Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/1984 Meeting (2) e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber May 29, 1984 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, John Ball, Dick Hansen, Freeman Holmer. Joyce Nichols. and Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Brian Obie and Betty Smith. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene. Oregon. was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. River Road-Santa Clara Sanitary Sewer Service Plan (memo, resolution full report, amendments distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Terry Smith of Public Works presented the staff report, stating that the council had received the plan document at its work session two months before. He stated that the council would also be considering a set of amendments to the draft document as developed by the Citizen Advisory Team after its April 10 public hearing. He briefly reviewed the history of the development of the Urban Facilities Plan now being recommended by the 15-member CAT. that group having been appointed and guided by an intergovernmental Policy Committee. He said the Sanitary Sewer Service Plan was the first product of the Urban Facilities Plan, being an outgrowth of the Metro Plan policies, a stipulated agreement between Lane County and the Department of Environmental Quality to protect groundwater, and the potential for a $7 million Environmental Protection Agency grant to build the interceptor sewers. He stated that planning for the sewer project must be completed by the end of September 1984 to qualify for the grant. He explained that the Metro Plan stated that urban level of services would be provided within the urban growth boundary and specified the key urban services. He said the plan also directed that Eugene and Lane County develop the Urban Facilities Plan through an active citizen participation process. After 40 meetings and two public hearings. the CAT reached the conclusion that conven- tional gravity sewers following the route referred to as Alternate 3B would be the most cost-effective. Briefly reviewing the findings of the analysis of alternatives, Mr. Smith said the No-Build alternative would be the cheapest alternative but would also place development limitations on the River Roadl Santa Clara area. This alternative would result in increased public cost for constructing streets and other public services to serve the population. He stated that the Build alternative required a change in jurisdiction, either through annexation of the area or incorporation as a new city. He said the Metro Plan identified Eugene as the logical provider of services. He said MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29. 1984 Page 1 e e - two minor environmental issues involving some mature trees on Irvington Drive and some archaeological sites near the interceptor routes could be addressed within the design chosen. Addressing financing recommendations, Mr. Smith said that sewer user fees had been chosen over property taxes for funding the interceptors. In addition, he said that Eugene also had assessment deferral or extension programs to allow area residents to defer or extend payment of the assessment for lateral service and was recommending that the maximum income level for those programs be increased to the "low income" level. He explained that the CAT was recommending that low-interest financing be made available for residents to pay for house connection and the cost of filling in septic tanks. He said the intergovernmental agreement which established the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission included a catch-up charge or connection fee but that the CAT was recommending that the charge not be used based on the facts that similar fees were not used for other City services and that such charges would increase in size over the years. Mr. Smith said the bottom line for the financing recommendations was that they had no General Fund impact. Mr. Smith said the key to a successful grant application was the resolution of the DEQ groundwater pollution concern and the EPA concern that the grant money be appropriately used as balanced against the City's desire to provide assur- ances to the DEQ and EPA but to maintain local control. Referring to Figure 9.1, Mr. Smith said the CAT had reached a compromise with DEQ, resulting in a new connection schedule which would have 15 percent of the households connected to the sewer system by 1988, 30 percent by 1990 and 75 percent by 1995. He reviewed the three methods in which the schedule would be implemented and the various alternatives developed under large annexation, small incremental annexation, or incorporation of a new city. As part of the City's program to encourage annexation, the City of Eugene would allow incremental annexation, phased property taxes after annexation, and programs to soften the financial impact of the sewers. Mr. Smith explained that additional measures could be taken if the proposed connection schedule was not achieved by 1990, at which time the City could extend services beyond its limits and assess for the service. He said the City would have to rely on Lane County to adopt a sewer use ordinance to require connection to a sewer. If these measures failed to ensure connection, the DEQ had various measures to force connection to the sewers, these measures ranging from a moratorium on new construction in the county, cessation of state taxes, to court-ordered connection. He said that staff was available to answer any question on the item. Councilor Schue asked for clarification of the situation where Eugene would be forced to extend sewers beyond its city limits. Mr. Smith responded that the only manner in which the City could provide assurances to DEQ and EPA of its ability to complete the program was its ability to provide services beyond its boundary. He said the City's legal authority to do so had been presented to the two agencies for review. Mr. Smith said his own view of the worst situation would be that the City Council would have to take some action if the program was not being completed as planned. He felt that the City will have eventually annexed the majority of the area, leaving pockets of residential properties. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 2 The public hearing was opened. ~ Gary Wright, no address given, chairperson of the Citizen Advisory Team, stated that over 40 meetings were held by the CAT to obtain public input. He explained that the charge of the CAT was to determine how best to provide the sewer system, the CAT deciding that a gravity sewer was the most cost-effective system. Mr. Wright said the CAT decision did not preclude other options such as another city or a county service district, stating that these options existed more on paper than in reality. He said individuals were still allowed to pursue these options. He estimated that support for sewer implementation would be about 15 percent of the area population but added that most of those citizens, provided with the same information as the CAT, would reach the same or a similar conclusion as reached by the CAT. He said that a great amount of public input was received on the sewer system and he urged the support of the City Council to the sewer plan. There being no further testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Keller thanked Mr. Wright for his work and the efforts of the CAT in the resolution of the problem. Res. No. 3858--A resolution adopting the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, sanitary sewer service element, and sanitary sewer service plan contained therein. e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Councilor Ball said that staff had performed exceptionally well in a delicate position during the past year. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. At 7:59 a.m., the meeting of the Eugene City Council was adjourned to a meeting of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene. Mayor Keller opened the meeting. B. 8th and Willamette Improvement Project Resolution (memo, map, resolution distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Don Genasci of the Downtown Commission presented the staff report, reviewing the May 23, 1984, Downtown Commission memorandum to the City Council. Referring to a map of the improvement project area, he explained that the project would be part of other long-term projects for the downtown mall. Stating that the commission had discussed the relationship of the project to the Price Development, he said the commission believed that any construction on the project site would occur several years in the future. Mr. Genasci said it was the consensus of the commission to complete the project and bring the mall to a better standard. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 3 e e e In response to a question by Mr. Holmer on construction during the summer season, Mr. Genasci explained that the actual construction period would be approximately six weeks, the trees for the project to be planted during the spring of 1985. He expected that any interference with the summer activities on the mall would be limited. In response to a question on communication with the developers, Mr. Genasci said that both commission members and staff met with the developers, the developers stating that they preferred that the commission not undertake the project at the present time. Mr. Genasci stated that he would have given the same answer were he the architect for the devel- opers to retain all possible options. However, he said the Downtown Commission wished to complete the mall and that the interruption caused by the project would be small. Responding to a related question, Mr. Genasci stated that he had not spoken directly to the developers, but he felt that the feelings of the developers were not particularly strong in opposition to the project. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Res. No. 903--A resolution of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene approving the 8th and Willamette area improvement project and authorizing project costs. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt, as the Urban Renewal Agency, the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. At 8:05 p.m., Mayor Keller adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Renewal Agency and reconvened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. C. Ordinance Concerning Process for Appointment of City Councilors (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. City Attorney Tim Sercombe presented the staff report, stating that the ordinance was the result of a staff recommendation. He explained that the draft ordinance was basically the same as distributed several weeks before, reviewing the changes as listed in the memorandum from the City Manager and the City Attorney to the City Council. He stressed that the only legal parameter was that the appointment by the council to fill a vacancy must take place after the vacancy occurred; therefore, no appointments could be made in advance of a vacancy. Mr. Sercombe stated that some changes had been made to shorten the appointment process based on comments received by staff from several councilors with regard to the May 14 draft. He then reviewed the changes as suggested by the council but not included in the draft ordinance, the suggestions referring to beginning the selection process prior to the effective date of a vacancy and bypassing the selection process in the event of an election. He stated that these changes could be included in the ordinance by amending the motion as listed in the memorandum. He stated that two other suggestions discussed were the council enacting its own application form for the vacancy and the deletion of subparagraphs (2) and (4) of the draft ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 4 e e - Councilor Hansen asked for an update on the existing rules by charter for the replacement of a councilor who resigned before the end of a term. Mr. Sercombe stated that much of what was stated in Sections 23 and 24 of the charter were included in the ordinance. He said the council must make the appointment within 90 days of the day of the vacancy. He explained that subparagraph (7) of the proposed ordinance included wording directly from the charter. Other pertinent items in Sections 23 and 24 were the charter requirements for qualifications for a councilor, that of being a resident of Eugene for one year prior to the appointment or election, being an elector of the state, and residing in the ward being represented. He said the charter also talked about the duration of the term of the person appointed. In response to a question on the voting process, Mr. Sercombe stated that Section 17 of the charter allowed the mayor to vote to break a tie on any matter before the council. Addressing the draft ordinance, Councilor Holmer stated that subparagraphs (1) and (2) used language different than that used in the charter for describing the individual's elector status. He asked if there was any distinction between the three terms used. Mr. Sercombe responded that there were state requirements for being a qualified or legal elector, therefore the terms were synonomous. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification on the subparagraph (1) phrase 1I0r whenever that office is declared vacant." Mr. Sercombe stated that it was a part of Section 23 of the charter, explaining that the office of councilor could be declared vacant whenever its incumbent failed to attend two consecu- tive regular meetings of the council unless leave was first obtained from the council. Mr. Holmer commented that the draft ordinance did not address the issue of a councilor being disqualified for any reason as previously suggested by the council. Mr. Sercombe responded that staff had revised subparagraph (7) to include the disqualification term along the lines suggested by council. He said he was unsure what circumstances beyond those mentioned in Section 23 would allow the council to declare any seat vacant. Mr. Holmer asked if it would be possible to shorten the period of application as listed in subpara- graph (3) to 10 days, it already having been shortened from 45 to 20 days. Mr. Sercombe said the language addressed the question of beginning the selec- tion process before the position actually became vacant. He said 10 days might be adequate if the council wished to search out qualified applicants prior to the vacancy; however, he said one problem having occurred in the past was insufficient time for neighborhoods to use newsletters to search out applicants. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, Mr. Holmer stated that the sugges- tions for shortening the process were not exclusively his. Mr. Gleason stated that a practical problem had occurred in filling previous vacancies, explaining that obtaining applicants was usually more difficult than expected. Mayor Keller said he was concerned that a 20-day time period for applications might be inadequate, stating that the council allowed 30 days for application to its own boards and commissions. Mr. Holmer said it should be easier to recruit applicants to the more prominent position of councilor. He said the period could be extended later if necessary, but he wished to retain the language as drafted. Mr. Hansen said the council appeared to be discussing the issue before the public hearing was held. He felt that circumstances . surrounding any resignation would dictate the action to be taken at that MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 5 e e e time. He said he would not support the ordinance as presently drafted, stating that he preferred the present process which would allow the council to set up its own guidelines. He said the process of determining the number of days for the application period only highlighted the complexity of the problem. Councilor Schue said she basically agreed with Mr. Hansen but would be willing to support the ordinance under certain circumstances. She felt that more time was needed for the selection process, stating that the sudden death or reloca- tion of a councilor would allow little or no advance notice. She stressed the importance of serving on the council and the thought and discussion taken by individuals before applying. She said that at least 30 days should be provided for the process. Councilor Ball stated that he would support Mayor Keller's concerns, stating that citizens deserved a reasonable amount of time in which to research and decide whether to apply for the position. He felt that 20 days was too short a period. Ms. Nichols said she would echo Mr. Ball's comments, suggesting that 30 days was necessary more for the applicant than for the councilor any administrative procedure. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the publiC hearing was closed. Councilor Wooten stated that she had requested staff to draft an ordinance and that she had offered some additions and amendments to the draft prepared by the legal staff. She felt that a process by ordinance was needed to avoid any political influence on the appointment process. She felt that the ordinance needed to be amended to include the circumstances of councilor resignation or departure due to the election of another to the position. Ms. Wooten said she would like to have some means included to bypass the search process in such a circumstance. Mr. Ball said the ordinance language specifically excluded that option, stating that the council may give preference to an applicant. Mr. Sercombe said the suggestion was made addressing that issue, adding that he had included language for amending the ordinance under Item 4 on page 2 of the memorandum. Ms. Wooten said she supported the suggested language, stating that it addressed the two major circumstances the council may face. She said the language would allow the council to bypass the search by ordinance. Councilor Holmer suggested that the last sentence of subparagraph (3) should read "Applications shall be on a form prescribed by the City Counci1." He said it was not entirely appropriate for the City Manager to be the source of the application form. CB 2745--An ordinance concerning the process for appointment of City Councilors; adding Section 2.014 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 6 e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the ordinance, amending it to include under subparagraph (3) that the applica- ti on peri od has been shortened from 45 to 20 days and that it now read 30 days, that applications shall be on a form as prescribed by the City Council, and by adding an additional sentence to subparagraph (6) that reads, liThe Counci 1 may gi ve preference to appointment of a person elected or nominated for succession to that council position by receiving 'a majority of the votes cast for that position in a general or primary election," and declaring an