Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/1983 Meeting e e .- M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 12, 1983 11:45 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Dick Hansen (commencement to 1:10), Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith (commencement to 1:30). COUNCILOR ABSENT: 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. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Housing Start Projections Councilor Obie referred to recent projections of increased housing starts as noted in a recent article in Random Lenaths and asked staff to seek information from the City's economic advisors regar inq the implication of these projections for job development in Lane County. City Manager Micheal Gleason said staff would look into this and report back to the council and Economic Diversification Task Team. B. Appointments 1. Consideration of Mayor's nominations to varlOUS boards/commissions (memo distributed) Mayor Keller apologized for submitting his nominations to the council with short notice and noted that many of the individuals were reappointments to boards and commissions. He said he made it a policy to reappoint those who had served in good standing during previous terms. He felt that continuity of membership was especially important for groups like the Airport Commission due to the ongoing projects monitored by such bodies. Mayor Keller referred to his memorandum to the council of January 12, 1983, recommending the following appointments: Airport Commission: Reappoint Dr. Robert E. Kime, 2710 Taylor, Eugene, and Robert W. Talbott, 2500 West 22nd Avenue, Eugene--both for four-year terms expiring January 1, 1987. Construction Code Board of At~: Reappoint E.L. Burgess, 4457 Knoop Avenue, Eugene; Grant ~ 4125 Hilyard, Eugene; and Ken Hamilton, 1430 Flintridge, Euqene--all for five-year terms to expire January 1, 1988. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 1 . Eugene Private Industry Council: Appoint Dennis Mounts, 5167 Trevon, Eugene; and reappoint Clifford Kaylor, 4840 Mahalo Drive, Eugene, and J. Douglas McKay, 450 Stonegate, Eugene--all for terms to expire September 30, 1986. Historic Review Board: Appoint Robert Melnick, 2633 Harris, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1987; and reappoint Juliana Kolstoe, 1388 East 38th, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1987. Library Board: Reappoint Margaret Runkel, 610 Kingswood, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1987. Performing Arts Commission: Reappoint Nancy Hayward, 974 Lincoln, Eugene; Suzanne McRoberts, 2295 McLean Boulevard, Eugene; Douglas Orme, 2225 Washington, Eugene; and Royce Saltzman, 2065 University, Eugene--all for four-year terms to expire January 1, 1987. Public Solicitations Commission: Appoint David W. Wildermuth, 4856 Donald, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1987; and Scott Palmer, United Way representative, for a term to expire January 1, 1987. Sign Code Board of A~~eals: Reappoint David Hoffman, 2141 Prestwich Place, Eugene; and Sl Voorhees, 2489 Lincoln, Eugene--both for three-year terms to expire January 1, 1986. Gambling Committee: Appoint Loren Allen, 1431 East 22nd, Eugene, for a two-year term to expire January 1, 1985. Zoning Board of Appeals: Appoint Linda Bush, 2835 Cheryl Street, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1985; and reappoint Alton Lenhart, 3520 High Street, Eugene, for a term to expire January 1, 1988. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to appoint the Mayorls nominations. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Announcements 1. 75th Anniversary of Portland Rose Festival Councilor Schue said that she had represented Mayor Keller at a promotional event for the Diamond Jubilee of the Portland Rose Festival. She said that Mayor Ivancie of Portland had extended a special invitation to the council and the citizens of Eugene to attend the festival in Portland June 3 through 12, 1983. 2. L-COG Orientation Mr. Gleason announced that the Lane Council of Governments (L-COG) orientation for elected officials and other interested citizens would be held at 7:30 p.m. on January 20, 1983, in Harris Hall. He urged interested councilors to attend the orientation. 3. City Managerls Office Staff Changes e Mr. Gleason introduced Frances Lynch and said that she was the new Public Service Officer in the Manager's Office, replacing Rande Wilmarth, who has completed his six-month term. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 2 Mr. Gleason introduced Rebecca Miller who will be serving as an administrative ~ intern in the Manager's Office. 4. Council Work Session on Sewer User Fees Mr. Gleason recommended that the council hold a dinner/work session on January 24, 1983, to consider the proposed increase in sewer user fees. He suggested that the Financial Planning Committee meeting that was originally scheduled for the 24th be rescheduled for January 31. Councilors concurred with these suggestions. 5. Seating of Councilors Mr. Gleason noted that with the election of new officers and the two new coun- cilors on the council, the seating arrangement of the councilors in the chamber has been redone. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Consideration of City Council Minutes of November 22 and 24, 1982, and Special and Regular Meetings of December 8, 1982 (minutes distributed) Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the City Council minutes of November 22 and 24, and December 8, 1982. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Holmer abstaining. e B. Call for Public Hearing re: Alley Vacation for Property Located Between Charnelton and Olive streets, north of 7th Avenue (Hayward, Gonyea, et al) (AV 81-1) (map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission March 8, 1982 Vote--7:0 CB 2586--An ordinance calling a public hearing for March 14, 1983, to consider vacation of an alley located between Charnel ton and Olive streets, north of 7th Avenue. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Council Bill 2586 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19084. C. Participation in State Revenue Sharing Program Fiscal Plan (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason said that the State required that the council pass this ordinance in order to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program and thus receive funds originating in Eugene. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 3 . CB 2587--An ordinance electing to receive State Revenue Sharing funds distributed through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission account for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1984, and declaring an emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. e Council Bill 2587 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19085. D. Adoption of Long-Range Fiscal Projection (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason said that adoption of this type of long-range fiscal plan providing projections of estimated revenues and expenditures by the City for the next five years was required by the State of Oregon. He introduced Warren Wong, Finance Director. Mr. Wong said that the State required adoption of these projections to assist in distribution of Oregon Liquor Control Commission revenues. He said that the City had in the past asked the State to modify the reporting form, since the present form has little meaning because its reporting format does not correspond to the budgeting format of most municipalities. He said that the State had refused to modify the form. Responding to a question from Councilor Lindberg, Mr. Wong said that the budget categories used in the State form have little correlation with the City's budget; explained that the $12 million budgeted for social services in the five-year State form were for City Library and leisure services. e Councilor Holmer cited Oregon Revised Statues 221.780. He felt that the require- ment for long-range fiscal planning was an important one and necessary for sound financial planning for the City. He noted that the City's projection included a deficit of $8.5 million for FY84, but that in his January 10, 1983, State of the City Address, Mayor Keller had referred to a deficit of $3 million. Mr. Holmer asked the reason for the discrepancy between these figures. He felt that the council should not continue the "charade" of filing reports that were deemed meaningless. Mr. Holmer recommended that the council not approve this planning report but, instead, simply authorize its being forwarded to the State. Responding to Mr. Holmer's concerns, Mr. Wong said that the forecast contained in the report is for all funds and that the deficit referred to in the Mayor's January 10 address was only for the General Fund. Mr. Gleason noted that the City Council does receive six-year City revenue projections and that these projections were meaningful and were used as a financial planning tool. Mr. Wong said that these projections would be available in February. Ms. Smith said she felt Councilor Holmer's comments were appropriate. She urged that the City of Eugene take a leadership role in lobbying for a change in the reporting format so that the council was not faced with a similar problem in 1984. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 4 . e e Mr. Gleason said that staff would include a request for a change in the reporting format into the City's 1983 legislative program and suggested that the City also urge the League of Oregon Cities to push for such a change. Councilors concurred with this suggestion. Mr. Gleason said that the City needed to forward the report by January 15, 1983. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the long-range fiscal projection. Mr. Obie asked that the motion be amended to add calling for referral of the matter of revising the reporting format to the Legislative Subcommittee and to the League of Oregon Cities as an agenda item for the Legislative Session. Ms. Schue agreed to the amendment. A vote was taken on the motion as amended. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Ordinance Abolishing the Civic Center Commission (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason said that the ordinance establishing the Civic Center Commission had contained a sunset clause. He noted that the work of the commission was completed and said staff was available to respond to questions on the matter from councilors. CB 2588--An ordinance concerning the Civic Center Commission; repealing Sections 2.080, 2.082, 2.084, 2.086, and 2.088 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Section 2.013 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Council Bill 2588 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19086. Mr. Gleason expressed thanks to the members of the Civic Center Commission for their work and remarkable accomplishment in bringing construction in on schedule and under the original estimates. Ms. Schue suggested that the council send a token of appreciation to the members of the commission, thanking them for a job well done. Councilors concurred with this suggestion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 5 III. AX BILLY OPTION AGREEMENT (memo, agreement distributed) ~ Councilor Hansen said he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter due to prior contacts. Mr. Gleason introduced Elaine Stewart, Department of Housing and Community Conservation. Ms. Stewart said that the council would be considering this item in its capacity as the Eugene Renewal Agency. She said that efforts to offer the Ardel Building, later known as the Ax Billy Department Store building, for sale and rehabilitation had commenced in March 1982. She said that of the four offers received, the Eugene Renewal Agency (ERA) had selected that of Bennett Management Company. Ms. Stewart said that Mr. Bennett proposed development of the building as an athletic club. She said that, in exchange for the option agreement, Mr. Bennett would make a deposit of $10,000 to demonstrate his good faith intent to exercise his option by giving the Renewal Agency written notice of his intentions by March 1, 1983. She said that Mr. Bennett had agreed on a purchase price of $213,000, with terms to be negotiated prior to execution of the purchase agreement. Ms. Stewart noted that during the period of time covered by the option agreement, Mr. Bennett would be undertaking a market study to provide information for use in refining his development proposal. She said that the Downtown Commission had recommended to the council that in the event that this market study indicates that the project is not economically feasible, the cost of the study, not to exceed $6,000, should be deducted from the $10,000 good faith deposit, since the information provided by the study would be of value to the City. Ms. Stewart said the commission felt that this risk-sharing was in the spirit of the publicI ~ private partnership. Ms. Stewart said that the Ax Billy Building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and noted that Mr. Bennett had agreed to restore the exterior of the building in keeping with its recognized historical significance. Ms. Stewart said that she and Mr. Bennett were available to answer questions on the option agreement. Councilor Lindberg asked why the approval of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was needed for the sale. Ms. Stewart responded that HUD approval was needed because HUD funds were used to purchase the building. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Ob;e, that the City Council, acting in its capacity as the Eugene Renewal Agency, approve the option agreement between Bennett Management and the Eugene Renewal Agency for the purchase of the Ax Billy Department Store building. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Hansen abstaining. e IV. MONTHLY ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION STATUS REPORT re: DEVELOPMENT-RELATED PROCESS REVIEWS (memo, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason noted that this item had been held over from the December 15, 1982, council meeting. He said council endorsement was sought for general policy direction of deregulation of development-related processes. He introduced MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 6 e Gary Chenkin, Planning, who was filling in for Terri Vanderpool. Mr. Chenkin discussed the work program for the process review and used a flip chart to present the proposed guidelines for streamlining land use application processes. He said that the guidelines had been reviewed and recommended by the Coordinated Permit Counter Task Team (CPCTT), the Economic Diversification Task Team (EDTT), the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC), and the Planning Commission. Mr. Chenkin gave some examples of inconsistencies in various existing City land use application processes and said that the guidelines emphasized the need for uniformity and consistency. He discussed each of the seven guidelines: 1) Reduce, combine, or eliminate processes or steps within processes whenever possible; examples--one of the existing three stages of the planned unit development process could be eliminatedt and many easement vacations could be handled on an administrative level rather than being referred, as they now are, to the City Council. 2) Define the appropriate level of review for each type of application; example--provide a hierachy in which issues without major policy implications are dealt with at the administrative level or heard by the Hearings Official, issues with major policy implications are heard by the Planning Commission, and the City Council hears amendments to ordinances or appeals of Planning Commission actions. 3) Establish a maximum time frame within which all applications will receive final action by the City; in enacting this guideline, the applicant's need for rapid processing would need to be balanced with opportunity for citizen involvement. e 4) Provide a maximum of one public hearing for initial application review, recognizing that some types of applications may not require hearings. 