HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1974 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
October 29,1974
e
Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - carried over from
October 14, 1974 because of lack of quorum - was called to order by Council President Tom R.
Williams in the absence of Mayor Anderson.at 7:30 p.m. on October 29, 1974 in the Council
Chamber with other Council members present: James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal,
Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood.
Side I
(0001) Council President Williams recognized the presence of Boy Scout Troop 316 and their leader,
Ken Higgins, and welcomed them in their observance of the Council meeting as part of their
activities.
I - Public Hearings
A. Garbage Rate Increase
Proposed Garbage Rate Increase - Copies of memo from the City Manager were previously
distributed to Council members explaining the difficulty in making an analysis of
equitability of the proposed garbage rate schedule. Comparison of costs and income
between the 1971 rates (date of last increase) and the present rates was not meaning-
ful because it was impossible to evaluate the 1971 rates. Quality of reoords and
e changes in ownerships in the industry would not permit the analysis staff preferred.
However, because of increase in costs, members of the garbage industry convinced the
Garbage Board that it was an emergency situation and the Board recommended approval
of the proposed increase with the understanding that it would be reconsidered as soon
as staff was able to make an in-depth financial analysis of firms in the business.
Councilman Williams asked if the analysis would covez' comparison between costs of com-
mercial and homeowners rates and whether needed co-of>eration from the industry was i
anticipated if the six-month increase was granted. Manager answered that staff hoped
for a thorough analysis of investment rate, cost of operations, investment in equipment,
manpower costs, etc., in.order to be able to make a knowledgeable recomm.endation. He
added that with 40 different licensed collectors spanning a whole scale of efficiency
in operations the suggested analysis would be necessary if it were to apply equitably
across the industry. With regard to co-operation in gaining the necessary information
on which to base comparison, Manager noted that the Council had the authori~y to with-
draw any increase granted and that would provide leverage. He said co-operation had
been assured by some people in the 'industry so long a's the information given was
treat~d confidentially. I
Councilman Murray asked for clarification of staff position - whether they felt the pro-
posed increase and perhaps more was justified, or whether-they questioned that it was
-, justified. Manager stated his understanding that thE' Garbage Board felt the increase
was justified but that staff when asked by the Council to review the situation felt
there. was not sufficient information to be able to say it was justified, particularly
with regard to the commercial rate increase. Manager said, in response to Councilman
Murray, that there was the possibility, if proper analysis indicated the increase was
not justified, the Council could be faced with making a change after the six-month
period. Sherm F10gstad, finance director, added that staff found the 10<: increase on
the residential pickup reasonable. However, it was not known whether the 1971 rates
were reasonable at that time, so it would be difficult to determine whether increase
based on those rates was justified.
Councilman Keller noted that when the original proposal was brought to the Council he
questioned the suggested commercial rates - more than 30% increase across the board.
He said he didn't like the ,idea of correcting action six months from now and thought
it would be more beneficial to make the analysis before making a decision so that if
an increased was granted it could be justified to the community.
Councilman McDonald noted his opposition to the increase when it was first proposed
on the basis that recycling would lower the cost of garbage pickup to the individual.
If people did not make the effort to recycle and demanded garbage service, he said,
then they would have to pay for it. He wondered why the commercial haulers were pro-
- posing a 30% increase.
Neil Brown, attorney representing Sani-pac, recited his recollection of previous action
on the proposed increase - to delay until after the County election in which it would be
determined whether a free disposal site would be.available or a user fee would be charged.
At the same time staff was to follow an auditing procedure to determine whether the in-
crease was justified. He said everything requested l,y ci ty . staff had been provided,
but staff suggested the proposed rates might be too high and that they couldn't really
_IT1f!ke ~ ~ c!_ete.rI11jnati_~~~i!.hout judgm~~t ~(J~] whe_t!3e.r. _ th~_!:.97 !_Eates_wi3:re reasonable. -~ -- --- -.---
359 10/29/74 - 1
Mr. Brown said costs in tneU-lnaustr.y-nad increased more than- 30% and that Sani-pac stood
ready to make any information that was needed available. However, they couldn't afford
to wait on a full scale investigation if garbage was to be moved. Action on the matter
j was needed now, he said. _
Councilman williams asked if the information to .be provided would include .difference
in cost between providing commercial and residential services. Mr. Brown noted the
difference in operations, the residential collection service requiring a higher invest-
ment in labor than in equipment. Information in that regard was given to city staff,
he said, but staff was requesting statistical information for comparison between 1971
and 1974 pickup rate which was not available on all companies comprising Sani-pac.
Councilman McDonald asked then whether Sani-Pac could be expected to "pu11 out" if the
increase was not approved. Mr. Brown answered that the firm couldn't stop collecting
refuse. His point was that it was the same as any other business, and at the present
time they were operating at "more than 100% of dollar income."
Councilman Keller asked if figures were available on the, amount. of residential garbage
collected compared to that collected from commercial establishments. He wondered if th=-
- - -- ~ -,- --
higher commercial rate increase, which he thought was exorbitant, was requested to offset
the loss of income from salvageable items in residential garbage. Mr. Brown referred to
"tonnage volume" in the two operations and suggested the Lane County Solid Waste Manage-
ment Department might have some good estimates with regard to volumes from each source.
He noted there had been a drop in volume - residential because of the trend to recycle,
and commercial because of the current slump in the economy. He said they have exact ~
figures on cost of each operation, residential and commercial, the proper mix of customers, =
labor, equipment, etc., to make each route pay. No part of the operation was subsidized.
Cost was geared to the amount of garbage, he said, and their books would demonstrate that
the customer paid for the volume of garbage collected. Manager added that adjusting
the commercial rates downward and residential rates upward might affect different haulers
differently because some picked up commercial garbage primarily, others picked up almost
entirely residential garbage. Assistant Manager stressed the difference between commercial
and residential operations - the one having intensive equipment expense, the other in-
tensive labor expense, each involving different kinds of cost factors.
Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to grant the proposed increase
for a six-month period and direct staff to bring back to the Council no later Corum
than the end of that period cost information to substantiate continuation of 10/23/74
the increase or changes staff would recommend at that time. Pub Hrng
Councilwoman Campbell asked whether recycling of materials and loss of income from their
sale affected the garbage collectors' profits.
i
Mayor Jlnderson entered the meeting.
Mr. Brown answered that profits were affected because of !ecycling. He cited examples .~
where rise in market value of cardboard and newsprint automatically decreased the amount
of refuse piCkup.
Councilman llershnersaid he would support the increase as recommended by the Garbage Board,
at the same time expressing regret that no Board members was present to discuss the issue.
Councilman Murray wondered if there was any way to speed up the rate investigation and
whether the issue would be subject to public hearing. Manager said if there was any way
to make the report prior to the end of the six-month period it would be done. Assistant
Manager added that public hearing was held when .the question was first considered, and
testimony was taken, but it might be well to have another to avoid any possible dissen-
sion because of action taken now.
, Council President Williams ruled that public hearing would be provided
pased on the significantly different subject matter under discussion.
Councilman Murray was in favor of the motion, then, saying he would reserve final judgment
until the hearing. Councilman McDonald said he would vote against it. He didn't approve
of making an increase then having to face the possibility of making a change in six months.
Mr. Williams restated the motion. Councilwoman Bea1 wondered why the action would not be .~
entered on the consent calendar if the motion approving the increase was acted upon. ~
Manager said his interpretation of the motion if it passed would be that the item would
appear in the public hearing section on the October 29th agenda as tentative action ap-
proving the increase.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members
present voting aye, except Councilmen McDonald and Keller voting no.
:S~" 10/29/74 - 2
Manager requested consideration of October 23, 1974 committee action out of order to accommodate
Robert Deverell, chairman of the Garbage Board, who was able to be present for a short time to
(0060) answer questions with regard to the Board's recommendation to allow the proposed increase in
e garbage rates. There were no objections and the item was brought on with explanation from the
Chair that the Council had tentatively approved the proposed increase for a six-month period,
during which time a study and analysis of the proposed rates would be conducted by staff to
determine whether the action at the .end of the six-month period would be continued, rescinded,
or modified by the Council.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve the Octboer 23, 1974
committee action.
Councilman Murray inquired about, the propriety,: of segregating the item for public hearing when
it had not been publicized as a public hearing. Councilman Williams responded that in committee
it was brought out that the present issue was different than that under discussion when previous
I
public hearing was held, hence it was intended to open the question for public comment at this
time.
