Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1976 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 8, 1976 ~ Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on March 8, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings :-A-I A. Bids - Parks Department (opened March 3, 1976) 1. Conversion of park lighting to mercury vapor lamps Bob Lyford Electric, Inc. Builders Electric, Inc. C&S Electric Co. Hamilton Electric, Inc. L. H. Morris Electric, Inc. Mulheim's Clarke Electric Co. Office Estimate $ 4,202.90 No quotation No quotation 4,923.70 No quotation 4,060.86 Staff recommended award of contract to the low. bidder. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. $ 5,300.00 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to accept the low bid as recommended. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried. J 2. Remodeling Petersen Barn for community center ELECTRICAL: Builders Electric Inc. Clarke Electric Co. Hamilton Electric Inc. Lane Lighting & Electric Bob Lyford Electric Inc. McPheeters Electric Co. Scofield Electric Co. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *7. Contractors HEATING: 1. R.H. Chapman & Sons Co. *2. Chase Plumbing & Heating Co. 3. Clarence Vos Plumbing 1. R.H. Chapman & Sons Co. 2. Chase Co. *3. Negotiable Plumbing Service 4. Clarence Vos Plumbing Inc. We recommend the city accept the low bids as follows: PLUMBING: 1. Elecwrical - Scofield Electric Co. J 2. Heating - Chase Plumbing & Heating Co. 3. Plumbing - Negotiable Plumbing Service See attached bids and tabulations. *Indicates low bidder of subcontractors. l~3 No bid cost + 10% 6605.00 no bid 5416.00 no bid 4504.00 + 19. lOJhr (no D1d) no bid 4415.00 no bid 7160.00 no bid 2928.00 no bid 4504.00 4415.00 2928.00 3/8/76 - 1 Manager explained that funding for this project was through Community Develop- ment Act funds and that staff recommended awarding contracts to the low bidder on each portion of the project. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. . Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to accept the low bids as recommended. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, motion carried. B. Sign Code Amendment - Integrated Shopping District Code Amendment re: Si~lS in Integrated Neighborhood Shopping District - Section 8.635 - Recommended by Planning Commission January 26. Official report has been distributed to Council. Patti Lathrop, Sign Cocle Administrator, responded that the aim of the proposed changes is to address incr..ea.!~Jl}g__signiT!.g _needsu inJ:~l'?€!r centers and preserve the residential atmosphere in smaller neighborhood centers. . Ns. - Lath-rap saJ:J. tJ-;a-t t~l-Je- proposed changes would rerro'/e from the Code the sentence reading, "each wall of a building facing to a public street shall be considered separa tely. " The Sign Board felt, too, that, on stores in long corridors fo/.:th interior entrances, the code as now enforced does not provide for any sign but one facing the street. They recommend addition of the statement, "one addi tional wall sign shall be permitted on other than front bdldin~l walls provided said walls are separated from property in residentially izoned districts by a minimum of 1200 feet. However, in no event shall a ,business have rore than one sign per wall". Comm 2/25/76 Pub Hrng Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for March 8 on the above Code changes. Motion carried unani~f1Ously~_' . Patti Lathrop, sign code administrator, reviewed the intent of the amendment as set out in committee-minutes (see above). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1046 - Amending portion of Section 8.635, Sign Code re: Integrated Shopping District was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councilmembers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17566. C. Annexations 1. West of Norkenzie Road, north of Holly Avenue (Craven-O'Conner) (A 75-12) Annexation - Craven-O'Connor (A 75-12) - Tax Lot 1000, located west of : Norkenzie Road, north of Holly Avenue (map distributed to Council members)_-=-! Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a hearing on the above recorrunendation for March 8. Motion carried unanimously. . Comm 2/25/76 Pub Hrng 3/8/76 - 2 L~'i_ Recommended by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1976. Manager noted there had been no opposition to the proposed annexation. . Jim Saul, planner, explained that the area proposed for annexation consisted of about 1.3 acres now developed with two residences. He said the applicants, if the area is added to the city, proposed to divide the land into two parcels. The property can be provided with urban services and lies within the urban service boundary as set out in the General Plan. On that basis, the Planning Commission recommended transmittal to the Boundary Commission for annexation. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2481 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission recommenda- tion to annex property west of Norkenzie Road north of Holly Avenue was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. 2. East of Kimberly and Dogwood, south of 30th Avenue (Tillman) (A 75-11) Denial recommended by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1976. Manager said the applicant requested that the hearing be set over to the March 22,1976 Council meeting, and staff had no objections. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to set the hearing on the Tillman annexation over to the March 22, 1976 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. ~ D. Liquor License - Quigley's, 1601 Chambers Street (RMB)(New) Liquor License - Quigley's - 1601 Chambers - Richard A. Becker - RMB - New Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to schedule a March 8 public hearing on the above application. Comm 3/3/76 Pub Hrng Mr. Howard Hanson, Cougill and Hanson Realty, noted that the doctors at the Westmoreland Medical Clinic, across the street from the site, had taken no position. They are not hostile to the proposed outlet but their own religious concepts prevent endorsement. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Applicant: Richard A. Becker. Manager said that staff had no objections. OLCC report indicated no opposition on survey of the neighborhood other than nonsupport of doctors occupying the Westmoreland Medical Clinic across the street from the proposed establishment. Public hearing was opened. Richard Becker, 1466 West 7th Avenue, said he would be operating what would be con- sidered a "full restaurant." He provided menus as an example of the type of es- tablishment proposed and offered to answer any questions from the Council. ~ Ruth Lunas, 1490 Chambers Street, asked what kind of license was being considered and what closing hours were anticipated. Manager said the application was for a retail malt beverage license - beer - and that hours proposed were from 11:00 a.m. to midnight Monday through Saturday, and 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Sunday; food service would be available til 11:00 p.m. during the week, til 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. In further response to Mrs. Lunas, he said the place could be considered a beer parlor after the restaurant was closed. 