Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1982 Meeting ~ . - e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 22, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. VIEWING OF SLIDE SHOW ENTITLED "DOWNTOWN GONE UPTOWN" The council viewed a slide show on the history of the downtown area, prepared by the staff of the Department of Housing and Community Conservation. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Broadway-10th Avenue Diverter System (memo, map, and background information distributed) Micheal Gleason, City Manager, introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer. Mr. Hanks said that in 1975, the council had developed criteria for evaluating requests for traffic diverters. He said that these criteria centered on finding that a proposed diverter or diverter system would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing the amount of through traffic in an area, thereby significantly improving the living environment for residents. He referred to traffic counts that had been made in the area of the Broadway-10th Avenue Diverter System and noted that the diverters had resulted in reduced traffic on Van Buren, Broadway, and 10th Avenue. He said that it is difficult to evaluate the effect of the diverters on the living environment. Mr. Hanks said that staff had polled neighbors in the area and had held a staff hearing, and the results of this poll showed 72 people opposed to retaining the diverters and 48 in favor. He added that 23 letters had been received on the subject, with 18 opposed and 5 in favor of retaining the diverters. He said that MaryLee Cook of 1573 Tyler had phoned and asked that her opposition to the diverters be read into the record. Mr. Hanks summarized the reasons that had been presented at the staff hearing for opposition to the diverters: 1) they create confusion for motorists; 2) they make it difficult for residents of the area to get downtown; 3) they make it difficult for residents to give directions on reaching their homes; 4) there is no need for them; 5) they are ugly; 6) installation of permanent diverters would be a waste of money; 7) they provide a dangerously short turning radius for vehicles; and 8) they are harmful to the well-being of businesses in the area. He said that the reasons for support of the diverters were: 1) they MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 1 February 22, 1982 e e e improve the neighborhood environment; 2) they create a safer, more pleasant atmosphere; and 3) they reduce traffic noise. Mr. Hanks said staff had found that the diverters would not impede pedestrian or bicycle circulation. He said that referrals on this issue had been made to a number of City departments and public agencies and discussed the responses to these referrals. The Fire Department said that it had no problem with the diverters and that response time was not affected. The Police Department opposed the diverters as having the potential for causing delay in response time and making pursuit of motorcyclists more difficult. The Post Office did not oppose the diverters. School District 4-J did not respond to the referral. The Parks & Recreation Department was not opposed to the diverters. The Public Works Maintenance Division opposed the diverters due to difficulties with street cleaning and maintenance. Lane Transit District did not oppose the diverters but indicated that their presence would, to some extent, limit scheduling options. Mr. Hanks said that staff recommended that the existing diverters be removed and that no further testing of diverters be done in this neighborhood. He noted that this is the second time that diverters have been tested in this area and that the results of the first test had been similar. He said that the staff recommendation is based on the testimony of residents of the area and the response of the Police and Public Works departments. Ms. Wooten asked if the presence of the temporary diverters had in fact increased the response time of the Police Department in the area. Mr. Hanks responded that the Police Department had only been contacted after the diverters were installed, so figures were not available for response time with and without the diverters. Ms. Wooten asked for an estimate of the increased maintenance costs after installation of permanent diverters. Mr. Hanks responded that he did not have an estimate, but that the presence of the permanent diverters would make it difficult for mechanical sweepers to work in the area. Therefore, sweeping would have to be done by hand. Ms. Wooten asked how permanent diverters would differ from the existing ones. Mr. Hanks responded that the permanent diverters would be landscaped. Public hearing was opened. The following people testified in favor of retaining the diverters: H. Thomas Andersen, 790 West Broadway, said that he has lived in the area since 1973. He noted that he is the chairperson of the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project (WNQP), but that he was speaking as an individual since the neighborhood group had agreed not to take a stand regarding the diverters. He introduced several other speakers. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison Street, said that he has lived in the Westside area since 1966. He gave some background information on the diverters. He said that in 1976, the neighborhood had used Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP) funds to conduct surveys of automobile traffic management and control, including MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 2 e e e methods of keeping through traffic on the designated arterial streets in the area. He said that the neighborhood group had attempted to distribute question- naires to all the houses in the area. He indicated that of 966 questionnaires delivered, 222 had been returned, for a response rate of 23 percent. He said that 64 percent of those who responded had said that they favored efforts to control traffic. Mr. Stafford said that the only form of traffic management that the Public Works Department seemed to believe in was traffic diverters. He urged the council to authorize installation of permanent diverters on 10th Avenue. Kate Rogers Gessert, 1230 West Broadway, said that a group of concerned neighbors had recently conducted a house-to-house survey in the area affected by the diverters. She said that of 236 households contacted, 137 favored retention of the diverters; 65 were opposed; 22 were undecided; and 12 households were vacant. She submitted a petition in favor of the diverters, signed by 224 residents of the area and 81 people residing outside the survey area. She noted that the area covered by the survey was the same as the area to which the City had mailed its questionnaire and said that several residents had changed their minds on the issue since the time of the City survey. Ms. Gessert encouraged those who live in the area to accept the inconvenience caused by the diverters as necessary for the protection of the safety and comfort of all area residents. Ann Fidanque, 952 West 10th Avenue, said that in the time before installation of the diverters, residents had noted increases in the volume and speed of traffic in the area and increases in the number of accidents, particularly at the cor- ners of 10th and Jackson and 10th and Adams. She said that since installation of the diverters, traffic volume, traffic speed, and numbers of accidents had been reduced. She urged councilors to weigh the mild inconvenience caused by the diverters against the increased safety for children, cyclists, pedestrians, and all people who use Monroe Park. Ms. Fidanque said that the City, through a number of its policies, has encouraged families to settle in the downtown area and that the City now has an obligation to ensure the safety of those families. Mark Palmer, 801 West 12th Avenue, said that he has lived near the diverter at 12th and Monroe since 1978 and has noticed that the diverter has reduced the number of speeders in the area, made the streets safer, and improved the identity and quality of the neighborhood. He said that the City needs to use every available tool in re-establishing the inner-city neighborhoods. He urged that the diverters be retained. Sarah Hendrickson, 572 West 11th Avenue, said that she lives in the area of the diverters and also is a partner in a commercial investment in the area. She said that the survey done by the Traffic Division on diverters was uneven and that many residents in the area were not polled. She urged the council to seek a compromise acceptable to all residents and suggested that if the diverters are not acceptable, that stop signs be installed at all the corners of the inter- sections involved. She said that residents of the area would volunteer to sweep the streets in order to retain the diverters. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 3 e e e Mike Pease, 1910 Charnel ton, said that he is an architect and had worked with inner-city neighborhoods on neighborhood design issues on the block scale. He said that in all of his work, he had found traffic control one of the greatest concerns of inner-city residents. He urged the council to support the diverters as one of the least expensive ways to control traffic. George Gessert, 1230 West Broadway, said that he has lived in the area since 1978 and is the father of two small children. He said that he had contacted eight real estate agents and assessors to determine the effects of diverters on property values. He reported that these people had said it is easier to sell homes on quiet streets with low traffic volumes. He said that some of those contacted had responded that the presence of the diverters would have no effect on the value of property, some had said the value would be increased, and none had said that the value would be reduced by the presence of the diverters. He said those contacted had responded that diverters would only cause a decrease in property values if people had to go seven or eight blocks out of their way to reach the property. Elizabeth Meador, 1265 West Broadway, spoke for the eight small children who live near her and urged that the diverters be retained. Steve Wood, 971 West 10th Avenue, said he has lived in the area since 1974. He said that the issue being discussed is the community's willingness to respond to the needs of the neighborhood. He said that the City had made large commit- ments in this area of Community Development and NIP funds, including housing rehabilitation funds. He said he welcomed the City's attempts to mitigate the effects of traffic in the neighborhood and urged that the diverters be retained. At Mr. Andersen's request, all those who favored retention of the diverters stood up. Scott Lieuallen, 570 West 10th Avenue, said he owns a home in the Westside area and has a made a long-term commitment to living in the Westside. He noted that this area is surrounded by high-speed, high-volume arterials and said that the City must protect the neighborhood from being destroyed by these forces. He said that the value of the