Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/26/1974 Meeting , M I NUT E S - EUGENE CITY COUNCIL August 26, 1974 Adjourned meeting - from August 12, 1974 meeting - was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 26, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, R. A. Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. (0001 ) I - Public Hearings A. Permits for Mobile Homes 1. Citizens Ba,nk, 11th and Pearl, for temporary offices Requested for temporary quarters for the drive-in bank operation during renovation of that structure. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2319 - Granting permit for mobile unit at 11th and - Pearl for Citizens Bank temporary offices was read by number and title only. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining. 2. Belva Keller, 1955 Highway 99N, for nightwatchman quarters Staff had no objections ' and recommended approval. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2320 - Granting permit for mobile unit at 1955 Highway 99N for nightwatchman quarters (Belva Keller) was read by number and title only. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. (0060 B. Code Amendments - 1. Uniform Plumbing Code, 1973 Edition - I I Uniform Plumbing Code, 19Z3~ Edition - Proposed for adoption to update the City Code. I .' { Building Department memo, copies previously distributed to Council members, re- ported that adoption would provide no major changes from previous regulations re- I lated to plumbing and sewer installations. I Comm Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbe.ll to set public hearing on theS/14/74 l _~~~~=___:.~__~~_e_~~:.~~t 26 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ~-'l.3--Jg:.!!g~ .- '-" - ~4._.~_ '_""-_n_'-. ___ .~___.4_"'.""_",,, _ _ _"."_~_ _ ,....-_' __.'. __.___ .~~__ Manager reviewed need for the code revision as set out in committee minutes. above. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 631 - Adopting Uniform Plumbing Code, 1973 Edition, 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. 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. .. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17159 roo. ~. Note: Where statements in these minutes are attributed to Manager, it is understood that Assistant Manager was speaking. 8/26/74 - 1 29., -., --.....- '-~_n.~____. __,,~..., _...,___...,..~~~_.._...- ...........--- .... 2. Uniform Sign Code, 197oAEdition - Adoption recommended by the Planning Commission i on July 8, 1974. Deletes establishment of fees by ordinance, and provides for I .. setting fees by Council resolution. Comb 8/14/714 c" Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to set public hearing on the' I ,~ Code at the August 26 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Pub H~g ~ Manager reviewed need for the code revision as set out in committee minutes above. :' public hearing w.as held with no testimony .presented. Council Bill No. 632 - Adopting Uniform Sign Code, 1973 Edition, 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. 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. 'Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17160. C. Zone Changes COle' Zone Changes Recommended - July '2, 1974 " " - 1. Larch Company - North of Larch, west of West Amazon Deletion of the existing contractual agreement regarding site development, . and addition of site review procedure to current C-l zoning '. 2. McKay Investment Company - South of West 11th and west of City View From M-2 to C-2 with Outlying Commercial Sign District designation 3. Countryman Reality, Inc. - South of 17th, west of Chambers R-l to R-2 SR " .._-.....---,.._~.._.....-.--._-_. -,-~~..- '.-._-._----.." ,- - -.-..._.~-~.~,,_.- -...--.-.--..... '..-.---- '-~ -.... --.- Zone Changes Recommended - July 9, 1974 4. Wayne Weber - East of Coburg Road, South of willakenzie " From RA to C-2 SR and Outlying Commercial Sign District \ \ 5. Oscar Krumdieck - South of 13th, east of High . From C-2 to R-3-.83 with density of one dwelling unit per 830 square feet and sign di$trict change from Pedestrian-Auto to Residential 6. Michael Safley - North of Lewis and west of Adams ' From RA to R-2 PD , i Zoning Newly Annexed Areas - July 2, 1974. I 1. North of willamette River immediately east of Valley River Center. C-2 SRI I.. and Outlying Commercial Sign District /... 2. East of Goodpasture Island Road and north.of Valley River Center C-2 I ~ and Il1tegrated._:eighbOrhOod Shopping Sign District I' _. , Sign District Boundary Change - July 9, 1974 / 1. Dorothy ~eyno~ds - North ~f Club Roa~ and West of Coburg Road /. : From Res~dent~a1 to Out1y~ng Commerc~al' / / '.. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to set ~ub1ic ~earing / on various recommendations at the August 26 Counc~l meet~ng. / Comm . . d . 1 / 8/14/74 Mot~on carr~e unan~mous Y ~ ' . Pub Hrng 1. North of La:r:ch ~, west of West Amazon _ Adding s'i te revi,~w prQc~dure- to C-l zoning ., PlannIng CommIssIon recommended approval on. July L, 1974. Caples of Planning Com,..' ..: - , mission staff notes and minutes of that meeting were previously distributed to Council members. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council , members. 1 Public hearing was opened. Oscar Johnson, 820 Larch Street, said there was no notice of intent to rezone the_ area described until Friday, August 23. He objected to the change if it would allow ~. construction of apartments or other multiple-family units. Jim Saul, planner, said the zone change would allow neighborhood commercial type operations; apartments could be constructed only through conditional use permit procedures. He said there had been no indication that apartments would be proposed for the property. 8/26/74 - 2 2.95 " Kathy Saberhagen, 1010 High Street, said that when zoning of this type was being consi- dered, the neighborhood affected should be consulted for opinion and given opportunity to participate in development of the property. She thought there should be more community "awareness" involved in planning. People should not have to protest, she - said, to be involved in development of an area. The Mayor called attnetion to the efforts of the Planning Commission and staff to provide an opportunity for community involvement before final approval of any project. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 633 - Deleting existing contractual agreement on site development and adding site review procedure to current C-l zoning (C-l SR) on area north of Larch Street, west of West Amazon Drive was read by council bil~ number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved secdnded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting rezoning as set out:in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 2, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, that the council bill be read the second time by council, bill number only, with rmanimous consent of the Council, a.nd that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously; the bill was read the second time by "- council bill number only. :) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill'be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared (16) passed and numbered 17161. 2. South of West 11th and west of City View from M-2 to C-2 and Outlying Commercial Sign District (McKay) Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 2, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of that meeting were previously distributed to Council members. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. .. I Jim Saul, planner, said the rezoning involved about nine acres, almost all developed for commercial uses which became nonconforming upon adoption of the 1968 zoning ordinance. The C-2 zoning was requested to bring the zone into conformance with existing uses. He added that the recommendation for sign district change was also to bring the district into conformance with basic uses of the property and would apply to all of the property except toa depth of 150 feet from_West llth.which would be Highway Oriented. , . Public hearing was opened. (0276 ) Doug-McKay, McKay Investment, owner of the property, said he concurred with the Planning Commission findings. '1 .1, .. l - .Public hearing was closed. Councilman McDonald asked whether the C-2 designation would apply to the Wingard property south of the Amazon Channel. Mr. Saul displayed a vicinity map and said the Wingard property south of the Channel would not be affected, the C-2 zone would apply only to property north of the Channel. Council Bill No. 634 - Rezoning to C-2 area south of West 11th Avenue west of City View with Outlying Commercial, Sign District, except portion fronting on 11th Avenue (to a depth of 150 feet) to have Highway- , ' Oriented Sign District 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. Hershner th.at findings supporting rezoning as set out in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 2, 1974, be adopted by reference thereto, 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. Herhsner that the bill be approved and given';'final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared - passed and numbered 17162. I 8/26/74 - 3 2.qto - - 3. South of 17th Avenue, west of Chambers Street - From R-l to R-2 SR (Countryman (0320) Realty) Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 2, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes 'and minutes of that meeting were previously distributed to Council members. ~ No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. .., Jim Saul, planner, said the primary reason for the rezoning was to assure development of the property under R-2 so as not to disturb the privacy of single-family properties south of the site. Other adjacent properties were developed in C-l uses. Public hearing was held with no testimony presen~d. Council Bill No. 635 - Rezoning to R-2 SR area south of 17th Avenue west of Chambers STreet 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. Hershner that findings supporting rezoning as set out in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of' July 2, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, 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. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final ~ passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared ,., passed and numbered 17163. ~- 4. East of Coburg Road,south of Willakenzie from RA to C-2'SR and Outlying C~mmercial (0352) Sign District (Wayne Weber) Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of that meeting were previously -distributed to Council members. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Jim Saul, planner, reviewed the history of zone changes on this property culminating in development on the commercially zoned portion. The Commission, he said, in evaluating the buffering effect of the pending RP portion (held for approval of a planned unit development which was abandoned) felt the buffering could just as well be achieved through site review procedures. The Commission's concerns in making its recommendation for approval dealt with the relationship between teh proposed C-2 portion and adjacent residential development to the east. Public hearing was opened with no testimony presented: Council Bill No. 636 - Rezoning to C-2 SR area east of Coburg Road south of Willakenzie Road with Otitlying Commercial Sign District ~ was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman ,., present requesting that it. be read in,cfull. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting rezoning as set out in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 9, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, 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. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17154. I 5. South of 13th and east of High - From C-2 to R~S-.83 with ~ensity of one dwelling (0424) unit per 830 square feet and sign district change from Pedestrian-Auto to Residential (Oscat Krumdieck) Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission- staff notes and minutes of that meeting were previeusly distributed to Council members. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the initial request was for,R-4. However, the ~ Commission recommended instead R-3 with a maximum density equivalent to ten units -- per acre, achieved by the .83 suffix providing for one dwelling unit per 830 square feet. The requested R-4 would have allowed a density equivalent to 20 units per acre and under the existing C-2 zoning a conditional use permit would have allowed de- velopment of apartments with R-4 density limitations. The recommended sign district. change to Residential was considered in keeping whh the proposed rezoning. 