HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/1974 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
September 23, 1974
tit Adjourned meeting - from meeting held September 16, 1974 - of the Common Council of the
ci ty of Eugene, Oregon was called to order.by, His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at
7:30 p.m. on September 23, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council
members present: ,Tom Williams, James Hershner; H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth
Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood.
(0001) I. - Public Hearings ,
A. ,Sale, Limited General Obligation- Warrants - Finance Department
Bids were 'received on $2,250,386 limited general obligation warrants (to pay
for improvement projects, repaid"from assessment after project completion)
as follows: '
First National Bank of Oregon 5.9590
U.' S. National Bank of Oregon 6.9590
Award of sale was recommended. ,to 'First National Bank of Oregon at 5.95%.
Resolution No. 2333 - Award.ingsale of Limited General Obligation
Warrants in"the amount of $2,250,386 to' First
e National Bank of Oregon at' 5.95% was read by number and ,Htle.
Mr. Williams moved seconded.byMr. Hershner to adopt the resolution.
Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye.
(0046) , II - Items taken with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
Previously discussed in committee meetii:ng on September 18, 1974 (Present: Mayor
Anderson; Council members Williams, Hershne~'dMcDonald, Campbell, Keller. Murray,
and Wood). Minutes for that meeting printeq ,below in i tabcs.
. '-" - '''-'
A. ~ Growth Study - Copies of resolution prepared by Council members Beal and Murray ~
,were previously distributed with regard to initiation of a study of population
!growth in the metropolitan area. Mr. Murray said the resolution presented was
, based on the general topic and issue of greatest concern to th~ 1974 Community
iGoals Conference. It was voted the highest priority by the Conference. The resolu-
! tion called for joint sponsorship by Lane County" Springfield, and Eugene of a study',
I to develop and recommend alternative growth policies and mechanisms with sufficient
I funding and staff to provide adequate analysis of (1) existing growth studies,
e. : (2) methods .of control, (3) ,interrelationship ~etw~en economic viability, environ-
'mental qual~ty, and populat~on growth, (4) soc~al ~mpact of growth, and (5) cost/
jbenefits of growth. Mr. Murray considered regional metropolitan co-operation
!critical to Success of such a study. He said the resolution had been presented
ito the Springfield City Council so he felt there was a rare opportunity for a
1productive outcome from a partnership between the two cities and Lane County. :
, i
" Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. McDonaJd to accept the resolution.
!Councilman Williams expressed agreement with much of the resolution presented and \
thought that it did essentially correspond to statements !esulting from the Goals \
Conference. However, he noted addition of designation of the Metropolitan Area
,
IPlanning Advisory Committee for conduct of the study and he was not sure that was :
,the proper body to do the work. He said that in discussion with Betty Niven, who I
rhaired the Goals Conference, she had raised the same question. Mr. Williams thought;
isome discussion should be held with MAPAC first to determine whether that group felt:
' . I
' :i t was the one to make the study. i
,
!Councilman Murray said he w6uld welcome formal discussion with MAPAC. He felt the
lGoals Conference had been vague with regard to who would conduct the study. How-
I ,
~ jever, MAPAC was considered the logical choice, he said, because the membership com-
4IIt Iprised representatives of the three governmental agencies which would be involved. ,
,Mr. Murray added that one of the greatest concerns was sufficiency of staff to com- 1
plete the work and that was ,addressed' in this resolution by caLU;,g for sufficient I
funding and staff ta prav,ide "adequate" analysis. He noted previous'discussion with \
'regard to the increasing amount of overlapping and proliferation of citizens commit- !
tees and whether th~ quality of citizen participation depended on adequate staffing
to give them capacity to serve. He thought MAPAC seemed appropriate for the work.
..... _.._-------,.~~_.-.-- -.----_."- -- --..._---~~-_.. -_.-_. - --. ---- --- ,-_.~- "--. -.---.----
9/23/74 - 1
~3b
---- -- ,. -- ._~_. . '.--.. - -. - - --...~ ..-~---.__.. -
Councilman Keller thought MAPAC's designation for the ~ork would duplicate efforts, ,
'. I
that LCOG appeared to be the appropriate body because of statistics they had already
developed. Mr. Murray recognized statistical information developed by LCOG but thought
that MAPAC, as a committee of LCOG, would automatically have that information. tit
I.councilman Wood noted LCOG's consideration of creating a committee to look at func-
tions of the various committees. He thought that submission to LCOG for a recommenda-
itionwould be best because of the co-operative effort desired.
