HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/1989 Meeting
e
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber--City Hall
February 13, 1989
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Robert Bennett (until 9:30
p.m.), Shawn Boles, Debra Ehrman (until 9:30 p.m.),
Bobby Green, Freeman Holmer.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Emily Schue.
e
The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council was called to order by His
Honor Mayor Jeff Miller.
I. THE SWEARING-IN OF CITY COUNCILOR FROM WARD SIX
This item was delayed until the arrival of Mr. Green's family.
e
II. RECOGNITION OF SERVICE
Mayor Miller presented a plaque to be hung in the Council Chamber recognlzlng
the service of former Mayor Brian Obie. Mr. Obie acknowledged the honor and
said he hoped earlier mayors and councils would be added to the display.
III. PUBLIC FORUM
e Mayor Miller welcomed those attending the meeting and said the council has a
mandatory adjournment time of 10:30 p.m., unless extended by majority vote of
the council. Mayor Miller said the public forum is an opportunity for people
to express opinions and provide information to the council about issues that
are not scheduled for council consideration. He said the council will not
respond immediately to the concerns expressed in the public forum.
Randy Prince, P.O. Box 927, referred to recent snowy weather and expressed
concern about expanding the use of automobiles on city streets.
Mayor Miller recognized members of a University of Oregon journalism class in
the audience.
Mayor Miller announced that the Riverfront Research Park had received the
Hearings Official's approval earlier in the day.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 1
e
e
e
e
e
1.
THE SWEARING-IN OF CITY COUNCILOR FROM WARD 6, continued
City Recorder Warren Wong administered the oath of office to Bobby Green as
City Councilor representing Ward 6. Mr. Green introduced his family.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AND
RESOURCE RECOVERY; AMENDING THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AND PROVIDING
CURRENT.LICENSE REVOCATION DATE
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Greta Utecht, Planning,
Development, and Building Department staff, reported that the proposed
ordinance represents a refinement to the current regulatory system for the
collection of solid waste and recyclables. The regulations would limit the
number of licenses to the number currently issued, establish a minimum/
maximum rate range to provide industry stability and protect the consumer,
require all solid waste collectors to provide curbside recycling service,
establish a continuing five-year license term, create a fee structure that
will generate approximately $85,000 annually, and change the name of the
Refuse and Recycling Board to the Solid Waste and Recycling Board and
increase its membership from three to five.
Ms. Utecht reported that the Refuse and Recycling Board and the waste-hauling
industry worked together to develop the proposed regulations and the board
recommends passage of the ordinance.
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing.
Randy Prince supported increasing fees for garbage disposal and he encouraged
the imposition of a selective tax on wasteful products at their source.
Mr. Prince cited the 'Oregon bottle bill as an effective method of encouraging
recycling.
Darrell Lyons, 4750 West Hillside Drive, spoke as an industry representative
in support of the ordinance which he considered to be in the best interests
of the public. Mr. Lyons pointed out the importance of assuring fair rates.
He thought it appropriate for the industry rather than the City to assume
responsibility for recycling.
Jason A. Lovewell, P.O. Box 2461, spoke as owner of Countryside Disposal
which serves the outlying area. Mr. Lovewell reported that not all haulers
support the proposed ordinance and he encouraged the council to delay its
adoption to allow further consideration of the licensing structure and
recycling issues.
There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Utecht pointed out that the ordinance does not raise collection rates or
fees and she said the County regulates the transfer site and landfill.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 2
~ Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gleason reported that
regulation within the urban growth boundary is being discussed with County
staff .
While he agreed with parts of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Holmer objected to
delegating authority to set rates and determine who shall be licensed to the
City Manager. Mr. Holmer called attention to the declaration of public
policy in the ordinance and questioned the lack of definition provided for
the terms IIjust and reasonable.1I He referred to item 1. (4)(d) in the
Administrative Rules which specified that reasonableness of the proposed rate
schedule would be considered in light of lIa minimum rate sufficient to
provide a ten percent rate of return above the average cost of all licenses
providing the collection service." Mr. Holmer said that kind of provision
should be part of the ordinance because it establishes City policy.
e
Ms. Utecht responded that the criteria referred to by Mr. Holmer was listed
on page 12 of the ordinance and was repeated in the administrative rules for
the benefit of potential licensees or applicants. Mr. Holmer suggested that
the criteria were too numerous.
Mr. Bennett questioned the rationale for specifying that a ten-percent rate
of return is reasonable and preferred leaving reasonable rate undefined.
