Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1975 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 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 November 10, 1975 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Ray Bradley (arrived later), D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey. Councilman Tom Williams was absent. I - Proclamation - Canvass of votes in November 4, 1975 EWEB election was presented covering results of $15,000,000 revenue bond election for expansion of water system: Yes - 3,127 Overvotes - 17 No - 1,690 Undervotes - 44 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to accept the proclamation as presented. Motion carried unanimously. II - Public Hearings A. Extension of revocable permit for mobile trailer - Citizens Bank, 11th and Pearl Manager explained that Citizens Bank planned to proceed in about two months with construction of a permanent building in the vicinity of the present facility. They requested continuation of the mobile trailer facility for another year while the new building is under construction. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented, other than Jane Giustina, speaking for Citizens Bank, offering to answer any questions. e Mayor Anderson asked what the Bank's plans were for the structure adjacent to the trailer and what disposal was to be made of the trailer itself. Ms.Giustina said that negotiations were in progress for property, and a new structure was being designed to provide for a full-service facility. They plan to apply for a building permit by February 1976. No determination has yet been made, she said, with regard to whether the present structure will remain. The trailer, she thought, would be sold. Councilman Bradley entered the meeting. Manager said that the superintendent of building inspection had recommended ex- tending the permit to August 1, 1976 on the basis of information given by Ms. Giustina, with no extention beyond that date for the present location. Resolution No. 2457 - Granting revocable permit for Citizens Bank mobile trailer at 11th and Pearl to expire on August 1, 1976 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-l B. Procedures for 1990 General Plan Amendment Recommended by the Planning Commission on September 22, 1975. Manager explained there was some question whether adequate notice was given all interested parties and suggested that the public hearing proceed with the understanding the issue e would be carried over to the November 24, 1975 Council meeting. There were no objections. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the suggested procedure, previously presented to the Council in joint session with the Planning Commission, would provide a 5~ 11/10/75 - 1 I definitive written guideline for amendment to the General Plan. The suggested procedure is that which has been followed informallYI he said, and it has been suggested to Lane County and Springfield for adoption to provide uniformity in General Plan amendments. Mr. Saul said the procedure would provide a method . whereby local jurisdictions could consider and adopt amendments without necessarily having other jurisdictions consider them if they are of no concern to them. It would also provide a mechani~rn for resolution of conflict if anyone jurisdiction should disagree with a propO$ed amendment (involves appeal to LCOG and further to LCDC). He added that Lane r~unty indicated there was consensus between the Com- missioners and the County pl\lnning commission. However, they suggest that MAPAC should have authority to apP\~al an amendment agreed upon by all three jurisdictions. Mr. Saul said staff saw no Plfoblem with including that provision. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. It was understood Resolution 2458 - Authorizing procedures for 1990 General Plan amendment would be an item on the November 24, 1975 Council meeting agenda. C. Rezoning Planning COmrrUssion Report - October 7, 1975 - The report was presented recommending the following zone changes: I. Area on west side of McKinley Street between 7th Place and West Broadway - Rezoning from M-3 to M-l (Balzhiser-Colvin) (Z 75-8) 2. Area on northeast corner of Coburg Road and Willakenzie Road - Rezoning from RA to C-2 SR, and change in sign. district from Residential to Outlying Commercial (Dairy Queen) (Z 75-9) 3. Area north of 11th Avenue, east of McKinley Street - Rezoning from M-2 to . C-2 (Floyd Herring) (Z 75-10) 4. Area south of ElmirGl Road, west of u.s. Highway 99N - Rezoning from RA to C-2 SR' (Tom Wester) (Z 75-11). John Porter, planning director, briefly reviewed each request and said each had been referred to the appropriate neighborhood association. He said neighboring groups and residents were pretty much in agreement with the requests, all approved by the COmrrUssion. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule hearing on the zone changes at the November 10, 1975, Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 1. West side of McKinley Street between 7th Place and West Broadway - From M-3 to M-l (Balzhiser-Colvin)(Z 75-8) Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1975. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the zone change was initiated primarily to allow expansion of offices for the structural engineering firm. The building was constructed prior to 1968 when offices were permitted in M-3 zones, he said. They are not now permitted in M-3 zones, however they are allowed in M-l zones, and the change would allow the expansion desired. No exparte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 were made a -- part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented other than James Balzhiser, member of the structural engineering firm petitioning the change, offering to answer questions. 11/10/75 - 2 5,7.7. Council Bill 948 - Rezoning to M-l Limited Industrial the area on the west side of McKinley Street between 7th Place e and West Broadway 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 findings as set out in Planning Com- mission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 supporting the rezoning be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. 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 17468. I-A-2 2. Northwest corner of Coburg Road and Willakenzie Road - From RA to C-2 SR _ and changing sign district from Residential to Outlying Commercial (Dairy Queen)(Z 75-9) Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1975. Manager noted some objections had been raised by the Willakenzie Neighborhood Association. Jim Saul, planner, noted correction in Planning Commission minutes of October 7, 1975, to indicate commercial zoning on this property was initially considered~ ' in 1963 rather than in 1973 as stated. He said the first request for commercial zoning was denied, however a variance was granted allowing establishment of a miniature golf course. Another variance was granted in 1965, rather than a re- quested zone change, permitting the Dairy Queen. Mr. Saul said about 20 acres between Coburg, Ca1 Young, and Wi1lakenzie had been changed from C-2 to R-2 e with the exception of about five acres on Coburg Road. Proposed expansion of the Dairy Queen and elimination of the miniature golf course prompted the present rezoning request. He said the Commission recommended approval with the requirement for site review, primarily because of concern about treatment along Coburg Road. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 were made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. James Watters, partner in the Dairy Queen operation, said he had purchased the store recently and wanted to provide seating for 72 people but found expansion was not possible under the present zoning. He offered to answer any questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Council Bill No. 949 - Rezoning to C-2 SR Community Commercial the area on the northwest corner of Coburg Road and Willa- kenzie Road, and changing sign district to Outlying Commercial, 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 findings as set out in Planning Com- e mission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 supporting the rezoning and sign district change be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 578 11/10/75 - 3 r 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 17469. 3. North of 11th Avenue, east of McKinley Street - From M-2 to C-2 (Floyd Her- e ring)(Z 75-10) Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1975. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the rezoning request was submitted primarily to allow commercial development on one lot facing West 11th Avenue. He said the Commission, in look- ing at this request, considered the basic commercial character already established in that area and decided existing commercial strip on 11th could be terminated at McKinley Street. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 were made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened with no testimony presented other than Neil Jongeward, 2863 Lydick Way, representing the property owner, offering to answer questions. Council Bill No. 950 - Rezoning to C-2 Community Commercial an area north of 11th Avenue, east of McKinley 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 findings as set out in Planning Com- mission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 supporting the rezoning be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the e 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 17470. 4. South of Elmira Road, west of Highway 99N - From RA to C-2 SR (Tom Wester)(Z 75-11) Recommended by the Planning Commission on October 7, 1975. Manager said that some concern was expressed by the Active Bethel Citizens. They thought perhaps that a C-l zone would be more appropriate. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the property was located immediately west of commercial zoning fronting on Highway 99N and had been used for years as a parking lot for adjacent commercial establishments. The owner, when attempting to upgrade an existing building on the property, found it was not zoned for commercial use nor was there sufficient space to satisfy code requirements for parking. The Planning Commission recom- mended approval of commercial use based on existing zoning in the area and history of previous use of the property. The Commission took note of ABC's suggestion that C-l zoning would be more appropriate, Mr. Saul said, but decided the ef- fect of C-l zoning could be accomplished through site review procedures. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 were made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented other than Frank Bonson, e representing the owne~ Tom Wester, offering to answer questions. Council Bill No. 951 - Rezoning to C-2 SR Community Commercial an area south of Elmira Road, west of Highway 99N~ was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 11/10/75 - 4 579 Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1975 e be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill numberonly. 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 17471. I-A-3 D. Code Amendment re: Human Rights Commission/Women's Commission Manager reviewed history of request for creation of a women's commission by various women's groups in the community. Also, proposal presented by the Mayor involving creation of a new structure which would include a women's commission along with commissions concerned with other areas of discrimination - senior citizens, handi- capped, and minorities. A task force, comprising Council members Murray and Shirey and members of the women's groups, worked out the proposal presented at this time: Four commission, each having nine members, to be concerned with the needs of women, aging, handicapped, and minorities, and a human rights council made up of eight members, two from each commission. Manager read a summary of the ordinance and said that notices of this hearing had been sent to the various groups involved. , Councilman Murray, chairman of the task force, explained that the ordinance pro- vided for separation of the advocacy function from the hearing and judicial process. It also provided for separation of special interest advocacy groups, but at the same time provided for co-ordination through a human rights council. He thought the bill would give speedy and fair dispatch of all complaints and was a major improve- e ment over the existing structure. Councilwoman Shirey agreed. Mike Phillips, chairman of the present Human Rights Commission, said that group strongly endorsed separation of the advocacy function from the judicial function. He explained that the Commission had resisted any effort to separate people in this community into separate groups, but he felt the proposed ordinance would do just the opposite. In that respect, he said, it was misguided, and he urged that it not be adopted. He noted several different areas of discrimination and wondered where complaints could be taken in situations where commission lines crossed, such as women experiencing discrimination primarily because of race. Also, whether the senior citizens group would be concerned with problems of the young. He wondered if religious discrimination would be excluded. Because of these types of problems, Mr. Phillips said he felt the city would be moving backward, and that while it would be highly advantageous in addressing human rights problems, he thought separat- ing persons into identifiable groups was ill-advised. Public hearing was opened. I-A-4 Lucille Trine, a volunteer senior citizen Council assistant, said there was no thought of discrimination in any of the senior citizen groups. There were things needed from time to time, she said, and they might appeal to the commission for ad- vice or help. She didn't believe any of the four commissions would in any way hinder justice. - Therese Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, said a women's commission was requested - because the Human Rights Commission was not doing enough for women. Discovering problems of minority groups was difficult, she said, and could only be done with advocates. Also, the old "terrible thoughts" that go with the old racial dis- crimination had to be separated from what is happening now. She added that the commission on minorities could deal with religious discrimination. 