Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/1975 Meeting -- (1401) e (1434 ) '. M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 24,1975 Adjnurned meeting - from the March 10, 1975 regular meeting - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on March 24, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D.W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings . A.' Vacation of West 2nd Avenue between Jefferson Street and Madison Street (Jongeward/Howard)(SV 74-7) Recommended by the Planfiing Commission on January 13, 1975. Assistant Manager noted there were no staff objections to the vacation. The petitioner, however, did not agree with the appraisal of the property's value and staff recommended holding approval of the vacating ordinance until agreement on the value was reached. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 760 - Vacating West 2nd Avenue between Jefferson Street and Madison Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be held pending negotiation on value of land to be vacated. In response to Councilman Bradley, Assistant Manager said the vacation was peti- tioned by the owner of abutting property and that the area to be vacated was un- improved right-of-way not being used. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. B. Appeal from Planning Commission decision on minor subdivision on south side of East 43rd Avenue about 750 feet east of Dillard Road (Zdroy)(M 74-26) Conditions of approval were sustained by the Planning Commission on February 4,1975 on appeal by the applicant. The applicant objected to the requirement for 25-foot right-of-way dedication along the south side of the development to allow for future development to the south. Copies of memo (February 21, 1975) from the planning department setting out the conditions of approval were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing COIDm on the appeal for the March 24, 1975 Council meeting, with the under- 3/19/75 standing that testimony would be limited. Motion carried unanimously. PubHrng Planning Commission on February 4, 1975 sustained conditions of approval (see committee minutes above). Council viewed the property on tour. Gary Chenkin, assistant planning director, explained that the 25-foot dedication was a re- quirement frequently established as a condition to approval of subdividsion of land to provide proper access to adjacent properties in undeveloped areas. No ex parte contacts or other conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning staff notes and minutes of February 4, 1975 were made a part of this record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. 3/24/75 - 1 131 Donald Zdroy, 2815 Kincaid Street, didn't agree with the planning proposed for the area where his property is located. The proposed right-of-way dedication, he said, would ruin a good house location. (1470) There was no further testimony offered and the public hearing was closed. -- Councilman Murray asked staff what impact the fairly significant annexation near- by would have on building permits in that area and whether some increase in popula- tion was expected there. Assistant Manager answered that extension of sewers to the Skyline Loop annexation would accelerate development in that area. Councilwoman Shirey asked for clarification.of access to Mr. Zdroy's property. Assistant Manager said that Mr. Zdroy did have access to 43rd Avenue. He would not necessarily have to change that access upon dedication of the right-of-way, but it would provide exit to the south rather than having to go north to 43rd. If no public need was found for the right-of-way in the future, the area could be vacated and ownership would revert to the abutting properties. Mr. Chenkin added that planning staff felt the pattern shown on map of the area was the only feasible and safe way to develop streets in that area because of intersecting streets from the west. Councilman Bradley asked for clarification of the appeal, whether Mr. Zdroy was appealing on the right-of-way dedication requirement or all three conditions of the subdivision approval. Assistant Manager answered that the main issue was dedication of right-of-way on 43rd and at the south end of Mr. Zdroy's property, there was no objection to dedication of the sewer easement. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal and adopt as findings of fact supporting the denial planning staff notes and minutes of February 4, 1975 and memo from planning department dated February 21, 1975. . Mr. Zdroy couldn't see any possibility of a road's being constructed on the right-of-way required because the property owner to the east of his property was proposing his own entry. Also, the property owner to the south would not permit a sewer easement through his parcel, he (Zdroy) had stated he was more than willing to permit the easement on his south property line. But he felt it too early for the city to take the acreage. He said he would have to change his plans to accommodate the city's plans. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. C. Compacted Garbage Rates Compacted Garbage Rates - Copies of resDlution setting out rates were distributed to Council members with agenda. Adoption of the resolution was recOmmended by the Garbage Board in order to establish rates for compacted garbage to provide control of the competition situation between collectors. (1583) Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve rates and present the resolution for adoption at the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. the proposed March 24 Council. l~ umm 3/19/75 Pub I-irng Assistant Manager explained that one of the major garbage haulers had not re- ceived notice of the Garbage Board's discussion and had a number of concerns about the proposed rate structure. Staff was unable to reach any members of the Board for an explanation of the rates. .- Public hearing was opened. 3/24/75 - 2 , ?>2. e (1598) e (1660) - Neil Brown, attorney representing SaniPac, raised a question about notice of meetings at which garbap,e rates were discussed, especially as it concerned SaniPac's being left out in many instances in revising rate structures. He said the resolution setting the proposed rates had left out rates for the large com- mercial type compactors although they were included'in the previous rate structure. There was no further testimony. The Chair on recommendation of staff ordered the hearing continued to the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. D. Liquor Licenses - New Outlets 1. Terr & Sher's, 1775 West 6th Avenue (R) - Richard A. Becker 2. Old English Inn & Grotto, 795 Willamette Street (formerly LaMars) (RMB) Thomas D. Price Staff had no reason to recommend denial of the applications. Public hearing was opened. Arlene Haislip, 3666 Vine Maple Street, expressed opposition to the applica- tion of Old English Inn & Grotto because of reputation of the past establish- ment at that location. She said she was one of the owners of a shop in the Smeede Building and had difficulty convincing people to come to evening sew- ing classes because they were afraid. There was no further testimony and public hearing was closed. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to recommend approval of the licenses. Motion carried unanimously. E. Ordinance Amendments Extending Hardship Assessment Deferral Program Establishing Downtown Parking District property tax for 1973-74 and 1974-75 It was understood the ordinances would be schedu1ed.for public hear- ing at the March 24 Council meeting. Comm 3/19/75 Pnb Hrng 1. Extending Hardship Assessment Deferral Program Assistant Manager explained that the proposed amendment, copies previously distributed to Council members, would extend the hardship deferral program and "clean up" some of 'the language existing in the code. It would broaden eligibility for assessment deferral to those 55 years of age and older with limited income and extend the Bancrofting payment period to 20 years. Under the 20-year payment proposal, persons 62 and older qualifying for deferral would pay 3% interest on the deferred amount; persons 55 and older would pay the then required interest rate as prescribed by state law on the unpaid principal balance for the first ten years, then would pay 3% below the es- tablished statutory rate of interest for the remainder of the term. He said staff estimates about 14 people at the present time may qualify under this modification. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Councilman Murray reported that the Community Development Task Force in its deliberations had strongly recommended broadening of the assessment deferral program to give eligibility to more people. He wondered if the effect of the proposed amendment would be only to provide for a lower interest rate for the second ten years. Assistant Manager answered that the time payment period 1'33~ : 3/24/75 - 3 would be extended from ten years to twenty years ~hi~h would have the effect of reducing each six-month payment. Also, during the last half of the 20- year term there would be a 3% reduction in the interest rate. The proposal would make more people eligible for deferral. . Councilman Murray asked how many people had used the current policy and whether staff review of the proposed policy, if adopted, was anticipated to determine whether the amendment significantly broadened the policy. Assistant Manager answered that he was aware of only one application for deferral under the current policy. A review of existing assessments revealed about 14 who may be eligibile under the proposed program and would represent about $35,000 in assessments if they take advantage of it. If the amendment is adopted, those who may qualify would be notified to see if they want to take advantage of the program. He added that staff does intend review of the program because of budgetary implications. No money was budgeted this year for the program but there would have to be an annual review and status report each budget season in the future. Council Bill No. 761 - Amending Sections 7.190 through 7.194 of Eugene Code re: Extending hardship assess- ment deferral program was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Councilman Bradley wondered if definitions of the terms "deferral," "modifica- tion," and "extension" should be defined in the body of the ordinance for . clarificiation rather than leaving it to interpretation. Assistant Manager answered that notices going out to those who might qualify under the program would be written explicitly so there would be no question of communicating the intent. It would not be a matter of relying on the ordinance language. Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rqllcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17281. 2. Establishing Downtown Parking District Property Tax for 1973-74, 1974-75 Assistant Manager explained that because some problems were being encountered in collecting property taxes on downtown renewal properties, staff recom- mended this ordinance as the most reasonable method of holding the property owners accountable. It would make the property tax a personal liability of the property owners rather than waiting five years for a lien foreclosure through the county's process. (1723) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 762 - Establishing Downtown Parking District property ~ tax for 1973-74 and 1974-75 was read by council 111I bill number and title only, there being no council members present requesting that it be read in full. 3/24/75 - 4 l~g,: t.rT. . e e II - Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the secon~ time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Counc~l, and that enactment be considered at this time. Lacking unanimous consent, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no, the bill was held over for second reading. Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested. Previously discussed in committee on March 19, 1975 (Presen~: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel (arr~ved later), Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of that meeting appear below printed in italics. A. Resolutionre: Pro. Tem Manager Appointment to be presented for Council con- sideration at the March 24 meeting. The resolution spells out personnel re- Comm sponsibilities until a new city manager is appointed and takes care of 3/19/75 Charter requirements relating to collective bargaining contracts. It indi- Approve cates where responsibilities lie between Keith Martin, assistant city manager; Gary Long, manager pro tem; and the Council in the interim period. B. Improvement of Agate Street from 30th Avenue to the south - Manager read memo from the Planning Commission (February 17, 1975), copies of which were distributed to Council members with agenda in which the Commission expressed agreement with concerns expressed by the Oak Hills Homeowne~s Association about traffic con~es- tion and unsafe conditions on Agate Street that might occur from development of the 10th Addition to Nob Hill Subdivision. Copies of memo from city engineer were distributed requesting Council initiation of street improvement, with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on the east side only of Agate Street from Cameo Street south 1100 feet, with on-street parking provided adjacent to residential lots. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, displayed a map showing location of properties whose owners were involved in the neighborhood group requesting improvement who would not be involved in assessment for the project. The map also indicated those properties which would be assessed and where owners had expressed opposi- tion to the project. Petition for improvements in the 10th Addition to Nob Hi-II adjacent to Agate Street had been submitted, he said, and Mr. Lindberg, the developer, indicated he would not oppose the Agate Street improvement. Mr. Teizel said the public works department thought the best solution would be installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street, but because of the opposition, it was recommended to install them on the east side only. Improvement of Agate to 30th had been suggested but staff felt that portion should wait because sf the more difficult topography, possibility of a better route when Spring Boulevard was improved to 30th, and because north of Cameo the roadway had be~n leveled wide enough to accommodate pedestrians and bikes although it still was not considered a desirable street. !f the improve- ment was initiated, Mr. Teitzel said, staff would recommend a 24-foot traveled roadway (which would not entail widening) with some parking provided in those . sections where it would be feasible. In response to Councilwoman Beal, Don Gilman, assistant public works director, explained that annexations in the area go back to 1959-1964; the county had blacktopped the road to its existing width. At that time, only one side of the road was inside the city which precluded improvement to city standards. Manager noted the further complication in that the request was presented by the Oak Hills Homeowners Association with no participation in the request by property owners who would bear the assessed costs of the improvement. This, he said, had helped formation of another neighborhood group in the same general area. So there was some concern about splitting the planning for the area on this kind of an issue. He said it might be a "tough" decision about who was going to represent the area. 3/24/75 - 5 \'3S.. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to schedule public hearing on the requested improvement to which all interested parties would be invited. Councilman Bradley wondered if there was any leeway that would allow changing the . method of ~ssessment for public improvements. Mayor Anderson said any change in assessment procedure would require a Charter amendment and that it was almost im- possible to develop a more equitable method. Recognizing that street improvements belong to all citizens of the city and are used by all citizens of the city, he thought the owner paying for an improvement abutting his property was paying his share of the cost he had not paid before for being able to drive over paved streets in other parts of the city. Councilman Williams pointed out that street assess- ments in residential areas were based on a 28-foot width only. Mrs. Shirey said she understood that, but she said the Council seemed constantly to be involved with assessments levied against a small group of people for improvmeents petitioned by another group. Councilman.Haws shared concerns about the assessment policy but he didn't think that was important to this issue. He wondered whether a time limit could be set on testimony presented in public hearing, or if people could be requested to appoint a spokesman for their groups so that there would be only one logical, reasoned argu- ment presented for each viewpoint. Mayor Anderson thought that was within the Council's prerogative. Manager suggested setting the public hearing for some meet- ing other than the March 24 session because of other items scheduled for hearing that night. There were no objections to staff's scheduling the hearing at an appropriate time. Councilman Hamel entered the meeting. Councilman Bradley wondered whether staff could make a brief report to the Council with regard to assessment method and procedure. He thought that since the Charter was being reworked, now mighc be the proper time to consider a change in the . assessment method. Mayor Anderson thought an enormous amount of time would be involved and he suggested contact with the public works department staff. When Councilman Bradley said he thought it was a policy matter which should be addressed by the Council, that the present method was unfair and inequitable, Mayor Anderson said he hesitated to open the matter of assessments at this time. that it should start at the staff level. Further discussion resulted in understanding chac those Council members incerested could contact the Assistant Manager and a meeting would be arranged with public works staff to discuss assessment procedure. Councilman Murray said that he was also troubled by the present method of assess- ment, but he had come to the conclusion that it was the "fairest" way. He felt it would be less fair to change the assessment method now after the general public had met their assessments.. Vote was taken on the motion to schedule public hearing, with the understanding that staff would schedule the date of hearing and notify those interested, and that testimony at the hearing would. be limited. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/19/75 Approve C. Petition -Paving, sanitary and storm sewers for 10th Addition to Nob Hill - 100% Manager explained that the Planning Commission had approved the subdivision on the east side of Agate Street, but that whether the subdivision could proceed would not nece$sarily hinge on the level of improvement of Agate Street. Staff recommended receiving the petition to allow engineering design to proceed, realizing that it would be before the Council for further consideration before anything was done in terms of spending money. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition. Motion carried unanimously. coA. 3/19/75 ~ Approve 3/24/75 - 6 l"3b' e D. Amendment, Room Tax Ordinance - Copies of proposed amendment were previously distributed to Council members. It would put the room tax ordinance into code form. Also, it eliminates the room tax review committee, established originally to work with the city administration in development of goals and procedures to assure that the collection process of the hotel/motel room tax would be compatible with the processes of the hotel/motel operators and to allow a method of give and take between the operators and the admini.stration if disagreements arose'.' about what was a reasonable process. Manager explained that the committee had met once or twice after the orig.inal ordinance was written but had been inactive since because of the city's good relationship with the operators themselves. The amendment retains an appeal process from administrative procedures if needed. Comm 3/19/75 Approve It was understood the amendment would be on the March 24, 1975 Council agenda for adoption. E.Room Tax.Allocation Recommendations - February 17, 1975 - Copies of minutes of the Room Tax Allocation Committee meeting together with report from the chair- man were previously distributed to Council members recommending allocations to: Altrusa Club for venetian blinds for international students lounge on campus - $600 Lane County Horsemen's Association - $500 Central Lane Family YMCA for roof replacement - $17,740 Councilman Murray expressed reservations about the YMCA allocation because he considered the Y, having international affiliation, would have resources the "go beyond Eugene." Also, he felt routine maintenance and repair didn't really fall within the scope of the room tax fund. Carl DuBois, Y director, said the Y was autonomous locally and did not have any outside financing. He said a fee was charged to members, however, the majority of the service provided by the Y was to the general public and for that reason he felt it would fall within the guidelines for room tax allocations. e e Councilman Haws asked how it would meet the criteria for not teaching or expound- ing any religious ideology. Councilman Williams answered that he had served for many years on the Y board of directors, and while it had the name "Christian" and attempted to be a Christian organization, there was no religious teaching in the sense of a church in its programs. He said when the Y was built it was the only community facility available, land for the building t.,as provided by the school district. He felt the city was not involved in similar kinds of services in many different areas. Although the Y charged fees, he said, they were a small part of the total budget for providing their services, and no one was denied the opportunity of participating. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the allocations as recommended. In making the motion, Councilman Murray expressed the reservation about getting into the position of making major allocations from room tax revenues for capital projects. Mayor Anderson agreed and thought the Room Tax Allocation Committee should keep in mind the source of monies involved and that consideration should be given recreational and cultural type activities that would generate more revenues for the establishments collecting the room tax. Art Fairchild, chairman of the committee, said they were well aware of this. He added that the roof for the Y was an emergency situation, it had to be replaced or the Y would have lost everything it had. Manager said too that capital projects in the past had not been considered inappropriate, calling attention to the construction of an auditorium as the major reason for initiating the tax, and past allocations for track improvements, etc. He said staff's major concern with this particular allocation was whether it met the criteria that the funds should not be used for debt retirement. That was the reason it was sent back to the committee when it was originally recommended, but the committee said they felt it should not be considered debt retirement. \"!.; 3/24/75 - 7 Councilwoman Bea1 was in favor of the Y allocation because she felt it did pro- vide recreational activities along the same lines as those provided by the parks department. However, she wondered about the allocation to the Altrusa Clud for venetian blinds. Margaret Nielsen, vice president of the Club, explained that tit it had long been interested in service projects in the community and in further- ing international relationships. The blinds, she said, would be part of refur- bishing a lounge for students from other countries on the University of Oregon campus where the community could share in the intercultural programs. The lounge was open to the entire community. In response to Councilman Haws' request for a copy of letter from the city attorney dated December 6, 1973 and referred to in the guidlines, and to Councilman Bradley's request for a copy of the guidelines for allocation of room tax revenues, it was understood copies of both would be forwarded as re- quested. Vote was taken on the motion to approve the recommended allocations. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Council- man Bradley abstaining until he had an opportunity to review the guidelines. F. Authorization for Negotiation and/or Condemnation for public works projects was requested: 1. Warren Avenue south of Bailey Hill Road a. Richard A. and Betsy L. Styskal b. Roland L. and Beverly J. Berard c. Charles F. and Mary J. Temple d. Eric and Dorothy K. Schabtach 2. West 11th Avenue west of Seneca a. Hal F. and Sally D. Broughton b. Norman pohl - Storm sewer easement c. M&M Development Co. - Storm sewer easement 3. !3ewer Easements - Shasta Loop a. Lot 1900 b. Lot 1800 c. Lot 1701 $ 760.00 510.00 950.00 275.00 3,450.00 320.00 175.00 120.00 Manager explained that no price had been set yet On the storm sewer easements. for West 11th, that would be negotiated. Bert Teitzel, city engineer, pointed out the areas of the proposed purchases on a map. , Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize negotiation and/or condemnation as reques.ted. "Motion carried unanimously. G. Authorization to exercise options 1. West 11th Avenue right-of-way - Clara A. Boatman, 3634 West 11th - $2,400.00 2. Barger. Drive right-of-way - Floyd F. and Edna L. Witten, and Charles A. and Shirley Emerson (Tax Lot 17-4-21-2-1100) 650.00 Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the purchases as presented. Motion carried unanimously. H. Improvement Projects - Council was requested to initiate improvement projects listed in memo from public works director (February 27, 1975), copies of which were distributed; South Bank bike trail from WAshington to North Polk Bridge - Bertelsen at Amazon Channel Paving Chambers from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway 3/24/75 - 8 13e> <~~. c' Comm 3/19/75 Approve . Comm 3/19/75 Approve Comm 3/19/75 Approve . e Paving strcets in Downtown ERA Phase III 6th, Olive to Oak; 7th, Charnel ton to Oak; Willamettc, 6th to 8th; Oak, 6th to 7th; Pearl, 8th to Broadway; Pearl, Broadway to 11th; 11th, Willamette to Charnelton; sanitary and storm sewer in north/ south alley from 7th to 8th between Olive and Willamette Paving Royal from Louis Lane to Candlelight Drive Paving Barger from Highway 99 to Ohio Sanitary sewer - Skyline Loop annexation area Hawkins Lane from 18th to Highland Oaks e The projects involved $518,200 in city costs, $855,000 in ERA and FAU funds, and $1,014,700 assessed costs. City Engineer pointed out on a map where the improvements would occur and gave some