8/26/74 - 4 2C}7 Public hearing was opened. . Kathy Saberhagen, 1010 High Street, was opposed to the change. She felt the existing -- open space was more desirable than additional living units. Councilman Murray, at the conclusion of testimony on a subsequent rezoning issue, referred back to Ms. Saberhagen 's opposition and sciid it should be understood that under the present C-2 zone allowable uses were such as gas stations, supermarkets, hardware stores, etc. Public hearing was closed. Council Bill.No. 637 - ~ezoning to R-3-.83, (density of one dwelling unit per 830 square feet) ,area south of ,13th Avenue east of High Street with Residential SignOistrict was read by council. bill number and title only, there being no cduncilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting rezoning as. set out in the Planning Commission staff notes. and minutes of July 9, 1974 be. adopted by reference there1D, 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. e Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall Vote~ All Council members present~oting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17165. .,. (0489) 6. North of Lewis and west of Adams - From RA to R-2 PO (Safley - M&M) Recommended by the Planning Commission on July 9, 1974. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of that meeting were previously distributed to Council members. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. .. Jim Saul, planner, said that the area involved about nine acres and under the proposed zone maximum development would increase density to a medium_range. He described the existing uses of the property and said the Commission recommended that final reading of the ordinance effecting the rezoning, if approved, be withheld until final approval was given under planned unit development procedures. The Commission's main concerns to be reviewed upon presentation of preliminary plans for the property, he said, were the question of density and design as they related to the neighborhood and to the Willamette River, the south bank meandering from 150 to 300 feet from the property, line. Public hearing was opened. (0539) Gary Spivak, 1350 Bailey Avenue, said he was a member of the 'Whiteaker Community Council, e and that the neighborhood' was very much opposed to',the proposed zone change. He pre- sented a petition from residents of: the neighborhood ,opposing the change on the basis of adverse effect that development of the property to multiple-family housing would have upon the neighborhood and ,the riverfront. He felt the zoning: did not conform to the General Plan in that there was no consideration for environmental design in " preliminary planning, ,aistin~:tive. characteristics of the neighborhood would not be preserved, and public need for development of multiple-family housing in that area. was dubious. He said the development would be a major change for .the neighborhood and would take away completely an undeveloped section of t~e River. He felt there were a number of questions to be answered with regard to whether housi~g construction was keeping up with population growth and whether a development 'of this nature was right for the Whiteaker neighborhood when land inventories indicated adequate parcels available in more suitable locations. Mr. Spivak said the M&M proposal was not a medium density development and that it would have considerable impact on the River and on adjacent Sladden Park, already heavily used; that it would create a traffic problem because of limited access; and that conceivably it could lead to future rezoning of adjacentRA properties to multiple~family zoning. With,the Mayor's consent he called for a show of hands of those present from the Whiteaker neighborhood opposed to the proposed zoning - there were about 20 to 25. Mayor Anderson noted absence of the applicant, Mike Safley of M&M Oevelopment, , and .' the just received lengthy document setting .forth arguments. against the rezoning presented by Stephen J. Cross, 140 North Jackson Street. He,suggested holding the hearing over to give the applicant .a chance:to hear the argun;ents against the propos,al and to give Council members an opportunity to read the arguments presented, by Mr. ,Cross. (0670) Councilmen Murray.and McDonald thought the hearing should go forward since the applicant had been given notice ,the. Council had previously been given copies of the Planning Commission, record, and members of the Whiteaker, neighborhood present would be able to'give a verbal report covering material in Mr. Cross' submittal. Councilman Williams was in favor of delaying the hearing; he said he had not had a chance to review the information submitted. 295 " 8/26/74 - 5 --------- ,~ ~ i",:; "..c'.... . ",.., '.~ ; 1,:.\'.;~.'~ ':':1',"',\\';':'; ~:,'" :'~"),\/,.:\~t.l', "!,,;'.'f, J,.' , .--;. '..'1 ' f';~ 'I;': ~5:: :ii ~ " , ,"r; Councilwoman Beal was not in favor of delaying the hearing unless the applicant was :1' given a chance for rebuttal. Stan Long, assistant city att9rney, said that. the 'J,t'\ :\",~ applicant, because of his absence, had waived his right for presentation and for . , ! ~f; " rebutt~i as well. i';> \'" - ' i The hearing continued with Mr. Spivak reading the petition presented by the Whiteaker ) " neighborhood group. "ftl.:_ .. i(.. 't :1, Edna Webster Jensen, 41 Madison, Street, recalled emergency housing established' ~n that (0715 ) ." ., ' area in times past and objected to the possibility of the same type of overcrowded 1'. fl conditions if this development was approved. 'r" i.;' oj Mel Jackson, 2865 Ferry Street, representing the Willamette Greenway Association, felt (0732) ,It ..., the development would be too near the riverbank and would destroy the link between the Ii./. " River and Sladden Park. He suggested that it would be a good idea for the city ~o "I 11 purchase that property to fill the tremendous need for open area near the River as the "~I {' city grows. Yi I, ~, ~, Ir Stephen J. Cross, 140 North Jackson Street, reviewed the statistics contained in the (0744) , :) doc~ent presenting arguments against the rezoning previously handed to' the Council. i,f ~. Those statistics had-to do with density, traffic counts, types of housing; vacancy rates, " construction rates, etc. . Mr. Cross also showed slides of the area, explaining that potential increase of traffic on uackson Street was one of the neighborhood's main III concerns since it was used for travel to Whiteaker School and to Sladden Park. He said i the proposed zoning would be in direct conflict to the 1990 Plan, that increased traffic created by the project would adversely affect quality of the neighborhood . and further segment the area and would,create a potential safety. hazard to elderly people (about 25% of the residents of that area). Mr. Cross, thought-the,Council 'J should reject the requested rezoning and instead consider acquisition of the property I' to .' connect Sladden Park .to the River. If the rezoning was approved, he said, there " sho.uld be more specific information obtained with regard to density and ..traffic flow ,. and direction given to the Whiteaker Council and others interested to develop a broad and general plan of what was desired for that area. Geodesic Jon Spiral, 2620 Potter Street, thought the people living in the neighborhood (0938) should de'cide how the area was to be developed or whether it was to be developed at all. He suggested it would be preferable to keep the property as open space, a good place I to play, not too noisy, a, city advantage of having "country" within its limits. , I ; Rich McNicholas, 55-1/2 Washington Street, presented additional signatures for the petition previously presented from the Whiteaker neighborhood, bringing total signatures to over 400. Public hearing was closed. Assistant Manager noted receipt by Council members of written.. presentation from Mike Safley of M&M Development, applicant for the R-2 zoning~ in addition to the presentation -- from Mr. Cross and written record of Planning Commission consideration of the issue. Jim Saul, planner, said that although both the Planning Commission and staff recommended (0970) approval of this zone change, neither wished to appear to be in a position of advocacy for the change. He said the Commission made sp~cific findings: supporting the change based on staff notes and applicant's statement as to how the zone change ,conformed .to the General Plan, how public need was .shown, .and why that need would be best met by this particular piece of property., That was .a matter of record, he said, and available to Council members. He said after consultation with the Assistant City Attorney with regard to absence of the applicant it was deemed appropriate to make only comments representing professional judgment. Mr. Saul continued .that, without an opportunity to review the written presentation , submitted by Mr. Cross, some significant areas were cover~d which merited further review. Aside from that he said there had been no testimony presented which would warrant a reversal of the Commission recommendation to approve the zone change. He said the question of traffic generated by'R-2 development was reviewed with the Public Works Department, and streets in that area were corrsidet~d adequate if PUD procedures were followed and the Commission made specific findings with regard to a street system to serve the proposed de~elopment. However, he said, the Public Works Department recognized it lay in the path of proposed route for Highway 126 but right-of-way was e not being purchased; Eugene Parks Department could not purchase because of lack of funds, so public' access appeared unattainable. The Commission therefore reasoned I from evaluations based on the General Plan that R-2 level would be appropriate. Density was another concern of the Commission, Mr. ;Saul said, in terms of how it related to the neighborhood 'and to the River. Since no density limitation was indi- cated other than a decision that the property should be developed to, a medium range, it was decided specifics of the development plan itself should be the governing 'factor. 8/26/74 - 6 . 299 .~~ " '. With regard to question of public need, Mr. Saul noted statements in the applicant's presentation based on Postal Vacancy Survey and Mr. Safley's attElmpt to responde to the - need for moderate-income housing. Also, the proposed mixture of rental units and owner- ship units (condominium) in the development. He noted that the existing zoning did not neces;J;arily guarantee only single-family homes since multiple-family units could be built under the RA zoning. He said statistics indicated very few families in the Eugene area commanded a salary range that would permit purchase of single-family homes and that factor should be taken into consideration when assessing the question of public need. Mr. Saul again called attention to absence of the petitioner and the "uncomfortable" position of the planning staff in view of the volume of new information presented at this meeting. He also reminded the Council' that if action was taken contrary to the Commission recom- mendation the issue would automatically go to a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission and reopen the public hearing process. (1088) Councilman McDonald said heiwas c~mpletely opposed to the rezoning. He noted the neighborhood reaction in opposition to the proposal and said the development would add to the school population and traffic problems, and would have an adverse effect upon existing single-family homes. He was concerned about the old home now sitting on the property and asked whether it would be protected. (1126) Councilman Keller inquired about the greenway area along the River in terms of private versus public ownership. Assistant Manager replied that public ownership abutting this property was the narrowest strip of any along the River in public ownership. Mr. Saul - added that the width of property owned by the public varied from 150 to 300 feet between the north property line and the riverbank. He said that was not characteristic of public ownership along the River, there was variation in that it was much broader on the north side narrowing to only 30 or 40 feet along the Valley River Center property. The Commission and staff concern with regard to the effect on public access he said led to plans in the preliminary stages for a minimum of 100 feet of open space along the north edge of the proposed development. (1168) Councilman' Murray said he didn't remember any proposal coming to the Council for purchase of that property (referring to the statement that city funds were not available for purchase and the Council's prerogative for authorization of funds). He '.wondered if the parks department had any interest in the property "as opposed to having money".' Assistant Manager-said there was generally acquisition money available, but both the question of money and commitments already made for park land acquisition in other areas toa degree placed limitations upon funds available. Mr. Saul said adequate information had been made available on which to base a decision on the zone change request; the question of whether the city wished to acquire the property, even if funds were available, was irrelevant to the question of appropriate zoning. Councilman McDonald noted interest expressed by the (1190) parks director in adquiring riverfront property at the time the Counc~l toure~ the area. Councilwoman Campbell commented on the reportedly high rate of juvenile delinquency in - the Whiteaker area and said she would have some hesitancy about approving a high concentration of living units. Mr. 