The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/26/1973 Meeting Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon February 26, 1973 I' Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held on February 12, 1973 - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on February 26, 1973 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Keller, Murray, and Wood. .."....~ I - Public Hearings A. Supplemental Budget, 1972-73 Manager explained the requirement under State law for the budgeting process if revenue sharing funds are to be used during the current year. He said the Budget Committee recommended appropriating $668,810 of the $1.8 million received during the current year, carrying the balance forward for appropriation in the 1973-74 budget. In addi- tion, $50,000 received from Federal grant and $33,886 estimated receipts from Airport boarding fee are to be included in the supplemental budget for a total of $752,696. Grace Zinke, co-ordinator for HELP (Help Elderly Locate Positions) asked that $2,000 be appropriated to carry operation of their organization to July of this year. She said they are in the process of moving to the Kaufman Center and will need additional operating funds. .' Howard Bonnett, 1919 Woodlawn, said the proposed budget appeared to provide funds for those items removed from the original budget when it did not receive voter approval. He said he would have preferred to see the revenue sharing funds used to further adopted community goals. He would have used these funds for parks and recreation land acquisition rather than streets, traffic, etc., which he felt should come from prop- erty tax revenues. He suggested too that some of this money be used to provide bicycle facilities, to aid the Transit District in its experimentation with free rides to bolster bus use, and to help with developing a park in the South Hills. In clarification of Mr. Bonnett's statement that revenue sharing funds are being used to restore items removed from the 1972-73 budget because of not gaining voter approval, Manager explained that some of the items being restored are those which were cut after an amount outside the 6% limitation was approved by the voters. It was found at that time that property valuation was less than anticipated resulting ina higher:estimated tax rate. So some items being restored are those which were already approved by the voters but cut out by the Council to keep the tax rate down. . Councilman McDonald asked about the funds being carried over to the 1973-74 budget. Manager explained that the $668,810 which this budget appropriates are appropriated for expenditures during the 1972-73 fiscal year. Some of the projects for which these funds are appropriated will not be completed and paid for. However, funds will be pledged in order that contracts may be signed, and then carried forward to the 1973-74 budget when they will actually be spent. He added that about $1.1 million of the revenue sharing funds which have not been allocated through the supplemental budget will be available during the 1973-74 year. Mayor Anderson asked if the Budget Committee had considered the request for funds from HELP. Mrs. Beal felt that 'organization should present its request during the 1973-74 budgeting~ocess in order that it could be given consideration with other social services requests. Manager said HELP as well as other organizations will be notified of public hearings on the next year's budget. He noted that HELP is receiving space rent free at the Kaufman Center. Councilman Murray expressed his agreement with Mr. Bonnett in suggesting that some of the revenue sharing funds should be used for projects having "staying power" rather than integrating all into departmental budgets. Council Bill No. 198 - Adopting supplemental budget, 1972-73, in the amount of $752,696 was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. .. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16713. 4' 2/26/73 - 1 B. Rezoning from M-2 to RP area at northeast corner of 4th and Pearl (Donald Furtick) Planning Commission recommended approval on February 6, 1973. It was agreed that the Planning COnmllssion recommendation to rezone prop- erty at the northeast corner of 4th and Pearl from M-2 to RP for construction Corom of Social Security Administration office building would be placed in the pub-2~l/73 lic hearing section ~ PubHrng Manager explained that the property will be used for Social Security Administration office which is being displaced from its present location by proposed Federal office building on the entire block north of City Hall. Mr. Furtick, 1705 Fairmount Boulevard, said the proposed use will,be completely compatible with the way the area is. developing.~ and asked favorable action on the request. In answer to Mr. McDonald, Mr. Furtick to the social Security Administration. ing that office structures as such are said he owned the property and would rent Manager verified Mr. Willi~ms' understand- not permitted in M-2 zones. Council Bill No. 199 -' Rezoning to' RP area at northeast corner of 4th Avenue and . Pearl Street was submitted and read, by council bill' number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the' second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16714. C. Bids, Public Works (Opened February 20, 1973) Project' and ~Name of Bidder' BRIDGE Bailey Hill Road across Amazon Channel south of 11th Avenue (871) Hamilton Construction Co. Ross Bros. Construction Co. John B. Gilliland Constr. Cost to Abutting Property Contract Cost Cost to City ---- $74,845.91 . 84, 723 . 30 89,630.28 Bridge $55,989.11 StrmSwr 18,856.80 Completion Date: ,May 1,1973 'p A VING AND STORM SEWER' Streets within Bedford Plat Wildish Construction Co. Devereaux and Pratt, Inc. Eugene Sand [; Gravel, Inc. . Basic. ( 89 7 ) 31,672.65 51,808.74 54,564.70 15, 197,3 Alternate 31,131.35 $1,617/1t No Bid Pvg and 52,896.45" P,dstrn Way Completion Date: June 22,434.60 Strm Swr SANITARY SEWER In area between 400 feet north of 1-105 and 850 feet south of Centennial (extended) from east line of 1st Addn to Ayres Sub- division to 1200 feet west of Fairway Loop, (extended)(786) Shlir-Way Contractors' 138,110.81' Wildish Construction 161,473.60 Kenneth R. Bostick Constrc 163,,930.75 Devereaux and Pratt, Inc. 181,611.49 Cascade Ditching Co. 240,512.79 Lat 0.1025/sqft' 11,227.20 Pressure 0.0306/sqft Serv $230. ea Levy O. 005/sqft Lat to Dry Ln O. Ol/sqft Completion Date: August 1, 1973 Reconstruction in all~y 6th and 7th from Taylor Shur-Way Contractors Wick Bras. Kenneth R. Bostick Constrc C. H. Lyons Wildish Construction Co. Cascade Ditching Company between to Polk (799) 2,558.10 3,209.00 3,3.75.00 . _,~,~.9 72. 70 4,499.00 4,555.50 $692.00 $ 1,866.10 Completion Date: May r~ 1973 So 2/26/73 - 2 Amount Budgeted '> $60,300.00 (1972 Bond Funds) (1972 Bond Funds) ,I . l,;'p . . ~. '. Public Works Director reviewed the bids submitted, calling attention to the 10~ per square foot cost on the Centennial Boulevard sewer as compared to the30~ per square foot cost on bids submitted previously and rejected. Award of contract on the low bid on each of the projects was recommended. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve award of contract as recommended. Miles McKay of McKay Investment commented on the length of time property to be served by the Centennial Boulevard sewer has been inside the City without sewer service. Property owners have paid monthly sewer charges as well as their part of bond issue. He said that the City has participated in sewer project costs for recently annexed areas such as Bethel/Danebo and although it is paying about $11,000 of the Centennial project he felt the City should also participate to the extent of providing engineer- ing and supervisory costs and the ~~ per square foot charge. He felt too some credit should be given for salvage value of the pumping stations necessary to operation of the line. Roger:'Hannum of Hannum Motors felt the proposed sewer necessary and thought the cost was fair. However, he expressed concern about the cost for pumping stations. He said it was his understanding their use if temporary and will be discontinued when the East Bank interceptor is installed. He said he realized another assessment couldn't be levied when the East Bank line is installed, but felt because the extra pumping stations were-required there should be some participation in their cost by the City. '. Letters were read from Frank Yok who is proposing to operate a restaurant on Centennial Boulevard, and Parmenter Pontiac Company, 2121 Centennial Boulevard. Mr. Yok urged ap- proval of the bid award. Mr. Parmenter opposed the sewer installation if it was tempo- rary and being put in to accommodate possible subdivision in the area. However, if it is installed, he asked that assessments be reduced to a more realistic rate and charged equitably to those properties involved. Public Works Director explained that only the pressure line and pumping facilities will be temporary. The line has been designed so that laterals will tie into the East Bank line and function as a gravity system when it is installed. There is no time estimate as to when fue East Bank line will be put in, but because of Federal funding changes it is not anticipated in the near future. Redesign of this project added another pumping station. This was done to avoid the depth of construction provided in the first design which resulted in the 30~ per square foot bid cost. The pumping sta- tions have been assessed to the benefiting properties; the $11,000 paid by the City is for tunneling under Coburg Road. He added that when the East Bank line is installed only an 8-inch equivalent will be charged abutting properties. e With regard to Mr. McKay's request for exemption from the ~~ per square foot levy, Public Works Director said the City is required by ordinance to assess that charge on properties which have been annexed since 1948. Those funds are used for trunk line systems and are one of the sources from which the City pays for pipe over eight inches in size. He added that the project under discussion consists entirely of eight- inch pipe. In answer to Mr. McKay's request for City participation in sewer costs for newly annexed areas, Manager explained that the City did pay part of the costs for pump station for the Valley River Center area and to the north. In that instance the City had a contract with Valley River whereby either the City built a sewer to serve the Center within an agreed'upon length of time, or Valley River had the option of build- ing its own system and not annexing to the City. With regard to the salvage value of the pump stations, Public Works Director said any salvage value would depend upon the length of time they are in the ground. In answer to Councilman Williams' question with regard to the assessment for temporary installation, Public Works Director explained that these pump;ing stations will be totally useless to the City's sewer system once the East Bank trunk is constructed. A permanent system would, not need the pumping stations so it is felt the request for sewers prior to permanent installation justifies charging for the temporary measures. - Councilwoman Beal asked why the temporary installations are being made when property owners requesting them knew before they went into that area that sewers were not .available. Manag~r explained that a good deal of development had occurred in that general area and more is proposed. For that reason~a number of people have requested the service knowing they would be assessed. The question is the matter of making that assessment equitable to all. There was further discussion on basis of assessment for the temporary installation, explanation of policy on temporary construction, where costs would fall if not assessed, 51 2/26/73 - 3 percentage of properties'p~titioning the sewer, recognition by propertyowner:s of need for the sewer, and basis of assessment for ?ny future permanent installation. In answer to Councilman Hershner, Public Works Director said the County has not indi- cated there is any health hazard in the area. Mrs. Beal wondered if the award could be held until contact is made with the County in that regard. Manager said that a good deal of the land in the area is devoted to septic tanks and drain fields which could be used to better advantage if sewers are installed. Public Works Director commented on .the temporary nature of,pumping stations. 