3/8/76 _ 3 1~5 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. . E. Appeals, Bus Stop Locations -Appeal of Bus Stop Locations Jonathan Rode - 2176 Harris Street - NW corner Mrs. Cora Brady - 16th and Olive - SE Corner Memo from Marjorie Beck, City Manager's Office, has been distributed to Council. Mr. Keller lCOved seconded by Mr. Haws to schedule a March 8 public .hearing on the above matter. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/3/76 Pub Hrng Manager noted some 90 locations established for bus stops after considerable negotia- tion with property owners and others. All but two were accepted by the general public, he said, and are in operation. The two with which there was dissatisfaction were ap- pealed to the Council. 1. Northwest corner of 22nd and Harris - Jonathan Rode, 2176 Harris Street, appellant Note was taken of distribution to the Council of letter from Jonathan Rode ap- pealing staff decision on location of this bus stop. Ai Williams, traffic engineer, said the bus stops were needed primarily for reasons of safety. Also, they provided increased benefit to the Transit Dis- trict and increased ridership because previously there had been no regular loca- tions or stops for. catching buses. The Hadrrisd/LCC run, he said, was started ~ about a year ago w1th about 90 stops consi ere, resulting in 15 to 20 protests which could not be resolved. Administrative action was taken designating the stops, after which the appeal was filed by Mr. Rode on the location at 22nd and Harris, about two blocks away from the previous stop. This stop was pro- vided on the "far" side rather than where it would normally have been placed because the property owner at the southwest corner (the "near" side) needed the frontage available for access because of limited mobility. Because of the low volume of traffic at this location, Traffic Engeiner felt there was no legiti- mate reason for location of the stop at the "near" side location when consider- ing the basis of the protest to that location. Public hearing was opened. Jonathan Rode, 2176 Harris Street, objected to the bus stop on the northwest corner of 22nd and Harris because that was not the first location chosen. He said it was his understanding that lack of parking was not a valid excuse for not putting in a bus stop. He called attention to the fact that the southwest corner location was a corner lot with access on two streets, whereas the north- west location was adjacent to the only street frontage available; installation of the bus stop there would leav no on-street parking space at all. He felt the proposed location on the northwest corner was less desirable. I-A-2 Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Traffic Engineer noted a letter had been sent to Mr. Rode stating the problem ~ and reason for the decision not to place the bus stop at the southwest corner. \~ He said staff would have no objection, and he was sure Lane Transit District would not object, to stipulating the bus stop would be changed to the south- ('-, 3/8/76 - 4 ~ . ~ 'I< west corner should the adjacent property change hands and/or physical condition of the tenant change, making access for limited mobility people unnecessary. . Councilman Keller asked how many locations were changed in designating this route. Traffic Engineer answered that the 22nd and Harris site was the only one be- tween 19th and 30th. He added that location of stops on the "near" and "far" sides were not "cast in stone," locations could be worked out if there were over- riding reasons. Working out this route, he said, had taken a long time dealing with the public and trying to resolve all differences. Councilwoman Beal wondered what was involved in location of bus stops - signs, benches, etc. Traffic Engineer answered that the normal traffic signs were required. Bus schedules were not included in that signing, he said, and in instances where stops could be changed at some later time, there would be only a "no parking" sign. Councilman Hamel asked about parking areas - whether there would still be parking space available to the southwest corner property if the stop was located there. He thought it would be an inconvenience to the owner on the north side if the only parking space there was taken. Traffic Engineer answered that Harris Street was the only side which had access to the main sidewalk to the house at the southwest corner, the other (22nd) was a side street. He added that locating the stop on the south side wasn't considered justifiable on the basis of the physical condi- tion of the tenant at that property. . Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to uphold staff decision in locating he bus stop at the northwest corner of 22nd and Harris, subject to review when and if there is a change in occupancy of the property at the south- west corner. Councilwoman Beal said she was in favor of the motion. She didn't feel anyone was entitled to parking space in front of one's house, the streets belong to everyone, and in areas of limited parking, one does not have that privilege. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-3 2. Southeast corner 16th and Olive - Mrs. Cora Brady, Portland Manager noted Mrs. Grady had considered her letter of appeal sufficient to present her objection to location of the bus stop at the southeast corner of 16th and Olive and for that reasonshe was not present to give testimony. . Traffic Engineer Williams explained Mrs. Brady's objections to the bus stop as designated, primarily because of her concern for safety of the tenants of Lane Towers. He said Lane Transit District had used the proposed location since in- ception of the bus system, and they advised the stop was used by about 50 people from the apartment building, many of them elderly. He said about 27 feet had been added to an existing yellow zone, leaving 26 feet clearance at the driveway into the underground parking for the building. The majority of the users of the stop, he said, came from Lane Towers, 'and requiring those people to cross the intersection to board the bus did not make sense. Also, the removal of one park- ing space was not considered detrimental to Lane Towers. Neither was the bus stop at the proposed location considered unsafe for ingress and egress to and from the underground parking. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Councilman Hamel was opposed to the bus stop on the southeast corner. He said parking space around Lane Towers was at a premium now for those wishing to pick !~1 3/8/76 - 5 up tenants of the building. Although taking away the parking space wouldn't bother those using the bus system, he said, it would be an inconvenience for others. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to deny the appeal and uphold staff decision for location of a bus stop at the southeast corner of 16th and Olive. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. . F. HCDC Grant Application - Community Development Plan Summary, Program, Budget I-A-4 - . Review of HCDC Recommendations and Approval of 1976-77 Community Development Act Application Council has received official report, summary of projects and copy of application s ubmi tted to HUD. Bob Thomas, Eugene Renewal Agency, said that official Council action would be required at the March 8 Council meeting to meet a March 15 mailing deadline. TWo public hearings are necessary; one of them has been held already, on January 14. Mr. Thomas explained that neighborhood organizations had earlier received information on capital improvements to be financed by the City and roost neighborhoods responded with written proposals for the expenditure of funds. Those proposals were then subsequently reviewed, along with comments of otheF city departIQSnts, and a first d.rC!