5) Provide for one local appeal hearing for all types of applications--for example, provide for administrative decisions to be heard by the Hearings Official; Hearings Official decisions to be heard by the Planning Commission; and Planning Commission decisions to be heard by the City Council. 6) Where possible, make provisions for expedited processes, which would allow certain public hearing requirements to be bypassed if there is no public interest in them. 7) Maintain consistency in general provisions common to most processes--for example, public notice requirements, time frame for submission of appeals, and time frame for referrals of applications should each be uniform for all processes. Councilor Obie asked what the next step would be in the process, assuming that the council endorsed the guidelines. Mr. Chenkin said that staff would draft amendments to the City Code, working with interested groups such as neighborhood organizations and the Homebuilders Association that commonly make applications or respond to them. He said that the Citizen Involvement Committee would be consulted for suggestions of groups to be contacted. Mr. Chenkin said that these proposed amendments would then be brought before the Planning Commission and City Council. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 7 e e - Councilors Ball and Lindberg asked what liabilities the City would face if it set maximum process time frames and then was unable to meet them. Mr. Chenkin responded that elapsed time would only be counted from the time a complete and accurate application was received. He said there would be provisions for extending the time, if necessary. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that traditionally if an application had not been acted on within the established time frame, it is automatically determined to be approved. Councilor Obie said that he had some concerns about the recommendations. He was concerned with the length of time taken by present referrals to neighborhood groups. He felt that the burden of responsibility should be placed on the groups to act quickly so that time gaps in the process can be reduced. Mr. Obie said he felt strongly that the citizenry should have access to its elected officials. He was therefore hesitant to move too dramatically into the area of government by bureaucracy. Councilor Lindberg was concerned that the effort to reduce the number and length of pUblic hearings might include restricting the testimony to matters of record. He felt that if an appeal came to the City Council the council needed to hear from people directly, not just to read the minutes and written materials. He also felt that recently developed information should be able to be introduced at appeal hearings. Mr. Chenkin responded that one provision that could be made was that the appellant be required to base the appeal on a demonstration of points in which the decision made was in error. He felt that if people are able to introduce much new testimony at the appeal hearing, there might be a tendency to save pertinent information purposely for the appeal hearing, thereby render- ing the original hearing perfunctory. He said that one option would be that when much new testimony is introduced at an appeal hearing, the matter be referred back to the original hearing body to allow that body to consider the new information. Mr. Gleason added that when new testimony is presented, it often necessitates developing new findings. He said that each appellant review generally adds one and one-half to two and one-half months to the process. Mr. Chenkin said that the financial implications of these delays can often mean the death of a project. Mayor Keller agreed that processes need to be expedited, but shared the concerns of Councilors Obie and Lindberg with giving up opportunities for final appeal to the City Council. He asked staff to provide information on the implications of proposed process amendments for the council workload. He felt that the pUblic especially needed an opportunity to speak to the council on quasi-judicial items, since ex parte contact regulations prevent citizens from addressing councilors individually on such matters. He urged that developers and representa- tives of such groups as the Homebuilders Association be invited to participate in development of the process amendments early in the process. Mr. Chenkin noted that later in the day he would making a presentation similar to the one he had just made to the council at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Planning & Land Use Committee and said staff hoped to work with this and other groups in development of the amendments. Mr. Gleason noted that the council had recommended in its goals session that City processes be made less cumbersome. He said that the City Attorney's Office could work to develop amendments to let the council review certain decisions but that if processes are to be streamlined, the council cannot hear all items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 8 e Mr. Gleason referred to the council's past decision to have some matters handled by a Hearings Official and noted that a survey