11/10/75 - 5 580 Alice Plymell, 1887 Fircrest Drive, member of the Mayor's Committee on Limited Mobility, said the Human Rights Commission as now constituted was unable to deal with problems of those with limited mobility. That group, she said, had been try- ing for over a year to have someone from their group appointed to the Human Rights tit Commission. A separate commission made up of people of limited mobility, she said, would be much more effective in dealing with their problems. John Craig, 2042 Washington Street, thought the proposed structure would divide the community into special interest groups. He felt a senior member on a re- structured and revitalized Human Rights Commission with a specific membership number could better handle the rights of senior citizens. He said if the proposed ordinance was adopted, there should be further study before its implementation. Jewell Baker, representing the Senior Lobby, commended the women's groups for taking the lead in guaranteeing a more equitable way of life for those relegated to second- class citizenship. She read a prepared statement and said she thought the proposed women's commission would set a new standard for justice for men and women in the community. Don Husband, member of the Mayor's Committee on Aging as well as the Lane County Senior Service Action Committee, said the proposed ordinance had come to the attention of the Committee on Aging for the first time today. He hoped the Council would not pass it until senior citizens had an opportunity to review it. Sharon Posner, president of the League of Women Voters, supported the proposed ordinance and said it was a first step in eliminating discrimination against women. She recognized the amount of work necessary to select the.initial member- ship for the four commission but urged the use of open applications and inter- views by the Council. Also, that effort should be made to make as many people -- as possible aware of the openings. Ms. Posner continued that co-ordination of the four commissions by the proposed human rights council was crucial to avoid confusion and duplication, and to give an on-going evaluation of the work. She hoped that if the ordinance was adopted at this meeting, the machinery for appointment would be set up immediately, so that the women's group would not have to wait on all the others to begin its work. Cuma Smith, a member of the Emerald Empire Council on Aging, asked that the name of the commission for senior citizens be changed to Commission on Aging. Also, provision should be made for one-third of the membership of that commission to be from the older community itself, and each commission should have at least one member older than 55. In addition, Ms. Smith thought the Mayor's Committee on Aging should be given preferential treatment when appointments are made to this commission. Mary Klonoski, 2795 Central Boulevard, noted ways in which a women's commission in Eugene could work with the Governor's Commission on Status of Women, of which she is a member: Informing women of their legal rights and significant changes in the law; informing women of ways to redirect sex discrimination; and pointing to positions in local and state gover-ment where women could be elected or appointed. Pearl Gischler, 900 East Hilaire, spoke in opposition to the idea that the pro- posed ordinance would separate the citizenry into individual groups. Rather, she said, it would designate certain groups to make a special effort to study the problems of people in whom they are interested. She suggested four people on each commission would be sufficient, with one from each commission becoming -- a member of the human rights council. Jean Reeder, 1645 Fairmount Boulevard, president of Fairmount Neighbors, said that that organization agreed there was need for a women's commission. However, 11/10/75 - 6 5'BI they were concerned with the idea that all commission members would be working on their own problems, and with the way members would be chosen. She encouraged the Council to contact the widest range of people possible in filling the member- e ship and to inform neighborhood organizations of the openings available. Rosemary Batori, 2030 East 19th Avenue, read a letter in favor of the proposed ordinance and conveyed support of others in the community. She thought it im- portant for minority groups to have access to members in city government and for members of minority groups to have a part in the decisions. A representative of the Oregon Bureau of Labor, Civil Rights Division, saw problems with the ordinance as written. He said there was no mandatory requirement for co-operation in the complaint procedure - a complainant might not give informa- tion until subpoenaed, and there might not be evidence of reasonable cause if an attorney decided not to co-operate. He thought separation of the commissions would cause unnecessary burdens, saying people fitting all categories - age, minoritiy, sex, handicapped - would have to file compa1ints with each commission. He thought the bill needed much further study, that as it stands, funding problems would be created when beginning the complaint process. Staff would have no sub- poena power and would lack authority to obtain necessary evidence. Also, separate commissions would be a disadvantage to those who rea-Iy have been discriminated against. Martin Weideman, 2102 Delta, member of the Mayor's Committee on Limited Mobility~ said that committee did not oppose the concept so much as it did the structure. ' He said it was too complicated and could exclude from membership nonhandicapped, from whom support was needed. Also, he said he felt the committee should have been consulted when the proposal was drafted. e Sallie Meek, 1045 Monroe Street, co-ordinator for Youth Planning Committee, was opposed to the proposed ordinance because a youth commission was not included. She said she fe1t the youth of the community had been ignored by the Council, adding that within the city structure, especially in the police department and schools, there was no channel for input from people under 18. The attitude of the city has reflected time and time again, she said, that young people are not responsible, not competent, not able to participate; Ms. Meek said a broad ad- vocacy group making recommendations to the Council and youth serving agencies on new plans, legislation, etc., affecting young people would fit very well into the proposed ordinance. She expressed concern about the way membership on the commis- sions would be chosen and suggested that people from the groups with which the commissions would be concerned should be consulted, that the Council itself should not have complete power to choose the members. Ron Sanete1, member of the Committee on Limited Mobility, agreed with the concept of a human rights council, but objected to the complaint procedure. He thought it would change the nature of the group concerned with rights of those with limited mobility, that it would question the involvement of people like himself (non- handicapped and an architect dealing with their problems) on a commission like this. He suggested that the existing Human Rights Commission be strengthened, that each of the minorities be represented on that Commission. At the present time, he said, the limited mobility group was not. Jim Williams, 2750 Capitol Drive, Lane County Mental Health Center, felt the youth of the community should have an explanation of why they were excluded. Young e people involved in decisions affecting them, he said, would not feel alienated, would not develop delinquency characteristics. He said there was minimal access for young people to anything meaningful to them in this community, that they should have a role in the policy making. He added that there was no clear under- standing of what young people today were experienceing, that it was very much the responsibility of elected officials to make sure youth have access to legitimate roles in the decision making process: ~Z 11/10/75 - 7 Joan Kalvalage, 1605 Pearl Street, #1, echoed Ms. Meek and Mr. Williams, saying it was not made clear why the young people proposing a youth commission had not been consulted before a decision was made on this proposal. She said this experience was one more example in the pattern of discrimination against "kids." There should - be at least an explanation of why there had been no consideration of the young people's proposal for a youth commission. Jim Forbes, representing the Intervention Center, said that agency supported the idea of a youth commission that would give young people the right to have a part in the community. An unidentified woman, giving her address as 1821 Jefferson Street, noted the amount of work put forth for the women's organizations to have a strong women's commission. She suggested that organization of the women's com- mission proceed, then the other groups would have the same right as the women had in presenting their concerns; the women's commission should not be lost in other things related to human rights. She was opposed to the wording in the ordinance as it related to the women's commission, saying that the "cards were stacked" when the word "person" was used instead of "woman." She felt the balance needed would not be possible, that the Mayor artd Council in having the decision with regard to membership on the women's commission would not be giving that power over to the women. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented, and a short recess was declared. Upon reconvening, Councilman Murray explained that the charge to the task force I-B-2 dealt specifically with a women's commission. He explained also the procedures and process followed in arrive at the ordinance under discussion. With regard to comments about the exclusion of the youth rights commission, Mr. Murray said the Council had discussed that proposal a couple of times. He personally was of the opinion that there should be included a provision for youth, recognizing e there may be a q~estion with regard to the applicability of youth problems to the human rights commission. He hoped the proposal for a youth rights com- mission or some sort of youth advocacy group would not be set aside. He call ed attention to the recently adopted citizen participation program and said any youth group would come under that same process. With regard to having nine members on each commission, Mr. Murray said the task force was not especially attached to that number. It was taken directly from the present human rights ordinance which calls for not less than nine nor more than fifteen. Any fewer than that many had not been discussed at length, he said. Mayor Anderson commented that some flaws had been found in the existing human rights ordinance, and this opportunity for an update was welcomed. Any document outlining the rights of individuals in a community, he said, has to be technically a good legal document. He called on Stan Long, assista~t city attorney, to re- spond to comments with regard to the ordinance as it is now written. Mr. Long pointed out that the existing human rights ordinance does not have sub- poen~, power. The question of whether it could be granted by the Council has been investigated three or four times, he said, and the conclusion reached each time was that it is not legally possible for the Council to grant subpoena power. With regard to the possibility of being unco-operative, not continuing with a complaint, Mr. Long said an attorney bears the risk of having a case determined by a hearings officer. If there is no co-operation, the commission will make the decision based on information before the hearings officer. The attorney, he said, has the usual legal right to take a case to court. Commenting on the concern expressed e about multiple complaints where a person may have been subject to discrimination on more than one cause, Mr. Long said it should be understood that staff people will be able to assist in making a complaint. Also, complaints can be amended. 