'Saul said there was no information with regard to the juvenile delinquency in the area. Mrs. Jensen noted that it was a low-income area and the fact that there was a high rate of delinquency in. comparison to the number of people living there would give the potential for more problems if a high density development was introduced. Councilman Keller asked whether the schools in the area were overcrowded. Mr. Saul pointed out the declining enrollment for Whiteaker School which had a capacity for 336 students but an actual enrollment of 181 for the 1973-74 year compared to 282 for the 1970-71 year. (1219) Elizabeth Fox, 1799 West 25th Avenue, owner of the property under discussio~, said that only this day did she receive notice of this meeting and wondered whether Mr. Safley had received his. She felt he should be present to answer concerns expressed. With regard to neighborhood concerns about potential traffic increase, she said that this was one of the few areas in the community from which residents could reach work, shopping, or recreational areas by walking or use of b~cycles. She stated her intention to live in the development and said the argument that it would add to the delinquency problem was not valid. She mlled attention to the. open space between the proposed deyelopment and the River plus nearby Sladden and Skinners Butte Parks and other public ownership pro- . viding access to the River which would not deprive the neighborhood of open space. Mike Van, 515 Stonegate, said he was a partner in M&M Development and that no notice of the hearing had been received. He said that in,a development of this kind the firm did try to take into accoun~ environmental surroundings through.use of skilled professionals is landscaping, engineering, architecture, etc. He hoped the Council would consider the fact that they were attempting to create a good development. Mrs. Fox said they planned that the old house about which Councilman McDonald had inquired was to be preserved for a community center or as a branch library and study center, something that would be of benefit to the entire community. 300 8/26/74 - 7 . Councilman Williams said he was neither ready to endorse the Planning Commission's (0308) recommendation nor direct the staff to prepare findings supporting an alternative- . _ ",- action. He suggested referring the issue to a joint meeting of the Council and.,':' Planning Commission for di~cussion after there had been an opportunity.for review of - the written presentations so Council would. be in better position to made a decision. , ',,./.f." Councilman Wood said' he had heard no testimony.that would support reversal of the Commission recommendation. 'He didn't consider the question of delinquency in the area .a problem, that would be a different consideration. However, he said he would. not oppose considering additional testimony with regard to traffic counts. Council- man Williams said it was not his intent to indicate a reversal of the Commission re- commendation. What he wanted to do was to review the material. pres,ented and give. the applicant an opportunity to make his presentation and hear the Commission discuss the issue. His suggestion in no way was ,intended to deny the rezoning, he said. __ Councilman Wood supported that approach. Councilman Hershner.'indicated he' would like an opportunity to review the traffic statistics presented. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to refer the' issue back to the Planning Commission (for.joint discussion with' the Council). Councilman Murray was in favor of. the motion. He felt the information submitted by the applicant fell short of ,proving public need - not public need for housing, but public need for the zone change .}Ie -:i~J!' tnars-taf:f~.s'!re,C9_ullllerraarrori-"thaEihe:' . , proposec,Lz.oning- ~.as. in conformi ty'witlr-tne GEmera."1Rlan'-could be_a-.-ma-tter ~of inte:f::" -ptetatIon_. And~--he'l1oted other vacant R-.2-_70ued:pro-R.eit:ie"s:--in' the ,eity"'av'ailaJ;~.lg:'for - '~eve0pm~n1:. '_':::"_. ~~~- P-:'-'",,:,"~:. _.,- .-' _. . - ~--'~~:'-'""""-=;:....- -:::=- - ,/ . ' . ,,; , :, ~ Councilwom.an Campbell fel tthe ,Commission did n.ot ,have ,all .the arguments presented (iJ.361) against the zone change. Also, 'she felt the peti don prot'esting the change carrying over 400 signatures was of significance. Mr. Wood said. if the:issue"was to be further considered. then he would reserve -'comment with. regard' 'to ,housing dispersal in relation to this proj ect. Councilman McDonald took issue with the motion. He said if a~tion contrary to the Commission recommendation was 'tak_en, ;t:hen,the matter 'wo1<lld"automatical)y.._go back for joint discussion.' Mayor' Anderson interpreted intent of 'th,e motion. ~as' to eliminate the necessity for .further public 'hearing and . rep'etition . of tes.timony but allow for joint discussion. Assistant' City Attorney Long 'referred t'o'Codeproyision for public hearing should action contrary to the Commission be taken.by the Council, and in this instance he construed the motion as' something coptrary to what was recommended by the Commission. Councilwoman Beal asked whether opponents of the zone change had presented any infor- (1388) mati on at this hearing that had not been received by the Commission. She wondered why a public hearing was necessary when it appeared to her the purpose of the joint discussion was only to give the Commission the courtesy of reviewing material given '_ to the Counci 1. Mr. Saul said he thought after a hasty examination of the material submitted by Mr. Cross that there was information included which the Commission did not have. Mr. Long rea"d the section of the' Code applicable - Council action con- trary to Commission recommendation was a request for further report and joint meeting, with public notice given and full opportunity for testimony to be given. Vot.e was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried'unanimously. Short recess was taken. (1409) D. Zoning Newly Annexed Areas 1. North of Willamette River immediately east of Valley River Center to C-2 SR and Outlying Commercial Sign District (Valley River Inn area) No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by CO.uncil members. Copies of Planning Commission staff notes and minutes, of July 2, 1974 were previously furnished to Council members. Jim Saul, planner, noted that staff notes of July 2, 1974 Planning Commission ',: (1428) meeting, at which approval was recommended, analyzed how the proposed city zoning corresponded with existing use of the properties and existing County zoning, thereby procluding requirement for proof of public need and whether those proper- e' ties were best suited for that need. He said proposed sign district regulations in both instances also were'suited to existing uses. He described existing non- conforming signs in the proposed sign districts ~nd explained that because of Sign Code provisions there would be a five-year amortization period from the effective date of the sign district designation for those signs to be brought into conformance. Public hearing was opened. (1483) 301 8/26/74 - 8 1 , ., ~ 'Richard,: HanS:on,. iepresenting VallEiy River Center, was in favor of the' proP9sed zonirig-and-.'s'igii"'- dis trict designation. a Micheal Suiiu,,1520 S.E. 37th, Portland, objected to regulations allowing larger ~ signs as a matter of principle. Mayor Anderson explained that the proposed regulations merely defined the zoning districts. Councilwoman Campbell added that the Council agreed with the philosophy "bigger does not necessarily mean better"; by designating these zones the Council was saying that signs would be smaller. Public hearing was ~losed, t~ere being, no further testimony. t (1508) Council Bill No. 6~9 - Zoning area north of Willamett~ 'River immediately east of Valley River Center to C-2 SR and Out- ly.ing Commercial Sign District was' read by council bill number arid title only there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting the zoning ~nd sign district designation as set out in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes 'of July 2,' 1974 be adopted by. reference thereto, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council and. that enactment be o'onsidered at' this time. , The motion carried unanimously and the bill. was read the second. time by counci.l bill number only. , /' ~ .", a Mr. Williams moved s~econded by Mr. Hershner to approve the bill and that it be ., given final passage. Rollcall vote. All cquncil members present voting aye, the bill was declared p~ssed-and numbered 17160. ,.,~.,"'~;, ',', " . .' .::~~t:.1,: . ,Counci~ Bil.1 No. '~~.,,:... Zoni~g area east of Goodpasture. Island Road 'a:rid . " ),north"9f Valley Rtver ,Center to C-2 and Integrated Neighborhood Shopping District waS, <read::by council bill-number and title only, there being no councilman prese~Crequesting.. that it be read' in full. . ~ "" '" Mr. Williams moved secon:ded~by Mr. Heishnerthat findings supporting the zoning and sign district desigpation asset out in the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes ,of July' 2; 1974 be adQpted by reference thereto, that the bill be read the seo0nd time 'by council bin number only; with unanimous consent of .the Council,.and that_ena~tment be consi,dered',at this time. The motion carried unanimously and the bill'wa~ read the second ,time by council bill number only. . Mr. Williams.moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that thebili be approve and givne final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17167. E. Sign District Boundary Change _ NOLth Of. _ C.lU~,. . Ro.a..,d. ' west of' COburg. Road - Fro~ Reside~ti~l to Outlying Commercial .24 ) ,(Dorothy Reynolds).,- Recommended by the Plannlng Commlsslon on July 9, 1974 Councilman WiTliams noted his intent to abstain from discussion or voting. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by other Council members. Copies of Planning." Commission staff notes and minutes of July 9, 1974 were previously distributed to Council members. Jim Saul, Planner, explained that when the Sign Code was adopted, properties abutting Coburg Road were designated as Highway Oriented Sign District. However, . this particular property (A&W) was left as Residenhail The Commission rejected the applicant's request for change to Highway Oriented on the basis that direct access to Coburg Road was not available; there was access only to Club. Road on which \speed was limited to 30 mph (a criteria for Highway Orignted = more than 30 mph). 'He read Code provisions for Outlying Commercial and said the subj ect property appeared more appropriate to that description than if designated Highway Oriented. (1569) Public hearing was opened. Bill Reynolds, 183 Ferndale Drive, said he was representing the applicant, expressing interest and concern for approval of the sign district boundary change. Michael SunU, 1520 S'" E. 37th, Portland, said that street signs were completely -~ unnecessary, they went against nature. He asked how big the proposed signs would be and whether they would be l~ghted. Kathy Saberhagen, 1010 High Street, commented about the difficulty in responding to this situation without knqwing what a sign district zone was. She could see no reason to change existing conditions and2 _ questioned the reasons for change. Assistant Manager explained that sign district classifications were spelled out in the Code and 'would be made available upon request. 8/26/74 - 9 '302 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. (1602) Councilwoman Campbell wondered whether the existing A&W pole-mounted sign would be . removed. Mr. Saul explained that it was, nonconforming but had not. been removed - because of litigation in process testing the. city's Sign Code. It would have to remain until the case was resolved. Counci 1 Bi 11 No. 641 -Changing sign district 01) area north of Club Road ,west of Coburg Road to Outlying Commercial District was,read by council bill number_ and title only there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood that findings supporting sign district boundary change as set forth in,the Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 9, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, that the bill be'readthe second time by council bill number only, .wi th unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared p~~~ed and numbered 17168. - -,~ ~-'----"--. F. Garbage'~Rat'e;"-"'Itlcrkase' _~.___+_ _n_.