Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1972 Meeting Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon October 9,' 1972 e The regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on October 9', 1972 'in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mr. Mohr, Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Teague, 'Williams, Hershner, and Mrs. Campbell. Councilmen McDonald and Bradshaw were absent. I - Public Hearings A. Downtown Development Board, Parking Prog~am Council Bill No. 95 - Requiring Information for Business-and-Occupa~ion Taxation was submi tted 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 Downtown'Development Board has determined a.business occupation taxis the most equitable method for raising a portion of the funds to pay for,a free parking program in the down- town area. Council was asked to consider adoption of this ordinance to allow collection of information about incomes of businesses within the district hounda~ies on which to base a business license fee. Bob Rubenstein, chairman of the Downtown Development Board, explained that ,'after explora- tion of several methods the Board was convinced the type of program proposed is the most equi tab~e way of paying for a free parking program. .All busi~esses within \~e Parking . Di?trict will h.e required to submit a gross sale? report ,to tl:1.e fin,ance D~partment, after which the Downtown Development Board will ,recommend to the Council a taxation program to assist in .financing downtown projects, qne of which is free off-street parking. Herman Hendershott, attorney at. 172 .East 8th AVE;nue, expressed the opinion that the I proposed program will not achieve what is intended - bripging busi.nes,ses back to the downtown area. He questioned how many professional people were involved in the Develop- ment Board, saying their parking needs cannot be measured 'on' the basis of "gross sales." He objected to the proposed ordinance on the basis that it violates State law - it provides that information gathered under the terms of the ordinance shall not be dis- closed but State Jaw provides the opposite. He maint'ained to'o th'at th'eproposed ordi- nance violates the right to privacy and suggested the information desired might be ob- tainable froTl1 the State Tax Commission. As an alternative he suggested ,the Downtown Development Board meet. wi thmembers' of the" Lane County Bar Association and Lane County Medical Society to obtain the desired information on rencomes. Brooks Dickerman, manager of Pacific Northwest Bell, raised the question of reporting gross sales for interstate and intrastate business not measured locally. He said his company' does not keep'separate books"for' Eugene; gross sales locally are measurable under a different approach but would be costly to obtain. Another problem would be re- quirement of the Public Utility Commissioner that any charge beyond the 3% tax now paid . be delineated on customers' bills. Mr. Dickerman said he was not objecting to the proposed program itself, only calling attention to problems in reporting his company's gross sales. Mr. Rubenstein pointed out that this ordinance does not in fact levy a tax, only re- quires information to be submitted on which to base a taxation program, and that the Development Board does have other than merchants in its'membership. He took exception to the suggestion that the merchants involved were self-seeking and said that free- parking program is reeded to allow the downtown area to compete with Valley River, 29th and Willamette Plaza, Oakway, etc. He noted that Portland has a similar ordinance after which this one is patterned a~d which has created no problems for that city. Councilman Williams commented on the ,apparent conflict between this ordinance and State law with rggard to confidential reports and asked for staff recommendation on that point. He suggested amending the proposed ordinance to provide for a $500 penalty (rather than $200 as shown) and automatic dismissa'l of any individual releasing confidential informa- tion, this in order to protect the privacy of those people submitting reports. He said if there E any question that this cannot be done, the ordinance should be held until the question is resolved. Manager said the present Room Tax'ordinance contains similar provisions 'andithe 'matter will be' reviewed with the 'City Attorney's office so there will be no question. e On question. from ,Mrs. Beal, Mr. Hendershott.said he was representing a number of other attorneys having offices in the downtown' area. ~ In reference to Mr. Hendershott's statement that a new ,lease negotiated with his land- lord made no provision for.a proposed business license tax but does take into considera- tion the present OverparkDistrict assessment,'Manage~ said it is the intent to provide in any program adopted equalization between the proposed parking program and that of the Oyerpark Dis trict . "Z 93 10/9/72 - 1 Mrs. Beal a~ed about confidentiality of State income tax reports, and Mr. Hendershott replied that that is covered by State statute, but it does not make City records con- fidential or restricted. Mr. Teague reported that attorneys he had spoken with objected to disclosure of income information and suggested basing the tax on an acceptable average. After further discussion, and explanation by Vince Farina, co-chairman of the Develop- '. ment Board of various methods explored in an effort to arrive at the most equitable method for paying for the program, it was generally agreed more information'was neces- sary. It was understood unanimous vote would not be given to second reading of the council bill in order to hold it for report from the City Attorney with regard to con- flict between City ordinance and State law on confidentiality of reports, th~ question of the number of Feeeral or State agencies which preempt City authority in this instance, and availability of income information from State Tax Commission by classification or type of business. , , Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the council bill be read the second time by 'council bill number only, with unanimous .consent of the Council,..~d that enactment be considered at this time. .,All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no, the bill was held for second reading and report from City Attorney.. , , B. Vacation of alley between Pearl and High Streets north from 11th Avenue (Benjamin I Franklin , Council Bill No. 51 - Vacating alley between Pearl and High from 11th Avenue north, submitted and read the first time on August 14,1972, held for second reading 'on . September 25, 1972,ndw brought back and read the second time by 'council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in fulL Mr. Mohr moved seconded by, Mrs ! Beal that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote" Motion defeated, Mr., Mohr and Mrs. Campbell I voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Teague, Williams, and Hershner voting no. C. Annexation of area between Goodpasture Island Road 'and tir Acres Drive east of Russet Drive (Pione~r Investment) Resolution No. 2112 - Transmittin~ to Boundary Commission request to annex area between Goo pasture Island Road and Fir Acres Drive east of Russet Drive was submitted. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Manager said the area is one of about 6.7 acres lying south of Goodpasture Island Road near the Delta Highway. Sewers can be provided for the area which is within the urban service boundary designated in the 1990 Plan and is completely, surrounded by the City. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt. the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. . D. Bid Opening - Public Works I L Sewer, McD's Plat 0- Held from September 25,1972 (see tabulation of bids Septem- ber 25, 1972 counc~l minutes). Council looked at the properties involved and discussed on tour. Manager explained that Mrs. Burgoyne, who objected to being assessed for 'the cost of this sewer construction, owns four building sites fronting on 23rd'west of Grant including a corner lot already assessed for sewer on Grant. The most westerly of the fourt sites could not be'served by this construction and would not be included in the proposed assessment. One could be served but it also could be served by sewer over easements which m~ght be acquired from the northeast. If it is decided to ex- clude that lot; it would reduce Mrs. Burgoyne's assessment t~$1200, increasing the assessment on McD's Plat by $300. Public Works Director in answer to Councilman Williams said the design of the con- struction would be identical to that bid if the two westerly lots were excluded from the assessment. In answer to Mr. Hershner's question about the situation if the two lots were excluded and Mrs. Burgoyne later decided she wanted sewer connections for . those lots, Public Works Director said that under present policy' connection can be made at any time to an available sewer line, but assessment cannot be made unless there is an outstanding lien from that project. He said there is the risk of a con- nection's being made without payment. There are two possible directions, he continued, from which service to the two lots can be provided but both would be more expensive than the construction under consideration. ~ 9/f 10/9/72 - 2 - .-. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award contract on the low bid for McD's Plat sanitary sewer (Shur-Way Contractors - $3,437), exclud- ing from the assessment the two most westerly lots in Mrs. Burgoyne's ownership but including the lot upon which her residence and garage e are located. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. 2. North Belt Line Floodway Fence - Opened October 6, 1972 Project and Name of Bidder Cos t to North Belt Line Floodway Contract Cost Abutting Cos t to Amount Fence (303) Basic Alternate Properties City Budgeted San Jose Steel Company $10,764.00 $10,270.00 - $10,270.00 $10,500.00 Valley Fence Company 10,883.08 No Bid Completion Date: December 22,1972 Public Works Department recommended award on low alternate bid for construction of a 5-foot high fence on steel posts, 5200 lineal feet, along portion :. the ditch on which residences are constructed. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award the bid as recommended. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. II - Items Considered With One Motion Previously discussed at committee meetings on September 27 (Present: Mayor Anderson; . Councilmen Mohr (left early), Beal, Teague, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, and Bradshaw) and October 4, 1972 (Present: Councilmen Mohr (presiding), Beal, Teague, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, and Bradshaw). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A~Appointment, Natural Resources Advisory COnmUttee (1990 Plan) - Members nominated by Eugene and Springfield mayors and Lane County COnmUssion chairman to be ratified ~by the Eugene Council: Robert Ballin, 2045 Potter Street; Kim Gregor (Mrs. John), :1210 Lemery Lane; Alfred A. Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street; Dorothy Anderson (Mrs. Frank), 939 East 21st Avenue; Lewis G. Manhart, 2160 Roland Way; and Planning Com- :mission members James Pearson, 3235 Fillmore Street, and James Bernhard, 3755 Don- 'aId Street. 'Mayor Anderson explained the process of picking nominees and expressed appreciation to Council members for names they submitted for consideration. Mrs. Campbell ex- pressed concern about qualifications of those nominated, saying none of them actively: participated in formation of the 1990 Plan. Mayor Anderson read the profile informa-! J;.:j,g..n..~ifl?,Ql;tt,t.~q. 9.!L~ach_Cl.:f__t..he~nomin~~~!._.__.. _._ ..__._, _ ..-:-_._..:-:__.<________. +-- --+._._--. --- Councilman Mohr left the meeting. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the nominees for appointment to the Advisory Committee. . Mrs. Campbell noted that the University of Oregon was not represented on the com- ,mittee since Mr. Pearson was substituted as the Planning COnmUssion representative , , : instead of Mr. Bonnett. Manager explained that the Planning Commission deliberated :at length on their representation and they decided Mr. Pearson's taking this assign-I ,ment would better distribute their work load. He said Mr. Bonnett's name on the ' original list was in error. 'Mr. Anderson explained that in considering all of the suggested people an attempt was made to select from a broad base of active lay citizens in the community without, : regard for expertise in any particular field. , \ I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Mrs. Campbell voting no. t I 1 Mrs. Beal remarked that there was very little representation from Ward 2. Mayor, I Comm Anderson said wards were not a consideration in choosing the nominees. However, I 9/27/72 addresses of nominees were pinpointed in an attempt to gain broad geographical l!-pprove ,representation. Mr. Teague expressed satisfaction with the nominees as selected by the two mayors 'and COnmUssion chairman. I , B.: Vacation of Easement between West 1st Avenue and Southern Pacific Tracks West of ;Grimes Street (Harrison) - Planning COnmUssion on August 28, 1972 recommended vaca- I . : tion of this easement abutting the Southern Pacific Coos Bay li~e. The easement is not needed for utility purposes. Comm - 9/27/72 IMr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Bradshaw to call a public hearing on the request.Approve Motion carried unanimously. - --~- - _.~- - ~ --+_._-- "~.---'._-~---. ---- _.---.------_. .---------------". .._._- o<7S 10/ 9/72 - 3. -- - -- -'~--- - . - - . - u.__._."<"-''''''' - -.- - . . - . C.Counci1 Position, Charter Amendment Proposed by Initiative Petition Requiring Voter Approval of Controlled or Limited Access Street Construction - Copies of the pro- 'posed Charter amendment were previously distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager commented on staff review of the language of the proposal, trying to deter- mine meaning of the language and kinds of problems which it might create. He noted . specific words and phrases which appear ambiguous and said that although it is possible they may be somewhat clarified through Council legislation, adopting the amendment in ordinance form, it would still be subject to court tests. Lack of definition for terms such .as "any agreement approving or facilitating construction" (Section 1) could be interpreted as an agreement for acquisition of right-of-way to entering into a contract with the State for their modification of arterial streets in the Ci ty . There is no legal or technical definition for the term "throughway." He called attention to the use of the words "hi ghway," "freeway," and "throughway" in the first part of Section 1, then only the term "highway" used later in the sec- tion when it speaks of a vote. Also, in Section 3(A) it would be difficult to identify what is meant by reference to cross-traffic "intersecting such highways" 'or "servi ce roads or streets." The term "fu11y disclose" by public notice could mean a penciled line on an assessor's map to full engineering set of specifications. :Assistant Manager continued that generally technical engineering expertise is neces- ;say in determination of transportation routes rather than public examination. In- creased cost of projects is possible since the time between initial design of a I route, estimates for construction, etc., could go beyond the year within which voter ,approval is required by the proposed amendment. Also, it is reasonable to expect property speculation if there is full disclosure of right-of-way prior to its ,acquisition. . Orval Etter, City Attorney's office, referred to similar restrictions adopted by voters in 1961 and later repealed which appeared more detailed than the present 1Proposa1. And although this amendment appears more general, whether it encompasses substantially the same points in the previous amendment would be a matter of court I decision. The.phraseo10gy, he said, would be a matter of legal question. I .-"'- 'Assistant Manager said in reviewing the terms of the proposed amendment it-was con- sidered conceivable, if it is adopted, that voter approval would be required before' entering into a contract with the State, second voter approval before acquisition of right-of-way, and third voter approval at time of construction. Whether terms of the amendment would apply to only freeways would be a matter for the courts to 'decide; it is broad enough to require voter approval for acquisition of right-of- way for improvement of the 29th and Wi11amette intersection. Manager said there would not appear to be difficulty in reaching agreement with sponsors of the amendment wi th regard to where voter approval is required. He said' -theh-azarcl of having- the amendment in the Charter is that'.pro}ects in the future' could be delayed by people whose properties are affected by the projects and who' ,have entirely different motives than the proponents of the amendment, i.e., loss 'of land through access or particular access design rather than real concern as to . whether a facility is desirable for the City itself. ,Councilman Hershner asked how time sequence for the proposed voter approval on this : type construction would be affected by requirements for environmental impact studies Assistant Manager referred to Highway 126 and said that the probable intent of this amendment was to make impact statements a part~of the plans and design of a project, and presented to the public prior to any vote. Councilman Williams commented on exp1ici t wording in the a1!lendment requiring voter approval within one year prior to any proposed project, and the possibility of having to go back to the voters for approval for creation of any new access or c../ frontage roads. He said it could be construed to limit the number of curb cuts arid possibly prevent construction of City streets. Manager said it clearly applies to any arterial street, and "pub1ic highway" applies to any public street in some 'parts of the Oregon statutes. Mr. Etter said one difference between the 1961 amend- ment and this one is that the previous one specifically applied to "streets," there-: ,fore, there would be some reason to believe this proposal does not apply to streets. .But in Oregon statutes "highway" is a comprehensive term encompassing all public thoroughfares. .-/ Mrs. Bea1 wondered who would pay for .any_ Council statement in the voter's pamphlet '. ,wi th regard to this measure. She said she feels sponsors of the initiative petition should have the opportunity to express their viewpoint, and if the Council's posi- - :, tion is paid for wi th Ci ty funds, then proponents should not be charged for their 'statement. 1 :Mr. Hershner said there is a point beyond which the electorate as a whole is not 'properly involved in making decisions which should be made by elected representa- ! ti ves . He does not favor voter consideration in this type of thing. Mr. Williams ~9~ 10/9/72 - 4, agreed,' and said further an amendment of this nature is not the proper way for ex- pression of citizens' concern since it would probably halt all construction of streets or highways, or subject them to challenge in the courts. He said the iCouncil should take a strong stand that this measure be defeated. __ ~'~.!Mrs. Campbell said she felt the measure was initiated because of frustrations felt { by the public with regard to alignment of H~ghway 126, and that she would take no position until she knew more about the recourse of the public in trying to accom- plish their goals. Mrs. Beal said she realized the difficulty in administering a Charter amendment of ;this type and hoped for increased emphasis on impact studies in attaining social ! . and economic goals with ample opportunity for public hearing. She wondered whetherl ~a substitution of some kind could be made which would achieve the aims desired by I the proponents, yet not tie the hands of the City. Steve Hewitt, attorney speaking for the sponsoring group, said they do not feel the proposed Charter amendment is as restrictive as suggested, and that the Council has a biased point of view. He said the sponsors had in mind ramp-type expressways which would apply only to freeways, not every City street. He said interpretations, of both the Council and the sponsoring group would carry a great deal of weight in 'the courts if the courts were not sure which way to decide. He doesn't think the i courts would apply the restriction to every curb cut. And he feels the amendment would not require voter approval of every phase. Once the route is approved, that : is the determination, and the project could proceed. He doesn't feel the one-year I <'_ time limit will be a problem since most of the projects are State constructed in __ agreement with the City, and all that is required is voter approval prior to sign- ing any agreement. So far as representati ve government and the argument that citizens should not vote on everything, he said location of freeways is important to living environment, housing patterns, etc., and that people are informed enough to be able to vote on issues that directly affect them. I .Mayor Anderson tqok exception to Mr. Hewitt's statement that the Council's position I is based on any particular bias. He said it is not right to make the accusation i . in light of the Council's trying to arrive at a legal instrument. through proper I channels to give some meaning and information. He said he personally would like to' see the sponsors of the measure draw back and get informed legal advice on how fcharter amendments are developed and examine the problems encountered by the Pub- ;lic Works Department in developing projects and, if it is then determined of suffi- 'cient importance, to come back wi th a measure to be submi tted to the voters. He said he does not think this particular measure Will accomplish what is wanted, that the City'will1?e,~ealing with individualsJTl_.tfle~ut.u~~ who..wil}. _~antto use it for their own purposes. Further, the Ci ty could be subjected to some severe ,problems from the standpoint of delay. Mr. Hewitt repeated his contention that the measure would apply only to freeway- type construction. He said the City could go ahead with its interpretation, the .