background on each. Councilman Bradley asked why streets in the downtown area already paved were being paved again, whether there was something wrong with the original streets. City Engineer explained that the projects werc included in the central business district urban renewal project and accomplishing those improvements now would allow the city to take advantage of available Federal funds rather than waiting for the streets to deteriorate and having to replace them at some future time. Manager added that the widths on some of the streets were inadequate. He said those listed in this proposal would complete the adopted ERA plan. It was de- cided to do that work at this time with Federal funds to avoid local maintenance or replacement expense for another twenty years or so. Councilman Haws asked for an explanation of use of FAU funds (Federal Aid Urban System projects) as shown in the project outlines. He wondered if these were the funds residents in the Royal Avenue and Barger Drive areas were lead to be- lieve would be applied against assessments. Mr. Teitzel answered that the city anticipated applying Federal funds on the Barger Drive improvement and at one point the neighborhood group was told that. However, the amount of Federal.funds available did not amount to enough to make an appreciable difference in the assessments because they were to be spread to projects in the entire county, so it was decided they would be applied only against city costs on the project. He said that the process for applying for Federal funds for the Barger Drive right-of-way acquisition was so involved as to cause further delay in the project so it was decided to switch those funds to the Royal Avenue improvement. However, in trading the projects the city tvould still have available the same dollar amount for the Barger project. And application of those funds to the city's costs would help balance the 1972 bond issue so that inflationary costs could be met without depleting bond revenues. Also, it was possible to reduce the basis for assess- ment from a 36-foot width to.a 28-foot width. Councilman Haws asked why the improvement of Royal Avenue was not being extended to the city limits rather. than ending at Candlelight Drive. He also inquired about a Belt Line overpass at Royal. Mr. Teitzel said the improvement had not been extended farther because there was no development in that area and it was felt owners of large vacant parcels would probably object. He said there had been no determination yet about an overpass at Royal Avenue, that intersection with Belt Line would remain signalized. The proposed Highway 126 extension would affect this intersection, he said, making it difficult to resolve until there was a Highway 126 decision. Manager added that although there was a reduction from 36-foot to 28-foot width as the basis for assessment, property owners probably would not be saved too much in actual cost because of rising costs during the period the project was delayed. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to initiate the projects as listed. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/19/75 Approve 3/24/75 - 9 13~ .I. Pedestrian Bridge Connection - County Administration Building to City Hall Sketches of the proposed overcrossing were distributed to Council members. It woul.d connect City Hall at its plaza level to the proposed County administra- tion building at its plaza level across Pearl Street. Lane County asked the city to share in the estimated cost of $22,400 - city's share $11,200. Staff recom- mended that the city declare its intention of sharing in the link with the idea of makipg the effort to budget funds in the 1975-76 budget. Councilman Williams wondered if walking to the corner to cross from City Hall to the County building would save $11,200 of public time. Al Williams, traffic engineer, cOf'.mented that the "jaywalking" at that location to/as a continuing source' for his office of public annoyance and resentment. In response to Councilman Bradley's inquiry about the cost of a marked crosswalk or a flashing yellow light at that location, traffic engineer said that type of "protection" would be a real waste of money since it was considered one of the most unsafe installations. Strange as it may seem, he said. the present situation of cross- ing against traffic was safer than if a flashing yellow light was installed. Mayor Anderson thought that aside from the safety factor, the proposed overcross- ing would provide an aesthetical addition, it would give a pleasing tie-in be- tween the two buildings. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to approve the city's sharing in financing of the bridge connection as presented. Councilman Haws was concerned that agreeing to share in the $22,400 cost would be commitinq the city to sharing a greater cost by the time the connection was installed. He wondered if some sort of covered extension would be more appro- priate. Assistant Manager answered that it had been discussed at some length and that option was still open, cost was the main concern. He added that because of increasing use of public parking in the city hall basement the connection would be a matter of public convenience as well as an operational covenience for city and county employes. Manager said it was hoped a similar connection could be made with the new Federal building across 7th Avenue at some future time. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. Comm 3/19/75 Approve Councilman Hamel said he was not opposed to the location of the bridge but to the cost involved at this particular time. He thought plans for the bridge should have been stated some time ago rather than just now when a budget was being considered which contemplated a reduction in city services. In view of the general economy, employment situations, etc., he felt expenditure of $11,000 for something of this nature was not being conservative. Assistant Manager noted the Civic Center Plan adopted by all agencies about four years back - county, state, federal, city - which included pedestrian connections between all of the buildings in the civic center, segregating pedestrian and auto traffic. This pedestrian bridge was in line with that Plan so was not something just now formulated. He added that the etimated cost appeared the most reasonable in view of the design (having the potential for being covered at some future time) and materials chosen in consultation with the contractor and architects working on the county building. In response to Mr. Hamel, he said, plans at this time were undetermined for a similar connection to the new federal building. J. Petition, Sanitary sewer Oakway Golf Course PUD - 100% - Manager explained that the Oakway PUD second phase approval process was still underway. An appeal from the Planning Commission's approval would soon be before the Council. However, he said acceptance of the petition for sewer would make possible design work, call for bids, and construction this year if the PUD was approved. Mr~ Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the petition, recognizing decision was still to be made with regard to the Oakway PUD. Motion carried unanimously. C6mm 3/l9/75 Approve 3/24/75 - 10 140 . -- -- e e . K. Capital Projects Prqposal - Copies of memo from traffic engineer and city engineer (February 20, 1975) listing recommended capi tal projects tv'ere distributed to Council members with the agenda. Also distributed were copies of street lighting proposal for the central business district. Decrease in cost to the city for installation of railroad crossin'g protection devices because of a shift in fund- ing at the Federal level and a decrease in actual cost of some general fund capital projects made available $125,000 in capital improvement money. Staff recommended $80,000 of that for bike projects, and $45,000 for amortization of street lighting in connection with proposed upgrading of some downtown peripheral lighting between the central district and adjacent residential areas. . Manager noted the general satisfaction with the high-level lighting in the central business district but problems Iv'ith adjacent areas, especially for those parking in the peripheral areas and walking to the business district after dark. He explained the proposal for lowering the level of intensity of the lighting but using high level poles for better diffusion and lower cost in amount of energy used and fewer poles. There were negotiations with the Eugene Water & Electric Board, he said, with regard to reimbursement to them for investment in existing lighting, credit to be given the city for salvage value of poles, and credit to be given if the poles were reused. Councilman Hurray thOllght the street lighting would be inf luenccd by the com- munity development program, especially w.ithin the boundaries of neighborhood improvement areas. He thought decision should be postponed at least in those areas tvhere street l.ighting could be co-ordinated