___._ - '--" --. -- . Proposed Garbage Rate Increase - Copies of Garbage Board minutes (August 9, 1974) . were previously distributed to Council members reflecting action recommending an increase _in rates to be collected by garbage haulers. Also distributed was a comparison of proposed rates and those now. in effect. Assistant Manager reported the present collection rate .,(residential) for one container once a week in Spring- field was $?25 per month (Eugene $2.85). Haulers in Springfield were asking for I , an increase to $3.25 which was the amount requested in Eugene if a serial levy i proposed by the County did not carry at an election scheduled for September 17. If the levy did carry, the rate recommended' for' Eugene was $2.95. i A letter from Bob Elfers, County chief administrator, was read suggesting delay \ in consideration of a rate increase until after the serial levy election, or if action was taken that it be conditioned upon the outcome of the election. He , I wrote that if the levy was approved not only would the recent increase in fees , be eliminated, but also the original charge which had been in effect for some time. Bob Deverell, chairman of the Garbage Board, said the Board considered the rate in- crease request on the basis of both adoption or rejection of the serial levy and concluded that if the levy was approved the 109 increase (to $2.95) would not be I , , out of line in view of increased costs to the haulers for equipment, payroll, i i I maintenance, and the general inflationary trend. . I Mayor Anderson reminded those present that the rate increase would be subject of public hearing at the August 26 Council meeting. I I , In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Deverell said the cost to individuals I I \ for dumping their own garbage was $1.00 for up to two cans. I Councilwoman Beal noted the benefit to the entire community if the County serial I levy was adopted and wondered .if the garbage haulers could notify their customers I at time of billing, if a rate increase was authorized, the amount of the increase I and that :it was contingent upon passage of the levy. However, there was concern ! i that time and postcard billing used by the haulers would not allow that procedure. i Ron Wei tzel , Empire Garbage Service, explained their billing procedure was on a I I three-month basis and would allow notification to only one-third of their customers I ! I before the September election. He added that the proposed increase if the serial i ! I levy did not pass would amount to $3.60 per year on the basic one-can once-a-week residential pickup whereas the serial levy, if adopted, would amount to $9.00 per i year additional tax on a $20,000 home. He explained the charges made by the County I to the garbage haulers for dumping. Art Braun, Art's Garbage Service, added that I they estimated the haulers were serving about 75% of the residents in the County. I ! i I . Councilwoman Beal suggested that no action be taken on the requested increase un- , i I , til figures could be obtained from the County with regard to the proposed serial ! I levy for comparison with the collection rates. Also, she felt the figures should ; , be made public so voters could have factual information before the September election. i -.'. ~. I ~. ~ ~ 8/26/74 - 10 .r 303 J ! ~ ,~ - , ., c In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Deverell said the commercial rates were increased, and that they had not been increased since 1971. Mrs. Campbell suggested that some information should be supplied the public if an increase was granted and ~ then billed on a retroactive basis. I : C~uncilman Williams preferred to see action delayed until after the September elec- I t~on because he was not in favor of setting a rate condi t.ioned upon the outcome of the I election. Also, he said he didn't understand why there should be such a difference . . b~tween the garbage haulers rate incre~rtand the increase in taxes for the garbage ,) d~sposal program ($3.60 per year vs $9.00). He said he would like to have an ex- }i planation of that as well as a breakdown in dollars showing the implication of . <:; i elimination of the dumping fees. ~. .'<, ,'i . ' ~\ Counc~lman ,Keller inquired about the substantial increase in commercial rates. J Mr. Deverell said it seemed ~ust~fied because of the length of time since an in- I crease had been granted and ~n v~ew of the inflationary factors. He said the { ! ~aulers were having to absorb the dumping costs charged by the County. Mr. [vei tzel, ~n response to question from Councilman Keller, said that under the fee schedule charged by the County before the o.ld serial levy expired. the haulers were paying $300 per month in dumping fees; under the new schedule to replace revenues from 1 the ;;erial levy, they were paying the County $900 per month. ::'----"--""-' -.;... ..-- ~~:" - -.'. """', ~':~":""'-;5-'- ,," .'.-'''':'~ ... - ,.'< ..:......-..... ," ~ . Councilwoman Beal noted that even the $300 fee would not have to be paid if the serial .levy .was adopted in September and she com~ented on the apparent costly ~ campaign waged by the haulers in defeating the levy in July. Mr. Braun quoted .., $800 he contributed to that campaign, and he said that it was given because he felt defeat of the levy would save money for the general public, Councilman McDonald said he wou.ld vote for the rate increase. He commented on the ,iI1!portance of recycling as a way of l~_~!!._I!.ing the amount of_gC::,rbage taken ~o__~he_~ump.,: In response to Councilwan Keller, Mr. weitzel said-the dumping charge for a ',.. J 20-yard truck before July 15 was $5.00; no~, $18.00. Also, that it was difficult to compare commercial and residential rates because they. were basically two dif- ferent operations requiring different equipment for different volumes. . However, he added, the total volume of residential garbage produced in Eugene equaled the . . total amount of commercial refuse. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to set public hearing on Comm the garbage rate increase for the August 26 Council meeting. Motion 8/21/74 carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Pub Hrng williams voting no. . Mayor Anderson asked that information be obtained from the County with regard to ~ tax rate necessary to support the proposed garbage disposal serial levy. And ~' Councilwoman Beal said she would like to hear what the garbage haulers were doing with regard to recycling. Mr. weitzel said he was in favor of recycling materials I ~~,!gh it did meana.~oss of income t<? th~_garbage haul~~_____ --- , I Assistant Manager explained staff's review of the economics of property tax levy compared I to increase in garbage haulers' fees indicated a "great state of flux." County calcula- tions based on present estimates of current true cash values anticipated an increase Ion a $20,000 home at $4.80 as compared to the haulers' fees increase of $3.60. However, there was difficulty in defining the average garbage customer - determining what would j be the average number of cans per pickup because of variance from week to week. And with determining value of a typical home - if for instance the average value was juggled downward to $15,000 the increase in tax levy would be no more than the incr~ased users' ,fees, thereby becoming more palatable to owners of low value properties. To add to the ! changing situation, Lane County experienced a 40% droppoff of individuals going to the ! dump site during the period after the serial levy expired; at the same time there was ! a decline in the revenues from fees charged commercial haulers. And one commercial , hauler, .he said, indicated the full 30~ adjustment was not needed. Further report was : i received from the Garbage Board that with some reluctance they would recommend referring i ~ the question of rate increase back to staff for more thorough evaluation and audit of \ \ costs of the haulers' operations requesting a recommendation on the proposed rate adjust- _~ I .~_ : ments. Assistant Manager said it was recognized that the commercial haulers were having _ I to absorb a substantial increase in costs for dumping, and the County was asked to carry' those costs while the evaluation process was going on so that any costs now experienced by the haulers could be taken into consideration in setting any modif:ied rates. J, Public hearing was opened. --,-'--'-'~---- .-.-- - ...-.. -' ---'~-- 8/26/74 - 11 "304 - - ..~_L....._-"" ___~.U____.__ -~.. .~_.. ,._...._-~_._.~-_.._---_.__._.. - -\ Mary Milhaupt, 1500 Norkenzie Road, asked for delay of action on the rate increase ~ until after the September 17 County election Dn a proposed garbage serial levy. She sup- por~ed ~he levy and said consideration of the increased fees concerned only the Eugene- . Sprlngfleld area and o~erlooked t~e rest of th~ County. She questioned whether.the I h~ulers.would pass savlngs to thelr customers lf the levy was approved and dumping fees ~ d~scontlnued by the County. ~he added t~at the Leag~e of Women Voters was in agreement I ~ wlth her request to delay actlon on any lncrease untll outcome of the County serial ~ levy was known. ' Jude Hartha, 300-1/2 North Jefferson, was opposed to the rate increase and suggested i , rather that BRING be integrated with the garbage haulers for recycling of materials ! instead ~f maki~g further landfills. He suggested too that any revenues resulting from . : garbage collectlon should be used to educate the public with regard to recycling. Also I I that so~e of the haulers' methods of pickup were costing too much and any increase would : be con~lnuing a~ obviously inefficient system. Kathy Saberhagen, 1010 High Street, and : Geodeslc Jon Splral, 2620 Potter Street, expressed opposition to the proposed increase ! on the basis that recycling was more desirable. Irvin Fletcher, Lane County Labor Council, said he communicated with the Garbage Board j requesting that they include in their recommendation to the Council that action be de- I j la~ed until after the September 17 election on the Co~nty's proposed serial levy. He , sald the staff report indicate the complexity of the issue and it should not be acted : upon until after the vote on the garbage levy. ) _.'.-' __ "0 ._.~. _..._.... _ .~_ ...._..~.._ ~'__"_'~" _____ {Ron Weitzel,820 East 36th Avenue, Empire Garbage Service, expressed confusion at the ,'recommendations to delay action until after the County election when the haulers sub- I a.' ! mitted two rate proposals - one if the measure passed, one if it didn't pass. He felt ~ F there had been very little co-operation with the 'garbage haulers from the County in the '= ; past and he maintained that there would be a savings to the citizens even with the i increased pickup fees compared to enactment of the proposed garbage serial levy. I . /-- ! "~_...._ ,.. _\.... ._____/ i Michael Sprague, Portland, suggested recycling all solid waste and a computerized I study of all objects into and out of Eugene. r I Lee Walker, 1990 Wester Drive, said he hauled garbage for a living and the increased I rates were needed to cover increased costs. He thought people working in that industry \ were in better position to know whether the increase was needed. I i \ \ Cliff Shirley, 8 Westbrook Way, recommended approval of the requested rate increase, modifying it only perhaps to provide for consideratlon after the September 17 election of making the rate increase retroactive to August 1 if the levy was defated. If the i levy was approved, he said, the County could reimburse the dumping fees paid by the : haulers in the meantime. He thought defeat of the serial levy should be encouraged since the major portion of garbage dumped was by people in the metropolitan area so i some of the County's taxpayers were asked to pay for a service they were not using and . others were paying twice for the service. Also, he thought it cost the user less to pay,the increased rate than to pay the proposed serial levy. ,~ Puplic hearing was closed there being no further testimony. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the request for garbage , rate increase be referred to staff for further consideration and that the I staff ask the County to recognize the problem of the commercial haulers ' and their plight at this time and enforce the County rates with that con- sideration in mind, the intent of this motion not being that the requested r~tesw~e not warranted nor proper but rather that more clarification was appropriate in light of the confusion, that if the increase was found to be justified it would be authorized in the very near future. 1 \ ! In response to Councilman Hershner's inquiry about whether staff could give an estimate' i of ,the time which might be involved in returning a recommendati9n to the Council, I Assistant Manager said it was hoped a report would be ready for the Council before the I f September 17 election. so action could be taken at the second Council meeting in September.: Mr. Hershner was anxious to see the matter settled because of increased costs to the i : haulers. He hoped that schedule cou~d be adhered to. ' i : Councilman Wood expressed concern about the type of processing used by the garbage haulers and whether there should be a timetable for transition to recycling. He / .. wondered if information in that regard could be brought to the Council along with in- ~ -_ formation on fees. . Assistant Manager said the County was operating on a two- to six-year cycle toward a resource recovery center and that information could be returned with the ; report. ..J 8/26/74 - 12 '305 , ,I .: -' . Councilwoman Beal wondered if information could also be brought on whether costs to 1 garbage haulers would be reduced if citizens separated recyclable materials into dif- ' ferent containers. But Assistant Manager thought that because of the complexity and I ... the time frame it would not be possible to pull that information together in the length I .... of time given to get the fee report back. 1 Vote was taken on the motion as stated~ Motion carried unanimously. . - --, - ~- - - - ......_. ._.._.._..,.....~_ ......_... . _____'''__''._.__.'_ "" ._. .__.._.,.~..._.. '.., _h. .._....... .......~,.......___.. .. _ ....,. .