'He said if the City is to' pay for their costs it would leave choice for that type of system open to many areas in the City which dO,~ot"now have sewers. Property owners in those areas have' also' contributed to trunk line funds; The reason for pumping in this case is stpictlybecause of the topog- raphy. He cautioned the Council against approving temporary systems at the City's expense. 1- Rollcall vote'was taken on the motion to award contracts to low bidder on each project. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye. II - Consent Calendar Items previously discussed at committee meetings on February 14, 1973 (Present: Council- women Beal (presiding) and Campbell; Councilmen Williams~McDonald, Hershner, Keller, Murray, and Wood) and February 21,.1973 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal, Williams, McDo~ald, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A. Important Things - Councilman McDonald stood and called attention to the date. - Valentine's ,Day, 1973., He felt the ladies of the Council and of other Boards and COnmUssions and COnmUtteesshould be given -special recpgnition on this day! Comm 2/14/73 Approve .. B. - Le'gTsi~tl~n 7J.fle~ting Ci tlzen Mobili ty - Councilman Wood iiitroduC;;;a.--ii;'ry Craig, ~representing the Eugene-Springfield Chapter of the Oregon Architectural Barriers Council. Mr. Craig called the Council's attention to bills now before the Legislature which address primarily the issue of architectural baX'riers for people; twith mobility problems. He noted in particular that the Eugene City CoUncil ;Chamber is inaccessible to the entire community. Other issues to which the legislation is directed are tax deductions for builders making their structures ~accessible for the handicapped, tax status of people with mobility problems, ;parking spaces, etc. Copies of the bills were left for distribution to Council imembers. Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council direct the staff to study ~\ . the bills and other information availabl{3 on barriers and make recommendations to ,: the Council for guidelines that could be adopted to make Eugene a barrier-free .city. In making the recommendation Mr. Wood asked also that consiqeration be given to provision of access to the Council Chamber. He asked too that after staff and Council study of the legislation and other information, Mr. Luce, legislative analyst, be asked to support it before the Legislature. Motion car- ried unanimously. \': ;,: ~-----_.~~.-,j. - ~:". . C. Levying Assessments, 11th Addition Edgewood Estates (72-22 and 72-23), Hearing on Januarll 29 (,1973 - Copies of the Hearing Panel report were previously distributed to Council members. The Panel felt the request of Real Estate Development, Inc., for deferred assessment invol ved a poli cy change and referred it to the Counci 1 ,-_.':=:':.;:I;-..-~ ~_...._ . . .__~____ __ __."'__,'. . - ...,.. . for discussion. Public Works Director displayed maps of the area and pOinted out the properties for which the sewers were constructed and those which would be assessed. He explained past policy with regard to assessment for lateral arid trunk ,sewers and said that deferment is allowed by Code if to the best interests of the City (easement in exchange for deferment on trunk lines) or if not located within 160 feet of a street. Public Works feels Real Estate's property does not meet that criteria because it faces on a dedicated street and it was not necessary to acquire an easement to come within 160 feet of it. Director. said that the property on which deferment is requested cannot be developed in the manner desired by the owner because there is no access other than on Willamette, therefore the sewer is of no benefit at this time. He said the only instance for which lateral assessment has been deferred was on the Roosevelt Boulevard sewer against that property lying within the Highway 126 right-of-way. The only way of terminating a deferment is through application for subdi vision of property or for specific use of a sewer, or if a street is platted within 160 feet and property has access to that street. Public Works reco~i mended that there be no change in the present policy. .! , _ ,.J '~- On questions from the Council, Public Works Director pointed out dedicated streets in the area and plans for traffic patterns. Mr. Hershner explained the Panel's feeling that this presented a new problem because development of Real Estate's property de- pends upon development of property to the south for which the owners have no plans at this time. Comm 2/14/73 .,"- '. ,~. ~ . , S2 2/26/73 - 4 .. , . Manager explained the Planning Commission's authority with regard to subdivisions and lits regulation of lot and street locations. He said access to Willamette is for 'driveways only. Terrain made it 'desirable for planning to discontinue traffic pat- ;terns to Wi1lamette Street. .,-, :On questioning from Mr. McDonald, Public Works Director ~with regard to paying for larger than eight-inch lines. lines larger than eight inches in this case. explained the City's policy He said there would be no Hill, attorney representing Real Estate Development, repeated his reasons as to the Hearing Panel for requesting the deferred assessment. He said the would not be Opposed to the assessment if the property could be developed. Discussion continued with regard to possible use of the sewer at some future time, Planning Commission platting of the area, inaccessibility to Wi1lamette Street sewer, staff objeqtion :o.changing traffic patterns in the area, possibility of future assess-; ment for any fac~l~ty constructed to serve that portion of the property beyond 160 feet 'from the present sewer. Comm 2/14/73 : Mr. . Wi11ia~ moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the assessment be levied as proposed. Mot~on carned, a1~voti.n~ aye.!~){c~pt Mr._ McpoI:l..a1d_~~taining. Robert istated owners "-<". =:.-",.- --! _. -.--..... --....._--........; . Councilman Wood asked thatthis"item be referred back to committee for further discussion. He said he felt some Council members were not aware of the situation as Attorney Hil pre-. sented them to the Hearing Panel. Councilman Hershner concurred in the request saying that it was 'a unique situation of property's being assessed but because of City's planning re- quirements it could not be developed, there,fore the sewer could not be utilized.. The prop...., erty owner is not asking to be relieved of paying the assessment, only that it be deferred until the property can be developed. Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to reconsider Item C at committee meeting. Councilwoman Campbell asked if staff would be prepared to answer questions about the properties involved.' Manager said Council members could contact staff members with any questions they might' have so that resear~h could be accomplished before it was dis cussed again in committee. Vote 'was 'taken on motion to refer the item back to committee. Motion carried unanimoUSly. , D. Request for Rate Change, TaxIcab ServiCe - Donald F. Bach, attorney, on behalf of ;Termina1 Taxi Service, requested revision of taxicab rates in Eugene. The, revisions :suggested were from 609 to 709 for the first two-fifth mile, from 109 to 209 for ;each additional passenger, and from $5.00 per hour to $7.50 per hour for waiting time. i After investigation of rates in other cities and financial records since the last in- ,crease in 1969, Finance Department recommended approval of the increase,as '~equested :except that the charge for waiting time be increased to $6.00 instead of $7.50. . , :council~an Wood suggested 'that consideration of any increase take into account that !taxicabs are the only transportation for some of the elderly and hanaicapped. Larry Perryman, Finance Department, said the taxicab people indicated that most of those using taxis are elderly or low-income people who do not own automobiles. So 'that if the rates were kept at the present level for those peOPle., rates would have to be increased sharply for others to overcome the financial problems faced by the I taxi services. ' ICounci1man Williams questioned whether any subsidy'for the elderly, handicapped, or . !low-income should be the retsponsibi1ity of the taxi services or society in general. iHe commented that frequently when funds are not granted there is a decrease in avail- lab1e mass transportation facilities. He suggested some contractual arrangement be- !tween the Mass Transit Board and taxicab companies might be appropriate. Mr. Wood :commented that raising rates would appear to have the effect of cutting the number of passengers taxis would serve if the major use is by those unable to pay higher rates. -' Councilman Keller suggested that with bus service readily available it would appear ;to be a matter of choice in using taxi service. Councilman Mu~ray said in some cases it is not a matter of choice because the bus service does not provide door-to-door service and many of the elderly cannot walk to bus stops. He said the rates do not 'seem out of line with other areas, but it does escalate the expense of those who have 'to use that type of service. Mr. Wood added that the busses do not provide loading 'facilities for wheelchairs. And the Manager noted that the busses do not operate af.t~r,_ c~:rt,ai,T1 ,!}ours nOr on Sunday. J On questioning from Mrs. Campbell, Parks Director expl'ii'ir1'ed'l:hat' a"'smallfee is ~charged for shuttle bus service to Parkview rerrace,for senior citizens with the ;Kiwanis guaranteeing the difference in cost to the bus operator. Councilman McDonald ; called attention to the increase in cost of operation of the taxi services compared :to the receipts and expressed the opinion that' the' ope'rators need some help also. "'----.-."--,'~_.- - .--~-~~--------~ ..---- .-.-.- ~.- -------..~._-._--...------.-.~~--.-.-.--....