~' :proponents with theirs, then let the courts decide, if it is enacted,'on what. is meant by freeways, throughways, etc. Mr. Anderson said he could not support any legislation which he felt might be Subject to change. He cited problems encountered iwith a recent Charter amendment having to do with collective bargaining because of ,its not being explicit. j Mr. Etter said that in legislative drafting it is encumbent upon the draftsmen who I do not have defini te meanings of terms used in law to make clear those terms, and that Mr. Hewitt's suggestion to let the courts decide on interpretation would I testify to the amendment's ambiguity. He said it is true the amendment requires voter approval, but the point to be recognized with regard to the one-year limita- tion is that if the planning and negotiation process goes even one day beyond a year, then another election is necessary. Manager called attention to three law suits to settle interpretation on collective : bargaining and another one recently filed because of different interpretations by : : di fferent people of the loosely wri tten Charter amendment. He disagreed wi th the :argument that the public has not had opportunity for input with regard to limited i 'access construction. He said strong opposition stopped the Pearl Street express- way and some ESATS proposals and at the present time nothing is being built in the way of needed traffic facilities. He said flow charts on State highway projects . indicate now B~ years between initiation and completion. Flow charts have not been i prepared for the City but many of these traffic facilities are involved with the _ Highway Department. In the long run, he said, the only workable procedure is that ! the Council have authoYity to make the final decision. : I Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mr. Teague to oppose the proposed Charter amendment ' .Ln j tS--Rresent fQ..I:..I!i,---- _ __ ____ I .------ -_. --.-~~____..__._J c:< 97 10/9/72 - 5 Mr. Hershner suggested the motion include a statement to indicate the reasoning of the Council in taking this posi tion. Manager called attention to the next .agenda item with regard to Council statements on all of the November election measures, and it was agreed that would be discussed separately. ~MaYOr Anderson commented on the difficult position of the Council in approaching . ;situations involving franchise of the people to express their desires in a vote, 'but said he felt this proposed amendment is so faulty and would lead to so many :problems that it would really be an injustice to present it to the voters in its 'present form. In addition, he said, this community is attempting to develop a ,strong regional plan and vital to that plan is development of land use and trans- ;portation links to determine where urban services will be extended. This would 1set up a real roadblock with no opportunity without cumbersome procedures to de- 'velop any kind of regional plan. It must be recognized decisions have to be made by elected officials - people have opportuni ties through the courts, remonstrances, referendums, and even "voting the rascals out" to vent their frustrations. The question is whether people are sufficiently concerned to use those channels. Mrs. Beal said she agreed with much of the Mayor's point of view. In addition, ,she strongly favors mass transi t on a regional basis and feels it is concei vable : the proposed amendment would hamper that achievement in trying to work out a ; regional street system. She said she feels no charter should be a straightjacket . I ' to government, but a workable, simple, clean document. ' Comm 9/27/72 :. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Approve D. Appointment, Council Comrndttee, Voter's Pmaphlet Statements - Manager suggested ~ appointment of a Council comrndttee to review statements with regard to City measures, being prepared by staff for the voter's pamphlet. He said a statement could be pre-, pared on the initiative petition measure also for this Council comrndttee to review together with a recommendation on how to pay for them. I Mrs. Beal rroved seconded by Mr. Willi ams to appoint a Council comrnd ttee to review I ballot measure statements. I ;, Manager called attention to deadline of October 5 for submi tting statements for the ; pamphlet and suggested the commi ttee be empowered to act for the Council. ; . Vote was taken on the motion amended to include empowering the committee to act for the Council.. Motion as amended carried unanirrously. Bob Golden, 577 Madison Street, said it was not clear to him whether the Council had decided to place a statement opposed to the Charter amendment in the voter's 'pamphlet. He said he does not feel it is proper for the Council to use tax money to oppose a measure on which voters are being asked to express an opinion, and that the proper role of the Council would be to remain neutral, publishing only .an explanatory statement. Mayor Anderson said it has not yet been decided whether to file a statement, but . the opportunity would be made available to anyone wishing to support the amend- .ment to enter such a statement in the pamphlet. Mr. Bradshaw said it would be necessary to know if a statement is put into the pamphlet whether it is official Council position or being done by an outside agency. Mrs. Beal suggested deci- . sion be made now on whether to file a statement and whether it would be paid for wi th Ci ty funds. She said she feels it is improper for the Council to present its position against this measure at City expense. Assistant Manager said specific requirements in State law govern cities on initia- tive petitions. Costs must be borne by those presenting statements, there are no free pages. Manager disagreed wi th the idea that Ci ty funds should not be used for this purPose, saying Council members as elected representati ves have the re- sponsibility to determine what is proper use of City funds and responsibility for spending City funds to oppose what they feel is detrimental to City purposes. There has been no problem in paying for Council opposition statements in previous elections and no difference is seen between this issue and the limited access Charter amendment adopted in 1961 and repealed. Mr. Williams noted that City funds are used in lobbying the State in instances of legislation deemed detrimental to Eugene and could see nothing wrong with paying for statements strongly opposing . this measure. Mrs. Beal repeated her belief that it is unfair not to pay for the proponents 'point of view if the ci ty' s is presented, saying it is a matter of principle ra- ther than law. Assistant Manager said different rules govern initiative petitions than City measures in answer to Mrs. Campbell's remark that her understanding was that the first page opposing a measure is wi thout charge. . c:< 9 t' 10/9/72 - 6 - .. ", 6 ..... " " ~. -: '<', Further discussion centered on whether it is proper to spend City funds in this manner, resulting in motion by Mr. Williams seconded by Mr. Bradshaw not to pro- ! vide public funds for or against the measure. Motion carried unanimously. - :In making the motion Mr. Williams said he would personally accept the responsi- Comm ~bility for raising funds for a statement presenting the Council's position in the 9V27/72 - , voter's pamphlet. Approve Mayor Anderson announced the. appointment of Councilmen Bradshaw (chairman), Williams, and Camvbell as members oE the oommittee to r~view and act for the Council on ballot 'measure statements to be prepared by staff. E.:Appeal, Women's Transitional Living Center, 1191 West Broadway - Mrs. Ed Kenyon, . pine Grove School Road, asked if a hearing on this appeal could be scheduled for the October 9, 1972 Council meeting. There was some question whether legal re- quirements would allow a hearing at that meeting, or whether at that time it would :have to be scheduled for a future Council meeting. I I Comm ,Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing on the appeal 9/27/72 ,for the October 9, 1972 Council meeting if legally possible. Motion carried Approve '. unq,ni.ITP.YeJ.y---'-,..