HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1974 Meeting
I
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
August 12, 1974
./
411I Regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was ~alled to order by
The Honorable Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 12, 197~, ln the Councl1
Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James. Hershner (left
early), H. C. McDonald, Wickes Bea1, Beth Campbell, Robert Wood. Councl1 members absent
were Gus Keller and Neil Murray.
r
(0005) Ma:yoy.An.c:terson recognized the presence of members of Boy Scout Troop 79 working ,on ~
their Civic Merit badge.
I - Proclamation -;Canvassing votes cast in August 6, 1974 election to exceed the 6%
limitation by $2,666,746 for 1974-75 budget was read showing passage of the measure
by a vote of 5,493 "Yes" - 3,517 "No".
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept. the proclamation-:,
Motion carried unanimously.
(0048) II - Public Hearings , Jf _. .
A. I coa'e'~AinEinament re: Cluster Subdivisions - Recommended by the P1ann~ng Comm~s- ,
1'5ion June 24, 1974. Copies of official report were previously distribu~~d to '1
~ Council members setting out recommended amendments that would re~ax requ~rements!
in RA and R-1 districts on lot area, lot coverage, and yard requ~rements to per-!
lmit cluster type subdivisions of four acres or less in total gross ar~a. The I
,amendments would provide for site review designation, covenants ensur~ng use of j
,semi-private open space by all occupants of such a subdivision, and maximum, f
, densi ty of four u~i ts to _t~e .acr~.. ,. _. ., "..... . ~ ,
John Porter, p1anni'ng director, said the proposal would provide.' lor ai;i-v,~~opmen:r--
!of many odd-shape properties four acres or less in size which, could not be'. de-
'i veloped in a conventional manner and which would not qualify' for development
under PUD procedures. Site review procedures would provide an opportunity for
'adjacent property owners to express concerns, although site review approval would .;
not require public hearings and lengthy process_ing which applied in developing .\
under PUD procedures. Mr. Porter said there was sqme concern among the Planning' I
Commissioners tha t a maximum densi ty of four un-i ts to the acre was too low. How- !
ever, planning staff felt that a review after a year or so to determine workabilit~
of the provisions would provide an opportuni ty to increase the densi ty' if it was 1
. desired. A survey of parcels in the city of four acres or less in size indicated i
japproximately 930 of which about 400 appeared to. qualify for cluster subdivision.
!And the amendment, he said, would seem a step in the direction of encouraging
.. !compact urban grawth. \,
- I \
[Councilwoman Beal while recagnizing the advantage- of having a way to develop 'l
difficult parcels af land wandered who. wauld be respansible far upkeep or mainte- i
.nance af the open space areas. Mr. Porter answered that there would be provision "}'
in the ardinance amendment far legal documents l)lacing respansibility far mainte-j
nance. Formatian af associations within the subdivisian would be a desirable
method. He fel t there would be no. difference in maintenance an that type af !
[subdivisian than prablems wi th maintenance of individual lots. 'j
: i
I 1
Councilman Woad felt there wauld be a real potential for neglect of open space
iand wandered haw the ci ty cauld enforce compliance considering present difficul ty :' j
;with mowing weeds on private properties. Manager said that~. his understanding ,
~as that the amendment would nat cantemplate a contract between the city and
iresidents af a cluster subdivisian concerning a':certain standard of maintenance 1
iaf common ground. Requirements wauld be the same as for other residents of in- I
jdividual properties, he said, and it was recognized that there was a real problem 1
throughout the city with regard to external maintenance of properties. Stan Long,
Ilassistant city attorney, said it was his experience with townhouse and condominium
type awnerships that the graup contral did a better job in keeping properties up. I
IFurther discussion centered on this concern in relation to external upkeep in the I
~ lentire cit"1f.~wel~ 9:s_ir: th~.~rapos~d cll!s.ter subdivision, with Councilman Williams!
_. I wonderinfjJ. whe,~heir..,~heRlanning Cbmm~_?sion wOLzJ-d be interested in recommending in- i
jclusian af requirements far hame owners associatian or some ather way of requiring !
!external maintenance of properties. Mr. Parter said there had been discussions :
lwith the City Attorney"s office, regarding some type of cavenants to. apply to.
L._ ._.. - ..-~. ,. , ". _._ __. ._ _ _. ~. .._..__ _ "... ._ ,...... ._. ......_ ~..J .~ , _ .._ _.._._.__.,___
,:.....
.'
8/12/74 - 1
274
cluster ,5ubdI vTs-Ions;---an7Fu-iiTess-fhere'.'wasthe--intenElonto-broa"dentlie require-
;ment to cover the entire city he would like to bring to the Council samples of
!agreements to accompany the proposed amendments. He pointed out that ownership
I
jin a cluster subdivision would be no different from ownership in any other subdivi-
!sion except that there would be common ground. He said there was no urgency and. e
:if the Council wanted further report he fel tit would be in order to refer the <'
:matter back to the Commission. i
,In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Porter said it was possible that separate
lots in a cluster subdivision could be sold to one owner and used for rentals.
i
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to schedule public hearing on
the amendments as set out in the Planning Commission's official report.
'In response to Councilman Williams, Mr. Murray said it was not his intent to include:
in the motion a request for more information with regard to maintenance control at
'the time of the hearing. He said it would be appropriate to consider if it was I
brought but that the motion would not require that it be written into the ordinance. .
Comm
Vote was taken_",on th.~m(ition as stated~":-:'fi;fion carried unanimously. 7/24/74
- ~ . - "--" "'"' - ."-'"~' ....~. -.,..- - -- - ---.- -~"'...; ~=....,..~~. .~, - Pub Hrng
-- . .
Official report of the Planning Corrunission (June 24, 1974) was read recommending the code
amendment. Manager explained in response to question rais.ed in committee discussion that
maintenance of semi-private open space would be covered by covenant. requiring signed agree-
ments, recorded with the County, and running with title to the property. Under the cove- e
nant a property owners association in a cluster subdivision would become responsible for
maintenance of open space area, he said,. and if terms were not met then the city could have
the work done and assess the cost to the property.
Gary Chenkin, assisting planning director, said the revision added the requirement for
rezoning to provide for site review procedures where cluster subdivisions were to be
developed, mainly to assure compatibility with. surrounding. areas . It would ats.o limit that
type su'uoivision to four acres.or less with no more than four dwellings per acre. Anything
larger would have to be developed under planned unit procedures.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. (0 (!:;- c2)
Council Bill No. 621 - Amending City Code Section 9.550 re: Cluster subdivision in
RA and R-l zones was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no Gouncil members present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner 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. .... <-' ---_.
_. . . ~--~--~-~-:~.
.... --- ... -.- ....:.~...::; -----._--'"' --. _. -.-
'f , - - '-- '-"'-- -
.- ... . -"
In response to Councilman Wi~liams, Manager said that under this amendment a contractual .
agreement between property owners in a cluster subdivision would require maintenance of ' open-
s?ace property jointly owned and shared.
. Vote was taken on second.reading. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read
the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hers4ner that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members voting aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 17145
.. . ~_. . -~.... --'- '-- ".---.-. ~ ,.,..-. .._. ... ou,_ __~ .' u"_' '___- .-. - . I .~,.,- m -"'--r" _'"
B. Appeals ,,"'--. ---,'.. -'_.'-~.. ... - "-' '-"'---'"
, 1. RickettS-Baldwin, 2880Willamette - From decision of Sign Code Board of (Of8'/)
Appeals denying a second identity sign on the east building wall (July 15,1974),'
2~ Nelson Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road - From Planning Commission final approval
of Norkenzie and Minda pun (June 24, 1974).
I
. :~~Comin
\ Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to schedule public hearing on 7/24/,'74
the appeals at the August 12, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried /
Pub.Urng
unanimously. ~
..
1. Ricketts Music, 2880 Willamette
Letter from Wayne Wagner of Ricketts Baldwin Piaaos, 2880 Willamette Street, was .
read appealing the July 15, 1974 decision of the -Sign Code Board of Appeals to
deny permit for installation of an identity sign on the eaat building wall at that
loca~ion. Manager explained that the Sign Code permitted only one sign for each
street face of a building in this zone and an identity sign alreadywas in place on
the north wall away from the street. It was determined that the sign on the north
wall had been applied without a permit. Also, in discussion before the Boar<;l of
Appeals, it was revealed that a number of signs in that area erected under permits
I
8/12/74 - 2
215
issued in error appeared to be in conflict with the Sign Code. Appellant claimed he should
have the same signing opportunities afforded other buildings even though they were not
in conformance with the ordinance. Gist of the Board's decision, Manager said, was that
'- existing violations were no reason to allow additional violations of the code. They
would have to be addressed as a separate issue. Staff recommended denial of this appeal,
taking the position that the city did issue permits for signs. in violation but should
not authorize further violations unless the code was amended, and that was not recom-
mended. He said every effort would be made to bring other properties into conformance
with the code.
(0247) Wayne Wagner, owner/manager of Ricketts, said he had contracted with a supposedly reputable
sign dealer for installation of the sign on the north side of. the building and had not
known it was installed without a permit. He called attention to 13 or 14 other businesses
in that area with more than one sign, some having three or four facing one street, and
other types of signs which he felt detracted more from the area than the one he proposed
for the front of his buildirtg. He said he would not be able to put a sign in his window,
and because of the design of the building, identification would be difficult for the
public traveling from the south; He .also called attention to competitors' signs in
violation of the code and said the five-year amortization period should have been long
enough to allow their removal. And there was an existing sign on a building identifying
a competitive brand handled by a business no longer operating. He asked permission to
install what he felt was a necessary sign on the east face of his building.
(0400) Mary Sherriffs, speaking for the League of Women Voters, asked denial of the appeal.
e However, they felt it unfair that many nonconforming signs were allowed in the area,
especially when some were in direct competition to the appellant. They urged the Council
to immediately direct staff to correct the violations and to insitute a more stringent
review of the sign permit issuance process to assure equal application.
(0430) Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony.
Manager said that it was staff's intention to bring a course of action seeking correction
of the sign violations. He added that it should be recognized that the fact a city
official issued permits contrary to the ordinance did not make that ordinance inoperative.
An inventory of those signs in violation was prepared, those installed with permits and
those installed without permits, he said, and recommendations would be brought to the
Council with regard to their disposition.
.