!
:Councilman Williams suggested deletion of reference in the resolution to MAPAC, .
;making the first paragraph of the resolution read: "The city of Eugene invites I
;Lane County and the city of Springfield to join us in conducting a thorough study...."
IHe said this would hold open for the time being the specific question of who would do ' ')
, .
Ithe study. Or it would give the opportunity perhaps to consider as a more appropriate t....
group one made up of elected officials of the governmental units, similar to the ~
Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Committee. Councilman Murray said that a jointly- I
:appointed "citizens" COrmhittee was very much a part of the proposal. He wondered
I . .
~f input from LCOG staff present at this meeting would help.
J ~
~ayor Anderson noted his experience as a panel member on property law at the University l
,during the past summer wherein he had occasion to do considerable reading on growth i
studies which gave him an appreciation of the magni tude of the task under discussion. .j . .
He thought that before proceeding into the technical phase of how a growth study i .7'
should be conducted or trying to delineate what was to be included there should be a 1
general resolution inviting the other jurisdictions' support and participation, in- j ~
cluding resources. Then, the resolution finally adopted would define in detail the ,.,
areas the study should encompass, similar to that on the Goodpasture Island area.
He proposed a different resolution for adoption at this time, which he read, and sug-
gested that Councilman Murray, Manager, and planning staff meet with representatives
of Springfield and Lane County to develop a document which would more specifically
spell out the thrust of the study and how it would be conducted. He felt the Murray/
Beal resolution might call for studies in areas where information was already available.
Manager said it seemed inevitable that concerns of other jurisdictions - Cottage Grove,
Creswell, Veneta, etc. - and school districts would have to be taken into considera-
tion in'any growth study for the metropolitan area. And that the existing LCOG struc-
ture would be particularly suited to that purpose without creating a special organiza-
tion comprisi~g just the three units. He suggested the LCOG Board might be willing I
J;.Q--J;..I~p,Qml[lel)d._delineatiQn of. suchC!.$tudt7andhow to qo abou};_it.__Coun.ciJ-J!lal1....wood _
agreed with that viewpoint, pointing out tllat LCOG would De in contact wi th many
school districts in the County attempting to gain a greater degree of participa- \
tion from them in LCOG's activities. He felt too that the problem of growth would
be of concern to other cities looking to the metropolitan area for regional shop-
,ping services. . '..
!Councilman Murray said he. would be willing to.amend his motion to provide for ...
/adopt)PIl ~f the or.iginaI-.r;~olution revised to make the first paragraph read: "TheW
~cify of Eugene'~i1vites -tane C(illnty and the c4ty of Springfield.... to join us ~ll request-
ling ~ jointly-appointed citizens comrn}(tee t;;coi1a.uct-~a-tnorcfugh-sttldy._. :7'and to
ladd at the end the provision that "this resolution be distributed to LCOG for con-
,sideration and comment."
I
I
iCouncilman Williams wondereg-if-itwould be appropriate to ask LCOG for considera-
.'tion and comment on the r~solution first, then bringing back the revised version
Ifor adoption. Councilman McDonald could see no reason for that action. He asked
iwhy LCOG, if it was to be involved, had not initiated the study of its own accord.
[Mr. Williams answered that because LCOG was uniquely-qualif~ed_to.be deeply in-
voLved in a .;;tudy of th~s ,fl9J:.uJe it seemed. logical to get their thoughts before
Ii t was started. Councilman Wood added tha't it would seem to eliminate duplication '
jinan intergovernmental action. He favored sending ,the resolution to LCOG 'for review'
land comment. ...._
I ~
:Mayor Anderson thought a mor~_general approach should be made to LCOG. He felt
'several of the areas covered in the Murray/Beal resolution needed'clarification.