done by the Citizen Involvement Committee of participants in City planning processes had found that citizens are highly satisifed with the Hearings Official process. Mr. Gleason felt that this was because the Hearings Official is highly trained in his work and consistently follows specific criteria and policies in making his decisions. Mr. Gleason recognized that items in the guidelines represented a break in tradition for the City but felt that regular appellate review by the council was not a satisfactory process. He did not feel that streamlining processes automatically meant eliminating public access to the council. Councilor Schue noted that all councilors had expressed frustration with the Council Hearing Panel process. She felt that the suggested guidelines were good since they reserved for the council review of major policies and cnsideration of major policy matters. Councilor Ball agreed that there was a need to streamline processes. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the seven process guidelines and the process for public review of the land use application revisions. Councilor Obie urged that public access to the council not be eliminated. He suggested that when staff returns with proposed amendments, two alternatives be presented for consideration by the council, providing varying degrees of access to the council. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e V. CITylS FY82 JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS REPORT (memo, entire report, supplementary materials distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Doug Booth, Director, Eugene Job Training Program. Mr. Booth reported to the council on the program's activities for the federal fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, and on the relation of program activities to the Cityls economic development efforts. He said an aim of the Job Training Program was to assure a supply of appropriately trained people to fill jobs created through the City's efforts. Mr. Booth distributed materials and used visual aids to compare figures on Eugene's program with those of other job training programs in the Northwest Region. He said that the entered employment rate for Eugene programs was 79 percent, compared with an Oregon average of 57 percent. He attributed the success to the Eugene programls work with the private sector to determine job training needs. Mr. Booth said that the average cost per placement for the Eugene program was $1,854, which was the lowest in the region. He said that over 500 people had been placed this year through Eugene's program, and that a total of 900 had been placed since the beginning of the program in Eugene. Mr. Booth said that in addition to providing a supply of trained employees, the program was also working to create employment demand through aiding in business recruitment and expansion efforts. He said that $40,000 in uncommitted program funds would probably be used to promote Eugene as a center for training conferences. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 9 e e e He said that this would make use of the skills of the many trainers in the area as well as bringing to Eugene executives from industries the City would like to attract to the area. Mr. Booth said that computer terminals at the Chamber of Commerce, the University of Oregon, Lane Community College, the Eugene Job Training Center, and other area locations would now allow sharing of information on recruitments and business needs. He said a new automated system was being developed to inventory the skills of the area workforce so that recruitment efforts could be focused on industries that would hire area unemployed. Responding to a question from Councilor Hansen, Mr. Booth said that preliminary job retention follow-up information showed that 68 to 72 percent of those placed through the program were still employed after a six-month period. Mr. Booth said that the information-sharing computers would be located in the metropolitan area but could be used by all who were interested. Responding to a question from Councilor Smith, Mr. Booth said that the Eugene Job Training Center was working with the Business Assistance Team in its recruit- ment efforts and would soon be working with the Convention and Tourism Bureau. Councilor Smith encouraged such cooperation. Councilor Lindberg noted that many activites of the program went well beyond job training. He asked if there were other organizations that could share in the cost of these activities. Mr. Booth said that the Eugene program was seldom the single funding source for activities but often provided seed money. Councilor Obie asked Mr. Booth to repeat figures on area unemployment that he had presented at a recent Council Committee on Economic Diversification (CCED) meeting. Mr. Booth said that the labor demand for Lane County is 115,800, compared with a labor supply of 130,800. He said there were 15,000 unemployed for an overall unemployment rate of 11.4 percent, but noted that even in a healthy economy, there is a residual 5 percent unemployment rate. He said discounting this 5 percent produced a rate of 6.4 percent or a total of 8,371 people actively seeking work in the area. Mr. Gleason noted that these figures were for all of Lane County. Mr. Booth said figures for the City of Eugene would be about 40 percent of the Lane County figures in all categories. Councilor Hansen left the meeting. Councilor Schue noted that the Eugene Private Industry Council (EPIC), which oversees the Job Training Program, is discussing the amount of program efforts that should be put into activities other than direct job training. She said the group generally felt that job training should be the major emphasis, with other activities playing a minor role. Mayor Keller congratulated Mr. Booth on the excellent report. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 10 e e e VI. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE EUGENE JOB TRAINING PROGRAM (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Doug Booth, Director, Eugene Job Training Program. Mr. Booth said the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) would expire on September 30, 1983, and that the new federal training act would be effective October 1, 1983. He said that under the new act, funds would come to the State for distribution to cities and counties. He said that the City of Eugene therefore had to apply to the governor of the State of Oregon to remain a deliverer of training services and that the resolution before the council would allow the City Manager to make such an application. Mr. Gleason noted that the City had worked with Lane County on the submission of this application and said that both jurisdictions would apply for retention of the current two separate programs, with the suggestion that a study be conducted during the next fiscal period on whether the two programs should merge operations or remain separate. Councilor Lindberg asked what the roles of the Mayor and City Council would be under the new training program structure. Mr. Booth responded that elected officials would not be allowed to serve on the program's overseeing board, the Eugene Private Industry Council (EPIC), as representatives of the City Council but noted that they could serve as representatives of other groups with whom they are affiliated, such as businesses or universities. Mr. Booth noted that under the new legislation the Private Industry Council becomes an equal partner with elected bodies. Councilor Lindberg suggested that in its work the Job Training Center and EPIC focus on labor market planning. Councilor Holmer noted that the resolution before the council named the date of July 1, 1985, for submission of recommendations to the City Council regarding the possible merger of the City and County programs. He asked if this timing were appropriate in terms of the fiscal year structure of the training program. Mr. Booth responded that the federal government would be changing the fiscal year for the program to an October 1 through June 30 schedule, so that the two-year period of the new program would begin July 1. He said staff suggested that the merger decision be made after one year of the new program has elapsed, with the decision becoming effective the following year. Mr. Booth said that the EPIC executive committee had endorsed the resolution before the council but had requested that the decision on the merger be made by the end of this year so that it could go into effect the following July. Councilor Smith felt that the City should continue a training program similar to the current program, even though the funding structure would change with funds coming through the State; however, she also urged that the methods and operation of the current program be reviewed and a report returned to the City Council. Mr. Booth said that the EPIC had already begun such a review and would keep the council informed. Res. No. 3742--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply to the Governor of the State of Oregon for service delivery area designation for the City under the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. M1NUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 11 e VII. ADOPTION OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (memo, additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason noted that the council had already held a public hearing on this item. He referred to the January 5, 1983, memorandum from the Planning Department to the Mayor and City Council, which contained responses to questions about the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) raised by councilors at the December 13, 1982, public hearing. He said staff members were available to respond to further questions from councilors. Mayor Keller noted that he had received a request to testify on this item and asked if the council would agree to reopening the public hearing. Councilors agreed to reopen the hearing. Public hearing was reopened. e John Koelling, 1968 West 34th Avenue, said he was the principal of Ellis Parker School. He referred to testimony at the council's December 13 hearing on proposed improvements to Dillard Road and said he had not attended that hearing because he did not know about it. He said that he had worked with residents of the area in surveying families affected by the proposed widening and had found that there are currently 22 students who walk or ride bikes along the entire section or a portion of that part of Dillard proposed for improvements. He said that the school parent group considered the area hazardous and felt that paving and sidewalks were needed. He realized that there was an expense involved for homeowners but noted that homeowners throughout the City bear similar expense for improvements to their property frontages. He said that there was not a question of savings on busing costs, since, under school district policy, students within a one-mile radius of the school are not bused. He said the Ellis Parker parent group urged the council to support the improvements. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the Capital Improvement Program. Councilor Holmer said he believed that the CIP was a good document but cautioned against allowing council approval of the program inadvertently to take the place of council policy-making. He expressed concern that this CIP did not provide adequate maintenance for the City's existing infrastructure. He referred to specific items of $155,000 for a computer for the Library and $100,000 for computer maintenance in Administrative Services and asked if leasing such equipment had been considered and what the pros and cons of leasing were. He said that he would abstain from voting on the motion to approve the CIP. Councilor Obie said he had strong concerns with proceeding in the current economic climate with council-initiated improvement projects involving assess- ments, even if those assessments could be Bancrofted, in situations where less than 50 percent of affected property owners support the improvements. He emphasized that council approval of the CIP did not mean the council would authorize the Dillard Road project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 12 e e e Councilor Obie asked what other opportunities the council would have to consider the Dillard Road project. Public Works Director Don Allen said that under the current assessment process the matter would be considered twice by the full council (consideration of an ordinance adopting the improvements and consideration of the contract award) and once by the Hearings Panel. Mr. Gleason noted that change in the assessment process for Bancroft projects was under consideration. He said that one alternative being considered is use of a hearings official to make decisions based on policies similar to the CIP. He said that if this alternative were adopted, the Dillard Road matter might not reappear before the council. Councilor Obie referred to an item in the CIP for a bike path from Bertelsen Road to Beltline Road. He asked how bicycles would travel from the fairgrounds to Bertelsen. Irv Berman, Public Works Planning, said that bicycles could travel along existing paths from Beltline to Danebo Avenue and from Quaker Street to Bertelsen. Mr. Obie stressed the need for maintenance of the existing path from Quaker Street to the fairgrounds, which he felt was nearly unusable. Mr. Gleason and Mr. Allen said that this path would receive maintenance soon under the Cityls maintenance program. Mr. Obie referred to the CIP item for lighting along the Amazon bike path and questioned the wisdom of installing these lights, since maintenance costs could be very high. Mr. Gleason said that maintenance costs would come out of the Public Works operating budget. Mr. Allen added that this was a test project for bike path lighting. Mr. Obie said that he wished to flag this issue and the issue of construction of Fire station 6 for consideration by the CIP subcommittee of the Budget Committee. Councilor Smith left the meeting. Councilor Lindberg said that Councilor Wooten, who could not be present today, had asked him to state for the record that if she had been present she would have voted "no" on the CIP due to her opposition to the CIP item regarding the City's purchase of property at 8th Avenue and High Street from Eugene Water and Electric Board. Mr. Lindberg concurred with Mr. Holmer's suggestion that in future programs the City take a hard look at maintenance issues. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VII 1. CONSIDERATION OF THE JEFFERSON/FAR WEST REFINEMENT PLAN (memo, Attachment II A" , additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason said that the recommendations previously made by the council had been included in the proposed revisions to the August 1982 plan draft contained in Attachment A. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 13 - Councilor Lindberg said the proposed reV1Slons were excellent additions to the plan. He referred to page 51 of the Transportation Element of the plan and asked that somewhere near item 1.8 a statement be inserted regarding mitigating the effects of the proposed expansion of Chambers Street. He suggested the following wording: "We recol1lTlend that some mitigating actions due to the widening of Chambers [Street] between 8th and 18th [avenues] be taken. These might include things such as buffers, beautification projects, or pedestrian crossings. II Res. No. 3739--A resolution adopting the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution, incorporating the suggestion made by Councilor Lindberg. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Keller thanked Rande Wilmarth for his excellent service during the past six months as the City's Public Service Officer. The meeting was adjourned to January 19, 1983. Respectfully submitted, . ~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG: DCM: jw/CMBbl - MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 14