Councilwoman Campbell said she strongly supported the Sign Code and would support the
decision of the Board of Appeals to deny Mr. Wagner's request for the second sign. She
said it was not her understanding that were would bea five-year amortization period for
the signs in violation in that area. Manager replied that no.. time period for conformance
had yet been set but he doubted it would be five years because they were not the more ex-
pensive, lighted type signs.
-- Councilman Hershner agreed that present violations should not call for authorization of
further violations. He asked if there' would be administrative problems if the appeal
was tabled until recommendations were received from staff with regard to the sign
violations in that area. Manager said tabling the appeal would not allow Mr. Wagner
to. proceed with the second sign, it would not assist him unless the Council considered
amendment to the code. He said if the sign was installed anyway it would be at the
risk of having to remove it at some later time when other nonconforming signs had to
be removed. Mr: Hershner said his intent by postponing was not to authorize the addi-
tional sign, but to know what would be done to resolve the entire problem at one time.
Councilman Woodsl1ared that concern. He also asked about the"sign in competition to
Ricketts remaining for a business that was not operating.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to postpone the appeal until staff was
in position to make recommendations to the Council with regard to proposed
action on other signs in the area erected contrary to the code but under
permit.
,~ Councilman Williams indicated his inteht to abstain because of conflict of interest.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered about the responsibility of the sign contractor.in this,
situation. She felt he should be 'aware of the ordinance. 0r if it was installed with
- knowledge that it was in violation, she thought the Council should know why the con-
tractors were not making their custqmers aware of the regulations. Manager answered
that if a permit was issued it would be assumed a sign was legal, and those installing
signs without permits could not speak for the entire sign industry. The' circumstances
under which the Ricketts sign was installed were not know, he said. He added that staff
makes every effort to monitor signs erected in violation and sometimes without permit
but because of staff limitations immediate action all the time is not possible. Mrs.
Campbell thought the signs in violation were the city's responsibility and compensation
should be paid to the people putting them up under permit if necessary to gain immediate
conformance.
8/12/74 - 3
1..1b
Manager felt because of Fasano requirements that some limit should be set for bringing
the matter back. He suggested postponement to the October 14, 1974 Council meeting.
Mr. Hershner with consent of Councilman Wood incorporated a deadline of e
", October 14, 1974 Council meeting into the motion.
Councilman McDonald wondered what the difference would be between tabling the issue
and postponing it. He said he could see nothing wron& after reading the Board of
Appeals minutes and viewing the property, with installation of a second sign on the
east side of the Ricketts building. Mayor Anderson explained that a tabling motion
would require a vote of the Council to bring the issue back for consideration. Post-
poning to a designated date would set a definite deadline for reconsideration.
Vote was taken on the motion to postpone to pO.'later than Octoberu.'i4,_ 1974. ;
Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald
voting no, Mr. Williams abstaining.
Mayor Anderson asked if the sign code provided for removal of obsolete or abandoned (0646)
signs. Patti Johnson, sign inspector, said that it did and that enforcement had been
started on the one mentioned.
B.2. Nelson Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road - Norkenzie and Minda PUD
Letter of appeal from Nelson Page was read asking reversal of Planning Commission deci-
sion June 24, 1974 giving final approval to the planned unit development at the south-
east corner of Norkenzie and Minda - 20 dwellings on about 2-1/2 acreS: ,Copies of e
Planning Commission staff notes and minutes for the June 24 meeting were previously
distributed to Council members. There were no ex parte contacts or other reasons for
abstention declared by Council members.
Will Johnstone, planner, reviewed history of the project and noted that there was no
preliminary approval. He showed slides of the property and ask etches showing layout
of proposed structures and open space. And he noted the difficulty in developing
the property because of its shape and access.
Public hearing was opened. (0778)
Roger Weber, 3012 West 18th Avenue, read a letter written by Nelson Page, unable to
attend the meeting, opposing the proposed development. Mr. Wever added his opposition,
saying the project would create a density contrary to the residential character of the
neighborhood.
Marvin Brabham, 1709 Minda Drive, also objected to the development, calling attention
to an appeal he had submitted on the final approval subsequent to r1r. Page I s appeal.
He felt the planning staff was inconsistent in its findings in that previous statements
that a low-density proposal would be desirable for compatibility with the surrounding
single-family development did not coincide with the present proposal having two-story e
buildings, one within 14 feet of the property line, which presented a definite impact
on adjoining properties. Also, previous planning called for two entrances to handle
traffic generated by the development whereas the present development had only one.
There was no playground, he said, regardless of previous indication that on-site open
space was most important, and although a reduction in density was previously called
for, there was none in this proposal. Mr. Brabham said the entire area was saturated
with multiple-family units and addition of the proposed development would create an
unfavorable impact on surrounding properties.
Jim Redden, architect, and co~ordinator for the project, and Oscar Krumdieck, the
developer, reviewed their efforts in putting together a development designed to meet
planning and public works departments requirements and to satisfy the desires of
neighboring property owners. Mr. Redden compared the location of structures on this
prop~rty with requirements for single-family lots and said maintenance of the property
~as a requirement under planned unit procedures. He felt, the development would meet
the General Plan provision for filling in vacant areas within the city. Mr. Krumdieck
called attention to the time and expense of developing working drawings for the project
after preliminary approval was gained with no appeal at that point. He felt that the
appeal of final approval was a delaying tactic, adding to costs of the development,
and that the Council should deny it.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. -
Mr. JonrLston explained the Commission's thinking in approving the development design,
which placed structures at an angle on the property to lessen: the impact on adjoining
properti.es. With regard to the one entrance on this plan, he said, the earlier plan
had centralized on-site parking and the two entrances would spread traffic leaving
the proper.ty rather than concentrating egress at one point; the present'scheme with
buildings over the entire property permits smaller sca~tered parking sites with
\
.~ "~,,I~-:::~ J.----
2.,7 8/12/74 - '4
,
buildings over the entire property permits smaller scattered parking sites with traffic
coming together at one egress point. The design was changed from preliminary plans also
- with regard to recreational areas, he said, a swimming pool adjacent to the property line
haying been deleted. It was hoped the units would be occupied by young couples and ,
older adults with a minimum of children so that recreational facilities within the neigh- I
borhood would be sufficient. Mr. Johnston said that because of the much better location I
.- I
of dwellings scattered over the site, rather than concentration in one area with one \
portion of the property left in open space, it was felt reduction in density was not so I
critical. It met the PUO and 1990 Plan density requirements. Manager added that the I
Planning Commission itself was concerned about the crowded arrangements of the original ,
"
design. They' felt this design was a great improvement even though the unit count remained I
,I
the same. 'I
I
I .
(O~CIO) l Mr. Brabham explained that people protesting the preliminary plans at the Planning Commission 1
: earlier consideration of the project were under the impression they ,had appealed. And he
, didn't understand the statement that the developer did not anticipate families with too
, many children since about half the units planned would be three-bedroom. With regard to
i recreational facilities, he said there were none nearer than the Sheldon Community Center.
t
,
! Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission final approval of the Norkenzie and Mil1da pun and that
proposed findings be prepared and brought t.o.,t.he .Council- for consideration
at a later time. ~.."
e In making the motion Mr. Williams set forth some of the issues that he said might be a
part of the findings: The appellant presented no evidence that the Planning Commission had I
I erred in giving final approval; the density provisions of the project were within those ,
,. set by the 1990 Plan and requirements for the RE PO zone; layout of the buildings appeared
I
compatible and .should be acceptable to the surrounding residential community; and in terms I
of overall housing situation in the city the subject property appeared to s~tisfy the need
I for using undeveloped residential land.
, l
,
(;Q3'?/) Councilwoman Campbell asked what kind of lever the city had to require maintenance of
condominium properties. Manager said that there is contractual arrangement with the
developer regarding his meeting commitments. If the units are sold to individuals then
a homeowners' association would be fanned by the buyers and that association would have
the responsibility for maintenance of the entire exterior portions of the project. Under
: the arrangement the city could force maintenance or do the work and bill the association.
I
I Mr. Jo;mston added in response to further questioning from Mrs. Campbell that although
there were no organized recreational areas within the project there were various open
I spaces contiguous to the dwelling units. .
I
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
- A short recess was taken. Councilman Hershner left the meeting.
C. Bids
~Public Works Department - Various improvement projects (opened July 30, 1974)
Cost to Amount
Hsmi gf Bidder and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budgeted
SIDf.,,'ALK:
I. In front of 2490 Agate Street (1088)
1. Devereaux .E, Pratt t Inc.......,....... I....... $ 981.00............ .4" Sidewalk....$ 22.50/Lin. Ft.....................O
2. Wildish Constructi!'n Company..................$ 1.467.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15. 1974
.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----_._-----~--------------------------------------------------------.
SANITARY SE'^'I:R:
2.. To serve Lots 5 through 10 of Point
Thomas A\ldition (168)
1. 'Shur-Hay Contractors, Inc................... .$20.159.08............ .San.Swr.Lat....$ 0.075/Sq. Ft..............$ 9;100.00..............0
2. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc................... $23.258.36 Service........$ 127.00/Each (City Property)
3. Wick Broa. Excavation.,...........,..........$25.0l2.00
4. Wildish Construction Company $31,019.00 COMPLIlTION DATE: October 1. 1974
,
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Central Blvd. from 28th Avenue to S. 1200 ft.
and between Central Blvd. & Spring Blvd, to
serve all lots in Hunter's Heven Subdiviaion (427)
1- Wick Bros. Excavation....................... .$20.293.50........... ..San.Swe.Lat.... $ O.ll/Sq. Ft.............,......O -i
. 2. Shut-Way Contractors. Inc.... ...... ; ... .. . . .. . . . $26.004.26
3. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc,..................$34.466.20
4. Wildish Constru"'ction Company................ .$41.678.00
5 . Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company......$71.623.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 1.,1974
....
-------------...----------------------------------------------------------------------.-..--------------------------------------------------------------~.
4. Within Mahalo Hilla 1st Addition (993)
1. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.................;; .$47.316.00.'........... .San.Swr.Lat....$ - 0;275/Sq. Fe...................O
2. Wildiah Const~ction Company.................$5l.002.50 Service........$ 280.00/Each
Storm Sewer....$ 510. aD/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1974
_...____________~_.-:~-_~____~_______----- __ .___ _._... ______~----------_-_________________--------------------__._________________________ 0-
2,8 8/12/74 - 5 - -. --------~~ --.-----------
. - ~------ .-- --~ < ..- . - _.... ...-___'___ . _0
I..... I.
