Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1983 Meeting (2) - e - M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 14, 1983 7:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Proposed Increase in Regional and Local Sewer User Fee (memo, ordinances, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Terry Smith, Public Works Department. Mr. Smith said that the ordinances being considered by the council addressed the following issues: 1) a proposed rate increase in the regional sanitary sewer user fees; 2) a proposed rate increase in the City sanitary sewer user fees; 3) a proposed increase in the amount of the sewer trunk levy from the current $.005 to $.025 per square foot of lot area; and 4) a proposed change in the assessment process which would allow either a hearings official or a council subcommittee to conduct the public hearings and make the decisions on bid awards and assessment levies related to improvement assessments. Mr. Smith noted that studies related to the first two items had been distributed to councilors and that the council had previously held a work session on these matters. He used graphic materials to summarize the current and proposed user fees, which inclu- ded raising regional user fees from $2.30 to $6.30 per month, raising local user fees from $1.95 to $4.50 per month, including a $.20 monthly fee to cover costs of sanitary sewer rehabilitation. He noted that rehabilitation costs were now supported by property taxes and that the proposed $.20 charge would transfer this support to a user fee. Mr. Smith reviewed the background decisions involved in the fee increase pro- posals before the council, including the 1977 decision to build a new treatment plant, the 1978 selection of an activated sludge operation, the 1978 decision to proceed with the West Eugene project, the 1982 decision to make provisions for serving the River Road-Santa Clara area with sewers, and budget decisions of 1980 and 1982 related to sewer operations and maintenance. He noted that the last user fee increase had been made in November 1980. Mr. Smith said that in the past user fees had not paid the full cost of service, which had been heavily subsidized by property taxes. He said that the proposed new user rate of $10.50 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 1 e per month would provide about $2.00 per month toward the six- to twelve-month operating deficit for the treatment plant, $2.00 toward elimination of General Fund support, $2.00 toward operating a more effective treatment plant, and $.90 toward capital expansion. Public hearing was opened on both ordinances being considered under this item. Speaking in favor of the ordinances: Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, said he favored the user rate increase, since he believed that it was appropriate that sewer services be funded by user fees rather than other City funds. He said that a sewer user fee of $2.00 had been set in about 1940 and noted that if that fee had been increased at the rate of inflation it would currently amount to $14.04 per month. He noted this did not take into consideration the costs of construction or more stringent treat- ment requirements. He felt that the $.90 to be devoted to capital improvement projects was also appropriate, since such improvements are essential to the well-being of the community. Mr. Saul said he believed that sewers are a convenience and a luxury well worth the cost of their operation and maintenance. Speaking in opposition to the ordinances: Jan Gund, 1670 Lorane Highway, said she believed the proposed flat rate increase penalized and was inequitable for owners of small homes who did not use large amounts of water. She felt that under the flat rate users of small amounts of water were subsidizing users of large amounts. She urged the council to institute flow-based rates. e Ruth H. Larsen, 2650 Baker Boulevard, objected to the proposed flat fee rates which would charge users of small amounts the same fee as users of large amounts of sewer service. She said small users would be subsidizing large users. She felt this was an inequity and objected particularly to small users being charged the same amounts as users with large homes, large families, and equipment such as pools, saunas, and hot tubs. Virginia Newman, 1505 Main Street, Springfield, suggested that the budget of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) be reevaluated or indepen- dently audited. She felt that an alternative budget should have been presented for consideration by the council. She suggested that the new treatment plant be mothballed and that the existing plants be used until new growth occurs that requires use of the new system. She said the proposed flat rate would increase fees to apartment owners by three times the current amount, while fees to home- owners would be increased only 2.5 times. She said that a study had been con- ducted of flow rates and had found that the average flow rate during winter months was 5,970 gallons per single-family dwelling and 3,809 gallons per indi- vidual apartment--a differential of 34 percent. She suggested that apartment buildings be charged the commercial fee rate. She urged that a flow-based rate be instituted. Wanda Simmons, 1183 Skipper, asked who would pay for providing sewer service to River Road-Santa Clara. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 2 - e e Peter De Fazio, 7395 Fourth Street, Springfield, said that he had also testified at the Springfield City Council's hearing on the proposed rate increases. He opposed the flat fee, since he felt it was a disincentive to conservation of water. He said that he had conducted an informal survey of flow rates among his acquaintances and had found that most of them used water amounts below the supposed average on which the flat rate was based. He urged the council to support institution of a flow-based rate. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Smith responded to issues raised during testimony. He said that $7 million in Federal funds was available for construction of sewers in River Road-Santa Clara and that this money might not be available after Federal Fiscal Year 1984. He said that all sewer users would pay the $.20 construction fee and that River Road-Santa Clara residents would pay this rate plus development charges when they were connected to the sewer system. Mr. Gleason emphasized that the pro- posal was just to construct a trunk system in River Road-Santa Clara and that people in the area would not have to pay for sewers until they were hooked into the system. He noted that the State groundwater permit system required develop- ment of a workable plan for this area or an order to cease and desist from development would be issued. Mr. Smith said that if owners of apartment buildings that are on a single meter request it, they can be switched over to the commercial rate. He said that the administrative mechanisms of the Eugene Water and Electirc Board (EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and the Rainbow Water District currently did not allow for implementation of flow-based rates but that institution of this rate was being considered. Mr. Smith said that the new treatment plant must be used as soon as possible due to the requirements of area discharge permits. He said that the $2.00 per month user charge for plant operation could be covered by property taxes rather than user fees but that this would not provide any real savings to the homeowner. Mr. Gleason said that since the the State requires that the utility account be audited annually it would be clear from that audit whether the proposed rates are higher than necessary. He said if this were the case the accumulated amount would be used to offset rates in future years. He said the jurisidictions were required to operate the existing Eugene, Springfield, and Airport plants simultaneously with the new plant for at least 30 days so that the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) can analyze discharge and determine whether the new plant is meeting required standards. Councilor Smith, speaking as the council IS representative on the MWMC, said that group had considered flow-based rates and was concerned that such rates be instituted as soon as possible. She said that she and Councilor Schue were serving on a task force working with the utilities toward implementation of such rates as soon as operationally possible. Responding to a question from Councilor Lindberg regarding the delay in moving to a flow-based rate, Mr. Smith introduced Kees Corssmit of CH2M-Hill to discuss the sewer rate study that firm had conducted for the City. Mr. Corssmit MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 3 said that many institutions were involved in setting and collecting rates in the area. He discussed changes that would need to be made at these institutions to allow initiation of a flow-based rate and said that a flow-based rate could probably be implemented within two years. Councilor Wooten said that at an earlier council meeting she had asked about the legality of having the new rate applied in March billings, which would essentially be retroactive to February 1--before the council had approved the increase. Mr. Smith said that the ordinance would automatically include a 30-day waiting period prior to implementation unless the council adopted it with an emergency clause. He said that the rates would therefore go into effect on March 15. He said that billings for March would be sent out in April. He said that in Springfield billings would be at the new rate beginning March 7. Ms. Wooten said she was concerned that the new rates not take effect until after final adoption of the ordinances. Responding to a question from Councilor Obie regarding the current and proposed costs for providing sewers to new development, Mr. Smith said that increase was approximately eight to nine percent. Councilor Ball asked if an alternate or "bare bones" budget for the plant had been considered. Mr. Smith responded that the MWMC had considered a stepped increase but had found that the initial step would have been so close to what was needed that it had not pursued step two. He felt that the local budget was a "bare bones" budget and noted that the council had examined that budget care- fully several times. Mr. Gleason said that cash for operation of the treatment plant was not available from other sources and that the MWMC therefore had to be careful to make certain sufficient funds were budgeted. He reiterated that the plant budget would be carefully audited and that unused funds would be applied ~ to offset future rates. Councilor Hansen asked if unused funds from the treatment plant budget could be placed in the City General Fund. Mr. Gleason said that this could only be done for direct administrative charges. He said that plant funds could be borrowed as a loan with suitable loan arrangements. Mr. Hansen asked why there was not a separate rate proposed for multi-family residences. Mr. Smith said that the