-_ft was then reviewed in meetings of the Housing and Community Development Commission. John Mills-Erickson, ERA, summarized the application as distributed to Council. The entitlement grant is for $674,000 and the inequities grant is for $336,000, for a total of $1,010,000. Mr. Murray noted that one feature of a second-year application is that it is in large measure an extension of the first-year application. The field has not been reversed, he said, to maximize what everyone recognizes as insufficient funding of the program. - Mr. Haws raised a question about the Active Bethel Citizens proposal being :sl1.ghtly different than the original proposal. Mr. Murray explained that the Active Bethel Citizens had had a misunderstanding as to the total sum and they made a request based on certain percentages for certain areas. The amount . available to them was less than they had anticipated and the Active Bethel Citizens felt the parks allocation (a high priority) might be insufficient. Mr. Murray suggested review of the matter at the HCDC meeting, with a response back to Council by March 8. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to set a public hearing for March 8, and conditionally approve the application pending outcome the hearing. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Comm 3/3/76 Pub Hrng of Councilman Murray noted one minor change in the application - transferring $6,000 from housing rehabilitation to open space and parks in the Bethel area. He said this was the second-year application, which really was an extension of the first- year application, by which the Commission hoped to accomplish many long-standing community goals. The primary effort again was directed toward housing rehabilita- tion with the "lion's share" allocated to areas where needs were greatest, essentially the central city. Second priority was given open space and parks in a number of projects throughout the city. Mr. Murray explained that the public process in completing the application was followed - public hearings, survey of community through neighborhood groups, consideration of data available to the Commission, etc. . ~..../ I~'. 3/8/76 - 6 Public hearing was opened. . Jon Silvermoon, 47~ West 25th Avenue, representing Friendly Area Neighbors, asked that $13,000 be shifted from urban beautification, streets, and bike paths to open space and parks. He said that would provide more adequate funding to meet the priority of needs for his neighborhood. . Paul Parker, 750 Louis Lane, identified himself as chairperson of the Active Bethel Citizens, and offered to answer any question there might be regarding original recommendations from his neighborhood. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Bob Thomas, acting Renewal Agency director, ,said that staff recommendation was to adopt the budget as presented in the application on the basis that money so used would be of more benefit to the ABC neighborhood if used to provide bike paths, pedestrian routes, and other means of transportation through the neighborhood where deadend streets exist. Further, he said, the parks department had indicated that $13,000 added for parks acquisition would not have a significant impact on the neighborhood. There are now large areas of open space and major parks on each side in addition to a small park inside the neighborhood. Acquisition of addi- tional park land at this time, he said, also would add to maintenance costs and would present budget problems. - Councilman Murray added that the Commission had not received the ABC request prior to its meeting, so the issue was not discussed there. However, the Commission did discuss at some length the question of funding projects that would affect the city's future budgets and future applications for community development funds. Park development, he said, was an area which raises that kind of concern. Councilman Bradley referred to February 26 Community Development minutes which re- flected some concern about staffing a community center in the West University Neighborhood area with community development funds. Mr. Thomas said that staff recommendation was not to approve funding of staff for that neighborhood center on the basis that it would be a precedent setting decision. However, the Commis- sion overruled and recommended the staffing in the budget which was forwarded to the Council. Mr. Thomas added that funding WUN center did not necessarily mean the Commission would look favorably upon the funding of other centers. This is a unique situation - there is no school or any other public facility in the West University Neighborhood area to serve as a focal point, and the Commission responded to that expressed need. In response to Mr. Bradley's comment with regard to staffing the center with voluntary help, Mr. Thomas said that was what was ex- pected until the request for funding was presented to HCDC. He believed the Com- mission felt it very important that the community center in that area get off to a good start, and that staffing to the extent of $6,000 would tend to ensure functioning of that facility as intended. Manager commented that the decision was on a split vote in the Commission and noted that it provided for one year of staffing only. He added that another concern was that $6,000 wouldn't buy much staffing.. The staff originally thought that the center's staffing would comprise live-in maintenance with rent being part of the compensation. However, WON saw the position as one that would help organize the neighborhood programs and build up neighborhood activity. - Councilman Williams asked if the use of CD funds in this manner had the approval of the city attorney. Mr. Thomas said the attorney had not been asked specifically in this case, but that staffing of community centers was listed as an eligible activity in the grant regulations. Mr. Williams then asked if his understanding was correct that the transfer of funds would be permitted as a proper expenditure of public funds, but there would be severe limitations on the activities of the I~,. 3/8/76 - 7 individual receivng those funds. Mr. Thomas answered that the actual list of activities in which staff could participate was very broad. Included were wel- .