~..:x~)
r"-:--"'- ..---- Cost to __.._4_-_____. ;' ,,..~7\in~~--
\ N " of Bidder ond Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to City Budgeted
'~ Area bet~ee~ City Vlew Street and 650 ft.
II .est of City Vie~ Street from 18th Avenue
to 1200 ft. S., including Lea Herb Plat (847)
1. \.'ick Bros. Excavation........................$ 9,971.0'0.............San.Swr.Lat....$ 0.05S/Sq. Ft...................O '
2. Forrester Coos.ruction Cornpany...............$12.l94.l6 Service........$ 4S.00/Each
3. Shur-.Hay Contractors. .Inc....................$13.228.38
l 4. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc...................$13,875.64 . ' : ...
5. Wildish Construction Company......,..........$17.3l7.20 , I ~
._-------------------_.._-----~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------=~~~::~~~-~~::~--~::~~~~_::_::~~---------~---:
. :OP~'l SC,'-::R:
I~' Palo~ino Drive from South of Harlow Road , j
I to South of Dapple liay (1032) 1
\ 1. \.lick Bros, Excava tion, , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29.574.30. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $29.574.30. . . . . . . . . . $37,000.00
2. Shur-Hay Contractors. Inc....................$43.336.l9
3. Dan Allsup Contractor, 'Inc.................. .$44.330.60
I----~~--~~~~~:~-~:::~:~::~~::_~::~::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------~-----------~--------------------------=~~:~:~~~-~~::~--~:~~:~~-::-::~:-------------:
1'7. :lorth Grand Avenue from Cheshire Street , . '
I to Sycamore (1071) . - :
I 1. Wick Bros, E:<cava tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $11. 224.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . $11. 224.00,..,. . . . ., . . SI1. 500. 00
2. L. D. Van Over Construction Company........ ..$14,883.00
i 3. Shur-\Jay Contractors. Inc................ ....$15, 790. 72
t 4. Benge Paving. Inc,...........................$15.916.66 :
, 5. \,'i1dish Construction Company.................$17,937.00 :
6. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc...................$18.828.50 __~~~~~__~:=~:~~_::_::~~____________J
j-----------------------------------.------------ ------------------- - .--.- -.-.. .-- .
I ___ ----h. _m___n_____ IIn1iJunt
I Cos t to ,
!?az. of Bidder and Project Co~tract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to Clty BUdgeted,
~, Eetween Spencer Ct. & Hilyard St. from .
I 39th Place to South (1076)
i $252200 0 .$2522.00..............0
I 1. Wick Bro9. Excavation........................ f . ................................. ........................ t
: 2, Shur-Way Contractors. Inc....................$ 3,363.84 _
: 3. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc...................$ 3.344.40 ,..
I 4. Wild ish Cons trUc t ion Company................. $ 7.730.00 . COMPLETION DATE ~__:~~~~~~~~_:::_::~:__________. ~
t -----------~--------------------------------------------------------. .
r~--~~~::~~:~:~~:~~~~-~~:~:~~~::~~~~~~~~:~~~~---------- :
: $ 9 735 92 0 ..................$ 9.735.92....-......$70.640.00
; 1. S11ur-~ray Contractors, Inc.................... . . ................................. .......
i 2. Wi1dish Construction Conpany.................$10.446.50
t 3. Dap Allsup Contractor. Inc.................~~~~~~~~~~~~______________________________---------------:~~:~::~~-~~:~:-~:~~~~:~~~-:::-::~:___________
k;~-~:~:::~-~:~~:~:~~-;~:~-~~~-~:~::~-~~:~~:-f~:;--
r ~anda Drive to South 200 ft. (1054)
I $7 4S0 00 ' $ 2,910.00..........$ 2.934.00
t 1. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc....................$ 8,726.10............................, . . .........,............
I 2. Dan Allsup Contractor, Inc...................$11.158.00
, C ti C 'I $12 755.00 .
\ 3. WildiGh onstruc on ompan. COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1974
i__________~_____________.~_~__.-~___-------- ----------------------.. --------------.------------------------~.---~---~-----------------------------,
Don Allen, director of Public Work~ reviewed .the bids. Contract award to the low bidder was
recommended on each project except (1) Sidewal~, 2490 Agate - Excessive bid price, recommend-
ation not to award the contract, (4) Sanitary sewer within Mahalo Hills 1st Addition, no
recommendation, excessive bid price. Mr. Allen said that funds were not budgeted for Item 2
(Sewer in Point Thomas Addition) nor Item 8 (Storm sewer between Spencer Court and Hilyard)
because those projects were not initiated at time of budget preparation; Item 5 (Sewer at 18th
and City View - Herb Lea Plat) was started on a 12.4% petition; and on Item 9 (Storm sewer
bet~een Belt,Line:and,B~r~els~n, 11th to Amazon Channel) only.a small porti?n of the entire ~
proJect was,~overedby' thlsb~d, the balance would be accompllshed later uSlng the balance ~
of the funds budgeted.
2. Public Works Department - Slurry Seal proj ect.. {opened. July 19, .~974)'
. - ---'.-... ._,_....-~ ~.. .--'..,. - ..- ~~--,,~.--.- . l\mount
, Cost to
i~;,;;c. of Bidder and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. . CORt to Clty Budgeted
: .174 Slurry Seal Projects (1087)
: (35 streets) ,
51 5 1 I $ 18 622 31 0 $ 18.622.31......... .$24.000.00
Interstate urr)' ea, nc....................... . ' ....................................................... _'
COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1974
,-------.-----~--------
~
Contract award was recommended to the bidder.
3. Parks Department - Pedestrian-Bicycle Path, South Amazon Park
Wildish Construction Co. $ 19,183.50
Shurway Contractors, Inc. 26,465'.21 Estimate $20,834.75
Contract award was recommended to Wildish Construction. Also recommended was addition to
the contract for construction of a section of thepathbetween,39t~and Donald for $955.50 .'
based on unit bid price. '
Public hearing was opened.
Virginia Mayer, 2850 Spring Boulevard, distributed maps to Council members with regard to (0165)
sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th Avenue to the south and Hunters Haven Subdivision (Item
3 - July 30 opening). She called attention to the properties on Spring Boulevard and Central
8/12/74 - 6
2.19
Boulevard which had changed ~wnership since the project was petitioned. She said that more
than half of the total property owners were opposed to installation of the sewer because
they were already connected to the sewer on Spring Boulevard. She said that when connection
. of her property to the Spring Boulevard sewer was permitted she was told the sewer would not
be assessed at that time but would be later and that the connection could be made so long as
she did not object to construction of a sewer line below their property. She said she
granted an easement on the west side of her property, but that it was never her understanding
she would be assessed for a sewer other than the one used. She continued with description
of lots in the area, sewer service, time schedules of construction of homes and sewer con-
nections, and claimed there could not possibly be an overuse of the Spring Boulevard sewer
as maintained by the engineering department. Mrs. Ma.yer said the majority of property
owners who would be assessed for the Central Boulevard line were already adequately served
by the Spring Boulevard line ,and they did not feel it necessary to construct another costly
facility at their expense with the added expense of costly connections. She added that the
affected property owners were open to communication; they felt they had a legitimate objection
to the construction. I
(1285) Jess Hayden, 2800 Spring Boulevard, saw no need for the sewer. He said septic tanks in the
area were working well and that the cost of the proposed line would be too expensive for the
many older retired people on fixed incomes owning property there. He asked elimination of
this project on the basis that it was needed. to serve only a couple of properties.
(1358) David Dougherty, 2829 Central Boulevard, read a letter from William Siefke, 2837 Central
Boulevard, also objecting to the sewer. Mr. Dougherty said neither he nor his neighbors
. had been contacted with regard to petitioning the project and they had no knowledge of it
prior to notice of bid award. He too felt there was no health hazard in the area, that
septic tanks were working satisfactorily, and that the sewer line was not needed.
. . . ..
(1407) Manager explained the city's position that eventually all properties within the city, would
be served by public sewer, that septic tanks were not considered a permanent sewage disposal
installation even though in satisfactory working condition. He pointed out that it was not
the city's responsibility to see that petitions were carried to each property owner in a
neighborhood; 'the city received petitions carried at the pleasure of_those desiring. public
facilities. However, petitions constituted no legal requirement for Council authorization
of a project. They simply indicated a citizen desire for a facility and the city general~y
accepted them for sanitary sewers regardless of the percentage. Manager further explained
that the public hearing was held at this point,' after bid opening, so that a.good estimate
of the cost involved would be available. So thile the Council did accept the petitions, he
said in response to Mr. Dougherty's concern about not being forewarned, the Council at this
time does have the choice of proceeding or abandoning the project.
.J
In response to Mr. Dougherty, Mr. Allen said the estimated ll~ per square foot would cover
the cost of work under this specific .contract,.that the connection from the lateral sewer
to the' house would be an, added expense to each property owner. He emphasized the city's
reponsibility for design of a complete system. He said the properties on the west side of
. Spring Boulevard annexed to the city in order to make connection to the Spring Boulevard
line. The city had the option at that time, under code provision, to charge for that con-
nection. However, that option was not exercised on the basis that it would ma~e the Central
Boulevard sewer, when it was constructed, more expensive. He said the properties on the west
side of Spring Boulevard were included in the permanent system the city was trying to build
at this time. Also, he said, abQut 90% of the land on the west side of Central Boulevard
could not be assessed (Laurelwood Golf Court) under legal requirements. The Spring Boulevard
properties would have availability of a sewer paid for entirely by other people. He thought
it doubtful that they could have been forced to use the Spring Boulevard line even with
assessment because of the gravity flow versus pumping situation. Mr. Allen felt the bid
price on this project was a good one in spite of the current inflationary trend. He also.
called attention to the fact that no testimony was presented when public hearing. was held
when ordinance for construction of the project was adopted. In response to the Manager,
Mr. Allen said an extension of the proposed sewer line was not contemplated at this time.