"Methods of control," for instance - did it mean to control growth itself or ef-
.fects of growth; "cost/benefits of growth" :... did it mean fiscal impact of growth '
or disadvantages vs advantages. He. wondered how other thing!!.__c.C?uld be worked in, e' __
,such as effect of major growth problems in this area as opposed to other areas,
'and interim development controls. These, he said, would take techniques which
would take time to develop so it would appear better to use a very general .approach
to LCOG asking for a study of economic and population growth, analysis of major
growth problems, and developme~t of a growth poiicy. After response from them,
a more defini tive statement could be developed. ,
8/23/74 -2
.331
i
Councilman Murray felt the Mayor's suggestion more specific than the resolution ,
!
presented by himself and Mrs. Beal. He could see no disadvantage in beginning the ;
study as they suggested. Once the commi ttee caLled for in the resolution was es-
. tablished, he said, a more elaborate definition of their task could be developed
including perhaps refinement through suggestions from other governmental units or
'LCOG itself. He felt there was a common goal. ~rhe language of his and Mrs. Beal's
resolution, he said, was taken from the Community Goals proposal so it did cover .
broad general areas of concern and still gave some direction.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to amend the motion to provide
that the Council through the Manager direct a letter to LCOG stating
I that the Council sought to implement a proposal contained in the 1974
I Communi ty Goals document as it rela ted to df:lveloping a study of growth,
that the Council was considering adoption of ,this revised resolution
(Murray/Beal original resolution revised as suggested by Murray to retain
jointly-appointed citizens committee but deleting reference to MAPAC), ,
f
and would appreciate input from the LCOG Board, before adoption of the i
i revised resolution, on any wording changes or other considerations they
i deemed appropriate for Council consideration.
!Mr. Wood suggested that LCOG might also be asked to comment on demands on staff and
:costs involved in implementing the study. Mayor Anderson was supportive of the pro-
iposed action.
!
e 'Councilwoman Campbell asked if there would be any connection between this proposal
iand the special advisory committee suggested by the Land Use Commission under the
new State land use law. She thought the suggested study would be a definite asset
in the State's process. John Porter, planning director, answered that any growth ,
s'tudy would be a key element in State land use p,lanning but that the State under ,
the new law had not progressed to a point yet where there would be any conflict in
,this area. He added that he thought LCOG was the body that should consider the
question as quickly as possible, that he would tend to favor the Mayor's suggestion
Jor a more definitive statement of areas to be covered by the study.
Councilman Murray did not oppose the proposed amendment although he felt it unneces-
sary and that it did not make it clear that the Council was definitely in favor of
'such a study. Councilwoman Campbell wondered whether this study would pre-empt
priorities of ,the General Plan refinement studies in progress. Mayor Anderson
thought priorities would be a question mark in view of the monumental undertaking
of a growth study, some he knew of having taken as much as four or five years to
complete. Councilman Wood thought if an effort was to be made for co-operation with
other governmentaL uni ts in, the_ study considerat_ion would have to be~i~~~ .t~ thei~_
priC!rities also. "
Intent of the amending motion was restated - to direct a letter to LCOG--:
i Board stating that the city in attempting to implement a Community Goals \
- ! proposal on growth study was consideri~g'adoption of a resolution, and ,
I recognizing the unique capabilities of LCOG's operation in this area the
: Council would appreciate review and comment upon the resolution and sug- ,
I gestions for revision prior to formal consideration. ' i
i
!
I Vote was taken on the amending motion. It carri~d, .council Comm
i members Williams, Hershner, Keller, and Wood vot~ng aye;
~ Council members M~ald, Campbell, and Murray voting no. 9/J/8/74
I::::::~'~-;he :~::oti~:-:;;<O~sta~d~-'to- ;;;:~e ;fu;proposed Approve
i resolution (presented by Council members Beal and Murray) revised
\ to delete reference to MAPAC but calling for a jointly~appointed
i citizens conmlittee to conduct a' growth study, and to send the
I resolution to LCOG Board for consideration and comment. ..
,
\ Vote was taken on the main motion as amended, which carried "
unanimously, all Council members present voting aye.