~' fare, recreation, education, employment - which pretty well covered the range of activities an individual would be expected to be involved in as the center's major staff person. Councilman Williams asked that the city attorney be requested to review a transcript of this discussion and, if there is a difference of opinion, that he be directed to so advise the Council with all possible haste. Mr. Thomas noted a March 15 dead- line for filing the application and said that if the city attorney did find this funding an ineligible activity, the Council should be prepared for contingency action. He thought the chances of its being an ineligible activity were ex- tremely slim. Councilwoman Beal pointed out that this community center would be the only one in that general area and that people to date had been meeting wherever they could find space, an extremely difficult situation. She also pointed out this would be ~ very limited activity and one which the neighborhood felt was badly needed, someone who could get activities started. Councilman Murray said the West University area was regarded by the Commission as being an area with extraordinary problems not uniform with the rest of the com- munity, the most transient and mobile of the entire city, where it was difficult to establish any stability or sense of community. He thought it important also to understand that the emphasis on one-year funding only originated with the neighborhood group itself, not with the Commission, and that it would apply to this center only and for one year only. WUN, he said, wished that staffing in order to establish a very strong and volunteer effort looking to future years. ~ He knew of no reason why there should be any question of legality. But if there ~ was, he suggested that approval of the application be contingent upon automatic reversion of the $6,000 to housing rehabilitation, since that was where the funds originally came from. Resolution No. 2482 - Authorizing application for funding 1976-77 Community Development Block Grant Program (Entitlement-$674,OOO; Inequities-$336,OOO) was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution with the condition that if use of community development funds for staffing the WUN community center is found to be illegal in the eyes of the city attorney, the $6,000 allocated for that purpose will revert to the housing rehabilitation fund. Mr. Gradley moved second by Mr. Williams that the motion be amended and that the $6,000 allocated for staffing the WUN community center be transferred back to the housing rehabilitation program. In making the amendment, Mr. Bradley said he concurred with Councilman Murray's comment on the need to establish a good solid basis for future volunteer efforts. He said he would like to see that basis established by using volunteers rather than community development funds. If at the end of the first year it was found to be effective, the funds will then have been used more effectively in the hous- ing rehabilitation program. Mrs. Beal questioned whether it was understood that ~_ this neighborhood was the only one in the city without a community center - and ~ this was the most highly populated area in the city. Other areas had community/ ~ school programs, parks facilities, etc., but not this one, she said. She thought it should also be understood that this neighborhood was occupied by very young, transient students and very old people who wish to keep the area from deteriorating 3/8/76 - 8 .t~o e any further. There are not identical interests and someone is needed in the center to initiate the type of program that will give a community feeling _ she felt that impossible for someone on a volunteer basis, someone probably already employed in full-time work elsewhere and without the necessary energy and expertise for this type of effort. Mr. Bradley then suggested possible contact with the school district to determine whether a community/school effort would be the solution. That might be a way, he said, of using both funding sources to attain the objective. Councilwoman Shirey said the center should get off to a good start - the building was there and people in need. She thought the first year staffing should be funded. Vote was taken on the amendment, transferring $6,000 from staffing the center back to housing rehabilitation. Motion defeated - Council members Williams, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Murray, and Shirey voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion to adopt the resolution with stated conditions. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. e G. November 2 Ballot Issue re: Fluoridation Manager explained that Citizens Committee for Better Dental Health requested sub- mission of the fluoridation issue to the voters. He noted that fluoridation of Eugene's water supply had been approved by the voters in 1964, the water fluori- dated from April to September of 1965 when the measure was repealed in another election. He said the pros and cons of fluoridation were not the subject of this hearing, only the issue of whether the measure would be placed on the November ballot. Letter from Lane County Commissioners in favor of placing the measure on the ballot was received. 1-B-2 Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the issue were Dr. David White, Lane County Health Officer; A. K. Hottle, director of Lane County Community Health and Social Services; Debra Gordon, chairperson of Citizens Committee for Better Dental Health, 750 East 15th Avenue; Beverley L. Jui1fs, chairman Lane County Health Committee and member of LCOG Comprehensive Dental Health Planning Committee, 1065 Sanborn Avenue; Manny Lotito, 1595 West 28th Place; Robert J. Harland, chairperson of Lane County Dental Society. Opposed were John and Brenda Caporale, 565 River Loop #2; Kevin M. Cape', 730 East 36th Avenue; Mary Hickey, 812 Beacon Drive; Eric Cooper, 2380 Charnelton Street; Dean Kennedy, 2963 Alder Street. Those in favor pointed out that no federal or state regulations prohibited the fluoridation of municipal water supplies; that because of an apparent change in public opinion throughout the United States with regard to fluoridation, it would be appropriate to let Eugene voters express themselves; Eugene population growth since the last fluoridation election would result in a new voting public; listen- ing to pros and cons on the issue would be the only way of promoting a value judgment with regard to whether water should or should not be fluoridated. Ms.Gordon placed on record a letter from Governor Straub wishing the Citizens Committee suc- cess in bringing the fluoridation issue to the voters. e Those opposed felt there were many people not voting on the issue who would not be aware, if the measure was approved, that they were drinking fluoridated water; nothing had changed substantially since the measure was last put to the voters and there would be just as many new people again fluoridation, this in response to ,fal 3/8/76 - 9 the statement with regard to "new" population; should the issue be voted upon favorably, there would without doubt follow another election by petition where the measure would probably be defeated again; the city's right to fluoridate was ~ questioned in that it did not have license to dispense medication; fluoridation ~ of the public water supply violates the people's constitutional right of freedom of choice and of religion (for those whose religious beliefs prcluded their taking medication); according to the EPA of 1974 only those additives counteracting con- tamination of water supplies were required; a notable difference in mortality statistics in those cities having water supplies fluoridated has not been ex- plained; no conclusive proof that fluorides are safely taken; question of legality - whether constitutional rights can be voted upon. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mayor Anderson noted letters in favor of placing the fluoridation issue on the ballot received from the president of the State Public Health Office and from the Lane County Health Advisory Committee. Councilman Bradley questioned the reason for putting the issue on the ballot if the Council had the authority to order fluoridation of the city's water supply by ordinance. Councilman Williams answered that the State legislature had decided fluoridation could be adopted by local jurisdictions through a vote of the people. Also, it seemed to him that when -the voters had cast a majority on both sides of the question, as happened in this community, then it would seem only proper to ask them for their decision. Councilman Keller added that just the fact that the issue was controversial would make it appropriate to submit to the voters, plus the fact that voters on both sides of a controversial issue usually learn when such an issue is presented on the ballot. - Mayor Anderson hoped the Council would place the issue on the ballot since both the number os voters and character of the population had changed since it was last voted upon. He also felt that since it was last voted upon it had been shown fluoridation was not the great threat it was reported to be. In view of the small majority on the issue in previous elections - particularly the one in which the order to fluoridate was repealed - and because of the time elapsed since the last election, he thought the issue deserved public consideration. Mr. Bradley moved that the Council call a public hearing with regard to requiring EWEB to fluoridate the water supply without going to a vote of the people. There was no second. Council Bill No. 1047 - Adding Section 2.196 to City Code providing for fluoridation of water supply, effective upon approval of voters, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. Lacking unanimous consent - all Council member present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no, the bill was held for second reading. Council Bill No. 1048 - Ordering special election concurrently with general election November 2, 1976 re: Fluoridation of water supply, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. -- --- 3/8/76 - 10 13 a.,. . ~~ . II-A-2 e . II - Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws 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. Lacking unanimous con- sent - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no - the bill was held for second reading. Councilman Bradley asked why the issue was ballot rather than on the primary ballot. thought participation in the vote would be than in the primary. being placed on the general The Mayor answered that the much greater in the general election proponents election Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on February 25 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey) and on March 3, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A. Ordinance No. 17526 passed February 23, 1976 - Paving alley between 4th and 5th, Washinyton to Lawrence (75-13) The above o~dinance was presented for adoption in error - Assessment pa;,,,,l recommended withdrawal because of error in assessment calculation. Rep(."j.~ was requested. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. HarvS to repeal the abow? ordina;:ce. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 2/25/76 Approve B. ~rovem~nt Petitions 1. Paving, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer within Velkommen Park Subdit'isior. _ totally within subdivision except 17.12% of lateral area outside subdi vision. 2. Paving Kincaid Street from East Amazon Drive to the east and south; and pavil;g, sanitary sewers and storm sewers within Kincaid Oaks Subd~vision - owners of 82% of property to be assessed signed. Comm 2/25/76 Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the petitions. Approve Motion carried unanimously. C. Overhead Doors - Fire Station #1 - February 20 memo from Purchasing Agent has been distributed to Council. Manager explained the present door3 at F~I'e Station #1 have never been satisfactory, and staff feels replacement of the doors would be more suitable than extensive maintenance work. Ev Hall, Fire Chief, commented that the doors are too heavy for their size and are wearing out - the fiberglass doors at three other fire stations seem to be quite functional, as well as cheaper and easier to maintain. Mr. Hamel expressed concern that the vendor has not been able to handle the problem so that the doors will at least work properly. Purchasing Agent said the City was disappointed in the original supplier's failure to stand behind the product. He also noted that that supplier does not carry the desired fiberglass doors. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve transfer of $7,000 from contingency fund for the doors as recommended. Corum 2/25/76 Approve Mr. Haws was concerned about prioritizing the spending from the contingency fund. Asst. Manager explained that $325,000 has been budgeted this fj seal year in contingency funds. $300,000 of that amount still remains. Because of the safety factor, staff feels the expenditure of funds for fire station doors deserves high priority. In answer to Mr. Haws, Asst. Manager also explained the Fire Department Capital Outlay budget does not p:covide for this type of ,!~3. 3/8/76 - 11 . . expenditure. Manager added that capital outlay money is generally frozen to provide for other already - budgeted items. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. It D.l990 Plan Update Process - January 26 official report has been distributed to Council members, recommending approval of the proper process. John Porter, Planning Director, explained that the first proposed 1990 Plan update structure has been reviewed with the LCOG staff by the area's planning directors and administrators, and that agreement on a satisfactory process is now sought among all governing bodies. The 1990 Plan calls for updates every five years, and the time is now arriving for the first one. MAPAC has been responsible for reviewing the plan annually, said Mr. Porter, since the State Goals and Guidelines COlTU1Jittee found that, to avoiu' potential problems, there needed to be a nEtro plan review group separate from these preparing the plan. Planning COlTU1Jission has recommended a new committee structure, involving a Metro Plan Policy Com~ittee consisting of one elected official from each of the three jurisdictions, one appointed board or commission member from each of the three jurisdictions, a citizen-at-Iarge from each jurisdiction and two citizens-at-large to be appointed from the metro area by LCOG. Along with that commattee, Mr. Porter noted suggested restructuring of MAPAC to concentrate more fully on the citizen review functions, and also formation of a technical planning committee designed to prepare technical work for the policy committee. Mr. Porter finally noted the Planning Commassion's desire to have membership on the Metro Plan Policy COmnUttee rather than on MAPAC. Jim MiLler, LCOG senior planner and project director for the update process, detailed the process as outlined in a chart presented to the Council. The process is a 2 1/2 year process which began last December and which will run to July, 1978. It is divided into four phases which are: Study Design, Identification of Data-Research Needs, Plan Preparation, and Public Hearing and Adoption. e ..