Mr. Boles expressed concern regarding the rate structure and what he
considered ambigUity about the review of that structure. Mr. Boles was
e emphatic that rates should be structured to encourage recycling.
Mr. Holmer referred to Section 3.247 (3) (page 8) of the ordinance regarding
the issuance of licenses and questioned the authority of the City Manager to
deny additional limited licenses recommended by an appointed board.
Ms. Utecht explained that an applicant's inability to meet insurance
requirements, sign a hold-harmless agreement, or pay licensing fees may not
be known until after the board's review of the application.
e Mr. Holmer suggested amending this section of the ordinance to identify those
reasons for the manager's action. Mr. Sercombe said the intent of the
section in question was that the criteria that would govern the manager's
decision would be the same criteria listed in subsection two of that section
to guide the decision making of the administrative board.
Answering Ms. Ehrman's inquiry, Ms. Utecht said appeals are covered in
Chapter Three with the decision of the Hearings Official being final.
Ms. Ehrman expressed appreciation for the industry's participation in
developing the ordinance. Ms. Bascom reminded the council of its earlier
decision to avoid a franchise system or provision of solid waste disposal as
a municipal service.
Referring to 3.265 (3), Mr. Holmer questioned granting a five-year license
term to those licensees for whom the City Manager has elected not to extend
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 3
~ their licenses. Ms. Utecht responded that five years are provided to allow
current licensees to amortize their investments if the City decides to move
to a franchise or municipal service delivery system. She said this would
help provide industry stability and is an industry standard.
Mr. Green asked about the complexity of the plastic recycling process.
Mr. Lyons explained that the process is relatively new and probably will be
time-consuming. He hoped for a positive public response and said more
information wo~ld be available soon.
e
CB 4119--An ordinance relating to solid waste management and
resource recovery; establishing licensing procedures
for collecting, transporting, and conveying solid
waste and recyclable materials upon the streets
within the city; amending Sections 2.013, 2.235,
2.240, 3.005, 3.245, 3.250, 3.260, 3.265, 3.270,
3,275, 3.292, and 3.995 of the Eugene Code, 1971;
adding Sections 3.247, 3.272, and 3.284 to that code;
repealing Sections 3.255 and 3.280 of that code;
providing the revocation date of current licenses;
repealing Ordinance No. 19479; and declaring an
emergency.
e
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill, with
II .. a ten percent rate of return . . . II inSect ion 3.275
(2) (e) changed to II . . . a reasonable rate of return,1I with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at
this time.
e
Mr. Holmer objected to the word IIreasonable" and said he continued to have
reservations about not specifying a rate of return. He opposed delegating
such broad power to the manager with no qualification by the council.
Mr. Holmer said he would accept leaving reference to a ten percent rate in
the section of the ordinance in question, and he favored including a
description of the set of circumstances in which denial of a license, despite
the recommendation of the appointed board, would be allowed.
Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
Council Bill 4119 was read the second time by council bill number and title
only.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, except Councilor Holmer who
voted nay, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance
No. 19603).
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 4
e
e
e
V. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE CONCERNING MULTIPLE-UNIT RENTAL PROPERTY
TAX EXEMPTION
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic.
Councilor Bennett declared a potential conflict of interest on the issue
because of his fiduciary interest in an undeveloped parcel within the
geographical area affected by the proposed ordinance. Before removing
himself from the discussion, Mr. Bennett referred to a low-income housing fee
on a project that was not designated low income initially. He called
attention to the standards and guidelines for processing applications in
Exhibit "A" and wondered if the intent was for the fee to exceed what would
be paid in full property tax.
Richie Weinman, Planning, Development, and Building Department staff,
reported that the property tax exemption was enabled under State legislation
and originally was intended to provide incentives for construction of
multiple-family housing in core areas. The program was available in Eugene
previously, but was sunsetted in 1985. The program provides a ten-year
property tax exemption only for new improvements with the land and any
existing improvements continuing to receive property taxation. Mr. Weinman
said the proposed ordinance only addresses buildings having five or more
units.
The Downtown Commission recommended re-instatement of the program to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Weinman reported that the Planning Commission had
expressed concern that the ordinance could encourage demQlition of historic
or potentially historic properties. The standards and guidelines attempt to
address that concern by providing some protection for historic properties.