wi th the development programs. Manager noted that the neighborhood to the west of the central business district would be the one most likely to be affected by the community development program. Traffic F:ngineer had no "hang up" about. holding off on that particular area, but he said he would like to have some direction from Council whether the concept presented was appropriate. He said if the city was to continue authorizing in- stallations based on present lighting standards, any policy change later would force reimbursement to E~EB of costs not amortized when the change was made. He cited l4th Avenue area as an example of the type of lighting proposed and its favorable acceptance. In response to Mayor Anderson, Traffic Engineer said if the Council decided to adopt the lighting standards proposed there would be no problem with delaying action on installation until decisions were made with regard to the community de~ velopment program. Councilman Williams said he was comfortable with the proposed lighting standards as a pOlicy matter in view of satisfaction with the present type of lighting in the downtown area. He said there was no question the high rise lights were more efficient in use of energy and better from a public safety standpoint. Traffic Engineer named areas of high- and low-rise lighting for Counciman Bradley. He also designated areas having different lighting intens.ity. He said the light- ing at the Willamette and Donald intersection was different from what was being proposed here, that there had been objection to lighting at that intersection be- cause it didn't give a good color. The present lighting on the mall and that proposed here, he said, was the closest to normal daylight. Councilman Haws said there were areas where there were no street lights, and with a limited amount of money he wondered what the priorities were for installing lights. Traffic Engineer explained the procedure for installation of street lights and said that every intersection in the city for which a light had been requested now was lighted. He said lights had not been installed at intersections where a number of people living in the vicinity had objected. There is money available in the normal budgeting process, he said, to take care of normal street lighting requests throughout the year, that program would not be affected by this 3/24/75 - 11 \4\. proposal. He added that because of the costs i~volved, lighting standards had not been upgraded for anyone neighborhood. Rather, lighting had been installed on a request basis with the idea that. those who fel t. they needed the lighting could have it installed. In response to the Assistant Manager, Traffic Engineer _ said there were no changes in lighting scheduled now for Royal and Barger. However, ~ the proposal was to use some of the amortizatioa money for the balance of existing arterials, and if those particular streets were to be upgraded some of this money could be used. Councilman Haws was not sure he wanted to go alo[lg with the priorities set in this proposal until there was input from the public. He thought perhaps some people would rather have lights in the residential areas than downtown. When ,Mayor Anderson suggested that adopting this propOsal would not cause any critical change in current expenditures for neighborhoods versus downtown, Mr. Haws said he would rather consider spending this money in neighborhoods than vote now to spend it on lighting downtown. The Mayor didn't think any requests for street lighting would be turned down, it was a question. of whether requests would come from individuals or from neighborhood groups. Manager noted it was desirable to know the lighting levels to be installed in the urban renewal area since those fixtures would have to be installed at the same time street improvements there were constructed. Councilman Hamel noted it was a joint venture with the ERA so the dollar amount would be less. Councilman Haws wondered what would happen to the money in this proposal if it was not spent for street lighting. Manager answered that probably it would be carried forward as a balance and the Council t1o~ld be presented with future recommendations for use of the funds. It didn't necessarily have to be used for street light, it could be used for any capital improvements. Councilman Hamel commented that his and Mr. Haws' concerns were with outlying areas they represented where there were few street lights. He thought expendi- ture of some of the money for .1ighting in those areas would be appreciated. In response" to Councilman Murray, Manager said if the $45,000 expenditure was approved for amortization with the understanding that the high level standards would be used in the central business district, then staff would feel they should go ahead and at least replace the lights on thos, streets being upgraded this summer in the urban renewal project. There would also be the need for response to Councilman Haws' concern by allowing the opportunity for neighborhood groups to react with regard to street lighting levels in their neighborQoods. Recom- mendations could be brought back to the Council based on that input, whether to go ahead with further expansion of the downtown lighting or set money aside for residential areas. If expansion of the downtown lighting was approved, he said, there would have to be rescheduling because of t~e development planned in the peripheral area. Assistant Manager wondered if lighting on those streets already meeting standards would be converted because of the energy saving factor. Traffic Engineer answered that that would be one of the last things to be accomplished, it was not included in this proposal. He added that lighting neighborhood areas was the right approach, but his office had not been lnundated with requests for residential lighting. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the capital projects as outlined on the agenda, with the .underst4nding that approval was given for the proposed high-level lighting standa~ds within the outlying central business district and peripheral areas as d~scribed; that the street lighting to take place in the area west of Charnel ton would be accomplished 3/24/75 - 12 142..' -- comm. ~- 3/19/75 Approve -- (1822) . e in close co-operation with the neighborhood improvement program as it developed in that area; that the proposed street lighting on streets in- cluded in the urban renelval project would proceed as outlined; and that further neighborhood input would be sought with regard to street lighting throughout the 'city. Councilwoman Bea1 expressed some confusion tvith regard to priority for installa- tion of lights in the downtown area versus residential areas and co-ordination of street lighting west of the central business district with the community de- velopment program. Councilman Murray clarified intent of the motion. Councilman Haws asked if there was a breakdown of figures to indicate how much money would remain after lighting on the urban renewal streets was taken care of. Traffic Engineer answered that the only cost involved in that lighting would be assumption of the annual energy costs, existing lights had already been amortized and there would be no installation costs. So the entire amount proposed for expenditure could be allocated to other areas if it was desired. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Assistant Manager expLJincd by way of giving another viewpoint that if the $45,000 mentioned in conunittce I,:JS spent for new street lighting in neighborhoods and along arterials, it would take all additional $45,000 each subsequent year to pay energy costs. But if the $45,000 was US0J to amortize - spread over ;1 20-year life of the light fixtures - then about 400 or 450 new fixtures could be purchased. He said staff in- tended to pursue the Council's wishes as expressed in committee, neighborhood group input would be sought wit~ r~gard to street lighting, but he said the perpetual costs \vould have to be revi ewecl lx'fore looking at commi tments on spend ing. L. OLCC Licenses 1. ~hange of Ownershi p a. Rancho Tavern, l466 West 7th Avenue - RMB - Richard A. Becker b. The Grocery Cart~ 304 East 13th Avenue (formerly Andy's Market) - PS Bill and Deanna McCabe (Fir Grove Market, Inc.) 2. New Outlets a. Terr & Sher's, 1775 West 6th Avenue - R - Terry and Sharon Smith b. Old English Inn & Grotto, 795 Willamette Street (formerly LaMars) - RMB Thomas D. Price Comm 3/19/75 Approve It was understood the new outlets would be scheduled for public hearing and the change of ownerships would be listed for approval on the consent calendar at the March .24 Council meeting. M. Vacation, Easement between Hilyard and Alder south of East 39th Place (Seabloom) (EV 75-1) Council was requested to call public hearing for May 12, 1975 Council meeting in accordance with state law. Comm 3/19/75 Approve N. Appointment, City Manager Pro Tem was announced by Mayor Anderson - Gary Long, personnel director. The Mayor said the appointment was based on Mr. Long's ex- perience in working with all departments of the city and his own statement that he did not intend to apply for permanent appointment to the city manager position. Mr. Anderson emphasized that Mr. Long and Keith Martin, assistant city manager, would share responsibility for directing city operations until a permanent city manager appointment was made. He also assured the Council that either Mr.Martin or Mr. Long would be available at any time and Council members should feel free to make contact with them as needed. Mr. Anderson said that Callaghan & Company of Chicago, chosen to recruit and screen applicants for the position, expected interviewing would take place during June with permanent appointment expected no later than the middle of July. Circumstances of the appointee would determine when that person would assume city manager responsibilities. Comm 3/l9/75 14'3 . 