__ .._ _ .___. _. ...._... _. ._... _ _..._._ H_ '"... ..._. _ ______._ -. .._ ._. _._____.__._~.._.._ __ _~___. __ _.__.______ F. Regional Sewerage Financing Plan, Bartle Wells - Copies of the final report were Ipreviously distributed to Council members. Manager acknowledged excellent co- , 'ordination with Ed Wells of Bartle Wells Associates and the opportunity for exchange ;;;- of information in preparation of the report. He suggested, if the Council feels it' tit appropriate, that the Mayor be asked to contact the Mayor of Springfield and the Chairman of the Lane County Commissioners to develop a process whereby the report can.pe s.t.udif!!d, an.~ .!-1!}p'lement~t_~()I!. dis_cussed by all three agencies. -. ,...-.A...:;..~,.....~_....: _ ..~... --..~ --~-- - - .."\ ~,,---- ..-----..-...--~--'~---7-'---' .Mr. Wells briefly summarized the report on alternate methods of financing a I regional sewerage system, saying it was based on the previously prepared DMJM engineering report. He pointed out a map included in the report showing the , boundaries of the urbanized area of Lane County considered in showing the ' estimated costs for a system of major sewer facili ties. The report includes I capital oosts, sources of project funds, a method of cost sharing and how ,allocated, and present service area (within the 1990 Plan service boundaries). He said his recommendation for the simplest, least costly, and most flexible method of financing and administering regional sewers is an agreement between Eugene and Springfield, with Lane County participating in the planning and imple- mentation of that agreement. The two cities can provide the logical framework : for organizational review of engineering and financing alternatives and general I I detail of implementing construction of the facilities, so that there is no need I lfor creation of any new levels of government for co-ordinating those activities. 1 ;An advisory commission comprised of three representatives from each of the two l : ci ties and one from the County -is suggested. Mr. Wells said timing in s ubmi tting I :,applications for Federal grants would tend to indicate some urgency in co-ordinated : . .action and to avoid having to make crash decisions. He said alternatives of crea- : - : tion of new levels of 'government were considered, but all seemed to have the dis- ladvantage of requiring commitment from the two cities on use of treatment facilities.: , I , Mr. Wells called attention to the implementation schedule in the report (page 47) I 'and sewerage rates (page 17). He said he felt the recommendation would permit :development of regional sewer facilities necessary to serve the 1990 Plan urbanized area at a oost well within the capabilities and revenue programs of Eugene and I 'Springfield and to provide enough revenue for deferred maintenance and updating of I existing facilities as demands are made for increased pollution control. Manager noted the proposed equalization of tax levy throughout the entire area _ i 509 per $1000 - which would in effect reduce Eugene's present tax levy for sewer debt service. Mr. Wells said the purpose of the plan was to equalize the cost, ! Ithrough a tax rate of 509 per $1000 and a monthly user charge, to users, communi- ties, and property owners. ' Mrs. Campbell commented that unincorporated areas which need sewers would benefit in the long run by annexation because their property tax would be offset by lesser costs of sewers under this plan. Mr. Wells detailed the factors which would tend to reduce the cost of sewers to those areas if provided through expansion of exist- . ing basic facilities - the cities' bonding capabilities, availability of low interest rates, etc. Conversation followed with reg!lrd to provision of sewers for areas out- - side the 1990 Plan boundaries, Mr. Wells remarking that the Department of Environ- mental Quality will be less inclined as time goes on to approve State and Federal funds for construction of'new or upgrading of existing treatment facilities to I provide new services. In this way, he said, they will control growth so that it' gE.~u~~n~_l! t!J.~ ri5ll}!.._p"l;..~ce~~nc'!:_y_~erage y!ill be provided iz.:., an orderl:'t-,~~~!J.:!:(:m. c:< 9 9 10(9(72 - 7 ---- In answer to coun~i'iirian Williams, Mr. Wells explained the proposed escalating . charge for connection to the trunk system. Using this type of financing, annexed areas will pay the same allOunt for service as those areas within the cities which have paid for existing sewers. He said this would apply to trunk connections; lateral connections would still require benefit assessments. ~ Discussion turned to cost to residents of the cities for expansion of treatment -- ,facilities in the event of annexation of large areas, Mrs. Beal saying people living I,in the core city should not have to pay the cost of extending services. Mr. Wells 'said expansion to treatment facilities is going to be necessary because of normal .. growth regardless of large annexations, and if for no other reason than to upgrade 'quality of discharge to the river. He emphasized the importance of overcoming deferred maintenance on existing sewerage systems. He called attention to the pro- :posed high connection fee intended to cover trunk line costs wi thout the elaborate :or costly benefit assessment procedure. ! 'Mr. Hershner asked if new development within the city would be subject to this es- calating charge. Mr. Wells answered if costs have already been paid to the city for ;properties abutting existing sewers they would not be subject to the charge. If a ~:property is not now served and becomes served, connection would be offered at a re- lduced charge if made in a reasonable length of time. New dwelling units would pay ! :the same costs but outside areas would not be served until annexed. : I iIn answer to Councilman Mohr, Mr. Wells said he would be available for further dis-'- cussion of the proposed financing plan and its implementation. I -Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Br~dsh~w to authorize ~ayor Anderson to enter . into discussion with the Mayor of Spr~ngf~eld and the Cha~rman of the Lane County IComrndssioners to determine whether the plan should be adopted, and authorize ap- :pointment of an advisory committee for its implementation if the plan is adopted. COJDIl) :Motion carried, unanillOusly. 