~... G. Teleprompter Cable TV Rate 'Increase , i I !Proposed Cable TV Rate Increase - Copies of report were previously distributed to \ iCouncil members from joint Eugene/Springfield corr~ittee appointed to consider and lmake recommendations with regard to Teleprompter Cable (TY, proposed increase fo~ !monthly service from $5.00 to $6.95. Assistant Manager called attention to errors , [in that report - page 1, 4th paragraph, average'increase should read 8.3% rather -ithan 10.6% and over the last 4-2/3 years rather than 3~2/3 years. He also ex- iplained franchise provisions calling for ~ouncil review of rates set by Tele~ :prompter with privilege of cancellation of franchise rights by the city upon six months' notice should the Council deem the proposed rates unreasonable. The ;joint committee found the proposed rates reasonal)le and noted that if the proposed irates were found unreasonable findings supporting denial or disapproval would be I : the burden of the Council. I : iCouncilman McDonald, representing Eugene on the joint committee, reviewed the work ~ {of the committee leading to the conclusion that the requested increase was not out ,., :of line, returning only 2.4% on the $10 million investment stated in financial re- iPort of Teleprompter prepared by Kohnen, Larson & Co., accountants, copies of ~which were furnished to Council members. He noted staff listing of Teleprompter i I \ investment a.E $3 million on the basis of tax assessor figures. He recognized that i ! there would be opposi tion to the increase but fe,I t the ci ty could not afford to \try to prove that the proposed rate was unreasonable. He said no public hearing I fwas necessary. ~councilman Williams asked for more information with regard to Teleprompter invest- iment in view of the wide discrepancy in rate of return - 2.4% vs 12.5% - based on !the figures presented. Ralph Cobb, attorney representing -Teleprompter, explained j, the financial report prepared by Mr. Larson of the accounting firm was based on ifigures received from Teleprompter's New York office. With that information, he )said, and in consultation with the local manager, James Danielson, Mr. Larson had !Placed a value of $10 million on the business at the present time. Mr. Cobb said ; the requested increase was not out of line with rates of other companies throughout ! the country and was reasonable when compared to rates charge .by newspapers, the iUniversity for tuition, etc. He'said that information was not irrelevant, when that charge was made by Councilman Williams, because it would be the Council's responsibility to prove whether the increase proposed was unreasonable. He said ~ the new rate would go into effect on September 1 and then it would be 'up to the ~ city either to accept it or, if it was deemed unreasonable, to terminate Tele- prompter's franchise. The proposed increase, he said, would resul t i-n':a:.~return ,of 3.7% for 1974-75. He added that the cable service was not a public utility, , : that it returned to the city about $32,000 to $38,000 annually under the franchise agreement, and that the risk factor should be considered (possible invention that \ would enabl~ t~evee re~eption with~ut cable). He felt the request a reasonable, I : one, and sa~d ~f Counc~l members d~d not agree then the burden of proof would l~e i wi th them. \ \ ! , ' .i Councilman Williams wondered if it would be possible to get an explanation from I I the Assessor's office of the calculations used in arriving at the valuation placed Ion Teleprompter holdings. He commented on the normal procedure of valuation of I real and personal property and said there apparently was a substantial~difference of opinion with regard to the value of personal property reported by the company. He said he appreciated and respected Mr. Larson's opinion in response to Mr. Cobb's : . ' statement that the $10 million was Mr. Larson's judgment of value based on figures ! from the company's New York office. However, Mr. Williams thought there was such I a wide difference that there should be further analysis. A 12.5% return on what I could almost be called a public utility was unwarranted, he said, but if the rate , of return was figured on a different basis then it appeared to be reasonable. i iIIf Councilman McDonald noted that question ab~ut the:investment figure had been raised I ,_~_I1_ joint commi ttee consideration. SIf~rTrl:F}:o..g,!fa.c1.!. finance director anq /,!~mber of . -.. -___u. _._._. ._._____~_..__....,~__---~--.....__...._.__.... ---. ..._- . . .. - . . . . 8/26/74 - 13 "3040 .... ., . -.. . ~ . -. ~ ". the joint committee, noted that the Assessor I s figure included Teleprompter IS in- ---} : ventory although there was no firm figure on it. He added that estimate of prop- i i erty values were calculated either on earning capacity of the property, actual i ! value as bought, sold, or constructed" or on a combination of the two. So it; IlIA ; would seem any difference could be "reasoned out." He said the last appraisal; ~ i (sometime within the last six years) was based on the market value of Teleprompter ! i and took into consideration equipment, number of customers, number of channels, \ : cable in the ground, etc. , ; Mayor Anderson said appraisal was usually also based on the rate of return and I he challenged to some extent market value shown in the financial report on the I basis that on no market would such a substantial investment be made with such a ! small rate of return. Mr. Cobb thought a knowledgeable appraiser could substan- i ; tiate the figures presented by Mr. Larson and said it was well known'that the : ratio of value for assessment purposes was always lower than the true market value. ~ He suggested that Mr. Larson be asked to explain the details of his report, or : Teleprompter was willing to have any analysis the Council desired. They felt the ~ figures presented were correct. Councilman McDonald added that the committee'had explored in detail the figures presented and felt the increase a reasonable re- I quest. He noted that the $6.95 rate would be in effect beginning September 1,1974 regardless. : Mayor Anderson felt the Council would not want to be in the position of going ; through a meaningless exercise, it seemed they were delegated the responsibility of investigating the basis for any rate increase and had the right to ask for ~ available ..valid information. Councilman Keller thought' the rate of return would \. ! be predicated on income rather than on investment. He thought the value would ! I not be relevant except to the Assessor's office. --~ -' ~----------. ',councilwoman B-eal expressed_cOm;#Ji~outthe-:::.impa~t of the increase on _elder?;; l : people and shut-ins depending on teeve~amusement and wondered if some reduced "",\ rate could be arrange for service to those people. . I ! iAssistant Manager suggested holding the matter over to next week's committee meet- I ! ing to qive the opportunity to reconcile the figures presented, but Mr. Cobb said \ ! the increase was schedu~ed to go into effect September 1 and he could see no reason \ to hold ,it over for a week when a short session with Mr. Larson would give the in- \ : formation desired. '-.. ~ }" ' ~ It was' a'qreed that the informad_o!J.~wouJd be obtained and further consideration of Comm' \ the rate increase would occur at the A~S.t;-.~~ Council meeting. 8/21/74 ~ . , - ....-., . Pub Hrng i Bob Haas, 2288 Blackburn, sa~d that teevee cable~e~v~ce ~as cons~dered a publ~c i utility by some people. He said the property on which his home was located had deed : restrict_ions prohibiting teevee antennas. And the teevee cable was placed in a pub- \ lic utiLi ty easement at the back ~f h~S lot, s~. i~ h~.~. to b~ consj,dered a publi.c utili ty. \ . Manager reported staff review of information' supphedby Charles Larson, CPA, baseclon . figures given by the New York office of Teleprompter, 'indicated different ways of deter- mining the value of the business - cash flow, median figure accepted in the industry based on the number of customers, value of physical plant on basis of replacement cost and rolling stock. In reviewing the value of the physical plant, based on replacement costs, and comparing with County Assessor's figures, there appeared to be a substantial disparity regarding some of the equipment. Also, a considerable. amount of rolling stock appeared in the business valuation which did not appear in the Assessor's records. Public hearing was opened.. Ralph Cobb, attorney representing TelePrompter, reviewed frknchise terms which allowed the rate increase ($5.00 per month to $6.95) to go into effect on September 1, 1974 , with the provision for cancellation of the franchiseafterlsix months if the city ~roved the increase unreasonable. To justify the increase in their own minds, he said, Mr. Larson was engaged. Mr. Cobb felt TelePrompter's figures were accurate although unaudited. He said a more detailed audit could be supplied if wanted.,... He reminded the Council that TelePrompter was not a public utility, that its service was optior:;al to its customers. And that there was risk involved in that a new television staticn would dec:e~se TelePr?mpter's customers,.or t~e possibility of.a satellite process .~ . for telev:ls~on receptlon could put them ~mmedlately out of buslness. He reported si~ilar increases throughout the Northwest as the result of the current inflationary trend and said the inc~ease announced by TelePrompter was appropriate to give a reasonable rate of return. 8/26/74 - 14 301 Charles Larson, CPA, .Kohnen, Larson & Co., explained that the $10 million value he placed on TelePrompter was somewhat below their expected selling price, should they wish to sell, ana somewhat above replacement cost. He said the rate of return on that investment for - 1973 was 2.4%, substantially below what should be made on this type of investment. Projected, it would amount to 3.7% for 1974, 6.4% for 1975. However, if a lower in- vestment figure was used the rate of return could be pushed higher - $8 million, 8% for 1975; or if the $10 million estimate was completely wrong and the value was $5 million, say, the rate of return could be calculated to be 12.8%. Mr. Larson said that in re- viewing with the city auditor the company's valuations and figures in the Assessor's office he was struck by the wide difference between the totals for underground cable _ while the County showed 14 miles, TelePrompter estimated 105 miles, which would seem to indicate difficulty in keeping values up to date on the County's record. I (2155) Mr. Cobb added that:the TelePrompter people had met with the Council's subcommittee~ Information supplied them was not substantially different from that given here, and the subcommittee had recommended that the increase was reasonable. He too felt the increase was reasonable and reminded the Council that the city had the burden of proving that it was not. ' (2164 ) LileEverbe, 2620 Potter Street, was opposed to the increase, saying the service provided was a commercial endeavor presented in terms of dollars rather than a function or service, and she was against using money in exchange for services. She said there should be improved use of broadcasting, it should be used for public service to debate issues of interest to citizens or for creative production using other than paid staff. _94) Robert Haas, 2288 Blackburn, reflected on the alternatives to avoid paying higher garbage rates. Individuals could recycle or haul their own trash. But for may, he said, there was no suitable alternative for television reception without -cable. . He called attention to height limitations on-,television- antennas in building regulations and in deed re- strictions. He doubted that there was real needfor_the:rate increase.and.notedthat the city realized 3% of TelePrompter's gross revenues under present franchise provisions. (2235) Gerard vonDahln of Tenefly, New Jersey, thought the ,opinion with regard to investment value should be considered in light of , auditing practices from which the'. opinion was deri ved. He questioned replacement cost values in rate of return calculations as an acceptable accounting practice, and said that the :market_,value basis measurement 'was inherently "circular" because market value,depended on'income.