3/24/75 - 13 Affirm o. Appointment, Bicycle Committee - Mayor Anderson recommended Scott Lieuellen, Collins Bicycle Shop, 60 East 11th Avenue, and Al Johnson, 2883 Kincaid Street.' Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to confirm the recommended3/l9/75 ... aEPointments. Motion carried unanimously. Affirm ,., P. Legislative Subcommittee Report - March 17, 1975 - Copies of the report were distributed to Council members. The subcommittee recommends that the Council support the following legislation: S.B.5l1 - This bill gives greater flexibility to the city in carrying out projects authorized by the Federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. It would enable municipalities to do things which may now be done only by renewal agencies. We support the following package of housing bills which are being proposed by the city of portland: H.B.2333 - The purpose of this bill is to protect single-family residences located in zo~ing other than single-family, i.e. multiple-family housing, commercial, or industrial, by giving them a tax break. As long as a house remains a single-family qw.ner occupied dwelling, the property would be assessed as residential without regard to higher land valuation. When use changes, however, the unpaid higher taxes would become due all at once with 6% interest. The subcommittee does not regard this as much of an inducement to retain single- family use and is supporting it because it may be implemented only by locar;; t option. ',' . H.B.2342 - This applies to rental occupied property more than 25 years old which has been rented for at least three years. If owner will spend at least 10% of assessed iii valuation to bring property up to code, the property is exempt from increased ,., valuation because of these improvements for five years. The bill is void in five 'years unless renewed. Local option. H.B.2343 - This applies to new construction for multiple-family residential buildings in downtown localities with high land values. It is also a local option bill requested by the city of Portland. It would give a lO-year 100% exemption to the owner from all real estate taxes on the building but not the land. H.B.2344 - A home owner maintenance bill. Would exempt the home owner from increased taxes ~or improvements to the family home. Void in. five years unless renewed. The subcommittee opposes: S.B.5l2 This bill seeks to develop some uniformity in subdivision and major partition requirements. The. subcommittee does not oppose this idea, but we oppose the bill as now written because (1) it requires delegation of authority to a designated official and .(2) requires a lengthy procedure for' granting even minor variances from the stated requirements. The planning department feels this bill would unnecessarily complicate present procedures and would in fact be almost unworkable. S.B.90] - Seeks to develop a central permit processing for new development or expansion of existing development. However, instead of simplifying present procedures this bill would tremendously complicate the city's present process. We recom- mend opposing this bill (1) because it would create new and cumbersome pro- - cedures which we believe would be unworkable and (2) because it seeks to remove _ some of the power of local government to deal wi th local problems.' 3/24/75 - 14 1.d...!L' '. . ,T~!. . S.B.523 - Proposes a uniform statewide bus_iness tax law suhject, of course, to local option. The law would make it impossible for any city to adopt a law that did not. follow the general lines proposed in the new bill. We recommend opposing this law be~ cause it is an intrusion on local taxing laws and we are not convinced that the proposed uniform law is workable. - Councilwoman Beal reported that Councilman Williams would not be able to continue on the subcommittee since his assuming the presidency of the League of Oregon Cities. She asked for appointment of a replacemen~. Mrs. Beal also announced that the sub- committee would meet at 3:30 p.m. each Monday, rather than 4:00 p.m. Comm Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to adopt the report as presented. 3/l9/75 Motion carried unanimously. Affirm Q. U.S.Supreme Court Decision re: Little Rock, Arkansas case was brought up by Council- man Bradley wherein it was ruled that school board members were held personally liable for depriving students of their constitutional rights. Mr. Bradley asked whether that decision was applicable to the city and if so whether the issue of liabil- ity insurance should again be addressed. It was understood the city attorney would Comm review the ruling and bring back an opinion. 3/19/75 Affirm R.Smoking at Public Meetings - Councilwoman Shirey said she had contact from a nonsmok~ng group asking for time on the Council's agenda to discuss a smoking ban in public meet- ings in public buildings. It was understood staff would schedule time for the subject at a future committee meeting. Comm 3/19/75 S.Committee-of-the-Who1e Meeti~g Place was discussed. Some Council members preferred Affirm the International King's Table in the Oakway Mall and others favored meeting again on a regular schedule at the Eugene Hotel. e Councilman Haws suggesting setting a limit on the period of time meetings would be held at the King's Table if that place was chosen - three or six months - to give the opportunity for chang~ if it was desired. Councilwoman Beal suggested some sort of sign designating the King's Table as the Council's meeting place for those un- familiar with the area. There was some discussion with regard to possibility of different table and audience chair arrangements at the Eugene Hotel for better acoustics. However, it was explained that the nature of the room and serving facili- ties precluded any improvement. Manager noted that the cost at the King's Table was less on the average, and that the menu could be varied if des.ired. Comm 3/lfJ/75 Affirm An informal poll of the Counc~l showed four in favor of meeting at the King's Table and two in favor of the Eugene Hotel. The Chair rules, with no objections, that committee meetings would be held at the King's Table for the next six months. T. Budget and Service Reductions - Copies of memos dated March 17, 1975 with at- tachments were distributed setting out proposed reductions in personnel and effect by departments for the purpose of having a balanced budget forol~75~76. Manager-expla.ined the proposal would make a reduction of about 43 pos~t~ons, but because of attrition and transfers there probably would not be more than 15 layoffs between now and July l. It was understood that if Council members wished discussion of the proposal, it could be scheduled at a future meeting. Comm 3/19/75 Affirm . o 0 h duled for March 31,1975,7:30 p.m., Council/Regional Sewer Commiss~on meet~ng, sc e u. . 0 0 f t between Eugene, Springfield, at the Springf~eld Ut~l~ty Board. Copies 0 agreemen . and Lane County were previously distributed to Council members .w~th r~~a~d ~ode develo ment of a regional sewer system. Manager said the meet~ng w~u . ~nc u member~ of Eugene and Springfield councils and the Lane Count~ comm~ss~oners 0 in an attempt to get direction on the implementation of a reg~onal s:wer systemd o od 0 to the metropolitan area and to un~ncorporate plan wh~ch would prov~ e serv~ces 145>. . . 