(0111) Councilman Keller repeated his concerns - he wondered how the Garbage Board could justify a
30% increase in commercial rates, and what action would result should the rates be found ex-
cessive at the end of six months. He also inquired about the 5~ differential between residen-
tial ($2.95) and commercial rates ($3.00) for one can pickup once a week when the garbage
haulers themselves, he said, advocated the commercial rate was more ecnomical.
e Mr. Deverell said the Board felt the 30% commercial rate increase was not excessive after re-
view and comparison with rates in other cities and taking into consideration inflation, cost
of equipment and labor, etc. With regard to the differential between residential and commercial
one-can pickup, he said, the commercial rate was really not more economical because on com-
mercial routes usually the haulers had to go farther for the pickup then on residential routes.
He added that there might be some adj,ustment in that rate resulting in a greater differential
if a customer were to place the garbage can on the curb. Mr. Deverell explained that the Board
had decided upon an annual review in February, so the proposed six-month trial period would
fit in with that decision.
(0190) Councilman~McDonald said he would vote against the increase. He was concerned for people on
fixed incomes and noted the increase granted a short time back. He preferred waiting until
after an analysis of costs was made rather than granting an increase and possibly hav:b'1g to
make another change after the six-month period. Mr. Deverell explained that .the six~month
trial period probably came about because the garbage people apparently were not furnishing the
data upon which a good analysis of costs could be based. He said a system was being estab-
lished to gain the same statistics from all the haulers, thereby allowing better comparisons
of costs. In the meantime, he said, the haulers were facing an inflationary trend in addition
to higher costs and it was felt an increase in rates was justified. He added that the com-
mercial haulers had not had an increase since 1971 and they did need some help so they would
not have to absorb the increased dumping fees in effect since failure of the County's garbage
e levy.
(0270) Councilman Murray was bothered by the indecisiveness of having to wait for staff analysis to
justify the requested increase, or making the increase and having to reconsider that action
later on. He. felt it would be better to accelerate the staff research as quickly as possible;
it didn't seem proper to authorize the increase and then reconsider the action to see if it
was the right thing to do.
Councilman Williams thought there was no question that some increase was warranted. He said if
the proposed increase proved to be inequitable or improperly distributed the mechanism did
exist to change both the allocation and amounts in the future without serious damage to anyone in
the process. Not to grant some increase in face of higher equipment and labor costs seemed
unfair, he said.
(0313) Councilman Keller noted that in some instances the increases amounted to 50% or 60%, that it
was not a flat 30%, and that to him seemed excessive. Co~ncilman Murray agreed and commented
on staff's report that there was doubt about the validity of the rates established in 1971.
He thought the basis on which the increased rates were established should be known before
action was taken.
(0330) Manager explained that the auditing s~ct~on of the finance department found that some way of
. analyzing the basis upon which the pr9posed rates were structured was needed rather than just
making a comparison between the 1971 and 1974 costs. That analysis, they found, in view of
the changes in routes and ownerships,. different bookkeeping procedures among the various
haulers, etc. , could not be accomplished without taking finance department staff away from
other high priority work, including the annual audit. So the six-month period ~as recommended
to give the opportunity to reconstruct the garbage haulers rate structure. The extent of the
analysis was not known, he said, because it wasn't known for sure how much financial informa-
tion would be available from the haulers, although that information had been offered, so long
as it was kept confidential. The Garbage Board evidently was convinced that without some sort
3b\ 10/29/74 - 3
of adjustment the haulers would not be able to continue providing their services to the com-
munity, so it seemed the increase for a six-month period was fair to the~~industry and to the
customers.
Councilman Wood wondered whether a minimum increase was recommended by the Board. He sug- -
gested allowing a percentage of the proposed increase at this time with adjustment after the
study by the finance department was completed. Manager replied that only one proposal was
recommended by the Board. He said that if the study could be accomplished in less than six
months the results would be returned to the Council as soon as it was completed.
Councilman McDonald was not in favor of granting any increase before knowing the basis on
which is was allowed. He thought it entirely possible a higher increase might be warranted
and that the study should be completed first. Manager said that the auditors felt the figures
submitted at this time were adequate basis upon which to grant this type of increase - compar-
ing 1971 rates to 1974 rates and taking into consideration rise in costs for equipment, labor,
fuel, maintenance, etc. Also the Garbage Board was satisfied. What couldn't be verified was
the basis for the 1971 rates. Staff had no question that this percentage of increase proposed
reflected increased costs to the operators.
Councilman Hershner said that as he understood it the Garbage Board was satisfied that the
haulers were definitely in immediate need of an increase and that the staff had made a compari-
son of the proposed rates with those in other cities, so that they weren't "grabbing figures
out of the air." He felt if the staff required six months to make the study it should be
allowed.
Councilwoman Campbell was in favor of granting the increase. She thought the fact that the -
haulers had been absorbing the increased dumping costs should be considered. Also that the
commercial rates had not been increased since 1971, and that the operators had already been
put off once until after the County election.
Councilman Keller shared the concerns expressed. He recognized the fact that costs had in- (0483)
creased, but he was not prepared, he said, to accept the 30% to 60% increase without the "facts
and figures" upon which it was based. He asked what the priority position of the study would
be, how long it would take staff to complete it. Finance Director Sherm Flogstad said the
first priority right now was the city audit on which full staff was working with an estimated
completion date of November 20. Three or four months would be required to complete work put
aside for the audit work, so it would be six months at the most before the garbage rate analysis
could be completed.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated to approve increase for six months, staff (0527)
to make analysis of rate strucutre. Motion carried, Council members Williams,
Hershner, Beal, Campbell, and Wood voting aye; Council members McDonald, Keller,
and Murray voting no.
B. Liquor Licenses - New (Oe)
1. Mah's Far East, 92 Centennial Boulevard - DA
i Liquor Lli:ense~Ap~ii;'a tion --submi ttOO by Mah' s Fa;- E~st, 92 C;'~.t~;"'ial .BoUlev~l
! (New - VA) - Staff had no objections. OLCC report noted one objection in the
\neighborhood,10 to 15 nonobjectors. ,/
\ Mr. .williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to schedule public heariny on/ 1 o/~~;:
the application for the October 29, 1974 Council meeting. Motion P b H
. d . 1 u rng
. carr~e unan~mous y.
OLCC report noted one objector, Leo Phillits, manayer of The Hoover Company, 81 Cen-
tennial Loop, who did not believe in use 0 alcoho ic beverages. Staff had no objections.
Public hearing was held with no te~tim6ny~presented.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to recommend approval of the
license. Motion carried unanimously.
2. . Mister Dicken's Restaurants, 99 West 10th Avenue - RMB
; RMiro;L:{2f:ifise;.'M'i"E/tei"I5lcken i s Retitaurants.,. Inc:, lofho and. orIve. (New)' Comm
~ 10/23/74 .
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to set public hearing on the Plib Hrng ".
,~application for the October 29 Council meeting. Motion carriedunanimously.1 -~
I
,,....~.'.~i~ -, ~ '.'-. ~ ~~/~. .
OLCC report listed two objectors - Ben Raykovich, Cluo.Cigar Store, 933 Olive, and
Robert Smith, Seymour's Cafe, 996 Willamette, on the basis that no two businesses
selling the same product would be located next to each other in the mall area and that
the area was adequately served. Staff had no reason to recommend against the application.
\ Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
'3b2.. 10/29/74 - 4
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to recommend approval of
.the license. Motion carried unanimously.
Ce1) C. Bids
~ublic Works Department - Various Improvement Projects (opened October 15, 1974)
Cost to Amount
N!.lf,e. of Biddor and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop. Cost to City. Budgeted
'/"'..". .-
~:~ANITARY.SEWER:.
