Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1975 Meeting M IN UTE S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 28, 1975 . Adjourned meeting - from ~eetirig held July 16, 1975 -of the Common Council of the ci ty of Eugene, Oregon was c'al.1ed to order by His Honor Mayo'r Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on July 28, 1975 in.the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley,D;W.Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Council members Gus Keller and Wickes Beal were absent. I - Public Hearings A. Code Amendment - National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition National Electrical Code - Copies of proposed ordinance which would amend the electrical code were distributed to Council members with the agenda. The amendment would de- fine conditions for final inspection of electr.ical service and prohibj't occupancy prior to approval, write into the code administrative practices with regard to temporary electrical service, extend duration of permits for electrical work to 120 days to conform with other types of permits now in the code, and delete the permit fee schedule from the code. Manager noted that the fee schedule now in the code would be presented .in resol ution form for adoption. Councilman Haws asked if the fee schedule covered administrative costs. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, said right now adm.inistrative costs were not covered by fees collected. However, staff wanted to look at the total "fee package," rather than changing just the electrical fees. He said the electrical and plumbing fee schedules especially were out of date. Mr. Haws wondered then if it was planned to bring a recommendation reflecting that fees should cover administrative costs. Manager answered that one approach might be to take into consideration prevailing rates in other communities. It was expected, Mr. Nolte said, that the review would e be accomplished in the next month or so. Councilwoman Beal asked whether the Electrical Board had reviewed the proposed amend- ment. Mr. Nolte said that the Board was advisory only, that it had no legiSlative authority, only the authority to waive or alter materials .used in electrical in- stallations. He said state law pre-empted local codes so that the Electrical Board had no authority to review this particular ordinance. . Councilman Murray wondered whether conformity to state law would substantially tighten restrictions. Mr. Nolte answered that state law had substantially reduced restrictions so far as the model code was concerned. Comm 7/23/75 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to schedule public hearing on the Pub Hrng proposed amendment. Mo~ion carried unanimously. Assistant Manager reviewed background of the proposed amendment (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 913 - Amending Sections 8.075, 8. 105, 8.110, 8.125(5), and 8.125(8), and repealing Section 8.140 of City Code re: National Electrical Code 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. Williams that the bill be read the second time by - counci 1 bi 11 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. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17433. 7/28/75 1 419. . - B. Liquor Licenses - New Outlets". k . The Hofbrau or Rod's Hofbrau, l6S'Silver Lane (RMBi - submitted by James Hansen and Rodney Hager. GLCC report indicated six in the neighborhood objected to the l':'cense, seven nonobjectors, and f.our noncommittal. . PearlSrreet Station, 412 Pearl Street (RMB) - submitted by Robert Lou:s and MarnaLouise Elliott, Leighton H. and Judith A. Taylor, and Bob Wynia. GLCe report noted two objectors, three nonobjec:ors. . ./. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr: Wili~c'ms to schedule public hearing on the two applica.tions at the July 28 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. l. I 165 Silver Lane (RMB) Rod,' s Hofbrau, Staff had no objections. OLCC reported that six of thosinterviewed in the vicinity of the proposed establishment objected, seven did not, and four were noncommittal. Public hearing was opened. James A. Hansen, partner in the establishment, and Bob Poppin, 1908 Carmel Avenue, leasing agent, spoke in favor of the application. They felt there was definite need in the area for a family type outlet serving food, beer, and wine; it would be located in an established center and developed under site review procedures; traffic generated would be similar to that for restaurant use. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. I-A-l Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to recommend approval e of the application. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Pearl Street Station, 412 Pearl Street (RMB) Staff had no objections. OLCC reported that two of those in the vicinity of the~proposed establishment interviewed objected, three did not. Public hearing was opened. . Scott Taylor, P.O. Box 427, Veneta, presented a petition signed by owners of seven other outlets in the area opposing issuance of this license on the basis that there were sufficient tavern type outlets now in that area, there was no demonstrated demand for another outlet, public interest and convenience were already served, population density was too low in that locality to justify additional licensed premises. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the application. Councilman Murray in making the motion said the petition appeared to be an attempt to limit competition rather than citing legitimate reasons for not permitting the license. Mr. Taylor answered that it was an attempt to point out the number of existing establishments in that area providing the same privileges proposed for the new outlet. It was his understanding that was one of the criteria to be met in considering new outlets. - Vote was taken on the motion to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 7/28/75 - 2 4-Z0: ., C. Bids - Publ.ic Works Proj ect.s{openedJuly22, . 197-2J ,.., . , . . -. . . . Cost' to . . Am:J:..,mt _~:~.<l~~.r.and,~ Contract C.ost Abutting Prop. Castto,City Bcdgeccd sce~ri~ge'Deck.Overlay Ferry Stre2t Briage (925) 1; Concrete' Sea 1 ants (iJ. S.) Inc......... ..... . .. ..$32,119.80. . . . . .. . .. . .. :. ... . ; . .. .. . . ;0. .. . '.. . . .. ... . ... ... . ... ... S 32,179.80.......... S 42,000.00 Engineer's Estimate = $ 35,000.00 Cbr1PLETlO~ DATE: Septembl!r 15. 1975 . . - . . ' . . -------------------------------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ " .....--- -- Don Allen, public works director, revie\lIed the speeialty bid. A\lIard of contract . was recommended to the one bidder who has special equipment and material for ap- plying a rubberized asphalt overlay on the Ferry Street Bridge. ~ Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Wil.liams to award contract to the bidder on the bid,price of $32,179.80. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, motion carried. Mr. Allen alerted the Council to anticipated closure of the Ferry Street Bridge re4uired by the work. He said closures would be regulated the best possible to avoid peak traffic hours, closing one lane at a time only. II - Items acted upon with one motion after consideration of individual items as requested. ~ Previously discussed in committee on July 16 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council - members Murray, Keller, BEal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shire) and July 23 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. A. Appointment, Sign Code Board of Appeals - Mayor Anderson announced the appointment of David HOffman, 992 Sherwood Place, as a member of the Sign Code Board of Ap- peals, replacing Rod Gillilan, resigned, for the balance of the term ending . January 1, 1977. Mr. Anderson noted Mr. Hoffman's experience with the sign code as a member of the Planning Commission at the time the code was adopted. Comm 7/16/75 Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to confirm the appointment. Approve Motion carried unanimously. B. Right-of-way Acquisition, West 11th Avenue- Council authorization was requested to buy prooerty for right-of-way and slope easement on the north side of West 11th Avenue immediately east of Bailey Hill Road from Hal F. and Sally D. Broughton for $4550. Assistant Manager explained the purchase price was about $200 more than the appraised value. However, because of the potential for industrial development on currently zoned residential land and the attendant impact on land values, and the potential for litigation, staff recommended acquisition at the Corom $4550 price so work could commence on the West 11th Avenue improvement. 