There was consensus among Planning Commissioners that low-income housing
provides a public benefit as required by State legislation. If fewer than 50
percent of a project's units are low-income housing, the Planning Commission
recommends that a fee be collected, amounting to ten percent of what taxes
would otherwise be in years three through ten, and that money should be
dedicated to low-income housing. Staff's review of that recommendation led
to the conclusion that a ten percent fee could be contrary to State law.
Staff proposed, instead, an annual charge equal to $100 for each studio
dwelling unit, $110 for each one-bedroom unit, $125 for each two-bedroom
unit, and $135 for each other dwelling unit located on the property subject
to the charge. Mr. Weinman pointed out that these charges had been
misprinted in the ordinance submitted to the council, an error observed
earlier by Mr. Bennett.
Regarding boundary issues, Mr. Weinman said that the Planning and Downtown
commissions favored expanding the boundary to provide incentive for more
housing while staying within the State statutes that require core area
housing. Mr. Weinman said the boundary shown on the map distributed to
council should include an area between 18th and 19th avenues west of High
Street that appeared to be excluded.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 5
~ Mr. Weinman pointed out that the East Skinner Butte Historic area was
exempted at the recommendation of residents and the Historic Review Board.
Any projects that are built must meet a "but for" test and a pro-forma must
be submitted to the City for analysis.
Referring to a letter in councilors' packets from Jerry Knight, Mr. Weinman
explained that Mr. Knight had requested inclusion of his property (shown in
red on the map being reviewed and located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Jefferson Street and 11th Avenue). He added that the area
surrounding Mr. Knight's property (shown in yellow on the map and located
between Washington and Jefferson streets and 11th and 7th avenues), is zoned
R-3, and could be included.
Mr. Weinman said because of its relationship to the taxing district, School
District 4J's approval is required before the ordinance can take effect. He
anticipated official approval February 15. Mr. Weinman said the ordinance
will have no significant tax rate impact.
Ms. Ehrman commented that the yellow area on the map is one that is
considered a buffer by the Westside neighborhood and she suggested that its
inclusion should be reviewed by that neighborhood.
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing.
e
Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, described himself as a supporter of the
re-enactment of this ordinance, but asked the council to consider several
changes. Mr. Slocum viewed the purpose of the State legislation as being to
encourage housing in core areas and he saw a need for middle-income housing
in Eugene. He opposed the ordinance being linked to low-cost housing and
said that if housing in the $500 to $700 per month range were provided in the
downtown area, lower cost units now occupied by those who can afford more
costly housing would become available for low-income residents.
Mr. Slocum requested that the low-income housing fee be more clearly defined
if the council proceeds with its implementation. Mr. Slocum said that the
area south of the Amazon and west of Willamette Street is designated as
low-density housing in the Metro Plan and he said a plan amendment would be
necessary for it to be used for multi-family housing. Finally, Mr. Slocum
suggested that adequate protection is provided for historic structures and
the East Butte Historic area should be included because it has vacant lots
suitable for development under this program.
Randy Prince, P.O. Box 927, encouraged the council to review its housing
policies affecting property taxes. He suggested establishing different
property tax rate structures for land and improvements, shifting the balance
of property taxes to land value, modifying parking requirements, restricting
housing zoning, dropping the "but for" provision of the proposal, and
limiting the exemption to the value of improvements with the land value
assessment not being affected.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 6
e
e
e
John Vanlandingham, 1172 West 5th Avenue, identified himself as a proponent
of the low-income housing fee and member of the Planning Commission. He said
it was not the intent of the Planning Commission to limit the exemption to
low-income housing, but said the public benefit required by the State
legislation would be met by projects providing low-income housing.
Mr. Vanlandingham said the return of the ten percent fee could be crucial in
future low-income housing projects.
Mr. Slocum commented that he still considered the ordinance ambiguous in not
specifying a percentage of units on which the fee would be charged.
There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public
hearing.
Pat Decker, Planning, Development, and Building Department staff, described
the intent of the ordinance as being to provide an opportunity for housing
that would not otherwise occur. Staff assumes that much of that housing will
not be low-income housing and in the event that a project dedicates 50
percent or more of its units to low-income housing, no fee will be charged.
Ms. Decker commented that the area west of Willamette Street and south of the
Amazon channel referred to by Mr. Slocum is currently zoned R-2, which is a
multi-family housing district and is so designated in the Jefferson-Far West
Neighborhood Plan. In questions of consistency between that plan and the
Metro Plan, Ms. Decker said the Metro Plan would prevail.
Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question about whether the council has to finalize
the boundary with its action on the ordinance, Ms. Decker said the area
indicated in yellow was a response to correspondence received from the
property owner. She pointed out that the area between Washington and
Jefferson streets is zoned R-3, multi-family housing, while most of the area
west of Jefferson is zoned for the slightly less intense R-2 district.
Ms. Decker said the issue seems to be one of existing quality of structures
in the area which the ordinance attempts to balance when considering approval
of a project. She added that the council could approve a boundary not
including the yellow area, and at some future point, proposals for
modification of the boundaries could be brought back to the council (and
would also require approval by the school district).
Answering Mr. Boles's question, Mr. Weinman said approval of individual
projects will rest with the council. Mr. Weinman reported that neighborhood
input was sought regarding the inclusion of the Lincoln School property, and
the Planning Commission's decision to include that property was with the
knowledge that the council will eventually determine the use of the property.
He added that there were diverse opinions about including that site as one
for potential housing.
Mr. Boles asked whether the ten percent annual fee would provide a
significant return. Mr. Weinman replied that during the first two years,
there was no recommendation for a fee to be collected. If the fee were too
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 7
e
e
e
large it would not serve to encourage new housing, but a small fee would
provide a meaningful return if directed to the appropriate purposes in the
future.
Ms. Bascom suggested that further analysis of the East Butte area may be
appropriate before the council decides whether it should be excluded.
Ms. Decker responded that the Planning Commission looked at the area in
detail and received testimony from the Historic Review Board before making
its recommendation for exclusion. She observed that the small number of
presently vacant sites have the potential to receive historic structures
moved from other areas.
Ms. Bascom described the ordinance as an attempt to get more housing built
and expressed a concern that too many restrictions could defeat that attempt.
She recommended making the ten percent fee more understandable and stressing
that the ordinance is intended to encourage more housing and is not
restricted to low-income housing only.
Mr. Holmer called attention to Section 2.9451s reference to prOV1Slons of a
resolution adopted in 1977 and of ORS 307.600 to 307.690 and asked where
those provisions appeared in materials provided to councilors. Mr. Sercombe
responded that the ORS statutes do not appear in materials provided to
council but are replicated in the standards and guidelines attached to the
ordinance.
Mr. Holmer asked whether the attached standards and guidelines for processing
applications (Exhibit IIA") signalled a new administrative program or was a
standard procedure. Ms. Decker described the attachment as an attempt to
provide the City Manager with directions based on the council1s action.
Mr. Sercombe explained that the State statute requires the council to allow
or disallow, in individual cases, an exemption on the basis of three
criteria: 1) whether there are public benefits by reason of the construction
of the project; 2) whether the project otherwise complies with local laws and
building code; and 3) whether the project complies with standards,
guidelines, and policies. The resolution adopts those standards and
guidelines which by State law are required to be one of the criterion to be
considered. That adoption is in resolution format because it is a council
action.
Ms. Ehrman requested that the council cons;'der expanding the boundary of the
affected area to include the property indicated in yellow on the map.
Mr. Boles expressed concern that the area delineated in yellow was not
recommended for inclusion by the Planning Commission, nor had the
neighborhood had an opportunity to comment on its inclusion, so he preferred
not including it at this time.
Mr. Gleason explained that future boundary changes would require a public
hearing by the council and by the school board, and he noted that interest in
a project in that area has been indicated.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 8
e
CB 4120--An ordinance concerning the City's limited assessment
program and multiple-unit rental housing program;
amending Sections 2.945-2.947 of the Eugene Code,
1971; repealing Section 2.940 of that code; and
declaring an emergency.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill,
including the boundaries indicated in yellow and green on
.councilors' maps, with unanimous consent of the council, be
read the second time by council bill number only, and that
enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the
motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
Council Bill 4120 was read the second time by council bill number and title
only.
Mr. Holmer maintained that Exhibit "A" should have been included in the
ordinance itself.
Mr. Boles continued to be concerned by what he considered an arbitrary
extension of the boundaries without adequate review, but stated that he would
support the ordinance.
e
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Holmer who voted
against, the bill was declared passed (and become Ordinance
No. 19594).
Res. No. 4109--A resolution adopting amended standards and
guidelines for processing applications for
multiple-unit rental housing local property tax
exemption; and repealing prior resolutions.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to adopt the
resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried, 5:1, with
Councilor Holmer voting against.