11/10/75 - 8 583 So he felt there was no substantial risk that multiple complaints couldn't be dealth with or that the city attorney's office would be precluded from bringing a case based on any cause other than brought by the complainant. He added that e if this thinking was found to be erroneous, the ordinance could always be brought back to the Council for consideration of procedures that deal with multiple com- plaints. Councilman Keller asked about the question of religious discrimination brought up by Mike Phillips. Mr. Phillips said that the Human Rights Commission recom- mended that discrimination complaints based on religion be referred to the human rights council rather than to the commission on minorities, which apparently will deal primarily with racial discrimination. He thought that unless there was a fairly broad based group handling complaints, there would be a tendency to seek decisions in terns of a "target" group, and the minorities commission, it seemed, would deal particularly with minorities' problems. Councilman Bradley asked what the present Human Rights Commission would suggest to eliminate any defects they might see in the present Commission. Mr. Phillips re- sonded that one thing would be to alter the membership of the Commission. Member- ship provisions now call for nine to fifteen members; there now exist six vacancies with further vacancies occurring in January. In his time as a member of the Com- mission, he said, there had been no member appointed who could be identified with feminist interests. Only since March of this year, he said, had there been membe~s specifically interested in problems of the aging or the handicapped. He thought~ appointments to the existing Commission that would encompass all of these groups would provide an advocacy role for those people Also, he thought the advocacy role should be separated from the judicial process in the existing Commission. e Mayor Anderson commented that the Council could delay action on the ordinance for two weeks or as long as it wished to deliberate. The purpose of this meeting primarily, he said, was to receive public testimony. Councilwoman Beal suggested that the ordinance, before it is adopted, be amended, changing the name of the senior citizens commission to commission on aging; to provide for at least one-third of the membership on the commission on aging to come from the elderly group itself; to provide for one member in the senior age group on each commission. She also suggested that members of the Mayor's Committee on Aging be considered for membership on the ~ommission on rights of the aging. Councilman Murray asked whether the Council could legally define by age the member- ship on a commission. Mr. Long answered that it was a legislative matter, that the Council could set qualifications for membership by age. In response to Mayor Anderson's inquiry about the number on each commission, Mr. Murray said he thought nine was a satisfactory number. Mr. Keller agreed, and the Mayor commented that if the various groups thought their numbers should be expanded, the ordinance could be amended later. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray that the proposed commissions have nine members each. Motion carried unanimously. I-B-3 Mayor Anderson turned to appointment procedure, pointing out that the Council bylaws provide procedure for appointments to various boards and commissions. He thought there might be occasions when the Council would rather not go through an interview e process and instead have a Council subcommittee make recommendations. For that reason, he suggested that the Council, through its own procedures, could handle appointments to these commissions rather than having a procedure spelled out in 11/10/75 - 9 58+ the ordinance. Councilman Murray emphasized that that point was debated at length in task force meetings, and he thought that the task force would feel strongly that it should be as written into the ordinance. Councilman Keller asked if that meant it would be mandatory for the Council to interview finalists, and Mr. Murray e answered that it did. He went on to explain that the recent Council bylaws re- vision on appointments to boards and commission would come into play in arriving at who the finalists would be. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Murray to delete reference to senior citizens in the ordinance, substituting instead "commission on aging." Councilman Keller suggested the motion include changing "handicapped" to "limited mobil ity" as suggested. Mrs. Beal felt however that all other handicapped should not be crossed off - the blind, mentally retarded, etc. - which would be the case if terms were confined to those with limited mobility. Mr. Long said that under the present code the term "handicapped" is much broader than limited mobility. It refers to both physical and mental disability, he said, whereas limited mobility defines only those with limited physical mobility. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mrs. Shirey that at least one-third 'of~the . membership of the commission on .aging comprise senior citizens them- selves. Mr. Long wondered how the Council wuld define a "senior citizen." Councilman Murray thought the motion unnecessary. He suspicioned that at least one-third of the membership would be those generally considered senior citizens anyway. Mayor Anderson thought an over-structured commission could cause problems, and that it might be better to leave it to the Council's judgment in making appoint- e ments as to who might better serve. Mrs. Beal with consent of the second (Shirey) withdrew the motion. Mayor Anderson asked for comments on whether the human rights council should deal with any identifiable groups. Councilwoman Shirey thought there should be some provision for that. She said it was not the intent of the group drafting the ordinance to exclude anyone; it was the intent to provide some place to take problems. She suggested adding a provision which would give the human rights council the right to deal with areas of concern not addressed by the individual commissions. Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Murray to amend the ordinance by adding ".. . areas of those concerns not addressed ~y the individual commission maybe referred to the human rights council to conduct the investigation, research, and hearings necessary to effectuate." Mr. Long said that the proposal which came from the task force did not exclude 'any- one. The question, he said, is whether religion and perhaps other categories were to be removed from where they were dealt with. Language to the effect that the council would address problems not specifically covered will give the human rights council nothing to deal with. He asked the Council which functions or categories it wished to remove and place under the jurisdiction of the human rights council. Councilman Murray thought perhaps it would be better to give that area the "test of time." He felt if those types of problems were encountered with some frequency, e it might be better to revise the ordinance at that time. He withdrew his second. Mrs. Shirey then withdrew her motion with the comment that there should perhaps be some wording more specific that would give people lI!ore choice. 11/10/75 - 10 S8s Mayor Anderson asked for comment with regard to religious discrimination, whether it should be dealt with in the minorities commission. Councilman Haws asked for clarification. He was under the impression that the minorities commission would e deal with racial or minority problems of any type. Mr. Long said that under the present proposal, the minorities commission would be dealing with discrimination with regard to race, color, religion, or national origin. 1-8-4 Mayor Anderson turned to the proposal for a youth commission. He said the basis for through identification of the four commissions was that those areas were already identi- II-A fied in the equal opportunity ordinance, and there were existing commissions or ad hoc committees actively working in those areas. Also, the proposal for a youth commission carne at a time when the task force was actually in the process of drafting the ordinance now under discussion. To include the youth proposal would have compounded problems and would have involved a complete examination by the Council since it would be somewhat of a departure from the existing ordinance. However, that certainly would not rule out consideration of a youth commission by the Council, he said. In fact, he thought it important for the Council to consider the proposal. He suggested that the machinery be started on the proposal for the four commissions, then the Council would be better able to look at a youth commis- sion to see how it would fit into this structure, or perhaps some other area in the governmental organization. Councilman Keller inquired about the makeup of the human rights council - whether an even number of people would create problems. Mayor Anderson said the equal . r number from each commission would achieve a balance of power. Councilman Murray added that the role of the council at this point would be evaluating and co- ordinating so that he did not feel it critical to have an odd number. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the proposed ordinance e be approved subject to changes to be drafted and presented to the Council at its November 24 meeting: (1) Membership on each commis- sion to be fixed at nine persons; (2) the term "aging" to be used in place of "senior citizens." Also, that the Mayor and Council co-operatively create a special committee to study the possibility of establishing a youth advocacy group. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation to members of the task force, which included Council members Murray and Shirey, for their work in resolving conflicts and a difficult problem. Manager suggested that an effective date be written into the ordinance if it is adopted at the November 24 meeting, this to ensure continuity of operation of the existing Human Rights Commission and also to give time for creation of the new commissions. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the ordinance be written so as to become effective on.March 1, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. It was understood the ordinance as amended would be brought for Council consideration at the November 24, 1975 meeting. III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested Previously discussed in committee on October 29 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Williams, Keller, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey) and November 5, e 1975 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley {arrived later), Hamel, Haws, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below in italics. 58t::, 11/10/75 - 11 A. Revision in Animal Control Policies Tri-Agency Task Force materials were previously distributed to Council members and Manager distributed a report dated October 23 from Dave Jordan, Eugene staff representative to the Task Force along with captain Pat Larion. The e report outlined the various problems in the animal control policies and options which could be exercised. City Attorney also distributed a draft of the proposed ordinance. Manager explained Council should focus on short-term actions to meet a crisis situation. The County has stated they are not certain they can continue animal control in unincorporated areas as their 1975-76 budget now goes into effect. They have therefore asked that emergency measures be considered. Timing is critical in that, because of the crisis, dog licenses are not being sold because one of the recommendations is that license fees be increased in order to avoid using general funds to subsidize dog control. It is suggested that certain changes be reviewed, actions prescribed, ordinances prepared, and a public hearing set for November 10. General fund subsidy for animal control in Eugene has grown from $3,896 in 1971 to about $53,000 in 1975. Increasing costs of approximately $10,000 each year are due to rising county personnel costs and increased Lane Humane Society contract costs. The task force recommends to Council that: 1. There should be uniformity of enforcement policies; 2. There should be uniformity in fines, penalties, and fees; 3. The dog license fee should be increased from $5.00 to $9.50 with about a half-price break for owners of dogs which are spayed or neutered. In addition, the task force recommends that a free dog license be provided for guide dogs of the blind, and that licensing cost be reduced for the elderly and handicapped. Captain Pat Larion of the Police Department explained that the purpose of the e proposed ordinance is to standardize dog control enforcement in Eugene, Springfield and Lane County and to establish one single adjudication process for dog enforcement. Eugene is currently treating dog control offenses as criminal violations while Lane County operates under the infractions system. Policy decisions should be made regarding license fees and whether or not the elderly, handicapped, and persons having their dogs spayed or neutered should be granted a reduction in fee. The $9.50 1 icense fee proposal was based on what the task force felt was necessary to make the dog control program as self-sustaining as possible, according to Captain Larion. Mr. Hamel served on the task force and commented that he does not see a new program as being self-sustaining immediately. Educating dog owners on advantages of having their animals spayed or neutered will be necessary as well as convincing dog owners to purchase licenses. He has talked with people who have expressed opposition to increased license fees but who have agreed that a higher violation fine would be in order. violations of the ordinance do affect other property owners and are the fault of the dog owner. Mr. Bradley also ~erved on the task force and stated that the most important decision for Council to make related to the dog license fees. He noted that he and Mr. Hamel had voted against increasing the fee to $9.50. A policy question arises, however, on whether to have consistency in the fees, and raising the fee to $9.50 would provide more consistency. Another policy issue would be whether to take a regional approach in addressing the problem, in which case greater weight would need to be given the recommendations of the task force. The task forcQ felt strongly about asking the County and the County Sheriff to continue the program until the end of the fiscal year to e allow the respective bodies to go through necessary budgetary procedures. The County would, .in that case, have to negotiate with the Humane Society as that contract expires in January. 