7/16/75 Approve Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the purchase as requested. Motion carried unanimoUSly. C. Dog Licensing (Summer Youth Employment Program).- Co~ncil authori~tion was re- quested for l4-day waiver of the late fee for l~cens~ng dogs. Cop~es of the ~ proposed program for an aggressive campaign to license all dogs in the community _ were previously distributed to Council members. Assistant Manager explained that because the number of dog licenses had dropped considerably from the previous year, it was thought the l4-day waiver would be an incentive to license dogs and . overcome the possibility that some had not licensed their dogs because of the rab~es shots now required. The waiver would become effective from the time written notices were sent out to owners of unlicensed dogs. 421 7/28/75 - 3 r I In response to Councilwoman Beal, Assistant Manager said contact would be. made through computer lists of people who had licensed'dogs in the past. Also, a pUblicity campaign would be launched. MI. Haws suggested putting notices in neighborhood newsletters. . Mr., Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to authorize the l4-daywaiver as requested. Councilwoman Shirey thought a 30-day waiver would be better because people ona monthly pay schedule would be mOre apt to have money. Councilman Keller noted an agenda item suggesting that the overtime parking fine be doubled and wondered what would be accomplished by waiving the fee in this instance. Assistant Manager answered that anyone licensing a dog now would have to pay the $5.00 fee plus a $5.00 late fee plus the cost of a rabies shot, and staff felt waiving the late fee might be an incentive to license the dogs. In further response to Mr. Keller about the estimated cost of the program, Assistant ~anager said it would entaJl salaries of six young people in the summer c-~ployment program, plus whatever costs were incurred in contacting owners ( ~ unlicensed dogs, researching records, mailing, etc. But it was thought the potential revenues would exceed the costs, plus the fact that the work would be a higher priority use of the young people's time than weeding bike paths, spraying paint, etc. Councilman Bradley wondered whether waiving the fee could be accomplished without amending the ordinance, Assistant Manager answered that staff was reluctant to make that amendment in view of the short-terrr :>rogram, if Council agreed to suspend the provisions for the "one shot" effor':. there seemed no need to change the language in the code. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mrs. Beal to amend the motion to provide for a 30-day waiver rather than 14 days. C:J'!ncilmen Williams and Murray were concerned that extending the time to 30 days e would be a greater risk and Easier for dog owners to postpone payment than if the shorter period applied. Councilwoman Beal asked if rabies shots we :.:ld still be required. Assistant Manager answered they would and one of the benefits of the program would be an attempt to determine the impact of the legislation re- quiring rabi~s shots, perhaps that cost was the reason people were not licensing their dogs. Vote was taken on the amendment to wa,;ve the late fee for 30 days. Motion defeated, Council members Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Hamel, and Comm Mayor Anderson voting no. 7/16/75 vote was taken on the main motion to waive the fee for 14 days. Approve Motion carried, all Council m~mber present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. D. Room Tax Funds - Packets of information were previously distributed to Council members including a memo from the finance department reviewing the history of allocations under the room tax ordinance, a summary of revenues and allocations since its in- ception, a list of requests for allocations accumulated since a moratorium was placed on the funds, definitions of established purposes of the fund, guidelines for alloca- tions, copy of the ballot measure by which the tax was approved, and some examples of uses for ~hich allocations have been spent. Sherm Flogstad, finance director, was commended.by Mayor Anderson and Councilmc..n Bradley for the comprehensive ":)acket of information provided. Councilman Murray found no major fa'....;,t with existing cr5teria for a,'location of the . funds but thought applications should be received once during a given period of time so that all allocations could be made at one time - similar to social services alloca- tions made once a ,year. He felt that liIIOuld make for more i:quitable distribution and better organized programs receiving funds. 7/28/75 - 4 422 Art Fairchild, chairman of the Room Tax Allocation Commi ttee, said the mai:; problem confronted by the Commi ttee in allocating funds was lack of clearly defini L ve guidelines to determine ,::iigibility. He said many of those appl',..-; for funds e haggle over whether they are eligible to the point that it becomes ~ political issue _ if the Committee rejects applications.on the basis of ineligibi!.fty then applicants take their case to the Council. Mayor Anderson thought Councj~man Murray's suggestion for an;lual a.~ocations based on a given amount of fur.is realized C' Ulticipated was the be~'- wa!-' of handling room tax monies. Applications could then be given priority ratings and those that were questionable or "borderline" would probably be eliminated. He favored budget- ing a given amount with no contingency allocations at all to avoid the impression of an "ever flowing" fund where monel; was always available. Mr. Fairchild noted the number of applications now on file for allocations of $125,000. He wondered what would happen when news items identified certain programs which were receiving money. Other similar programs would then apply, ~e said. Councilman Keller assumed there would be some sort of reserve fund for new programs or those applying for addit~onal funds. The Mayor suggested a budget based On anticipated revenues or realized revenues, then the Room Tax Committee would cons~der all applications at one time and allocate the money according to eligibil~ Hr. Keller was under the impression all applications were referred to the attorn~~ s office for verifica- tion, but Assistant Manager said only those considered questionable were referred by staff. Councilman Keller expressed concern about an annual allocation, that it might shut out some new programs, or priorities could change. Mayor Anderson replied that the social services groups were handled on an annual basis and there seemed to be no reason these cultural, tourist oriented activities couldn't be handled the same way. Councilman Williams said the social services involved continual year-round funding whereas a substantial number of the activities funded by the room tax were e never intended to be continuing operations. He strongly supported the priorities concept. Jean VanBuskirk, 333 Riverview Drive, Junction City, noted the diffiCUlty in obtain- ing funds on a once-a-year allocation basis when getting those. funds was contingent upon rece~t of funds from other sources. She said she was ~rking with a bicen- tennial theatre group which was trying to get funds from the Oregon Arts Commission and it would be difficult to get together all the money they needed at one time. , Dain Connor, manager of the New Oregon Motel and speaking for the Motel Association, wanted to know if the room tax funds were going to be put into the general fund or if they would still be allocated only to cultural, convention, or tourist related activities. Also, he felt the motel industry did not have enough representation on the Roow Tax Committee, that there should be one more person from the industry on that body. Mayor Anderson ndted that there were only five members on the Room Tax Committee, that there were five distinct groups to be represented. His ap- pointments, he said, were made with the idea of .maintaining a balance and at the same time representing the hotel/motel industry. He added that placing any of the revenues from room tax funds into the general fund would require a charter amendment since those funds were earmarked for cultural, convention, tourist related activities by charter amendment. Assistant Manager said the idea that room tax funds would be placed in the general fund probably originated from discussion during the budget process when the ci t Y was faced wi th having to cut services. He said there was about a 5% layoff of employes, however none of the room tax funds were used in the budget process, the Council is continuing to follow the