Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1976 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL March 22,1976 Adjourned meeting - from March 8, 1976 - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order hy His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on March 22, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and E'dna Shirey (a;Trived later). Council members Wickes Beal and Tom Williams were absent. - Public Hearings A. "Open Space Land" Designation - Cascade Manor, 65 West 30th Avenue Open SpilCC Land Designatio!l - Cascade Nanor, 65 West 30th Avenue - Copies were.pre- viously distributed to Counc.i1 members of Planning Commission off.icia1 report of February 23, 1976 recommcndinq denial of "open space land" designation requested ,by Cascade Nanor. Also distributed tvere maps of the subject area and staff notes and minutes covering Commission action. Manager explained that the designation was sought by Cascade Manor in an attempt to reduce its operating expenses. Immediate Council consideration was requested because under state law if recommendation from the city to the contrary has not been received by the County Assessor by April 1, he is obligated to honor the request for "open space land" designation. I-A-I Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to schedule public hearing on the request at the March 22 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/17/76 Pub Hrng e Manager noted that denial was recommended by the Planning Commission on February 23, 1976. He explained, however, that the petitioner had since withdrawn the petition for Open Space designation. B. Liquor Licenses - New New - 7-11 Store, 29th and Wi11amette - PS - Package Store Southland Corporation, applicant. New - Oasis Restaurant, 875 E. 13th - R - Restaurant -- --- Yaser S. and Khuzaimu. M. Barghouty, applicants. ( OITUll 3/10/76 Pub Hrng NI. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for March 22 on Items Band C. Motion carried unanimously. 1. 7-11 Store, 2895 Willamette Street (PS-Package Store) - Southland Corporation Manager explained that the OLCC report indicated no objections encountered in interviews in the neighborhood. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously (Mrs. Shirey not present). e 2. Oasis Restaurant, 875 East 13th Avenue (R-Restaurant) - Yaser and Khuzaima l3arghouty Manager explained that the proposed establishment would operate between 10:~O a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 10:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays. GLeC report indicated six in the neighborhood stated objections based on competition factors. Staff had no objections. Councilwoman Shirey entered the meeting. I 4:f.3 3/22/76 - 1 Public hearing was opened. Richard Gassman, 1717 Centennial Boulevard, Springfield, attorney representing the applicants, said the operation would be a family type restaurant special- izing in middle-eastern cuisine, that it would not be a nightclub type operation. The liquor license was requested, he said, since the owners felt some business was being lost because of their not being able to serve wine and beer with dinner. .' 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. C. Bids - Parks Department 1. Drainage Pipe Installation - Hendricks Park Approximately 650 feet of 8-inch perforated Ramsey-Waite Co. Del's Lane County Nursery Fairway Irrigation J.D.B.Landscaping and Irrigation Turf Irrigation Willamette Cascade Irrigation Willamette Lawn Sprinkling Office Estimate Staff recommended award to the low bidder, Ramsey-Waite. (Opened March 12, 1976) drain pipe along Summit Avenue path: $ 2.52/lin.ft. no bid 3.42/lin.ft. 3. 56/lin. ft. no bid 4. 24/lin.ft. 4.62/lin.ft. $ 4.30/lin.ft. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. . Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contract for the work to the low bidder, Ramsey-Waite Co., on their bid price of $2.52 per lineal foot. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. 2. Fencing - Tandy Turn Park (Opened March 18, 1976) Installation of 733 feet of 6-foot high chain link fence at Tandy Turn Park: Without With Redwood Slats Slats Valley Fence $ 3,074.20 $ 4,078.41 Cyclone Fence 3,185.00 4,769.00 Pioneer Fence 3,392.00 Jarvis Williams 3,560.00 4,900.00 Oregon Fence 3,730.00 5,310.00 Columbia Fencing 3,817.54 5,274.75 San Jose Steel Co. 3,987.00 4,927.00 Office Estimate $ 4,609.00 $ 5,342.00 Staff recommended award of contract to Valley Fence on their low bid for the fence with redwood slats. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contract for the work to the low bidder, Valley Fence, on their bid price of $4,078.41 for installation of the fence with redwood slats. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley abstaining. . 3/22/76 - 2 -'V1'1 . '. l-^-S I-B-I e e " D. Permit \:ees Schedule - Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Combination Residential Permit F~e Schedule Revision - Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Combination Residential Copies of report from the building division along with copies of ordinance and resolu- tions effecting a proposed change in fees and listing revised schedules were previously furnishe~ to Council members. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, ex- plained that the revision would establish mechanical permit fees (they had not been charged previously) and would increase fees charged for plumbing and electrical per- mits. It would also increase the combination residential permit fees which include all speciality permits in one permit package. He detailed the estimated revenues from the proposed fee schedule and said the change would bring the city's schedule into line with other cities of comparable size. Councilman Murray asked how the increases would affect rehabilitation projects. He was concerned about the initiation of a program of encouraging rehabilitation in some areas of the city and at the same time increasing fees that would discourage people from taking part. Mr. Nolte described the proposed increase as moderate for the combination permit fee and referred to a graph depicting the increase in relation to previous charges. He said the upper limit was $40,000 to $100,000 valuation. Also, that the building division was experiencing an increase in permit requests for valuations over $40,000. For projects to $3,000, he said, there was no increase in the combination permit fee. Mr. Murray said his understanding was that most of the rehabilitation projects would be valued at more than $3,000. He wondered if staff could determine some exemption for rehabilitation projects started as the result of a local government's program. Mr. Nolte estimated more than half of the rehab projects would be in excess of $3,000. He said this concern was anticipated, but staff felt the increase was justified and that it would not create an undue burden on rehab work. Manager thought some exemp- tion could be worked out, getting into the area of income level and substantial re- habilitation loans. He said one general area that could be considered were those groups under "312" where the federal government actually pays the fee. There were severa.Z ways that could be considered, he said, but it would take study as an issue separate from the fee schedule under discussion. Mr. Nolte noted there was some rehab work already being done that did not require a permit, such as painting and other superficial work deleted from the valuation of a project in arriving at the fees charged. Councilman Keller asked what fee would be charged on a $10,000 rehab project. Mr. No.Z te answered about $90 to $100 under the new schedule, which amounted to about a $15 increase over the existing fee. Mr. Keller thought that appeared rather insignificant as opposed to the hassle with alterations and changes involved in a rehdb project. He assumed $10,000 would cover the majority of such projects in this city. Mr. Murray said that though it seemed a minor amount, there were a lot of rehab projects where it was difficult to gain people's participation when there were complications. In certain parts of the city, he said, there was extreme interest .in try.ing to qet property upgraded. He said he would still like to see some staff work done to determine whether the permit fee schedule could be accommodated to rehabili- tation projects encouraged by the city. Mayor Anderson suggested that Mr. Murray make contact with the building division for discussion of his concerns, then a proposal could be brought back to the Council if something could be worked out. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the revised fee schedule as presented and schedule public hearing on the issue at the March 22 Council meeting. Comm 3/17/76 Pub Hrng It~s' 3/22/76 - 3 Councilman williams expressed concern with a motion adopting the fee schedule and at the ~ame time calling for a public hearing, but the Mayor suggested tentative ~ adoption with final action taken after public hearing on the 22nd. .., Vote. was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mick Nolte, superintendent of building inspection, reviewed background information with regard to the proposed increase (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was opened. David Benton, locI builder representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, read a prepared statement expressing concern about the increased costs in building construction because of government regulations. He compared valuation of construc- tion in Eugene with that in Springfield, saying Eugene's far exceeded the actual value of the buildings although its construction was the same type as in Springfield. He referred to a November 1975 memo from Betty Niven, chairman of the Joint Housing Committee, in which she questioned why Eugene's permit valuation increased ten times more than Springfield's in 1975 over 1974. He referred to correspondence between the company for which he worked - TransWestern Investors - and the building depart- ment with regard to actual costs for specific buildings on which they had certified the costs in accordance with fee schedule requirements for possible refund. After revision to include overhead and profit figures, he said, the building department maintained the position that valuations the department had placed on the buildings were correct, that they would equal the sales price, minimum land values, real es- tate fees, etc. He cited one house as an example which was completed in August 1975 and on which the sale price was $24,250. Total replace cost, he said, after taking ~ out land value, closing costs, real estate fees, etc., was $15,166.49. He claimed '" the permit fee should have been $121.20 whereas actual fee charged by the city was $163.62. To date, he said, no response had been received with regard to this charge (filed in January 1976) yet further increase in permit fees was being proposed. He cited a further example of identical cuplexes constructed, both with retail prices of $8,000 including land. Yet, permit fee value was set at $46,796 on one, $53,749 on the other. He questioned the equity and claimed overpayments were not bein~ worked out according to the fee schedule requirements. Mr. Benton asked that this issue be tabled until Council appointment of a task force made up of builders and other persons in related inductries to undertake a study to bring Eugene's valuations into line with those placed by the State speciality code. He thought the purpose of the State code was to equalize costs but he felt that was not being done. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Nolte said there was no proposal to increase building permit fees - the State preempts those regulations. He said the valuation schedule is reviewed annually in relation to increases in building costs. The schedule used is that published by the International Conference of Building Officials and is derived from a nationally recognized appraisal organization. Regional modifications apply to Oregon, he said. Although it does not get down to finite detail of any particular jurisdiction, he felt the figures were reasonably accurate. He said that figures quoted by Betty Niven in past Joint Housing Committee meetings were within 50~ of the per-square-foot valuation, so he didn't understand the disparity there. With ... regard to the correspondence referred to by Mr. Benton, Mr. Nolte said the valuation ~ mentioned came within a few dollars of the amount that would have been arrived at with methods used by registered appraisers and based on data published by the State Department of Revenue. He cited figures on the four buildings mentioned by Mr. Benton. 3/22/76 - 4 " ;.\Lif .\ ':*, e In response to Councilman Keller's request for explanation of difference in figures quoted, Mr. Nolte said he believed the Homebuilders figures included the annual increase in valuations over a three-year period in addition to the proposed fee schedule increase. An employe of Breeden Bros. (unidentified) said he had prepared the figures based on a schedule distributed about a week back. There was no explanation of the difference. Councilman Murray asked if there was any reduction in permit fees for city- sponsored rehabilitation projects. Manager said there were ways of arranging for exemptions that would reduce fees. However, he felt a feature such as that should be kept separate from the issue under discussion. He said that in about a month's time some suggestions could be worked out for Council consideration. Mr. Murray expressed satisfaction with that time schedule. Mayor Anderson asked how the fees proposed related to the cost of services by the building department. Also, what percentage of building department costs were met by revenues. Mr. Nolte answered that fielding one inspector takes from $18,000 to $19,000 annually - salary, fringe benefits, vehicle support, etc. The proposed increase in fees, he said, would add about $30,000 to $38,000 in annual revenue which would more nearly balance revenues of the department against costs. lie estimated about 90% of costs are now met with revenues and said there was a general fund subsidy of the department at this time. Council Bill No. 1055 - Repealing Section 8.500(3) and amending Section 8.500(4) of City Code re: Mechanical Specialty Code, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e 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. 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 17568. Resolution No. 2486 - Establishing Heating and Mechanical Permit Fees, effective April 1, 1976, was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2487 - Establishing Plumbing Permit Fees, effective April 1, 1976, was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2488 - Establishing Electrical Permit Fees, effective April 1, 1976, was read by number and title. . Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2489 - Establishing Building Permit Fees and amending Section 2 of Resolution 2302 (6/24/74), effective April 1, 1976, was read by number and title. ;' l4f7 3/22/76 - 5 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. E. Annexation east of Kimberly and Dogwood, south of 30th (Tillman) (A 75-11) Denial recommended by the Planning Commission on January 12,1976. Held over from March 8 Council meeting at the request of the petitioner. e Manager explained that this item was being withdrawn from this agenda. The peti- tioner, he said, was working out a revised proposal with staff with the idea that it would be presented to the Council/Planning Commission session scheduled for noon.on March 29 at the Thunderbird. There were no objections. II - County 4ibrary Proposal Consideration of Library Board Report on County Library Plan March 3 report of the Library Board has been distributed to Council members. Manager explained that the proposal is to establish a county-wide service invol ving the Eugene Public library and other ci ty libr.aries. The serial levy would result in a tax rate of 10 cents per thousand TCV, and the monies collected within any city would be returned to that city. In addition to establishing borrowing services for cities outside Eugene, plus a bookmobile, each library would receive an amount of money equal to 5% of what it had spent on library services the previous year. I-B-3 Nancy Hayward, Lane County Commissioner, explained that three or four years ago she was invited to attend a meeting in Florence with library board members and the Eugene librarian to talk about the extension of services to unserved areas. Concern was expressed at that time about lack of improvement or coordination, and a committee was established with representatives from all the communities having libraries, as well as users of the Eugene library. Additionally, a grant was secured from the state library to demonstrate kinds of service that cou 1 d be g.i ven w"i th some sort of regular revenue. Out of the meetings came a promise to submi t a ballot measure "this May" for the purpose of funding county library services. Mrs. Hayward noted the County would approach negotiation on administration of the county library services with an open mind. e Bob Wood, Lane County Commissioner, emphasized the sincerity of the commissioners in cooperating with Eugene to protect its interests in the library administration system. Mrs. FraQk Lacy, Library Board Chairman, said the Board favors a county system but also stresses efficient spending of dollars to support the services. Jim Meeks, Librarian, emphasized the importance of a county-wide system. Dr. Charles Williams, Library Board member, referred to the policy position of the library board as distributed to Council and said the six points contained in that position should be negotiated before the election rather than after. Mr. Murray expressed regret that the issue was going on the ballot without prior comment from the City Council. He accepts all the recorrunendations made by the Library Board. He strongly favors a countywide library system, but he feels the county proposal is a bad one because of the funding scheme. In considering the total investment Eugene citizens have made in their library, he feels the plan seems to be a gi veaway . . Mr. Plilliams wondered if the city Would be "locked in" for four years should the levy pass, even if revenues generated by the levy did not cover costs. Mr. Meeks 3/22/76 - 6 'P"~' - ~ e -- e '- ansl'ered that the city would probably be committed but tllcJt adequate revenue shol ld not be a probl~m. He esti~ted a 10-15 percent revenue increase for the Eugene library; that increase would be used to strengthen staff and inv. 'ntory. Mrs, Shirey objected to County residents paying only the 10<:/$1000 TCV rate, whi.'e City residents would pay that plus the already higher City rate. Mr. Murray suggested deleting the last paragraph of the Library Board policy starement which says that, if changes are made as proposed by them, the Board wiL~ "recommend adoption of the plan to the Eugene City Council, despite the inequity of the funding proposal." Mayor Anderson feels some ]-way communication could be hopeful, to eliminate any communications barrier, though he realizes the funding is set if the measure goes on the ballot as proposed. City Attorney pointed out that there are certain problems with the draft of the ballot measure and Assistant Manager felt the concerns regarding the language should be shared with the county. If the Council is not in favor of putting the measure on the ballot as it is, then its only recourse would be to 'Jppose the countywide plan at this point. Mayor Anderson said that the reality is that there will be a measure on the ballot regardless whether Council desires it. Mrs. Beal would feel Council would have to oppose it in its present form. It I~as pointed out that the County Commissioners are meeting on the iss '.1e "today", and Mrs. Beal fel t Council should request the Commissioners to postpone the issue until Fall, so as not to be put in the disagreeable position of opposing the whole concept. Mr. Murray mo~~d seconded by Mr. Keller to send a representative to the County Commissioner's meeting to ask postponement until a later election and to iron out the differences. Conun 3/10/76 Approve It was pointed out by a member of the Library Advisory Comndttee that that committee is operating under a federal grant that expires in June. Mr. Bradley then wondered if there could be a special election in the Summer. Mayor Anderson said it would be unfortunate to totally oppose the concept, that Council should seek to change the ballot measure wording and oppose only if that cannot be accomplished. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. ~ounty Library Proposal - Copies of memo from city attorney's office were distributed to Council members concerning a ballot measure proposed by the County for a countywide library system. Assistant Manager explained that the attorneys, after reviewing the ballot proposal, raised concerns about legalities of the measure proposed. He said those concerns had been reviewed with Bob Elfers, the County's chief administrative officer, who indicated the County would look at the measure again in light of the city's questions. A redraft of the ballot measure was expected no later than the morning of March 22, and a staff evaluation of the redraft would be prepared and pre- sented to the Council at its March 22 meeting. In response to inquiry from Mayor Anderson, Assistant Manager said it was his under- standing the redraft of the ballot title would reflect the action taken and spirit II'/~' . 3/22/76 - 7 Comm 3/17/76 Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that as the result of several meetings between the city and county at the staff level, an understanding had been reached with regard to the proposed ballot measure to be presented in the May election. The county staff is expected to have the proposed measure and ballot title ready by the morning of March 24, he said, so that it could be discussed at committee-of-the-whole that day simply as a policy question and without the encumbrance of legal issues. Councilman Murray wondered about receiving details of the proposed measure in view of the Commissioners' consideration of the matter at its meeting on March 24 before the city's committee-of-the-whole session. Mr. Long answered that the proposal would not differ in concept from that presented earlier - the county is proposing a serial levy that would raise enough money to permit expansion of the county mobile library service. If the levy passes, it is anticipated the city would be approached by the county and asked to consider entering into a contract to make the public library services available to county residents. He said the order calling for an election and the ballot explanation itself would make it clear that funds raised in the city under the measure would be refunded to the city as earmarked funds for library services. Councilman Murray asked then if Eugene's participation would still be open to negotia- tion if the measure was passed. Also, whether the tax money would be returned to Eugene if the city did participate. Mr. Long said the proposed ballot statement had been clarified so there was no ambiguity about requirement for contractual arrange- ment for city participation. His understanding of the intent was that the city's portion of the county tax would be returned to the city as earmarked funds for the library. He noted, however, the difference between returning this tax to the city and to individual taxpayers. e III - Items acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on March 10 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Hamel, Bradley, and Shirey) and March 17, 1976 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Williams, Murray, and Hamel). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A. Improvement peti tions 1.Sanitary Sewer - Pattison Street from Berntzen Street to the west within Gregory Park - 35% of assessable area on petition - no city cost. 2.paving, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer within Burnside Subdivision, - totally within subdivision - City Cost: $6000 storm sewer, $3500 sanitary sewer. 3.paving, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer within Century Maples Subdivision - totally within subdivision - City Cost: $14,000 sanitary trunk. M~. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to accept the petitions. Comm 3/10/76 Approve Mrs. Beal wondered why, on Item 1, only 35% signed the petition. Don Giluan, Assistant Public Works Director, noted the subdivision was platted ten years ago and for some reason was never developed. Owners of four or five lots have requested the sewer be extended. The other areas remain vacant. The request, a'dded Mr. Gilman, appears justified. e 3/22/76 -8 :r5d~ -e - Mrs. Beal also referred to the city costs on Items 2 and 3, expL-essing hope that eventually costs will be borne by developers, not the taxpuycrs. Mr. Gilman explained that the cost is for a larger trunk size for additional area to be served. There would be a problem with equity in assessing the property owner or developer for tne larger trunk line. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 4.Sanitary sewer on Cross Place from Cross Street to 300 feet north - Petitioned by owners of 13.71% of property to be assessed, no city cost involved. Manager explained that the project was sought by some property owners having strong interest in obtaining city sewer service; however complications were present be- cause of an existing old sewer and previous assessment paid by a portion of the property that would be served by the proposed line. e '- Don Gilman, assistant public works director, explained that the area which would be served by the proposed sewer was in an older section of the city where an existing sewer was constructed in 1925. A small subdivision was developed about 1944, without benefit of public sewers, which created Cross Place extending north from Cross Street. Several private lines were installed which are now beginning to fail - about 14 or 15 properties are involved. Mr. Gilman suggested that if the Council did not wish to accept the petition based on the small percentage, perhaps a poll of the area could be taken to determine the position of the property owners who did not sign the petition. He added that about half the properties involved lie within the area previously assessed for the old city sewer, and al- though they would benefit from construction of the proposed system, the city probably would not be able to assess them for part of the cost under normal city policy. Councilman Murray expressed concern about going ahead with the project, especially because of the precedent involved with regard to those properties for which assess- ments have already been paid. In response to Assistant Manager, Mr. Gilman explained that about half the area petitioning the new system lies within the area previously assessed; about half is outside the old assessment area. The petition was sub- mitted because some of the lines are becoming plugged, are collapsing or generally are presenting some type of problem. Ruth Metzger, 147 Cross Place, described the problems property owners on her side of Cross Place were having with lines becoming plugged and sewage backing up into their houses. She said that properties on the other side of the street had never had any trouble with the lines. In response to Mayor Anderson, Mr. Gilman said that the 13+% on the petition re- presented three properties. As to whether it was definitely a health hazard, he said it was at least a nuisance to those having the problems. Mr. Keller,asked for comments regarding a sewer installed in the University area at city expense under similar conditions. Mr. Gilman answered that in that instance the installa- tion replaced a city sewer that was deteriorating; this system if installed would take the place of private lines. Further, those private lines were connected to the city sewer with no charge ever having been made for the connection. - Councilman Murray asked which properties were originally assessed and for what. Mr. Gilman pointed out the area on a map and indicated those properties lying beyond the 160-foot area assessed for the city sewer to which the private lines were connected without any charge levied. "-' Mr. Murray wondered if authorization could be given to exempt those few properties that had already been assessed, but the Mayor thought legal problems would be en- JSI 3/22/76 - 9 countered. Assistant Manager suggested acceptance of the petition with the under- standing the staff would bring information at time of contract award with regard to some equit~ble arrangement. He said engineering estimates would be available 4i' then on which to base some decision.concerning method of assessment. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve the petition with the understanding that further consideration would be given to equitable assessments at time of public hearing on contract award for the project. Corom 3/17/76 Approve Councilman Williams asked for verification - signatures appearing on the petition were of those property owners in favor of the project only, there were no signa- tures in opposition? Mr. Gilman said that was true, no contact had been made wi th property owners who had not signed. Mr. Keller asked that staff maintain close contact with all of the property owners who would be involved in the assess- ment district to keep them informed wi th regard to the project. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Sani tary sewer in Capricorn Estates 6. Paving and sanitary and storm sewers in Edgewood Mountain II Both petitioned by owners of 100% of property to be assessed. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve the petitions. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/17/76 Approve B. Authorization for Assessment Segregation Elma D. Brower c/o Enlil Johnson, S.E. Corner Echo Hollow and Marshall Avenue, Tax Lot 8500, (SE 76-2) - Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize segregation. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 3/10/76 Approve C. Liquor Licenses 1. Change of Ownership - Miller's Grocery, 1065 E. 20th - PS - Package Store James and Nelda Curry, applicants. Staff has no objections. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to recommend approval. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Liquor License - Palace Market, 3325 Donald Street (PS-Package Store) - Submitted for addition of partner only - Lance G. Martin. Staff had no objections. Corom Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of 3/17/76 the application. Motion carried unanimously. Approve Corom 3/10/76 Approve D. Approval of 1990 Plan Major Update Process Council has received a report from Planning Director dated March 4, 1976. Mr. Porter explained that the subconmUttee, appointed at the February 25 COnmUttee meeting, met on March 1 to discuss the process. In attendance were Mayor Anderson, Council members Beal and Keller, City Manager and Mr. Porter. The group proposed that a 7-member Metropoli tan Plan Policy Commi ttee be _ established, rather than the originally proposed ll-member comnlittee, and that ,., it consist of an elected official from each of the three jurisdictions, a planning commissioner from each of the three and one representative from MAPAC. The group felt too that citizen appointment to the committee would be unnecessary 3/22/76 - 10 ~~~~, - - e '-' e '- due to lay citizen input provided by the membership of MAPAC. In addition, the commi ttee thought it unnecessary for Eugene to have a weighted vote on the Committee because of review phases during the update process. If any disagreement oc~urred during the review phases, the process would go back to the policy cor~ittee. Additionally, the comrndttee proposed that the formal structure for thE:' Study Team and Technical Advisory Committee be abandoned and that the three jurisdictions and LCGG work to establish an administrative agreement to service tht. Policy Cornmi ttee. Funding should be the responsibili ty of the local juriSdictions and the State, with Eugene funding 50%, Springfield 25% and Lane County 25%. State assistance should be sought, they felt, due to the required conform:J.nce of the metropolitan plcln with the State's Goals and GuideI ines. Mr. Porter also displayed a chart, as distributed to Council, outlining the four phases of the update process. Mrs Beal expressed concern with Eugene paying twice as much but having an equ Ii vote. Mr. Keller and Mayor Andersonbqth expressed the thought that the Committee had further streamlined the process. Mr. Murray was satisfied with.the staff role as proposed and with the makeup of the policy committee. However, he expressed great dissatisfaction with the funding arrangements; Eugene should not have to pay twice as much and not ha ve twice as many votes, he. sai d . Mayor Anderson responded that the co~ttee structure was felt to be more of a negotiating body to iron out differences, with checks and balances, and that the funding arrangement seemed most satisfactory, though other proposals for funding could be conside~ed. Funding should not be related to representation, he fel t. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Bradley to restructure the funding to an equal 1/3 allocation for each of the three jurisdictions. Mrs. Beal expressed agreement with Mr. Murray's philosophy but was worried that, with equal 1/3 funding, the update process might not be adequately funded. She suggested maybe as a compromise the MAPAC representative to the comrndttee could be appointed by the Eugene City Council. Mr. Murray felt that would be an improvement but still feels the funding ShOlld be equitable. Perhaps Eugene's money would be better spent on more concentrated plan refinement within the city limits, he said. With the economic situation and city layoffs as they are, he cannot justify this type of expense to the taxpayers. Mr. Keller said the study group felt the important thing was to bring people to~~ther for discussion and planning, with opportunity to agree or disagree. He .toes not feel Mr. Murray's suggestion would be any more beneficial. Eugene hap.oens to represent 50% of the people so should probably pay 50%, he said. Mr. Williams does not feel Mr. Murray's motion is realistic. The question of how voting power should be allocated is not a question of right or wrong, he said, but rather a question of reality. Since any document will have to be ado.?ted through the political entities of all three jurisdictions, there will be no document without concurrence by all three. Mr. Murray responded that realities do change. '.SJ, 3/22/76 - 11 Vote was taken on the motion which failed, Council members Shirey, Murray, Bradley and Haws voting aye; Council members Williams, Keller, Hamel, Beal and Mayor Anderson voting no. e Mr,. Keller moved seconded by update process as proposed. voting aye except Mr. Murray Mr. ~lil1iams to Motion carried, voting no. approve the 1990 Plan major all council members present Corom 3/10/76 Approve Councilman Murray corrunented on publication of notice asking attendance at a meeting to discuss updating the 1990 Plan. He thought it unfortunate, saying that if the city was to take part, the meeting should at least wait until the decision to participate had been made. E. 12 _ 'rinciples for the Development of the Metropoli tan Area TraiJspoL'tationPlan_ Mar:h 1 report .from LCOG has been distributed to _ Council members. . .. . . Mr. WilliamS expr~ssed coilcer~- with PrinciPle: No~ 8 dealing with response- to level of service. It states that street jmpi:ovement wi1-l be consider-ed if traffic volume is projected to exceed maximum capacity (level of service E). He wondered what that level of service re.presented. Bill Guenzler, LCOG, responded that level E is approaching an unstable condition wherein minor traffic accidents or disruptions could occur - a stop and go condition. Mr.-Williams wondered-how it would apply to the FerryStr.eet Bridge, and Mr. Guenzler estimated that the bridge itself probably would not fit level E but that the southern approach could possible be classed as E for a short period of time during peak rush hour. That kind of evaluation is difficult, however, because the scale of need is identified more on a street length kind of thing. e In applying the standard in Principle No.8, then, the approach would call for sorre street improvement, though the bridge would not as it is judged more in the area of level of service D in the evening peak hour. Dave Reinhard, Public Works Planning Engineer, explained that the kind of analysis they undertook indicates the level of service for the entire peak hour. Almost no locations are at E or worse for an entire hour but rather for a short period of time, he said. Mr. Williams was troubled with the possibility of an entire hour of traffic congestion as it is on the access to the Ferry Street Bridge. Mr. Bradley referred to Principle No. 4 which outlines a consensus of 14% transit. He wondered if that concept would work independently of No.8 which states improvement will be considered on streets exceeding level of service E. Mr. Reinhard felt Nos. 4 and 8 would work independently of one another. In modeling areawide, 14% will be applied; those streets with traffic equalling or worse than level E would call for improvement alternatives consideration. Mrs. Beal referred to funding sources in Principle 1-1, wondering how they would be broken down. Mr. Guenzler felt it would be workable to identify a particular facility with the jurisdiction having responsibility for implementing it. If mass transit is involved, the transit district and the jurisdiction in which the facility is located would be logical sources. Mr. Murray requested staff comment on whether Principle No. 3 is in accordance with the policy statement originally adopted by Council on ESATS, particularly Section (4) in that original document regarding land use. - 3/22/76 - 12 - ,t~514f ' e ......... Mr. Porter felt that Council's policy on land use was taken into consideration in distribution of work and population trips. They took certain neighborhoods into account and are considering allocation of additional housing to reflect Eugene's policies. Mr. Murray wondered if balanced land use would be extensive or go beyond what will be allowable under the 1990 Plan. Mr. Guenzler replied the adjustments now are much more modest than first discussed, with a trend toward self-containment of neighborhoods. Mr. Guenzler' concluded he does not believe the concept violates the provisions of the 1990 Plan. Mr. Murray suggested adding the word "immediately" before the words "Skinner But :e" i/l Principle No.3, as well as substituting "dor;mtown" for "near" in "ne,Jr-westside Eugene area", the sentence then read.ing, "For example, ,increased residential densities for ,the year 2000 will be assumedJ.n at least the Springfield Main Street area', ,Goodpasture island~ the az'ea "immediately Iv'est of Skinner Butte, and dowrrtdwn'-'westside, Eugene area". There were no objections to Mr. Murray's suggestions. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to table further discussion to the March 24 Commdttee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 3/10/76 Approve F. Assessment Panel Report - March 15, 1976 "Present: Council members williams and Haws; City Engineer Bert Teitzel. e --- 1.C.B.1050 - Special sewer levy in English Oaks Subdivision, Phase I (73-1004) No written protests were filed. Requests to be heard were received from R. Bateman, 485 Mar Loop; John Ratchford, 415 Mar Loop; and Orlando Caruso, 490 Mar Loop. Messrs. Bateman and Ratchford did not appear. Mr. Teitze1 explained that this subdivision was developed and streets and sewers constructed under private contract by the developer in 1973. Last year, the city installed improvements for another portion of the subdivision, he said. At that time, it was discovered the balance of the subdivision had not been assessed the 1/2~ per-square-foot levy usually levied against properties annexed since 1948 when laterals are installed to defray cost of trunk sewers and sewage treatment plant. Also, when the subdivision was developed, installation of dry line sewers (laterals) were required so that connection could be made to the trunk line when it was installed (Chevy Chase area which will be served by the east b~k trunk). Mr. Teitzel added that had the 1/2~ per-square-foot levy been assessed when the subdivision was developed, it would have been assessed to the subdivider and sup- posedly passed on to the individuals buying the lots. Now, it is being assessed to the individual property owners. --- Mr. Caruso said he had the understanding from the developer when he (Caruso) pur- chased his property that all improvements had been paid for, that the only cost he would have would be for connection to the trunk line. In response to Mr. Williams, he said that that understanding was not in writing. Also in response to Mr. Williams, Mr. Teitzel explained that the 1/29 levy is usually assessed along with assessments for lateral lines. Staff's recommendation in this instance, he said, was to levy this special sewer assessment against the properties as pro- posed ($1,970.61) but to defer payment until connection to the trunk sewer is made. He added that there was no code provision to allow for that type of deferment, but a similar deferment had been allowed for properties on Centennial Boulevard e IS5 3/22/76 - 13 prior to getting trunk service to that area. In further response to Mr. Williams as to whether the properties involved had been previously assessed for sewer service, Mr. Teitzel said that the laterals had been installed and paid for by the developer, and it is assumed the cost was passed on to the individuals buying the lots. e_ Mr. Caruso brought up the question of the $2.00 water user charge collected by EUgene Water & Electric Board in connection with its billings for water and electric service. . He objected to paying the $2.00 fee when his property was not connected to a sewer. He further stated an understanding he had from someone in the public works department that the $2.00 per month would pay for connection to the city sewer to the extent of $84.00. He said he was told that when $84.00 had been paid through this $2.00 charge, there would be no further connection charge, only the $2.00 water user fee each month. He said he was also told that if the $2.00 fee was not paid, his water service would be disconnected. He added that a neighbor of his, in the same situation, was not being billed this $2.00 fee. Both Councilmen Williams and Haws and Mr. Teitzel explained that the purpose of the $2.00 fee, paid by all users of EWEB water regardless of whether they live in- side or outside the city, was to pay the cost of maintenance of trunk sewers and sewage treatment plant. It was understood the statements reported by Mr. Caruso would be investigated to correct any possible misunderstanding. Mr. Caruso mentioned also a $3.00+ charge included in the electric bill which he felt should be itemized. Councilman Haws commented that he would be "uncomfortable explaining what EWEB does." Mr. Caruso brought the discussion back to the cost of sewer connections and said he thought it should be paid by the developer. Mr. Williams answered that that would a be a legal issue between the property owner and the developer. He added that when ., the sewers were finally connected to trunk service, the only cost would be that connection charge (in addition to the 1/2~ levy if it is deferred to that time). Mr. Teitzel explained that the connection cost would depend upon whether lines were installed from the house to the street. It is not known whether the developer installed connection lines to the houses; if not, there would be some additional cost to the property owner in getting those lines extended to the laterals. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed but defer payment until trunk sewer is installed and the area actually served. 2.C.B.1051 - Special sewer levy in Woodhaven Subdivision, Phase I (73-1005) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3.C.B.1052 - Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway (75-24) No written protests or requests to be heard were received, other than from Ed Wheeler, 3320 Chambers Street, who wanted to attend the hearing with regard to deferred portion of the assessment. Mr. Teitze1 advised that Mr. Wheeler had phoned, saying he would not attend. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 4. C.B.1053 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within ~ English Oaks Subdivision, and Lindley Lane from Centennial Boulevard to Bardell Avenue (75-33) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. ~6'b,.. 3/22/76 - 14 e '-' 5. C.B.1054 - Levying assessments on Highway 99N from Side Street to 500 feet south (75-48) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed." Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Murray to accept the report and levy the assessments as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/17/76 Approve G.Assessment Deferrals, Skyline Loop Annexation Area - Manager explained code -provisions that allow the Council to defer assessments "...if it is considered in the best interest of the city to do so." Authorization was requested under that code provi- sion, he said, to defer projected assessments against nine properties for construction of sanitary sewer in the Skyline Loop area. Estimated total amount of the assessments was $41,124.00 for serving a 342,700 square foot area. List of the properties in- volved and map of sUbject area were previously distributed to Council: Estimated @ 129/sq.ft. $ 6,792.00 6,648.00 1,920.00 1,920.00 6,372.00 2,880.00 2,880.00 2,880.00 8,832.00 Jack Stuber John Powell Lloyd L. Lovell Robert Apinter W. Bartlett Jack Racely Bob Wynia Peter Lorenz William G. Ross Sq.Ft. 56,600 55,400 16,000 16,000 53,100 24,000 24,000 24,000 73,600 e Don Gilman, assistant public works director, explained that sanitary sewers had been '- constructed in roadways to serve this area, annexed about a year and a half ago under health hazard annexation laws. Construction is now to the point where lines have to go through large parcels of undeveloped private property in quite hilly terrain where the owners are not willing to grant easements and at the same time face large assess- ments. Public works recommendation was to defer those assessments until the prop- erty was developed and connections to the sewer made. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to authorize deferral of assess- ments as recommended. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Murray abstaining. Comm 3/17/76 Approve Councilman Murray noted his intent to abstain from voting on this item. H. Improvement of Wil1amette Street from 40th Avenue to 500 feet south of Coachman Drive . Memo from public works department outlining the proposed improvement and record of meeting with neighborhood groups were distributed to Council members with agenda. Staff suggested setting public hearing for the April 12 Council meeting. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to schedule public hearing on the proposed improvement for the April 12 Council meeting. e Comm 3/17/76 Approve Councilman Haws wondered if setting a public hearing at this point would be a devia- tion, whether recommending a public hearing was because of anticipated opposition. If it was, he wondered if the theory now would be to hold public hearings at this point in the process whenever there was opposition. Don Gilman, assistant public .,-" IS.? 3/22/76 - 15 works director, explained that"this -project was now to the point where the Council needs to decide whether to proceed with the final design and call bids for award of contract. The Council has the option to make that decision without a public hearing, ~e said, but he advised that the people in the South willamette area have ~ the understanding that a public hearing would be held first. Mr. Gilman added that should the Council decide not to go ahead with improvement, staff would prefer knowing that at this point before spending more time and money on design work. By going through a public hearing with the property owners now, he said, the Council would hav~ a better basis for determining whether the improvement as proposed should proceed. Manager asked if public works staff would anticipate delegations from the neighbor- hoods at the Council meeting if the improvement project was an item on the consent calendar for approval. Mr. Gilman thought the property owners would not come back to the Council until the public hearing was held on contract award, after the design had been finalized and bids called. The public hearing proposed at this time, he said, was: just another step to determine ahead of time whether the Council wished to proceed. He agreed with Manager's statement that staff position was in favor of going ahead with the project. There was some discussion between Mayor Anderson and Councilman existing documentation with regard to the critical situation on and the number of times it had already been before the Council. that there would be three public hearings on the project before work - the one now proposed, one at time of contract award, and project is assessed. Haws wi th regard to the subject street It was brought out completion of the another when the Vote was taken on the motion to set public hearing for the April 12 Council meeting. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Haws voting no. ~ I. Sale, City-owned Lots - List of properties (foreclosed by the city because of unpaid assessment liens) on which bids were received by the finance department was presented: Lot 22, Block 5, 4th Addition to Southern Oaks (18-03-08-04-3212) John F. and Angeline S. Monahan bid $4,600.00 Lot 2, Block 5, 1st Addition to Southern Oaks (18-03-08-04-2924) John F.. and Angeline S. Monahan bid $3,800.00 Lot 9, Block 3, Barker Subdivision (17-03-33-43-6214) Flora G. Anderson bid $6,567.95 Lot 7, Block 3, Barker Subdivision (17-03-33-43-6212) Countryman Realty, Inc. Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan and Trust bid $4,652.00 Lot 8, Block 3, Barker Subdivision (17-03-33-43-6213) Countryman Realty, Inc. Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan and Trust bid $4,652.00 Lot 7, Block 3, 1st Addition to Southern Oaks (18-03-08-04-2921) Countryman Realty, Inc. Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan and Trust bid $3,652.00 Lot 5, B1~ck 1, Southern Oaks Addition (18-03-08-03-2905) Coun tryman Real ty, Inc. Profi t Sharing and Retiremen t Plan and Trust bid $3,652.00 Lot 6, Block 10, 5th Addition to Southern Oaks (18-03-08-04-2508) Richard w. and Lawauna Roebuck bid $3,626.00 3/22/76 - 16 t5.~/. e . e -' e --- Comm.- - Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to accept the bids as presented. 3/17/76 Approve Councilman Williams asked whether the bids offered approximated appraised values of the properties. Maurice Mitchell, assistant finance director, said the proper- ties were appraised before bids were called, and that the bids received were in line with fair market values. Councilman Murray asked what other city-owned property remained to be sold. He noted that land-bank money had been set aside for the purpose of acquiring sites for re- locating existing homes which might be affected by other community development projects. He wondered if it was advisable to dispose of city-owned property when it might be used for other housing. Mr. Mitchell advised that there were three lots left in this foreclosure group but all were of questionable value as building sites because of their location on a very steep slope. Manager said the finance director had reported that the lots on which bids were received were also difficult building sites. Some system of referral to the HCC staff should be established, he said, to consider the possibility of using foreclosed properties for land bank purposes. However it was pointed out that disposal of such properties was governed by strict charter provi- sions which would require HCC to submi t bids. Assistant Manager explained also the requirement for a redemption period to give owners an opportunity to reclaim prop- erties should they wish to do so. And the HCC would have to reimburse the Bancroft fund the amount of the unpaid assessments for the improvements in order to maintain the bonds. That could amount to less than market value, he said. He noted that lists of foreclosed properties are now referred to the parks department before going to bid so the same type of referral could be established for the HCC. He added that a sizeable group of properties would be coming up for foreclosure this fall. John Porter, planning director, explained that the list of properties presented and being sold now were located in a subdivision noted for earth slippage, on very steep ter- rain, so that moving houses onto them would be very difficult and could increase the cost of construction by $4,000 to $6,000. Vote was taken on the motion to authorize sale of the properties as Presented. Motion carried unanimously. J. First Annual Review, Eugene Bikeway Master Plan - Ruth Bascom, chairman of the Eugene Bicycle Committee, explained that the only significant changes in the Master Plan as a result of this first annual review were the addition of a route along the West side of the Belt Line in the Bethel area and the deletion of the proposed facility along West 11th Avenue. An alternative route is to be developed along the Amazon Channel which would have paralleled the West 11th facility. Both the Planning Commission and Eugene Bicycle COrnmQttee recommended approval of the review. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to adopt the Bikeway Master Plan changes as presented. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Comm 3/17/76 Approve K.Amendment, Oregon Transportation Plan - Copies of memo were previously distributed to Council members from the Airport Commission objecting to a portion of proposed amendment to the Oregon Transportation Plan. The memo also stated the Commission's position in opposition to the assumption with regard to public transportation be- L.~een cities. That assumption stated was that the level of commercial air service s~ould be limited to increased commuter air service between selected city pairs. Bob Shelby, airport manager, explained that the basic issue was whether the Oregon Transportation Department staff should be proceeding on the stated assumption in face of Oregon Aviation System Plan and the Oregon Commuter Air Service Project Re- port, both officially adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission to provide for orderly growth of air transportation. He said the Eugene Airport Commission was suggesting that the already adopted plans should be woven into the overall state transportation plan rather than having a presentation of conflicting assumptions. ISf 3/22/76 - 17 Councilman Murray asked about the "other side of the argument," what the reasons were for presenting the assumptions. Mr. Shelby replied that in the state hearings t~ere were. no really clearcut preferences indicated between air/rail/bus transporta- t~on, although state staff chose to favor rail transportation because it was more energy eff~cient. He thought public opinion would be expressed at a hearing scheduled for March 30. -- Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to adopt the position stated by th~ Airport Commission. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/17/76 Discuss further Councilman Murray asked staff for a "pro and con" assessment of the Airport Commission's position on amendment to the Transportation Plan. He was not sure he understood the advantages of the Commission's stand, or what might be on the other side of the issue. Assistant Manager said his understanding was that State staff recommendation - that mass transit/intercity transit by air was less energy efficient - was put into the Plan without discussion by the Advisory Council. That position, he said, appeared inconsis- tent with a number of other transportation studies in other arms of the same agency. There was not a lot of argument on the other side other than on energy efficiencies, yet the position seemed inconsistent because of contribution of commuter service to economic Vitality of the State. Councilman Murray asked for a brief description of the long-term economic effect the city of Eugene would face taking either position presented. He thought that taking the Com- mission's position would be "going out in front" in terms of advocating expansion that may in the end be disadvantageous in terms of higher prices in supporting services. Assistant Manager said the long-term economic effect was something that would have to come from some sort of economic development plan. Mr. Murray's point could prove true, he said, if advocating expansion of commuter services was the policy direction pursued ~ by the city. However, the policy has been to require airport users to bear costs of services, costs of providing a higher standard of service at the airport facility. Councilman Murray asked to what percentage that was true now, and whether staff would advocate increasing users rates and fees at some future date. Assistant Manager answered that the percentage figures could be obtained from the Airport study. At the present time, he said, general aviation as well as scheduled aircraft are bearing the cost of maintenance of the facility, but not the debt service. He added that this would probably be the last year that would be possible without a substantial change in rates now being negotiated with the air lines. With regard to increasing users fees, Assistant Manager suggested discussing that a more length after this meeting concluded. He said if the amendment to the Plan was adopted in its present form the city would be placed in the position of encouraging more effective uses of scheduled air carrier service. However, he felt that would have the attendant benefit of balancing the Cost of operation at the airport. Councilman Murray asked that the Council continue to receive information in this re- gard. At Councilman Haws request, it was understood copies of Airport Commission minutes covering discussion of the amendment and the Commission recommendation as well as a written report would be distributed to Council members before further dis- cussion at a later meeting. L. Amendment, Regional Sewer Agreement - Copies of letter from Metropolitan Sewer Ad- visory Commission were previously distributed to Council requesting amendment to the metropolitan sewer agreement. The amendment, requested by Springfield, would allow Springfield's second member of the Advisory Commission to be a resident of Spring- .field only, and not specifically a member of the Springfield Utility Board. e 3/22/76 - 18 Hd0" e -, Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to approve the proposed amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 3/17/76 Approve . M.Amendment, Council Bylaws re: Setting public hearings - Council members previously received copies of proposed resolution that would amend the Council bylaws to allow public hearings required on quasi-judicial matters to be scheduled by the city manager rather than being set by the Council at cOmroQttee-of-the-whole meetings. Jim Korth, city attorney's office, explained that primarily the amendment would do away with referral to the committee-of-the-whole of those matters which are required to be considered in public hearing by the entire Council anyway. Assistant Manager added that the proposed process would not discontinue the distribution of Planning Commis- sion materials. Manager suggested listing at the end of committee-of-the-whole agendas those items scheduled for public hearing so the Council would be aware of what would appear on the regular Council meeting agendas. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. carried unanimously. Motion Comm 3/17/76 Approve N. Use of Room Tax Money for Open Space Acquisition - Mr. Murray requested ,an opinion from the City Attorney at SOIre future date on whether it would be legal to use room tax money, earmarked for recreational and tourist purposes, for open space acquisition. Comm 3/10/76 Affirm O. Goodpasture Island Building Construction - Mr. Bradley requested staff comment on the status of the Goodpasture Island annexation, particularly because of a new office complex he understands will be built in that area which is not in the city. He wondered if Council would want to take a posi tion to protect its interests in view of the high vacancy factor in Eugene downtown office space. Comm 3/10/76 Affirm e -- P. Criminal Justice Goals - Mr. Bradley referred to correspondence recei ved by Council regarding the arrest of a woman whose dog was at large and her subsequent dealings with the Public Information Officer in the Manager's Office. Mr. Bradley expressed concern with Police Department priorities, feeling that area perhaps should be decriminalized to prevent recurrence of as much time being spent on problems such as the one in 'question. Mrs. Beal concurred, and Mr. Murray noted the Community Goals comrndttee is currently working on the refinement of community. goals calling for social goals processes. It was understood that goals and objectives in the area of public safety' would be discussed at a subsequent conmdttee meeting~ Comm 3/10/76 Affirm Q. 'Jail Tour - Letter was received from the Citizen's Advisory Committee to Adult Corrections in Lane County and copies previously distributed to Council members inviting them to tour the Lane County Correctional Facility. Manager explained that the best time for such a tour appeared to be about 1:00 p.m. and could be arranged for a Wednesday immediately fOllowing a committee-of-the-whole meeting. Comm h b " d . ' 3/17/76 T ere were no 0 Ject~ons, an ~ t was understood the Manager would Aff' h d 1 . h ~rm sc e u e a tour ~n t e next couple of weeks. e R. Appointments, Policy Committee for 1990 Plan Update - Manager reported that the Springfield Planning Commission and Council and County Commissioners had accepted the composition of the Plan POlicy Committee as proposed in the update process. He suggested that the Council consider appointing one of its membership and~that r((;:~ . 3/22/76 - 19 the PlaJiningCommission submit a name from its membership for appointment to be considered at the March 24 committee-of-the-whole meeting. Council President Keller asked any Council member interested in serving to contact him during this week, then he would call a meeting of the Council for the purpose of selecting the appointee. Corom 3/17/76 Affirm . S. Fire Truck Demonstration - Manager announced that the new Fire Department ladder truck, demonstrated before "this rreeting" will be on display Saturday, March 13, at the Mall between 1:30 and 2:30, and at Valley River Center between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. Corom 3/10/76 File T.Assessrrent Hearing Panel - March 15 - In answer to an earlier quest:ion from Mr. Williams on a possible conflict in his serving on the March 15 hearings panel, Manager noted an assessment to be heard does not invol ve one of Mr. Williams' employees. Comm 3/10/76 File U~LWV Pamphlet - Mr. Bradley distributed League of Worren Voters pamphlets regarding Corom Senate Bin 100. 3/10/76 File V. Congressional/City Conference - Revenue Sharing - City Manager Henry reported on his attendance at the Congressional/City Conference in Washington, D.C., March 14-16, devoted entirely to discussion of revenue sharing legislation. He said this was a very crucial time for revenue sharing, that a lot of maneuvering and opposition was causing grave concern on the part of the many ci ties affected. The very earliest time that legislation could be enacted to retain revenue sharing, he said, would be in September or October of this year, i.e., when final legislation can be approved and adopted. If it is not approved, many municipal programs will be interrupted, but most disturbing is the way the legislation has been delayed in Congressional com- mittees. Mr. Henry continued that Eugene Council members at the conference with about 2000 others from various cities across the nation as a group interviewed almost every member of Congress and presented the need for continuing revenue sharing. The issue was far froIrJ decided, he said. Very influential groups were requesting changes in the legislation which was resulting only in delay and difficulty for Congress to arrive at a consensus. He said council members agreed there could be some improvement in the law, but they also recognized that there would not be sufficient agreement to get the law if all those improvements were explored endlessly as seems to be the process now. He noted that in the case of Eugene, lack of revenue sharing funds would mean the difference o.f about $2.3 million, representing some 100 to 150 positions for the city as well as social service programs and other special projects of great merit to both the city and county. He hoped that citizen groups here realized that. e Comm 3/17/76 File Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A through J, and L through V, noting that Item K - Amendment, Oregon Transportation Plan would be further discussed at a later meeting. Rollcall.vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. IV - Ordinances Council Bill No. 1047 - Adding Section 2.196 to City Code providing for fluoridation of water supply, effective upon approval of voters, read the first time on March 8, 1976 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, 4It was read the second time 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. Bradley that the bill be approved and given final passage. 3/22/76 - 20 l":~ II-A-l . e -- - Councilman Hamel said he would still vote against submitting the fluoridation issue to the voters. He felt the people wanting the measure on the ballot should solicit the signatures for an initiative petition. He didn't think he should say the measure should be on the ballot when adding fluorides to the water was something he was not sure him- self was safe. ~. .. Councilwoman Shirey agreed, sayingJ~e had the same concerns now that S,h,e had.i, .~,......., voted against it previously; . z't", ' "'" .... Councilman Haws asked how the fluoridation issue was submitted to the voters ~ore ,;' whether by petition or by order of the Council. Assistant Manager answered tM~t the~ only initiative petition that c::ame to mind was that on the second vot~ .'on the audi tJt. :~~ ,- Mayor Anderson thought each Council member would have to determine the merit of the issue and decide whether another vote would be in order. He said th~issue was first proposed in 1964 by referral; that measure was repealed on initiative petition. Manager added that the first vote was at the November general election in 1964, which by ini- tiative petition was repealed in a special election in March 1965. The Mayor commented that the character of the constituency had changed since the measure was last voted on. He said he had seen nothing to support the arguments pre- sented at that time - some predictions made at that time did not occur becuase of add- ing fluoride to the water. He didn't want to get into the issue at this time of whe- ther fluoride should or should not be added, rather the issue should be whether the constituency should be allowed to determine that - and that would mean getting the proper information to the voters. He added that fluoridation was of nationwide signi- ficance and Eugene voters should have the advantage of nationwaide information to determine themselves whether they want it. Councilman Bradley thought referring the issue to the voters was asking only for an ad- visory opinion, that the Council itself had the authority to order fluoride added to the water. For that reason, he said, whether proponents of the measure should have the necessary signatures to place the issue on the ballot was not an appropriate argument. But Mr. Hamel said he didn't want to be responsible for waying the people would have fluoride regardless of whether they wanted it - they should decide that. He asked why people should be forced to accept a chemical in their drinking 'water, why should they even be asked. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion to approve and give final passage. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Murray, Bradley, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Hamel, and Shirey voting no _ and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17594. Council Bill No. 1048 - Ordering special election concurrently with general election on November 2, 1976 re: Fluoridation of water supply, read the first time on March 8, 1976 and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. See discussion under Council Bill No. 1047. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Murray, Bradley, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, Hamel, and Shirey voting no ~;and the bill was declared passed and numbered 17595. .... :': .~.-,I" Resolution No. 248~:~ Submitting to voters at special election to be held con- currently with general election on November 2, 1976 a code amendment providing for fluoridation of water supply, was lead by number and title. ' I'foJ 3/22/76 - 21 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Bradley to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Haws, Murray, and Bradley voting aye; Council members Hamel and Shirey voting no. tit Council Bill No. 1050 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in English Oaks .,;. Subdivision, Phase I, deferring payment until installation of , trunk sewer and service actually provided (73.-1004), read the first time on Mar~~...,J.