11, To serve the Wil1agil1espie-Russet annexation
area btn Goodpasture Island Rd on N, Norkenzie
Rd on E, Country Club Rd on S, & D8ltil Hwy on
\<1. (naB)
~ *
1. Shur-Way Contractors Inc,...,. ,.......,... " ..$141.99~,25...... ,...,.... .Lat, $ 0.096/sq,ft...............".... .0.,.............." ,0
2 , Oregon Construction Co..,....,....,..,..,.,...$144,450.11 Serv.Line $437.30/each
3, \,ick Bras,..,."..,., ,.....,.,'..,..,.,...... .$147,734.00
4, Cascade Ditching Service,..."..:..,.:....,...$i49,627.0a
5, Wildish Construction Company....".......,....$157.233,OO
6, Bostick Construction Company,.,.,.........,..,$160,295.50
7, Robert L. tJensell.."....,....,.!...",.....,. ,$223,745.00
: --------------------_------------_____.---_-------_--.____________---_---____---_---_--_-.__------~9~Pb~!!9~_~~Tgl_-~er!1-~9J-l~Z~--_.-_--___.-__.-__-----
! BIKE PATH:
! 2. lmlamette St, from 1Bth Ave. to 29th Ave, (1034)
1. Wildish Construction Compqny...,.,....,.,.,...$ 7,425,00..,......,. ,.":......,,,... ,0,.....,..,." " ,.....,.,. .,.$7,4g5.00.."....... .$10,000,00
. ,COMPLETION DATE: March 2B. 1975
~----------------------~----------~-----~~-~~-~~~-~~---~~~--~--~"-~-~~~-----~------~~~---~----~--~~-~-~~---------~"~-----~-~--~-~~~-~~~~--~--~~---~~-----~
, 3, Franklin Blvd. from Sylvan St, to Riverview St. (1033)
1. Wildish Construction Company,.,."..,.....,.. ,$. ,6,649,50.....,..,.....,...."..,..,. ,0..,..,..,.."....,....,.,. .$!'!,649,50.".."..,. .$10,000,00
e COMPLETION DATE: March 2B, 1975
...,.. -......... -...... ~...""! ~ ~= - "'::: :--..::: ~--.~.::.l:.~-.....~,_:_:"J-.'1" -;::' - 't::: !":-.:: ""! t!.. ~ ':~ -,:=:>!! t:.::: ':"=: ~=~~=~!: =-...-::= ==:.==.=.:~~ =:!=!!!~ =e:.=t~ ~ =:!~ '!!.~ l!_~~... ~~...... -1"":. ~ ~ ~ ~ e.'!" ""!!'l' ~ = ~-=!:" -= e.=.= ,:.;:.:.;: =.:-:::..:::: =:"' == =.~ ~ '; -. =:' = == - ': = =:: ~ =
Public Works Director Don Allen reviewed the bids. *He called attention to error in the computa-
tion of the total bid figure submitted by Shur-Way Contractors and corrected it to $139,993.25.
Award of contract was recommended to Shur-Way on the Willagillespie-Russet sewer and to
Wildish Construction on the bike paths on Willamette and Franklin Boulevard.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to award contracts as recommended.
Councilman McDonald asked why there was only one bidder on the bike paths. Mr. Allen didn I t
know. He said there were several plan holders but only one submittal was received.
Councilman Keller asked what happened if the completion date on a contract was not met.
Mr. Allen explained the penalties levied for each day a project went beyond the completion date.
He referred to the downtown project and said the ERA was the contracting agency in that instance.
He said the contractor had encountered several unforeseen difficulties and that some sort of
extension would probably be granted.
e Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to award contracts to the low bidders.
Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye.
2. Parks Department - Fence, Laurelwood Golf Course Property (opened October 24, 1974)
San Jose Steel Company $ 21,357.00
Cyclone Fence Sales 21,856.00
Tor-Nado Fence Company 25,152.00 Office Estimate $ 15,000.00
Manager reviewed the bids for the six-foot chain link fence designed to accommodate barbed wire
addition in the future. Staff recommended rejection of the bids in view of the bids in excess
of the estimate and lack:".of "funds available.. Manager suggested discussion, however, of the
fence design because of the expressed neighborhood interest in this project and the number of
(0736) people present to hear the outcome of the bid award. Manager described the types of activities
causing damage on the golf course - motorcycle and motorbike riding across greens causing ex-
pensive repair work, horses', four-wheel drive vehicles, blocks of ice used for slides damaging
the greens. Staff proposed the fence as a solution to these more damaging kinds of a~tivities,
recognizing a good deal of other public use which would not interfere with golfing and to which
there was no objection. Manager said staff was fully aware of the fact that when the property
was purchased it was bought with the understanding that at some future time this area would
become a regional park rather than a golf course. However, because there are no other
.- municipal courses in the area and because there are fewer.facilities in the way of public golf
courses now than at the time this property was purchased, it would appear the best use of
Laurelwood for the near future would be to continue the golfing activity. It was also recog-
nized that parts of the property had not been developed for other kinds of recreation. That
was not proposed at this time in view of the estimated cost of $20,000 per acre or about /
$1.5 million, plus an estimated $160,000 annual maintenance cost if it was developed into an
irrigated, mowed grass area. Manager noted several letters received in opposition to the
fencing and said that had the bids been within the city'S financial ability to proceed, staff
would have asked for a delay in construction to give the opportunity to meet with the neighbor-
hood organization for discussion of the proposal.
~b3 10/29/74 - 5
,
Councilman Hershner expressed concern about opening discussion of long-range overall use of
Laurelwood to public hearing when it had been publicized as a public hearing on letting bids
for fence construction. He wondered if a fair cross section of opinions would be represented.
Councilman Williams wasn't sure a cross section would be represented but he thought some feel -
would be gained for neighborhood concern. He liked the suggestion for a neighborhood meeting
where golfers'from other areas of the city might express their sentiments.
Councilman.McDonald expressed surprise that there was no mention at the time the bond issue (0833)
for purchase of the property was put forth about the possibility of $160,000 annual maintenance
expense. He thought it was intended for use as a multipurpose park area. Manager answered
that the maintenance question was not raised at the time of the bond issue, rather it was hoped
that with the installation of an irrigation system the golf course would be more nearly self-
supporting. He said the estimated maintenance figure was based on the assumption the entire
acreage would be completed as a developed park. The irrigation system had been installed so
that it could be expanded for use in a regional park in the future. Maintenance of the area
used for golfing at the present time does not amount to nearly that much, he said.
Council President Williams opened the discussion to members of the audience, asking them to (0877)
recognize that the staff would hold meetings in the neighborhood to discuss the future of the
golf course and/or park, and thatprobably there would be no fence erected as the result of
action taken at this meeting, but at some future time a fence might be:considered after the
neighborhood meetings had been held.
Joyce Owen, 2830 Emerald Street, wondered if the fence would have-been erected without any (0889)
notice to the neighborhood had the low bid been within the budgeted amount. Manager answered e
that if the bidding had fallen within the city's financial ability and if there had been no
neighborhood concern expressed the contract. probably would have been awarded. He said staff
still feels the fence as designed seemed a reasonable solution and would not create the kinds
of problems anticipated in the neighborhood, that is, it would not prohibit use of the golf
course or interfere with other uses compatible with the golf use.
Unconfirmed report was received that Mahammed Ali kayoed George Foreman
in the 8th round to regain the heavyweight title.
Karen Cassare, 2770 Emerald Street, asked when the proposed neighborhood meetings would be held.
She said she was totally opposed to a chain link fence with barbed wire. She felt there would
be more vandalism than ever after installation of such a fence. Meetings had not been scheduled
yet, Manager replied, but they could be held wi thin a couple of weeks.;
A resident of 2620 Cresta de Ruta was concerned about having a "developed" park in that area.
She said she would like to see some citizen input before anything was done to change the
character of the Laurelwood property. Council President Williams reminded that a fence would
not be installed as the result of action at this meeting and that meetings in the neighborhood
would be held to give the opportunity for citizens!.,. opinions.
Norman Pott, 2805 Chula Vista Boulevard, recognized that vandalism was occurring at Laurelwood (0.)
but he felt the proposed fence would not effectively eliminate it. He thought multiple-use
quality was the primary value, well worth preserving, and that it would be lost if a fence was
installed. He tho~ght too that visual pollution of a fence as proposed should not be under-
estimated.
Ms. Kidder, 2745 Emerald Street, asked consideration of raising the height of a portion of the (0983)
existing fence using a fine hardware cloth rather than chain link so that adjacent properties
would not have the continual "golf ball hazard." Mr. Williams suggested that problem be brought
out at the neighborhood meetings. /
Councilman McDonald wondered if the questions raised could be discussed at the Amazon Park
neighborhood meeting scheduled for November 7. Manager replied that staff would be present at
that meeting if asked to discuss these problems at that time, but his idea was to have a meet-
ing at the Laurelwood Club House where people from other areas of the city and not belonging
to a specific organization would be welcome.
Councilman Murray thought the temporary resolution.,~p.ggested.was::proper. He wanted people of
the Laurelwood neighborhood to know that one provision of the neighborhood association policy
was that any group recognized by the city as representing a certain area would have advance
notice of any proposed major changes in park facilities. .j
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to reject all bids on the Laurel-
wood property fence and to hold meetings in the neighborhood as suggested for
public input with regard to solution of the vandalism and maintenance problems.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Vacations
1. Easement .west oLDanebo' from Barger . to . Candlelight (Gilbert)
Recommended by Planning Commission July 22, 1974, retaining underground facilities
easement.