3/24/75 - 15 areas needing service because of health hazards without dictating the political structure of that process. Manager said there was some lack of unanimity on the Sewer Commission as to whether the Springfield treatment plan should be con- tinued or whether to work toward abandonment of that plant and treatment of ef- fluent from the entire area in Eugene's plant as expanded. He said there needed to be frank discussion between the three jurisdictions for complete understanding to give the Sewer Commission some direction for proceeding in order to meet Federal standards and become eligible for Federal funds which will become avail- able for meeting the. problem on an areawide basis. Councilman williams added that the joint Sewer Commission recommendation for providing services under a regional system was not the recommendation made by CH2M in its study of regional sewage treatment needs. He felt a review of those recommendations by Council members would be worthwhile before the March 31 meeting. Don Gilman, assistant public works director, explained that the Sewer Commission voted 3/1 in favor of a single treatment plant (Eugene's expanded) for the regional system. Springfield Mayor Freeman was the member of the Commission voting to retain both Eugene and Springfield plants as recommended by CH2M. Implementation of the plan would be difficult without Springfield's co-operation, Mr. Gilman said, and it appeared that would not be forthcoming if the question of abandonment of the Springfield plant was submitted to the voters. Manager thought that one of Springfield's concerns was reluctance to become com- mitted to the regional plan without being assured ahead of time that financial arrangements would at least not be as damaging to their citizens as compared to Eugene and/or unincorporated areas. Springfield's financing program, he said, had not incurred a great deal of indebtedness and there was no debt retirement problem, so it would be necessary to develop a financing plan that would pro- tect their interests. Manager added that because of the agreement on a regional approach to the sewage treatment system, the decision now is critical as to the direction to be taken. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through U. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, except Council member Beal and Hamel voting no on approval of Item I, motion carried. II I - Ordinances Council Bill No. 763 - Adding Sections 3.750 through 3.784 and 3.997 to City Code re: Room Tax Ordinance amendment was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by cOHncil bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given fianl passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17282. - Comm 3/19/75 File . Council Bill No. 764 - Paving streets within 10th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there beingno council....,. member present requesting that it be read in full.. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number 3/24/75 - 16 14-(0. , Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye,. the bill was declared passed and numbered 17283. . Council Bill No. 765 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 10th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All couRciLmembers present voting aye';' the bill was declared passed and numbered 1728" Council Bill No. 766 - Construction of sanitary and storm sewers within 10th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17286: e Council Bill No. 767 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary and storm sewers within 10th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill nHmber only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered l728~ ~Council Bill No. 768 - Calling hearing May 12, 1975 re: Vacation of easement between Hilyard Street and Alder Street south of East 39th Place was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. . Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 1 728f. 3/24/75 - 17 \47. Council Bill No. 769 -.Levying assessments for paving Polk. Street from Railroad Boulevard to north of Polk Court (73-21) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that ,.. it be read in full. _ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill.be referred. to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda- tions at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council. Bill No. 770 - Levying assessments for paving and. storm sewer on Golden Garden Street from Barger Drive to Jessen Drive (74-14) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda- tion at the April. 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion 'carded unanimously. Council Bill No. 771 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and sterm sewers within Somerset Hills II Subdivision and within 160 feet of boundaries thereof (74-29 and 74-34) was read by council bill number and title only, there b~ing no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting; Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 772 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Central Boulevard from 28th Avenue to south 1200 feet and between Central tit Boulevard and Spring Boulevard to serve all lots in Hunter's Haven SubdivisioR ~ (74-38) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations at the ApriL14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 773 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on 1st Avenue from approximately 1400 feet west of Seneca Road to 1200 feet east (74-49) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 774 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in 2nd Addition to Shasta Gardens (74-1002) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be re~d in full. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of panel recommendations at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 775 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy - Fred Meyer PUD (74-1000) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. .. I 3/24/75 - 18 148: , Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the bill be referred to assessment panel for hearing on April 7, 1975 and brought back for Council'. consideration .of panel reconunendation at the April 14, 1975 Council meetiilg. Motion carried unanim~)Usly. . IV - Resolutions by number and title. Resolution:" No. 2379 - Authorizing application to HUD for entitlement and discretionary funding under Housin{;';md Community Development Act was read Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resoltuion. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2380 - Authorizing enforcement action on Echo Hollow West PUD was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2381 - Authorizing pro tern manager appointment was read by number and title. e Councilman Bradley asked why staff felt this action di.d /lot require a Charter amendment. Assistant Manager ans\vered that the Cha'rter 'specifically provides that a manager pro tern has authority of the city manager except that he will not have the power to appoint or dismiss except with approval of t]le Council. This resolu- tion give the pro tern that powe~ of appointment or dismissal. He said the matter had been discussed at great length with the city attorney with the opinion expressed that the pro tern appointment needs no more than adoption of this resolution by the Council. In further respone to Councilman Bradley, Assistant Manager said the authority to appoint or dis~iss was considered an item that could be delegated by the Council. Mr. Bradley said he would vote against adoption of the resolution because in his reading of the Charter he felt that authority ~ould not be delegated. In response to Councilman Williams, r.1r. Bradley said that the Charter when adopted specifically took into consider~tion the appointment of a pro tern until a manager was appointed, and because it took that into consideration the greater authority was vested in the Council for hiring and firing city employes. He said that while it may be practical or expedient ~o delegate the authority as proposed, the Charter provision existed and he thought a Charter amendment would be necessary for delega- tion of that power. Assistantllanager noted that under Mr. Eradley's interpreta- tion' the Council would have to act on each individual employe hired or fired. He said several attorneys had worked on the language of this resolution trying to develop the simplest method of delegating authority properly, that it was made more difficult by trying to vest certain authority in the assistant manager as distinguished from the pro ten ,7':1nager. He said staff would have no difficulty working under the arrangement proposed if the Council would accept the opinion of the city attorney with regard to the simple delegation of authority under this resolution so the city could function as usual until a new manager was appointed. . Councilman Williams said he was not uncomfortable with delegating the responsibility unless there was some concept of law about charter provisions which prevluded delegation of that authority. I:e said he was uncomfortable trying to make a deci- sion between differing attorney~, although he was aware that Congress delegated duties, also the Secretary of Commerce. Jim Korth, assistant city attorney, said there was no difference betwee~ the ~. S. Constitution and the Eugene city ch~rter l+~. 3/24/75 - 19 Council was comfortable that such things could happen on is the kind of legalistic background which would have to be of a similar situation in.Eugene. ,'-- . ,~: -? At Councilman Haws request,. 