---" Mr. Murray wondered why a regular type of committee structure was not being used, with a policy cOmnUttee assisted by staff rather than two other cOmnUttees. Mr. Miller explained that, for a metro-wide plan coordination, this mode might best balance technical and citizen input. Mr. Murray wondered the reasoning behind appointment of two citizens-at-Iarge by LCGG. He thought it more logical for the three jurisdictions to appoint an additional representative each. Mr. Porter responded that LCOG might appOInt people representing different local government bodies, thus providing more comprehensive representation. ,TO Mrs. Beal's question on funding, Mr. Porter responded that, in addition to seeking assistance from LCOG, costs are envisioned as being prorated based on the population of each area - Eugene perhaps 50% and Springfield and Lane County each-25%. Mrs. Beal felt there should be a relationship bet~een decision-making votes and population and funding; Planning Director responded the same mode was being used as had been for MAPAC. In answer to a question on who has approved the proposed structure to date, Planning Director said the county has approved the general structure; the Springfield Planning Commission has discussed it, has generally concurred, and is taking it to their City Council; and the Eugene Planning Commission has approv-ed it .dth some suggested modifications. - . --/ 3/8/76 - 12 .13~ ~ ! ~ Mr. Bradley suggested that the Metro Plan Policy Co~ttee be charged with the responsibility of making recommendations and that the other two committees simply report to the Metro Plan Policy Co~ttee. Planning Director said that is the basis on which it is hoped they will operate. 'Mr, Murray expressed dissatisfaction with Eugene being more financially responsible for costs but having the same amount of votes. Mr. Williams, on the other hand, feLt the structure would provide for all three groups working toward agreement on a process universally acceptable to each. Mrs. B~al' s most urgent objection is appointment of t~,o :l(d.: c-ion,';] U:,!.'!,_'s,'..'n::..1::' "'-.'" by LCOG; she wondered how representatives of out.lyiIl':J F:<sc:.'i,,-t;:CllS ,-0:11(! i,.' ,concerned with the met!:o area. Perhaps a Council sub,:omlli':,,'e should fi~-st study the suggested process, she said. Mrs.Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to appoint ~ subco~ttee composed of the Mayor, City Manager, Planning Director, Planning commission Member, and two Council Members, to study the upd3te structure, develop guidelines for the MPPC Council deLegate reporting back to the Council, and bring a sub-co~ ttee report back to the March 10 Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. Comm 2/25/76 'Approve Mr. 'Bradley wondered if recommendations will be going to the respective jurisdictions for review before going to Lcoe. Assistant Manager explCli ned r recommendations are generally submitted to the LeOG Board for review and a decision by Lcoe as to whether the plan is ready for release for public hea!:i~y - LCOe does not decide on the merits of the proposals. Member agencies subsequently develop any differences to be considered by those affected before LCGe adoption. Vote was taken on the motion wh~ch carried unaniID0usly. Mayor Anderson appointed Mr. Keller and Mrs. Beal to serve on the sllb-co!TlITlitteE'~ E. Resolution Suppcrting LEAP. Funding for Lane Inter-Agency Rape Team Council has received memo from Human Rights Specialist dated February 20, 1976, as well as copy of resolution proposed by the Women's Co~ssjon, ~long with a letter sent to the Oregon Law Enforcement Council from the Lane County Taxpayers Council. Manager noted receiving a petition signed by some 680 individuals supporting continuation of the Lane Inter-Agency Rape Team. The all-woman team consists of two detectives (one from Eugene Police and one from the Sheriffs Office), a deputy DA and a public relations-education officer. Manager also added the Eugene Police Department will continue to provide the service of its female rape investigator who was acting in that capacity before creation ot" the funded rape team project. Presumably that service will be continued through tr.e end of the fiscal year. The immediate request is extension of the rape team project for the next four months. Therese Engelmann, Vice-President of the Women's Commission, said that group heard a presentation from the rape team members, considered the matter and passed a resolution supporting the continuance of the Lane Inter- Agency Rape Team and urging the OLEC to ensure the team's continued existence by granting a ]-month extension and subsequent renewal of funds. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey Women's Co~ssion and to authorize the the local match. Comm 2/25/76 Approve to adopt the resolution of the City to provide its share of 3/8/76 - 13 t35 Marsha ,MorqJ.;1, C()IT']mln,:t~; L:ai..son OEficer with the Rape Team, said the grant terminated as of the end of February. They have applied for an extension through the Oregon Law Enforcement Council to carry the project through June. In mentioning the work of the rape team, Ms. Morgan noted the conviction rate has more than tripled since 1974. Asst. Manager explained the od ginal grant was for $61,000 i the Ci ty 's local ma tell is 10%., He is not certain whether the County has adequate funds for their share, but noted the City staff person will remain into the next fiscal year. He further explained that the Law Enforcement Council has only $20,000 available with many requests for funds. He has talked with the OLEC director who advises an executive conmtittee session could be held to consider continuation of the Rape Team, giving them about four months of operation under the total grant funding mechanism now existing. The difficult issue is what will happen in the 1976-77 fiscal year. Other funding priorities, plus inevitable rollbacks, will limit the programs to be funded. The local priorities as set by LCOG include nine different projects and indications are that funds can only be allocated to the top four; namely, the Burglary Team, Police School Court Team, Misdemeanant Program and the Lane Inter-Agency Narcotics Team. Mrs. Beal wondered who served on the LCOG committee that establishes priorities. Asst. Manager said there were two committees - a citizen committee for criminal justice planning and a technical advisory committee made up of a representative of the judiciary, the District Attorney, the police chiefs and Mr. Lenarduzzi of the Juvenile program. Mrs. Beal felt that LCOG should be requested to listen to a presentation from the Women's Commission on the subject. Manager thought that would be fine but that the immediate action should be endorsement of the resolution and request to OLEC for grant extension. Asst. Manager added that the City's local match would be $4300, that the question becorres even more moot if Lane County cannot contribute. Mr. Williams wondered how a 10% match of $20,000 could be $4300. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Bradley felt the Council has a very important role and interest in making priority recommendations through LCOG, that a committee should perhaps be appointed to look into establishing policy on desired input. Asst. Manager suggested that idea be delayed for two months; he noted he is currently chairing an OLEC committee that is involved in restructuring the whole process. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that the City Council request the Citizens Advisory Committee for criminal justice planning and the Technical Advisory Comndttee of LCOG to receive a delegation from the Women's Comndssion to present its position on the matter. Mr. Haws wondered about Eugene having its own rape team, Mayor Anderson noting the usual process - going through the Budget Committee, etc. - could address that ~tter at any time it was so desired. Mr. Murray noted there really have never been goals or priorities established, that the Community Goals Conmtittee is now working on proposals to present to Council for implementation of social priorities processes. It would provide for some kind of future framework. Vote was taken on tht! rrotion which carried unanimoUSly. 3/8/76 - 14 \)f4>\ . . ._~..-J' " _ Carom 2/25/76 Approve -- ~ -- Rape Team Funding Update - Mrs. Beal referred to the February 25 Committee minutes, page 5, sentence reading, "Mrs. Beal felt that LCOG should be requested to listen to a presentation from the Women's Commission on the subject". She would like that sentence to read, "Mrs. Beal felt that the two LCOG committees. . . If. She also wondered if a letter had been written as yet requesting those two cOmnUttees to receive a delegation from the Women's COmnUssion. Manager reported that letter was in the process of being written. He also reported that the Oregon Law Enforcement Council had flatly refused to provide $20,000 needed for the continuation of the grant through the end of the fiscal year. However, the County Commissioners have "today" agreed to expend over $9,000, contingent upon the City participating in the amount of $4360, thus enabling continuation of the project for three months - through May 31. Assistant Manager noted that the Executive COmnUttee of OLEC decided not to meet on the issue. It does appear the program could continue, however, with County and City money while LCOG is in the process of re-evaluating priorities, though the picture does not look optimistic on a long-term basis. Comm 3/3/76 Approve Mrs. Beal felt it was the sense of Council's earlier action that Council places high priority on continuation of the Rape Team and that it wishes that feeling expressed clearly in the letter to the LCOG committees. - F. Authorization of Highway 99 Improvement Study - A February 10 memo from Planning and Public Works and a chart showing the proposed process have been distributed to Council. Planning Director noted an addition to the normal process - that is, having citizen planning meetings and design criteria established before Public Works proceeds with preliminary design phase and public hearing. Cost estimate is about $590,000, of which $290,000 would be state dollars from the State Highway bond issue, $200,000 in assessments and a city cost of $100,000. LCOG has approved the $290,000 in bond issue priorities. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize staff to proceed. Corom 3/3/76 Approve A question was raised regarding the southern boundary of the improvement. Planning Director responded the next six months' master planning will have bearing on the most reasonable boundary. Public Works Director noted that original intention was to improve the two-way portion up to the overpass. a need develops for improvement farther south, for instance to include the overpass, that could be determined before getting to the final stage. more the If Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. G. Appointments to Boards and COmnUssions of Residents Outside City - Mr. Murray referred to discussion held at the time of Council appointments to boards and cOmnUssions in January regarding appointment of residents outside the city limits. Council had decided to wait until after the appointment process was completed to further discuss that issue. Mr. Murray feels appointment should be limited to city residents cOmnUtted to wanting to serve, and who represent the taxpayer. His position, however, is not intended to affect those people who are now serving who live outside the city limits. - Manager said that, on the other hand, appointment might be desired of a resident outside the city limits but owning substantial property in the city. Additionally, on some boards in which technical expertise is desirable, a particularly well qualified individual might live outside the City. 131, 3/8/76 - 15 Mayor Anderson ~aid he would prefer the present system as it gives the Council and Mayor more,uatitude in adapting to the particular needs of a commission. He noted the Airport comndssion deals with a facility which is regional in nature. Mrs. Shirey wondered about the possibility of dividing the boards and comnds~ions into groups - some allowing non-city residents and some not. Perhaps city residents only should serve on boards making decisions involving expenditure of city money. Assistant Manager noted that all the boards are advisory in nature, that the Council has the ultimate say. Mrs. Beal felt Council should not be locked into a process of selecting certain individuals but feels it is wise and adequate to flag applications of those living ~utside the city. Mr. Keller thought it would be adequate to leave the process as is giving highest priority to a city resident. Mr. Murray commented that all boards make decisions having some financial ramifications. He would agree there are competent people living outside the city limits; but each time a non-city resident is selected, he said, a city resident is denied from serving. Mr. Bradley feels the test should be based on interest of an individual in serving. Persons outside the city limi ts do use the facilities and services and the area should be viewed as a regional metropolitan area. Mayor Anderson sees two options - one to require all board members to be Eugene residents, the other to designate residency requirements for certain boards and comndssions. Mr. Keller wondered about designating that only a certain percentage of members of a particular board could live outside the ci ty. Mrs. Beal would disagree with a percentage breakdown. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to direct staff to prepare a change in the bylaws which would prohibit future Council appointments to ci ty boards and comndssions of non-ci ty residents and that this bylaw wo dId not affect those now serving. Motion carried, Council members Keller, Haws, Murray, Hamel and Shirey voting aye and Council members Bra9ley and Beal voting no. H. Council minutes - December 8, 1976 as circulated 1. Assessment Hearing Panel - March 15 Substitute for Mrs. Beal - Mr. Haws volunteered to serve with Mr. Williams on March 15, as Mrs. Beal cannot serve on that date. J. Zone Change Application - west of Quaker and N. of 15th (Bonson) - from RA to R-2-3. 7-SR Tabled by Council 8-27-73 after public hearing. Mr. Bonson is requesting the application be removed from the table and referred to the Planning Comndssion. Mr. Keller lOCJved seconded by Mr. Haws to remove and refer as requested. 3/8/76 - 16 -'t?l& e e Corom 3/3/76 Approve Approve Comm 3/3/76 Affirm -- Mr. Murray wondered why the matter was originally tal:}led." 