" And he estimated the Hayden assessment at about $3500 to $4000. . -
Phyllis Kerns, 856 East 19th Avenue, said she bought her property abutting Central Boulevard
from the Barbers with the understanding from the Public Works Department that a sewer would
be installed to serve that area. When she found the neighbors epposedto the installation
she attempted to get a permit for a septic tank or a connection to.allow pumping into the
Spring Boulevard sewer. Neither was allowed, she said, and she was caught with property
on which she could not build. The Garbers, from whom she bought the property, indicated
-, they thought the sewer should be constructed to utilize full use of properties in that area.
M. G. ,Chrones , 284l'Central Boulevard, said he was opposed to installation of the, sewer
because it would give needed service to only two lots. . ,
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
" .
(1556) Manager.noted letters on file from those speaking indicating essentially the same position
as stated in their testimony.
250 8/12/74 - 7
. Councilman Williams asked if Ms. Kerns could build on her property only if the sewer was
constructed if there was no way she could pump to the Spring Boulevard line and a septic
tank was not permitted. Mr. Allen answered that in some instances a septic tank was allowed
with a pump installed to take effluent into a sewer line, but that would be subject to
County Health Department approval and would require easements to the Spring Boulevard line. ~
Other than that the only way Ms. 'Kerns' property could gain sewer service would be to run ...,
a private line connecting to the 28th Avenue sewer.
Councilman Wood said it appeared that installation of the sewer would aid in filling in
vacant land in line with community goals. However, he thought some other solution should
be sought if it was intended to extend the line beyond this area rather than to burden es-
tablished property owners any more than necessary.
Councilwoman Beal asked for clarification of a possible connection to the Spring Boulevard
line. She wondered why the city could not permit that type of installation. Mr. Allen
answered that issuance of permits for septic tanks was a County responsibility. The city '.s
jurisdichon would apply only if it was decided to run a private line to the 28th Avenue
sewer, and if that was done it would have to be abandoned when the city sewer was installed.
Councilman McDonald wortdered if use of septic tanks in this area would result in the same
situation of more costly sewer installation as occurred in the Crest Drive Area when those
tanks started failing. He asked if those people having sewer service from the Spring
Boulevard line were aware at the time of connection to that line that some future system
would be necessary that would have to be assessed to their p,roperties. Mr. Allen answered
that County inspection would be necessary to determine the functioning of septic tanks
in the Central Boulevard area at this time, and that could be requested if it was desired./~
The County was not requested to inspect the tanks at the time the petition for this sewer ~
was submitted. He added that an attempt was made to convey to the owners of properties
connecting to the Spring Boulevard line that when permission was given to make that con-
nection it would not exempt them from any future assessment for a properly designed system
to serve the area.
Councilwoman Beal wondered about the design of the proposed system and in discussion with
Mr. Allen brought out that the line would be more expensive than normally would be the
case because a goodly portion of abutting property could not be served by gravity-thus
not benefiting from the installation. Also, that it would be an integral part,of an over-
all system to serve the entire area and under the city's rules and policy would be the
most economical system for the area. Mr. Allen repeated that properties on the west side
of Spring Boulevard have not been assessed for use of the Spring Boulevard line. City
policy, he said, was that no one within the city limits could be denied connection to an
existing sewer line. However, use of a city line does not relieve properties from future
assessment for a system designed for an overall area. Mr. Allen said that owners of
every property subject to assessment for the Central Boulevard sewer had had a "free ride"
to this point and had been told when permission was given for connection to the Spring
Boulevard line that they would be subje~t to assessment in the future. He added that those
objecting to installation of this.sewer on the basis of Code provision for city payment of
assessment in certain instances' were misinterpreting the provision; that specific regula- ~
tion, he said, was written to apply to installation on the city limit line and permitted ~
city payment of assessment to avoid double assessment to properties inside the city abut-
, ting one side of an installation.' .At' a later ,time when property outside the city abutting
the other side of the installation ,was annexed the assessment cost would be recovered by
the city.
Councilman McDonald saw no reason to make an exception in this instance, especially since
those using the Spring Boulevard line were made aware of possible future assessment.
Councilwoman Campbell wondered how many owners of other properties which could be served
by the proposed sewer would demand septic tanks if Ms. Kerns were given permission to use
one. She felt sure, she said, with. the considerable.amount of property in that area yet
to be developed that the County would not be inclined to grant ~eptic tank permits for
all of it. Manager recognized the potential for subdivision and development of other
properties along Central Boulevard. He said that at some time,in the future a sewer would
have to be installed to serve that area and that future construction would not be less
expensive than it was at this time. . In response to Mr; Chrones' statement that he had no
int.ention of subdividing his property and that other properties were either bare ground
or had been developed already, Manager said that in the event of change of ownership it
was entirely possible that development would occur requiring sewer on that street.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to award contract to the low bidder (171jlt
(Wick Bros. Excavation ~ $20,293.50) for construction of sanitary sewer on Central ~
Bpulevard from 28th Avenue to the south 1200 feet and between Central Boulevard
and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven Subdivision.
Councilwoman Beal stated her aversion to voting in favor of the motion, but recognized that
it was essential for the health of the general public that installation of sewer systems
proceed because of ultimate failure of septic tank disposal systems. She said the Council
.. "'-.,1'
8/12/74 - 8
2&\
\ had been faced again and again with that type of situation so she saw nothing else to do
but to proceed with lnstallatioU''Of,the line., . ~
/ ' -
Councilman Williams echoed her comments. He :s.aid he realized it would not satisfy the
- people in that immediate area, but the Council had to consider the best judgment, for"
the community as a whole. He said sooner or later the entire city would have to be
sewered and it would be less' expens'ive to do it now than five years, from now. t
.- '. " ." . , .0 ,
Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Mo.tibn carried with all
Council members present voting aye.
.J .' , ;
Mrs. Mayer asked' fora 45-day delay in execution of, the contract to give those people
obj ecting to ,the proj ect an opportunity to work out a solution other than installing
the line. She said she had received conflicting statements from the engineering de-
partment with regard to assessment for. the Spring Boulevard sewer, and she wanted tOl.
try to work out some alternative to avoid the "costly as'sessment" amounting to $2000
wi thout 'includinghouse conrtections in some instances. Mr'. Allen acknowledged. that :,
the contract could be held for 45 days; that would be a Council decision. ,He cautioned,
however, that a 45-day extension would take construction into the rainy season and its
attendant problems.
. . . ~ .
Manager felt the only alternative possible would be to make provision for further pump-
ing into the Spring Boulevard line and he didn't consider that a long-range solution.
Mr. Allen added that designs were regulated by the DEQ and there weren.'t many alterna-
.tives for'this overall system that wouldn't involve a "hodgepodge" of individual con-
e nections including other properties along Spring Boulevard now using septic tanks.!..
u,
Councilman McDonald thought if it was postponed it should be postponed to next year
because ,a 45.,.day extension) w0uld 'take start. of construction well into: October when
the completion date was scheduled for October 1.
i, : \ I . , ) i
, -
No action was taken on request to hold the contract for 45 days. .1.
(1797) " ',Mr. Williams moved seconded bYJMr.'McDonald..to award. contracts to. low, 'bidder:
on each of projects listed in the July 30,..1974 opening ,except that Item 1
(sidewalk at 2490 Agate Street), was not awarded nbr.Item.4 (sanitary- sewer
within Mahalo Hills 1st Addition);' that contract be awarded to Interstate
Slurry Seal, Inc., for 1974 slurry seal projects bid opening of July 10, .19.74;
and th,econtract be awarded to Wildish Construction on their low bid price
for South Amazon pedestrian/bike path including the option 'for extension of
path between 39th Avenue and Donald Street at an estimate unit bid price of
$955.50.
J
In response to Councilman McDonald's question about 'Item.5, sanitary sewer in City View
and,18th Avenue area~ Mr. Allen said the petition started with representation of 36%
of the properties to be assessed but in final analysis amounted to only 12.4%. However,
'- he said, there was a sewage problem in the area and. abatement would be forced without
the proposed installation. ,
, ' ',' ,
Mayor Anderson inquired about Wick Bros. Excavation ,- whether that firm had performed
any proj ects for the city. Mr. Allen said they were 'qualified, that it was a firm split
off from another firm. He added that there would be a limitation on the number of
contracts awarded to them.
" ' , .,'
Rollcall vote was taken on the, motion as. staeed. Motion carried, all
Council members present voting aye.
(1819) D. Street and Easement Vacations .; . . ~-
l. Portion of Wallis Street between Stewart Road and West 11th frontage road (Wingard)
2. Easement between West 12th and West.,'13th west of Taylor (Breeden)
3. Easement near northwest corner Obie Street and West 11th (Lanz)
4. Easement on south side of Stoney Ridge Road east of Agate (LaDuke)
Planning Commission at its June 10, 1974 meeting recommended the vacations.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bi 11 No. 622 - Vacating portion of Wallis Street between Stewart Road
-- and West 11th frontage road was read the first time by
council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
8/12/74 - 9
'2.~2
r
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill, be read the second time, by council.
bill nUmber only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was' read the ,second~time by council
bill number only. -~
Mr. Williams mbved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. '
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the Dill
was declared passed and numb~red 17146.
Council Bill No. 623 - Vacating easement'between West 12th and West 13th west of
Taylor- Street was readq the first time by council bHl number'
and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood 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. " .-:J - ,
- ..'
"
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passag-e.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 17147. ' .
Council Bill No. 624 - Vacating easement near'northwest corner of Obie Street '~~
and West 11th Avenue was read the first time: by counciJ,
bill number and title only, there being no coun'cilman pr'esent requesting that .' e-
it be read in full.
, I
Mr. Williams moved~seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be.:'cohsidered
at this time. Motion carried->>nanimously, and the biU was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Herhsner not present.. the bill
was declared passed ahdnumbered 17148.
Council Bill No. 625- Vacating easement on south side of Stoney. Ridge Road east
of Agate Street was read the first time by; council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it
be read in full.-
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was' read the second time by council
bill number only.
, _.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved, and given-final passage.
'"'
Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill
was declared p~ssed and number 17149.
.
, - - '-
E. Rehabilitation of buildings in Downtown Renewal 'Project area by January 1976
,
~-"---"'-.-.~_._._-- .--- . -. .....-. -- -- ---~. .- _.. ~ - .- ~
iRehabilitation of Buildings in Renewal project Area - Manager explained that ,
(the ERA downtown renewal project plan provided for rehabilitation of existing ,
buildings,identified by blocks, which met certain standards. All structures ,
I
i
designated for rehabilitation were to comply with fire prevention regulations.