11r. Bradley' read tD.e\....s'~~tion of the Charter on which he based his opinion. Councilwoman Beal suggested': that ,.rather than "go in the face of the Charter" a resolution equId be prepared -b/-'t,he~:l1ulnager pro tern listing the names of people hired or fir,ed' for consideration. ~t,;C6uncil..meetings. Councilman Murray wondered about the ,propriety of that kind pf puqJic -d~splay of names and thought there should be some other way or process thqt could'be carried on. Assistant Manager said .th,rre was never any queshon.in.~:his5 mind.:;'whether the Council could delegate this {~at~ority. And he expressed ~~~iou?'resefvations about putting in a public; document '.m'atters treated confh1'entia1ly ~ith regard ,to ..discipline or dismissal of empl'o')'es, that would introduce something into pubI'ic .records that would be contrary to the way the city treated its employes and have an affect on ~~ployer/employe\relations. . ~ 1~ -- --- Councilman Williams didn't see in the Charter language an obligation on the part of the Council but rather a grant of authority to the Council to decide whether a pro tem . would or would not have the authority. He saw nothing wrong \.,ri th giving to the pro tern the authority the manager normally would have. He thought if the intent was for the Council to have individual review of hiring and firing, separate language would have been adopted~ The only decision was whether the pro tern was to have the same authority that a city manager would have or whether that authority was to be reserved to the Council. ' in such things. If the the federal level, that used ~or interpretation . Councilman Murray asked if action at this meeting was necessary. He wondered whether a written memo from the city attorney could be made available explaining more thoroughly", the proper way to proceed. Assistant Manager said that action could be delayed, '" however if it was the language would have to be made retroactive because employes come and go with substantial frequency. He said a memo could be prepared and a special meet- ing called. since it appeared a little too long to wait until the regular April 14 meeting without clearly defined authority. Mr. Korth said several attorneys in the city attorney's office worked on the proposed resolution and were of the same opinion stated by Mr. Williams, so he doubted there would be anything different in a written opinion. He added that research had indicated clearly that advance delegation of authority equId be made by the Council, recognizing that delegation could be rescinded if the Countil was dissatisfied'with any decision made under the delegated authority. Councilman Hamel said he had confidence in the city attorney's and assistant manager's opinion, also the Council upon the former manager's resignation put a "lot of weightli on the assistant manager then. He felt the proposed resolution should be adopted now. Councilman Haws asked whether the resolution exempted authority with regard to hiring or dismissal of department heads. Assistant Manager answered that the Council should be concerned if a department head was dismissed, delegation of that power would not be wise, especially in the unsettled period between managers. Leaving the appointing power with the Council so far as department heads were concerned would also lend them more stability. Coucnilman Raws said he would have to go with the original Charter prOVISIon although the logic appeared to be with the prop9sed resolution in trying to have a smooth transition period. ~ Mayor Anderson thought the Charter would have been more explicit had the intent been for the Council not to be able to delegate appointing power. He felt the decision at 3/24/75 - 20 ISo . .. 4. . '. ----------- this time should be the one that would be best for--the-city and its employes during the time until a new manag~r ~as appointed. He was not uncomfortable with the language of the resolution. e Councilwoman Shrey wa~ not too much in favor of the proposed proces~. She suggested that this should be taken into account during the current Charter revision. Councilman Bradley said he was not so concerned that the Council should decide who does the hiring and firing as he was with the standards and guidelines by which the Council would delegate its powers to the staff. It was more of a policy issue - which item's are delegable and do not require charter amendment? Councilwoman Beal felt anyone fired or not hired during the period when authority for appointment was delegated might Ilave good basis for a law suit, yet she felt there should be some way to manage without have the Council review individual cases. She suggested holding action until something more sensible was \'lorked out. Assistant Manager stated his intent not to be argumentative and said that starf ~ould carry out the Council's wishes. But.h~ thought the Council should consider with s~me deliberateness who its attorney was. If there was no confidence in the city attorney then that in itself would be an issue to be dealt with and the city manager's office, he said, was prepared to do that if it should occur. He said the written memo could be prepared or the Council could adopt this resolution and allow it to function for 30 days. In any event, it was important that the organization be clearly defined so that the city could function without a cloud on its actions. -- Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt Resolution 2381 for 30 days and in the meantime ask staff and the attorney's office to prepare materials for consideration of extension of the resolution. Councilman Keller was against the provision for 30-day operation only. He could' see nothing wrong with giving the same authority to a pro tem manager as that given a permanent manager. The delegation for running the city would be exactly the same, he said - the same guidelines, same rules, same regulations, and he didn't see why anyone would be uncomfortable with that, it was a normal function. Councilman Murray said the reason for including the 30-days was to give the oppor- tunity to provide for more explanatory materials because it seemed important to distinguish between the political, legal, and legislative functions and how to de- cide which power to delegate. He thought action should be taken, but if materials could be provided they might allow better understanding and a more comfortable feel- ing. .If not, the action could be changed if it was felt necessary. Councilman Williams did not favor a 30-day grant for any purpose. If the authority was going to be given at all, he said, it should be given. To delegate authority with the idea it would be reviewed in 30 days would be the same as "looking over his shoulder," and he thought it could lead to "all sorts of political games" and would be begging problems. If after staff memo was received the Council wanted to rescind the delegation that could be done, he said, but to give authority with strings attached would be a grave error. . Councilman Bradley said his opinion was not directed as a legal opInIon, it was only raising the policy issue involved, and he hoped the Council would look at the issue as a policy matter - whether to delegate to the staff powers vested in the Council. lS\ 3/24/75 - 21 ---- Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated, Cou~ci~ ----------- ~! M d Beal voting aye. Council members Keller, \'hlhams, members urray an , . Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey votIng no. d R 1 t on 2381. Motion Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to a.op~ esO u i W 11 Hamel and Sh~rey voting carried, Council members Murray, Keller, I Iam~, , aye; Council members Beal, Bradley, and Haws votIng no. . JResolution No. 238J - Authorizing negotiation/condemnation for West 11th Avenue right-of-way west of Seneca (Broughton, Pohl, M&M) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall'vote;, Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. I Resolution No. 2382 - Authorizing negotiati0n/condemnation for Warran~ Avenue right- of-way south of Bailey Hill Road (Styskal, Berard, Temple, Schabtac~) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by 'Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. JResolution No. 2384 - Authorizing negotiation/condemnation for sewer easements on Shasta Loop (Tax Lots 1900,1800,1701) was read by number and ti tie. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion ~ carried, all council members present voting aye. .., JResolution No. ,2385 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period.March 10 through March 24, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved!secondby'f-1r.::Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all cou~cil members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2386 - Authorizing signatures of Gary Long, manager pro tem; L.E.Anderson, mayor; and S. P. Flogstad, city recorder was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote, Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned. ~ A. K. Martin Asst. City Manager . 3/24/75 - 22 : '.~2.