'3b4- 10/29/74 - 6
(1071 ) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 661 - Vacating public utility easement west of Danebo Street from
_. Barger Avenue to Candlelight Drive was read the first time by
council bill number and title only, there.being no council member present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the ,bHl was read the second time by council bill
number.:only/
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr~. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and num-
bered 17188.
I
2. Easement between Gilham and Norkenzie from Minda to Lemming (Duncan)
Recommended by the Planning Commission August 19, 1974 , except where existing
storm sewer runs and excluding use as pedestrian/bicycle easement.
Councilman Hershner asked if there were alternatives for pedestrian and bike travel if this
area was not to be used for that purpose. Manager answered that the easement was no longer
needed for utilities. It was an unimproved easement and there was no support for its reten-
tion for pedestrian and bike use. He added that Norkenzie Road was a short distance to the
- west and pedestrians used that rather than this right-of-way.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 662 - Vacating public utility easement between Gilham Road and
Norkenzie Road from Minda Drive to Lemming Avenue except
portron used for storm sewer and excluding use as bicycle/pedestrian easement was
read by council bill number and title only," there being no council member present
f
r~questing that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time-. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given, final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and num-
bered 17189.
(1125) II - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested.
Previously discussed in committee on October 9 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members
- Williams, Hershner, Beal, Campbell , Keller, Murray, and Wood), October 16 (Present:
Mayor Anderson; Council members Hershner, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood), and October 23,
1974 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Williams, Hershner, McDonald, B,eal, Camp-
be 11, Murray, and Keller). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics.
/ Voting Delegate and A1 ternate, NLC Congress of Cities, Houston,
A. Texas
December 1-5, 1974
Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Wood to appoint Councilwoman Beal as Comm
voting delegate for Eugene, and Councilwoman Campbell as alternate. 10/9/74
Motion carried unanimously. Approve
" B. Mobile Home for Temporary Office, Lane County BethiH-Danebo Sanitary Landfill
(north of 11th Avenue, west of Bertelsen Road) - Staff had no objections.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing on Comm
10/9/74
the request. Motion carried qnanimously. Approve
C. EWEB Easement vacation, south of I-l05 west of Emery Road (north of Spring-
field - Requested by Transamerica Title Insurance Company, to revert to
Southern Pacific.
Comm
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to authorize quitclaim deed 10/9/74
,- vacating the easement as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
D. Housing Dispersal Policy Plan - Copies revised to include amendments previously
approved by Council as proposed by the Joint Housing Committee were distributed
to Council members prior to this meeting. Copies of errata sheet to be included
with the revised Plan were distributed.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council thank the
Joint Housing Committee for preparation of the Plan and formally re- Comm
receive and adopt the policy recommendations contained thereing. Motion 10/9/74
carried unanimously. Approve
'3bS' 10/29/74 - 7
E. Abatement, 362-364 East 13th Avenue- Owned by Joint Ventures, Inc. Recommended
by building department after unsuccessful attempts to achieve complete demolition
by the property owner.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Wood to call public hearing Comm -
on the abatement, the Council to view the proper.ty on tour prior 10/9/74
to the hear.ing date. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
F. Community Development Act - Planning Director explained purpose of the Act with a
slide presentation and noted specific objectives of the Act in providing community
development block grant funds. Copies of the narrative presentation were distributed
to those present and included copies of a letter received by the Mayor from HUD area
office with regard to the potential low level of funds the city of Eugene could expect
under the Act. Also included were copies of graphs by which anticipated funding for
Eugene was explained. Block grants under the new law would be based on allocations
made during the period 1968 through 197?, The major portion of Eugene's allocations
were prior to 1968 (for the central business district renewal'program), leaving a
relatively small allocation during the 1968/1972 period from the neighborhood renewal
project in the Bethel area on which to base community development grants. Mr. Porter
said that about $400,000 definitely would be allocated to Eugene during the first year
of the new program, but that an application for $2.265 million per year would be sub-
mitted, the amount Eugene would have received based on amounts allocated prior to the
base period (1968/1972) .
Mr. Porter said that citizen participation was required in submitting applications
(required annually) and in developing programs for housing assistance, transportation, e'
'. -'
etc. Staff proposal for this required citizen participation was creation of a com-
munity development task force comprising two members each to be appointed by the
City,Council, the Renewal Agency, the Planning Commission, and neighborhood groups,
and one member each to be appointed by the Joint Housing Committee and the Lane Housing
Authority. It was suggested that administration of the program should be through the
eity.Manager's office with planning department as co-ordinator for development of the
first year's application, to be submitted no later than April 15, 1975. A graph was
displayed delineating the procedure and time schedule suggested for work of the task
force to proceed, review process, and how elements of the application would be worked
out simultaneously by various groups to bemvolved. Another chart was shown comparing
the grant amounts the city could be sure of receiving with the amounts the task force
would be working to obtain.
Mayor Anderson commented on the great amount of time spent by staff in contact with
Congressional delegates and working through the National League of Cities in an un-
successful effort to effect a change in the legislation to permit Eugene to receive
its fair share under the "hold harmless" clause. Mrs. Niven noted that although this
Act included housing assistance requirement, funding was from different sources and
not provided under these provisions. Mr. Porter added that a key element of the Act
would be the local level_revie~ of all future subsidized housing units to ensure that e
programs take into account the city's housing assistance plan.
Councilman Murray asked what staffing assistance would be available to the task force.
He was particularly interested:' in.-the -relationship between ERA and planning staffs in
the work. Mr. Porter explained that ERA activities would continue on its present ,
,
basis but under different funding. He added that the city's comprehensive planning
staff efforts would be redirected to make sure that work goes forward on the community
development block grant application. That would involve changing the neighborhood
analysis work program now in progress. He hoped the planning office would be designated
to co-ordinate work of the various groups involved in the community development block
grant application.
Councilman Murray wpndered to what degree the neighborhood an~lyses would satisfy ,
some of the block grant application requirements. Mr. Porter answered that the hous-
ing dispersal plan, housing inventory, and neighborhood analyses would answer many
of the z'equirements. He anticipated the first year's program to be quite flexible,
recognizing that a detailed renewal process could not be prepared by the April 15
application deadline.
Howard Bonnett, planning commission chairman, wondered why the proposed task force did
not have representation from the Joint Parks Committee, Lane Transit District, or other
public groups which might be involved in overall community development. Mr. Porter .
\
answered that representation from the Joint Housing Committee was proposed because it.
was felt the housing assistance plan requirement would be the most difficult to prepare.
With regard to the other agencies mentioned, Mr. Porter said they probably would be
drawn in at some time during the process by the task force itself because of the re-
quirement for citizen participation in preparing any development program. Mrs. Niven
added that any community development program would involve housing as a key element.
She noted that the requirement for review at the local level was included to make sure
that grant funds would not be used for public services which could be funded through
other sources.
3~,=, 10/29/74 - 8
James Pearson, planning commission member, asked w.hy Lane,iCQuntg,was not inCLuded ana:;
whether contact had be em made with the city of Spring:Ei~'id'fd fje~$.r'mine whether con- I
flict might develop in the planning process. Mr. Porter said tha;t .:Lane County was
not eligible for funds under the Act. He noted, however, that Laqe County Housing
. Authority would be represented in the makeup of the proposed task~force. And LCOG,
representing other agencies, would have input in the review and fln~l processing.
It was felt preferable that the task force be small - rather than a.large unwieldy
group - and oriented to urban problems.
Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, wondered how the transportation
aspect would be approached. Mr. Porter said he couldn't answer. that issue at this
time but he felt that most of the $400,000 for the first year's program would probably
be used for developing the housing program and planning. He said the task forGe's
main chore would be to develop a three-year plan and a one-year funding program. ,
Mayor Anderson commented that it appeared obvious that requirements of the new legis-
lation would call for very. 'comprehensivewo:r:kincluding all segments of the community i
and make necessary better co-ordination than in the past, particularly with regard I
to land use and transportation. ,
I
,
I
I Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Wood that the Council approve the ; Comm
proposed makeup of a Community Development Task Force and take those 10/~6/74
, steps necessary to make it an actuality. Approve
i.
1 i
. ,
!Councilwoman Beal asked how Council representatives would be selected. Mayor Anderson!