10/4172 Manager noted that success to some extent relies upon a very vigorous effort by Apprvve I the City in correcting infiltration problems which result from construction standards or faulty installation of house connections or private sewer systems to the public sewer. If regional sewers are to be provided, storm drains running into the sewer system will have to be taken out. There is money in this program for engineering help to determine what needs to be done, but there will still be some costs to the people in correcting their private systems. He said the Council ,should be aware of this factor. -- ---" - - G. Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer District - Planning Commission September 12, 1972 recom- mended affirmative action be withheld at this time. In making the recommendation they reported "The .Planning Commission recognizes that equitable financing, treat- ment plant capacity in relation to City growth, the importance of a long-term 'regional solution, and the political implications of annexation must be thoroughly considered prior to making a reliable recommendation. The-Commission also recog- nizes the Boundary-Commission is legally_bo.und to take affirmative or negative . action in October, but that,den~al. would not prevent reconsideration following . resolution of the aforementioned factors." The recommendation was reaffirmed after jjoint meeting of the Council and Planning commission September 18, 1972. [Manager said previous discussion did not point toward actual creation of such a district. Planning-Commission in its report feels time should be allowed for ex- I 'ploration of other alternatives and if they are proved to be impractical, then the ';Boundary Commission can reinitiate the quest:f-on on its own motion. , 'Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to transmi t the Planning Commission recom- mendation to the Boundary Commission. Councilman Williams expressed concern about recommending against creation of the district when the Boundary Commission has just been advised the City will discuss possible use of its treatment plant by a Santa. Clara district. Manager said the response to the Boundary Commission with regard to use of the City's treatment plant was conditioned on a number of things - that a district was formed, the con- viction that that was the best solution, etc. - and that there appeared to be noth- ing incompatible in asking that the district not be created until other alternatives have been looked at. Legalities require that a decision be made by the Boundary C . commission at this time; it cannot be postponed, but the Commission can bring the 10/4~r:;; . matter back if it is denied. A . pprove Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. H:Withdrawal, Hawkins Lane Annexation - Planning Comrndssion September 18, 1972 reported '. reaffirmation of previous .recommendation to wi thdraw the Hawkins Lane area annexed by the Boundary Commission in expansion of Breeden Bros. annexation request. In ~~~ 10/9/72 - 8 making the recommendation they reported "The Planning Commission makes, this recom- mendation with the understanding that they do not necessarily believe this area 'should be out of the City, but due to a breakdown in procedures residents were . denied the opportuni ty to express their feelings on this matter prior to annexation." Manager noted this matter was thoroughly discussed previously (see September 13,1972 Corom 'committee minutes). ~O /4/72 Mr. Hershner 11Dved secon,ded by Mr. Williams to transmi t to the Boundary Commission Approve I request to withdraw the area in question from the City as recolllIlended. (Resolution I No. 2106, September 25, 1972.) Motion carried unanimously. I. Planning Commdssion Report - September 11,1972 ,Planning Commission reco~nd~d~PPX9val of the following vacations: -. ~- ---. ,",- .' - 1. Street between Bethel Drive and Pattison 'from Bethel Drive to Highway 99 North (Gassman) 2:. Easement on north side of Willakenzie between Coburg Road and Cal Young Road (Service Developers Corporation) 3. Easement between West Leigh and Kevington east of Bailey Hill Road (Nils Hult) 4~ Easement between Judkins Road and I-5 west of Henderson (City of Eugene) Annexation of area between Goodpasture Island Road and Fir Acres Drive east of Russet Drive was recommended (Pioneer Investment) . Comm It was understood public hearings would be called on the vacation requests, and :10/4/72 . that the annexation would be scheduled for public hearing at the October 9, 1972 'Pub Hrng C9uncil l]lS~t:in.9."'. .._ _,_ ",,0'. _.' _ '~"" '. .-,-- - .... -. '". l- I"~ _ '.--... '~r"",,",'';;' .......,........ J~ Storm Sewer between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road from 11th to 18th Corom Copies of me11D from Public Works Department asking approval of ordinance 10/4/72 for this sewer were previously distributed to Council members. Approve K. *Peti tion, Paving Alley between Willamette and Oak from 15th to 16th - 52% ,In answer to question about abutting property represented by the 52%, Manager said all resident owners of abutting properties were contacted, the only one Comm not signing being Newman's Fish Market. Balance of the abutting properties 10/4/72 ____C!-.Z'f:. in non- res.i dent ownership. Approve ------ '-<;-<., ~"" --<~. ".- ..--.--~---.~':'~- ~"-;~,, '".. ~~., "- L. *Liquor License Applic~tions - Package Store Class B License (New) - Southland Corporation, 7-11 Food Stores, 735 Jefferson Street Comm Package Store Class B License (Change of Location) - Porter's Foods Unlimited 10/4/72 .-- . ~~. ----. . . of Oregon!,125,~est 11th - -..--~" Approve M ..:,/1 Sewer Assessment Segregation - Aage O. Jorgenson, 500 N. Bertelsen Road COmrn . I Assessment against property being segregated at northwest corner of Bertelsen 10/4/72 Road and Wood Avenue has been paid, leaving a balance of $372.49. Approve ~ ~. ii N .) . *' Overpark Assessment Segregation - Eugene Renewal Agency Corom . ':Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to place the above items*on the con- 10/4/72 ;sent calendar for the October 9, 1972 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Approve 0.: Ordi nance , Amending Dog Licensing Procedure - Copies of proposed ordinance were Corom distributed previously to Council members. It was understood the ordinance would ,10/4/72 be brought for cons.i deration , at the 9~to~er 9, l,97? C()uncilmeeting. ."- ._____Approve - -'- p. Saturday Market - Copies of a statement submi tted by M'Lou Carden were previously ,distributed to Council members. Ms. Carden is requesting Council endorsement of ,the Saturday Market through adoption of the statement. Corom Mrs. Beal 11Dved seconded fY Mrs. Campbell to place the item on the consent calendarlO/4/72 for the Octol?e:c:9." 1972 Council J!lSeting. }.foti.9P qq,p;i.ed unanJ.mousl!l._ _..___. ,bpprove At the request of Councilman Mohr, the statement asked to be adopted by the Council was read in full. Q. Voting Delegate and Alternate, National League of Cities - Councilmen Mohr and Comm .. Campbell signified their inte~t to attend the annual meeting in Indianapolis on 1014/~72 - November 27-30, 1972, and were-a.es~c::rnated .~s delegate and alternate for voting. ApprQye - . . R. Council Minutes as circulated - August 28 and September 11 and 20, 1972 Approve dol 10/9/72 - 9 = ~ - .~.~./ ' .., S. Report, Eugene Municipal Court - Mrs. Campbell asked if the Council will discuss . a report on the Eugene Municipal Court recently submi tted by a group of YWCA mem- bers. She expressed interest in Council discussion on recommendations contained in the report, one being that full-time judges be employed. Councilman Mohr sug- . .;gested discussion of this report at the same time a formal response is received Comm I from the Criminal Code Review Committee with regard to implementation of its . 