charter provision. Councilman Haws asked whether a room tax allocation budget would be submitted to the Council and whether there could be a reserve fund. He also wondered what would e happen to E~nds that were not allocated under that procedure. The Mayor said any budget prepaz cd would be submi tted to the Counci 1, the main point would be that there would be a certain amount of money to be allocated and applications would be given priority for that amount of money. Any funds not allocated would be placed into a general account drawing interest for the city. The question of whether the budget would be prepared on a cash or accrual basis llIOuld have to be decided. , 4-23 7/28/75 - 5 I Councilman Murray was not in favor of systematically creating a "slush fund." He noted tha': when there were not enough suitable programs applying for housing funds, that is, not enough programs meeting the criteria, then the period for all~cating those funds was extended. He said he would not want so rigid or narrow a procedure to eliminate that option. Assistant Manager noted that present rOOm tax allocation . guidelines call for submission of applications on a quarterly basis. Mr'. Murray moved seconded by Hr. . Hamel that staff prepare a revis:'-'::m of Comm guidelines to provide for annual distribution of room tax funds, this 7/16/75 procedure to begin in the coming year, and to absolve the present mora- Approve torium on allocation of room tax funds. Mr. Murra:-' in making the motion said it was the intent that the new procedure not be applied at this time, that the present procedure continue through the current year. Counc.uwor.?an Beal. noted that the finance department. memo made it very clear that money was not allocated ahead oE receipts. She wondered if interest accrued"on the funds during the year before the procedure outlined was started would.be added to the general city funds. Assistant Manager explained that any interest accrued would have to stay w.~ t '1 the room tax fund, that potentially it could amount to enough to meet costs ot .:zwinister ing the fund. He suggested that staff could address those types of q~esc ons in preparation of the revised guidelines, at the same time see- ing whether th. a.would be any difficulties in carrying out the intended procedure. Councilman Williams thought if the Room Tax Committee agreed to a set budget for the year, fu~is would not necessarily have to be in hand at the beginning of the year, they could be distributed over the year as received. Councilman Bradley preferred semiannual allocation and said he would vote against this motion. Mayor Anderson noted that this motion was for preparation of guideline revision only, that amendments could be made when they were brought back for .:;ouncil consideration. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. E. Park Land Acqu isi tion e 1. Riverfront Property for $outh bank bikeway to provide access from East Briarcliff to the. riverfront bikeway - Arne and Helen Christ?ffersen (.15 acres) - $2500. Council me!pbers viewed the property on tour. Loss of some grant money would be experienced through acquisition of this land prior to project agreement with BOR, but staff estimated a saving of $3500 (which would more than offset the grant loss) if the alternate bike path connection is constructed at this time. Staff recommended the purchase. Comm Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Kel.~er tc authorize. the purchase 7/16/75 as requested. Motion carried unanLmously. Approve 2. Gilham Road Property (Gillespie)'- Staff asked for executive session for discussion of acquisition of the Gillespie property on Gilham Road for park purposes. News media were reminded they would be allowed to remain with the understanding no specifics of the discussion would be revealed. Those present agreed to that re- quirement ., Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to declare the Council in executive session under ORS 192.660(2) for discussion of park land acquisition as requested. Motion carried unanimously. After discussion of alternatives to condemnation for acquisition Comm of the Gi)lespie property (Resolution 2372 - February 24, 1975) 7/16/75 a motion was made by Mrs. Beal second by Mr. Murray to confirm the previous action and proceed with condemnation. Motion carried, Approve CouDcil member; Murray, Keller, Beal, Williams, and Haws voting -- aye; Council members Bradley and Shirey voting no; Councilman Hamel abstaining. 7/28/75 - 6 +:2.-+ I-A-2 Councilman Hamel said he had reconsidered his abstention In the committee vote. He was strongly opposed to condemnation when the property was to be used for park purposes because of its proximity to the school. He felt the property across the e road would provide the same type facility without having to go against the property owners I will. This item was segregated for voting from the balance of the calendar. Approval of committee action carried - Council members Murray, Wi 11 iams, Haws, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; CouncU members Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey voting no. F. Appointment, Metropoli t!l_n ~<3hlo/Tra'?~.1ator_C:?mm.i .,?Sl~(.'!J - /Iutllor i zed by recent action of the Council in agreement ",j th Springf.ield dn,! Lane County, to be composed of n.i ne members, three [rom eacll jurisdict.ion comprising a Council representative, a cit.izcn, and 3 staff member. '. Councilman Wi lliams, chairman of the Cable/Translator comm.i ttee recommending crea ti on of the Comm.i 5si on, silid tlk' intent was thil t aIllI effort in this area - either cable franchises or tro!nsLoltors - was to beilccomplishod jointl y by the three jurisdictions. He sa.i d c..lble franchi ses now hel d by both Eugene and Spr i.ng- field wi th Te.lePrompter were inadequate and that the company was operating in the county wi thout any franchi.se Lit d Z L. So rcprL'senta ti on from each jurisdiction was recommended ..i t h the id(',J tha I: ldcnt i cal documents could be adopted individually by the qovernin9 bodies of each Jurisdiction In whatever action was decided upon. lie thought his close .in'.'olvt'lIIent with the cable/translator study to date w'ould qualify him as Eugene's Counc.' 1 rel)n:.'s~ntati ve. He recommended appointment of Dr. G.lenn Star l.i n, vi c,:. provos t for academiC affa.irs at the University of Oregon, as the Eugene citizen member, an,l ,1; ice r<utter, community relations officer, as Eugene staff member. lin not:cd illS reluctance ilt sU<J'Jcst.ing the staff appoint- men t , calling attention to (illJ.l1 ficatiuns of Shir ley Swenson from the finance e department who had Ivork,'cl as r(}SOllrt.~'e person for the cable/translator study, as well as Greg Paqo, techno! oq~j .'I'/<:.'n t 1.'1 the manaqer's office. Mayor Anderson com- mented tilat the rL'commt'l1dJtioT:S ~v(.'n' '.Icry qoori, dnd at the Manager's request the appointment of Mrs. f?ut ter as SId ft repr.'sent a t1 VI" was recommended. Mr;. Murray moved second LII! Mrs. Bea.l to approve t. h(: appo i ntments as recommended including Tom r'l i .11 jams as COllnc i 1 reprr:sentat i ve. ., Councilman Bradley reported thdt a Fran Harkan had expressed .In interest to him in serving on the Commission and that shc had a background in radio communica- tions. He raised the issue of ho~v c:ommission members would he selected since it appeared there were no set quidelinL's, they sometimes were appointed after Council interview and sometimes just on Council motion as in thi s instance. Since another indi vidual had expressed eJJl'int"rest this time, he thou9ht there should be some other h1ay of making tJJ(:.' deci.sioIJ. lie wondered i[ Councilman Williams had con- tacted anyone with rec/ard to his Tl:commenrlat ion. Mayor Anderson suggested those having an interest should contact him or staff rather than individual council members. lie sa.id that there wou.ld be other opportun.i ties, the main considera- tion at this time beinCf initiation of the program, t~licy on appointments could be worked out later. Councilman Bradley recommended Council interview of any citizens expressing an interest in appointment to a city commission or committee. When Mayor Anderson pointed out the unworkability of that arrangement in view of the number of ap- pointments to commissions ilnd committees, Mr. Bradley said it might be unworkable but would be more fa.ir and equal treatment. Councilman Williams noted that he had discussed the recommendation for appointment of Dr. Starlin with both Council - .President Murray and Assistant Manager Mart.in pr.ior to this meeting. Councilman liaws said he would vote against the motion, not in the sense of voting against the appointee~ but because he had no idea of the qualifications of the person recommended and because he thought the selection process might be inade- quate. He noted there had been nothing on the agenda to indicate this ci t i zen must be appointed immediately. Mayor Anderson remarked that this was a situation 425 7/28(75 - 7 where a certain" amount of Council courtesy. should be afforded one who had worked quite a while on getting.a project started, that Dr. Starlin \vas well qualified, and that iI the councii wished to set up a system for selection of appointees, that eQuId be done at some future time. Councilwoman Shi.rey suggested in the future the Council should at least have the names of those who had expressed in- terest in appointments so the Council could be forewarned when. it came time to e act on them. Councilwoman Beal said she agreed fundamentally with Council members Bradley and Shirey, there should have been some consultation on these appointments." However, she said Councilman williams had devoted long hours to the cable/translator issue and had originated the idea. Also, she felt Dr. Starlin was very well qualified, so she would favor the motion. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Haws to amend the motion deleting the appointment of the citizen representative, Glenn Starlin, and address appointment of that representative at the July 28 Council meeting. Motion defeated, Council members Bradley and Haws voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, williams, Hamel, and shirey voting no. Corom Vote was taken on the main motion, making three appointments as 7/23/75 Approve recommended. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Bradley and Haws voting no. G. Rezoning area north of Cal Young Road between Willakenzie Road and Coburg Road - RA to R-2 PD on portion, retain R-2 PD on portion (State Finance Company) (2 70-16) The Planning Commission July 1, 1975 recommended that contract between the city and State Finance Company be modified to allow development of land west of willakenzie Road in conjunction with property east of Willakenzie Road, north of Cal Young Road, retaining common ownership requirement; that R-2 PD zoning be retained on the prop- - erty east of the Road; and that property west of the Road be rezoned from RA to R-2 PD. Copies of the Commission's official report and map were furnished Council members with the agenda. . Corom Mr. WiLliams moved second by Mr. 7/23/75 Hamel to schedule public hearing Approve on the recommendation at the August 11, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. '.. H. Segregation of Assessment, Lot 4, Hunters Haven Subdivision (Central Boulevard) Requested by Anthony A. and Sharon L. Lum. Assessment against portion to be segregated amounted to $436.57 and has been paid, leaving a balance of $1,246.61. Mrs. Bea1 moved second by Mp. Williams to approve the segregation. Corom Motion carried unanimously. 7/23/75 Approve I. Right-of-way Acquisition authorization was requested for 28th Avenue sidewalk: Robert Riker (18-03-06-33-11100) - $131 Westley v. and Gertrude C. Snyder (18-04-01-44-1600) - $190 Dale E. and Bernice Kirk (18-03-06-33-10900) - $270 Garret R. and Barbara Law (18-04-01-44-1000) - $1000 Johnnie L. and Judy M. Riggs (18-04-01-44-1501) - $1200 Corom Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Hamel to authorize the acquisitions 7/23/75 . as requested. Motion carried unanimously. Approve J. Petition, paving Waite Street from Bell Avenue to Elmira Road - petitioned by owners of 64.8% of property to be assessed. -- Corom Mr. Williams moved second by Mrs. Beal to approve the petition. 7/23/75 ;:;/ Motion carried unanimously. Approve 7/28/75 - 8 42-<c;>. K. Council Minutes - March 24, 1975 as circulated Approve - L. Screening Parking Facilities - Councilman. Murray noeed the mention of insuffi- cient screening of parking facilities in the recent discussion of bike lanes on Pearl and High Streets. He asked that the subject be a matter of discussion Comm . at some future committee meeting since he =elt parking areas should be screened 7/16/75 and that it would become more of an issue. Affirm M.cross Case ~ Assistant Manager informed the Council that an appeal was filed by the private sector from the court order for removal of the Cross from Skinner Butte. However, he suggested reconsideration of the July 14 Council action which would preclude anyone else from filing an appeal should the present ap- pellants withdraw after the deadline, which they have the ability to do. Councilman Hamel asked about the city's responsibility with regard to the estimated $2500 cost for taking the Cross down. Assistant Manager answered that the costs would be levied against the city since it was under court order to remove the Cross. On questioning from Councilwoman Shirey, Assistant Manager explained that the city still had time to file an appeal. However, if the present appellant wi thdraws, the city has only until July 22 to file. Councilwoman Bea1 thought there would be a public relations problem in discussing the issue at this time without any public notice, especially since a decision had been made at the July 14 Council meeting. Mayor Anderson didn't think there was any critical change, that it was more a matter of procedure to follow so far as filing an appeal. He said the record so far had shown the Council indicated a willingness to go ahead and file an appeal. HOIo' that would be done would not require extensive public hearing. Mr. Keller hoped for discussion of the Monday e action in light of the filing of the appeal by others, saying it seemed a logical assumption, or at least the intent of his motion at that time was not to oppose the city's filing an appeal. Ma~c~ ~nierson ruled further discussion out of order. Councilman Haws said his understanding of Monday night action was for the ci~y Comm to file if <omeone else did not. He assumed that if someone else had filed 7/16/75 the city wa.<- back in the same position before the Monday action was taken. Affirm The Mayor ruled that the only action would have to be a motion ":0 reconsider No action the dec~sion ~nd if that was defeated the decision would stand - meaning nothing would be dore. Mr. Keller moved second. by Mr. Williams to reconsider the issue at the conclusion of the agenda for the adjourned Council meeti.PJg this evening (July 16, 1975). Motion defeated, Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, Br~dley, Heols, and Shirey voting no. N. ~il for Overtime Parking - Council was asked to authorize change in fine for vio1a- t~ons o~ meter ~nd overtime parking fr~ $1.00 to $2.00 with the provision that that amount ~ Qoub~ed if not paid within the required five days ($4.00). Assistant Manager explaJned tnat the current $1.00 fine because of the general inflationary trend no longer had a deterrent effect. Also, enforcement costs were rising. Counci~man Williams said he thought the overtime parking fine was one of the most offens~ve. and co':nterproductive charges the city could levy. He said people were e ~und t~"2 d. cvuz:a~ed from going downtown if :there was any possibility of receiv- ~ng a fu;e f0L' arr~v~ng at their car five minutes after the parking time expired. He asked what ~h~ charge was for a1l-d~y parking on city lots, how the ;:eceipts of the metere~ parkLng program compared w~th cost. ~( operating it, how many people ~ere ele:t~ng :c .pay the overtime parking fee rather than purchasing a monthly park- ~ng pernut. A;s~stant Manager answered that the monthly parking permits on city 42~7 7/28/75 - 9 lots in the vi. cinit!Fof .dty hall were $1"3.00 per month. Administrative costs for. ticketing 'overtime violations are.estimated at 6l~ per ticket - attendants, mailers, etc. - and that does not include. any capital expenditures. He said it was diffi- cult to determine.how many,.were choosing the $1.00 overtime route rather than e inOnthly parking perniits. However, ,theineter attel?dants are kept busy, he said. They~ssue;i tations. .for violations other thiuijust overtime parking,: ilJ)d at the $13.00 per ];lont} rate there.is a.waiting lis.t to gfi't on the city lots.. . . Councilman K'.::.ller . agreed with Mr. williams' viewpoint. He.said the DOWntown Develop- ment ~oard had a..procedure for h~li.ng:a.U-da!J piJrkfJrs, that the overtime parking ci O' ::...c.:n was offensive and irritating . He thQqght"that levyi,ngthe fine was con- trary to stated 'importance of the.QQwntown asa.~etailand commercial center, that 3.1 i it was doing was penalizing; al4toi,sta for u!ling to get tqere. He hoped another way could be found to take .care of the. proble".., .. ; , . '.".