VI. PUBLIC HEARING: LOW-INCOME HOUSING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Mr. Weinman said this
ordinance provides tax exemptions to tax-exempt corporations which provide
housing for very low-income persons. To be eligible for the exemption, a
corporation must own or have a leasehold interest in the property, provide
housing to very low-income persons, and be certified by the Internal Revenue
Service as a 501 (c) (3) or (4). Mr. Weinman pointed out that most
organizations providing low-income housing already receive a tax exemption
based on other criteria; however, certain circumstances and potential changes
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 9
~ in the method of assessment make this program the only exemption available to
some agencies. Specific projects that will benefit from this exemption
include the Women space transitional housing facility and the Chicano Affairs
Center emergency shelter facility.
Mayor Miller opened the public hearing.
Tom Slocum, 1950 Graham Drive, urged caution in the number of property tax
exemptions allQwed and supported limiting the ordinance to include new
housing only.
There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Miller closed the public
hearing.
Ms. Bascom inquired about the City of Portland's use of the exemption.
Mr. Weinman said REACH provides a variety of low-income housing services.
CB 4121--An ordinance establishing a program for tax exemption
of low-income housing provided by tax exempt
corporations; and adding Sections 2.910, 2.912,
2.914, 2.916, 2.918, 2.920, and 2.922 to the Eugene
Code, 1971.
e
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
7:0.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bill be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed
(and become Ordinance No. 19595).
VII. LAURELWOOD GOLF COURSE EXPANSION
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Ernie Drapela, Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services Department staff, reported that only one
proposal was submitted in response to the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the
expansion of the golf course at Laurelwood to 18 holes. Because the City's
Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit expired in October 1988, any acceptance
of an expansion proposal would require re-application. Mr. Drapela said the
advisability and feasibility of expansion has been thoroughly analyzed and
staff's review of the submitted proposal led to the recommendation that the
council not authorize the expansion.
Mr. Drapela commended Gary DuTell for his operation of the nine hole course,
but said Mr. DuTell's management of that facility cannot be used as a
standard to approve the proposal. Mr. Drapela maintained that staff's
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 10
e
recommendation should not be interpreted as being "anti-golf," but was a
result of staff's intent to reach the best solution for golfers, operators,
neighbors, and the City.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the Eugene City
Council not order re-application of the Planned Unit
Development permit for the expansion of Laurelwood Golf Course
to 18 holes.
Mr. Rutan told of his past role on the Joint Parks Committee and suggested
that our tradition of community involvement requires such lengthy review and
deliberation that projects can be lost along the way. Mr. Rutan felt the
decision being made is not one of whether to move ahead with the expansion of
Laurelwood Golf Course but whether to begin the PUD process again. Calling
the issue a complicated one involving trees, the ridgeline, homes, and
fairway locations, Mr. Rutan suggested that it may be advisable not to pursue
expansion at this time.
Ms. Ehrman considered the lack
project's lack of feasibility.
of the facility, she concurred
pursuit of expansion.
of response to the RFP indicative of the
While she commended Mr. DuTell's management
with Mr. Rutan's suggestion to discontinue the
Ms. Bascom said she was a golfer and had encouraged pursuit of expansion, but
the community dissension caused by the process led to her agreement with the
~ suggestion to end the attempt.
Mr. Holmer considered the resolution before the council unacceptable and
recommended incorporating language found in the staff memorandum which says
that "staff does not feel confident that it is in the best interests of the
City to pursue expansion of the Laurelwood Golf Course to 18 holes."
Mr. Rutan commented that a different proposal could be submitted or
circumstances could arise that would make reconsideration of expansion
advisable, so he did not support Mr. Holmer1s proposed addition of more
definitive language.
Ms. Bascom chose not to amend her original motion because she did not want to
eliminate any possibility of expansion in the future.
Mr. Bennett concurred with the comments of councilors Bascom and Rutan and
encouraged the council to consider the present form of the motion.
Mr. Boles expressed support for Mr. Holmer's suggestion.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0.
Councilors Bennett and Ehrman left the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 11
~ VIII. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL/ORDINANCES LEVYING
ASSESSMENTS FOR CONTRACTS 88-01, 88-04, 88-06, 88-14, 88-19, AND 88-20
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic and reported that no one
attended or submitted written testimony at the hearings on January 25 and 30,
1989.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to approve the
,Hearings Official's findings and recommendations of January
12, 1989 (Contracts 88-04, 88-06, and 88-19) and January 30,
1989 (Contracts 88-01, 88-14, and 88-20). Roll call vote; the
motion carried unanimously, 5:0.