9/27/72 recommendations. Manager said status of the formal response would be checked. Affi rm T. Impact Statement, Exploratory Oil Drilling, OSPIRG - Michael Dotten, director of . the Survival Center at the university of Oregon, and John Eliassen, chai rman of the University's local of Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group, pre- sented statement with regard to exploratory oil drilling in Lane County by Mobil Oil Company. Copies of the statement were distributed to Council members, and Mr. Dotten read it in full. Council was requested to endorse L. B. Day's (Oregon Environmental Quality Di- . rector) efforts in seeking injunction against issuance by Bureau of Land Manage- ment of further oil and gas leases until environmental impact statements are 'filed, and to adopt a resolution supporting Oregon's Environmental Quality Di- rector in his efforts to make mandatory the requiremt:.nt that Federal agencies obey Federal law with regard to submitting environmental impact statements prior I to each permit for exploratory oil drilling. OSPIRG's reasons for requesting the resolution were (1) potential damage to waters and possible land oil "spil1," (2) the large area of land involved in oil dril1ings just south of Eugene - . 99,700 acres, (3) no impact statements have been filed with regard to exp10ra- - - . tory dril1ings in Oregon as Federal Environmental Protection Agency has con- ~cluded are needed, (4) 'potential large number of drilling sites, (5) en vi ron- ; mental factors should be identified prior to drillings, (6) unwanted precedents because of large amounts of land involved and because no oil drilling is now in progress in Oregon, and (7) OSPIRG opposes the "leap before you look" attitude I inherent in arguments against impact statements. Mayor Anderson suggested future commdttee discussion leading to possible public hearing after the Council has had an opportunity to study the statement. Mr. Teague suggested the report also be presented to the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. Further discussion led to agreement that discussion would be scheduled for the October 11, 1972 commdttee meeting. :Mrs. Campbell asked how the Government-owned land around Fern Ridge Reservoir Comm I leased to individuals would be affected. Mr. Dotten replied he didn't think 9/27/72 Mobil oil Company would have any problem leasing any unleased BLM land in Lane Affirm ,County and that there is some speculation Mobil will seek leases on other pri- l vate property. . :piR~pOrt,' Council Committee'.on vote-r's PamphLet 'Statements - Council members were ;given copies of statements recommended by the subcommittee for publication in . ithe voter's pamphlet. Councilman Bradshaw asked the Council's desires with re- Igard to signatures on the Council's statement opposing the initiative petition for Charter amendment requiring voter approval on controlled or limited access streets. Assistant Manager explained that the committee felt the statement : would carry more weight if it was signed by each Council member individually. Mrs. Beal said she would rather not sign the statement, and Mrs. Campbell said she would prefer seeing it signed "Eugene City Council" rather than being signed : indi vidually. Councilman Hershner favored its being signed "Eugene City Council" if all of the Council members do not sign individually. :Following discussion of other conmdttee business, Councilman Bradshaw asked :clarification of the Council's intent with regard to signing the controlled access measure statement. He said it was the conmd ttee' s feeling that since the state- ment of the official Council position against the measure is not being paid for Comm with City funds (Councilman Williams had offered to raise funds for that purpose) 10~;(72 it became a statement of a group of individuals. It was agreed to sign the A ~rm statement "Mayor and Ci ty Council." ,- v;Report, Lane CommUnity Action Program - Councilman Mohr, Council representative Comm and chairman of the Lane Community Action Program Board, said he would present a .,9/27/72 . progress report at the October 4, 1972 comndttee meeting. Affirm ',., ,_r-. W',6'jJeech, Revenue Shaiing- Mrs. Campbell complimented Manager on his speech on Comm Revenue Sharing at the annual meeting of the Lane County Chapter of the Red Cross.9/27/72 She said it was excellent and that other Council members should hear it File -~- . JCJ2 '10/9/72 - 10 -: x. 'Introduction, Haderer and Franklin - Manager int:roduced Richard Raderer, adminis- " Comm trat:iliv'1.intern'in, the Manager's office from CSPA school at the University, and' 9/27/72 John Franklin, att/j;r~e~~1 recent,Zy added to the Ci ty, Attorney's staff. . File 0- ~_.. _ ~ ~.. . .__.._ __ _ _'_""'_' ____ __ _____ _~ ~__ _,__,-~__,_____------,--_~~_~_~_,~__. .~---.-..-~- ~ -. Y. ;Bartle Wells Report, financing Regional Sewers ':'" Copie~ of. the report w,ere dis- ' [ ,Comm ~ .tributed to Council members and discussion scheduled for the October 4,1972 com-: 9/27/72 mi ttee meeting ... , .Fi1e - - -"- -. - -~ .-.- -- - ~"""-' - .._- r-. ;:;:;--.-- - -. - _ ,.~__ _ ..__ ._ _ __ -.. .':-:-- Z. 1 Airport Task Force - The Airport Commission requested recommendations from the Council for membership on a "task force" proposed to concern itself with future planning, political st:ructure, and financing program for Mah10n Sweet Airport. Membership of the group will be kept ,to about ,twelve, and nomination dqes not. Comm . necessarily mean appointment, according to Assistant City Manager. Names may 10/4/72 be submitted to Ralph Cobb, Airport Commission chairman, or to the City Manager's File office. AA. . Ci ties' Capi to1 Caucus, League of Oregon Ci ties - Council members were informed I of a meeting scheduled"by the League, of Oregon Cities for October 25, 1972 in Springfield, one of a series scheduled Statewide to give local government officials an opportunity to meet and talk to legislators and legislative candi- dates on issues affecting cities. Some councilmen will be. asked to serve aSComm : hosts and to make contact with-representatives to gain their attendance at the 10/4/72 ,meeting. It will start with a social hour at 6:00 p.m., dinner at 6:30 p.m., File ,at Luck.ey 'sWQ9dsm,a,n. Restaurant. ,. .. _ __..--' . HR.'Report, Lane Community Action Program - Councilman Mohr, City's representative to LeAP and chairman of the LeAP Board, distributed to Council members copies of a chart showing organizational structure of the agency. He explained the formulation ;of the ,present program in'lieu of the defunct Lane Human Resources agency, and gave ,a deta~led explanation of makeup of the administering board and administrative ! staff operating under the approving aut:horit:y (Lane County Commissioners). Pri- i mary functions are Head Start and Senior Opportuni ties & Services. Direct co- Jordinat:ion projects supported by the administrative staff are Planned Parenthood, ;Nutrition, Citizen Participation in Legislation, Urban Indian Survey, and Native- American/Chicano Affairs Center. Self-Help Programs involve the Senior Crafts : Center and Green Light Store at Cottage Grove., Goat Co-op, De All 'American Chess 'Set Company, and Design Construction Company. Mr. Mohr said LCAP has gained good ; . support from the community and a viable future is anticipated in correcting poverty' situations. . Mrs. Campbell suggested appointment of a member of the Voluntary Services Council to the LCAP administering board to gi ve needed liaison between that Council and the ,'several agencies with which LCAP is involved. On question from Mrs. Bea1, Councilman Mohr explained that the direct co-ordination I ---"""projects are funded separately by Federal zrrmies but LeAP provides co-ordination 'Comm 4It' through the administrative staff. The Co-ordinated Child Care Center and Day Care 10/4(72 Center are separately funded Federal agencies and are connected with LCAP only F~le through representa1;}f?!1:.