~' 1976. ~nd referred to.Assessment Panel ~~. hearing on March 15, 1976, was brotilJJ~back with recommendatlon to levy assessments as proposed but defer payment _until connection to trunk sewer is actually made. The bill was read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present request- ~g that it b~read in full. Mp~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 anCS' numbered 17569. Council Bill No. 1051 - Levying assessments for special sewer levy in Woodhaven Subdivision, Phase I (73-1005), read the first time on March 8, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed and read the second time 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 approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17570. Council Bill No. 1052 - Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Chambers Street from McLean Boulevard to Lorane Highway (75-24) read the first time on March 8, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e " " '"" 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 17571. Council Bill No. 1053 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers within English Oaks Subdivision and Lindley Lane from Centennial Boulevard to Bardell Avenue (75-33), read the first time on March 8, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed and read the second time 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 approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17572. Council Bill No. 1054 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Highway 99N from Side Street to 500 feet south (75-48), read the first time on March 8, 1976 and referred to Assessments Panel for hearing on March 15, 1976, ~ was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed and read the ~ second time by council bill number and title only, there b$i~ no Council: member present requesting that it be read in full. 3/22/76 - 22 \ lo~ e 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 17573. Council Bill No. 1056 - Paving streets within Velkommen Park Subdivision (1199) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilmember 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. 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 17574. Council Bill No. 1057 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Velkommen Park Subdivision 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e 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 17575. Council Bill No. 1058 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer to serve Velkommen Park Subdivision and property within 160 feet of the north and west boundaries of Velkommen Park Subdivision (1199) 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. 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 17576. Council Bill No. 1059 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer to serve Velkommen Park Subdivision and prop- erty within 160 feet of the north and west boundaries of Velkommen Park Subdivision 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. 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 17577. "5 3/22/76 - 23 Coancil Bill No. 1060 - Sanitary sewer on Pattison Street from Berntzen Street to the west within Gregory Park (1285) 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 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 17578. Council Bill No. 1061 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Pattison Street from Berntzen Street to the west within Gregory Park 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. 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 17579. Council Bill No. 1062 - Paving streets within Burnside Subdivision (904) 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. 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 17580. Council Bill No. 1063 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Burnside Subdivision 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. 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 17581. Council Bill No. 1064 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Burnside Subdivision ~ was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 3(27/76 _ 24 H;;() 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council 4It 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 17582. Council Bill No. 1065 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Burnside Subdivision 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. 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 17583. Council Bill No. 1066 - Paving streets within Century Maples Subdivision (1248) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilmember 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. 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 17584 . Council Bill No. 1067 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Century Maples Subdivision 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. 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 17585. Council Bill No. 1068 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Century Maples Sub- division 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 3/22/76 - 25 ~1 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 17586. e Council Bill No. 1069 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Century Maples Subdivision 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 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. 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 17587. Council Bill No. 1070 - Sanitary sewer within Capricorn Estates Subdivision (1219) 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. 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 17588. ~ Council Bill No. 1071 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer within Capricorn Estates Subdivision 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. 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 175Sg. Council Bill No. 1072 - Paving streets within Edgewood Mountain II Subdivision (1143) 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. 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. e Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17590. 3/22/76 - 26 Ifo8 e Council Bill No. 1073 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Edgewood Mountain II Subdivision 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. 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 17591. Council Bill No. 1074 -Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Edgewood Mountain II Subdivision 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. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller mved 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 17592. e Council Bill No. 1075 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Edgewood Mountain II Subdivision 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 bill number only, with sidered at this time. by council bill number by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time 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 17593. Council Bill No. 1078 - Levying assessments for paving, santiary sewer and storm sewer on Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street (75-29) was read by council bill number and title, 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 April 5, 1976 and Panel recommendsation brought back for Council consideration on April 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously e Council Bill No. 1079 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue from Patterson Street to Hilyard Street (75-39) 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 April 5, 1976 and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration on April 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. 3/22/76 - 27 '~lT Council Bill No. 1080 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-40) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member pre- sent requesting that it be read. in full. 4It Mr. Kell~r moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on AprilS, 1976 and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration on April 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1081 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve the Skyline Loop Annexation Area generally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north, Dillard Road on the south and west, and east of Skyline Loop on the east (Phase I) (75-41) 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 AprilS, 1976 and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration on ApriL12,1976. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill No. 1082 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet west of Willamette Street and Pearl Street and between 4th Avenue and 225 feet north of 4th Avenue (75-56) 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 April 5, 1976 and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration on April 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. e v - Resolutions Resolution No. 2490 - Amending Article IV, Resolution 1791 and 2454, Council Bylaws, providing for appointment of city residents only to city boards and commissions was read by nUmber and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Bradley voting no. Resolution No. 2491 - Amending Article II, Resolution 1761, 2105, 2175, Council Bylaws, providing for city manager's setting public hearing dates in quasi-judicial matters was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 2492 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period March 8 through March 22, 1976 was read by number and title. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. Manager noted a special meeting of the Council scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 24, 1976, to consider property acquisition (1458 Ferry Street). and contract for remodeling the building at 858 Pearl Street for city offices e He said there would be a tour to view the Ferry Street property beginning at 11:00 a.m. for those Council members who could take the time. Upon motion duly made, seconded and carried, Wednesday, March 24, 1976, at li:30 a.m. " the meet~ ~djO)~ ~Henry, City Manager 3/22/76 - 28 I~O'