investment in the City's housing stock in this area must be protected. John E. Bonine, 1052 West 10th Avenue, said that he had chosen to buy his home because of the presence of the diverter. He said that while residents had tried to make calm presentations in favor of the diverters, there was a great deal of feeling that had been held in check. He urged the council to keep the neighbor- hood safe by retaining the diverters. The following people testified in opposition to retaining the diverters: Patrick Moore, 1060 Tyler Street, said that he has lived in the area for 20 years. He said that if diverters were used to keep traffic off one street, the traffic would just be pushed onto some other street. He said that since all residents of the city are entitled to use all city streets, the residents of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 4 e e e entire city should vote on the issue of traffic diverters. He referred to previous council discussion of the Broadway-10th Avenue diverters and noted that the council had been unable to find a reason for installation of the diverters at that time, He said that the City wants people to spend money at downtown businesses but that with all the diverters and one-way streets, there is no way for people to get downtown. Mr. Moore introduced several other speakers. Mrs. Temms, 922 Polk Street, said that she has lived in the area for five years, but that she had never been surveyed by the Traffic Division for her opinion on the diverters. She said that the City has not paid enough attention to establishing conditions for installation of diverters. She said that she favors the diverters on Alder Street, but the streets in the Westside neighborhood are wide with generous setbacks and therefore do not need diverters. She said she has seen few children in the area and noted that Lincoln School, the elementary school for the area, had been closed due to low enrollment. She felt that making these diverters permanent would set a precedent and would result in fragmentation of the city through installation of more diverters. Ellie Rae, 1050 Fillmore, said that she has lived in the area for 33 years. She said that the diverters might benefit a few residents, but that they cause inconvenience and expense for others. She said that the streets were designed to provide access and noted that 7th, 8th, and 11th avenues were already congested enough without adding more traffic to them by diverting it from other streets. She said that the diverters would result in economic loss to the downtown area and in increased gasoline consumption. G. Bill Thompson, 590 West 25th Avenue/768 West Broadway, urged councilors to vote ln favor of the staff recommendation to remove the diverters. He said the Public Works Department had done its job well in developing its recommendation. Billie Pursle~, 831 West Broadway, said that she has lived in the area since 1942. She sald that she had written a letter and telephoned her opposition to diverters when the subject was first raised and that she had also spoken at the staff hearing. She noted that other areas of the city with more children in them do not have traffic diverters. She said that the diverters made it more expensive for her to make daily trips, since she had to go out of her way to get places. She said that a number of older people who opposed the diverters could not be present at the hearing due to the time of the meeting and the bad weather. She reminded councilors that the Public Works Department's survey showed 2:1 opposition to the diverters. Mary E. Goettling, 892 West Broadway, said that her husband has lived in the area since 1942. She read a letter on the diverter issue from Councilor Wooten that had appeared in the May 1981 issue of the WNQP Newsletter. Clifford J. Defoe, 1990 West 12th Avenue, said that he is a concrete contractor and that the diverters were costing him money. He said that the diverters would make it difficult for police to pursue bicyclists. He agreed with earlier testimony in opposition to the diverters. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 5 e Heide Berthold, 37 West 11th Avenue, said that the diverters may protect streets near Monroe Park, but that they cause increased traffic on West 11th and on Polk. Charles Goettling, 892 West Broadway, said that he is opposed to the diverters but did not feel animosity toward the people who want the diverters. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks addressed the suggestion of installing stop signs at intersections near Monroe Park. He said that he believed there is only one intersection that was not controlled and noted that the Public Works Department had been ready, before the diverters were put in, to install a stop sign at 10th and Adams. Ms. Wooten said she interpreted the traffic counts done by the Public Works Department as showing that the diverters had reduced traffic volume on the residential streets in the area but had had an imperceptible effect on the arterials to which the traffic had been diverted. Mr. Hanks responded that this was the case. e Ms. Smith and Ms. Schue questioned Mr. Hanks about the difference in the results of the survey conducted by the Public Works Department and that conducted by the neighbors. Mr. Hanks responded that the City survey had been sent to every resident and property owner in the area, with only one vote being permitted per household, unless the household was non-owner-occupied, in which case both the residents and the owner were permitted to vote. He said that a careful