Necessary work had been completed on most of the buildings in the project area,
he said, however some 30 or so buildings remained. Since the project was !
anticipated to be closed out by the end of 1976 it was considered important to !
expedite rehabilitation commitments. Attention to sprinklering systems and
lother fire prevention measures was of particular importance because of limited ,
:accessibility for fire fighting equipment to the pedestrian mall area. ERA
:has worked ~ith property owners because of concern about the financial impact
;and received HUD approval for 3% loan money to a maximum of $50,000 per owner-
,ship for rehabilitation purposes. In addition, ERA set up its own lending pro-
igram bas/~d on money borrowed from local banks at 6-1/4% for amounts more than I
I
:$50,000. Council was asked to consider adoption of an ordinance setting a
! deadline of Jan~ar.Y_-12?6.for"c:~!EP..letiql},of l}ec.~?s~r.y Jehabili ta tion work - to -'
bring -"th-e 'remaining buildings into compliance wi th codes. ..' Pi:op'ertyoWTiers--:nave -, ...?'
,~een made:aware.of the necessity for completing the work and of the availability
'of financial assistance through ERA and HUD. There will be an ,appeal and hearing
procedure available to people although property owners will be encouraged to com-
plete the work prior to the suggested January 1976 deadline.
8/12/74 - 10
l 253
ICouiicilman Murray asked if the requiremen t for compliance would resul t.. in d~rnC!l} -: ".r
!tion o.f buildings~ Bob Tho.mas, ERA, 'ans~ered that demolition was practicall~ c6m~1
:plete in the project area. This requirement was more for the purpose,':.of facilitat-i
e ing rehabili tation. i
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Heal to adopt an ordinance setting a :
compliance date of January 1976 for 'completion ,of rehabilitation work in r
the downtown renewal project, and directing staff to draft an ordina.nce Comm
and schedule a1]public hearing. 7/17/74
. r! f . ,
./ ' ' . Pub' flrn
!councilwoman Beal asked how many ownerships were involved in the buildings remain~: g
I '
! ing. to be rehabili ta t, ed. Manager sai d tha t informa tion could be:?obtained; he said '\
:he.could identify a couple of eases where two buildings were in one ownership.
I
~, "Vote was taken on the motion' as st~ted. Motion carried unanimously ~ I
l ..., -- ,.O'.. " ", ......__.. ......'.. __ u_ _'._ '-, '....' .u,' __..____.___-'-'~-----_.,-, ,",' _l
Manager reviewed the need for setting a deadline for rehabilitation of buildings in the
downtown renewal area as set out in committee minutes above.
,. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 630 -Setting January 1, 1976 for completion of building
rehabilitation in Downtown Renewal Project was read
the first time by council bill number and title only, there being no council-
4It man present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell 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. Mation carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second
time by counci~ bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17150. '
(0864) III - Items to be acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee on July,24, .1974 (Present: Council members Williams,
(presiding), Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood) and July 31, 1974 (Present: Mayor
Anderson; Council members Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood.) Minutes of
those meetings are printed below in italics.
A. !Petition, Paving alley between Willamette and Oak from l3th,to 14th - Peti- -
!tioned by owners of 65% of property to be assessed. Viewed by Council members
Ion tour. '
i
_ I Mr. Woo.d moved seco.nded by Mr. Murray to' 'accept the petitio.n. :
- I .:
! Councilwoman Beal asked for a listing of properties abutting the alley to de- .
I termine whether they were owner-occupied dwellings or rentals. Also to see !
~ which ones were represented on the petition. Manager pointed out on a map ,
! those properties represented on the petition'and said a list showing rentals
l, and owner-occupied properties wo.uld be prepared for Council information: Comm
I 7/24/74
1 Vote was taken on the motion to accept the peti tion. Motion carried Approve
i unanimousl y.
I., .;..,... u..'.....'......'u,...__...,... ........'...." ,,,,"__'." "'_ "."" _,."." ~._.. "''',.'' ~...-,.._---..-.....
Manager in answer to. questian raised when Council toured the area said there was one
owner:"'occupied property abutting the alley improvement. The occupant was an elderly
lady who undoubtedly would be eligible for assessment deferral under the proposed
hardship defereal pragram. Also, he said, there was a gaod possibility because of
her health that she would be facing the passibility of selling the property and
moving someplace where she could receive the care she needs. So although the property
would be subject to assessment there appeared to be alternatives available to that
property owner.
'. ,
B Pedicab Service, Downtown Mall - Copies of letter from Genevieve Davenport
. I ' '
~ irequesting permission to operate a pedicab service within the downtown mall
.., iarea were previously distributed to Council members. Managef referred to
'.~' \Council action in June 1971 giving permission to Gary Dutel1.to operate a \
Ishuttle bus service in the mall which did not materialize. He said this
lseemed to be a similar service and while there were technical questions
!raised about allowing this service and prohibiting bicycles o.n the mall he i
jcould see no problems and thought it 'might be worth a trial. Bob Thomas, ERA, \
said it had not been discussed by that agency. .
!.., ,.' __, __ _ ," ''''',' ___,. _.' .,. ".._'" u .._..,.., ,...,'-,.,____,....____ ,..... .. ...., --,,'.' --.,
8/12/74 - 11
284
--- . - - ,,-."--.- .._._~ +~- "-'-0"-'- ___ _ '__' . -.' -.-.--.-. .--.-.-.-. - ,........'
Councilman williams asked if the city would assume liability in the event of
collisions if permission was granted. Manager assumed an agreement would be
worked up which would take care of any city liability.
Councilman Murray wondered if grantin<Jpermission could lead to involvemen't e
in some kind of franchise arrangement as those covering operation of taxicabs. ,
Manager saw the six-month trial period in the nature of'anexperiment. After .
I that period of time, he said; a determination could be made whether it should I
'be treated like bus or taxi operations in the city. !
Councilwoman Campbell said she understood the Eugene Downtown Association had ,
\
directed a letter to the Council recommending the operation. She wondered if ,
,
I
it would be a year-round operation and what the restrictions were as to area ,
of operation. Mrs. Davenport answered that it was hoped to make the service ,
!
a year-round operation. To date the pedicabs were operat~d in all areas of
the city except in the mall. Councilman williams read a letter addressed to i
!
,him from the Eugene Downtown Association recommending pedicab operation on the
~mall and its periphery.
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve a six.-:month trial I
period for operation of the pedicab within the downtown mall subject
to reconsideration prior to the end of that time at the request of
either the operator or the city, and also subject to negotiation of !
an agreement protecting the ci ty against any liabili ty.
\
I
I j
:Councilwoman Campbell wondered how permission for this operation would affect I .
iothers who had r~quested operations on the mall - ice cream carts, fresh ;
,vegetables, etc. Manager said that led back to the issue of commercial activi- !
Ities which had been left alone hoping for a more sp~cific recommendation from; l
ibusiness people on the mall. However, the pedicab operation was a transporta,- ;
I . I
ition operation, selling a service, not materials.
ICoimn
! Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 7/24/74
I . A
J pprove
I '_ _ ,,' __. __ "-'~.-- I
.Glen Stadler, EWEB, reportf!g,ol1 similar operat.ionsand .thei]: populari t.y andcfm-
venience observed on a recent trip to the.Orient. -
-"'- -'-"---- --- , .-- ~ "..- -.- --..:--..-.-.-----.
C. :Minor Pa;ti tion, Charles Hooker (Barger Drive Right~of-way) - It was explained ;
Ithat the Charles Hookers had sold a portion of their property at the southwest 1
:corner of Ruskin and Barger without following' ordinance requirements for minor \
I ... As a result, the necessary dedication of needed right-of-way for
Ipart~t~on~ng.
IBarger Drive improvement was not obtained. To approve and legalize the parti- \
I
. tion of the land and implement clearin~ the title, it was proposed that the
Hooke~s dedicate the needed right-of~way from the remaining portion still in i
their ownership, and that they indemnify the city to a maximum amount of $2,025
for the cost of Obtaining the needed right-of-way from the portion which they sold.: .
Councilwoman Campbell wondered if Mr. and Mrs. Hooker would be penalized for ,
violation of a city ordinance. She felt there would be some obligation on their i
- part because of the violation. Manager explained that they would be mor~ or less!
isubject to penalty without bringing it into court because they would be unable to/
~<If!t .c:leas, ~itle ,~?,_the~.I!Fopert:.1f. ,C}r abui~c?:~_ng 1?e..rmi t un.t.:i) _th.~:re.._!'!Cl.s. s()Irlf? .provi:""f
i sion for dedication of the right:-:of-way. In meetings w~ th attorneys fori
i Mr. and Mrs. Hooker, he said" they' agreed to indemnify. the ci ty in acquisi-;
i tion of the needed right-of-way. 1
I \
i I Comm
i Mrs. Beal moved seconded ~y Mr. W~od to approve an agreement as ~7 /24/74
i recommended. Motion carr~ed unan~mously. ~
" .pprove
D. :c;i fi zens --Bank '''Mobile Uni t, 11 th and Pearl' - Councilman' wlil1.ams' advised
that he as a stockholder and director of Citizens Bank would not participate
in .the discussion or vote but would retain the chair unless there was ob-
jection from other Council members. There were none.
Copies of letter were previously distributed to Council members requesting
~7rmission to place a mobile bank unit on the site of the present motor -
I
bank facility at 11th and Pearl for a perioa of one year. The Bank wished I ~ ~-_...
to place the mobile unit on the site September 1, 1974 in conjunction with I
I
,the move to its new main office and while complete rebuilding of the motor I
bank was taking place. Staff had no objection. !
/
i
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray ,to approve the request. Comm
~"- Motion carried unanimousl~. 7/24/74
Approve
2f>S 8/12/74 - 12
E. (Mobile Home for Nightwatchman Quarters, 1955 Highway 99N - Requested by
: Bel va Keller. Staff recommended approval. i
... ! Mrs. Beal moved se~onded by Mr. Hershner to call publ ic bearing Comm
,.. on the request. Mption carried unanimously. 7/31/74
'. '- .V' .. " nn. ' Approve
, -
I .