~ ._--~------..:...._-_..._~--~ ~__ __--..J 53 2(26/73 - 5 I ;' / Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the recommend rates be approved ($6.00 per hour for waiting time; 709 for first two-fifth mile; 209 for each addi- :tional passenger). . "Councilman Murray suggested investigation of the possibility of a larger increase to those using cabs as a luxury or emergency transportation at the same time decreasing 'charges for the elderly. He recognized that the Mass Transit District is looking !into the possibility of door-to-door bus service, but felt the taxi rate increase twould be driving out a needed service. Mr. Perryman said that according to the taxi- . cab people the large number of elderly and low-income people using cabs would mean a substantial increase for other users. The taxi people have determined that they themselves cannot subsidize this service, they feel they are now subsidizing bus service through the payroll tax. Mrs. -Campbell hoped this service would be dis- cussed again when considering revenue sharing funds and that a report could be made available from the Mass Transit District. Comm 2/14/73 Approve Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Councilmen Hershner and Keller left the meeting. Aviva Sainz, 1841 High. Street, reviewed an incident she experienced with Yellow Cab. She said fare had accumulated before she got into the cab, and that it was excessive for the distance she traveled. Then she said the driver did not have change and she had to pay fur- ther fare to have him take her where some was available. As a result of the incident she has filed charges against the cab company. She feels such service does not warrant an incr~ase in rates but that cab companies following that practice should be enjoined from giving public service. She said many of the poor who do not own' autos and those who are disabled rely on cabs as their only means of transportation. She suggested 'establishment of a City bureau to ascertain qualifications of drivers of public conveyances to avoid poor treatment of the public using their services. . Councilman Murray wondered what recourse the public has in such an instance. Manager ex- plained that the City does license the, cabs and drivers and policy check on driver applica- tions before licenses are issued. Some applications have been denied, however there is no r.ecord of fpequent complaints of this nature. If there were a major record of complaints, there is no question but that it would be ,brough.t to the attention of the operators, as well as to drivers at time of licenae renewal. . Mrs. Sa{n~"continued with the suggestion for d5mpan~es 'dealing in service to the public. services were being victimized. a public department to supervise activities of She felt that those having to rely on the cab Mayor Anderson suggested continuing with consideration of the rate increase itself and to schedule future discussion on cab services if that is desired. Councilman McDonald asked if the proposed rate change was recommended by a committee. Manager said that the auditing staff of the Finance Department reviewed cab companies' books. Recommendation for the rate increase as a result of that examination was brought to the Council. . .... ~. Councilwo.man Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to refer this item back to com- mitte~for:'furtherdiscussion. Councilman Hershner did not feel it proper to hold action on the rate increase in order to discuss cab service. He said the audit indicated the cab companies have been operating about four years without a profit . Mayor Anderson and CoUncilman Wood agreed. It was deemed a separate issue. -; "' ~-~ The motion was withdrawn with the understanding that the cab service ,would be an item for future committee discussion. Councilman McDonald commented on the last rate change for taxi service having been the recommendation of a committee and wondered whether that wouldn't be the best way to review the matter. However, consensus was that that was not necessary at this time. It was under- stood the matter of cab service would be scheduled for future committee discussion. E. CR'eq'uest -to Keep So'';~d 's-yst'e~'i;;'MalT;'---E-;g:e~-'Do-;;to--;m--'A~~-o'Ci;;tTori---':"-'The 'E~gen~ Dc;;;:;- 'town Association requested permission to leave the sound system in the Mall to permit . its use on special occasions. It was originally installed to permit playing of music 'during the Christmas season. Staff recommended that if it is left the wiring be in- istalled in existing conduit rather than strung through the air. Mr. Wickizer of the iEDA said Smeed ~ound Service has indicated they would be willing to put the wire ; through the conduit. The system would be used on occasions such Moonlight Sales, 'Arts Festival, Eugene Downtown Days, a style show planned for June. Its use would be governed by majority vote of the Downtown Association Marketing Corrunittee. . .54 2(26/73 - 6 r, . i Coun.cilman Williams said any reversal in the Council's position would invol ve the" : Eugene Renewal Agency, public hearings on mall guidelines, etc., since at the time, 1 the conduit was installed it was decided that an organized noise system was not ' I I I appr~priate in the mall a~ea. The conduit was installed because it CO~ld ~e ~ut, f~. at t~me ,9f mall construct~on at much less expense than at some later t~me ~f ~t .;.,;;; ; were found to be needed. . Discussi'on ,continued on reason for installation of the condui t, its purpose, its cost. as part of the ERA project, etc. Mrs. Beal suggested that until the policy is changed the Downtown Association make application direct to the Council for use of the sound system for special occasions. Manager said the question is whether to rel1kJve the existing wiring. Control of use could be a matter of future Council deliberation. Councilman Williams felt there was no question about removal of the ! present wiring. He said he would not support authorization for a permanent sound system in the mall. . MI. Williams l1kJved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Eugene Downtown Association be asked to carry out the conditions of permission for the present sound system, that is, that it would be removed at the end of the Christmas season. Motion carried, cp:_l",b.v9t,iJ1g aye, (HE!rsh!Jer alld Keller absent), except Mr. McDonald voting no. ~- <>."...._..__,,.-___._...1.-.._ ~~~.._.._l no ._.. ;.. _.,_.__.__."._....~.~..~-'__..~'.:..._:I...._...~..._ .. '. :.-":':_:.'~,_._~---,:, F. :P1anning Process Dlscussion -'Manager referred to communications received from the .chamber of Commerce, Southwestern Oregon Chapter AIA, and some indi vidual archi teets, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members r questioning planning processes and time frames to get planning decisions. He suggested that discussion iat this time would not be on merits of planning or procedures, but on the manner of idealing with the requests for review and investigation by the Council. ! !Wi th regard to the Chamber's letter, ste.,mng from the Chamber Board of Di rector's . !meeting of February 13, Manager said it seemed rrrJre critical and did not appear ! ;to reflect the minutes of that meeting. Manager saw the question raised by the 1,- iChamber as expressing some concern as to whether the 1990 General Plan is appropriate lfor this community and its attitude toward expansion. The architects' communications iwere more concerned with the functional processing of planning responsibilities and Itime consumed in getting decisions, the major concern appearing to be with the planned lunit development procedure because the time consumed reflects itself in costs. He. Isaid the Planning Commission is aware of the time problem and staff is now trying to I'address it from the standpoint of the ordinance itself which sets forth the procedural: requirements. Manager suggested that when staff work is completed, which may take . : another l1kJnth or so, the proposed revisions to the PUD ordinance be brought back for ! ,ipub1ic hearing. In making the revisions, staff is working closely with the architects: . groups and it is hop~ l1kJst of the questions raised will be reso1 ved in that process. I jHowever, if it is felt that there is sufficient public criticism at this point, . staff feels there should be public hearing to air the general kinds of problems. It was suggested the Council and Planning Comndssion appoint a joint comndttee to meet with the industry to hear their suggestions and problems and to respond to suggested staff recommendations. Manager suggested that a public hearing at this time would not be too productive. . Mayor said he felt nothing would be served by opening the matter to public hearing . at'this time. He recommended that even with a delay it would be better to wait for staff . response which would provide more information from both viewpoints and ;better enable Council to make judgments. Mrs. Bea1 concurred and added that many of the questions raised could probably be resolved at staff level. ,Councilman Williams asked clarification of the proposed procedure - was staff being asked to meet with the groups involved in an attempt to list the actual concerns and develop response to those concerns, then that entire document to be brought back to the Council? Manager said the approach at this time, recognizing problems wi th the PUD ordinance as staff sees them, would be to attempt to determine the problems from the developers, builders, etc., point of view, then develop revisions to the ordinance and administrative processing which would address those problems. Those revisions would be brought back to the Planning Comndssion and Council. It appears that work can not be accomplished in less than a month. , Mr. Williams asked if the work in process involves the Chamber's concerns, or whe- ther that would be treated as a separate issue. Mrs. Beal questioned too whether staff is dealing with the philosophical questions raised by the architects with regard to the entire planning process. Manager replied that the architects' group, after publicity on the Chamber's questions, inquired about their request since it appeared their concerns were different from those of the Chamber. Mrs. Bea1 sug- gested Manager be asked to discuss with the architects and the Chamber whether his suggested procedure was satisfactory. Mayor Anderson felt two issues were involved, the Chamber questioning the philosophy of planning processes in Eligene, and the !architects questioning procedural and policy matters. Manager noted that that portion of the Chamber's communication referring to questions raised by developers, would be addressed with the suggested procedure. 55 .2/261f7'3--':"-7' _ L:'.' '.J i, I i I i I 1 I Comm 2/14/73 Approve I I I I I I \ 1 I 1 1 \ 1 i ! , ...J ~ - - -- - -- --' .- Councilman McDonald felt it WiS a matter of communication between staff and industry' ".- :and interdepartmental. He' favored working at the staff level on the questions raised. !Councilwoman Campbell questioned the need for staff review work. She said letters ireceived from the architects were in general terms and stated no specific charges, land there would appear to be just as many people in Eugene who supported the Plan- I. C . . in~ng O1lll7Uss~on and staff. Manager thought the architects' group expressed legitimate' iconcerns wi th the PUD ordinance which have been recognized for some time by the Plan- :ning Commission. Quite a bit of preliminary work had been done before the communica- It~ons were recei ved. Manager ~aid while. staff does not agree that there is a sol u- t~on to all of the problems wh~ ch would ~mplement what the developers would like to Ihave done, many can be taken care of internally. .._ .___-~.~.~~--_-o......!r-.-- _.'._ __. ___ __. . Councilman Wood arrived at the meeting. Mrs-:."caiiipbelY was concerned about the Chamber's statement that there 'have been :complaints over a two-year period but the Council was not aware of them. She ,added that the architects' group outlined goals they wish to achieve and areas of planning with which they would like to be involved. She wondered whether the com- .: plaints were about the Commission or the staff. Mayor Anderson thought the sug- !gested review of procedural revisions would be a good starting point, discussion :on the philosophy of planning could come later. He felt that in view of the plan- Ining load in recent years it is natural to have varying community reactions, recog- :nizing too that the public is playing an ever-increasing part in the planning process. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to work and report back to the Council as soon Comm authorize staff to continue with ~heir 2/21/73 as possible. Motion carried unan~mouslY'A p;prove . : Manager repeated his understanding of questions raised as reflected by the Chamber's . letter and as reflected by the minutes of the Directors' meeting. He referred to the Survey of Opinion: Lane County Manufacturers conducted by the Chamber and said . it could be interpreted in a different way, depending upon how the figures are read. : He expressed concern with recent publicity regarding the Chamber President's expression; ,of opposition to the 1990 General Plan. As a member of the Board of Directors of the ,Chamber, Manager said his impression gained from attendance at Board meetings was that the Board agreed they would not oppOse the Plan and would support it in principle. ,However, that does not seem to be the position being reflected publicly. i !Don Mason, manager of the Chamber of Commerce, was asked to comment and said he ! would prefer to respond at some type of formal hearing. He commented on having ;heard a number of complaints, mainly about the planning staff, but also on the :planning processes. He said they would be documented before any hearing is scheduled. (He said those complaints, along with the Chamber survey of industry, seemed to justify 'bringing the matter to the attention of the Council, although it was not the feeling 'of the entire Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Mason said the Chamber would be glad to join in the procedure suggested by the Manager; they can document those things with which . the Chamber is concerned and of which staff may not be aware. He added that the :Chamber does support the concept of the 1990 Plan, although there are some areas of concern. . 'On further questioning of Mr. Mason it was determined that the Chamber would be agreeable to meeting with staff so long as it serves the purpose of relaying the 'cri ticisms and comments they have received. It was understood staff would meet \ wi th Mr. Mason to recei ve the Chamber's viewpoint. I '.. . I Mrs. Campbell asked if there would be any public representation in this type of i review in view of the time and effort various people have put into the planning :processes to this point. Manager couldn't visualize how someone representing the 'general public 'without also being considered as representing a special interes't : could be brought into the suggested procedure. After procedural' changes are agreed ;upon it is assumed a public hearing would be in order, and at that time there would lbe. opportunity for public input. Again, he said, this is with regard to the pro-: \' " (cedural and administrative problems, not about the philosophy of planning: Staff [in no way is considering bringing back to the Council recommendations for such lthings as expanding the urban service boundary or other major planning concepts IWhich have been the bases for those kinds of things which hiwe been accomplished. (MaYOr Anderson sai d that after staff report is brought back there will be ample I iopportunity for the public to be heard. He rules that the Chamber staff would be !included in the review of planning processes. Councilman McDonald referred to the Chamber's statement of concerns with "Planning Department's policies and procedures" and wondered whether it referred to the staff of Commission, since the commission is responsible for policy. Mayor explained thai:: !the review would be concerned with technical rather than policy matters and the !staff report to be returned would help to determine whether to make further changes in the planning processes. - 5<?'" " j 5& 2/26/73 - 8 . Frank Bonson, designer, 1677 Coburg Road, asked the possibility of including other~ ; invo~ved in development of properties in the review process. Mayor said input re- ~gardIng procedural aspects would be welcome. Manager suggested that communication ; could be made with Miles Kontich,chairman of a committee representing all elements :of the industry which will present industry's concerns to the Planning staff. :It was ; understood Mr. Bonson would make that contact to express the designers' concerns. . G. iOrdinance Revision re: Garbage Storage Equipment - Copies of suggested revisions recom- i me[lded by the G,arbage Board were previously distributed to Council members. The : change is recommended in order to cope wi th the problem of sale of large bulk con- tainers which cannot be handled by collection vehicles, and to bring the Code into .conforman.ce wi tho State regulations. . ,. ...:.~ ,,,..t, 'Councilman Williams questioned the City's responsibility in specifying the size of ;containers, suggesting that it should be the responsibility of those employing igarbage collection service. He felt by restricting cOIJtainer size the City may be Iprec1 uding use of equipment at some future time which would effect savings in garbage : collection. Councilwoman Campbell wondered what would happen to those containers 'too large to be picked up but still perndtted to be used for garbage storage. I' Assistant Manager explained that the Garbage Board had been confronted with complaints about refusal of garbage operators to pick up the larger containers. There is no i equipment on the market that will handle the size containers being sold and it be- , comes a matter of occupational safety in trying to handle them. He suggested that I' legislation could be changed if technologically it needs to be changed. Councilman Hershner felt the City does have some responsibility since it does set the rates I I according to size and number of containers. r . I i { j I I I ! " Councilwoman Beal could see no need for this legislation. She said it would not really be gi ving protection to anyone since the persons needing containers would not be any more likely to consult the Council as to size required if they have not consulted the collection company. Councilman Williams also questioned need for the ~legislation in view of weight limitations already established by the State. Manager '~xplained that the situation becomes one of a person's buying an oversize container, then the garbage collector's refusing to handle it. The customer complains to the city because the City does license the collectors. The revisions to the qrdinance 'provide the collector, wi th grounds for refusal to pick up in these circumstances. Councilman McDonald favored support of the Garbage Board in its investigation of the problem and recommendation. 'Mrs. Campbell IOC>ved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the odinance revisions as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/21/73 Approve . H.Lane County Auditorium Association Status Report - Lee Bishop, president of the Association, read the status report on the auditorium project. Copies were also distributed to Council members. The report stated that since the defeat of the auditorium bond issue at the November 1972 election a survey of City voters and a . questionnaire to 15,000 Eugene homes indicated concern with t,axes and the downtown location proposed for the auditorium. Some also stated the convention hall was not wanted. Because the poll indicated a preference for location of an auditorium near Autzen Stadi um in Al ton Baker Park, LCAA sought approval from the County for loca- tion there. A public hearing has been scheduled for March 7, 1973. The State Board of Higher Education has approved the concept of the Park site and joint use of the Stadium parking space ,the University of Oregon to enter into joint planning wi th the City and County for use of a specific portion of the parking lot for auditorium patrons and users., ERA has advised LCAA that the downtown location formerly proposed, will be offered for public bids, and if LCAA wishes to propose that si te to the voters again an election date will have to be forwarded to ERA by March 21, 1973. Alternative methods of financing the project have been studied by LCAA since re- 'ceipt of information that $1,250,000 would not be available from Economic Develop- ment Administration . This has brought about two possible changes in the auditori um proposal: reduction in the project and change in funds and their sources. The arena hall was elindnated, reducing cost of the project by $1 million. This will also eliminate some income revenue source. If that loss is nominal, the Association ,will recommend that the Council consider the use of Room Tax monies instead. The ;final financing proposal is a $5.5 million bond issue and $2 million donor campaign. ; The Association plans a special election this spring through iniative petition on 'the bond issue and an advisory vote on the site - downtown or Alton Baker Park. " ,Mr. Bishop said the Association requests that the Council issue a statement approv- \ ing the concept of joint planning to be forwarded to the County prior to the March 7 public hearing. He called attention to a draft of the proposed statement, copy of which was attached to the report. ~ C Councilman Williams asked for explanation of the "joint planning concept." Mr.Bishop iexplained that it would involved the City's working with the County and the University' ,oQ__deye1012..ment .g.! th~ Baker Park site and use of the ~lltzen Stadium parking s.eflce:~_..~ S7 2/26/73 - 9 / ... : In' an-;;;;e-r to--councTTman--r;iood~'-Mr-"B[sb-opnsaId Eh-aF-LCAA-wo'ul.irhave- to 'recognize..'....- "1 the use of Autzen by the University and schedule auditorium events accordingly. . Councilman Murray asked if the Council in acting on this recommendation wou;I.d be ..:. 'go~ng on record either in favor of or opposed to the auditorium itself. Mr. Bishop ~. :sa~d approval would be only an indication that the City is willing to enter into the ;planning with the . County on use of the Park. I ~ Councilman Williams asked if approval of transmi tting the statement to the County would include agreement on setting a special election or if that would be a separate sub~e:t: ~r. Bis~o~ said the ~ommissioners ,have informally approved circulating an ~n~t~at~ve pet~t~on on call~ng the elect~on. ....." Mrs. Beal' irK:Jvs"Ci s~oonded bi;' Mr:- wITil:'~'n5-- to authorize dispatch 'Githe proposed let~er ~o Lane County COmnUssianers approving the joint planning concept of an aud~ tor~ urn center in Al ton Baker Park. Motion carried unanimously. . Comm 2/21/73 Approve Gerald Williamson, 2778 Friendly Street, promoting this project which in his view at the expense of all. He was ruled out asked why the Auditorium Association . ~s , is idiotic and for the use of a few people' of order. Manager read communication from the Planning Commission stating concerns expressed at its '1 February 26, 1973 meeting with regard to location of an auditorium in Alton Baker Park. Those concerns are that: (1) Removing the auditorium from the downtown area conflicts with the community goals and policies adopted in 1967 and with recommendations of various studies by ~ several organizations; (2) There is lack of comprehensive planning for Alton Baker Park. Es- . tablishment of an auditorium there would further complicate current planning efforts for the Park; (3) Additional costs for City services could be imposed on the City in locating an auditorium in Alton Baker Park as opposed to a downtown location; (4) Although this facility would serve the entire urban area, only the citizens of Eugene will be paying for the bond issue to finance it;:.and'(5) Convention facilities to be incorporated with the auditorium, highly appropriate for the downtown location, may not be compatible with other uses of Alton Baker Park. .. 