- ' , !' ~ (2247) Robert Tappan, 240 West 20th. Avenue, felt TelePrompter had~,a lucrative ,business and that the franchise provision placing the "burden of proof" on the city was unreasonable. Instead the city should have the privilege to decide what was reasonable. He felt the cable service was a public utility in' the sense that it provided service: to, the community and that the rate increase was not justified or warranted_ without further consideration..r (2258) Jonathan Walker, 570 West 19th Avenue, felt most of the revenues derived from the rate . increase would be allocated back to TelePrompter stockholders and would not be used to enhance local cable teevee service, which he thought should' include 'weferendums.:among. othen public' services. He proposed that the rate increase be denied, or_if approved that a certain'.percentage of the increase he- allocated_ to provide. for public input and interactio~ through cable television programming. He proposed an elective body, incor- porated, with its major obligation to provide an operating budget._foT the purchase of equipment and supplies for the express purpose of community access to television. He wondered how the city' s' 3%~Jof TelePrompter's gross revenues was _ spent and, how the rate increase'would be'used by TelePrompter. {I" " _ V .:. J:' -- . :'1 :"";.'" Public hearing was' closed,. there:.being. no further testlmony.. . . .' " (2305) Councilman Williams said he was unwilling to approve the rate increase, it appearing that the question of value should be "tied down", as well as some of the costs allocated against it. He recognized the difficulty' of showing the. requested. increase was unreasonable and said there were alternatives for solving the problem with the Council performing a real public service for the' community. One' such alternative was the installation ofia tTan- slatorsystem, the sam~.process now used by TelePrompter; ,;Researchhe:had undertaken, he said, indicated an estimated cost of $15,000 per chann~l calling for. a total investment of about $90,000 to create a UHF system to serve thi~ area at very little cost to.. the: consumer. Information from, the FCC and different, attorneys knowledgeable in tbi~ type of . service, he said, indicated no impropriety in'the city's maintaining that type of service in competition with cable teevee,franchises. He estimated the proposed TelePrompter. rate increase would cost people of this area about $2.5 million and he felt if that much was paid for reevee signals and if government could ,provide the same service for a one-time $90,000 capital outlay pilus minor maintenance expenditures it should be carefully re- searched. - y-~.---_.~.~. _--"0-"- --- :..::;~.:-" .-"~- .- -: -' -. . - - '. - -- -.'- 8/26/74 - 15 ~oA Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the Council neither-approve nor disapprove the TelePrompter rate increase but ask that staff further review testimony presented and consider options which might be available to,deai with the. problem in other ways, including public teevee translator service. 4It Councilman McDonald felt the rate increase should be either accepted or rej ected'- He said the subcommittee of representatives from both Springfield and Eugene had been appointed to review only the proposed increase, and they felt after analysis of the figures presented that the recommendation to accept the increase was right. He noted the TelePrompter franchise would run to 1980, also that the Council could cancel it after six months notice. He recommended that the increase be accepted, noting that it would to into effect on September 1st regardless of Council action at this time. Councilman Keller asked for a legal approach- and was advised that the City Attorney (Side II could not advise because, of conflict of interest - TelePrompter at one time had been 0001) a client. Councilman Hershner expressed concern about the probably amount of staff work involved in reviewing accounting procedures to determine whether the rate of return was reason- able. He wondered if staff thought it would be worthwhile in view of recent rate increases in other northwest cities. Councilman Williams said it was not his intent that staff review of financial statements and exploration of alternative television service proceed contemporaneously, rather that the possibility of a public translator be pursued first. If that could not be developed, then he thought the figures ~ presented were such that further analysis was necessary. Councilman McDonald thought ~ that since "burden of proof". rested on the city and auditing of figures would- create - considerable expense. Auditing TelePrompter's New York books was brought up'several times in subcommittee meetings, he said, and r~jected as too costly for either city. Mr~' Williams said he was not arguing that an audit was warranted, rather that it was a question of interpretation of rate of return on investment and the appropriate definition of investment for a television cable service company. Mr. McDonald felt the main consideration should be the service provided by TeleVrompter. He noted very little comment about the service, only that no one wanted to pay the increased rate. Councilman Keller wondered whether Mr. Williams' interest in return on investment could be defined as "return on assets" or if something more definitive was wanted. Mr. Williams answered that debate could continue forever on a definition of invest- ment when calculating its return. He cited bases on which a"rate of return could be calculated and noted that there were general accounting procedures for utility businesses. Still he. thought the value presented in TelePrompter's financial statement appeared not properly stated. And he felt it should be further analyzed if the people of Eugene were to provide the return. Councilwoman Beal thought any review of accounts or procedures used.in arriving at a value were beside the point if the thrust of the motion was to explore alternatives /- to provide suit'able television translator service at a nominal cost with small initial _ investment. It an alternative service was provided, she said, then the rate Tele- Prompter charged wouldbe of no concern because there would be an alternative. Councilwoman Campbell asked hos a translator system would be financed by the city and (0176) what cost would be involved to the consumer in adapting receiving sets for that type of reception. Mr. Williams answ.er~rl that if it appeared the translator alternative:' was",-the b"e'st ~-a:-nd Jle was 'intere~tectenough t() investigate it', hesg.i_d"",..then..it..,' appeared the- city could-- pay the estimated f90-, OOO-~fo-r in-stallation from ccmtingency funds. With regard to receiving sets, he said, any television set since 1963 by law has been manufactured with the capability of being adapted to UHF reception. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye; except Councilman McDonald voting no. II. "- Items to be acted.~ upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if (0214) requested. Previously discussed in committee on August 14, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Hershner, Beal, Campbell, and Wood) and August 21, 1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Williams, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, and Kel}_~:),_'___ ~i,~~te~ of ~~os~_ me~tings a~~ pri~ted, below. in. ~ talics ._____ _. __..' ..__. ,____ A. ,Request to rename 13th Avenue "Wayne Morse Avenue" - Copies of letter from Charles 0.' . 'Porter were previously distributed -to Council members requesting that 13th Avenue ~ )e repamed "Wayne Morse Avenue" and that its intersection with Kincaid street be (known as "Wayne Morse Plaza." Also distributed were copies of procedure for 1 ichanging street names, established by State law, requiring Planning Commission 'recon~endation after public hearing, and public hearing at time of Council con- sideration of the recommendation. Manager said the cost of changing street name signs, if approved, would be about $680. 8/26/74 - 16' ' '309 , . '. .~~-:t: ' ~' ~ : Councilman Wood thBught it would be best to receive and file the request for con- sideration when other requests for memorials to ~~yne Morse might be received by . the Council. He said he had received suggestions such as naming some future e j park in Senator Morse' s 'lj~r10,r;; making a museum of his home, renaming a building on the campus, etc., and ;ince the city could be involved in an~ of those sug- igestions it might be more appropriate to consider this request at the same time. , 'Councilwoman Campbell thought if the Council was interested in the change the request should be referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation. She ! noted that she had told Mr. Porter she'didn't think it necessary for him to be present to speak in support of his request. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the request to rename 13th Avenue "Wayne Morse Avenue" to the Planning Commission for recommnedation. i i \ i Council members agre~d with Mayor Anderson's suggestion that the referral in \ no way indicated any particular endorsement by the Council, only that the re- I I quest had merit and the referral was in response to it. ! , Mrs. Campbell reported one call in opposition to renaming the street on the b~sis 1 ; that it would cause c?nfusion in the sequence of numbered streets.. Councilwoman I ' Beal saw no reason not to refer the request to the Commission and noted that she " had received_a suggestion to rename Crest Drive in honor of Senator Morse. Comm i 8/14/74 e Vote was taken on the motion to refer. Motion carried unanimously. Approve ,_. - - ".-.. .'- _ _ .J' _. -- -'.--"""_ ..--... . -','< ,- ~'-"'-- . . ~. ~., ~--_. Councilwoman Campbell reported a suggestion that consideration be given to naming ',;",_ a court or plaza in the new Federal building in honor of Wayne Morse. B. Fee 'Revision Committee Report - Copies of memo from the Fee Revision Committee together with schedule of proposed fees were previously distributed to Council i I i members. \ , , i , 1 Councilman Wood, chairman of the Fee Committee, explained the approach to setting ; I i the fees for variou~ building and planning department activities on a 30% or 60%- . \ : of-actual-cost basis. _He said the Committee felt it more fair and equitable for j , a portion of the permit fees to be borne by the general public rather than en- 1 i ! tirely by the developer to avoid passing the cost to the individual consumer , \ ! thereby creating somewhat of an artificial inflationary trend for other housing J \in the vicinity of developments. He noted some 010 the considerations taken into :account in setting the 30%/60% factor - general benefit to the community as well j as the individual applicant, city policy supporting provision of low- and moderate- I income housing, support for'social service agencies whose clients cannot pay for I i , services. Annual review of the fees was suggested, deleting them from the Code I and thereafter setting them by COUncil resolution. No fee for appeals was recom- I - mended, he said, because of the insignificant amount of staff work necessary for processing. Mr. Wood said the fees proposed generally reflected the ratio of benefit to those requesting the type of procedure or permit desired. , 'Gary Chenkin, assistant planning direator, added that the Committee,felt fees should be waived for certain types of conditional use permits - CIR housing - and should be only 20% of actual cost for processing permits applied for by social service agencies, defined in the memo. Also, that the 30% for residential , , permits, and 60% for commercial or industrial permits was felt appropriate be- I I !cause of the proportionate benefit in each case, particulary in view of the con- icern for the effect a higher fee for residential permits would have on the con- , ~sumer. He said that although the committee was not asked to consider fees for I i , land division, it 'did suggest the same 30%/60%-of-processing-cost application " , ! because the same processes were followed as for other permits. I ! ! In answer to Mayor Anderson, Manager explained that'if the Fee Committee report I was approved, the necessary oridnance for Code amendment and resolutions setting ( fee schedules would be prepared for public hearing at the August 26 Council meeting. Councilman Hershner wondered if the new procedure - fees based on percentage of processing costs ~ would require a cost accounting system where each permit would I : require a detailed cost analysis to determine the fee. Mr. Chenkin answered that I . an analysis of costs would be anticipated about every other year. Permit fees would be charged as set out in resolution to be adopted by the Council after the proposed Code amendment, then after one year and before two years a'review would indicate whether a change was appropriate. If a new schedule was deemed appro- priate then it would be brought to the Council for consideration in resolution form. -- .- ....-" .- ..-"- ...~. .., . - .-'" ~ . ..-. . . . - ----.-- -- -.. --,-... . - - "- ..... ..' .,_, _ _. _ ____._.... . ._ U'_ ..-- -.- "--;:':-';...<"- ...-. --- - h _ . _ ___ .._ . --- .. 8/26/74 - 17 '3'0 - .. .....-., '-..' . ,-- .- - -- - - ...', Councilwoman Beal noted the reduction in fees proposed for major and minor sub- ,divisions and asked if the Fee Committee considered subdivisions of benefit to the general public. She said the Budget Committee had suggested the fee study with ! - the idea of possibly increasing revenues to cut the deficit in processing costs, and she wondered why it was proposed to lower the subdivision fees now after having raised them earlier in the year. Mr. Chenkin answered that prior to ! adoption of the present fee schedule there had been no charge for subdivision.~' I applications. He said it was correct that if the fees now proposed were adopted ithe charge for land partition would be less, that the fees would be based on a Ipercentage - 30 or 60 - of actual processing costs to all city departments, not \just planning. Councilman Wood said the main consideration in recommending the 30%/60% factor was the impact the Fee Committee thought charging the full amount to the developer would have on the cost of housing to the consumer. In addi tion, he said, the community benefited from the review and monitoring process in terms of maintaining standards. . Mrs. Beal could see no reason why the general public should pay the cost of new !development any more than the cost of public improvements - sidewalks, sewers, IPaving .