11/10/75 - 12 sa '7 Mr. Keller wondered why so few licenses are being purchased in Eugene. Asst. Manager advised there are license purchase proble~s in all three Jurisdictions. Written notices have previously been relied on, though a - solicitation program was attempted this summer using county records. It only met with partial success. To have a successful program would require a door-to-door campaign, involving a high cost and low return. In answer to Mr. Keller's question regarding ,what seemed to be an incredibly high annual expense figure, Assistant Manager explained one factor was that some positions of people working in dog control were upgraded hopefully to provide staff who had sensitivity to the people problems involved and could deal lTOre effectively witl) the concerns of dog control enforcement. Mr. Murray had a question regarding the citizens committee that had earlier dealt with the dog control problem. He wondered if there was any connection between that committee and the current task force. Mr. Bradley explained that in July of 1974 the County COmnUssioners appointed a commdttee to present recommendations that would provide for a well-run program. That committee's recommendations were considered by the staffs of the thre~ jurisdictions and several suggestions made. The task force was charged with making recommendations on how to implement the suggestions resulting from those meetings. Mayor Anderson commented that much discussion has been held and thought given to dog control. There have been some tragic mistakes made along the way, he feels, and some very bad inefficiencies. The purpose now is to set higher sights, adopt in principle the task force recommendations, and proceed to hold a public hearing, at which time objections to any of the proposed recommendations can be thrashed out. e Mr. Williams lTOved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the recommendations Corom of the task force. 10/29/75 Mr. Williams raised concerns regarding biting dogs. The penalties seem Approve greater if a dog chases livestock than if it bites a human. Too, a $50 fine for failure to contain a biting dog seems mild when dealing with lives or the possibility of a person having to go through a very painful treatment if rabies is discovered. Assistant Manager reported that this wording conforms to state law. , In answer to a question from Mr. Murray regarding a Eugene dog owner paying three different ways, Assistant Manager answered that is in essence true - a dog owner pays for a license, pays for a contribution from the general fund of the city to offset costs plus pays through the county's general fund contributions to offset animal control costs in the unincorporated areas. The shift underway would provide that city dog owners pay for city dog control. Hopefully no city funds would pay for county costs. Money would also be used for education programs fdr dog owners. Mr. Bradley commented that, in hearing testimony, the task force opted for an increase in license fees since there is some impracticality in raising the fines. Those fines are sometimes difficult and expensive to collect. Mr. Keller expressed concern regarding the fact that the revenue is e experiencing such a deficit due to upgrading in positions. He also is hopeful that do~ owners are not strapped unnecessarily over and above non-dog owners. He would like those two concerns addressed by the time of the hearing. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimoUSly. 588 11/10/75 - 13 B. Invitation of the City of Kathmandu, Nepal, to Become a Sister City Professor Tom Ballinger of the University of Oregon was present to outline. the proposal. Since World War II, he said, attention of the State Department and the nation focused on Asia has been noticeable. The country of Nepal e is on the southern border of Tibet and falls into an area of greater and newer concern as regards American foreign policy. particularly exciting, he feels, is the fact that the request to become a sister city came to the City of Eugene rat~er than Eugene initiating the request. In 1955-60, he added, 38 Nepalese students attended the University. There are still 3 here. Person to person contact seems imperative and, because of the uniqueness of the University, students will continue to come here. A former Nepalese student is now the ambassador to France; his son is, today, a pre-med student on the U of 0 campus so the program has reached the second generation. Mayor Anderson conunented that Dr. Ballinger is prepared to spearhead any program which might resul t. By way of background, he said that up to this date Eugene's only sister city has been Chinju, Korea. While it was a close relationship in the late 1950s and early 60s, it has not been close lately probably because of the infrequency of visits by Eugeneans, as the city is not on an easily accessible travel path. Too, the political situation in Korea does not foster a relationship of that kind. The Mayor's International Cooperation Comrndttee has given their blessing to continuing the relationship with Chinju, as there is still in existence a rrodest scholarship program and. some infrequent exchanges. By adding another city, Eugene could become rrore active in the sister city type of program. As far as the program is concerned, funds are not being requested. Eugene should feel honored to accept the invitation, Mayor Anderson concluded. Mr. Bradley requested a Council tour of the site. Mr. Murray rroved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize sending e word to the Mayor and City Council of Kathmandu, Nepal, accept~ng Comm with appreciation their invitation to become a sister city and to 10/29/75 authorize the comrndttee to proceed on activities. Motion carried unanirrously. Approve C.Consideration of Revised Growth Study Planning Director has prepared a rnerro dated October 24 which has been distributed to Council, outlining the history, concerns and goals of the growth study. The merro suggests that the City Council and Planning Comndssion members who served on the Eugene Conunimity Goals Conunittee be requested to meet to develop for Council consic1eration an area of emphasis for this year.'s growth study effort and a work outline to complete the effort. It was further suggested that the City make application for funds to assist in further evaluations and actions, should financial planning assistance become available through LCDC or HUD. Mr. Williams raised concerns as to what the conunittee would be doing in this area. The position was written. into the community goals document with much thought, he said, and the LCOG staff was in agreement with the fundamental thesis in it, that being that any effort is an urban area type of thing and should have philosophical and financial support of other government entities. Mr. Williams is by and large comrndtted to that kind of philosophy. Bill Sugaya, planning Department, noted that it was probably the intention of the Planning Director to reconvene the committee for the purpose'of raising e specific issues, testing the ground and developing a focus for study. Clarification of this type might alleviate some of the reluctance by other jurisdictions to participate. 11/10/75 - 14 989 It would seem to Mr. Murray that, even though Springfield may not be interested in addressing the issues at present, which would restrain efforts somewhat, e "doing something is better than nothing". Mr. Keller questioned uses of potential federal funds, and Assistant Manager answered that money could provide fer one planner and/or possibly some legal research. Mrs. Shirey felt that, even with the problems, it would seem that.it would be easier to secure funds if the program is ongoing. Mayor Anderson commented that, even given the iimitations of lack of area-wide cooperation, he feels there is something Eugene can do alone in the area of controlled growth. If techniques and policies are devised, eventually those techniques should be satisfactory for others if they concur with the policies. He thinks the city could work through LCOG in an effort to get the policies adopted but that reconvening the task force is questionable, that staff has much more exposure to the matters to be addressed. The staff could present a series of proposals after which the Council could decide as a whole what would be most worthwhile pursuing. Mr. Keller left the meeting. Mr. Murray has no real reservations with that format but thinks any proposals would necessarily have to be based on the earlier objectives and points outlined by the committee. They are not precise but involved months of hassling to provide a starting point. Mr. Williams suggested staff study the issues and then ask the committee e members to review it. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize staff to proceed with the preliminary work outlined and that those efforts be shared with the Planning Co~ssion and City Council members Corom who served on the community goals co~ttee, including an invitation 10/29/75 to M~ Niven, with subsequent recommendation to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Approve D.l. Petition - Sanitary Sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th Place from approximately 70' East of Tyler Street to approximately 155' east of Tyler Street Petitioned by owners of 100% of property to be assessed. Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve 10/29/75 the petition. Motion carried unanimously. Approve 2. Petition, sanitary sewer to serve north side of Whitbeck Boulevard between Powell Street and Lorane Highway Petitioned by owners of 42.5% of property to be assessed. Corom Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to accept the petition. 11/5/75 . Approve Councilwoman Shirey asked whether the sewer would serve existing residences on Whitbeck Boulevard or new construction. Don Allen, public works director answered e that it was an extension of the existing system and would serve both exis~ing and new houses. Vote was taken on the motion to accept the petition. Motion carried unanimoUSly. S9G 11/10/75 - 15 E.Department of Housing and Community Conservation - Copies of a proposal for creation of a new department of Housing and Community Conservation were distributed to Council members. The proposal l.ncl uded agreement betl'/een the city and Eugene Renewal Agency on transfer of ERA functions to the new It department plus certain other functions now financed under the Community Development Act which for the most part relate to housing code enforcement and projects with which the city is engaged attempting to meet housing needs. The new department would focus primarily on rehabilitation and redevelopment of older neighborhoods. The proposal also included provision initially for transfer of personnel involved with neighborhood improvement programs in the planning department to the Legal Center Building (recently purchased by the city) and final incorporation of ERA personnel into the city operation. Manager continued that cz'eation .of the new department would occur about June 1, 1976, and be tin~d to coincide with timing for financing of ERA programs and closing out of projects with the Federal government (HUD) . The proposal has been approved by the ERA board. Council approval of the concept of the proposal ~/as requested. Manager added that he had just received information that tlw city would be eligible for $1,009,000 in Co:r.munity Development llct funds for 1976-.77 uiJon appropriate application. Formal notification would be received later, he said. Councilman Murray asked whether the proposed agreement was completely consistent with earlier decisions about ERA and responsibility of the Housing and Community Development COmmUssion. Manager answered that the proposal had been reviewed with the ERA staff and Board and so far as was known the agreement was completely consistent in that regard. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Nr. Williams to conceptually approve Comm e the proposal as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 11/5/75 Approve F.Acquisition, Legal Center Building, 858 Pearl Street - Manager announced Corom final authorization given by the Council in a special ses~ion prior to 11/5/75 this meeting for acquisition of .the Legal Center Building for $294,298.85. Approve Councilman Bradley entered the meeting. G.Planning Fees Schedule, Proposed Increase - Copies of memo dated October 27, 1975, from Assistant Planning Director were previously distributed to Council. The.m~~ included schedule of existing fees for applications for various planning actLvLtLes (zone change, conditional use permits, site review, variances, PUDs, ~ubdivisions, etc.), including perce~tage costs and proposed fee. The.proposed Lncrease would amount to about 20%. Councilwoman Beal was dubious about a policy which would cut down on the cost of new housing, making residents of older housing pay for the cost of planning. She said she would like to move to approve the proposed changes but that she would also like to refer .the entire fee schedule issue to the Budget COmmUttee subcommUttee on revenues. Mrs. . Bea1 moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the increased costs Corom as presented and authorize preparation of a resolution for Council 11/5/75 adoption. Approve e Councilman Haws wondered why only a 20% increase was being proposed when it was indicated that the average increase in cost of processing applications was 23%. He wondered why the proposed increase wasn't 25%. John Porter, planning 11/10/75 - 16 59/ director, explained that some processing costs increased, others decreased, and it was fel t 20% would cover the average increase over the last t~'o years and would be reasonable. e Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the planning department assess Comm applicants for special functions of the city at the full cost of that 11/5/75 process. Withdrawn Councilman Williams questioned the fairness of that action when in fact the greatest bulk of the work carried on by developers was for the benefit of the city as a whole. He was also concerned about the impact of such action on the cost of housing. He said that forcing the cost of new housing up, making it that much more difficult for people to purchase, and forcing up rents on apartment construction, would create pressures on the existing market and existing housing with the single and absolute effect of increasing the total cost of housing for everyone. He felt it was not so much whether people would benefit most from putting the cost on a":single.-new dlvelling but rather whether that benefit would drive up the cost of that dwelling and the purchase price of an existing dwelling. Councilman Murray said he felt that was not quite an accurate analysis. He was not too concerned about the price of a new structure when it was already outside the reach of most people. He referred to analysis of cost to new construction when this 'issue was previously discussed and said he was surprised to find the impact was mini mal to the point of insignificance. He said the impact of new construction on existing housing had c negative effect, that it had the effect of creating slums, and that too much attention had been paid to one side and not the other. Mayor Anderson suggested referral of the issue to the Joint Housing Committee, e noting that Council action today without input from those people might not be appropriate. Gary Chenkin, Assistant Planning Director, pointed out that when the fees schedule was previously discussed there had been appointed a fee committee. That committee, he said, was where the fee split was recommended. Mrs. Beal with consent of the second (Hamel) withdrew the motion. She Comm instead moved seconded by Mr. Murray to refer the issue to the Budget 11/5/75 Committee subcommittee on revenue. Approve In making the substitute motion, Mrs. Beal said the Budget Committee was the area where revenues should be discussed, and the Joint Housing Committee would have the opportunity for input there. She said she could see no reason for new housing to be subsidized through general tax monies, that it increased the cost of olde~' housing much more on an overall basis and keeping the taxes lOlver would make it easier for residents of older housing to remain. . Mayor Anderson suggested referring the issue to both the fee comndttee and the revenue subcommittee. He felt that would provide for quicker action as well as allow for input from the Joint Housing Committee. Mrs. Beal, however, would not reconsider her motion, saying she thought the fee committee reflected the interest of ne~ housing. Councilman Haws said he understood the fee committee was to gather facts and bring a report back to the Council for a policy decision. He wondered if e a policy change was wanted or whether it was a decision to meet the economics of the issue. Mr. Chenkin explained that the fee committee was originally appointed because of recommendations to increase fees to cover 100% of the cost of processing 5"92.", 11/10/75 - 17 applications. He said the fees were finally set by the Council on percentages of cost - 30% residential, 60% commercial/industrial. At that time it was also recommended, he said, that staff review the schedule every two years. He felt that the Council might want some advice from conunittees if it was considering a e change in that allocation, otherwise it would be merely carrying forth that policy and changing only the figures to reflect the costs. Councilman Bradley wondered why the Council was discussing referral when it had the authority to make the decision. He said he would like to see action on the original 1OCJtion (to assess full cost of applications), thereby deciding whether the cost would be on the developer or on the present formula. Councilman Murray, however, thought thera was no advantage in acting too quickly even though he favored the original motion. He thought referral to the revenue subconunittee rather than to the fee conunittee was preferable because of the makeup of the fee committee. Also, there nnght be some new ideas, something that had not been presented before. Mayor Anderson had no firm opinions on which conunittee but he aid feel that taking action now would be unfortunate because the Council in considering housing policy had always been careful about receiving comments from all segments of the communi ty. He said the construction industry had just as much right for input as anyone else. Councilman Williams wondered if it was really appropriate to refer a fees schedule concerning housing matters to a committee that "operated in a near vacuum vis-a-vis the issues invol ved. " He was concerned whether the revenue committee was properly structured to deliberate on issues involving the entire housing question. Councilman Bradley asked about intent of the 1OCJtion. He thought if it was for e the purpose of raising revenues the revenue subconunittee would be the appropriate place for referral. However, if its intent was one of a,1location of burden, perhaps the Joint Housing Committee was the proper group to analyze those types of issues. Councilman Hamel didn't think t;he issue would receive the proper recommendation from the revenue subcommittee because that conunittee's primary responsibility was budgeting. An opinion from the Housing Conunittee, he said, would get to both sides of the issue. Councilwoman Beal in response to the -question with regard to whether the issue was revenue or allocation of burden said it was indeed revenue that was being lost at present, cost that was being spread now on the tax rolls against everyone in the city. She said referral to the revenue subcommittee could be accompanied by a request that they exannne information from the JQint Housing Cbnunittee or any other person interested. . Councilman Murray thought a false issue had been raised. He said that members of the Joint Housing Committee would doubtless take the initiative to be included in any discussion of the issue. He suggested amendment of the motion to include in~itationfor response rrom the Joint Housing Comrnuttee. Mrs. Beal thought that was implicit. She suggested, however, that the Joint Housing Committee be notified of the referral to the Budget Committee revenue subcomndttee. Vote was taken on the motion to refer the planning fees schedule e to the Budget Conunittee revenue subconunittee, i~lying contact with the Joint Housing Committee with regard to t;hat referral. Motion carried, all counci-l members present voting aye, except **Councilman Hamel vot;inf! no., . ** Cor.rected to show Councilman Williams voting no, Councilman .. Hamel voting aye. 11/10/75 - 18 593 Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, member of the Fee Review Committee previously established to determine allocation of planning fees between the general public and applicants, expressed concern about attempting to ensure a developer was bear- e ing his share of planning services requested when in reality it would be borne by the consumer. She thought the aggregate of fees charged to the developer - build- ing permits, sidewalk permits, etc., as well as planning fees - would have an impact on the cost of housing, particularly for "modest-income" people. She continued that the Fee Review Committee spent considerable time determining how much benefit really went to the consumer and how much to the general public She urged the Council not to make a change in the existing allocation of planning fees until after the Plan- ning Commission has adopted new pun regulations now under consideration. That con- sideration, she said, includes the possibility of shifting away from use of pun procedures for small projects to site review procedures and outright zoning. If that happens, she thought it would have a bearing on this particular fee schedule. Referring the matter to the Budget Committee now, she said, wluld take just as much time as spent by the Fee Review Committee and would not result in anything drastically different from the existing apportionment of fees. John Boyer, Associated General Contractos, 1445 Willamette Street, expresed surprise that a change was being considered in the percentage allocation of fees for plan- ning services. He endorsed Mrs. Niven's testimony and asked that any proposed in- crease not take effect at least until May I, 1976. He didn't think any increase for housing to the consumer would be of benefit to the community, especially at tqis time when builders were starting into a "tough winter." . Randy Cuddeback, 2205 Lorane Highway, supported thetffitimony of both Mrs. Niven and Mr. Boyer. e Councilman Murray for clarification explained that Council action was to approve the fee schedule as drawn up. but with the additional intent to restudy the plan- ning fee issue. He said that did not imply the earlier fee schedule necessarily was wrong, but did question perhaps whether it was the best that could be developed. He agreed it was discouraging to think of increasing the cost of housing; yet it was difficult to be concerned about the impact of relative minor fees as compared to the increase of housing at a degree that financially outdistances the capacity of all. Councilman Haws pointed out a correction he thought was needed in the November 5 committee minutes with regard to the vote on motion to refer the planning fees to the budget committee revenue subcommittee. He said he thought Councilman Williams voted against the motion and that Councilman Hamel voted aye. Mayor Anderson thought the members of the Fee Review Committee were entitled to see the schedule they developed utilized through at least more than one building season. He asked the Council to table the issue .until the Planning Commission had acted on new pun regulations which would have a definite bearing on any new formula that might be developed. He said he would not support any suggested increase that would change the existing formula, either from the revenue subcommittee or from the Council. Mr. Hamel moved second by Mr. Keller to table the issue of fees for planning processes. Councilman Bradley called for a point of order. He asked if it was appropriate to e ask for reconsideration rather than a tabling action. Mayor Anderson replied that the action taken in committee was not official at this point. Councilwoman Shirey asked then if the action on approving a fee schedule was separate from committee action. The Mayor replied that the tabling issue involved only the formula for the planning fees. Vote was taken on the motion to table. Motion defeated - Council members Keller and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voti~g uo. 594- 11/10/75 - 19 H. Parks 1975-76 Capital Projects Additions - Copies of me~o dated .October 29, 1975, from Ed Smith, parks director, were previously distributed to Council members. The me~o requested reallocation of budgeted funds to finish: 1. Washington/Jefferson Street underpass storage area - $4,000 e 2. Tandy Turn fence and playground - $4,900 ::3. Skinner Butte rock quarry fence - $5,000 4. City Hall pillars - $2,000 5. Country Lane tot lot - $2,000 Funds would be shifted from the Kaufman parking lot ($8,000) and from States Streets assessments ($13,150) . The memo also explained work to be accomplished on the five projects. Manager explained that the Kaufman parking lot needed more planning and that staff, in cooperation with the neighborhood group, recommended that it be delayed. All the money needed for the States