1. -ASf]6ChiTa"Ca're C"€mt-er-;:' fIa.ry 'Keenan~dt'rect'-or-orthe-'ijniversity Chiid Care'-,Wd' '. Development Center, presented Council members with statements with regard to the , chi ld care program. She asked that the Council, as indi vi duals and as a representa- tive body, actively lobby at the Legislature for State supported child care for all low-income families. At the conclusion of other business, Mrs. Beal mbved seconded by Mr. Williams that Comm ,the Legislative Analyst be asked to endorse any good and comprehensive bill provid~ 2/:21/73 ing for State maintenance of day care centers. Motion carried unanimously. Approve J . LCOG's "Proposal for Handling Social Service Programs by Government" - Copies of. memo from Budget Committee subcomnUttee, together with copies of County's staff 'review, were previously distributed to Council members. The memo comments and makes recommendations for final recommendation to the LCOG Board. The effort was at the request of the Budget Committee to provide assistance in sorting out where the City's responsibility lies and where the County's for funding of social services. And perhaps setting some priori ties wi th respect to kinds of agencies most deserving of public funding in the 1973-74 budget and from revenue sharing funds. . iLarry Rice, director of LCOG, described the LCOG proposal as a preliminary draft ito serve as a starting point for discuss,ion at the local level of social, services )funding as well as all other issues involved in the changing Federal situation wi th : regard to revenues. He pointed out the need to recognize that many social services are now provi ded through local budgets under other labels - parks departments, housing, etc. The County is suggested as the proper agency for management of these services, through contractual arrangement with cities, rather than staffing new departments in each city. An urgency is suggested to restructure at the County ! level before the ci ties begin because of the change in Federal funding and the new ;role and responsibilities delegated to the local level. : . Councilman McDonald asked if LCOG is suggesting that the cities' share of revenue sharing funds should go to social services. Mr. Rice answered that the proposal makes no assumptions; it speaks only to funding, general revenue sharing, and may ;,mean rebudgeting of funds. Mrs. Beal felt this would provide the opportunity for ,a :real survey and planning for all of the social concerns of the commlini ty, public and private. She suggested that high priority should not be given to existing programs just because they have been funded in the past. !:II Mrs. Campbell wondered where the administration would ultimately lie. She said fthere is no particular quarrel that this is. the County's responsibility but it 'is ..recog!lized. that they do not have funds. It would seem the County could set up ~ . ' S& 2/26/73 - 10 r~ .~ special department for social services and the City could then participate through funding. Mr. Rice said that what really is at stake is whether the counties and cities will be Eady to assume the responsibility in decentralization of social service programs. He noted the changing pattern in use of Federal funds and said that that should not result in State bureaucracy. But monies will go to the State if the local governments are not prepared to administer them. Betty Niven, member of Planning Commission, questioned whether the County would discharge its responsbility under contractual arrangement in a satisfactory manner. 'Mrs. Campbell read from the recommendations that".. .it is assumed City has re- . sponsibili ty to set standards for type and level of service and to check the quali ty." I Mr. Rice explained that this proposal is for the purpose of giving a sense of di- rection on how to proceed under decentralization, other steps will follow. Councilman Murray noted areas of agreement and disagreement in the proposal. He thought the re- port and the discussion were both useful in setting dir~ctions for future considera- . tion and suggested the next step should be discussion with the County for joint I . ~ consideration. Councilman Williams expressed concern with interaction between Item 13 - Housing . . and Item 23 - Community Development~ He said there should be deleted from Item 23 :.those items with regard to inspection services and housing which appear under Item 13.1 : He also fel t the i tern on communi ty development should be separated into two parts - 'one, economic development dealing with jobs in the area, and the other, dealing , wi th communi ty development in terms of neighborll9.od development, urban renewal, etc. .' Mrs. Beal asked for clarification of the issue being considered. Mayor Anderson said it was whether to forward to LCOG this subconmtittee report with any further recommendations or alterations. Mrs. Beal commented on the need to consider the ,entire social services program and wondered whether it wouldn't be better to relay : that fact to LCOG at the same time these recommendations are forwarded. Mayor didn't : feel that concern for consideration of the entire social services program should 'preclude sending the suggested recommendations to LCOG so they will be available in · preparing further drafts of the proposed program. Ultimately an overall policy will be developed areawide which will take in the whole area of social services. 'Mr. Murray expressed satisfaction that the list of services included in fhe LCOG proposal listed everything discussed in terms of revenue sharing and that the report was very systematic and comprehensive. Mrs. Campbell agreed. ,Mr. Williams moved that the statement in Item 23 be revised to suggest that .items currently listed as communi ty development might well ITPre properly be defined as economic development, and that a separate item for community development covering neighborhood development, urban renewal ,and physical facilities should be considered. Also that the housing program and inspection program should be deleted from that area because they fit more properly under Item 13- Housing. There was no second. . In making fue ITPtion Mr. Williams said that the things listed under Item 23 deal to a great extent with economic development. He felt they should be included but in a separate listing. Manager sai d it was the intent to distinguish and encompass in Item 23 community development as it is normally defined and as it is defined in : revenue sharing. Mrs. Niven did not think housing should be removed from the com- ,munity development item because of the inter-relationship with other things in that category, including inspection. Mr. Rice felt housing should be related to com- muni ty development in the sense of the need for public resources to provide housing for those in need of it - satisfying a social need is what is addressed. Mr.Murray fel t also that housing is an important ,part of communi ty development and favored keeping it under that listing. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to revise the area of community development and redefining it as economi c development, make a new category of communi ty develop- ment to cover urban renewal, housing, neighborhood development, etc., and, delete Item 13 as a specific category for housing from Section 1 of the report. Mr. Murray expressed his opposition to the motion. He said it would result in look- ing at housing only in terms of restructuring as provided in community development whereas housing is a major consideration. tt' Councilman Hershner asked if categories as listed in the proposal in any way desig- nated priorities. Mr. Rice Said that all of those in the first group are'considered top priority for public social services monies since they represent basic survival needs for people. He added that to reITPve housing from that group would be saying it is not basically a survival need. The other groups, he said, were supposed to have priori ty ranking but no decision was made in that regard. Councilwoman Campbell noted the recommendation to IlVve the day care item into the first priority group. ! Mr. R:,i.ce said that day care was intended to be included in the first group but was _inadver,tently omj.tted.__ _,_ __~_,_ _ _.._ o}" ~....," u _...J 5' 2/26/73 - 11 " :- =,..1 ,"'.... ..... -. " . ~"." Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal, Williams, : and McDonald voting aye; Councilmen Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting no. ~Councilman williams said he thought the objective of day care centers was to pro~ide , opportuni ty for welfare mothers to attend school or work and wondered whether it : should fall more in the area of personal growth. Mr. Rice said that it was decided to include it in both places. Definition should incl ude care for elderly parents, ,handicapped, etc. . I Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to ~ report and recommendations and \transmi t them Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/21/73 accept the Budget Conmrittee subCOnmlltteJ\~prove to the Lane Council of Governmen1;s. Some discussion followed to clarify timing for meeting of County and city.budget ,committees as suggested in the recommendations. It was understood LCOG !;itaff would co-ordin'ate and notify agencies when meetings should be scheduled. Mrs. Beal said the Budget COnmll ttee request for staff estimate of development of a human resources department would be helpful if it were available for consideration in the budgeting process. Also an identification of social services now being , funded through other programs. Mayor Anderson suggested review of the vinal report , from LCOG before asking for staff judgments of the various programs. Assistant Manager added that County work is progressing toward setting up a human resources . department and City staff would prefer waiting until that work is finished to avoid . duplication of effort. He felt the combined effort of all the agencies would be" ,_ ._'__..._.