~o!l. the,adm:j.!}~~~_ering board. ~, . _.. _..,.. ''c'',___ -_ .' , :.. " \ CC. Distribution '" Copies of the following were distributed previously to Council members: i Letter from Bob Rubenstein, D?wntown Development Board re: Ordinance to require: reporting of gross sales. I Comm Y- Letter from Dale Fischer re: Tax on college and university students, and other 110/4/72'\ matters. I File Notice of League of Oregon Cities Conference and preliminary program _ i Novemer 12-14, 1972...___.. '-p .--- - . ._.~-_.__.'- Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve, affi'rm,. and file as noted Items A through CC above. Rollcall vote. All councilm~n present voting aye,. motion carried. III - Ordinances Council Bill No': 96 - Amending'Sections 4.375 and4-.3f30 re: Dog Licen!'::in'p-<Jv:as submitted and ~ read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councl1man present .,' requesting that it be read in full. . .... . .. ~ Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs .Beal that th e bill be read the second tl~e by' councl~ bl~l number only, with ~nanimous consent ,of the Council, and that enactme~t be consld~red.at,t~ls tlme. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second tlme by councll blll number only. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the biil be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16627. ~ ~ 03 10/9/72 - l~ Council Bill No. 97 - Calling hearing November 27, 1972 re: Vacation of easement between West 1st Avenue and Southern Pacific tracks west of Grimes Street (Harrison) was sUbmitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be read in full. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill number .- only, with ~unanim~~s~ 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. ~u ..__ .. -" :ar. Mohr moved seconded Dy11lrs-. Real that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall Vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered .16628. Council Bill No. 98 - Calling hearing November 27, 1972 re: Vacation of street between Bethel Drive and Pattison from Bethel Drive to Highway 99 North (Gassman) was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present request- ing that it be read in full. 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 I vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16629. Council Bill No. 99 ~ Calling hearing November 27, 1972 re: Vacation of easement on north ~de. of W.Ulakenz:i,,? .ue.tT4,..e.en CQ~;r$EQadand CaL ~Q!-l:ngEoad C.Service.DeveloJ?ers.) was submitted v and read the first' ti:nfe hf cOUllci:l--fi.+"'11ii\imEer and,title only--; tlierebeing no councilman present . requesting that it be read in fulL 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. I Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. I 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 16630. Council Bill No. 100 - Calling hearing November 27, 1972 re: Vacation of easement between West Leigh Street and Kevington east of Bailey Hill Road (Hult) 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 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 ~ting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16631. . Council Bill No. 101 - Calling hearing November 27, 1972 re: Vacation of easement between Judkins Road and 1-5 west of Henderson Street (City) was submitted and read the first time by c.ouncil hi11numher. and, t it Ie onliJ th.e..reh:ei?,g no councilrJJ.an-present reques.ting that it be read in full~ . . .. . Mr: Mohr mqved .seconded by Mrs,. Beal that the bill be '~e,ad .thesecon_d time by c_ourici:cL.bil:lnurnber only, with Unanimous consent of the Council ;--an'd- 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 16632. Council Bill No. :~io.2 - Construction of storm sewer between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue 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 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 co~cil-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 16633. Council Bill No. 103 - Adopting p~ap~ and specifi9ations for construction of storm sewer between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue was submitted and read the f:i:rst time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be read in full. dO~ \~ 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 onl~. 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 16634. Council Bill No. 104 - Paving alley between Willamette and Oak Streets from 15th Avenue to 16th Avenue 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 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 16635. Council Bill No. 105 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between Willamette and Oak Streets from 15th Avenue to 16th Avenue 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 read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. e- 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 16636. Council Bill No. 106 - Levying assessments and declaring benefited, previously exempted properties in 10th and Oak Overpark District, 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 under the original assessment ordinance some properties were exempted be- cause they were used for commercial off-street parking, with the provision that if use of ~he properties changed a prorated amount would be assessed to be paid off with other assessments during the remaining life of the bond issue. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that a hearing be called for November 6, 1972 on the assess- ments and that the Finance Officer be directed to give proper notice of assessment to owners of affected properties. Motion carried unanimously. IV -Resolutions Resolution No. 2113 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period from September 25 through October 9, 1972 was submitted. . Councilman Williams referred to letter of complaint he had received concerning rats in the Willa- kenzie area and suggested a review of the rodent control program to provide more knowledge of what is provided for $1600 per month. Manager's office received the complaint to which Mr. Williams referred and it was referred to Mr. Donald Dickey, the rodent control officer, for report. Manager said this is the first com- plaint of this nature in more than a year and explained that the contract with Mr. Dickey provides for baiting rats in sewers, river banks, warehouses, and other probably areas around the City. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present votmng aye~ motion carried. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, October 24~ 1972. .~ Hugh McKinley_ - Ci ty Manager 305 - ~- r . ~ . c. I ~/. , . , " .. - I '>. '-'" ' " c ~ . i I .. .. - ." I. - . I J. ,'- -,. -'