, . ..- .. - ....- . ,..-.-_. . - - - .-". -_.... - _..-. .- - -- -. ,- --- -
-." __on r+ .._~... . _"'_
Councilwoman Beal stated she was satisfied with the disposition of the resolution proposed
by herself and Councilman Murray calling for a study of costs of metropolitan area growth.
'.: However, she hoped a greater sense of urgency would be transmitted to LCOG in view of the
recent ain pollution alert - the second this summer. She felt utmost care should be
taken in planning wi~h regard to disposition of the types of industry and jobs or any-
thing, having a bearing on the amount of pollution going into the air. Councilman Wood
said that as a member of the LCOG Board he would convey the Council's interests and the
sense of urgency spoken to by Mrs. Beal. Councilman Williams said that the Chairman of
the LCOG Board had indicated the Board's great interest in this resolution, its dis-
position, and its concerns. Mr. Williams was sure the Board would pursue making a
rational response to the resolution as soon as possible.
",!>~e, 9/23/74 - 3
t .._-~..- --. '.. . _ _._ __
B. : Pedestrian/Bike Way on Norwood from Birchwood to Jeppesen Acres Road - Copies of .
I .
memo were previously distributed to Council members with regard to petition for a
I bicycle and pedestrian path on Norwood from Birchwood to Jeppesen Acres Road.
I The project would involve a ten-foot wide paved path 226 feet long including fences
; on both sides at a total estimated cost of $6,500. The Bicycle Committee initially ~
! approved construction, using miscellaneous bike funds with the understanding right- , ,~'
! of-way would be don~!?CZby. property owner. Howe~~r, when the prope;rty owner re-
I qu.e;st,ed a fence in exchange for th~right:/of...way the Commi ttee fel t cost of the
i path shoul~d. be included as a__1)udget item. Public Works recommended inclusion of ,
: the project in the 1975-76 capital improvement budget.
! - --- - --------- ...
~ -- ---
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to refer the item to the Comm .
__Budget Committee. Motion carried unanimously. - __~ 9/18/74
'-'" _ ~ Approve- --.
C. i vacation Public utility Easement between Gilbam Road and Norkenzi~ Road from
i Minda Drive north to Lemming Avenue (C--:O.Duncan) - Planning Commission-on--._
iAugust 19, 19-74:Fecommended vacation of the easement except thC}lt portion on which
a storm sewer was located and excluding its use as-p~d€~trian-bicycle easement.
Maps showing area of the proposed vacation were previously distributed to Council
members.,. .- ~ -
-_ _ -Comm
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing on 9/18/74
the vacat-i-on-'.request_jOctober 29, 1974). Motion/carried unanimously. Approve
~--------"" . .---- ,
D. AbatemenL10Jl1_.West 6th Avenue"'-~_cople~--;f--~~?no ":ere previously d"Tst:ii-bu'ted to '
; C:>;:ncil members with re~ard to condit~on of small commercia_l l:milding on property _
: at 1081 West 6th Avenue ~n the ownersh~p of Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Betterton, ~/
702 Summer Street N.E., Salem, Oregon. Staff recommended initiation of abatement
action. Comm I
'9/18/74/
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing with Approv
regard to the abatement (October 7, 1974). Motion carried unanimously.
E. ,APPointment, Human Rights Commission - Mayor Ander~-;~-'~~~~~nced appointment of
iGeorge Russell, 3435 Chambers Street, minority relations co-ordinator for School
;District 4J, as member of the Human Rights Commission for balance of the term C '
:ending January 1, 1976, replacing Pat Acuzar, resigned. 9/18~
f-.-..-. ... ""'..'- -.' .'- ....... . . - --'Affirm
F. ; Readoption of i974:"75 Budget - Copies of-d;;ft oi~-;'~iinance were previoll~ly-di;'::"...,
: t~ibuted to Council members providing for readoption of the 1974-75 budget in line \
! wLth results of the August 6, 1974 budget election. It was understood the ordinance\
: . I
: would be presented for adoption at a special Council meeting scheduled immediately C :
; following commi ttee meeting. ~~
G. Seed Filidd B'urning ~ Mayor and Council menwers received invitation from t"he,-..Affirm
!Oregon Seed Council to a field day on Friday, September 20, 1974, at Mah10n Sweet ...