record had been kept of those who voted, to avoid double voting. He reported that the staff survey had a 40-percent return rate. He said it was possible that the residents had responded differently to a survey conducted by their neighbors than they had to the more anonymous City survey. Ms. Miller asked if statistics were available on the number of reported traffic accidents before and after installation of the temporary diverters. Mr. Hanks said that the diverters had not been in place long enough to get any valid figures for comparison. Mr. Lindberg asked if traffic control options other than diverters and stop signs had been explored. Mr. Hanks responded that other options such as partial diverters or one-street diverters would present similar problems to those caused by the present diverters. Ms. Wooten said the problem is one of competing needs in a central city area. She noted that as a part of its dedication to preserving a compact urban growth form, the City has encouraged families to move into central city areas. She felt that the City was therefore committed to maintaining the integrity of these neighborhoods and to protecting the inner streets that serve them. She said she lives near Monroe Park and has seen the traffic dangers firsthand. She urged the council to maintain the diverter program for the Broadway-10th Avenue area. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 6 . e e Ms. Miller said that the same concerns for and against use of traffic control measures had been expressed by residents of the Laurel Hill and West University neighborhoods. She urged councilors to make their decision on this issue based on what was best for the city and the neighborhood 15 to 20 years from now. She felt it would be beneficial to view a slide show on the results of the City's residential rehabilitation program in the Westside and Whiteaker areas, similar to the presentation the council had just viewed on the rehabilitation of the downtown core area. Ms. Miller said that current census data indicate that there are large numbers of children in the Wests ide area. She urged the council to maintain the vitality of this area and said that since the area already accommodates four major arterials, it did not seem unreasonable to protect the remaining streets from large volumes of traffic. Mr. Hamel said that he is opposed to traffic diverters, because he felt that citizens who have paid for the streets of the city have the right to use all those streets. He felt that diverting traffic from one area just puts it in front of someone else's house. He felt that traffic control should be accomplished through the designated arterial system, and opposed spending $30,000 for diverters. Mr. Lindberg said that he would vote in favor of retaining the diverter system as one means of improving the stability of the core area. He said that the arterial system had been designed to take through traffic off of residential streets and that the diverters would help make this happen. Ms. Schue said she agreed that through traffic belongs on arterial streets. She recognized that some of the streets in the Westside area did not start out as arterials, but felt that 11th and 18th were committed as such. She said that the council should protect the residential streets near these arterials. She felt that residents could adjust to the new routes required by the diverters and that it was important to maintain the diverters to preserve the neighborhood. Mayor Keller said that while he was concerned with the safety of the children in the area, he felt the council should make it clear that city streets are not play areas. He questioned whether installation of two diverters could ensure the livability of a neighborhood. He questioned the validity of the testimony regarding the effect of diverters on real estate values. He urged councilors to consider the staff recommendation and not to splinter this neigh- borhood further by maintaining the diverters. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the council adopt the staff recommendation to permanently remove the diverters on Broadway and 10th Avenue. Motion failed 3:5, with Councilors Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting in favor, and Councilors Schue, Haws, Miller, Wooten, and Lindberg voting in opposition. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the Broadway-10th Avenue Oiverter System, consisting of diverters at Broadway and Monroe, 10th and Adams, and Broadway at Tyler, be installed permanently. Motion carried 5:3, with Councilors Schue, Haws, Miller, Wooten, and Lindberg voting in favor, and Councilors Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 7 e e e B. Council-Initiated Project--Paving of Danebo Avenue, from West 11th Avenue to Royal Avenue (memo, map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that this project had been initiated to provide better access to this industrial area and safer access for pedestrians and bicyclists. He said that the project would include two travel lanes, two bike lanes, a center left-turn lane, and sidewalks on both sides of the street in the residential portion of the project area. He requested that the council authorize staff to begin design of the project and to commence purchase of the right-of-way in order that construction could begin in 1983. He noted that while construction on the project would not take place until 1983, replacement of the Amazon Bridge at the south end of the street would be done this year. Public hearing was opened. William Allard, 4125 East Amazon/2472 Willamette, urged the council to support this project based on the need for this industrial center as a part of the City's economic diversification efforts. He said that the existing roadway is heavily used and is dangerous. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, Eugene 97440, represented Pitchford1s Inc., which has 840' of frontage in the project area, and Net Investments, which has 720' of frontage. He said that both firms support the improvements and request that the work be done in 1982, rather than 1983. Mr. Saul noted that the Transportation Improvement Program called for the project to be constructed in 1981. He said that the project had been postponed until 1983, due in part to lack of availability of County funds. He suggested that County funds might be even more difficult to obtain in 1983. He requested that property owners in this area be notified as soon as possible of the design and layout of the 6th/7th Corridor, so that they may make plans to correspond to corridor plans. Mr. Saul said that the Danebo Equipment Company had asked him to mention for the record that it also supports the project. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Teitzel said that the County has put all Aid to City funds on hold for the coming year. He indicated that staff would continue to pursue the possibility of construction before 1983. Respond- ing to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Teitzel said that there is still sufficient time to plan and execute the project in 1982, if funds are available. Mr. Teitzel said that the 6th/7th Corridor project is being studied by the State and that it would probably be some time before specific locations would be identified for the project. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 8 . e e Res. No. 3632--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk construction on Danebo Avenue from Royal Avenue to 11th Avenue (591) Mr'. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution, to indicate the desire to move forward as rapidly as possible, and to encourage the County to participate as soon as possible, due to the importance of the project for the City's economic diversifica- tion efforts. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2430--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests and temporary and permanent easements for the purposes of street widening, sidewalk construction, and construction of drainage and sewer systems on Danebo Avenue from West 11th Avenue to Royal Avenue; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 9 e e e Mr. Croteau referred to a letter which had been received from the Executive Board of the Wests ide Neighborhood Quality Project opposing the changes as being contrary to the adopted refinement plan for the area. WNQP opposed the intro- duction of MU zoning into the R-3 strip along the west side of Washington. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jonathan Stafford, 1060 Madison, questioned the logic of the staff recommenda- tion to approve this request, which he interpreted as saying that commercial use is needed on this site to preserve residential use. He felt that this is a misinterpretation of the MU zoning district. He said that the public need in this area is for residential use. He noted that there is available MU-zoned land across the street from the site. H. Thomas Andersen, 790 West Broadway, spoke as chairperson and representative of the Executive Board of WNQP. He said that the Executive Board wished to see this beautiful old house maintained. He said that they opposed extending MU zoning west of Washington Street. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Croteau said that staff had recom- mended approval of MU zoning for the site as a means of protecting the building from being demolished to allow construction of an apartment building, which would be allowed under the existing R-3 zoning. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Croteau said that there had been an antique store in the building for a number of years, but that the conditional use permit for that business had expired when the business closed, and the building had then reverted to residential use. Mr. Croteau responded further that he did not know if the Historic Review Board had identified the building as being of historic significance. Ms. Wooten said that she felt the staff notes had not established that there is a public need for this change or that the need is best served by a change in this particular property. Mr. Lindberg asked if the building could be used as a clinic with a conditional use permit under the existing R-3 zoning. Mr. Croteau responded that this is the case. Mr. Haws said that he would oppose the rezoning since he does not see a public need for the change and since the owner was not present to explain the need. Ms. Wooten said that she would oppose the rezoning because she did not believe the necessary findings had been made to indicate a need for the rezoning. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 10 . CB 2431--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to MU Downtown Westside Mixed-Use District for property located on the west side of Washington Street between 7th and 8th avenues. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Roll call vote; voting on the motion was tied, with Councilors Hamel, Obie, Smith, and Schue voting in favor, and Councilors Lindberg, Haws, Miller, and Wooten voting in opposition. Mayor Keller broke the tie with an aye vote; motion carried. Second reading of this item was held over, since the motion had not been unani- mously adopted. 