____J . -'_ ._. ... ",._' ._ ..' _ __ . d. - _.._. _ ._ ..._------.J more successful. Mrs.. Beal fel t that even though the - (:i ty does not contemplate an ,administrative structure of that type it would be helpful to identify all of the lsocial services to measure what is being done against what is needed. - K.:City Hall Space Needs - Copies of memorandum from Assistant Manager were previously :distributed to Council members. The recommendation was to divide remaining space ,in the City Hall basement to meet needs of City functions for the next year or so 'rather than proceeding with construction of the tow~r on the north side of the City 'Hall. Also to acquire land in the civic center area and erect temporary modular type' :movable building for City Attorney's use on a rental basis until construction of 'his new building is completed. Then the modular building space would be available ,for expansion of some staff functions until the new County office building is com- ,pleted. City functions could rent unused space in the County building, disposing 'of the modular building or using it for some other purpose, thereby releasing the land for further ci vic center development. Joint effort of ci ty, County, State, and Federal to develop a ci vic center was based on the concept that each agency in . providing for its own building needs would plan sufficient space for future expansion' : and make that available to other agencies whose building construction was not yet completed. It was felt this would result in greatest total benefit with least cost :to the community. Councilman Williams asked how .it was felt construction of the City tower would affect the total public cost for the ci vic center. Assistant Manager explained that cost per square foot of the tower, because of the nature of its construction, would be ~higher than the cost for the usual type building. It was felt that by making conmrit- ~ment to rent space for a stated period of time rather than requiring bond issue !for construction of the tower at this time would benefit public costs. It was an .economic evaluation of obtaining the most space farthe least money. Even though it ,is anticipated the tower eventually will be needed, the total economic impact on the civic center plan would be less .if unused space in buildings of other agencies ,is utilized. Manager cited the proposed County building as an example. He said the County could provide for the percentage of future space needed and leave it un- used, or could build lesser space than anticipated for future needs. Then cost at some future time would be greater to the general public because of having to add to existing construction rather than having it done all at one time. . In answer to questions from Councilman Wood, Assistant Manager said there was no way :to segregate the civic center costs applicable to the City. The proposed recommenda- :tion was reviewed with civic center planners and it was their judgment that the two- 'year old plan is still valid. He added that overall the City will be ahead to re- lcover the cost of the civic center land because of anticipated appreciation. :Councilwoman Beal expressed the opinion that the recommendation left options open ifor the City in the future. She added that if the inflationary trend continues and ;the costs of tower construction are too high, the civic center land could be used ifor permanent buildings. Mayor Anderson agreed. ! . i jCouncilman Hershner noted that investigation was made of existing rental office space within a two-block distance of City Hall and asked whether that limitation was considered essential. He wondered which City activities could be reaonab1.y ,isolated. l!ssistant Manager said it was decided that farther than the two-block '0 -. 2/26/73 - 12 . 'distance would not b~ ~~lvantageous.-' Efficiency would be aife~ted, and cost' of operation. Manager said the fire and police departments in their day-to-day . activities probably are not so closely integrated, but existing specialized space for those departments would be difficult and costly to shift. Discussion followed between' Councilman McDonald and Assistant Manager on 'space needs compared to space which would be provided by use of the basement area and that pro- 'vided by co nstruction of the tower. Mr. McDonald wondered whether it wouldn't be wiser to proceed with construction of the tower at this time in view of the recogni- tion of need for future expansion. \ :Mrs. Campbell wondered whether the Council in accepting recommendations presented : would be endorsing the idea of the c1. ty 's expanding (referring to the acqulsi tion ,of property when EWEB' s property is not available for parking) or whether the Budget . Committee will have an opportunity to consider financing of that phase. Mayor Anderson' said his understanding was that approval would authorize staff to proceed and bring back plans for the Council to approve or reject. Assistant Manager said if the recommendati,ons are accepted staff will pursue the idea of remodeling the basement 'area which will take care of present space needs. Then off-City Hall locations will. be investigated and any options negotiated for office space will be brought back fo:r Council consideration. . Mrs. Campbell ITKJved seconded by Mrs. Beal to proceed wi th eval uation of actual costs of acquiring property near City Hall and construct~n~_lOOdular builr:I?:ngs for temporary office space, any options negotiated to be brought back for Council consideration, 'in the meantime reITKJdeling basement area to accommodate present needs. Motion carried unaniITKJusly. Comm' 2/21/73 Approve Councilman Wood said that he was not supporting construction of the tower at this time, but that he would like to see an estimate of land costs, basis used to de- ;tezrnine efficiency factor so far as communications between departments are concerned,' :and estimated cost of building the tower compared to land purchase. L. S.B.205, Consumer Services Division Telephone - Ruby Brenne, member of the Advisory :Commission for the State Consumers Division, asked Council to oppose S.B .205 which .would require Consumer Services Division to provide toll free telephone for receiving !consumers' complaints. She said the telephone is not needed and would be an added !financial burden for the State. ;Mrs. Beal lOOved seconded by Mr. Williams to oppose S.B.205. Motion carried · . 1 ~.';l1um.QY,s ,Y,' . Comm 2/21/73 Approve M. Appeal, Conditional Use Permit for Willamette Christian Center~ south of 20th between McKinley Street and Hawkins Heights Road -Schedule hearing on the appeal for March 12, 1973. Approve . N. EWEB Property Disposal Transactions_, 1. One lot west side Prairie Road at Irvington Drive to Kenneth Bostick 2. One lot northwest quarter block between 10th and Broadway, Lincoln and Charnelton, to Eugene Renewal Agency Approve O. Proposed Discontinuance of Christmas Tree Recycling Program, , Copies of memo from Parks Department were previously distributed to Council members. Manager explained that the recommendation to discontinue ~he.service is made b:cau~e. of decreasing use and increasing cost to the point where lt lS felt no longer ]ustlfled. Parks Department suggested the program be changed to ask use of live trees for Christmas then donation to the Department for planting. Approve In answer to Councilman Williams questions, Parks Directors said that it now costs 35~ per tree to scrunch for mulch. When the service started that cost was about l~~ to l~~ per tree. The number being chipped has decreased from 18,000 to 4,500. He sald consldera- tion was given to setting up a station at the landfill but the County prefers not to have the trees at all. . P. Transfer of Funds for Bic was requested to transfer for bikeway facilities on cleFacilities on Hil ard and Willamette - Permission 5000 budgeted for the Franklin Bo~levard overcrossing Hilyard and Willamette. Approve Q.. , Liquor License Applications,. 1. The Stable, 2285 West 11th Avenue - New Champion Salvage Corporation 2. Oakway Golf Course, 2000 Cal Retail Malt Beverage Class B Restaurant Class B (RE) Approve Young Road - Change of Ownership (RMBB) - Partnership, formerly Bob Hope 'W 2/26/73 - 13 R. AssessmentHea~ing Panel Report ~ February 19, 1973. - P;es;;lt';'-Coun~iim-en Hershner and Wood;-Assistant I5Ire-ctor 'ofPtlblIc-Works and city' E~gi'n-ee1; and Assistant Finance Officer. . :Assessment ordinances to be considered by Council on February 26, 1973: , :1. C.B.160 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Delta Highway and 1250 feet east of Delta Highway from 500 feet south of Goodpasture Island Road to 1500 feet north of Goodpasture Island Road (72-16) Held from February 12, 1973 Council meeting. No written protests on file. Marvin Knutson, ~355 Inglewood, requested to be heard but was not present. I i After hearing was closed on other assessments Assistant Public Works Director explained that Mr. Knutson asked for deferment of assessment against Phases II, III, and IV of Flintridge Village planned unit development in return for trunk line easement through the property. Final approval has been granted on Phase I, and preliminary approval. has been granted on Phases II, III, and IV. Public Works recommended deferment of that portion of the assessment levied against Phases II, III, and IV, subject to granting of easement for the trunk line, with assessment to be made against those phas,es as they are developed. Councilmen Hershner and Wood expressed general agreement on granting the deferment but felt that some time limit should be set for development of the other sections. Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed, deferring that portion levied against Phases II, III, and IV of Flintridge Village PUD subject to granting of trunk line easement through the property, and subject to working out with Mr. Knutson a time limit for development of ,Phases II, III, and IV. Approve e 2.' C.~.179 - Levying assessments for paving 43rd Avenue from West Amazon Drive to the west 320 feet (72-21) Written protest received from George and Iola Houts, 4130 West Amazon Drive, objecting to the $327.78 charge against each of three lots for sewer stubs. Richard Fisher, 1590 High Street, attorney representing Ruth Lee, 4120. West Amazon Drive, presented his client's objection to the sewer stub charge against two lots. He said that Mrs. Lee, in attempting to determine costs to enable her to establish a selling price for the two lots, contacted the Public Works Department with regard to the pro- posed paving of West 43rd. She indicated to him that at no time was she informed of the installation of the stubs nor that their cost was to be included in this assess- ment. He said Mrs. Lee did not appear at the public hearing at time of bid award for for the 43rdAvenue paving since it was agreeable to. her at that time that the paving proceed at the estimated cost of $15.58 per front foot. Not until the notice of assess- ment was rec~i~edwere they aware that the sewer stub charge would be included. He said the selling price of the two lots would be difficult to renegotiate now. He main- tained that there should have been some indication from the City of its policy to in- stall sewer stubs where subdivision has been accomplished prior to street improvement. Mr. Fisher. said that because of this failure to inform Mrs. Lee that the stub cost would be included, the City should pay that portion of the assessment (2x$327.78=$655.56)., . Don Gilman, assistant public works director, said the total amoUnt was known at the time of public hearing on the bid award and Council was informed at that time that it involved both paving and sewer stubs. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, added that it was true the cost ,of the stubs was not included in the letter of inquiry asking whether the prqperty owners wished to proceed with the paving, but it was listed on the bid tabulations and th~~ information was available at the public hearing, notice of which was given to property owners. Ronald Schmaedick,315 W~st Broadway, of Rams Realty, said he had been working on the sale of this property for some time on behalf of Chaparral Homes. He reviewed subdivi- sion of the Lee and Houts properties and previous assessments for sewers to serve them. Chaparral Homes bought the properties with the understanding all improvements would be in, and assuming that sewer stubs were a part of those improvements just as much as curb and gutter, although they were not mentioned either. However, in determining the costs, to be included they understood the total price would be about $15.00 per front foot, ' . including too the 10% enginel3ring fee. All sale prices, including those bf houses con":" structed on the lots, he said were based on the estimated cost of a little more than' , $15.00 per front foot given them by Public Works. For that reason, Mr. Schmaedick said the City should make some adj ustment on that portion of the assessment covering the .I sewer stubs. / ~ . ,2. 