Field w~ere alternatives to open field burning would be exhibited. In connection ~
with this, Mayor Anderson said it had become apparent that a full-scale campaign
would be launched for extension of field burning past the January 1, 1975 dead- ]
line set by the Legislature. He said the Seed Council had indicated that no 1
1 -,-
; workable solution to the proplem was foreseen for _10 t;0-12 years so it would .
--'-.."-' ----~ '-- -- ---. --.. .
:appear encunwent upon community effort to seek observance of the burning~.~an. '
,~ ~-~.,.
He was convinced, he said, that there would be no solution so long as extensions;
\ - --....-----= '
i were allQlved..----The Mayor asked for suggestions from Council menwers or others :
;with regard to procedure for setting up an organization to counteract the impact
;at the Legislature qnd other governm~nta1 levels of the Seed Council's effort
~ to extend the deadline. . He'- sa1.dthat in several weeks he would come back to '
,the Council asking for suggested names of individuals who might be willing to
.serve in this capacity. He felt it necessary to gain participation from people
'in the ci"ty as well as from outlying areas to make a more organizaed effort
, .
;than had been anticipated to hold firm the January deadline on the field burning.
I
I
;Councilman McDonald agreed with the Mayor's comments. He said he would move to
support the original action calling for a ba~ on seed field burning as of
'January 1, 1975. Mayor Anderson saia that since the city was already on record
,supporting the ban, the thrust of his suggestion would be to formally organize
.a group of citizens, or Council members, or a combination of both for a broad ...
. based communi ty effort. He said he would welcome suggestions and names of in- _
;dividuals willing to work, and he especially encouraged expressions from the public. -
'Councilman Keller asked if other cities would be involved - Springfield, Cottage
Grove, etc., as well as Lane County. The Mayor answered that he had no definite C9fum
structure nor any definite procedure at this point although Eugene did pretty 9/18174
I
'much initiate efforts leading to the ban. He was looking to the Council for File
: suggestions.
9/23/74 - 4
33~
H. j Intersection, Larch and West Hillside Drive - CouncJ:lwoman Campbell reported a~
, ;Letter received from Moosers, 740 Foothill Drive, asking for action with regard
i to the intersection at Larch and West Hillside Drive which they considered I
.. : dangerous. She g.sked for a staff report. Public Works Director reported that
.' a copy of the'letter was received in, his department.. He said that a response
' would be sent to the Moosers and that a copy would be forwarded to Council- I Connn
I
woman Campbell. 9/[8/74
I File
I. Henry Korn Gallery, Maude Kerns Art Center - Counci}woman Campbell called atten- I
tion to the private preview of the re~odeled Henry l(orn Gallery at Maude Kerns
Art Center on September 6, 1974 where the city ,of Eugene was referred to as one ' COnun
I of the Grand Benefactors. 9/~8174
! j File
I .
J.i Seattle Workshop, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 - Councilman-- "
:~ur~ay reported as beneficial and informative the workshop held September 9-11, I
: 1974 on the new and important Federal legislation. He noted that an important I
I benefit of the law was to encourage cities to look at housing in a comprehensive I
I way and to develop broad based plans with regard to housing-needs. A dis-1
: cOl:lraging aspect, he said, was that Eugene wouidbe "on the short end" so far i
asallocations were concerned because of the formula which allocated funds on 1
the basis of monies received earlier during a given time period. However, he :
said there was prospect of applying for funds because of the inequity of the
formula. Manager said that staff was in the process of developing application
forms for commpnity development block grants as wel} as discretionary funds. ! Cornm
' ,
_ Letters from the Mayor were sent to HUD and to the Congressional delegation, 9/!l8/74
_ he said, requesting information with regard to applying for funds under the n~w ; File
legislation.. ,I.