F. Agreement, Administration of Social Service Agency Contracts for Fiscal
\
Year 1974-75 (City/County) - Approval of agreemerrt was requested covering \
contractual arra~gement for administration of the social services program
-by. the County for 1974-75. Manager explained that the program had been
;'Very successfully administered and there was no reason not to continue the
I arrangement identical to that approved for the 1973-74 fiscal year. He
I asked for authorization to sign the ~greement and reiease immediately with-
! out waiting for formal- Council meeting on August: 12. '
r .
Ii Assistant Manager in answer to Council woman Campbell explained funding com....
. lmi tments which were basically resolved in ,social services budget meetings. \
! He added that the question of procedures for succeeding years would be the \
J subj~ct of discussion at the next meeting of the budget committee. He veri- }
I fied Mrs. camPbel, l' s inquiry that the city had one person working half-time i
with the County on the program. :
'I ~
.'--_.. -~....-".--... -\
A ! Mr. wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the agreement . 1
- I and authorize immediate signing and releaSE!. "
I ,I
\1 couri~i1wom~n ~eal wondered why there ~as . a r~s~ about gettin~ the contract ~
out and sa2d 2t seemed to be another 2nd2cat20n of the Counc2l's suddenly
i being' asked to make an immediate decision.' Manager explained the urgency I
I involved - the social agencies needed the money and were depending upon funds l
r administered under this contract. He said the I'eason it had not come to the 0
ICouncil before this time. was because the process and funding' had not been
(completely settled. . :
I .' Commi
f ','>:Vo,t,;e was. taken on' the motion. as sta ted.' Motion ,cCJ.,rried unanimously, 7 /24/7~
~ Mrs. Beal voting aye wi th the usual reserva tions;she said. ' .; . Appro'fe
-1')''''''' --', -. ... -,,-, , -- '.-,----.. .... "'----'- -.. '.. ......
"
G. :Audit Contract, 1973-74 - Manager presented proposal from Coopers & Lybrand for
iaudit of the city's 1973-74 financial records at a cost of $~8,500. He explained
ithat the fee was $700 less than for the current year's audit due to further shift,
iof detail work to city finance department personnel.
i
I ,
I Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve .the contract with Comm i,
e I Coopers & Lybrand as pres en t,ed . Motion carried unanimously. , 7/31/74,
"_"n ,,_.. -.~-" ,-, .. ---- . ........ ----,...--........... ,. ,-, " .. __, _. ,___", , ' ,,,....,,.......---A-ppr~ve----.
,
H. tLegiSlative Information a'nd Communications Program, League of Oregon Ci'ties' - -\
ICopies of letter from League of Oregon Cities was previously furnished to Council'\'
!members. It asked for a voluntary assessment of $1,000 to help in expanding its \
:legislative program in order to better represent cities at committee hearings and ,
:provide more information on legislative issues. The assessment was computed at \
129 per capita, with a maximum of $1,000 per city. Staff recommended participation \
!because of the many legislative decisions which have a profound effect on the cost \
iof municipal operations. \
i . \
!Mayor Anderson hoped the cost of the expanded program could be worked out within \
I. , ,
:the League's dues schedule. He noted, however, the importance of expediting the \
[work in view of the forthcoming legislative session and some of the critical issues I
Ifacing ci ties - revenues, environment, etc. In answer.;to Councilman Hershner wi th I
iregard to preference for including the cost in the dues payment, Mayor Anderson I
lagreed that it was because the payment would then be mandatory to cOVer the cost \
[Of added personnel during the legislative sessions. '
icounciiwoman Beal wond~red if the m~ney could be better used for a legislative
~ lobbying fund. She felt Eugene had not received muc~ help from the League with
.., past legislation in which the city was interested and that a person working for
!Eugene interests alone would be more beneficial. Mayor Anderson recognized that
the position the League had to take on most legislative issues in order to repre-
(sent all 'the cities of Oregon might not necessarily be of special benefit to any
!one of them. Man~ger noted that there had been many issues o~ special interest to
: Eugene not supported by other Oregon cities on which there had been League support.
'. -'r__.~ __ ._. _.. "n_.._._'_' _,.___h_'__. .......... ,..... ..._. -,_ + .. . _
8/12/74 - 13
2.f>b
I
r'iie saTd-wh~t'was' b'iil,ng proposed was a greatly expanded-legislatlve comiid,'ttee"with"-'
the idea of having a locally elected official as liaison with each individual,
legislator to speak for the League on a personal basis. Also~ to i~crease the,
: number of meetings with legislative ca!l(lidat..~shP;r:i9;r: to~1_ec.t~onwhi:g}3h,t-!ould g~ve __
'the oPPortilnityforfeedback an~ perhaps ,affect the way cand~dateswere supported _
hy their local governments. Th~s would ~nvolve more expense, as would the lobby-
!ing effort during the session. He adJed that ex~enditure in addition to t~is
,$1,000 would be anticipated during the legislative session with regard to ~ssues
!of special interest to Eugene.
, Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the special assess- Comm
: ment of $1,000 to the League of Oregon Cities for the 1975 Oregon Legis- 7~3l/74
. , . d ' 1 Approve
lative Information and Communications Program. Mot~on carr~e unan~~ous y.
,
.- -" - -
I. iAppeal, Denial of Zone Change Request, North of Green Acrfls'Road east of Delta
,Highway - From RA to RG-SR (Safley-M&M) - Council took action on July 22 upholding
Planning Commission denial of requested zone change and instructed staff to prepare
statement of findings for consideration at the August 12 Council meeting. In the
meantime planning staff reported that Mr. Safley had contacted owners of property
in that area in an effort to co~ordinate planning of the overall area and resolve
the conflict between the industrial and residential uses. Apparently there was
potential for a mutually acceptable plan for use in guiding development in that
area, and planning staff asked authorization to suspend action on developing find-
ingsto see whether something oould be develope~ for presentation to the Planning ~
Commission for recommendation. Jim Saul, planner, said that withdrawal of the ,.,
application for RG-SR zoning was anticipate(l with submission of another in a
relatively short time.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded,by Mr. Murrgy, to table the matter until~further
report "from-'the/ planning department.
Councilman Murray expressed his approval of any attempt to do something about
the overall plan for the area, especially with regard to the County's plans.
Manager explained that uses of land on the west side of Delta Highway probably
became confused because of commitments made prior to adoption of the 1990 Plan.
Commitment~ to industrial uses in that area were probably not fully appreciated
when the Plan suggested medium density residential uses for the property east
jof Delta.
Assistant City Attorney cautioned that the discussion might be getting into issues
falling within Fasano guidelines and he suggested limiting it to procedural matters
unless it was decided to reopen the hearing.
Comm
i Vote was taken on the motion to table. Motion carried unanimously. 7/31/74
- See _action _
page 18 -~
Manager suggested postponement of thi.s rezoning issue to the, first Council meeting in
February 1975 rather than tabling ind~finitely for a report from the Planning Commission
since the issue was one falling under the Fasano guidelines.
J. :'A;'~exa-t.i~-I;'UR~q:';~~tU;'UWest of Delta and north of ~~dpasture IS1~-~-;'~oad"~Doer~~~~~-\
Copies of letter from Robert Moul ton, attorney representing the peti tioner, were \.
previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Moulton requested recommendation \
to the Boundary Commission for tabling of the'request. Staff recommended approval.!
I
Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend to the Boundary /
Commission that the Doerksen annexation request be tabled.
Councilwoman Beal remarked that the request was odd in view of Mr. Moulton's
many appearances before the CQuncil requesting a favorable recommendation on the
annexation to expedite action before the Boundary Commission.~ Mayor Anderson
thought the letter requesting tabling gave insufficient reason for the-action.
He thougbt Mr. Moulton should be asked to explain the petitioner's intentions ,
when the matter came to the regular Council meeting. Councilman Wood agreed but!
added that the Boundary Commission could resolve nothing anyway until the Plan-
ning Commission discussions on the Livingston & Blayney report were completed. i ._ '
Other Council members agreed but were curious about why the tabling request was i 1It
submitted. I /
I
Vote was taken on the motion to recommend tabling. Motion carried I
, 1 I
l unan~mous y. I Comm
I ' 7/31/74
i It was understood Mr. Moul ton would be requested to explain the reason for the Approve'
r request. !
I
8/12/74 - 14
2&1 ..
K. 'Purchase Right-of-'Way, Bailey Lane Sidewalk - Authorization was requested to
iexercise option for purchase of right-of-way from Lois Greenwood, 66 Bailey Lane,
; for $300.
- Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to purchase the property as Comm
i requested. Motion carried unanimously. 7/31/74
I ..-.' ... - .. '.""'Approve
. - ........ ~ - _. ...... "0_ .,._M_'" -
. -.--
-
L. :segrega~ion of A;sessment, Northwest corner 11th and Bertelsen - Requ~sted by ,
!M&H Investment Company -to segr.egate $5,566.42 of the assessment, leav~ng a \
: principal balance of $16,417016. Staff recommended app,roval. .\
. Comm
i I Wood to authorize the segregation.
' i Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. 7/31/74
l
I Motion carried, all Counci];'members present voting aye, except . ...H Approve
Councilman Hershner abstaining. -- .----.. ~-------_. --
---'.
.,.. '-'; ...... .. . - .~
.. -, . - . .'~
M. Assessment Panel Report August 5, 1974;
Manager explained that there were no protests and the recommendation was to levy
assessment as proposed in Council Bill No. 617, 618, 619, 620 (see under
ordinances). He read a letter received from Vernon A. Hoggott, Farlington, Approve
Kansas commentLng on the construction of 38th Avenue sewer at a time when costs
were so high.
e N. Council minutes as circulated - April 22, May 20, June 10, 24, 26, July 8 Approve
Appointment, Metropolitan Area Planning Advisory Committee - Council was-
o.
I ' .
irequested to nominate a replacement for Alfred Tussing" resigned, on MAPAC
ifor the balance of the term ending June 30, 1975. LCOG submitted four names
Ifor consideration. It was suggested that the Council choose a replacement
ifrom'a list made up of the four names submitted by LCOG and the persons
! filing for the last Planning Commission vacancy, plus up to two additional
I names submitted by each Council member who wished to do so. Mr. Williams
: thought because of'the time involved, each nominee considered should not
i be intervieweq. Councilman Wood sugges~ed that ~~uld give 'an advantage to
: those who had already been interviewed for ,the PLanning Cormnission position;
\.Mr. Murray thought the option ,would still be open to interview any of those
! considered' for the position. Councilwoman Beal asked for a list of the
ipresent MAPAC members and their interests to give some idea of balancihg
out th.e membership. ,.