2/26/73 - 14 II "-. ~ -.^ Questions ft-om Councilmen Hershner an'ci Wood brought out that normal procedures wer'e followed in giving notice of hearing on award of contract for the improvement, the actual cost was less than that estimated for both the paving and sewer stubs, costs were higher than average because it w.as a small project and therefore did not attract favorable bids, and that legal procedures were followed in completion of the project and giving notice of assessment. Mr. Schmaedick pres~nted a copy of the letter addressed to property owners showing the, estimated cost of the project to be $15.58 per front foot. He repeated that at no time were they advised an additional cost would be charged for sewer stubs.' He said that if a 10% engineering tharge is levied for work petitioned by property owners, then any costs of which the property owners are not aware should be taken f;rom that fee. Councilmen Hershner and Wood agreed that established policy of the City could not be waived when notification procedures had been properly followed. The City did fulfill its responsibility in notifying the property own~rs that there was a public hearing. Information with regard to total cost of the project was available at that time. . Recommendation: Levy assessments as Ir>oposed. ,Ap:l='rove . 3. C.B.180 - Levying assessments for sidewalk on west side of CoburgRoad from Club Road to Oakway Road (72-27) Written protest was received from Roy E. Adkins, 825 East Park Street, attorney repre- senting Ed Pape', owner of property along which the sidewalk was constructed. Mr. Adkins presented his client's objections that (1) the assessment is ab,out double'th_e $1,700 cost estimated for Mr. Pape' at the time installation of tbe sidewalk was proposed (2) a four-foot sidewalk was proposed, whereas an eight-foot sidewalk was actually con- structed, and (3) all information given Mr. Pape' with regard to this improvement in- volved only sidewalk construction. Now he is being assessed also for curbs, and curbs were in existence along his property prior to the sidewalk construction. Mr. Adkins said that his client did not receive notice of proposed construction in front ,of the property leased to Shell Oil'Company, rather his information was that contact was made with Shell. Had he received notice of the additional cost for that pontion or that it was intended to construct curbs, he would have objected. Not until he received notice of assessment from'Shell Oil Company did he know the project would cost more than the estimated $1,700. . . Mr. Teitzel explained that when this project started it was intended that the sidewalk would' be installed along the Volkswagon property and through the interchange, connect- , ing to the existing asphalt along the property occupied by Shell Oil Company. Subse- quently, legislation was approved providing funds from the State for bicycle paths so . with State approval the sidewalk was redesigned to provide width to accomm0date bicycles. Redesign created problems in trying 'to include the existing construction-adjacent to the property occupied by Shell. Public Works records show Ed Pape' as owner of the property occupied by Shell Oil Company, rut for some reason that was changed to show contact with Shell. Consequently, all dealing on the construction on that portion of the property was conducted with Shell; they agreed to the proposed improvements apd were informed, at'their request, of costs of the project. Public Works had no explanation of why Shell did not pass notices they received with regard to the public hearing and proposed construction to the property owner, Ed Pape'. They did forward to Mr. Pape' the notice of assessment for the property which they lease. Recommendation: Hold until opinion received from City Attorney with regard to property owner's failure to receive proper notices. Approve i 4. C.B.18I - Levying assessme.nts for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Robins Glen Subdivision and area within 160 feet of boundaries of said s~division (72-28) No written protests on file. No objections presented at hearing. ,j 'j ,I I I , 5. C.B.182 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within .' to Southridge ~ndVine Ma~le ~treet from Spring Bo~evard to 300, No wrl tten protests on flle. No Ob]ectlons presented at hearlng. [n answer to Councilman Hershner,. Mr. Gilman said that this subdivision is located near Agate Street south of 30th and is not that in south hills .on which a plclllned unit develop- ment WaS recently approved. , 1 1st Addition '.'.II feet south (72-35).. Approve Resommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. :J '., - :\ Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Approve 6. C.IL183 - Le in assessments for No written protests on flle. No 0 ;/ . Recommendatlon:' Levy asses;srnents. as proposed. - ,.---.--' ---. ~-,.- ~ ...:..:_-~.">- Gilham Road to 442 feet west (72-40) at hearlng. , ,....' ; \ ~:\;j . . -., ~ ~PP~l;~Qve _ _ ,_ _ __ __ _ ____ __'--:--:W__ ____......_..-....:-._....--~_.---:... ".'. 63 2/26/73 - 15 ~ 7. C.B.IS4 - Levying assessments from Gilham Road to No written protests on file. for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on Brewer Avenue Norkenzie Road (72-7 and 72-S) No objections presented at hearing. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Approve . I I ;S. i C.B.1S5 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on lSth Avenue from Bailey Hill ! Road to 1050 feet west (72-4S) No written protests on file. No objections presented at hearing. I Mr. Teitzel said that the ~9 special sewer assessment was in error and that cdrrectl~ had bee~made. Mrs. Burgoyne was given a corrected copy of the statement which also reflected a change in the ownership listing to her name only. With regard to the property description, Mr. Teitzel said that would be checKed-out ,--but-regardless of' the manner in which the description was written the square footage assesse~ would not be altered. The area involved is based on q depth of 147~ feet. It Considerable discussion followed between Mrs. Burgoyne, Panel members, and staff re- viewing essentially the same arguments raised at the public hearing on award of bid in September. Mr. Hershner remarked that the Council had viewed the property and was familiar with the terrain involved in this project. Appr~ve Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Manager called attention to the Panel's recommendation that C.B.1SO levying assessment for the Coburg Road sidewalk be held until opinion received from City Attorney with regard to property owner's failure to receive proper notice. For that reason it is not proposed to proceed with passage of'that council bill at this time. ,S. :, Non'-discrimi]{ation iffidavi.t, Liquor- Licenses - Mrs. Beal ~sked at the request of the Human Rights COmnUssion that discussion be scheduled with regard to requiring a non-discrimination affidavit from applicants for renewal of liquor licenses prior to Counci 1 approval. .; ',,=,~';" Mr. Williams suggested that prior to discussion the Human Rights Commission be asked to present its reasons for not including in the request the subject of discrimina- , tion against women and religious groups since the Council acted to include those two in the ordinance. He also suggested that the COmnUssion be asked to present a clear ; statement why they feel this recommendation is not an infringement upon First Amend- ment guaranteed rights. In making the suggestions Mr. Williams said both questions were raised at the time previous consideration was given the request for affidavit. M~S. Beal said another consideration might be pending legislation in view of possible extensive reworking of the OLCC rules and regulations. Comm 2/14/73 Affirm It. was understood the item would be scheduled for future discussion. T. -Segregation of Assessment Procedure - Councilman McDonald asked if there could be 'some explanation of the manner and reason for segregation of assessments. He .noted that people attending Council meetings do not understand these items when they appear on the agenda. Comm 2/14/73 File u. .policy, Council Motions - Councilwoman Campbell asked for clarification of the I minutes wi th regard to recording of votes of the Council on motions, sometimes showing how members voted, sometimes showing only that the motion carried. She ; referred specifically to the vote on S.B.100 at the February 7 cOmrrUttee meeting. 'She suggested that the committee meeting could be considered a work session with la consensus recorded rather than motions being acted upon. .d e It was generally agreed that continuing the system of acting upon motions at the committee meeting would be desirable and it was decided the subject would be dis- cussed and worked out in a meeting of the Council on :j. ts procedures. Comm 2/14/73 Affirm ,tlL. 2/26/73 - 16 / 'I' - ,~ . V..: Hc:using Code Enforcement Policy - Councilman Murray sai d information he recei Jed ,w~ th regard to previous action of the Council limi.ting Housing Code enforcement ,was that in effect compliance was limited to meet safety and health standards to : those areas under study for urban renewal programs. It was not the intent nor :~oes the City not wish to enforce its Housing Code, so it is assumed any exist- I~~g problems are ~aused by not, being funded or staffed. ~, CdIT1ID Z2/14/73 File ; "...___._.1 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that Items J,thro\igl1-V~e:' approved, affirmed, filed as noted, except Item C (see action taken separately, page 5). Rollcall vote. councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. and All III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 165 - Vacating Fairway Loop between Delta Highway and Country Club , Road (Public Works), read twice on January 22, 1973 and held for clarification of transfer of title upon vacation, was brought back for consideration. City Attorney advised that property on which this street was built was previously held by the County; it was not a dedicated right-of-way. The City received the property as a County Road when that area was annexed. Under State.law when it is vacated title will go to Lane County rather than to owners of abutting properties as in vacation of dedicated streets. Staff recommended proceeding with the vacation, then owners of abutting properties can negotiate with County for purchase of the property. e Mrs. Beal'Ijloved secon'dedby- Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16715. . Cqllineil Bill 'NO"; 1'79'-, Levying assessments for paving 43rd Avenue from West Amazon Drive to west 320 feet (72-21) submitted and read the first time on February 12, 1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration pf Panel recom- mendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time py council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved Rollcall vote. numbered 16716. seconded by Mr. Williams that C.B.179 be approved and given final passage. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared, passed and .' Council Bill No. 181 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within Robins Glen Subdivision and area within 160 feet of'boundaries of said subdivision (72-28) submitted and read the first time m February 12, 1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in'full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that C. B .181 be approved a.iJ.d given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16717. Council Bill No. 182 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and s~brm sewers within 1st Addition of Southridge and Vine Maple Drive from Spring Boulevard),to 300 ,feet south (72-35) submitted and read the first time on Febru~ry 12, 1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that C. B .182 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall, vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and " numbered 16718. Council Bill No. 183 - Levying assessments for paving Myers Road from Gilham Road to 442 feet west (72-40) submitted and read the first time on February 12, 1973 and r€Eerred to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommenda- tion to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. - Mrs. Bealmoved seconded by Mr. Williams that C.B.183 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. ,All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16719. Council, Bill No. 184 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on Brewer Avenue from Gilham Road to Norkenzle Road (72-7 and 72-8) submitted and read the first time on. ,February 12,1973 and :r;eferred .to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought &5' 2/26/73 -17 ,. back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number only, there being no councilman presen t requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be aI?proved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16720. '. Council Bill No. 185 -' Levying:assessments for p~ving and storm sewer on 18th, Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to'1050 feet west ( 72-48) submitted and read the first time on February 12, 1973 and referred to Hearing Pane~ on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number oDly, there being no councilman presen,t requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declar~d passed and numbered 16721. Council Bill No. 186 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer within McD's Plat and within 160 feet north of 23rd Avenue between Grant Street and Garfield Street (72-58) sub- mitted and read the first time on February 12, 1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on February 19, 1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy assess- ments as proposed, and read the second time by council bill number only, there b~ing no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given' final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except~"Mr;/' McDQ.n~~d:;abs_tain~!1g, the biil was'declared passed and numbered 16722. ;. Council Bill No. 160 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Delta Highway and 1250 feet east of Delta Highway from 500 feet south of Goodpasture Island Road to 1500 feet north of Goodpasture Island Road (72-16), submitted and read the first time on February 8,1973 and the second time on February 12,1973 and referred to Hearing Panel on February '19,1973, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommen~at~on to defer collection of assessment for Phases II, III, and IV of Flintridge Village PUD ~ubject to granting trunk line easement, and subject to working out time limit 'for development'of Phases II, III, and IV. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that C.B.160 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16723. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to def~r collection of assessment against' Phases II, III, and IV of Flintridge Village PUD subject to granting of trunkline easement through the property, and subject towo~king out a time limit for development of Phases II, III, and IV. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, ,motion carried. Councilman Murray asked if there was any connection between this property and that upon which commercial zoning was previously discussed. Manager pointed out its location on a map showing it east of the Delta Highway and the Kingsley Road property. . Councilman''"-Hershner asked if it is the policy to request property owners to sign applications for Baricrofting on deferred assessments so that the City does not have to pay them out of the General Fund. Public 'Works Director confirmed that process. 1/ . Council Bill No. 187 - Amending Section 6.055 City Code re: Garbage Cans and Containers Size, was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read,tn full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was deeiar.ed passed ~nd numbered 16724. - ~ Council Bill No. 188 - Paving streets within 2nd Addition to Candlelight Park was sub- mitted and read the first time by council bill number and title' only, there being no council- man present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the, second time by ,council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and thatenactmeht be'c0risi~ered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bil.l number only. t.6 Mrs. Beal moved secon~ed by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen pr~sent voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16725. ' . Council Bill No. 189 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 2nd Addition to Candlelight 'Park was submitted and rea9- the first time by council bill number and title 9nly, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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 una11imously and the bill was read th~. second time by' council bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill,be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen pre~ent voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16726. Council Bill No. 190 - Construction of sanitary sewer,within 2nd Addi~i9n to Candlelight Park was subrr4tted and read the first time by council bill number arid title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. ~lliams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Counci;t., iIDd that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimous;t.y and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. -"'- Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16727. ' Council Bill No. 191 - Adopting plans and specifications 'for construction of sanitary sewer: within 2nd Addition to. Candlelight Park 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. 'All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 1672 8. -"""''''~ '\-....;. . ,.~, \. Council Bill No. 192 ;.., Construction of sanitary sewer Firland Boulevard and 2500' feet south of Firland Boulevaro east was submitted and read the, first time by council bill no councilmen present requesting that it be read in full. in area between 1400 feet south of , . from North Shasta Loop to 3000 feet ,number and title only, there being Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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'uncil bill number only. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill bel approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16729. Council Bill ,No. 193 - Adopting plans and specifications 'for construct,ion of s ani tary sewer in area between' 1409 feet south of Firland Boulevard and 2500 feet south of Firland Boulevard from' North Shasta Loop to 3000 feet east was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilm.an present requesting that it be read in full. ,tt Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams 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. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16730. Request for Bid Waiver and award of contracts to Benge Paving, Inc., on paving and to T&P Enterprises on sanitary sewer within 2nd Addition to Candlelight Park - Lyndon Homes, Inc. . Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the bid waiver. Rollcall vote. ,Motion carried, all councilmen presentt voting aye. '7 Council Bill No. 194 - Levying assessments for paving north/south alley between Oak Street and High Street from 27th Avenue to 270 feet north (72-41) 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 Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred. to Assessment Hearing Panel on March 5, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation on March 12, 19 7~. Motion carried unanimously. Counc~l Bill No. 195 - J;,evying assess!!lents for paving Norwood Street ,from Carmel Avenue to Marlow Lane (72-42) was2submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present'::--requesting that it be read in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing Panel on March 5, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation on March 12, 1973. Motion carried unanmmously. Council Bill No. 196 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within 6th Addition to Oak Hills, and paving Stoney Ridge Road from CraigmontAvenue to 400 feet north (72-46) 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::; '. .Beal on March March 12, . . moved seconded by Mr., WiJ.,liams that the bill be referred, to Assessment Hearing Panel 5, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation on ' 1973. Motio n::arried unanimously. Council Bill No. 197 - Levying assessments for:sanit,ary sewer between U. S. Highway 99 and 400 feet west and between 5th Avenue and 1700 feet northwest (72-56) was submitted and read the .first time by council billnumbeF' and title only, there being no councilman present re- questing that it be re,ad in full. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be referred to Assessment Hearing Panel on March 5, 1973 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation on March 12, 1973. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2151 - Authorizing increase in taxicab service rates was submitted. Councilman McDonald said he was voting "no" because he felt taxicab rate recommendations should be made by a committee of the Council. Mrs., . Beal move~ seco~p.ed by Mr:. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, motion carried. Resolution No. 2152 - Transmitting to P+?Dning Commission for hearing qn March 13, 1973 various rezoning requests, was submitted. Mrs. Beal roved seconded by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All councilmen pres,ent. voting aye, motion :carr~ed. Resolution No. 2153 -:- Authorizing payment of bills and claims for perio.d February 12 through Fepruary 26, 1972 was. submitted. Councilman Hershner asked about the payment of $1,000 to the Center for Environmental Research for the South Hills density study and the $1,000 payment to each of three people for back wage settlement. Plann~ng Director said that a contract was entered into with the State Board of Higher Education to provide pro:fe.ssional services through the Center for evaluations in the South Hills area - soils, climatic conditions, and other scientific type data. Manager con- firmed tpat t~e payments for back wage ,settlements were to other jail personnel .and similar to the claim on which a suit was filed. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr., Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All coun,cilmeIl present vot;ing aye, m<?tion carried.. Manager announced there would be no committee meeting on March 7 because both he and Assistant Manager would be out of town as well as the Mayor and several Council members. Upon motion duly made, seconded, qnd carried, the meeting was adjourned. '8 /~ Hugh McKinley City Manager -::~ ;ia. : ~~~ ~