~ , ,., ., ; .' , ,,:> ; ., Counc~lwoman Beal expressed:..smaz....nt at ,.~. ,lCellti',r's"(reedan with'the taxpayers money." . She said it w.Js,not cMl'acteristiq of him. ,She ..not onlY supported the' bail bt''= alsc the mon.thly parking fees, saying people parking their cars downtown usually had a pre:;tygOOd idea.orbOW"'much ,ti~_ Chell had ~to,do,their.ahopping. Mr. Keller thought the concern e%pZ'l1ssed:tlith ,wasting the.tupagers money was not relevant be- caus€ the maj~r portion of.. the ;eos.t: for downtown ,parking was being paid by the down- town merchants. And the n1ckel,or,dillt9 put ,J.lltD the meters, he said, was the iJi- di-,idual's money, not the general taxpayer's. It was more amazing to him, he said, thar: one "'(':.lid want to. increasettb.e ove~tilfl8..ti.n"$.,w~I,J_.:$60.00 fee. for amusement dev~ces .had just.been ,lowred,:to,.$2~~OO?N14 ;the,.~~ .tfHIt9r licensing ,dogs had just been ,:ived for 14 da!ls. He called it "just running around in circles." Mrs. Seal felt. the l4-da!1. waiVCilr was jUBttfte4(.~"~ .iRcentive to get people to license their dogs, that. the .1oweramus_nt.;dev~Cll!t teelllOuld work to. the benefit of the city. Councilman lIurra!l sQllll!lwhat J.n jest,BaidMr.lCeller seemed willing to waste the taxpayers mone!l in his recent actions with regard to an appeal in the Cross sui t. Mr. Murray then asked how many meters there were in the downtown area. Assistant e Manager noted that the meters referred to were not in the fre" parking area downtown. They were on the periphery, and their purpose was to stimulate parking turnover. He said a number of alternates could be explored if the bail remai~s at 51.00, for instance the late fee could be increased. He noted that Salem trebled the overtime fee {f not paid within the required time. He suggested holding the item for further discussion at the next committee meeting if the Council wanted to give some direction as to the type of things staff should be looking at. a- Mr. Murray shared Mr. Williams' and Mr. Keller's viewpoints with regard to the fine for overtime parking in the downtown area itself. He sensed no clear-cut need for the increase. But he didn't feel that way about overtime parking in the peripheral area, saying he knew there was abuse of parking privileges in the resi- dential neighborhoods near the downtown area. Councilman Williams suggested consideration of issuance of multiple parking tickets on vehicles in "dead storage." Assistant Manager noted that the "boot" was generally used when a number of tickets accumulated without payment. Carom It was understood the issue would be brought back . Jr further discussion 7/16/75 at a future committee meeting. Affirm O. Transferring Zone Change Considerations to Hearings Official - Council members re- ceived with the agenda copies of memo (July 17, 1975) outlining issues staff felt should be resolved before there was further work on drafting the ordinance requested by the Council that would transfer zone change considerations to a hearings offi- cial. Recent state legislation having implications on the proposed change were noted in the memo and policy issues were spelled out: (1) Should the hearings officer or e the Council make final determination on zone change requests; (2) does the Council want specific provision for its review of decisions made by the hearings officer; (3) does the Council want to hear appeals or delegate that function to the Planning Commission; and (4) does the Council wish to limit the scope of appeal hearings or have them remain as full, evidentiary hearings? Manager noted that the city now 7/28/75 - 10 4Ze, operates with a hearings officer for conditional use permi ts., and there is underway a study to determine whether consideration of PUDs also should be hdndled by a hearings office. .- Councilwoman.Shirey wondered whether use of a hearings officer in reviewing PUDs should be considered in conjunction with zone changes. She thought information gathered on consideration of PUDs would be useful in discussing zone changes. Assistant Manager said they could be combined but in discussions the issue would still come down to whether the Council wished each individual thing to be handled by a hearings official or by the Council. He noted the current use of a hearings offi- cial on conditional use permits was working very well. Mayor Anderson thought these policy issues could lead to some long drawn-out discus- sions. He suggested use of a questionnaire containing six to eight basic questions to be circulated among Council members to give some direction rather than debating the many issues involved. He felt a lot of time could be saved if the basic questions presented in the staff memo were answered, points of disagreement dis- tinguished, then discussion on the major points of disagreement. Councilman Bradley recognized the expediency of the suggested procedure but thought it "healthy" for dialogue to take place. Mayor Anderson said it was not his intent to eliminate full discussion, only to identify the major areas of disagreement first in an attempt to organize discussion more adequately. Councilman Bradley saw the issue only as whether the hearings off.icer or the Council would consider rezoning requests. That was the main issue, he said, the policy issue, and if a decision was made on that, subsidiary issues could then be considered. Councilman Murray didn't think it was thJt simple, that a "yes" or "no" answer on what Mr. Bradlelj considered the main issue miLfht not be so clear-cut. He agreed with t he need for full discussion but thought some de- vice to serve as a starting point, to focus discussion, would be useful. e Mr. Bradley said d.ialogue could be tailored to the four questions presented in the staff.memo. Councilwoman Beal noted the importance of zoning as an integral part of good planning. She hoped there would be co-ordinaction and input- from the planning staff .in r;eaching a decision because of the importance of this issue to general planning. <-. Councilman Murray asked for clarification of the term "Council review" as it ap- plied to decisions made by the hear.ings officer. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said it depended upon what the Council wanted to do when looking at appeals from decision of the hearings officer - reserve the right of hearing appeals, look at the decisions again, review for errors, if so what kind, etc. Assistant Manager said his understanding was that the Council would not review decisions of the hearings officer unless parties in a zone change process filed an appeal. The Council may wish to be able to reconsider a matter on its own initiative after reviewing a hearings officer's decision. He added that at one point in discussions on the proposed change the Planning Commission had indicated it wanted the ability to enter into the review process on matters coming to the Council from the hearings officer. Mayor Anderson suggested again that the staff poll Council members as to their opinions on certain aspects regarding use of a hearings officer. Also, ask Council members to submit individually what they think might be the most critical development of such a program, recognizing that answers the Council was giving were preliminary only to bring out their thinking without taking up meeting time. e Councilman Haws wondered if the material would be prepared by the next committee meeting. Mayor Anderson didn't see that much urgency, the city had been function- ing without a hearings officer on zone changes for some time. Assistant Manager said it would depend upon the type of poll decided upon, individual interviews may be desirable. Staff would want time to work on it. -4-29 7/28/75 - 11 Camm The iChair ruled that staff would go ahead with the procedure out- 7/23/75 lined by the Mayor. Affirm Councilman Bradley expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision, saying it was it unfair to the public. He recommended that ~iscussion of the issue should be open to the public and to the media. It "rubbed him wrong," he said, and amounted to operation by secrecy. He thought there should be a lot of dialogue before answers were stated. Mayor Anderson responded that there would probably be several public hearings giving ample opportunity for public discussion, the answers would be public, and openness would be maintained, both in discussion and in the question- naires. If there was any indiciation of sec~ecy in the proceeding, he said, the Chair would welcome that advice. P. To Smoke or Not To Smoke - Councilman Haws called attention again to the Council rule banning