,
I
I I Connn
K! Commi ttee Meeting, September 25, 1974 - To be held at International King's TablE9'/18/74
; O~kw~y Mal~,'.,_ beca_~~_e.. o~ _,<:C!nfli_C:~~I? ..,sc:h~_~l!~ing at th~..E~gene__ ~ote:.~. ~ ".' File
L;Westside Traffic DiverterHear~ng -Manager announced postponement of September 24 ,
. ,
:hearing on evaluation of recently removed traffic diverters from the Westside "
Ineighborhood area. The hearing was scheduled instead to be held concurrently with \
;Westside Neighborhood Quality Project meeting on October 8 to better co-ordinate C~nnn
;work of the traffic engineering staff with that of the neighborhood group. 9/18}74
" Filie
M'iProperty Purchase Adjacent to Skinners Butte - Southern Pacific Dedication, \
\~ . 3rd/4th Avenue between Pearl and Lawrence - Manager reportedthae two properties \
~1Ying b~tween the SPowne~ship'a~d Skinner Bu~t~.between, Pearl and Lawrence in the i
!ownersh~p of Evergreen Un~on Ret~rement Assoc~at~on and Eva Johnson appeared not I
Ito be threatened by private development, there being potential for trade on the 1
. ,
i' Evergreen ownership, and possibili ty of the Johnson property's being willed to the I
(PU.bliC or to an association concerned with public b~1efit. However, Huling Buick I "
iand State Finance, owners of two other properties in that area west of Willamette
:~Street, agreed to sell to the city for $1.25 per square foot which would amount to I
4IIl ;about $190,000 to be paid over a ten-year period at 5% interest with no down payment. I
iPurchase under those terms would require budgeting an amount each year, but the I
: terms would allow accelerated payments if the' ci ty found itself in a posi tion to do \
; so. Manager distributed sketches showing the area where structures over 40 feet in I
;height were prohibited and said Council members on tour had viewed the area to see ~
, '(
,the effect development might have upon vistas of the Butte. He continued that there \
:was possibility of property owner's acquisition of the right-of-way through adverse \
~possession which would give public access to the private property and thereby the i
jopportunity to develop or sell to someone else to develop. Manager was firmly con- !
Ivinced that the property should belong to the city, the question being whether
:the price was right. He felt it was a good investment at the price ,quoted and
'thought the city would be in position to budget the necessary funds.
I'
,Councilman McDonald wondered if the price quoted was a speculative situation or
iwhether it was based on actual zoning applicable to the area. He asked that staff
iinvestigate the purchase price further in relation to the zoning in effect at this
Itime. Manager and Planning Director answered that part of the land was changed to
,multiple-family, part was thought to have light industrial zoning with a change to
iresidential requested, but knowledge of actual zoning regulations in effect was not
available offhand.
.' !Councilwoman Campbell expressed confusion about the ,role of the Joints Park Comm,ittee
,in park land acquisition. She said this proposal had not been discussed by the
,Committee; she wondered what its responsibilities were with regard to acquisition I
:of park lands. She thought the Council was not reaLly aware of what the parks de- I
lpartment long-range plans were and it would be difficult to decide whether purchase f
'of this property should be given priority over acquisition of other park properties, :
;especially as it concerned the Ridgeline Park in the south hills. She suggested
ipostponement until more information was.. available on that point.
I
- --'. ---- --. ~- - -- .....,. - .--- -.-----~- -..---- -~---'---'--------'- -1--'
9/23/74 - 5
340
r -,- -,- .. _.- ....
!Ed Smith, parks director, answered that functions of the Joint Parks Committee had ,
!not been clearly defined, that it was originally formed for consideration of issues ,
!co~nected with Alton. Baker Park. Mayor Anderson thought Councilwoman Campbell's !
iPo~nt well taken, recognizing however that property acquisition did not always I
I
: follow a timetable. He suggested staff development of some statement for Council I .
: consideration on the role of the Joint Parks Committee with regard to whether they \ \
I
!should review or suggest properties to be acquire9 for park purposes.' , I
,/
i
i CounciLman Williams noted that although it was agreed the land under Jiscussi~ 'I
j: should be in public ownership there was no satisfaction that it was worth $190,000
~~_c:t~~ pu])lic~_ There wa,s, somE! risk that development ..on that property wouldrest:r;ict'
'the view of the Butte from certain portions of the community, but he' was nCiE,"pre;;;; ".