- whiph were assessed to the individual property owners. She said she agreed completly on waiving permit fees for CIR housing, but on the ottier costs ,it seemed consideration was being given only to the consumer and none to the tax- !payer. She was opposed to subsidization of high-cost housing and said she would like to see the fees discussed in public hearing because it seemed the taxpayer should have a voice. . Councillnan Wood thought the total community should bear the burden of some of the i normal growth within an area. He said the Fee Commi ttee, 'however, didn't consider I i . that so much as it was concerned with the impact of any increase in cost passed ! to individuals rather, than having broader based economical support. Mrs. Beal \ felt a better definition of "consumers" might be that in general they,ryere tc:.:i'''~ , , , payers -. those supporting the tax structure of the city. She said she saw no reason to subsidize commercial development either and repeated her opinion that i " there should be further consideration of the fee report in public hearing so people I J would know exactly what they were subsidizing. .. "7.-"'-- ._,. --.. - .---...--........---..-....-- --", -- .-. ".~. . ~'---_. Councilwoman Campbell didn't think the fees were high enough but she was willing to accep't the report rather than reject it and start over again. She felt a great deal of consideration should be given to the report since it reflected a . citizens group point of view. Mr. Wood added that the fee schedule could be ad- justed at a later date, that it did represent various philosophies and expertise on Housing and growth impact. He favored approval and drafting of the appro- priate legislation for public hearing. Mayor Anderson recognized the difficulty of developing an equitable system of fees but said the approach taken by the Fee Committee seemed the fairest way to handle the charges and was more~equitable than had applied in the past. Mrs. Beal agreed that the approach was right - . passing along some of the actual city costs. But she said she recognized the Committee on which the building industry was well represented was possibly in- , fluenced by desires of people who wished to provide housing, and she again~sug- \ gested that there should be public hearing on the report to give the opportunity for pub,Iic expression. I Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Wood to accept the report. Councilwoman Beal asked if the motion should also set a public hearing on the fee , report before an ordinance implementing it was prepared. Councilwoman Campbell , I expressed concern with that procedure. Councilman Hershner said his motion was not intended to "put anything through" without public input. He said acceptance of the report with preparation of legislation for consideration at the August 26 Council meeting would provide opportunity for separate discussion even though it would probably not have the wide publicity a public hearing would have. He said it seemed the issue was whether the functions of the city in this area were,ex- . \ clusively for the benefit of the developer and people living in a development or the city as a whole. He believed the city as a whole did gain benefit and that i it was proper the city as a whole - the taxpayers - should bear a certain portion : of the cost. i Manager called attention to anticipated revenues built into the budget based on . : fees suggested in early budget presentation which had been reduced. Now, based ; on this recommendation, there would be further reduction of about $60,000. He said the effect would not be disastrous since money was available in an emergenclJ fund to make up for unrealized revenues. He thought the basic question was what share the general public should p~ for the costs of processing the different , ' :;j. - ....:>'. = 8/26/74 - 18 '311 - types of permits. He said he understood the concern was primarily about the ef- ~ fect of additional cost to the buying public which faced already increasing costs i from the "spin off" on total cost of housing because of assessor's practices. To I ~ . determine what the effect might be, he said, some calculations were made on PUD ~- : costs should the entire amount of the fee as originally suggested be charged,:ft" j Those calculations ~howed no major impact on the cost of housing and he felt I that should be recognized--in discussing what was really being accomp'lished in ' , setting these fees. I Councilwoman Beal saw the benefit to the general public of planning control, , housing codes, etc., in maintaining standards, but she didn't see any difference : between planning and transportation functions, for instance, and other improve- i ments such as sidewalks, sewers, streets normally charged to homeowners. She ! , 'I recognized too the proposed fees based on percentage of ac;tuaij'costs represented a departure from past method of setting fees, so she tho~ghtit might be feasible I not to charge the full cost at this time. However, she still thought the fees I proposed were too low, that raising the subdivision application fees would have very little effect on cost of housing, and that they were not raised because of pressure by'a",specialgroup which profited from that. Comm Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council 8/14/74 members present voting aye, except, Mrs. Beal voting, no. . See~Be-l!ow ._._..... .. .. --_.. ..' ..~.. '," . _. ._~.._.._~._., .~,.....~._- '. ~. ___... _." J\ ~ .~. __. ~.- "..1,.. ~''''''..:' . Because of the late hour and desire for proper~:consideration of the committee report on ~ fee :evision, it was agr~ed to carry this item over to the September 16, 1974 Council . meetlng. C. I,Joint Social Service Fund - Final Report"- Copies of final recommendations for. funding social service agencies for,1974-75 submitted by 'the Joint Social Services Budget Subcommittee were previously distributed to Council members. The recommenda-\ tions listed allocations in two priority sections - the first (28 items) were firm \ recommendations on which contracts ~ere already signed with the agencies; the ' second (13 items) were additional allocations to be funded with money made avail- iable by the County. Two other items (Mental Health Center and Legal Aid Secretary) :were recommended for funding as money was available. i iCouncil was requested to delegate authority to Kess Hottle, director of Lane County iCommunity Health and Social Services, to sign amendments to the contracts resulting :from approval of the second group. Attention was called to the allocation for Drug ;Information Center - approval would constitute authorization only, payments would :be made only after some administrative problems lvere cleared and contract signed iwi th tha,t agency. ~,..__,.,u,__'__ ~___.__.~___,__, __._'_'. h, ,__ _ ,_. --. Councilwoman Campbell inquired about the $20,000' allocation to CARES; she h'ad :understood it might be deleted. Assistant ManagBr answered that a combination 1 ~ /of things occurred to enable funding that agency - expenditures were cut, match- I ., iing"grant from County Health Agency, and some staff help. Mrs. Campbell commented 1 on the innovati ve procedure for funding social services in this area, elici ting , from Assistant Manager the fact that recognition of the joint funding program was '1 given Lane County in the form of an award from the National Association of Counties. . ~ . I ' . I Councilwoman Beal asked for more informati,on on the Drug Information Cente.r. I Assistant Manager explained that the Center, funded with the understanding that it , would operate for the entire fiscal year, came back with the announcement that it could operate--.only four months and would then,:have.:to:.c]'ose. The Joint Budget Committee was asked to allocate funds to permit its operation until receipt of a . Federal grant. The requested allocation was recommended after investigation re- vealed there would be costs to local government agencies to provide those services ,if the Center didn't operate. Since that time the University, the contracting :agency, had raised some questions with regard to the legal status of the Center jWhich attorneys were trying to resolve. He thought those matters would be taken (care of before the next meeting of the Joint Budget Committee. In further re- \sponse to Mrs. Beal about use of the State Laboratory or Health Department for !analyses performed by the Center, Assistant Manager said these particular analyses [were sophisticated enough':_~o be used by narcotics agencies allover the State and \were a very valuable' toa:7from- a police standpoint. . ! .~ i Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the Joint Budget Subcommittee recommendations on social services and allow Kess Hottle, County Community Health and Social Services director, to sign contracts as amended. ~ ...... ~, ---.-....:....... 8/26/74 - 19 3'2 i 1n answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Assistant: Manager said allocations approved !would allow continuation of the Women's Transi tional Li ving Center.' I ' I iMayor Anderson wondered about the basis for funding agency participation on a i .- percentage basis - Eugene, 64.3%; Springfield, 4.3%; Lane County, 31.4%. He thought ,before the next budgeting process was started there should be some effort to gain igreater participation from other agencies in the County, that Eugene was carrying imore~than its fair share. He suggested that representatives of the agencies' ,- 'elected officials meet before formulation of next year's budget not with the ;idea necessarily of lessening any contribution but to arrive at some formula !which would reflect the money available, problems existing in the several areas, II land responsibilities that the various jurisdictions should undertake. Comm Vote was taken on the ,motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 8/1 Y7 4 Approve ._*-~-----. --- .._-._-~.~. /. D. 'Ballot Measures - November 5, 1974 Election - Manager noted August 27 deadline \ ., for submitting ballot measures. He said it was obvious that proposed Charter re- 'vision would not be ready in time to submit to the voters at this November election,; and because of delays in gaining voter approval of, the operating budget there would 'not be time to prepare possible special funding measures. It had been suggested, ;he said, to resubmit a measure with regard to reimbursement for the Mayor and Council members but~~f-rt~was to be done action would be necessary at the next Council meeti~g~ j Councilwoman Campbell wondered if the Joint Parks Committee. would be responsible i ~- for initiating a ballot measure for acquisition of South Hills park property~ , -<::- Jim Saul, planner, explained that staff had been looking at funding for property acquisition from Federal and State grants but nothing had yet developed so it ap- peared unlikely that information would be ready in time to prepare a ballot measure before the August 27 deadline. Manager added that the city could call a specia1 election at any time - it requir?s 30 days notice - and it might be possible to ! call a special election in conjunction~wrth the "November 5 County election al- though staff would not recommend that at this-ti'me. He said there were priori- i ! ties to be cons:i:dered-.if a 'bond sale was to be considered or ifthere,'was a pro- , posal to ,exceed the 6% limitati'on - not only was the park acquisition to be funded i I but also space needs, correctional facilities, and._other~items on the capi tal improvement list. Councilman Hershner wondered if there was any consideration of a measure with re- gard to the Charter amendment on freeway construction, and asked for staff comment as to whether the amendment was causing any problems. Manager said there were some; individuals interested in having the Charter amendment repealed; they had pre pared i a ballot title and he understood petitions were being circulated in order to get I the measure on the gallot. However, the Council could itself put the measure on \.. the ballot, he said. With regard to workability of the amendment, Manager said the only project affected was the Highway 126 extension west from the Washington/. ---- Jeffersonbridqe and that was because the State was unwilling to spend money for , :project designiiric1 impact - statement necessary lJef6re' going toa'vote" wi'thout assurance that the money would not have been spent unnecessarily, given tne chance , of voter rejection. He said opportunities to protect the West Amazon right-of- t way had been rejected, although some parcels were purchased when it was dis- covered they were going to be developed. An impact statement was being developed on that project so although it was proceeding, to a certain extent the amendment \ I , had affected it, at least so far as costs were concerned, He said the City I Attorney advised that in working within the amendment 'it 'should be construed as \ broadly as possible, that is, to proceed with prelimina'ry-tinds ,ef"stildy so .t.h.at issues, could be presented to the voters with little chance of being in 'violation of the amendment. In~ent of designers of the amendment, he said, had some bear- ing on how it could be construed and staff had assumed the intent as stated - \ i not to obstLuct planning. Glen Stadler, EWEB, asked if a voter pamphlet was to be published_for ~he November ! election. Mayor answered that it was not anticipated and had not been discussed. Manager noted that EWEB candidates could not enter material in the State voter pamphlet and that the city normally didn't issue one unless there were ~easures'to be voted upon. . , i Councilwoman Campbell expressed concern at lack of candidates filing for Council i :. positions and wondered whether a ballot measure with regard to compensation for i I Council members would encourage more people to run. Mayor Anderson noted the ! small voter turnout when the measure was defeated earlier and suggested it would receive a more reasonable test if it was the only ballot measure rather than being considered along with tax measures. -- 8/26/74 - 20 313 . -, Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Wood to place a measure with regard to compensation for Mayor and Council members on .the November 5 ballot. - , Discussion followed with regard to content of the measure - whether just to authorize , compensation or to call also for a vote upon range of compensation - with consensus that the matter would be brought back for decision as to content at the August 21 committee-of-the-whole meeting. Councilwoman Beal suggested update of the questionnaire on range of pay to Council members in other cities of like size , that was circulated prior to earlier vote on the issue. Comm I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 8/14/Y4 Approve .