. !assumed each gro~p - Council, ERA, ,Planning Commission, and neighborhood groups _ I
Iwould select the~r own representat~ves. .
i! I
!In response to Councilman Murray's inquiry about neighborhood group representation, I
I
iMr. Porter said it was staff's thought that leaders of the various neighborhood f
! associations would be asked to meet as soon as possi.ble for an orientation session, ;
I
imuch as was presented at this meeting, after which they would be aske(j.to,,:,select f
l two representatives from among them at,-.-memllers of th9, task force. The task force I
I .
!itself would.decide upon some procedural process for further citizen participation I
I
:later on.
I !
Councilwoman Beal felt any type of planning might involve o.ne neighborhood more than. I
ianother which would point up the importance of involving the organized group from
Ithe neighborhood which would be involved. Mr. Porter said the first year's program
would not get into detailed projects. When detailed projects were determined, he
said, then the neighborhood groups affected would be involved. Initially the task
force would be concerned primarily with development and planning of,an overall pro-
gram for application submittal. Mayor Anderson thought there would be no advantage
in having representation from one group over another on the task force so long as
I
;the makeup was of people willing to work and interested in developing a program.
:There would be ample opportunity, he said, for neighborhoods and other groups to
. lmake known their desires.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. _~?tion carried u~~n4~ously.
. ~_._---_......_-_.. .'0"' - ---,.. -_. .....-- ----,. ---
G. Appointment, Community Development Task Force - Council President Williams and Council ,
man Murray were recommended as the Council's representatives on the Community Develop- t
, d I
ment Taxk Force (see committee October 9, 1974). m~ representat~ves were announce -;
Ruth Miller and Joan Mazo. I
i::omm
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. CamPbell to approve appointment of 10/23/74
Council members Williams and Murray as recommended. Motion carried Approve
unanimously.
') H. jRetirement, City Librarian Clara Nasholm - CouncilM)man Beal moved seconded by !
i
. Councilwoman Campbell tha.t staff direct a letter from the Council to Miss Nasholm !
I thanking her for her year~ of dedicated service and leadership in building up the ! Comm
~Eug~ne Public Library, and that some function honor.ing Miss Nasholm at the time of 1~/23/74
Iher retirement be arranged (August 1975)~ and that the Library Board be approac~ed Approve
land asked to consider some continued employment so that her contributions to the /
ci~!l wtl.~ nof ..be...JCJst.:. _!:1.ot.ion carried uJi1animousl!l~.. __ ... ' . _ ..1
_ , _ 'U'_ . .
- ' I. :Sewer Easement, Laurelwood - C;uncil authori zation was requested for easeme:nt for J
' .
:sewer line across a portion of Laurelwood. Golf Course property to serve pr~ vate prc:p I .
;erty south of the Course and east of 30th Avenue ordered connected to city sewers ~n I
I
~order to be further developed. i ConIDi
Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to grant the easement. 10/'23/74
Mr. Approve
I Motjon carried unanimously. .---,=- "~-----= -. ~._=" - ~~
--- ~----~-
--~---- -- ~------
" - --,--""""'-~----- --.'. _.--
'"3 fa 1 10/29/74 - 9
!
J. i.vacation, Alleys and Easements, County Public Services Building - Council \:Vas re~ .
:quested to set hearing da~e for consideration of Planning Commission re.commendatJ.ons/
. wi,th regard to vacation of alleys and easements between 6th and 7th, Oak and Pearl, /
~and easements between 7th and 8th, ,oak and Pearl, to accommodate construction of / ~
Lane County public services building. , ~ Comm ..,
: Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Keller to call hearing asrequ~ 1~/23/74
(December.;;..9, 1974). ~1otion carried uI?g.n'm _u ly.. ' Approve
........_.. '., _._ _ _. ...., .. . ..... . ,~.. ___." ,,,_n _
K.\Ordinances, "Social .Games'" under .SEate ia.w':' Copies of three ordinances were previously
. ~istributed to Council members. . They would amend the City Code to permit "social games"
tin Eugene as defiped under State law and provide what staff felt were reasonable regula-
'tions if the Council decided to take affirmative action. Manager said that adoption of
the ordinances would create a very complicated enforcement problem and 'would raise ques- .
itions about how best to provide for appropriate policing in order to be able to have .
{social gambling which would meet the spir~t of the State law. Staff was generally of
Itheop..inion that the general public would not benefit from this type of legislation.
IHe added that only two establishments in the community had stayed in contact with his
[office Ivith regard to the legislation although a petition containing many signatures "had
been presented in May requesting action to allow social gambling. Other than that, he
said, there appeared no great interest in adoption of. the legislation.
Councilman Williams asked whether there was information available from other ci ties around.
the .State where this type of legisla,tion was enacted with regard to its impact on the
community., He was under the impression -.ehat.-Por_tl~I!4 had adopted legislation similar to
that nm~ under consideration. Stan Long, assistant city' attor!!ey, said several ci ties .~ .
ihad ad01Jted sinlilar legislation, including Portland. His only contact was with city' .
lattornies, however, who were not in position as were police departments to give the type:
JOf information requested. He thought though that no city had enough experience to de- .
I
~termine real impact because of the relatively s~ort time the law had been in effect. !
;Dale Allen, police chief, said it was his understanding most citi~s'Pe;''mttilJ(i' social
games pretty much restricted them to fraternal or religious organizations and did not .
'allow gambling in public establishments as would be permitted by these ordinances "
:under discussion. In response to Councilwoman Beal, he told of the. department's
ilimited experience with open gambling dp!,ing the short period after the new State legls-
:lation WqS adopted - two armed robberies and one aggravated assault directlyattribut-
!able to gambling. Based on that and staff's judgment, the police chief felt legalized
igambling would place a significant burden. .on the department. He felt it would result
;in an increase in c:r;ime and add to the poii'c..e work load attempting to enforce regula-
. ~ ",'~
::tions contained in the oz:dinances under consideratioI?~~/'/'
'Councilwoman Beal asked whether social games were now permitted in private clubs.in
Eugene. The police chief answered that they were prohibited.
. ~-
!Councilman Hershner asked what regulations Lane County was operating under and whether ,_
: the port.land ordinance restricted social gambling to fraternal and religious organiza- e
tions. Mr. Long answered that Lane County had not legalized gambling, social games
were prohibited as in the city.. The Portland ordinance, he said, was similar to that
under\.;onsideration here althC?ugh not as regulatory. ..' .,..
,t" .' ~,'
i~':." .
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Keller to ask staif.t~ make contact wi th Camm
the cit~ o~.toEt!fJ;.nd to ~s~er~a}.~ their exper~ence with"~he ordin~nce ador:teg. 10/23/74
there, 1. ts .~mpact on polJ.c1.ng- crJ.me and gamblJ.ng, and /brJ.ng that J.nformat1.on ~ppr~ve
to the. GOUPcf~~ for considera tion when i tl was reri~iV(;;d.
~....~ ...., _ ""-""
COlJncifman Hershner was interested in knowing about Portland's experience, but he was
inclined to drop the matter in view of the apparent public disinterest.
Councilwoman Campbell said she had felt no public pressure for this legislation. However,
sh~ was concerned about whether gambling was going on in private clubs. She did not
want the Council to be accused of discrimination, that is, allowing gambling in private i
cl ubs but prohibi ting the "average ci ti zen" '. from gambling in publi c taverns.
Manager said the ci ty of Springfield had adopted an ordinance permi tting gambling in " .
fraternal organizations within the scope of the State law,-'but it was his understanding .,' "
th~t it was on an interim basis on the assumption that Eugene would be considering _
something more extensive in which case they (Springfield) would reconsider their action .~
to bring their laws into line with what was done here. He added that the staff posi- .,
tion was.not based on the morals of the issue, rather it was based on the conCern about
~' potential creation of police and administrative problems. with regard to gambling
in private clubs, he said it could not be stated categorically that it was not occur-
ring, .but there was no proof of that activity.
,
'365 10/29/74 - 10
,
. In response to Councilman Keller, Assistant Manager said ordinances were adopted in
., Cottage Grove to permi t gambling in fraternal organizations only. He added that the
~city managet in Springfield had reported no pressure to go beyond that level either. ;
-. \ Councilman McDonald asked if permi tting social games in fraternal and religious Organiza-.!
. !tions would allow the organization to receive a certain amount of money for their bene- j
~fit~ Mr. Long answered that that was specifically prohibited by State law.
John Langan, pit Stop Tavern, said he would like to see the ordinances adopted. He felt
regulations'therein y,rere appropriate for all those interested, including taverns,
restaurants, fraternal and religious organizations. . He noted that social gambling , ...... .~
was permitted in Junction City, Creswell, Cottage Grove, and Springfield so he felt
it should be allowed in Eugene. He thought the apparent disinterest was the result of
the issue's having "drug on" for so long. He suggested a $2.00 limit so that no big
: games would be involved and said as long as no gambling was permitted it would continue I
iin residential areas instead of in public places.