emergency. Councilor Hansen said he did not understand how Ms. Wooten could both make and amend the motion. Referring to subparagraph (3), he asked for clarification of the basis for the change in the length of the application period. Ms. Wooten explained that, since the council had not yet adopted the ordinance, she was clarifying that the application period was being changed from 45 days as listed in the original draft to 30 days in the actual ordinance. In response to a request for further cl arifi cati on, Ms. Wooten revi ewed her amendments to the ordinance. She stated that the amended language to subparagraph (6) allowed the council to decide whether to give preferential treatment. e Councilor Hansen stated that he would vote against the ordinance, stating that conditions changed so rapidly that going through such procedures would be a detriment to the council. He said the present ordinance allowed adequate flexibility to the council for notices and appointments. He felt the proposed ordinance would restrict the council. Ms. Wooten convnented that her motion had included an emergency clause. Mayor Keller explained that it would require all six councilor votes to pass the emergency clause. Councilor Ball said he foresaw problems in all eight councilors attempting to design an application form. Ms. Wooten said she would assume the council would request the City Manager to present a draft form. Mayor Keller said he was uncomfortable with the proposed ordinance. He suggested that the ordinance be held over. He stated that he did not like the ordinance structure and that he had come prepared to veto the ordinance if passed by the council. Ms. Wooten said she did not mind holding the item over, but she understood Mr. Hansen to support the present system over the proposed ordinance. In response to a question, Mayor Keller said he was concerned with any time schedules for a major appointment. He felt that some citizens would not be able to make the decision to apply within 30 days. He said the process developed by he, Mr. Obie, and Ms. Wooten addressed the necessary problems in the appointment process. He said he was unsure whether the structure as provided by the proposed ordinance was needed. Ms. Wooten wi thdrew her moti on. Ms. Schue wi thdrew her second of the motion. Mayor Keller directed staff to reschedule the item for a future meeting. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 7 e e e II. CLEAN-UP OF JUNK AND DEBRIS IN THE 1900 BLOCK OF HIGHWAY 99 NORTH (Big Apple Area) (memo distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Assistant Super- intendent of Building Inspection Larry Reed presented the staff report. He reviewed his May 22, 1984, memorandum to the City Council which outlined the process followed with regard to the property. He added that the building owner was contacted on April 18, 1984, at which time he was given 10 days to clean up the property. Mr. Reed said he had also talked with the building owner and tenants and had walked the site on or about May 3, citing six piles of items to be cleaned up at that time, verbally giving another 10-day exten- sion to complete the process. The items were not cleaned up as of May 15. He said the piles of material were posted. with the notice required by code. Mr. Reed stated that the owners had failed to clean up the piles and that staff was requesting that the City Council give staff the authority to proceed with the clean-up as prescribed by Chapter 6 of the Eugene Code. He explained that the matter would be brought back to the council for the imposition of a lien for costs incurred by the City in cleaning up the area. Mr. Reed added that he had received an objection to the posting that afternoon, the individual claiming that the six piles were not nuisances as defined by Code. He said he had not had the opportunity to discuss the issue with the legal staff. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to direct the staff to proceed with the clean-up as outlined. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. III. CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION RELATED TO THE RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA TRUNK SEWER SYSTEM (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Acting Director of Public Works Don Gilman presented the staff report, stating that the field survey work had been completed and that staff was beginning the final design drawings for the major trunk lines in the area. He said the easement areas had been identified, stating that 12 separate property parcels would be involved. He explained that the ordinance would give staff the authority to continue negotiations and proceed with condemnation if necessary. CB 2746--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceeding in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of property interests for the construction of a sanitary sewer pump station, sanitary sewer, fence line and/or facilities related thereto in the River Road and Santa Clara area; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Wooten 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; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 8 - e e Council Bill 2746 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. approved and given final passage. voting aye, the bill was declared No. 19249). Schue, that the bill be Roll call vote; all councilors passed (and became Ordinance IV. CITY COUNCILOR LETTER OF RESIGNATION Mayor Keller read the letter of resignation from Councilor Nichols which stated that her resignation, if accepted, would be effective on June 1, 1984. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to accept the letter of resignation of Joyce Nichols. Councilor Nichols expressed her appreciation to those who had assisted her during her term of office. She stated that the experience was invaluable and said that more citizens should have and take the opportunity to serve the ci ty. Councilor Schue thanked Ms. Nichols for her efforts on the council. She hoped Ms. Nichols would continue to be of service to the city in the future. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. to May 30, 1984. ~.e~ ' '(~ . - Micheal D. Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Thorn Strunk) TS: vr/CM7 al7 MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 1984 Page 9