2. Property located on the north side of 25th Avenue between Willa- mette and Portland streets from R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District (Olson/Rust/Hawk) (Z 81-20) (map and background information distributed) e Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau explained that the property involved in the request is surrounded on the west by the Eugene Musicians' Association Building, on the east by the South Willamette commercial strip, on the south by apartments in a R-3 zone, and on the southeast by a small commercial shopping area zoned C-2. Mr. Croteau said that the property is currently vacant and has been the subject of numerous land use actions over the past 20 years. He said that the Planning Commission had considered the request on December 1,1981, and unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Croteau said that this is a difficult land use issue, since the property is on an edge between commercial and residential uses. Ms. Miller said she believed that this property is used as a turnaround for cruisers of the Willamette Street "gut." She therefore suggested that the council attach a site review suffix to the property, with a request that special attention be paid to ingress and egress from the parking area. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. William E. Allard, 2472 Willamette Street, represented Olson, Rust, and Hawk, the applicants, who wished to build a dental clinic on the property. He said that the building on the property originally was used as a custom furniture store, and under the property's current R-2 zoning, the store building would have to be razed in order for a duplex to be constructed. He felt that given e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 11 e the nature and location of the building, surrounding zoning, and the present design of the parking lot, a decision to grant the R-3 zoning to allow use of the property as an office or clinic or, through the conditional use process, to allow a multi-family development of approximately five units, would be a good compromise on a difficult piece of property. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2432--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from R-2 Limited ~1ultiple-Family Residential District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for property located on the north side of 25th Avenue between Willamette and Portland streets. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 1, 1981, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Schue asked that the motion be amended to include attachment of a site review suffix, with a request that attention be paid to traffic problems of ingress/egress in the area. Mr. Obie agreed to the amendment. e A roll call vote was taken on the amended motion; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2432 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the amended bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18930. Ms. Miller urged staff to work closely with the Police Department on considera- tion of the site review requirements, since she felt that the issue is as much a social as a traffic problem. D. Public Works Contract Award--Sanitary Sewer on 7th Avenue (Job No. 2023) (tabulation attached) Mr. Teitzel explained that staff is recommending award of the contract to the second lowest bidder, since staff did not feel that the lowest bidder was qualified to do the work. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the contract for $11,632.30 be awarded to the second lowest bidder, Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 12 e Mr. Haws asked why staff felt the low bidder would not be able to do the work. Mr. Teitzel referred to the memo which had been distributed and said that staff had investigated the qualifications of the low bidder, A. E. Associates, by contacting the references supplied by the firm and had received no favorable recommendations. Mr. Teitzel also noted that the Parks & Recreation Department had disqualified the firm from bidding on any of its projects. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Approval of Assessment Hearing Panel Minutes of February 15, 1982 (minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the findings prepared by staff, contained in the memorandum dated February 19, 1982, and the hearing report as amended by the findings. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Levying of Assessments Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that CB 2426 be amended as recommended in the memorandum dated February 19, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. - CB 2426--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to 20th Avenue (County Road No. 426); and paving and sidewalk on 18th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to Four Oaks Grange Road (79-61). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the amended bill be given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18931. CB 2427--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve Willakenzie Island annexation area No.7 (AZ 78-11), located generally along Hickory Avenue, Sisters View, Mahlon Avenue, Westward Ho Avenue, Oxbow Way, Garden Way, Conestoga Way, Honey- suckle, Van Duyn Street, and Arcadia Street (80-65). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18932. CB 2391--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and constructing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Hawkins Lane from Glen Mar to south city limits (80-11). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18933. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 13 e e e IV. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER ON BUDGET REDUCTIONS Mr. Gleason reported on the status of the current year's budget. Mr. Gleason said that the budget is the council's ultimate policy document and short-range planning tool. He said that it is the responsibility of the City Manager to execute the decisions outlined in the adopted budget and that he may not expend funds outside that budget. He referred to the presentation made to the Budget Committee and reiterated concern about the I8-month financial outlook for Eugene. Mr. Gleason reviewed the figures that led to this concern and explained that City staff is working to eliminate $1.2 million from the budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982. He outlined the steps that were being taken to accomplish this reduction in expenditures and said that he felt they were prudent fiscal steps, rather than catastrophic or dramatic adjustments. He said that these steps would result in a noticeable reduction of services to patrons, but that they would not create a desperate situation. Mr. Gleason said that every department supported by the General Fund would be affected by the reductions, including the City Manager's Office. Mr. Gleason said that he was making the reductions based on the following three goals: 1) to minimize the impact of the cuts on clients; 2) to minimize the impact of the cuts on permanent City employees; and 3) to maintain the capacity of the City to do business. He said that to accomplish the needed reductions, $800,000 of discretionary expenses would be cut, such as costs of travel, training, and temporary help; and $300,000 would be cut through elimination of full-time regular positions. He said that this would result in the elimination of 30-35 positions in the coming year, in addition to the 30 positions already being held vacant. He said that the total reduction of 70-75 positions would mean a reduction of 8 percent of the City's overall work force. Mr. Gleason explained that reduction of positions would not begin for several weeks, and that employees would be given 30 days' notice of the elimination of their positions. He said that the City will make every effort to find those employees positions in other branches of the City, or, through the efforts of the Personnel Department, elsewhere in the area. Mr. Gleason said that sen- sitivity for the City's Affirmative Action obligations will be maintained throughout the reduction process. Mr. Gleason noted that he had received 120 recommendations from employees on ways to effect the $1.2 million reduction. Mr. Gleason then listed specific reductions that would be made, including reductions in hours and purchasing in the Library; increased user fees for the Library and for recreation facilities; reduced maintenance of parks and equipment; postponement of repairs to Jefferson Pool; and reductions in staffing of certain Fire Department satellite stations. Mr. Gleason said he did not believe the staff reductions in the Fire Department would result in increased risk or substantially increased response time. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 14 e e e . Mr. Gleason said that reductions in Municipal Court funds would result in an increase from the current 50 to 120 days in delays and could mean closure for one day each week. He said that the Police Department would be asked to maintain the current vacant positions and limit overtime work. He said that this would result in the traffic team being absorbed into the Patrol Section and that this in turn would result in fewer citations being written, but not in reduction of response time. Mr. Gleason said that consulting expenses in the Planning Department would be reduced and that this, in turn, would affect refinement plan activity. He said that there would be some small reductions in historic preservation loans and in maintenance of City-owned properties now maintained through the Department of Housing and Community Conservation. He said that street, bike path, and sidewalk maintenance would be reduced and that there would be a reduction in research and information services to the City Council and the public. He outlined reductions in the purchasing, finance, and employment programs. Mr. Gleason said that consideration would be given to rearranging current intergovernmental funding for joint agencies such as the Lane Council of Governments and the Boundary Commission. Mr. Obie said the council appreciated Mr. Gleason's patience and hard work in dealing with this difficult situation and complimented him for maintaining the integrity of the City budget. Ms. Schue said that councilors especially appre- ciated Mr. Gleason's sensitive treatment of the future of City employees. Responding to a question from Mayor Keller, Mr. Gleason said that the County Assessor apparently has the right under State Law to average distribution of assessment payments over an entire county and not to prorate distribution in accordance with actual payment rates. He said that the City Attorney's Office was examining this issue and that possible legal and legislative remedies would be pursued. The meeting was adjourned to February 24, 1982. M'i'cli alD. Gl eason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DM:ce/CM8b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1982 Page 15