!
i ,
! Vote was taken on the motion to obtain. information from the city of Portland ;
, with regard to its experience with legalized gambling. Motion carried, all i
; . CounciJ..members present voting aye, exceptCounci.lman Hershner voting no.
~. ,
L.:Resolution, City Testimony Before 1975 Oregon State Legislature - Copies of proposed
. amendment to resolution authorizing testimony before the State Legislature on behalf
of the ci ty were previously distributed to Council members. The amendment., prepared
/ by Councilman Williams, would authorize the City Manager or his designee to speak on,
_ : issues before the Legislature when time pressures did not permit prior Council approval.
Also, that summaries of such testimony would be provided to the Council for review
and comment. Councilman Williams explained that the designee most likely would be a
legislative aide in the Manager's office or possibly the Assistant Manager. He felt
the amendment was warranted, especially at the end of the legislative session when i
lissues were sometimes brought to the floor in a hurry and immediate action on behalf
L~f the ci ty might be' necessary. .. . .. _'. .._
---....- --......,.... -....__..., - __ ~ '~"_';~_'~ _. .__~ .". - . . ,_._. _.' .. ~" "- _.."<'0' .. .~'.
,Mayor Anderson asked if a designee could include a Council member. Mr. Williams ~
, . . . ... \
I answered that anyone preferred by the Manager and des~gnated by h~m would be covered \
iunder the terms of the resolution. Councilwoman Beal. added that Section 2 ,under the \
,[.original resolution made provision for an individual Council member to stat'!.d-tY posi- \
:tion if it was made clear it was not stated on behalf of the entire COUnCYff~'- \
i \ Comm
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. HershI'ler to adopt the amendment. 10(23/74
: Motion carried unanimously. Approve
j .... ... .. d h \
M. Downtown Development p~str~ct, Property Tax Levy 1974-75 - Manager reporte t at I
ordinances would be presented at the October 29th Council meeting which would levy the t.
. property tax approved at the June 18, 1974 election :for support of 50% of the Dis- i
e trict's budget ($113,000). I
I : Comm
. I
I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the ordinances. 10(23/74
I Motion carried unanimously. Approve
I
N. jpetition, Storm sewer on Hilyard between 35th and 36th - Petitioned by owners of 100% '
!of property to.be assessed. i
I Comm
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition. 1~/23/74
Motion carried unanimously. . ~pprove
i
O. IAppeal, Zoning Board of Appeals conditional approval. of six-foot high wooden fence at !
\2605 Friendly Street, V. W. Blowers i
iCopies of appeal letter from Mr. Blowers together with copies of Zoning Board of Ap- I
ipeals minutes (September 26, 1974) were previously distributed to Council members. .1
iMr. Blowers was not satisfied with conditions attached to' approval of the fence con- !
!structed on the property line along the 26th Avenue side of his property ~ that the ;
iportion of the fence east of an existing concrete slab be set back not less than :
Iseven feet from the property line, and that the outside of the fence be covered wi th !
!Plant materi.als to partially obscure it. Staff recommended public hearing on Novem-I .
ber 12 and tour to view the property prior to that time. .: Comm
I
~ I 10/23/74
W' i Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Williams to set public hearing on the Approve
I appeal for November 12 Council meeting. 'Motion carried unanimously. I
p.IAPpeal, Planning Commission October 8th denial of request to rezone property on I
I , I
.\Grant Street between 17th and 18th - From R-l to C-l (Hedin, et al) :
\ f ~~
\ Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to set public hearing on i 210/23/74
the appeal at the November 25 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimoUSly.: App~ove
I
)
~_._~.. - -", _.-~-----_.-"- - ~,- -- -.-- _.'~ --- -.--.---,-.-:-,.--' -:."-"~'-'~'---~-----"-'-'_._- --_._- -- -----, .- .-....._.--....--_.~.....-_.__.--------------,-'--,
'3o~ 10/29/74 - 11
Q. Counci~ Meeting sche~uIe; NOV~mber - cIty observation' of Veterans' Day on Novembe'i 1'i ,
,necessLtates schedulLng the f2rst Council meeting in November on the 12th. i
~ Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule Council meeting 10/~~~~
~.Novembe:!;1.2thh' ~:~~~er ~han 11th. 110tion carried unanimously. Afprove
R. Council Minutes - August 26, September 16, 18, and 23 as circulated Approve 4It
S. FederaL Legislation."re:.--lIistoric PYeser"i;at"ion.' ;;':Counc1iwoman Cnmpbell - brought to
the Council's attention proposed amendments to the, Land and Water Conservation .
. .~ Act of 1965 which would include establishment of an historic preservation fund :
for grants to states beginning in the fiscal year 1976. She suggested the Mayor'S! Corrun
Committee on Historic Preservation be requested on behalf of the Council to con- / 10/9/74
taot Congressional delegates in support of the proposed amendments. There were Affirm
no objections and the Chair ruled the Council's support would be transmitted as J
: suggested. . . .
60__
T.Appoil'Jtrru3nt, Cable TV.VS Translator Committee - Coun'C1"ima~ wiilia;;'s was appointed' 1
'by-the Mayor as Eugene's representative on a joint committee of elected officials
, J
!and staff persons from Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County directing a study of
relative benefits of a television translator as compared to potential of services!
;from cable television. Shirley Swenson, finance department, was selected as the!
staff person from Eugene. Councilman Williams was in favor of the proposed pro- I Comm
,cedure. :He felt exploration of specific services which might be in the public ! 10/9/74
interest'to have cable television provide would permit realistic decisions with. Affirm
'respect to translator service, franchises for cable service.. etc....) _
u."Crowth Study - Councilman Murray asked about the's'tatus..of the. proposed resolut'Tori.'.; ""
calling for a growth study. Councilman williams noted. that LCOG minutes indicated '
'the LCOG staff had been asked by the Board to make recommendations with regard to
the resolution. John Porter, planning director, added that the MAPAC subcorrunittee.
on growth had asked further consideration of what would be covered by the proposed-\
study, and that LCOG, Eugene, and Springfield planning staffs had met to discuss ~
,methodology for achieving the study. He did not expect an LCOG staff report to the \
,Board until some time in December. \ Corrun
101'f3/74
.: Councilwoman Beal asked if an interim report could be returned by December 1st. A~firm
[Mr. Porter suggested that Councilman Wood, Eugene's representative on the LCOG Board,:
'be asked to make that request. It was understood, at the Chair's suggestion, that ~
! Co~ncilman Wood would be the logical person to ask for an interim .report on status ,>J
,of the proposed growth study resolution. ~
v. senior Ci ilzens CuI turaj- a-ner-Arts Festival - Council mat. Wood reported an enter-
:taining and interesting event staged by senior citizens and noted their apprecia-10/~~~
Ltion of community involvem,ent in their efforts. - -File
W. :~ivingst.on & Blayney CommercIal Study':' Councilma"b. Keiler inquired aboiitthee
(status of the report, whether it was known when Planning commdssion recommenda-
, tions." would be returned to the Counci 1. John Porter, planning director, estima ted, Corrun
about the middle of November would be the earliest possible time a report could 1'0/9/74
~rought. ~.. ~-:FiJe
x. : Gover'oor;s Intergovernmental Conference - Council members wer~ ~sked to contact. Comm
; Manager's office about registration if any planned to attend the Conference in ;10/9/74
~ ',:' Corvallis on October 17 and 18. File
,~
Y. Survey, Mayor and Council Pay in Other Cities - Copies of results of survey of \
cities 50,000 to 250,000 population conducted by Jack Gurthrie, public relations . Comm
officer, during September 1974 were distributed to Council mew?ers. 10/~(74
F~le 1
Z. : General Revenue Sharing - Copies of summary report on uses of revenue sharing
~~funds in Eugene were distributed to Council members. Manager reported it would
:be used for distribution to Congressmen, National League of Cities, and other
agencies in Washington to support proposed request for renewal of general revenue
sharing. He said that in the absence of himself and Assistant Manager Martin
from the city next week a joint meeting of the Council with the planning commission
and Eugene Renewal Agency would be scheduled for the regular Wednesday commdttee Comm ~
meeting, October 16, under the direction of John Porter, .plann~ng director,- and 10/9/74 _
David Hunt, executive director of the Renewal Agency. . D~scuss~on would center . IFile
,on proposed method of planning for use of community development revenue shari~g I
\. !funds and processing of an initial application for the funds. :
I
I i
AA. \pro;perty Tax Rate, 1974-75 was reported to be $8.90 as compared to an estimate I Corrun
iof $9.27 at time of budget adoption. 10/9(74
r/ F~le
~lO 10/29/74 - 12
<;. J
BB. 'Field Burning, Survey of Attitudes -Appointm~nt, Field Burning Ban Co-ordinator
Survey ~as conducted by students of ACTION Cou~unity Service High School, under the
direction of Gil James, school advisor. Copies of the survey were distributed to \
Council members and results reviewed by Tesse Baker, Linda Crooks, and Paul Lewnan,
~ students. The survey was taken by intervie~ing 321 citizens in the metropolitan area
~ to familiarize the students with researching techniques and resources and concerned
the opinions and attitudes of the general public with regard to community environment.