rate was based on potential use and that it had been felt that there was the same potential use for multi-family residences as for single-family units. e e Councilor Holmer asked if the City's costs of risk management for the treatment plant would also be paid for through user fees. Mr. Gleason responded that administrative overhead, including risk management, would be covered by the new user rates, although he noted that the General Fund had subsidized such costs in the past. Councilor Holmer asked if the costs of leaf pick-up had been trans- ferred from the General Fund to the sewer fund. Mr. Smith responded that costs of leaf pick-up, fleet services, workers' compensation insurance, drainage ditch cleaning, and general services provided by City staff would all be transferred from the General Fund to the sewer fund. Councilor Holmer then discussed the $.90 portion of the rate increase that would be used to retire short-term bonds and said he understood that a bond issue over a longer term would have resulted in higher overall costs. Mr. Gleason responded that this was the case, primarily due to the costs of debt service. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 4 e Councilor Holmer noted that the treatment plant was not as highly automated as it could have been and asked why this decision had been made. Mr. Gleason responded that highly automated treatment plants had not been terribly successful and noted that the plant design would permit increased automation as technology improves. Councilor Schue noted for the public that the council recognized this was a complex issue and had spent time studying written reports on the rate proposal. She explained that due to the City's relationship with EWEB and difficulties with EWEB's billing system a flow-based rate could not be instituted immediately. She said that EWEB was concerned that introduction of a flow-based rate would result in major water conservation which would in turn affect EWEB's budget. She said EWEB therefore needed time to alter its budgets before such a rate is instituted. Councilor Wooten thanked Councilor Smith and other MWMC members for their many years of work on this plant. She agreed that the flat rate was not equitable for small users and urged that a flow-based rate be introduced as soon as possible. She said that she could support the proposed rate structure if approval included direction to the utilities and MWMC urging speedy initiation of the flow-based rate, with a request for a report back in six months on the feasiblity of such a rate and for implementation within one year. e Councilor Obie agreed with Ms. Wooten and suggested the council approve the rates for a one-year period so that the issue would be returned to the council in one year. Mr. Gleason said that such an action would make budget planning for MWMC and the utilities very difficult. He suggested that the council make any such recommendations outside the ordinances that had been presented. Ms. Smith said she felt the MWMC would support a suggestion from the council to move as quickly as feasible to a flow-based rate but suggested that the council request not contain a specific date, just a general recommendation for speediness. Ms. Wooten suggested addressing the concern through a motion that, in addition to adopting the ordinances before it, the council include on the rate structure ordinance a request to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission to encourage a flow-based system by completing a feasibility study no later than July 1, 1983, including an implementation component; and that by no later than July 1, 1984, the City of Eugene should review the rate structure as adopted at this date. Councilor Lindberg commented that the publiC has repeatedly asked the City to "get out of the property tax business" and that the ordinance before the council does just that. Mayor Keller agreed and said that the council had long been supportive of user fees. Mr. Gleason urged that Ms. Wooten's proposal be considered as a separate item and not added to the ordinances, since the ordinances were codified as law. Mayor Keller suggested that the council could adopt the bills and that the resolution proposed by Ms. Wooten could be brought back for council consider- ation at the February 16, 1983, council meeting. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 5 e CB 2594--An ordinance concerning sewer user charges; amending Sections 7.020 and 7.023 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding a new Section 7.045 to that code; providing an effective date; 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. Councilor Obie said he would vote against the motion so that the second reading would be held over for the February 16 council meeting when the council could also formally consider the resolution suggested by Ms. Wooten. Roll call vote; motion carried 7:1, with Councilors Ball, Hansen, Holmer, Lindberg, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor, and Councilor Obie voting in opposition. CB 2595--An ordinance concerning local improvements; and amending Sections 7.166, 7.180, 7.190, and 7.235 of the Eugene Code, 1971. 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 2595 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19093. Mr. Gleason noted that a six-month waiting period was required under City Charter before the provisions for use of a hearings official could be implemented. Mr. Gleason said a resolution to address council concerns regarding Council Bill 2594 would be presented at the February 16 meeting. B. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located on the Northeast Corner of River Road and Division Avenue from County RA Suburban Residential District, RP Residential Professional District (Tax Lot 3900) and C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District (Tax Lot 100) to City C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures and application of the City Integrated Shopping Sign District and R-l Low-Density Residential District (Tax Lot 100) and application of City Residential Sign District (Hayden Island, Inc.) (A/Z 82-6) (map background information distributed) Recommended Approval by Planning Commission, January 18, 1983. Vote--5:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Tom Hayes, Planning Department. Mr. Hayes said the request was for annexation and rezoning of 24 acres of property located at the northeast corner of River Road and Division Avenue. He said the property included 23 parcels under 17 separate ownerships. He said 14 of the parcels e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 6 e e - were developed with single-family dwellings and that the remaining parcels were used for a trucking business, an art studio and gallery, and EWEB facilities. He noted that request for consideration of the Hutchinson property as a part of this request had been withdrawn. He said that staff had invited the EWEB and Hansen properties to join in the request in view of their location with respect to other properties involved and that they had done so. Mr. Hayes referred to a letter on the request from EWEB and noted that EWEB wished to remain neutral and not take sides in favor of or in opposition to the matter. He said that Tax Lot 4200 on the corner of the properties involved, owned by William and Patricia Leonard, had been brought into the request under triple majority provisions. He said that the Leonards were not opposed to the annexation and rezoning but were not in a position to partition to join the request at this time. Mr. Hayes said that additional written testimony in opposition to the request had been received from John C. Neely, Jr., 1600 Horn Lane, subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing and noted that copies of this letter had been distributed to councilors. Mr. Hayes said that if the council approves the request for those properties requesting C-2 Community Commercial zoning, staff recommended application of the site review suffix. He noted that for the three acres owned by EWEB, staff recommended R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning. Mr. Hayes said that the City had an agreement with the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District for provision of fire protection to the subject properties. Mr. Hayes suggested that the council's motion include approval of a vacation now being considered by Lane County of portions of Edgewood Road which had previously been dedicated as public rights-of-way. 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. Speaking in support of the rezoning request: Isaac E. Pankratz, 3887 North Clarey, represented area construction trades. He said that if the property is annexed to the City, a large development will be built, which will provide jobs for area construction workers currently experiencing 75- to 80-percent unemployment. He said that, once built, the development would provide 200 to 250 permanent jobs in the area. He urged the council to help fight the recession and create jobs by approving the request. Donald Smith, 22221 East Irwin Way, represented the Carpenters' Union local for the Eugene-Springfield area. He said the union supported the $6 million project and felt there was an economic need for the project. He noted that the Metropol- itan Area General Plan designates the subject area for commercial development. He said that there was 82 to 85 percent unemployment in the carpenter's union. He said the proposed annexation would help spur economic recovery for the area. Dick Danielson, 1 East Broadway Mall Walk, represented the Hayden Island Corpora- tion. He said his clients did not object to the application of the site review suffix to the 19-acre parcel, as recommended by staff. He noted that this was a voluntary annexation, sponsored by the Hayden Island Corporation. He said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 7 e e - the property was contiguous to the City limits; that the request was in conformance with the Metropolitan Area General Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance; that the parcel in question was unique in terms of size and location to serve the surrounding area; that the request conformed with adopted City goals and policies; that sewers are available to serve the property; and that other available sites are inadequate for the proposed project. Mr. Danielson emphasized that the proposed development would help improve the economic climate of the area. He said he would make further comments during rebuttal. Speaking in opposition to the request: Wanda R. Simmons, 1183 Skipper, said there was no need for the proposed annex- ation and zone change. She said there were a number of large grocery stores, convenience stores, and full-service department-type stores in the area of the request. She felt the proposed development could cause congestion and traffic hazards. She asked the council to deny the request. John C. Neely, Jr., 1600 Horn Lane, said that staff had misrepresented the position he had taken in his letter to