smoking during committee meetings. At the conclusion of other business, when some Council members stated their intent to smoke during executi~e session, the Mayor said he did not intend to rule each time the subject came up Camm whether smoking would be allowed. He said if the Council wished to take 1egisla- 7/16/75 tive action, that would be its choice, but he was not going to make the decision File whether a session at the time was or was not public in the sense that smoking would or would not be permitted. Q. Sidewalk on Danebo to Royal - Councilman Haws asked the status of the project. Camm 7/16/75 Don Allen, public works director, answered that; it was underway with a Septem- ber 1, 1975 completion date. File R. Neighborhood Street Lighting - Councilman Haws referred to funds diverted from Camm street lighting funds for some of the neighborhood areas and wondered if re- 7/16/75 sponse had been received yet from neighborhood groups in that regard. Assistant Manager was not aware of any response but said a staff report would soon be File brought to the Council on street lighting proposals. S. Annexation, area west of Delta Highway north of Belt Line - Councilman Haws re- Camm e ferred to denial of this annexation by the Boundary Commission and wondered if 7/16/75 staff could report on that action. Assistant Manager answered that a report File would be returned to the Council. J T. National League of Cities Workshop for Council members/American Institute of Planners Workshop on Growth - Councilman Haws asked whether funds were available for Council members who wished to attend one or the other workshop - both to be. held in San Francisco on August 21-22-23 - whether staff considered the workshops "worth the effort," and which would be more beneficial to Council members. Camm Assistant Manager answered that information on both'meetings would be made avail- 7/16/75 able. If there was high interest, arrangements would be made for those who File wished to attend. He said there was no priority between the two, it was a question of which meeting Council members felt would be most beneficial to each individually. V'Donation, Cross Suit - C~uncilman Williams submitted a check hp. received for Camm $1.00 made payable to the city of Eugene from R. H. and Stella L. Burke, 7/16/75 350 Pearl Street, Apt.1613, to be endorsed over to whoever would be appealing File the order for removal of the Cross from Skinner Butte. V. Noisy Saturday Night Parties were the basis for complaints to Councilman Murray on a c0uple of recer.~ weekends. He said citizens had expressed concern at the delay in police reEponse time - in one instance four to five hours. He recognized priorities on police ~a~ls but since both complaints occurred on Saturday nights Camm he wondered whether extra staffing on that nigh~ might be advisable. Assistant 7/16/75 Mana'ger ans.wered that the police department was now staffing on Friday and File Saturday nights at the expenSE of other evenings. And David Jordan, public relations officer, said the complaints mentioned by Mr. Murray and reported - delay in response time had been investigated. 7/28/75 - 12 4-30 w. Housing Referral Program - Assistant Manager reported that COunty Commissioners had funded the a~ministrative position for the housing referral program for another 90 days to give the opportunity for evaluation of the program before de- e termining whether to continue funding on a permanent basis. He noted that the Comrn program had been cut from the city budget because of revenue shortages, and 7/16/75 that consideration of the city's funding half the administrative position salary File would now await further action by the commissioners. X. Current Public Improvement Projects - A schedule ot public works improvment projects Comrn for 1975 was previously furnished Council members A:,sistaht Manager said the list 7/16/75 would be forwarded to various neighborhood gro~ps. T'here were nO,objections. File Comrn Y.Dedication, Federal Building, 7th and Pearl - 3:30 p.m., Monday, July 21, 1975. 7/16/75 cruncil members Beal and Bradley and Mayor Anderson indica~ed they WOU~d attend. File Z .Introduction, Helen Henry, wife of the new city manager, by Mayor Anderson who Comrn welcomed her to the city. 7/23/75 File AA. Inter~~eport, Mall Activities was distributed by Councilman Hamel. The report, he said, indicated progress being made by him and Councilwoman Shirey Comm in meetings with the Eugene Downtown Association with regard to downtown mall 7/23/75 activities guidelines. . File BB. Joint social Services Funding - Councilman Murray asked whether the city of Springfield had reached a decision yet on funding a portion of the social services program being administered by Lane County. On being told Springfield's decision apparently was cond.itioned on their budget election, Mr. Murray requested a per- centage breakdown under the joint program in terms of residents of each agency Comrn receiving the services. It was understood the information would be provided 7/23/75 -- to Council members. File CC. Growth Study - Councilman Murray inquired about the status of the growth study. Assistant Manager replied that decisions with regard to financial pommitment to Comrn the gr9wth study in both Springfield and Lane County were awaiting outcome of 7/23/75 budget elections in those jurisdictions. File DO. Moratorium Rescission, Room Tax Funds G - Councilman Bradley referred to a Eugene Register-Guard editorial concerning the Council's recent decision to rescind the moratorium on allocation of room tax funds. He wondered if the prevailing .view- Comm point of the Council was to rescind the moratorium. He thought the Council at 7/23/75 some future committee meeting might want to discuss reinstating it. File . Councilman Murray disagreed with the thrust of the editorial Ito retain the mora- torium until new guidelines are established]. He said however inefficient or weak the present procedures were, they had been in operation for some time, were routine, and that those programs traditionally waiting until the second part of the year for allocations would be "left out in the cold" if the moratorium were to be retained until a new procedure was settled upon. EE.Police Department Programs - Councilman Bradley asked for a staff report on exist- ing programs in the police department such as SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics). He.was asking for a broad overview of police department activities funded by the Comm. city and/or the Law Enforcement Administrative Assistance. It was understood the requested report would be made available. 7/23/75 File e FF'Plan Amendment, Goodpasture Island Area - Councilman Haws noted receipt of material in a packet from Richard W. Cleveland, attorney for Goodpasture Island citizens, with regard to the scheduled hearing August 25 on the recommended plan amendment for that area. Mr. Cleveland in his transmittal letter stated his understnading 7/28/75 - 13 4-31' 1 Comm the materiaJ would be the subject of discussion at this committee meeting, and Mr. Haws thought those present under that assumption should be advised whether 7/23/75 it was in fact going to be discussed since it did not appear on the written agenda. File Mayor Anderson stated, and staff concurred, that since the item was not on the agenda it would not be discussed at this me~ting. . . . Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, asked segregation of Item FF - Plan Amendment, Good- I-A-3 pasture Island area for discussion. Assistant Manager explained action taken in com- mittee, that Mr. Cleveland had submitted a packet of m,ateria1 under the impression the item would be discussed in that meeting. He was advised it was not on the agenda and was scheduled for public hearing August 25, 1975. Mayor Anderson said any further dis- cussion at this time would be out of order, unless it was a question of procedure. Mr. Jones said it was a question of when there would be response to th~ questions raised in Mr. lC1eve1and'sletter of transmittal. One issue had been answered, t~e matter of setting over the hearing, he said. Mr. .Jones wondered when the other six items would be answered. Councilmen Bradley and Haws discussed their understanding of the issue - that the submittal was made just previous to the meeting without time for distribution to Council members. Mr. Haws said he would ~ike a chance to discuss the issues, but not until after he had reviewed them. Assistant Manager said the actions requested in Mr. Cleveland's letter were reconsideration of earlier Council action, and staff was awaiting Council direction with regard to whether further dis- cussion was wanted. . Mr. Jones said the Council at the July 14 meeting was asked to take action on seven points. They did consider one. He wondered if failure to act on the remaining six would constitute denial of those six requests. If action was going to be taken, he asked, would it be after public hearing so that the issues would become a matter of record. Mayor Anderson stated his understanding that the Council did not wish further diseus- e sion at this point, that unless a Council member specifically requested further dis- cussion, anything more at this point would be moot. ... Mr. Bradley.moved second by Mr. Hamel that discussion on the subject occur at the Wednesday, July 30, 1975 committee-of-the-whole meeting. <=- Mr. Bradley raised the question of whether time limits would be imposed. He suggested possibly confining the committee discussion to staff presentation. Assistant Manager noted that an hour limit had already been placed on the hearipg scheduled for August 25. He suggested that the committee meeting might be confined to staff review with the Council, then a determination as to ~hether testimony would be received. Councilman Murray asked whether there would be delay on the Goodpasture Island matter if any of Mr. Cleveland's suggestions were enacted. Assistant Manager said some of them would cause a delay, some would not. Whereupon Councilman Murray commented on past requests for Council action "to hurry along," yet the same people now were asking for a delay. Mayor Anderson strongly recommended that any discussion at the July 30 committee session be confined to s.taff discussion. If public testimony was desired, it could be taken in the public hearing. He felt taking testimony a~ the committee meeting would lead to further problems and confusion. Vote was taken on the motion to bring the issues raised in Mr. Cleveland's submittal for discussion in committee, July 30, and that no public testimony - be taken at that time. Motion carried unanimously. 7/28/75. '" 14 - 43~, Mayor Anderson noted that this meeting was the first. ca!.ri"d Ii:; tilt' Cornrn new city mailager, Charles T. lienry, and turned t:ho ,'ie;;dd J'C~. :-0 !i.?m. 7/23/75 Mr. Henry acknowlerlged the introduction and sairi u;, ~ J.!l~! (;,.Jcs:~on.s - fer whi ch he did not .;/.ve a ready answer would ['" a!_ ->,'C-[()(] f;y "ther;:; on the st,:jff unti 1 .i.D due time he had acqu.i red tht:. {J/ :c(':~'.'.;ar~.; irJormation. GG. 1975-80 Transi tDevelopment. Program, Lane Transit District - Copies of summary re- port of LTD 1"975-80 transit development program were previously distributed to Council members. Copies of the full report itself were furnished at this meeting. Fred Dyer, manager, and Dave Rynerson, planning director, tor the District were introduced. Mr. Rynerson reviewed the report which was expected to play an important role in future decisions regarding the transit system, would serve as a reference 'for public and private organizations and individuals, and become a general guide tor the District staff in making recommendations to the Board on specific equipment, construction, or operations projects. Mr. Rynerson stressed that th~ five..:year development program would cover the current service area only, that the program at this time couldn't be related to a long-range transportation plan because of re- appraisal now going on and taking into account various ridership statist.ics. He said information would be brought to the Council later with regard to a 25-year project. Mr. Rynerson said that the listed categories of improvements needed were based on goals stated in the metropolitan general plan and the District's own goals. He noted the effectiveness and level of service programs, and mode transfer facilities, the latter being the most important, he said, so far as city involvement was concerned. lie said the District had worked closely with the Renewal Agency and the city's public works department on a fledgling bus stop program which interrelated with other improvements would lead to the future concept of a bus rapid transit system. This type of system, he said, seemed the most feasible and desirable for this area e given existing land use configurations and available technology. Transferring, although inconvenient, would be required to achieve rapid transit with less vehicles. Tables included in the report showed sequential growth planned for the transit system, and Mr. Rynerson noted that its achievement would take a great deal of effort - reacting to emergencies, making unpopular decisi.ons - within available resourqes. In discussing the District's current financial capabilities and limitations, Mr.Dyer said that abou~ 80% of its budget was confined to labor costs. Federal money is just now becoming available tor other than capi tal expend.i turf's. The development plan will be funded through current programs only, he said - ferleral grants and local fund (fare box and the district tax). 1\ lot of the plan ~"ou I d depend on "what happens" such as energy crises. He felt comfortable with the District's forecasts, based on outcome Gf projections over the last four years, and sa.id the plan had the ability to change directions to meet the community' 5 nE.'ed should it become necessary. Manager asked about Urban Mass Transit grants and whether the District was reason- ably sure that type of money would be available. Mr. Dyer answered that the District works on an unamortized capital investment program. Although it has bonding authority it does not enjoy the stability of the city so its bonds have not been salable. Capital investment, he said, has to come from current years' budgets. He said they have sometimes delayed over a couple of years but the Mass Transit administration frowns on tha t . So far there has been money available from this source and the Dis- . trict has experienced reliability in receiving funds the Mass Transit administration has said would be available. e Councilwoman Shirey complimented Mr. Dyer and his staff for a fine job in handling problems experienced by the Transit District - especially those which could not be toreseen. 433 7/28/75 - 15 Councilman Murray asked about proposed retirement of 11 "old look" buses in the 1976 program as indicated in the report. Also, what response the LTD staff had to park-and-ride facilities in transfer problem areas. Mr. Dyer explained that some of the buses proposed for reti.rement would be used to respond to "demand" use, some of - the older ones would be kept for historical purposes. He said installation of park-and-ride facilities was not considered the best use of fund.ing in this community. Surveys had indicated autoists had a tendency to pass them by, he said, and inad- vertently they were a source of more congest.ion and a.ir pollution. Park-and-ride facilities were more suitable to larger, more concentrated population areas where commuters traveled farther to get to urban centers. Councilman Murray then asked if the mode transfer facilities would be installed where bus shelters were. Also, if the 19 listed future transit system nodes were Comm the limit for the 1975-80 development plan period. Mr. Dyer said transfer facili- 7/23/75 t.ies were considered major transfer points, changing the mode of transportatiq~, File rather than just shelters. And the future nodes were predicated on demand- if a major regional shopping center was allowed through zoning or other regulations, that would be the 20th node. Councilman Murray hoped some provision would be made for shelters near senior citizen facilities where the need per person was significantly greater. Mr. Dyer said that there would be at least ten installed this year at major activity points, 26 are planned over the five-year period unless availability of money will accelerate. He said they had high priority but it was a matter of money/time - the more money there was available, the faster the installations could be made. Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for presentation of the LTD report and suggested Mr. Dyer and Mr. Rynerson return if the Council had further questions after reviewing the full development plan. HH. LCOG Report on Committees - Copies of memo from LCOG were furnished to Council members with the agenda concerning a Task Force report on LCOG committees. Manager e noted concerns previously raised about the LCOG committee structure leading to creation of a special task force. The task force report was adopted by the LCOG Board and was being discussed with the Council, Manager said, to keep it aware of the Board's effort to keep its committees appropriately co~ordinated under elected officia{.s. Copies of the report were distributed with explanation by Assistant Manager that the LCOG Board was making a concerted effort toward more supervision of committees' aci tivi ties. Where it was found some were not function<<.