The students hoped the survey would be of help to the Council in making policy deci-
sions'in this area. They concluded from the survey that th~ environment should be the \
bverriding concern in considering field burning issues, and that the seed farme~s I
should finance alternatives to field burning, or that the cost be allocated on some ;
graduated scale. providing for payrnencoI'the major -portion by farmers with some help :
j
from the taxpayers.
In response to Councilman Murray, the students caJJ,.gg attention to the char~ on page 9 ii
of the survey indicating the areas covered-bytne survey. Councilwoman Campbell ex- :
pressed surprise that only $3~00 had been incurred in doctor bills as a result of the ;
field burning. Mr. James noted that it was a random sampling only. Mrs~ Beal inquired:
whether those interviewed were aware that only the perennial rye grass had to be burnedi
for more productive crops. The students replied that most were not, some even were not
--~ ~- ~ Comm
aware that only seed grass fields ~~r: burned. - 10;'9/74
!Coun~ilman Keller asked if th;-~~~pondents were willing to talk about pollution in File
: general or only about field burning. The students replied that the survey was limited
, to field burning because of time limit on interviews. When air pollution in general /.
_ iwas brought up, interviews took more time than the students had to work on the project.
J
Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for the presentation. He announced that former J
Councilman Fred Mohr had accepted the task of co-ordinating efforts of a number of
,individuals, both in and out of the city, toward preventing any legislative extension
:,r;>.! ~_~t!..!?a_n ?n field burning beyond January 1, 1975. ____._.__. __.
- ~ -0 ._______._____ _._________.~__-, _~.,._~.. _.._~....... . .._~_.._.~_. ......_... _"__~ _ ~ .__
cc.Intergovernmental Agreement~ Co-operative Science Museum Commission - Dr. Russell
Donelly of the physics department, University of Oregon, explained the purpose of
!proposed agreement between Lane County, University of Oregon, and Lane County Inter-
Imediate Education District. The agreement would provide for creation of a seven-member!
)commission (to be appointed by Lane County Commissioners and subject to the County's I
'1budget process) for.the purpose of establishing a new building for SWOMSI (Southwest I
Oregon Museum of Sc~ence and Industry), to include a planetarium, and to establish a '
;branch of th.e University's Museum of Natural History, location of both possibly to be /1
:in Alton Bak,er Park. Dr. Donelly said the agreement would avoid duplication of effort
'to establish planetariums as proposed by SWOMSI, IED, and Lane Community College and '
,would provide the opportunity for creating science museum facilities in the public
!interest. Lane County Commissioners gave their unanimous approval, he said, and IED
I .
iwould see that all schools in the area would have the opportunity for use through co-
lordi~ation of the facilities with school curriculum. He showed a sketch of proposal
_ Ifor buildings in Alton Baker Park and their location in reiationship to other facili-
(ties there.
Corom
I t C 'I ..,.. lor9/74
, n response 0 ounc~ man W~ll~ams ~nqu~ry about the city's role at this time, F'l
~Dr. Donelly said the report was for Council information only. 1. e
!Councilwoman Beal wondered if the location of the proposed museum facilities was near'
i the auditorium site. Dr. Donelly said both would be located in the "cultural" area
~of the Park (lying between Centennial Boulevard and parking area for Autzen Stadium).
iIncl~ded in that a~ea would be the auditorium, if ~onstructed, the museum c~mplex in- !
; clud~ng a planetar~um, SWOMSI, Museum of Natural HJ.story, and perhaps the P~oneer '
fMuseum (under the County's Fair Commission). !
" .~.- "_..,. . ~ "0 ~ '__ __._.._... __.______~ + " _.-:;--.......--.,,'''''+:_' _;'. ._'.___.._.. ... .,_,,'_'_ '_-.,- ..~..__~_...._ _. _ ~. _... _ __."__.__ _,' _ .
DD. Distribution, "The Intercom" - EWEB's Octob~r 4, 1974 newsletter containing up-to- lO/~~rr;;
date information with regard to EWEB's energy efforts. '1
F~ e
~, d
EE. (Traffic Signals, 6th and Madison - Councilman Murray wondered how manr/1:ntersectionEt '
lin the city were equipped with signal lights simiLar to those at 6th and Madison
Iwhich did not change to accommodate bicycle traffic. Councilwoman Campbell noted \ Corom
Ithat she had received similar complaints from motorcyclists who couldn't travel 10/16/74
~. !throUgh intersections unless an automobile tripped the signals. Al Wi11iams,traffi1 File
.., iengineer, said plans were in progress for installation of push buttons along the
rcurb for activation of signals by bicyclists. However, the intersection at 6th and
iMadison, he said was constructed by the State and did not includethat........type device..,
..-...-_..+-----~_., --.- \. -..,-..-...-....,.. ----,~._.-..., .---'.-. ...........,- :---. .~ ..~--~~..,_....--- ..~..........,._". _.-""'-"'...,..~,,~--,,- ------.-.-.-.--...........--.- ~.- ~........'...........~ --...- '~---'--.;' ~_.- -
--,- _.~--~...
FF. i Senior. Home Maintenance Project, Wests.ide ~eighb~rhood Quali ty ~roject - counc.t'1. woman \
iCampbell referred to letter from the Wests1.de Ne1.ghborhood Qual1.ty Project distributed \
iwith the committee agenda. reporting 01'1 their summer program involving young people I
[from _tE~.!!ei?}:I:...'?.r:pood in maintenance and improvement work for senior homeowners ilJ .:
~.- ._-,....... l-~--.- '_...__.-.~..-..."l'--._---.------.-~..-:;-;...-___._.... 'w_.__._.-.:~__:-.....'O'-".___~___4._~-__~_. ,____~._ ...__ . ._... __._ _.~~_,_~_.___~.;.......~_~~
· :31 f . I 0/2,9/74 - 13
.the neigiJiJorhood~ ..'She--hopedt.h'e'.'Westsia"eNeigl1borl1ood .council was aware of the. Ci ty
Council's appreciation for the program and that other neighborhood councils would ,
consideruhdertaking similar programs. fomm
10/2:3/74
I .
: C~unci~mim williams ,reported th.at . the. Joint Housing Committee was recommending con- f1.le .a.
t1.nuat1.on of the ma1.ntenance and 1.mprov~ment program for senior homeowners, the I ~
imoney to be budgeted from housing funds. ,
-. -'.,- - ~".'---.... .... ---.. -~-' - ~~",.~,.----"---'--'....-.-> .-.......- .... -""'. "--.-...-
GG.;Blue Sky Achievement Award - Councilman Keller announced receipt by the city of Eugene}
,of the Blue Sky Achievement Award. It was given in connection with Cleaner Air Week i
jJy the Oregon Lung Association and Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority on the basis ,iC~mm
i~f Eugene's adoption of an ordinance in 1969 banning backyard burning. lOA23/74
~..,'4 .! File
HH.IAssessment Panel, October/December - Councilmen McDonald and Keller were designated J
for assessment panel duty for the period October through December in anticipation of,' Comm
a panel hearing on November 4th. 10/23/74
File
II. ii1iscellaneous' !
Copies of letter from Oak Hills Homeowners Associaton were distributed to Council
, members wi th agenda supporting the 1975 cutoff date for field burning. _. Comm
; . -lOI2}/74
: \-, Copies of letter from Westside Neighborhood Quali ty Project were distributed to FiLe
Council members with agenda reporting on success of the Senior Home Maintenance Project.