;pared to make a motion to buy it for that amount of money.
.Councilman- Wood was interested in having an evaluation of priorities tD~determine
acquisition of this property as opposed to acquisition of properties 'in other areas.
,Councilman McDonald thought the staff should further pursue the question of zoning
:applicable to the area with the idea the price might be altered on that' basis. He
'said the zoning on the portion west of High Street definitely was not for industrial i
'uses so staff should see whether the price was quoted on that basis. I
Manager noted the possibility that at some .future time the property might be needed 1
'for some type of transportation facility as well as park use, keeping in mind that
fat one time "this right-of-way was designated for_ a cpnnector between 3rd and 4th r
I . _ ~ _... .-,._.r-- __
iAvenues. He said what really was needed' wa-s '-some directl.n on whether to ask for ,.
"
iSouthern Pacific dedication of the 3rd Avenue easement recognizing it would require 11 .
ia ten-year limitation on assessments for improvements. He said it was clear that i
I"
!if the city did not get the dedication the private owner would pursue adverse posses-
:sion through the courts to get access to adjacent property. However, there was some
, '
'question whether that type of access would permit sewers and other utilities or if
\adverse possession would provide only for transportation.
IIn- answer to Councilman Williams, Manager explained that the property owner had ,
:'
Eiled suit to gain access to the property based on historical use of the right-of- .l
,way for access, that the city was not in any way involved in that suit. It was his ,i(
iUnderstanding, he said, that there was very little question the courts would award !)
:access rights to that property but whether that would also provide right for sewer
service to the property was not known. City's acceptance of dedication from SP (
would clearly be for all public purposes, including facilities. The historical I
j
;
reason for resisting dedication, manager said, was because access to the private i
ipropert~~~~ould permit development and hinder acquisition for public purposes. I
; -"-- -.J ~.~-~ I
I --- ,
IIn response to Councilman McDonald, Manager said unless the city wanted sewers it ,
!would not be forced to provide them if it gained ownership of the property, that
the Council had the right to accept or deny petitions for improvements. Conim
9/18/74
\NO action was forthcoming and Mayor Anderson suggested discussion be continued toFile :.
Isome .future time. -
.. ..... ....-- "'--. -., --..." . .... .....:.. ..,-~.-. I
N. ,~~'~munitY/Sch;ol'-"Advisoi:ycomm:i..tt~e -' COlmcil 'was asked to consid~r represent:~~~~1
, :on the Advisory Committee for the community/school program. Meet~ngs were anh~c~ )Comm
\ .pated once or twice a month in the organizational stages, perhaps qu~r~erl; t erge;18/74
after the first meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, 1974, 1.3 p.. I File
, ,
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve, affirm, and file
as noted Items A through N. Rollcall vote. All Council members p~esent
voting aye, 'motion carried.
III - Liquor License
1. Ford's Restaurant, 1769 Franklin Boulevard - Change of Ownership (R) Re,st,aurant -
Thomas C. and Jonna L. Young , ,
I . .. .... .
2. Eugene Hotel, 222 East Broadway - Change of Ownership lOA) Dispensers -
Michael and Violet Allen
Staff had no obj~ctions.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to recommend approval of the e
applications. Motion carried unanimously.
.
9/23/74 - 6
'34'
IV - Ordinances
- Council Bill No. ,646 - Amending City Code by adding Sections 7.190, 7.191,
7'.192, 7.193 and 7.194 re: Assessment Deferral in
Hardship' Cases, read the first time on September 16, 1974 and held lacking
unan~mous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill
number and ti-Ue only_, th~re being no councilmgn present requesting that it be
read in full.
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 17183.
Council Bill No. 656 - Calling hearing October 29, 1974 re: Vacation of utility
easement between Gilham and Norkenzie from Minda Drive
north to Lemming Avenu~ (Duncan) 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.
Councilman Murray inquired whether this was the area proposed for a bike path
e and because of public input was changed to run along the west side of the total
proposed easement. Manager answered affirmatively. Public Works Director displayed
a map showing the area to be vacated.
Vote was taken on second reading, motion carried unanimously and the bill was
read the second time by council bill number only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. 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 17184.