Streets assessments, he said, had already been appropriated. In response to Councilman Murray, Assistant Manager described the area under the Washington/Jefferson Street ramp to be enclosed for parks storage area. Also, that it had no bearing on the proposed tennis courts when Mr. Murr~y reported that he had been receiving reports that a substantial number of people were seeking to use the proposed tennis courts area for basketball. Carol Baker, parks information coordinator, added that the work proposed would be a chain link fence to camouflage the storage area. Councilman Murray then inquired about the purpose and location of the Skinner Butte fence. Assistant Manager answered that it would not stop people from climbing the rock quarry. Its primary intent was to prevent people from coming . down the hill into the quarry who are not qualified to be in the quarry climbing. Ms. Baker said the parks design staff hoped that with the fence a trail would be developed channeling peopJ e around the edge of the cliff and far enough a\~ay for their safety, at the same time providing a viewpoint. Comm Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the reallocation of 11/5/75 funds as presented. Motion carried unanimously. Approve I. Council minutes, July 14 and 16, 1975 as circulated Approve J. Scheduling of ESATS Public Hearing for November 24 Comm Mr. Murray nr>ved seconded by Mr. Williams to schedule a 10/29/75 continuation of the ESATS public hearing for November 24. : Affirm Motion carried unanimously. K. :,?torcycle and Notorbike ,Nuisance - Councilwoman Beal said she had received a letter from Gretchen M~11 calling attention to the nuisance created by motorc~cles and motorbikes near her home in the Laurelwood area. l'<1S. Miller's compla~nt ~as based on damage to the terrain, destruction of natural cover, slope ero~~on, etc., .as well as the noise. Mrs. Beal asked that staff research pres~nt c~~y regulat~ons and draft some type of ordinance for Council cons~derat~on that would serve t9 abate this type nuisance. . Manager n~ted t~at motorcycles and motorbikes are now banned in parks and -- that cons~derat~on should perhaps be given to banning their operation on other than paved thoroughfares or other designated " trails. He said there was an enforcement problem involved, a matter of apprehending violators. 11/10/75 - 20 595 Councilman Haws thought consideration should be given to banning motorcycles because of much open space in some ci ty areas. However, he suggested the alternative of a motorpark such as that proposed some time back for location . at the airport. He didn't think an ordinance would take care of the nuisance, the police department manpower was not suffi~ient for enforcement. Comm I~ was understood staff would prepare a report for Council 11/5/75 consideration at Some later date. Affirm L. Council and Budget Committee Meeting Schedule, November and December - Manager reviewed the normal meeting schedule to determine whether problems would be encountered with obtaining a quorum: Council meetings - November 24, December 8, December 22; Budget Corruni ttee meetings - December 4, December 9 or 11. Conun It was understood a quorum would be present for the Council meetings 11/5/75 as normally sch~duled, and that a quorum could be present for Budget Affirm Comrndttee meetings scheduled for December 4 and 9. M. 46th and Willamette Intersection - Copies of petition received from citizens living in the vicinity of 46th and Willamette were previously distributed to Council members. The petition requested improvement of the intersection to provide" a safe crossing for school children as well as safe flow of vehicle traffic through the intersection. The petitioners requested trinmting or removal of shrubbery to provide vision clearance and a flashing traffic signal or overwalk at the intersection. Council was also furnished with copies of tentative listing for 25 proposed traffic signal installations for 1975-76 budget priorities and copies of memo describing basis for establishing priorities. This intersection was last on the list. e Manager said that additional crosswalk has been painted and that one property Owner has removed certain obstructions from the right-of-way. Temporary platforms are now being constructed. He pointed out, however, that part of the vision clearance problems is due to the present design of the unimproved street; any final decisionson additional safety precautions should depend on the final design of the street. He said it would be unfair to other neighborhoods to install a traffic signal at this intersection ahead of those in many other locations where there are serious crossing problems without considering them. He added that he had just this morning received information that the School District is bussing children to school when they live farther than a mile from the school. If there is then additional space, they are picking up children along the route living closer than a mile, he said, and this would tend to dimininh the pedestrian crossing problem at the intersection. Staff recommended that study of traffic volumes and' changes occurring at the 46th and Willamette intersection continue and followup with temporary measures until hearings on the improvement of the street are held - late winter or early spring. At the time of the hearings on the street improvement, he said, consideration could be given to traffic safety measures. Councilman Murray asked what priority distinctions exist on use of traffic signals as opposed to stop signs, diverters, etc. Al Williams, traffic engineer, said they are all included in a capital projects list. All items relative to movement of pedestrians, bikes, trucks, passenger vehicles, etc., he said, are assigned . to his office for investigative procedures. He pointed out that fund allocations cover the entire city requiring some criteria for preparing a priority list. For those items not falling into the capital projects list, an investigation is conducted and the requests granted or rejected accordingly, with an explanation 59'-"" 11/10/75 - 21 I of the reaso~s, subject to appeal to the Manager and the Council. Assistant Manager added that review of the capital projects list by the, Budget Comndttee dictated for which projects funds would be appropriated. Councilwoman Shirey noted there were safety hazards for children going to and . from school in the Chambers Street area also. Sh~ asked for clarification of the School District's role with regard to responsibility for the children's safety, whether th'e bussing of students might be considered regardless of the, distance they lived from the,schools. Manager answered that it was his understanding the bussing of students living farther than a mil~ from school was required by law. He said he would make inquiry about the District's policy in this regard. Councilman Bradley asked whether a lfK)bile flashing unit or some other device could be installed as a temporary measure - or perhaps the Council would consider changing the speed 1imi ts on that street. Assistant Manager answered that the staff recommended continuance of the present types of temporary installations - painted crosswalk, development of a safer landing on each end of the crosswalk, etc., plus the bussing by the School District. Traffic Engineer explained that this street was on the list recently forwarded to the State Speed Control Board but no change was made. It is posted at 25 mph in the vicinity of the school. He added that the matter of posting speeds was reviewed at length when that list was discussed by the Council. He reiterated his belief that posted speed has no bearing on the actual speeds traveled, although it was recognized that the presence of children has the greatest effect on the speeds at which drivers travel. Phyllis Early, vice-president of the South Hills Neighborhood Association, ,said that group was not aware of the School District bussing activity. She took note e of the various measures that had been accomplished since the circumstances existing at the intersection were brought to the city's attention. It was understood that manager would acknowledge the petition and Comm express the hope that the action of the School Board in bussing 11/5/75 the students would successfully alleviate the hazard at 46th and, See Willamette. action below Councilman Bradley wondered if a six-lfK)nthreview should be scheduled, but the Mayor thought that residents of the area would bring the matter back to the Council should it be necessary. Manager added that the intersection would be discussed as a matter of course in hearings on street improvement projects in the spring. Connie Wilson, 435 Lockmoor Place, with others acknowledged temporary measures. taken but 'expressed concern about the speed limit at the intersection. She said. some ch1ldren. w~re now riding the bus, but new regulations limited school bus transportat1o~ to those 11v1ng farther than one mile from the school. As a result, large numbers of ch1l~ren would still be crossing that intersection in the future. She recommended reduct~on of th~ speed limit on Willamette from Donald to Coachman Drive ~o 25 mph. 'Also~ 1nstallat1on of a temporary yellOW flashing light to be activated dur1ng school c:oss1ng hours. Ms. Wilson recommended also installation of an overpass when street 1mprovements ~re considered because of the ,number of children crossing to Edgewood School. She sa1d there were not large groups crossing at anyone time, adding to the dange: from fast- moving cars. Neither was the school building visible be7au~e of a curve m the road. . With regard to the present speed limit of 45 mph, she sa1d 1t was hazardous beca~se of the grade and curve and because it was in a major residenti~l.area. The street.1s ~sed as a major route to town, she said, because of the 45 mph hm1t, thereby :esult1ng 1n more vehicles for the children to watch out for. She said a speed reduct10n to 25 mph would cost nothing, and a temporary flashing light could be changed when a better solution was found. 597, 11/10/75 - 22 Mayor Anderson called attention to the letters received from South Willamette residents, also a petition for a flashing light. He recommended tabling the item to give the Council an opportunity to review those items. / e Councilman Bradley thought there should be temporary measures taken and that a flash- ing yellow light and speed reduction were the minimum the city should do. He said he would like an opportunity to read the letters and petition presented, but because of the seriousness of the problem, the staff should be delegated the responsibility of installing a temporary light and initiating procedure through the State Speed Control Board for reducing the speed as requested. Councilwoman Beal asked how expensive or difficult the installation requested would be, and whether it would be a "dead" loss when permanent improvements were undertaken. Don Allen, public works director, answered that the cost would be between $4000 and $5000. He said there would be no question that the equipment could be removed and used at other locations. Councilman Murray noted the usual procedure of giving consideration to these types of installations in a priority list at budget preparation time and wondered if there was any possibility the requested installation would be considered a priority item in the list for next year's budget. Manager replied that the list could change as situations change, the present proposal for improvement in that area is high on the current list, and some changes have already been made as well as operational changes made by the school itself. Mr. Allen added that major improvements have already been initiated. ' by the Council which would correct much of the situation causing concern at 46th and Wi11amette. He didn't think, however, that these improvements, given the list of priorities for the entire city, would come to the top of the list by the next con- struction year. e Councilman Hamel asked whether there were portable installations, particularly any type of light, or perhaps crossing guards that could be used until the street improvements were made. Mr. Allen said not, that they were maintenance problems. He said it could be debated whether a flashing light was proper at all for an intersection of that type. Councilman Bradley questioned the cost of temporary installations compared to the lives of children. He wondered if there were legal restrictions to people of the area shar- ing in the cost, or whether there was a contingency fund to which the cost could be charged. He considered protection measures a high priority item and thought the city should do something. Manager concurred on the values involved, but noted several other intersections in the city where the same question could be raised. He said it would be unfair to those neighborhoods to ignore the priority list. Councilman Murray recalled reviewing a long list of intersections with high priority needs for improvement because of the accident frequency and wondered where 46th and Willamette was on that list. Mr. Allen replied that, it wasn't even on that list - a list of 79 intersections with accident history. Councilman Haws wondered then what tbe answer would be considering staff advice was that the requested installations would not solve the problem. Mrs. Beal said she thought the problems would be taken care of when the proposed improvements were made. She asked when they were scheduled. Mr. Allen answered that it would be up to the Council . Mrs. Expressed full confidence in staff recommendations but at the same time, she said, when so many were concerned about the hazard, something should be done. If the cost of $4000 or $5000 was recoverable she didn't see how the Council could e hesitate. Councilman Bradley wondered if other intersections higher on the priority list had the same situation of school children crossing, or whether they involved auto accidents in situations where major arterials crossed. Manager assumed several could involve school children, but there was no indication of how many. 5"9e; 11/10/75 - 23 Mayor Anderson was more inclined to accept staff recommendations. He cautioned about "serious trouble" if traffic conditions were regulated by committees and neighborhoods rather than through sound traffic engineering practices. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Beal that the city install a temporary e flashing yello light at 46th and Willamette, and that the city initiate appropriate procedure that would recommend to the State Speed Control Board a reduction of the posted speed to 25 mph on Willamette from Donald to Coachman. Councilman Keller didn't see the point in these temporary measures when eventually permanent improvements would correct the situation. He thought the school probably should do something in the way of patrols. Or other types of warning devices could be put in without going to the expense of a light. Neither did he think reductin of speed limit would have any effect on the actual speeds traveled. Councilman Haws was opposed to the motion, not becuase he lacked concern, but because he felt it would be misleading. In fact, he said, the installations would not make the crossing any safer for the children. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion defeated - Council members Beal, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Murray, Keller, Haws, and Shirey voting no. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Beal to initiate appropriate procedure that would recommend to the State Speed Control Board a reduction in posted speed on Willamette from Donald to Coachman. Councilman Murray said there was no chance at all of having the speed rediced by the Board, that such Council action would only mislead the people in that area. Council- e man Bradley then wondered if, under the home rule charter, the Council itself had the authority to reduce the speed. Mayor Anderson answered that it didn't. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, added that he thought because traffic regulations were a statewide concern, state legislation would preempt local authority. Mr. Bradley asked the city attorney to review the law in that regard, with the idea that if the city did have authority, speeds could be reduced without prolonging the process as is now the case. Vote was taken on the motion to recommend reduction of speed on Willamtte from Donald to Coachman. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller and Hamel voting no. Councilwoman Shirey thought in the meantime something should be done about getting crossing guards at the intersection. Also, at other places where needed. N. Economic Development Association - Mr. Murray referred to earlier discussions on possible formation of an Economic Development Association, saying he thought he had been perceived as totally opposing such an idea. He clarified that, if that proposal were altered somewhat in terms of composition of the group, and if the goals were a little broader, he would be interested in some type of association dealing with job. development and related concerns. The proposal is a county one developed by Commissioner Wood. Manager said that perhaps a status report could be brought back to Council. Meetings held on the proposal, at which the City has been represented, 4ave dealt with problems of unemployment and creation of jobs; Comm e and alternate wording had been developed. in the Manager's office to address those needs. Mr. Murray stated it had seemed at first to be 10/29/75 narrowly composed with few safeguards built in. File 11/10/75 - 24 599 O. Freedom Train Article - Mr. Haws distributed, for information of Council, an article in the Lane Community college "Daily", indicating that a few . students were intending to disrupt the Freedom Train's visit to this area in November as a means of protesting the $2 per person admission charge. The students were under the impression that the train is tax supported Cornrn which is why they felt citizens should not be charged. In reality, the 10/29/75 train is financed by a private, non-profit foundation called the American File Freedom Train Foundation, with most of the $17.5 nrillion budget conring from grants and admission fees. P. Road Improvement in Connection with Building Construction - Manager advised Planning and Public Works are still working on a report regarding new Cornrn developments on undeveloped streets and will have it ready for the November 10/29/75 5th Comrndttee-of-the-Whole meeting. File Q. postponement of Police Department Presentation - The Police Department Cornrn wishes to postpone their presentation to Council, scheduled for "today", 10/29/75 to one of the next two Committee-of-the-Whole meetings, depending on File preparation time. R. Police Department Presentation - Copies of a handout were distributed to Council members by Dale Allen, police chief. Tile material gave a comparison of Eugene's crime rate with that of other cities across the nation of similar size. It also presented an illustration of the actual increase in number of major crimes reported in Eugene since 1970, an analysis of the major crimes reported to the Eugene police department in 1974, and a description of five programs initiated with the help of the Eugene police department for tj;e purpose of meeting major crime problems. e Chief Allen described the programs: (1) An appeal to citizens to report crimes to the police department, thereby giving a broader and more complete picture of problems involved, at the same time giving an opportunity to solve a crime and apprehend the perpetrator. Chief Allen said there had been a sharp increase in the nUflIDer of crimes reported since institution of this program. (2) Creation of a major crime team comprising five officers (now authorized to comprise nine officers) . He illustrated with charts and graphs trends in crimes against property - auto theft, burglary, larceny, and against persons - aggravated assault, robbery, forcible rape, homicide - and said the crime team had been extremely successful in t';urJ:ing effectively ~.;ith cletf:ctivcs and patrol of othC']' la[v enforcement agencies. (3) creation of a five-member burglary team, funded through CETA, wjth the goal of reducing residential burglaries. This program involved working with residents to encourage identification of property by use of an engraving tool and display of a window sticker where property had been so ~arked, offering security surveys and recommendations on how to improve security, and encouraging neighborhood watch programs through group discussions. (4) Creation of an interagency rape team to investigate and prosecute sex crimes with the goals of dealing more sensitively tvith victims of sex crimes, encouraging women to report such crimes, and developing an educational program to aid in the prevention of these crimes. . (5) Formulation ora plan with local banks to meet the concern of protecting human life during a bank robbery and at the same time increase the pL~bability of apprehending the robber. This involves a burglary team, pooling resources with other law enforcement agencies. e Chief Allen said the programs were significant in combating crime but he had serious doubts that enough was being done. He felt police department resources were being used in the best possible way at this time but thought perhaps more effort might ha",-e been made in other 'areas. He was convinced that enough 'bOO 11/10/75 - 25 resources devoted to a certain problem could make an impact on that crime. He said he would soon be making recommendations to the manager regarding changes ih police priorities. Councilwoman Beal asked whether the statistics with regard to the interagency rape . team included all sex crimes or only rape. Also, how these crimes were handled befor the team was created and whether there had been an increase in the number of sex crimes. Chief Allen answered that statistics covered only forcible rape; however, the team was charged with investigation of all sex crimes. He said there had been a slight decrease in reported offenses this calendar year. He said also that prior to the interagency rape team there was a female investigator. He added that some of the team is available to the community and they had spent a great deal of time with women's groups and other civic organizations where it was felt information was needed. A significant part of the program, he said, was offering' suggestions en-how women could protect themselves. Mrs. Beal then asked whether there had been an increase in the number of reported rape since start of the interagency team. Also, whether he felt the team was adequate to handle all compl aints recei ved . Chief Allen' replied that there was nO increase in the number of rape cases ~eported. However, he said it should be recognized that the interagency team had been in existence only a short time. It ~hould have time for more publicity so that citizens would be aware of how to cope with the problem. He said that more investigative effort was needed. In further response to Mrs. Beal's questioning, the Chief said that in 1974, in about 35% of reported rape cases, suspects were identified and information forwarded to the District Attorney's office for prosecution. No statistics for 1975 are available, he said. Councilman Bradley asked if there was anything unique about the Eugene/springfield metropolitan area to contribute to the crime rate, anything to distinguish it from other areas with sindlar crime rates. Chief Allen said there were two - a younger e population; and location, both on the West Coast and in the state providing a good avenue for persons to commit a crime then move on. He added that this area also has the reputation, because of its location, as a center for distribution of narcotics. Manager said he thought it was generally accepted that students are a target for certain crimes because they tend to be less protective than older adults. Chief Allen said that was especially true in rape cases; computerized statistics enable mapping' location.of offenses, he said, and most of them occur in the 24-block area of the University campus. Councilman Williams said he was intrigued by the statistics showing burglary and larceny extremely high in this community compared to national standards, yet auto theft app~ared to be low in the same comparison. Chief Allen felt the statistics were the result of more reporting of offens~s occurring. He cited the example of investigation by a private group of percentages of reported rape -one in ten nationally; in Eugene, one in three. He said it was also found there was a very significant cross traffic between drugs and burglary and larceny. In further response to Mr. Williams, he said people were stealing both drugs and npney to buy drugs. In addition, he said, the major crime team had found this to be a major kickoff point for fencing. Councilman Murray asked the Chief's perspective, in view of the statistics on drug traffic, fencing, etc., with regard to organized crime in this area. Chief Allen answered that it would depend upon the definition of "organized crime" . There was considerable amount of b/o or three people banding together in those operations. However, there was no indication of extensive e involvement of syndicated crime. Councilman. Williams ,commented, hotvever, that three years ago the stattiment of "extensive involvement of syndicated crime" would not have been mentioned. The_Chief said that it was recognized in police circles there was organized crime involved in gambling, drugs, prostitution. 11/10/75 - 26 ,'='0/ Councilman Bradley asked about the impact of LEAA funds on the crime incidence in Eugene. Also, whether the increase in criminal activity was the resul t of more reports to the police or the result of more activity. Chief Allen responded e that there had been more impact from LEAA funds recently than in the past, mainly because the first LEAA funds were used for computers and other equipment needs. However, that investment was paying off now, he said, and would be more valuable in the future as more data was available. With regard to increase in crime, the Chief said they were dealing with both an increase in reported offenses as well Camm as with increased criminal activity. 