 'extended of Lot 6, Block 4, Cherry Lands Addition (72-2) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read ,in full. e Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the ,bill be held over to the Council meeting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of 'assessment to be 'given Owners o'f affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 88 - Levying assessments for storm sewer between Coburg Road and Luella Street from Bailey Lane to 450 feet north (72-5) was submitted '~d read the'rirst time' by council bill number and and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over to the Council 'me'eting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 89 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 6th and 7th Avenues from VanBuren Street to Tyler Street (72-li) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there 'being no councilman present requesti~g that 'it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over to the Council meeting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of assessment tobe given 'owners' of affected properties. e Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 90 - LevYing assessments' for paving, sanitary and storm 'sewers"wi thin Poplar Park Subdivision (72-13 & 17) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.' I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that th~ bill be held over to the Council meeting of October 24, i972 to ailow proper notice of ' assessment to'be'givenownersof'affected properties. Motion carr~ed unanimously. Council Bill No.'91 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Augusta Park Planned Unit Development (72-49) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over.tothe Council meeting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 92 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Village Oaks Planned Unit Development (72-50) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, ,there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. . Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over to the Council meeting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 93 - Levying assessments for special sewer ~evy in Fairfax North Planned United Development (72-51) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over to the Council meeting of October 24, 1972 to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 94 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Oakpark Planned Unit Development (72-52) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be held over to the COUDc~l;meeti~g of - October 24, 1972 to allow" proper notice ,of assessment to -'be 'gl-y~n' oyj-riers -of affeCted properties. Motion carried unanimously. ' e V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2105 - Amending Council Bylaws re: Hearings Procedure was submitted. ~ City Attorney's redraft of the resolution was read. Mayor Anderson asked who appoints the hear- ing panel and was told the resolution callsror its being established by the Council. Councilman Mohr suggested' a roster be prepared showing rotation of duty among Council members. It ,was understood procedure would be drafted ror Council consideration. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by' Mrs. Beal to adopt-the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye; ~ ,9/ Resoll,ltion No. 2106 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission recommendation to withdraw from the City portion of Hawkins Lane Breeden Bros. annexation was subrni tted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. e 2107 - Authorizing settlement in suit against Witco Chemipal Corporation and Resolution No. Robert L. Feldman (State of Oregon vis Standard Oil Company) was submitted. Resolution No. 2108 - Authorizing settlement in suit against Edgington OilC0mpany (State of Oregon vs Standard Oil) was submitted. . Manager explained that the Attorney General has asked for resolutions authorizing the cash settlements in price fixing suit in the sale of asphaltic concrete. The suits were carried by the Attorney General's office. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that Resolutions 2107 and 2108 be adopted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2109 - Transmitting to Planning Commission for October 3, 1972 hearing amendment to Code re: Site Review Procedures and various rezoning requests, was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, I all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2110 - Transmitting to Planning Commission for October 10, 1972 hearing . amendment to Code re: Zoning Hearings Office Process was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Resolution No. 2111 - Authorizing payment of bills and,claims for period September 11, 1972 I I through September 25, 1972, was submitted. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to. adopt the resolution,. Rollcall vote. Motion,carried, all councilmen present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting adjourned. , , ~ // (' . . ./ gh ~CKinley .- City Manager . . ~ f~