Council Bill No. 657 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on
Jacobs Drive from Concord Street to Fairfield Street
(73-20) 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 referred to,
Assessment Panel for hearing on September 30, 1974 and brought back for Council
consideration of recommendations on October 7 1974. Motion' ~carri-ed/tul1anirtio1isiy;
--.-. - , - ,,, '. '.' - _.
-. --
- Council Bill No. 658 - Levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Oakway
Road from Oakmont Way to Cal Young Road (73-39) 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 referred to
Assessment Panel for hearing on September 30, 1974 and brought back for Council.
consideratiop_Ei_recomme~~ations on October 7, 1974: ' Mot iOll"carrieiLunanimo:usly.:
,~"- "'~_....-:
- -
Council Bill No. 659 - Levying assessments for paving Fillmore Street from 24th
Avenue to 250 feet north (74-09) 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 mov'ed seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be referred to
Assessment Panel for hearing on September 30, 1974 and brought back for Council
consideration of recommendations on October 7, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
V - Resolutions
. \,1--\ Resolution No. 2330 - Authorizing Finance Director to determine eligibility
for deferral of assessments in hardship cases was read
by number and title only.
Councilman McDonald asked whether the Finance Director under terms of the resolution
would have entire authority for determining eligibility for deferral of assessments.
Sherm Flogstad, finance director, answered that the resolution authorized him to
determine whether those applying for assessment deferral met the criteria set out in
the ordinance for eligibility. Manager read the eligibility provisions of the
9/23/74 - 7
342.
ordinance - persons 62 years and older with household incomes less than $4000 for one
person, $5000 for a couple, plus $400 for each additional dependent, and less than
$20,000 in assets in addition to their residence.
Councilwoman Beal felt that no matter how we.1l rules or guide.1ines were written there -
would always b'e borderline cases where it would seem the, purposes ofth.e deferral
ordinance would be.obviated. She wondered if there should be some hearing process
or machinery whereby eligibility 'in 'those"cases' could be' determined on an ind'ividual
basis. Manager thought it improbabl~ that there would be very many applications under
the new program immediately. He suggested proceeding with the program as presented with
the idea of bringing ,it back for amendment to provide: for an appeal procedure, of it was
found necessary. Councilman Murray pointed out that a review after a two year period
of operation was called for in the ordinance. He felt that would afford an opportunity
to determine whether the procedure w,as fulfilling the intended purpose..
, ,
Councilman McDonald was concerned with'the provision authorizing the Finance Director
to determine who would be eligible for the assessment ,deferments. Mr. Flogstad' answered
that he would have to follow the criteria set out in the ordinance for making that, deter-
mination. Councilman Keller noted that the "greatest hassle" in setting up guidelines
was to find some that would work. He fel tthose pre.sented could work and would' be .
better setting up more which might eliminate more people. He noted that money was
budgeted for the program and he suggested giving it an, opportunity to operate. Council-
man Murray understood Mr. McDonald's concerns but reminded him that the committee was
particular about setting guidelines, and he said he ,was confident. the Finance Director
would work within those guidelines~ Manager and Finance Director assur.ed. Council that e
applicants would be screened closely and if problems were encountered or it was felt the
guidelines were not allowing fulfillment of the intent. of the program, the Council would
be asked for assistance in making changes.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution:: i Rollcall vote.
Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2335 - Calling hearing October 7, 1974 re.: Abatement 1081. West 6th
Avenue (Betterton) was read by number and title only.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. ,Hershner to adopt. the resblution. Rollcall vote.
Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2336 - 'Authoriz~ng payment of bills and claims for period September 16
through. 23, 1974 was read by number and title-~nly.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote.
Motion carried, all Council JJ~bers present voting aye.
Councilman Murray indicated an interest in serving as Eugene's representative on the -
Community/School Co-ordinating Committee in response to',Mayor Anderson's request for
contact from any Council member who would be willing to serve.
Upon motion duly mad~, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to M0nday,
October 7, 1974.
--
?
I . ~c?
Hug ::':::IMc Kin'l ey
City Manager
'e
9/23/74 - 8
343