-:- ing or where there were no funds available, dismissal was being considered. Ronel Paddock, chairman of the LCOG Board, noted recommendations contained in the report as the result of committee review by the Board to determine what was being accomplished, as well as what was not being accomplished. He thought implementation of those recommendations. would make ~he committees more effective in their work. Doug Halley, LCOG director, said the very strong and deep commitment of people serv- Corom ing on the LCOG Board should be kept in mind, that this review was an attempt to 7/23/75 maximize citizen effort so that it was not wasted or misdirected and serviced certain File community goals. Mayor Anderson commented that any report advocating abolition of committees had suit- able merit. Mrs. Bea1 thought it doubly important when at the same time it recog- nized the importance of citizen involvement. Mr. Halley answered that it couldn't be considered just "abolition." It was a case of putting available resources to those committees with the most clearly defined charge and which were the most ef- . fective, more of a priority decision. He said the Board at its meeting July 24 would review recommendations to suspend the activities of two committees until there was a certain amount of support to continue programs with which they were involved. . Councilwoman Beal noted the Affirmative Action Committee appeared to have taken care of minorities' problems but that there was a majority - women - who did not appear to be very well represented. She hoped that .would be brought to the attention of the Affirmative Action Committee. 7/28/75 - 16 43+." Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through HH. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye (except see separate vote on Item ~(2)(Gillespie e property condemnation) (pp.6&7). III - Items Not Previously Heard A. Liquor License Application La Posada Mexican Restaurant, 685 East Broadway (RMB) Change of ownership - Donald and Gloria Hewitt Staff had no objections. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. '. B. Waiver of Bid Procedure was requested for award of contract on paving and sanitary sewer on Robin S~reet from Taney Street to 400 feet east of Taney Street to H&J Construction for $17,176.80. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to authorize the waiver of bid procedure and award the contract. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 891 - Amending Section 4.083 and adding Section 4.084 to City Code re: Loud or raucous noise, read the first time on July 14, 1975 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought e back for consideration of amendment and second reading of the bill as amended. Assistant Manager explained the amendments developed by staff according to action taken by Council at July 14 meeting. Copies of the redraft were previously distributed to Council members. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill as amended be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent Qf the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilman Bradley suggested limiting construction after hours with permit to 9:00 p.m. rather than to 10:00 p.m. He felt that would be more consistent with the balance of the restrictions. Councilman Murray said it was not the intent to limit any "do-it- yourself" home repair. The 7:(}0 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. hours allow for that exception, he said, and tries to preserve the ability of the community to move ahead with its housing rehabilitation efforts. Vote was taken on second reading of the bill as amended. Motion carried unanimously and the bill as amended was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Councilman Williams said it was his understanding the entire ordinance was referred to staff for redraft based on decibel standards. He wondered why the bill was brought back e in essentially its original form. Assistant Manager said his understanding of previous Council action was to direct staff to look at development of a noise ordinance based on decibel standards, adopting the present provisions until that work was done. Council- man Bradley said that was correct, that his original intent was to postpone adoption of this bill. However, in following discussions, he said, it was the consensus to go ahead with this legislation while staff was continuing its work on an ordinance based on decibel standards. 435 7/28/75 - 17 Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and pass. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Williams and Hamel voting no - and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17434. e Council Bill No. 914 -Construction of sanitary sewer to serve area between 41st Avenue (extended) and 500 feet south of ~lst Avenue (ex- tended) and between East Amazon Drive and North Shasta Loop, and repealing Ordinance 17221 adopted December 23, 1974 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. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. . Motion carried unanimo~sly and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. ~ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17435. Council Bill No. 915 - Adopting plans and specificatio-s for construction of sanitary sewer to serve area between 41st Avenue (extended) and 500 feet south of 41st Avenue (extended) and between East Amazon Drive and North Shasta Loop, and repealing Ordinance 17222 adopted December 23, 1974 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. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment e be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray move~ second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approv~d and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was de- clared passed and numbered 17436. ~ Council Bill No. 916 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer between Gilham Road and Coburg Road from Belt Line Road to 200 feet north of Bonnie View Drive (74-04) 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. Williams that the bill be referred to Hearing Panel for hearing on August 4, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda-. tions on August 11, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 917 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between 1500 feet north and 1300 feet south of 25th Avenue from 500 feet east of Brittany Street to 160 feet east of Hawkins Lanw (74-16) 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. Williams that the bill be referred to Hearing Panel for hearing on August 4, 1975 and brought back for Council consideration of Panel recommenda- tions on August 11, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. e 7/28/75 - 18 4~~ V -.Resolutions. Resolution No. 2421 - Modifying 1990 General Plan to show area between 1st Avenue and Wiltamette River and between Skinner Butte Park and Washington/ tit Jefferson Park suitable for high-density "residential use was readby.number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2429 - Adopting policies for implementation of General Plan amendment on area between 1st Avenue and Willamette River and between Skinner Butte Park and Washington/Jefferson Park to be reviewed in overall refinement study of the area was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote, Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. " Resolution No. 2430 - Authorizing signatures of L, E. Anderson, mayor; Charles T. Henry, city manager; and S. P. Flogstad. city recorder, on checks issued by city was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, Resolution No. 2431 - Applying for funds and authorizing incurring costs under Housing and Community Development Act was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. e Resolution No. 2432 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period July 14 through July 28, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all' council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2433 - Repealing Resolution 2406 adopted May 27, 1975 r~: Settlement of Western Liquid Asphalt Cases was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2434 - Authorizing settlement in Western Liquid Asphalt Cases (includ- ing Standard Oil) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Williams 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. e @j~ )~ Charles T. Henry City Manager 437 7/28/75 - 19