the council. He said that services are available to the subject parcel by contract and that the added costs of annex- ation should not be required for the proposed development. Speaking with other comments: Don Williams, 107 Mayfair Lane, said he was chairperson of the River Road Community Organization. He said that group was in favor of growth, economic development, and sound land use planning. He said the organization felt the subject request was good in terms of the first two items but was not good land use planning. He said the group generally opposes all annexation in the River Road-Santa Clara area. He said that efforts are under way which could result in formation of a new city of Santa Clara within one year. He felt the Hayden Island annexation would produce an island of the City of Eugene within the city of Santa Clara. He questioned whether councilors had reviewed maps of the Santa Clara area landholdings. He said that House Bill 2521 had given Santa Clara the right to incorporate and that every annexation to the City of Eugene affected the well-being of that future city and future intergovernmental cooperation between the cities of Eugene and Santa Clara. Jim Hale, 4064 Meredith Court, said he believed the council needed to consider and discuss this request further before taking action. He said that the City of Eugene has a new sewer plan for Santa Clara and fund allocations for it. He agreed that it was appropriate to take advantage of the $7 million available for sewer construction but felt that one of the important aspects of the proposal to form a separate City of Santa Clara was that the new city would have different policies for sewers than the City of Eugene. He felt that residents of River Road-Santa Clara need to know more about Eugene's plans and policies regarding that area. Mr. Hayes said staff found this application a unique opportunity and believed there was a need for the requested annexation and zone change. He said staff felt this was a logical extension of City services. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 8 e e e Responding to a procedural question from Mayor Keller, rim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that the applicant or applicant1s representative was entitled to rebuttal time under the quasi-judicial process followed at land use application hearings, but that rebuttal was to be limited to response to issues raised during testimony by opponents. Mr. Danielson presented rebuttal testimony. He said that need for the project had been addressed through an economic study which had been discussed at the Planning Commission level. He said it was not true that services were avaiable to the subject property without annexation to the City of Eugene. He said Eugene was the logical provider of services to the property. He said that the request met all the criteria of laws which the City Council administers for the City of Eugene. He did not feel more discussion was needed and urged the council to take action on the matter. He noted that Bob Smith of the Hayden Island Corporation was present to respond to questions from councilors. Public hearing was closed. Councilor Wooten asked Mr. Williams what number of acres is required under State law for incorporation. Mr. Williams said he did not know. Ms. Wooten asked him to describe the boundaries of the proposed future city of Santa Clara. Mr. Williams said the eastern boundary would be the Willamette River and the western boundary would be the Northwest Expressway. He said the northern boundary would be determined by acreage and density factors. Responding further, Mr. Williams said the projected population would be 20,000 to 25,000 and the projected tax rate would be $6 per $1,000 valuation. Councilor Lindberg asked if this annexation could be reversed if the subject property wanted at some future time to withdraw from the City of Eugene and be annexed by the City of Santa Clara. Mr. Sercombe said that State Statues did provide for transfer of territory between servicing districts. Mr. Gleason said that the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission would be responsible for reviewing any such request. Councilor Obie said he found Mr. Hale's comments to be irresponsible and inflammatory. Councilor Holmer remarked that this was a peninsular rather than an island annexation. Councilor Ball said that councilors were familiar with maps of the area. He commended staff on the highly professional job that had been done in dealing with this delicate issue. Councilor Schue said that this was not the first time a request regarding this property had been brought before the council. She said that three and one-half years ago she had voted against a proposal for annexation of the property because she felt that the problem of sewer service had not been resolved. Ms. Schue said she was pleased with the work that had been done on this matter and noted that this was a voluntary annexation request. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 9 - e e Councilor Hansen noted that the request was for 20 acres of commercially zoned land, with approximately 300,000 square feet of buildable retail space. He questioned whether if this request is granted and for some reason the proposed development is not built the existence of this large amount of commercially zoned land might:Cause denial of future requests for commercial zoning. Councilor Lindberg said it was important for the City of Eugene to establish a good working relationship with River Road and Santa Clara and noted that property owners could withdraw from Eugene and annex to a future city of Santa Clara if they wanted to. Mr. Gleason said that the council.s policy on River Road-Santa Clara is clear. He said the City of Eugene recognizes that the people of that area want to be independent but that most want to take advantage of reasonable opportunities to deal with existing septic tank problems. He said the City of Eugene proposes putting sewer trunk lines in place to provide sewer service as it is voluntarily requested. He noted that the Bancroft system requires that property owners on a street vote for installation of services on that street. Mr. Gleason noted that there is a State requirement that something be done to correct sewage problems in the River Road-Santa Clara area and that even if a new city were formed, it would be obliged to assess its residents for installation of a sewer system. Res. No. 3750--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located on the northeast corner of River Road and Division Avenue to the City of Eugene and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Councilor Wooten referred to a letter from James France requesting screening from the proposed development. Mr. Gleason noted that the site review criteria would address this concern. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2596--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban Residential District, RP Residential Professional District (Tax Lot 3900) and C-2 Neighborhood Commercial District (Tax Lot 100) to City C-2/SR Community Commer- cial District with Site Review procedures and application of the City Integrated Shopping Sign District for property located on the northeast corner of River Road and Division Avenue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 10 e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezonings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2596 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. Councilor Wooten said she believed that when the Planning Department presents its report on urbanization the council has an obligation to discuss working with other jurisdictions on this matter. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19094. CB 2597--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban Residential District to City R-1 Low-Density Residential District and application of City Residential Sign District for property located north of Division Avenue and east of River Road. e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezonings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, 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. Council Bill 2597 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 19095. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING/REFERRAL TO FEBRUARY 21, 1983, HEARING PANEL A. First Reading/Referral to Hearing Panel CB 2598--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer from East Bank Trunk north to Centennial Boulevard to serve Tax Lot 17-03-29-3 0--02600, 17-03-20-4 0--301, 700, 800, 900, and 1000, and in Centennial Boulevard from 300 feet east of Centennial Loop to 4500 feet east of Centennial Loop (#83-03). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 11 - Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2599--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk in Spring Boulevard from 30th Avenue to Dogwood Street (#83-04). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Referral to Hearing Panel Mr. Gleason noted that Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, was present to respond to questions from councilors. He said that the council had already held a first reading on these bills and that, therefore, a motion was needed to refer them to to the Assessment Hearing Panel. CB 2534--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Dove Lane from North Ruskin Street to 460 feet east (#81-29). e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill, having previously had first reading, be referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2553--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Todd Street from West 18th Avenue to 500 feet south of Ellen Street; and on Ellen Street from 85 feet west of Buck Street to 100 feet east of Coventry Way (#81-22). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill, having previously had first reading, be referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2554--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer on Country Club Road from 1-105 to Willagillespie Road, and on Willagillespie Road from Country Club to 300 feet south of Clinton Avenue; and storm sewer in area between Country Club Road and 1-105 (#81-23). - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 12 -> Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill, having previously had first reading, be referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2571--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Danebo Avenue from Royal Avenue to 11th Avenue (#82-0503). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill, having previously had first reading, be referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing February 21, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration February 28, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned to February 16, 1983. Respectfully submitted, 7~~ ~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:pm/CM23a1 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 1983 Page 13