CB 4122--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers
in a portion of Airport road, beginning approximately
500 feet west of Highway 99 and proceeding west to
the existing sanitary sewer (Contract 88-01).
e
CB 4123--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary
and storm sewers to serve Lakeridge located on
Elkhorn Drive extending west to Gilham Road, 765 feet
and then extending 345 feet south and 115 north of
Elkhorn Drive on Metolius Drive, Wolf Meadows Lane
and Powder River Drive (Contract 88-04).
CB 4124--An ordinance levying assessments for paving on 27th
Avenue from University to Elinor Street (Contract
88-06).
CB 4125--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer east
of Spyglass Drive from Spyglass Court to 150 feet
north (Contract 88-14).
CB 4126--An ordinance levying assessments for alley paving
from 15th Avenue between Oak Street and Pearl Street
north one-half block and from Pearl Street between
14th Avenue and 15th Avenue west one-half block
(Contract 88-19).
CB 4127--An ordinance levying assessments for alley paving
between 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue from Hayes Street
to Garfield Street (Contract 88-20).
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bills, with
unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by
council bill numbers only, and that enactment be considered at
this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
5:0.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 12
4It Council Bills 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126, and 4127 were read the second
time by bill numbers and titles only.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the bills be
approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all
councilors present voting aye, the bills were declared passed
(and became Ordinances Nos. 19596, 19597, 19598, 19599, 19600,
19601).
IX. RESOLUTION REGARDING DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TAX ELECTION
Res. No. 4110--A resolution of the City of Eugene, Lane
County, Oregon, calling a Special Election on
March 28, 1989, to submit to the voters of the
city a measure authorizing $190,500 tax on the
ownership of real property in the Downtown
Development District.
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Warren Wong, Finance
Division, reported that the election was scheduled for March because by
combining it with another City item, election costs could be reduced.
e
Mayor Miller inquired whether the appearance of this ballot measure would
have an impact on the library issue being referred to voters in the same
election. He expressed concern that this measure would be interpreted as a
tax to fund the library. He suggested investigating adding the tax election
to the ballot in May (school district budget election).
Mr. Wong said a decision is required by February 15 in order to meet the
filing deadline for a March election.
Councilors agreed to postpone action on the item until their February 15
meeting.
X. RESOLUTION ADOPTING FY88 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. Mr. Wong reported that the
audit of the City of Eugene's financial records for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1988, disclosed no deficiencies in the financial records of the City
and no Management Letter was issued by the auditors. In Mr. Wong's
professional experience, this result was an accomplishment for which he
complimented the council.
Mr. Rutan described the results of the audit as a credit to the work of Mr.
Wong and his administration of the Finance Division. Mayor Miller suggested
that the financial records would add to the City's ability to upgrade its
bond rating.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 13
.
Res. No. 4111--A resolution adopting the Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30t 1988.
Ms. Bascom movedt seconded by Mr. Rutan, to adopt the
resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
5:0.
Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a
meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency.
XI. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE URBAN RENEWAL
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EUGENE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1988
Res. No. 936--A resolution adopting the Financial Statements
of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of
Eugene for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1988.
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to adopt the
resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously,
5:0.
Mayor Miller adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency and
~ reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council.
XII. APPOINTMENTS: MAYOR'S NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE SISTER CITY
COMMISSION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mayor Miller informed the council of his appointment of Greg Evans to the
Sister City Commission for a term ending December 31, 1990 (at large
position, #10); and of Lew Belcher to the Public Safety Advisory Committee,
to complete the unexpired term of Mark Davis ending December 31, 1989
(business representative position, #04).
XIII. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 25t SEPTEMBER 12, SEPTEMBER 26, OCTOBER
10, DINNER/WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 28, NOVEMBER 30, DECEMBER 14, 1988,
AND JANUARY 11, 1989
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to approve the City
Council minutes of May 25, September 12, September 26, October
10, Dinner/Work Session November 28, November 30, December 14,
1988. The motion passed, 3:0:2, with councilors Boles and
Green abstaining because they had not been present at the
meetings.
.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 14
e
e
-
Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to approve the City
Council minutes of January 11, 1989. The motion passed,
4:0:1, with Councilor Green abstaining because he was not
present at the meeting.
The meeting adjourned to February 15, 1989, at 9:47 p.m.
~:!pe~~.Jb~j~.
>r~ ,....~/~~ ;::~ 7~/
_~' ,v ~
M"cheal leas ,
City Manager
(Recorded by Mary Feldman)
mncc 021389-730
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
February 13, 1989
Page 15