'planning Direct;or noted that Planning Commission had originally" recommended denial'and the applicant requested it be tabled pending resolutionof'the Amazon Parkway issue. Council had agreed ,to table and re"'-open when reque.sted" by the' applicant.' There is now a new application for rezoning, . and staff feels Council can reIOOve the original application froI7l the table and. send it back to the Planning COmnUssion, or deny theorigj~al application to allow processing of the new rezoning application. . City Attorney, noted a possible problem with the quasi~judicial ordinance. If a decision is being made based on the August, '1973, public hearing, then each Council member not present at that time would have to revjew all testimony befqre any decisions are made. The Chair ordered the matter referred to the City Attorney's office for preparation of a report on what options are available. Comm 3/3/76 See below Manager noted that applicant indicated he was withdrawing this application; there- for the city attorney's office would not be preparing a report as called for in committee action. K. COUl1t~1 Libr'",ry Meas'J1~',=- - Mr. ;"ju~Tay referred to the Caunty Corr,lTU.ssior.c'l"s I recent: dpprov..;l of viac.in'J a count//-wille librallj measure on the No','".'.'iwC',' ballot. fie feels the City shcu1d hCJ;;e further input on that s'uiJjcct. be:..ore a dec:isi on is made on any ballot measur", 0 e Manager sditl he has been advisi.>cJ by the Cit:; 1..10Tdrlan triat an :.:pcorrl1l";' Lij.>rary Board rreetinq will take action, bringing .::Iny rccor;(r:,cndc;.tions to '" S llbscquen t Commi t tcc-'() f- the-Ivholc mec t.ing. L. Con~'..act Bc~~cen eit:! and SorC/cnifi for Palace Hote!- .Jpe:ri'i-.icn :.. :~~r. [j!"adl~,! has received an inqui r'y en h'hct!Jer the contract i,tetl.;ecn t];t: City and SOLgr.:;;:ri would include services the City ....'Quld liKe Sargenf!! to 'PLO'7,i.d,,::: F31a(:,= iiot:ei residents. Nanager said details of the contract are still pend.ing. :'.'ith ~hi.:.; ty;;cJ ~,[ arrangeTTent, it ....'olilc1 ],."' riSSlllllt.'a Sorg,"nfr.i ,,,,ould in ":J3SClJc"c' prov.idc.' :lOt.',~;;?,:; at certain rent lcvt"!Js .:md und'e'l." csto1hlis::ed conditiu,;,": fur >i [.C'!',io(I of ,~:.' years for a designated number uf residents. Provlslons ....'eu.lei vc subjCCl ~C\ arbitration. There are also certain prOl'isions relating to preservaticr. of the building. It was understood that d status r....port would be brou(;;ht back to Council from the City Housi.ng Exp,:,liter. Palace Hotel Operation Status Report - Requested by Mr. Bradley at the February 25 eOmnUttee meeting. Manager noted distribution to Council members of a status report from the City Housing Expediter on the contract between the City and Sorgenfri and whether that contract included services the City would like Sorgenfri to provide Palace ,Hotel residents. ,e M. ~!lpoilJtTT'Cnts to jl'(otu,-- Plan P()li(~IJ L'(J!;;?i!~tU"e ror 1990 rla:i i'[J"Ll" ['!'OC:~:;S Planning Vi 1(?ctor'--;;-';~J':!;,;'t~o0'1~j.~1-~~,j>_ -i';;g- app(:"T;l-t-;~~t -~)-:--~--;'.Tc:i ;~~'~'l r('pr,!s,,:':~-;;~;" ,'C; to the NPPC so as not to de>] ay tJ"., uJlda te process 0, f,:il~Q:l ,"'~~,~' ..<~' 3/8/76 .1'.'. Camm 2/25/76 , File Comm 2/25/76 File Camm 3/3/76 File 17 Mr. Mu1'1'qy notcc] there are alrearly applications on file _in the City ,..lanageT's office for appoint:mc'nts to bOZlrc1s and commissions. Discussion followed 012 method of appoi.nting Zl ci. t:i.;;;c:n representativc. Corom 2/25/76 File e It was understood tha.t staff "'/Qu1d advertise the opc/l1:ng Lor such an appointment. N. !i~ss~,ul,-!~is i tatiolJ -- N.J'jor ,lllclersoll .:.tnnounl:ed Counci 1m:::l NurrdCj d,- ,} :'i~: fif_'a t h o.V' t} jL' [;ni 'v'C 1':]i t Y' .V~'.1: ghbo Uwod G ,co up wi L: i:e 5 pc., ,': in9 ":::J :"Ji 5 ":CtL ) ~1C a jjjc:'entcllnicll Planninq SI...::T!.~ncJr - ff!lcw 1\1issoula toduy c<.~n 1)C! l_ike EU~7: 1.12 torrYJrrow" . Corom 2/25/76 File Missoula Visitation - Mr. Murray commented on his trip to Missoula with University neighborhood representative Liz Heath. Missoula officials were impressed with the presentation on Eugene's responses to growth, especially in the areas of Mall and neighborhood groups. Corom 3/3/76 File Councilman Murray noted that Steve Deutsch of the University of Oregon also had taken part in the visitation but was not mentioned in the report. O. Planning Commission Appointments on Geographic Basis (discussed at February 18 Committee meeting) - Mr. Murray wondered when staff would be providing a report on whether future Planning Commission members could be selected on an equitable geographic basis. Planning Director explained staff has contacted the American Society of Planning Officials for input as to procedures followed in other cities. :It was understood a report would be available by the March 10 Comndttee meeting. Comm 3/3/76 File e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through 0 (noting information given with regard tc Item J - Zone change west of Quaker). Rollcall vote. All council member present voting aye, motion carried. III - Ordinances II-A-3 Council Bill No. 1049 - Repealing Ordinance 17526 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 4th Avenue and 5th Avenue and between Washington Street and Lawrence Street (75-13) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered' 17567. Council Bill No. 1050 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in English Oaks Subdivision, Phase I (73-1004) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. . 3/8/76 - 18 (HO }.-. t e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976 and brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation on March 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1051 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Woodhaven Subdivision, Phase I (73-1005) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976 and brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation on March 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1052 - Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway (75-24) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Councilman Williams raised the question of whether he should serve on the Assessment Panel which would hear this bill, since one of his employes, he thought, owned property that was involved in the assessment procedure. It was understood that staff would in- vestigate and report if there was any conflict. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976 and brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation on Much 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. - Council Bill No. 1053 - Levying assessments for paving and sanitary and storm sewers within English Oaks Subdivision, and Lindley Lane from Centennial Boulevard to Bardell Avenue (75-33) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976 and brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation on March 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1054 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Highway 99N from Side Street to 500 feet south (75-48) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976 and brought back for consideration of Panel recommendation on March 22, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2484 - Supporting continuance of Lane Interagency Rape Team was read by number and title. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2485 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period February 23 through March 8, 1976 was read by number and title. 3/8/76 - 19 (1:.1 1 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Manager noted that committee-of-the-whole session would convene at 11:45 a.m. on Wednesday, March 11, to give the opportunity for demonstration of a new fire truck recently acquired. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, March 22, 1976. ~el/~ City Manager 3/8/76 - 20 H\~ e - e