11/5/75 File Councilman Murray asked about the incidence of juvenile crime, whether it was increasing or decreasing. Chief Allen said there was a high number of juvenile offenders, that about 60% of crimes were cleared through apprehension of juveniles. He had no definitive answer with regard to whether it was increasing or decreasing, he said, but a significant amount of police time was being spent in the juvenile field, particularly with schools and courts attempting to address specific prevention issues. Assistant Manager noted that the figures presented dealt only with reported crimes, not the incident of crimes. S. Presentation by Technology Coordinator Manager commented that a three-year contract with the National Science Foundation is providing Eugene with a technology coordinator to solve city problems through technological innovation. Greg Page is in his second year with the City and Eugene is the beneficiary of his services and certain other benefits that come along with the contract. Mr. Page will be here hopefully then for the third year of the program and perhaps thereafter depending on evaluation of the program. Mr. Page said that in September, 1974, the invitation was accepted by Eugene e to participate and in July of 1974 the program got underway. He presented a slide show of past, present and future efforts. The objectives of the program are to improve effectiveness of city government, provide a network of cities and research facilities, share needs and limited resources to minimize risk in innovation, generate a new products market and measure barriers to innovation. The participants in the program are the National Science Foundation, 27 cities throughout the United States, 27 control sites, 16 research sites, universities, private industries and non-prOfit organizations, as well as Public TechnOlogy, Inc. Cities were randomly selected in the population bracket of 5,000 to 500,000. Each technology coordinator has at least a graduate degree and their ages range from 29 to 63. Funding provides that the first two years PTI will pay 90 percent of the salary; the 3rd year they will pay 20%. Priority factors to be considered in innovations are cost effectiveness, available funding, the urgency of the project, population served, equity, response time, public image, and general effectiveness. Mr. Page talked about the projects completed to date or which are in the works. They include: Ferry Street Bridge - 42,000 vehicles use the bridge each day and it was showing signs of serious deterioration. A rubberized asphalt was selected for the repaving material. It has only been used one other place in this area - on the Broadway Bridge in Portland. e Fire Services Report - The purpose of this project is to forecast how many stations will be needed under the 1990 Plan. Mr. Page added that there are presently 3 firefighters per pumper. 11/10/75 - 27 ~Oz.. Parks Resource Allocation Model - A great deal of parks maintenance is required and an attempt would be made to use computers to determine optimum crew placement, bottlenecks, etc. Noise Ordinance - The purpose will be to determine a reasonable noise level . as well as economic consequences involved. Fire Department Innovation Fund - The fund provides resources to test and evaluate prototype equipment for the Fire Services. Other projects will include transfer of a fire training simulator, an automatic fire hydrant opener, improved dispatching~ water additives, new tools. In addition, other ideas include potholing patching material, solar heated pools, police dispatch information display, environmental evaluation of chemicals, Fire Department communication recording device, improvement of Cornm air quality in City Hall, and city staff construction of its own fire pumpers. At present, a fire pumper costs $82,000. A savings of $15,000 10/29/75 per pumper would be realized with the City building them, as well as lower File maintenance costs. Other projects being considered include rapid response fire vehicles, sewer relining, automated library system, TV translator, energy conservation, and satellite/land use. Mr. Page showed an infrared map of Eugene taken by a U-2. One possible use for a map of this kind might be to discover diseased trees. He also showed a prototype of an automatic fire hydrant opener, as well as Probeye, a highly sensitive hand~held infrared viewer which presents a thermal picture of the scene within the field of view. It clearly reveals temperature differences between closely adjacent objects and bp.tween objects and background, thereby e quickly and accurately locating source~ of concealed fires and heat. It can accomplish this in total darkness as well as through smoke and haze. Since bodies radiate infrared energy according to their temperature, the Probeye can locate bodies which might be trapped in a burning building. Mention was also made of some projects that might be developed in cooperation with other jur~sdictions such as better facilities to accommodate handicapped people, emergency devices procurement manual, firefighting training simulator, pavement striping and resource recovery. Several cost-savings projects have been implemented already in Eugene and there are expectations of transferring other projects to Eugene which have been developed elsewhere. T. NLC Congress of Ci ties, NoveI.lber 30lDecembe0. - Councilman Haws advised Comm that because of other commitments he would not be able to atcend the Conaress 11/5/75 , . ~ File of Cities for which he is registered and asked any other Council member wishing to take advantage of his registration to advise the Manayer's office. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through T, noting separate action on Item M(46th and Wil1amette inter- section). Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 953 - Amending City Code re: Dog Control was read by council e bill' number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 11/10/75 - 28 '0'3 Manager explained that the amendment would permit co-ordination of activities of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County with regard to dog control. The principal feature, he said, was increasing the license fee to $9.50 with certain provisions for lesser charges for spayed dogs. Assistant Manager added that Springfield had agreed to the proposed ~ changes. In addition to the fee adjustment, he said, consideration needed to be given to disposal of impounded dogs, length of time before disposal of unlicensed dogs as com- pared to licensed dogs - 48 hours vs 120 hours. The program presented, he said, was part of a joint management recommendation from the three jurisdictions to include in- vestment in a pound facility, an aggressive licensing program including door-to-door contact for public education and solicitation so all dog owners will share in the cost of licensing. Everett McVicker, executive director of Lane Humane Society, said the ordinance was based solely on the provision of a dog shelter without consideration for any other animals. He read a letter addressed to Lane County by the Society's attorneys re- questing extension of the Society's contract until July 1976 to give time to work out a long-term contract for providing pound services to the triagency authority proposed. He objected to the proposed 48-hour limit on keeping unlicensed dogs becuase of weekend hours when staff would not be available. And he felt the increased fee would deter licensing. He also expressed concern about lack of consideration of the financial hardship caused elderly people on fixed incomes with pets. He noted ordinances drafted in the past that were concerned with all animals and impoundment facilities which, he said, had been ignored. Cats would have to be destroyed immediately after being brought to the pound under the proposed amendment, he said, because the regulations covered ' dogs only. Mr. McVicker continued, expressing concern about an inoculation program and wondering about the cost of that service and who would do it. He doubted that the proposed program would be self-supporting from licensing fees and fines, that monies would have to be taken from the general fund to augment those revenues if the program was to be successful. He urged an overall look at the animal control program. 4It Ed Deardorff, 675 Lorane Highway; Marla Hanlon, 1520 West 11th Avenue; and Steve Barnes, 1370 East 25th Avenue, objected to the proposed amendment as written. They thought the proposed fee unreasonable and that a low-cost spaying program should be made available. Also, that an "animal" control program should be considered rather than only "dog" control. Mr. Barnes questioned abi Ii ty to enforce the term "at large" as used in the ordinance as well as the definition of "barking dog." He also thought there should be specific quarantine requirements for biting dogs. He anticipated problems with the term "entering onto private property" by dog control officers and thought reduction of the impoundment period for unlicensed dogs inhumane. There was right of appeal provided in the ordinance, he said, but no mention of procedure or time. He was not sure what was meant with regard to killing or impoundment of a dog if it injures fowl, poultry, or fur bearing animals. Mr. Barnes further questioned exclusions from the ordinance. The problem of animals as compared to dog control - there is no comprehensive animal control program estab- lished; neither are dog owners required to keep rabies inoculations current during the licensing period. There are no infractions pertaining to killing livestock, he said, although it is prohibited; there is nothing in terms of penalty for injuring fowl or fur bearing animals. There are no probhitions with regard to harrassment of animals, that is when a person teases an animal, there is no protection for the animal. Mr. Barnes noted some positive aspects of the proposed regulations - the concerted approach to dog control as well as the attempt to make the program self-sustaining and to provide low- cost spaying and vaccination programs. However, in a poll he had undertaken, he said the majority of people contacted said they were opposed to the increased licensing fee, which would mean the possibility of the program's being self-sustaining was no realistic. 4It And there was no provision in the ordinance for backup of the program through use of general funds. He suggested that with adoption of the proposed amendment there would continue to be a deficit in the dog control program, that Eugene would continue to make 11/10/75 - 29 "0+ up that defid t, and if it continues, the city would continue the basic inquity of paying for dog services through taxes amounting to at least twice the amount of revenues represented by licensing fees. Councilman Murray suggested withholding consideration of the item until a later e date in view of the hour. Assistant Manager said Eugene would be "under the gun" so far as licensing for next year since the County would be taking action on the proposal on the 12th. He said if it was decided to deliberate at a later time, he would suggest a special session rather than waiting for the regular meeting in two weeks. There were no objections. Councilman Hamel agreed that the issue should be held over because of the information presented at this meeting that had not been presented before. He noted that Eugene's contract with the Humane Society would expire January 1 and Springfield's, June 1, and in view of that and the information presented, more time should be taken to work it ou t. The Chair ordered action deferred to a meeting of the Council on Wednesday, November 12, 1975, at noon, instead of having a committee- of-the-whole meeting at that time. Council Bill No. 954 - Levying assessments for paving hammerhead turnaround on 22nd Avenue 225 feet west of Trillium Street (75-04) 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. Keller that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on December 1, 1975 and recommendation brought back for Council considera- tion on December 8, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 955 - Levying assessments for storm sewer on Hilyard Street e from 35th Avenue to 36th Avenue (75-05) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members 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 December 1, 1975 and recommendation brought back for council considera- tion on December 8, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 956 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within 1st Addition to Snelling Plat (75-09) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members 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 December 1, 1975 and recommendation brought back for council considera- tion on December8, 1975. Motion carried unanimously. V - Resolutions Resolution No. 2459 - Authorizing sister-city relationship with Kathmandu, Nepal 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. e Resolution No. 2460 - Authorizing agreement with Eugene Renewal Agency and approving concept of Department of Housing and Com- munity Conservation was read by number and title. 11/10/75 - 30 l:Jos' Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2461 - Increasing planning fees according to schedule presented e (20%) was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2462 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period October 27 through November 10, 1975 was read by number and title. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller that the resolution be adopted. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, November 12, 1975, 12:00 noon, in the McNutt Room. ~)~~ Charles T. Henry ~ City Manager e e n/lO/75 - 31 "0"