I
: Councilman Williams set a deadline of August 7, 1974 for submission of names Comm
I 7/24/74
i from Council members to be added to the four submi tted by, LCOG and the list
!of Planning Cormnission applicants, after which an executive session of the Affirm
Council wo,ul.d_ !?_~..,Ji,qIU~,dl.!J.(;!J,(L~o c/~loos.e the. replacement. ,.. I
"-
e P. jSalvage Ordinance - Councilman Murray inquired about the st:atus of proposed
\ord4n~n.ce regulating salvage in demolition projects. Public Works Director
F~~liftf' said that inquiries had been mailed to other ci ties for examples of
rfhe type ordinance suggested but no replies had been received, to date. Comm
I '7/24/74
Q. ICbntrolling Length of Council Meetings - Copies of memo from Council presi- File
ident williams suggesting method for controlling length of Council meetings
lwere previously distributed to Cou~cil members. Mr. Williams said he was ;\
not partia:.uJarly in favor of adopti,ng a set policy, that he would rather
tsee careful preparation of agendas, limiting the number of items heard at
\ anyone meeting. j
I,
,
(council~oman Beal agreed that it would be difficult to cut off a meeting 'I.
I
\
:at a given time, leaving people unheard who had been waiting all evening. 1
IShe suggested the possibili ty of attempting to dE!termine length of hearings,
inumber of people desiring to peheard, and then setting aside the Monday ,~
il
i.evening following the regular Council meeting for hearing when it was found '~
there would be too many at the regular time. \,~
Councilwoman Campbell thought it had been decided that Council decision was ~
"
-- Inotnecessary at the same meeting at which an issue was heard, that delaying :i
a decision would be one way 'of shortening the length of meetings. i
I I
/councilman Wood discussed the possibility of limiting the length of hearing I
.;:-~
lo~ each subject, or limiting the tim~ for each s~eaker. . Advantages and I
.,
id~sadvantages of the several suggest~ons were we~lghed w~th consensus that "1
! the present procedure of attempting to schedule hearings so that no one ,1 C
.~ OIDm
jagenda would be overloaded should continue. COU11Cil members present indi- 7/24/74
cated reluctant agreement to scheduling another meeting on the Monday I Fi-le
!
. following the regular meeting should' it become nc9cessary to accormnodate '~
: thofJe wishing to be heard. . ,__ r _. ~,- -- -,----.-.---.- ........~.~ .._.._-~. - , 8712/'i4-=-15--'
"-- .-~._\_~.~.,_.-._.~ --..-'+.............~-------_.~-_..__.._.'-- ~ -.
?~A
- ---~
R. Third Avenue Alignment Easement, Pearl to Lawrence (Southern Pacific Company) -
iManager explained that Southern Pacific owned property between Pea.rl and Lawrenee
Istreets,on the north side and parallel to their main track~ which was a heavily'
!used thoroughfare on an alignment usually referred to as the 4th Avenue connector.
iFrom time to time SP approached the city with regard to buying the property for .
:dedication as a street but wanted to be protected against being charged for its
j improvemen t. Staff felt that would result in too expensive a right-of-way. Fur-
fther negotiation resulted in an offer to request Council authorization with the
recommendation that if the easement was dedicated the city would refrain from
initiating normal street improvements for a ten-year period. Manager pointed out
that it was an unimproved~ graveled street and would be a constant nuisance, re- I
quirin<J upkeep and perhaps an asphalt mat to city specifications during that ten-
year period costing as much as $20,000. He also pointed out that at some future
time there might be need for the right-of-way because of its being the alignment I
for the long-discussed 1st to 4th connector. Or it could be used for some other
transportation facility. Manager added that owners of private property lying be-
tween the alignment and Skinners Butte have delayed development pending clarifica-
tion of the status of the right-of-way, and there has been some thought a portion
of that property should be acquired to protect the Butte park property. I
,
Councilman Williams wondered if agreeing not to initiate street improvements
would preclude accepting a:petition for the improvement of the right-of-way from ,
,owners of property abutting the dedication. Manager said the proposal was that I
ithe dedication would be granted if the city did not initiate any improvement that
would result in assessment against the railroad. It was understood an opinion I e
ifrom the City Attorney's office would be sought on interpretation of the term ,
I
I" ini tia te improvements" prior to the August 12 Council meeting. l
i l ,
Councilwoman Campbell said she could support acquisition of ~he property if it !
~was an attempt to protect the Butte and park area, but she was hesitant about
approval if it was an attempt to construct a future arterial.at that location. i
Manager said the intent in making the recommendati'on was to try to preserve its I
I
present use without knowing whether anything would be done with it in the future. i
He said it was receiving extensive use by industrial traffic between the Ferry
,Street bridge and industrial area, to-the west, and as a necessary part of'the
city's street system needed protection against possible closure by Southern Paeific.
He couldn't guarantee, he said, that the alignment would never be built there.
I Councilman Williams noted the protection afforded by the Charter amendment re-.
;quiring a vote before any major arterial construction.
Councilman Wood wondered if dedication of the--street..-'Woul.d. encourage development
of the private property lying between the right~of-way and the Butte, or if there
had been any attempt to acquire that private property. Manager answered that it
would enhance the opportunity for development, adding that the city tried to
:acquire the right-of-way in fee simple rather than as a dedicated street in order
! to have control but SP was not willing. He said the attorney for the owners of .
jthe private property had taken the position that there was right of access that
jwould have to be cleared and had offered to make that ef~ort if the dedication of
1 the right-of-way did not clear it. However, it appeared the property could be
(developed anyway. Ed Smith, Parks director, said there had been no attempt to
purchase the other property. , '
I Further discussion took place with regard to adverse ownership and possible pur-
~chase of property between the street and the Butte, resulting in the understanding
, that' 'the-,matter-'would"be 'Tield -Ovid' 'pend1.hg: 'r"eceipt 'of" aii"'op1.ii.ion'froiii The -.. Comm
,City Attorney with regard to interpretation of the words "initiate improve~ ' 7/24/74
:ments" in the proposed agreement, and ~nformation with regard to possible File
,purchase of the property lying between the propOsed dedication and Skinners, ',-~ ,.
,Butte,. . ...'
Manager distributed copie~of City Attorney's opinion with regard to the term "initiate
improvements" as us.ed in Southern Pacific proposal to dedicate' the easement. Since the
attorney's opinion was that initiating improvements was not limited to simply who brought
the matter up the first time the proposed dedication with a ten-year iimitation on improve-
ments would in effect protect Southern Pacific against assessment no matter who initiated
improvement of the street. Manager added that there would be brought to the Council results
of some negotiation on privately owned property lying between the dedication under discussion
and park property. J .-
..--:----.--,............~~-. ._.....--_.-.--~-_.. .--....-.-.... ..- ..._:... .---'-_'._.. - _';:'- n_'_.
S. WeyeI'haeuser Tree Farm Tour - Counc1J.""was advised that the weiierhaeuser'
.1 sour tentatively scheduled for August 2 was postponed until later in the Comm
,fall because there was not enough participation' at this time to make it 7/24/74
worthwhile. -. "\ "- File
-
8/12/74 - 16
2&~
,-
T. ; Distribution
: ,~l. With agenda - July 18 memo from Planning Department setting forth calcula-
tion process for density determination in PUDs which include public or
a.;, quasi-public facili ties. I Comm
~ 2,: with agenda - July 15 letter from Irvin Fletcher and Steven' Deutsch re: i; /24/74
Public participation. I Pile
3.. Council was notified that copies of LCOG's Comprehensive Dental Health
Plan were available for review by those interes,ted. "; ./
--. ...... . ----
U. .Kaufman 'Center Outreach Program - Ed smith, Parks-- director, explained the Outreach i
:Program as a unique experience wi th results so significant he fel t them worth i
inotice. The program was funded by Federal grant Inatched by city funds and was
idesigned to reach older persons more or less withdrawn from the community, offer- :
ling them activities of a less structured nature. The area served, ,he 'said, covered I
labout 172 blocks surrounding Kaufman Center. H~"introduced Caroline Spores, Mary i
IWinston, Mike Helquist, and Edna Civin, Kaufmad Ceriter workers involved in the l
\program. . , .
i
!Mr. Helquist called attention to the status report distributed. to Council previously
~hich covered the numbers of people and structure involved. He said, however, he
[wanted to emphasize the more personal experiences to give an idea of what the pro-
;gram was really doing. An attempt was made to locate' older persons in that 'area, i
'extending to ,them invitations to particpate in Kaufman Center activites; but pri- i
!marily to visit and become acquainted in an effort to form trusting friendships ;
e !and an on-going contact ;with other neighbors as w.ell as with Kal!-fman,Cent'er' staff.
I The contact has provided 'an effective link between these older people and service J
iagencies, he said, and further bas developed into a preventative form pf service
Ilin that those, people are more comfortable inquiring about services .in a crisis I
Isituation when they are dealing with people they know. He re'lated sqme of his ,
lexperiences in visits with people in that neighborhood, noting de.,finite needs of
I . . I l' r'-'.-..,~.r1r,_..,..-_ I
':the older people. Edna Civin also told of some of her contacts', ways of.linitH'9-'tJLng I
I -.., ".,,", ,
"ithem, and meeting needs of th.osepeople unable to <Jet about. '
i i ~ .~
!council~oman Campbell wondered about ,the value. of social service agencies in this
:type of program. Mr. Helquist answered that staff found, the' primary, need was the
!contact, visiting and forming friendships, because most of, ,the people invol ved' were I
isimply lonely. However, there were those who were concerne.d about, having to ,mpve i
!to nursing homes and in those cases the Homemakers program 'was of real value in
,helping the elderly to maintain their own homes. All',in ali" he said, staff relied
very much on other social service organizations.
!
In answer to Councilw9man Beal,Ms. Winston. said the area served. was between
willamette and Chambers, 4th and 18th. Mr. Helquist displayed'a ~ap pinpointing'
a,reas visited.