.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve, affirm, and file as noted,Items A .iIt
through II. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting ..aye, motion carried. '~
,.,
III - Items Not Previously Heard (1145)
~.Options, Goodpasture Island Ferry Site - Parks Department
Map was displayec of the area on the west bank of the Willamette ~iver opposite Valley
River aJl(i a 1i ttle to tne north on which autnorization was requested for options -
Schneider - $25"10; Chapman - $4400. Manager explained that the options would allow
negotiations to proceed for State sharing in total purchase of the area under the
Willamette Greenway plan.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to authorize options as
presented. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present
voting aye.
B. Tieman Wreckers and Salvage License (Wilbert, Melvin, Wallace Tieman)
Requested for balance of 1974 and 1975. Letter was noted explaining storage use of
the proper~y~onJ-Y.
Gregory Foote, attorney representing the Tiemans, explained that the wrecker's (1186)
and salvage license was required by the State in the Tieman's operation of hauling ~.
old car bodies for salvage. ,.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to recommend approval of the
license as requested. Motion carried unanimously.
IV - Ordinances (1210)
Council Bill No. 657 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Jacobs
Drive from Concord Street to Fairfield Street (73-20), read the first time on September 23,
1974 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on September 30, 1974, was brought back
for Council consideration of Panel recommendations on October 7, 1974, read the second time,
and held for further me~ting between public works department personnel and property owner
protesting the assessment.
Public Works Director Don Allen explained that the problem had not been resolved. On city
attorney's advice he recommended passage of the ordinance and levy of the assessment as sub-
mitted. ne saia if "hhere was lega-l challenge it would be based on tIle contract between the
property owner and the city with regard to the project to determine whether the contract
was valid, not the assessment.
Mr. Hershner moved~~seconded by Mrs. Campbell that. the!bill be approved and .
given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, ~.
the bill was declared passed and numbered 17190. .
Council Bi'll No. 663 - fun.ending Section 8.700(e) City Code Te: Maximum"'surface area 'of (1235)
billboards was read tlle fi'rst time by'council'.bill'numberand title' only, there being no
councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Annabel Ki tzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, representing the LeC\.gue cif Women Voters; reiter-', '~'.
ated the League's position stated in letter of October 16 protesting the amendment. It was
~ 12. 10/29/74 - 14
considered an undesirable precedent, she said and contrary to provisions of the Code itself
which specifically prohibited use of national standards as a basis for variances. She.,also
reiterated testimony presented to the Planning Commission urging denial of the amendment on
- the basis that the Sign Code as adopted after many hearings was a compromise and any further
amendment would constitute erosion of strong city policy.
Councilwoman. Campbell said she was shocked when the Council voted in favor of making an ex-
ception to the Sign Code. Sheask~d that the Council take the League testimony serious.1Y
because of the League's "crusade" to gain adoption of the Sign Code. She felt a group couldn't
be ignored when it was willing to work for the betterment of the community.
Councilman Murray was in favor of the amendment, although he said he did take the League posi-
tion seriously. However, he felt the proposed amendment would be a very minor change and that
the Council in enacting it would not be retreating from its policy with regard to enforcement
of the Sign Code. Councilman W?od shared that opinion. ,_
(1324 ) Counci~woman Beal noted her previous vote in favor of the amendment. However, she said she
would vote against it.at this time because it seemed to her the League position made sense.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read. the second time
by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact'i.
ment be considered at this time. .L.ackiI!g unanimous consent -, Cou.!.!cil members ,___ .
Hershner~. McDonalci,. Keller ,Murray, ilnd Wood voting aye; Council members Beal and
Campbell voting n(j~ and <Councilman Williams abstaining - the bill was held over for
- second reading.
Council Bill No. 664 - Amending Section 9.724(3) (b)4 City Code re: Housing dispersal
based on Policy Plan was submitted and read the first tinile by council bill number and title
, only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Al Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street, thought there should be some way of subsidizing land costs
so that low-cost housing could truly be dispersed. He was concerned about the amount of
existing low-cost housing in his nelghborhood and wondered if more would be added under the
housing dispersal policy. He suggested that with adoption of the plan work could proceed
on amending it to ensure dispersal into all neighborhoods. Councilman Williams recogniz~d
the validity of Mr. Tussing's concerns. He reported that the Joint Housing Committee had
decided that a substantial portion of revenue sharing funds would be reserved for the specific
purpose of dispersing low-cost housing everywhere.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by
J 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. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared
I
passed and numbered 17191.:
Council Bill No. 665 - Calling hearing December 9, 1974 re: Vacation of alleys and ease-
ments between 6th and 7th, Oak and Pearl, and easements between 7th and 8th, Oak and Pearl
(Lane County) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and.that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded: by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All counciLmembers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17192.
Council Bi'll No. 666 - Levying 1974-75 tax for Downtown Development District ($113,000)
was read the first time by council bill number and title only, there being' no council member
present requesting that it be read in full.
e Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 17193.
31'3 10/29/74 - 15
- - "="'- ~ -- . ----...-
Council Bill No. 667 - Adding Sections 3.750, 3.755, 3.760~ 3.765 to City Code and re-
pealing Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Ordinance 16905 re: Downtown Development District ad valorem
tax was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present re-
questing that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council -
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only:
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17194.
Council Bill No. 668 - Construction of storm sewer on Hilyard Street from 35th Avenue to
36th ~venue was read by council bill number 'and title only, there being no council member pre-
sent requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that .enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was.read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17195. -
\
Council Bill No. 669 - Adopting plans and specifications for construction of storm sewer
on Hilyard Street Trom 35th Avenue to 36th Avenue was read by council bill number and title
only, there being no council member~present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill
number only.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 17196.
Council Bill No. 670 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer~in area between a line 400
feet north of 1-105 and a line 850 feet south of Centennial Boulevard (extended) from east
line of 1st Addition to Ayres Subdivision to 1200 feet west of Fairway Loop (extended )(73-06)
was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting
that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner Inoved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for '-
hearing on November 4, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation
on November 12, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 671 - 'Levying assessments for paving, sidewalks, sanitary and storm
sewers on Echo Hollow Road from Royal Avenue to Barger Drive (73-12) was read by council bill
number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 4, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation
on November 12, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill No. 672 - Levying assessments for paving, san~tary and storm sewers, and
bridge on Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue; sanitary sewer within area betw7en
160 feet west and 160 feet east of Oak Patch Road from 11th Avenue to 18th Avenue; paving and
storm sewer on 15th Avenue from Oak Patch Road to 370 feet west (73-31 and 73-33) was read by
council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it
be read in full.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for
hearing on November 4, 1974 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommendation e'
on November 12, 1974. Motion carried unanimously.
V. - Resolutions
Resolution No. 2339 - Authorizing acceptance of dedication for public right-of-way, 3rd
Avenue to 4th Avenue between Pearl Street and Lincoln Street (Southern Pacific) was read by
number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote.
All council members voting aye, motion carried.
'374
/
Resolution No. 2340 - Authorizing quitclaim deed vacating easement south of 1-105 west
of Emery Road north of Springfield (EWEB) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the :resolution. Motion carried, all
- council members presenLvoting .ayec.oiLrollcall vote.
Resolution No. 2341 - Adopting Housing Dispersal Policy Plan was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs., Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members presentvoting~ .aye :on._rollcall vote.
- . Resolution No. 2342 - Authorizing sewer easement to City across portion of Laurelwood Golf
Course property was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members present voting 1ye on rollcall vote.
I
(1386) Resolution No. 2343 - Setting garbage collection rate schedule,-subject to staff analysis
within six months, was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried on roll-
call vote, Council members Williams, Hershner, Beal, Campbell , and Wood voting aye; Council
members McDonald, Keller', and Murray voting no.
') Resolution No. 2344 - Superseding Resolution No. 2140 re: Authorizing representation
- before State Legislature on behalf of city of Eugene was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members present voting aye on rollcall vote.
./ Resolution No. 2345 - Calling hearing November 12, 1974 re: Mobile Home for temporary
office at Bethel-Danebo Sanitary Landfill (Lane County) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members present voting aye on rollcall vote.
Resolution No. 2346 - Calling hearing November 12, 1974 re: Abatement at 362/364 East 13th
Avenue (Joint Ventures, Inc.) was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members present voting aye on rollcall vote.
Resolution No. 2347 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period October 7
through October 29, 1974 was read by number and title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
- councilmembers present voting aye on rollcall vote.
Resolution No. 2348 - Authorizing agreement with State Highway Department re: Landscaping
40-foot strip along north side of 1st Avenue (Washington/Jefferson Park) was read by number and
title.
Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to adopt the resolution. Motion carried, all
council members present voting aye on rollcall vote.
r-..
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned.
;;;('~
/ ~h McKinley
City Manager
.'
.
~15