~._.. h__ ...~ --. ..Ja -- - .... - ....-. -.... .'--. . - ...' . .....-" .-~.- ,', - ...... .-... ..... .-.....--. .... E. IField BUr~~g ~ ~~uncilwoman Beal suggested the Council wire th~ Depart"",nt ;;J,,\ IEnvironmental Quality protesting heavy smoke ~n the c~tY,from f~eld burn~ng '.. h b ' . t'l the present smoke \ in the valley/and requesting a ban on furt er urn~ng un ~, . cleared out. Other Council members commented on discomfort expe~~~n~e~ and \ agreed that wiring a protest would remind the DEQ of. its respons~b~l~t~es. ~ Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to send the DEQa wire as Conun Mrs. 8/21/74 suggested. Motion carried unanimously. Approve 'It was understood Councilwom~n_ _~e~?__~~~~:~,,_~=:~: _ the ~=_~~s_~ge ~t~be~~nt ,~mr:!:~~~a.tely:_ _.~ ~ ......~,.. .... .. - F. Ballot Measures, November 5 Election - Samples o.f two ballot titles were pre=---""- 'viously distributed to Council members together lilith ballot title o.f measure de- I , ifeated by the voters in May 1973 with regard to compensation for the Mayor and ;Council members. One measure would provide only that compensation be authorized, [the other would include some limits on the amount to be paid. Assistant Manager (noted the necessity for adopting a resolution before August 27 to place a measure ion the November 5 ballot. i. ;Councilwoman Campbell called attention to recent radio news items indicating the !compensation measure had been defeated this year and wondered if that could be ; corrected. 1 ,Councilman Williams st~ted his preference for submission of the measure authoriz- :ing compensation only, without specifying an amount. He felt if an amount was specified and adopted it would have to be amended from time to time. t Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to submit to the voters a , ! Charter amendment to provide for compensation to the Mayor and Council members. :Councilman McDonald wondered about effectivenesS' of the measure if a low dollar e !amount was considered. He didn't think the amounts suggested in the 1973 election 'were enough to compens.ate working people for service on the Council and he felt 'paying for Council service would lead, to ~he "old' fashioned type of government" ;where elected officials served as heads of departments. Other Council members .1 present expressed their support o.f the measure i.n view of the amount of time and work involved in meeting commitments of the position. Also the general feel- ing that the amount of money the city could pay would not be enough to resolve , , ,4 f~nanc~al problems of anyone want~ng to serve who was not able because of employ- ment requirements to serve. Connn Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 8/21/74 Approve !Mayor Anderson wondered if an advisory ballot on amount of compensation should he ,included. Consensus was that it was unnecessary in view of the advisory vote ; cast in the 1973 election. Mrs. Campbell noted that Council members in some icities were paid on the basis of meetings attended as a way of controlli~g ab- , _. ._.__ __..._ _'...._ .....____.___ _._'_ ~ - _ _ h. _ __ _ _ _... ___ ____ _< ___ _ __ i sentee~sm._ .----~ -- --------- _--..___r" G. !Peti ti on " for vacating pedestrian walk through Berkeley Park $ubdi vision between Ci ty !View and Oak Patch apartments running parallel to and north of West 18th Avenue. 'Submitted by residents of the area on the basis that those using the walkway van- .' dalized abutting properties, it provided easy access to abutting yards encouraging theft, excessive littering, and it was the site o.f drinking parties for young people. Staff recommended'referral to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Council viewed on tour. , I Conun I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to refer the petition to the 8/21/74 , Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously., I . Approve-' - -- -- - -.- --- -'-_. ,."'- -'~" ,-,--,..---. ---.-- 8/26/74 - 21 '311- - ,- ,- h -----=-~. ~. . f- c -"-.. -- --'- - :--:.-- -' .- - " / .. - - ~-~.- --"'~ -. \ - "C". -- H. I vacation of Gilbert public utility easement west of Danebo Street from Barger Avenue: :south to Candlelight Drive - Recqmmended by Planning Commission on July 22, 1974. I Corrnn Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to call public hearing on the 8/21i74 ' vacation. Motion carried unanimously. ApprOJleJ . --,-- '" ~ '--. - ~ --- . "."' - ~.'~_.~._--- - --- 1. Appeal from Zoning Board 0:( Appeals decision allowing six-foot high wooden fence I \ in front yard setback at 2233 Potter Street (Hugh Ford) - Ben. Lansdale, 2275 Potter , J Copies of appeal letter and minutes _ C}f August 1.., 1974 Board of Appeals meeting were i, prev~ously furnished to Council members. COIIUIt 8/21/74! Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to set public hearing on the Approve! appeal at the September 9, 1974 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. \ \ i , i _ \ J. :Resolution recognizing LCOG as agency to prepare area-wide waste treatment management! !plan under Section 208 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 : :Assistant Manager explained that recogni tion of LCOG' s designation as planning agency j :underthe Act may make this area eligible for funds to help develop a joint sewer ! :~ommission and provide staff. \ . .' - .--. .. \~Mr. Williams moved s~c~nde-(rby -~rS~-'Be-a~to adopt--a -resolution - providing- the re uested recogn~t~on. Mot~on carr~ed unanimoi1sJy~ / -' I:' ~.;' _j ~ . -;. . . .! . -,~-" " K. Council Minutes - July 15, 1974 as circulated. Approve ,r-' . . . .._.... ._.. ." '._.... _ . . P' . ~ . - L. Resolution Supporting Uni ted Farm Workers"- Copies of report from-Human Rights . Commission dated July 2, 1974; resolution endorsed by the Human Rights Commis- sion supporting the United Farm Workers in its boycott of table grapes, head \ " lettuce, and Gallo wines; and minutes of the Commission meeting held June 25 and July 2, 1974 were previously distributed to Council members. " ccRobert Edwards, chairman of the Commission, related action taken by the Commis- sion leading~-to-.endorsement of the resolution afteroext;ensLve_~testimony presented ! in public hearing. In requesting_individual Co_uncil members' endorsement of the i : Commission's position, he stressedthe~Emportance of recognizing that the issue i --d was not necessarily one_of race or color, that it coveTed all types of people~em~- pIQyedras~farm~workers. He said the issue was the plight of those people who in j the past had not been represented by good unions and whose earnings were rela- i tively low when compared to earnings of the average worker. Mr. Edwards said i __there-had been no opposition presented in hearings before the Human Rights Commission. \ \ In answer to~qoues,tion from Councilwoman Beal ,M..anager--said it would be appropriate ifor those-Council members wishing to endorse the resolution to sign the copy at- !tached to the agenda and return it to the Human Rights Commissionwhere~it would Colnm Ibe put on file. There was no objection to that procedure. Mayor Anderson said 8/14/74 i information W9u,l,c'f;be 'pass'ed:.('a1,~ngtio_:;-,those ,C0_uIJ.c.il-!me;nJ9~j;s:IJ0t!.pre'seF1t ~i(f)r wlJat-, Aff.:LrID ever action they desired to take. Councilman Hershner said it would be a while I -. I ,before he decided upon action he would take since he had not read the material ! \presented with the agenda. He didn't want the delay in his decision to be inter- , i I ;preted as opposition, it was just that he wanted to study the material before / taking a position. / -' .. M. '''Appoiil Emeil ts , lIumaTihRighfs --Commission' - Ann<;G~ced by Mayor Anderson: "'. ,Whitfield Bass; assistant minister of Central Presbyterian Church, for balance of term ending January 1., 1977, replacing W.LJ.liam Wolfe, resigned. \ \Lillian Russell, employee of U. S. National Campus Branch, for balance of term , lending January 1, 1976, replacing Harry Farrell, resigned. Comm , :Don Ritchie, Harry Ritchie Jewelers, for balance of term ending January 1,1975,8/21/74 'rep~acinq Gerald Goldeen, resigned. - File -. ' -,"+ -. ....-- .- , N. ,Barking and Stray Dogs" - Time requested for discussion by Gerald Williamson, Comm :2778 Friendly Street. Manager reported that Mr. Williamson was not in position 8/21/74 :to be at the committee meeting and had requested postponement until he was ready. File :Granted. r'~-'-'- - .- .-. - . - "--"'l"~' --. -.. .- --.. '. .-.- ,.--~., .- --- .,..'-. ...-,.-.. .-.--- --"-'~ -. - ".. "-.,.-.- --'-..-------- ~--_. -_".ff.__' -... . O. iSo~th Willamette Traffic - Councilwoman Campbell comPlimented the police de- Comm partment on the improvement in traffic conditions in the South Willamette, 8/21/74 24th to 29th area, and said it was of great benefit to that neighborhood (re- \ File ferring to Friday and Saturday night congestion caused by young people "dragging")., 8/26/74 - 22 ~"5 - . P. iCommittee of the whole Meeting, September 25 - Eugene Hotel asked that arrange- ]ments.for a meeting place other than the Hotel .b~ mad~ for the commit~ee meet- Comm !ing on september 25 because of a major convent~on dur~ng that week us~ng hotel 8/21/74 : facili ties. Location o~__m~e~ing for thatr;1ate.. wilfbe anno,u!J,0}[l:,. .. File ---- ,'":.:.,,",-.1 .3) .. .... Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershne+ to approve, affirm and file as noted Items A and C through P. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motioncar~ied. INote separate action on Item B.) III- Ordinances Council Bill No. 644 - Calling hearing October 14, 1974 re: Vacation of Gilbert public utility easement west of'Danebo from Barger Drive to Candlelight was read the first time by council bill pumber and tatle only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous cons~nt 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. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was e declared passed and numbered 17169. Council Bill No. 645 - Calling City election in conjunction with general election on November 5, 1974 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. 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. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17170. IV- Resolutions , Resolution No. 2325 - Submitting to voters on November 5, 1974 ballot a I measure re: Compensat~on for Mayor and Council members .. was read by number andti fle- onlY. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the resolution was adopted. -Resolution No. 2326 - Recognizing designation of LCOG as planning agency for waste' treatment management under Section 208 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 was read by-num_ber and title only. ,- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt ~he resolution. Rollcall vote. All Council members prese11;t voting aye, the resolution was adopted. Resolution No. 2327 - Authorizing pyament of bills and claims for period _August 12 through 26, 1974 was read bj" number arid titl,e only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the resolution was adopted. , V -' Adoption of findings in upholding Planning Connnission final.1 approval of . Norkenzie and Minda Planned Unit Development (June 24, 1974) - Attached Appeal submitted by Nelson D. Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road, denied by Council after public hearing at its August 12, 1974 meeting. Findings supporting the final approval of the development were prepared and submitted for Council consideration. Mr:.- Williams ~moved secon4ed by Mr. Hershner to adopt the findings as listed. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried. 8/26/74 - 23 .. 31b Upon Motiun duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned. /. /~ A. K. Martin - Assistant City Manager it ~ \ . . . '. 8/26/74 - 25 311