~ ,Councilman Murray praised the Kaufman Center activities and especially the Outreach ,
. ,Program for its success in reaChing a great number of people at a time in their,' ~
llives when it was of great'importance to renew or discover interests;' make new i
!friends, and increase their activities. He thought the program was of grsatvalue !
lto the community' andhoped tflat it would contin~e. .,'..:
i '
! f
!councilwoman Campbell inquir~d about funding for Outreach and whether it would re- :
, ,.... " I
!quire future city help. Ms. Winston explained the funding was through'a Federal/
!city watching grant, that it WaS for one year only. The' application was filed
!last year when it appeared County funds would not be availabl'e, she said, and
\staff would be considering what~ver sources of funds were'available because they
[felt an'obligation to r.espond to those people who otherwise might, not have'aIJ.Y I
[contact at all. .
i
i
I'council~ma~~eal wond~red if t,he.J~int Housing committ~e ~OOk into.cC?nsideration
the avaJLlabJL1JLty ofthJLS type actJLvJLty to older people JLn JLts plannJLng for low-
income housing. ' Councilman w06d answered ,that in considering dispersal of low-
jincome housing throughout the city the Committee had taken into account location
!of housing for the elderly near the senior citiz€~ centers.
I - '
. !councilman'MUrray said he 'would be interested in seeing some proposal from the
e' \~~r~~~~~~:~~:,~~t'o~~e~~~:_~~~~:_~h~t.. w~_u:~~~__ reqUi~~d to fU~~, the Outreach __p~ogram __
8/12/74 - 17
290
.~._- _. --.,.--.-.....-.;..-.. -~---. ----- ~ -" .'-" ~ - ..-..-.- "-.- ---- .--. .~.,-_. -"- '.-,----- ....- -,,- ~-'._.r__..__'_,_,,___
,Mayor Anderson asked if there was much interaction within the blocks, among the
,people themselves. He noted a Portland program where people in neighborhoods
:were organized~o watch out for one another. Mr. 'Helquist answered that they,
:had found so~e ~nstances of that type interaction, that efforts were made in con~ I
,tacts.to get people to become acquainted with their neighbors. Usually those i.a
:people who were able to get out and about were encouraged to visit, he said, and ~
~ far staff'l3.,;d been fortunate in having volunteers.
~ --
u___ .___ __......,._.... __'-_~_.. .~___,,~..._,___. .._~...-." .". .. . ", .
,Mayor Anderson expressed-appreciation f9r the report on tIie':'pi:ogr~m. Manager sq.id
:a tour of Kaufman Center could be arranged if the Council desired. , Comm
-rJ/3l/74
__ __'.' ,'._ '_,'.. ' .. _.,,___. File
V. Public Officers Liabili ty Insurance - Manager explained tb.afa" "Policy had been
found which would provlde protection for Council members from judgments resulting
from their acts contrary to legal authority, referring to the judgment against
EWEB members for wrongful expenditure of EWEB funds. The policy would provide
protection up to $250,000 ,per individual, $1,000,000 per occurrence,,~t'an annual
. . ' ..___'_ w
premium of $6,090 with $5,000 deductible for each loss. A portion-.of city Attorney's
opinion was read indicating that even though the exposure was not felt significant
it was difficuit not to recommend obtaining such coverage because if a claim were
reduced to judgment it probably would involve a large amount of money. Yet, there
might be some reassurance in a psychological sense in having that kind of protection.
Manager noted that the EWEB case was unusual, one of a kind, yet there was the chance
of being more involved in litigation.
Councilman Hershner asked whether the $5,000 deductible would apply for each Council .~
i member on each loss; that is, would it amount to $40,000 in the event of a loss.
Manager replied that the $5,000 deductible would apply to each occurrence only.
! Councilman Murray wondered what types of action Council members could conceivably
: be liable for, 'saying it seemed they were almost constantly under threat. Upon
questioning from Mr. Hershner, he explained that it seemed to him that Council was
, constantly being advised that it was acting beyond the realm of its authority.
\ Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said there were an infinite number of possibili-
, ties for liability. He said any action by the Council not authorized by the Charter
'lor State statutes could result in a member's being held personally liable for that
action. Discussion continued in explanation of the types of liability that could
be incurred, and Mrs. Beal suggested that authorization of construction of an
arterial or freeway might make Council members personally liable in view of the
Charter amendment requiring a vote first. Manager suggested that Council action
taken contrary to administrative or legal advice might create a greater hazard
of exposure.
.
Consensus was that because of the minimal exposure, costly premium, and confidence
i that proper advice was,forthcoming from administrative and legal counsel no- action Comrn
~uld be taken with regard to purchase of the public officers liability insurance'7/3l/74 ~
. File ~
W .;"'Memo"re; 'F.'ederal- Al'a"-urban" System--Funding--::....copi~;;'-;.,e;.~-'di.;t:;.lb;t"~d to coun;ilm ,
'members w~th agenda. Councilwoman Campbell noted that LCOG' . "t .....'. .'"." -.
. ' ,.' pr~or:L. Y:.3:.~cQrr.rmenda:-
;-, t~ons ~~d not ~nclude an appropriation for mass transit. She wo~<ier-ed .why ,.. j
I some~of th~t rr:oney couldn't be used for shelters at transit district"bu; stops. I
An.appropr~at~on to Lane Transit District for terminal and rolling stock ~a~' !
IPo~hted out. Manager explained that it was decided in talks betwee~ the Re- !
II newa~ ~gency and,LTD that LTD would pay for those portions df the terminal !
spec~f~cally,des~gned to serve needs of the Transit District. Other areas of I
1 gene~al publ~c use ~ould be covered by the Renewal Agency through ta;,i~crement !
j fund~ng. It was po~nted out also that questions with regard to expenditure of I
I LTD funds were for the Transit District Board to answer. Planning Director' !
I added that money allocated for terminal construction would probably apply to;' C
Jmore than ju~t,t~e downtown site since LTD was looking at other sites for 7/31/~
! transfer fac~l~ t~es /
!. I File
X. Nli: Congress of Cities.scheduled for December 1-5, 1974 in Houston, Texas! Comm
was brought to the Council's attention. /.. "7/31/74
i File '
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve, affirm, and file as not~~ Items ~
A through X, except that acti~n on Item I (Appeal on denial of Safley zone change request)
would be ~o postpone to the flrst Council meeting in February 1975. Rollcall vote.
All Councll members present voting aye (Hershner not present), motion carried.
8/12/74 - 18
29\
IV - Ordinances
Council Bill No. 617 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area from projected
38th Avenue to 160 feet south of 43rd Avenue and from 100 feet east of East Amazon Drive
- to the east 2800 feet (73-01) submitted and read the first time on July 22, 1974 and
referred to August 5, 1974 Assessment Panel for heaTing, was brought back for considera-
tion of Panel recommendation to levy as proposed, and read the second time by council
bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be
read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All counciL'members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17151, Councilman Hershner not present.
Council Bill No. 618 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Bailey Hill
Road from 18th Avenue to 700 feet south of Warren Avenue; and Warren Avenue from Bailey
Hill Road to 1600 feet south of Bailey Hill Road (73i-17) , submitted and read the first
time on July 22, 1974 and referred to August 5, 1974 Assessment Panel for hearing, was
brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy as proposed, and read the
second time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present
requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
. numbered 17152, Councilman Hershner not present.
Counci 1 Bi 11 No. 619- Levying assessments for paving West Amazon Drive from Snell
Street to Martin Street (73-22) submitted and read the first time on July 22, 1974 and
referred to August 5, 1974 Assessment Panel for hearing, was brought back for considera-
tion of Panel recommendation to levy as proposed, and read the second time by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17153, Councilman Hershner not present.
Council Bill No. 620 - 'Levying assessments for'paving, sanitary and storm sewers on
Honeysuckle Lane from Harlow Road to 230 feet south; sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet
west and 160 feet. east of Honeysuckle Lane from Harlow Road to 400 feet south (73-54) sub-
mitted and read the first time on July 22, 1974 and referred to'August 5, 1974 Assessment
Panel for hearing, was brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation to levy as
proposed, and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council ;~members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
e numbered 17154, Councilman Hershner not present.
Petition was presented for construction of sanitary sewer on 1st Avenu~ from approxi-
mately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road to 1200 feet east. Manager explained that it was an
extension of a line into the industrial area along the Coos Bay Branch of the SP line.
Property owners wish to develop some land in that area.this year. Staff recommended ac-
ceptance of the petition.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to approve the petition. Rollcall vote.
All councilmemberspresent voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the motion
carried.
Council Bill No. 626 - Paving alley between Willamette Street and Oak Street from
13th Avenue to 14th Avenue was read the first time by council bill number and title only,
there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood 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
...h bill number only.
- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All cou.ncilmembers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
~~mbered 17155, Mr. Hershner not present.
Council Bill No. 627 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving alley between
Willamette Street and Oak Street from 13th Avenue to 14th Avenue was read the first time
by council bill number and title only, there being no councilmember present requesting
that it be read in full.
L~2. 8/12/74 - 19
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be read the second time by council bill
number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this
time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number
only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. -
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was de-
clared passed and numbered 17156.
Council Bill No. 628 - Sanitary sewer on 1st Avenue from approximately 1400 feet west of
Seneca Road 'to 1200 feet east was read 'by council bill number and title only, there being no
councilman present requesting~that it be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be read the second time by council bill
number only, with unanimous,consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time.
Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll-
call vote. All councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 17157.
Council Bill No. 629 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on 1st Avenue
from approximately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road'.to 1200 feet east was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it ,be read in full.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood 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 unanimosuly'and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll-
call vote. All councilmen present voti~g aye, Mr. Hershner not present, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 17158.
V - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2315 - Calling hearing August 26, 1974 re: Mobile home unit for Citizens
Bank at 11th and Pearl was submitted and read by number and title.
Mrs. Campbell moved secoflded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present, Mr. Williams abstaining.
Resolution No. 2316 - Calling hearing August 26, 1974 re: Mobile home unit for nightwatch-
man quarters at 1955 Highway 99N (Belva Keller) was submitted and read py number and title.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present. .
, Resolution No. 2317 - Recommending to Boundary Commission tabling of request for annexation
of property west of Delta north of Goodpasture Island Road (Doerksen) was submitted and read by
number and title.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not present.
Resolution No. 2318 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period
July 22 through August 12, 1974 was submitted and read by number and title.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all councilmen present voting aye, Mr. Hershner not pI1esent.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting' was adjourned to
Monday, August 26, 1974.
~.~. --
ugh McKinley
City Manager
2q3 8/12/74 - 20