The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/12/1976 Meeting . I-A-l I-A-2 -- I-A-3 - f M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 12,1976 Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on April 12, 1976 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal, Torn Williams, Neil Murray, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel, and Edna Shirey. I - Public Hearings A. Vacation of 30-foot right-of-way running south from Cal Young Road opposite Norkenzie Road (Bierly)(SV 75-2) Recommended by the Planning Commission on January 12, 1976. Jim Saul, planner, said the right-of-way was dedicated while the area was still in the county. He explained that since adjacent properties had access from other streets, the vacation was recommended. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1083 - Vacating 30-foot right-of-way running south from Cal Young Road opposite Norkenzie Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17596. B. Rezoning Requests 1. Northwest corner of 5th and Willamette - From C-2 to H-Historic (Palace Hotel)(Z 76-2) Recommended by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1976 Jim Saul, planner, said the Historic District designation was recommended pri- marily because of the building's relationship with history of the community. It was constructed in 1903 and it and the Smeeded Hotel are the two hotel buildings remaining from early times. Also considered were the architectural character and construction of the building itself. He added that the Historic Review Board also recommended the rezoning. On call for ex parte contacts, Councilman Williams wondered if there would be conflict of interest because of his connection with Citizens Bank, Palace Hotel mortgagee. He noted that he did disqualify himself in the Council's consideration of the purchase of the building. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said it was not necessary for Mr. Williams to disqualify himself in the instance. Councilman Murray state that this building had been the subject of discussion many times before the Housing and Community Development Commission of which he is chairman. However, he said he had never taken a position on the issue and he felt his vote at this time would not be influenced. Councilman Bradley asked if the 5th and Willamette area had been recognized as an historic district before this time. Mr. Saul answered that the His- toric District designation applied to structures only. The Special District 4/12/76 - 1 k.~~ 1 designation in that area referred to by Mr. Bradley was between Pearl and High on 5th Avenue, east of the Palace Hotel. He explained that the historic designation would recognize the historic value of a structure and attempt to preserve that status. A special district designation is not so much to .' attempt to recognize the historic aspect of structures as it is to encourage - reuse of certain very substantial buildings which because of changing condi- tions need a different approach to encourage redevelopment and reuse of properties. Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 2, 1976 were entered as part of this record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1084 - Rezoning to H-Historic District property at northwest corner of 5th Avenue and Willamette Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members 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 17597. 2. Area west of Highway 99N south of Concord and east of Jacobs Drive - Prom RA to C-l SR (Paul Hansen)(Z 76-3) Recommended by the Planning Commission on March 2, 1976. Jim Saul, planner, explained that the property cosisted of 4.785 acres immediately west of the new Intermediate Education District facility north of the Gilbert Shopping Center on Highway 99N. A request for rezoning to R-2, pending development under planned unit procedures, was considered in 1972, which involved a larger piece of property. That resulted in two separate PUDs, this parcel remaining unchanged from RA. Mr. Saul said that the Commission, on the basis of a recently completed refinement study of the Bethel area, recom- mended this change after debate on whether to rezone to C-2, as requested, or C-l. C-l was recommended because the Commission felt that many of the uses proposed by the applicant, while not outright uses under C-l, could be con~idered as conditional uses. Site review procedures were added because of concerns expressed by the Commission about the relationship between this commercial use and adjacent residential uses. He added that change in the sign district was recommended for consistency with the development of the property as a neighborhood shopping center. Councilman Murray asked if the Bethel refinement study elaborated on the nature of neighborhood commercial needs in that area or where they would be most desirable. Also, whether the study spoke at all to how much commercial zoning would be needed there. He was wondering how it could be determined when the commercial need was satisfied. Mr. Saul answered that the study, while not speaking about precise locations or specific commercial needs, did indicate that commercial services should be located where they met recurring needs of the people. In this instance, he said, there was a fair amount of testimony at the Commission hearing about the level of development, par- ticularly medium-density residential development, in the immediate area. He added that to a certain extent determination of when commercial needs had been met would remain a matter of judgment and something that would have 4/12/76 - 2 4'f5 . I-A-4 - . '" to be faced by the Council in the future. He noted the guidelines by which such a determination culd be made - population to support neighborhood commercial activities, distance between various commercial centers, etc. -, Councilman Haws declared his intent not to participate in discussion or vote on this issue. He felt that because he had dealt with this issue in the past he should abstain in order to present an appearance of fairness. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the zone change were Douglas Brown, 72 West Broadway, re- presenting-Paul Hansen, the applicant; Mazie Venable, 1270 Jacobs Drive,#A-lO; Ken Nagao, 388 High Street, architect; and Don and Linda Hatfield, 2189 Dewey Street, Active Bethel Citizens. Mr. Brown noted that need for the change had been shown in testimony before the Planning Commission. Also, that appli- cants would agree to the C-l SR zone recommended by staff. Mrs. Venable was in favor of the change becuase commercial activities would benefit those elderly people within walking distance who were not able to travel to other parts of the city for shopping services. Mr. Magao said that the design of the proposed facility would maintain safety for pedestrians and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hatfield said the C-2 zoning was requested so that certain services could be provided. Howeve~ they felt that conditional uses under C-l would accommodate those services. With regard to Councilman Murray's concern about whether there was need for commercial activities, he said the Bethel/Danebo area was the fastest growing area in the city and there was no way of knowing how much commercial activity it would support until it stopped growing, so there was probably no way the question could be answered. e, Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1085 - Rezoning to C-l SR and changing sign district to Integrated Neighborhood Shopping on area west of Highway 99N south of Concord Street and east of Jacobs Drive 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. Williams that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 2, 1976 be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only, Councilman Haws abstaining. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Haws abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17598. I-A-5 e C. Preliminary Willamette River Greenway Boundaries Planning Commission Recommendation: -:- March is - Recozrunending' approval and forWarding of recozrunendations to the Land Conservation and Development Commission re: adoption of preliminary Willamette River Greenway Boundaries. (Report distributed to Council). Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to schedule public hearing for April 12. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/7 /76 Pub Hrng 4/12/76 - 3 17~ Jim Saul, planner, reviewed background of the Greenway Plan, adopted by the State, saying that the Land Conservation and Development Commission was given responsi- bility to determine whether the Plan complied with the overall legislative pro- gram set out ~n State statutes. Further, LCDC was either to approve or revise ~ the Plan to bring it into compliance, having the authority to refer it back to .., the State Department of Transportation and units of local government for further refinement. The Commission, after hearings throughout the State, adopted certain provisions of the Plan and directed that other elements were to be reviewed again by local governments.and the Department of Transportation. Map was provided show- ing the preliminary boundaries set out in the original report prepared by the Transportation Department and adopted by LCDC. Local jurisdictions were required by LCDC to adopt specific review procedures. They were also required to in- corporate the Willamette River Greenway into their General Plan, and to review the boundaries and submit an interim report by April 1 of this year. Mr. Saul continued that the Planning Commission conducted public hearings wherein a number of questions were raised about the effect of the Greenway boundaries on property ownership along the River. A number of questions about interpretation also were raised. Because of the nature of the review process and unresolved' technical questions, also the lack of opportunity for public review and comment, the Planning Commission made recommendations as set out in its official report of March 15, 1976 - to inform the LCDC that the city of Eugene is not prepared at this time to make recommendation with regard to the preliminary Greenway boundaries adopted by LCDC, that the city of Eugene is concerned and will be re- viewing precise location of those boundaries in all areas of the city, that cer- tain modifications will be recommended but only after thorough review and in- corporation of those boundaries into the 1990 General Plan or refinement studies of the General Plan later this year, and that the city request interpretation and clarification of Statewide Goal #15 prior to incorporation of the Greenway into the 1990 General Plan or any refinement thereof. 4IIr Mr. Saul said that the result of the city's not taking a position at this time would be that the boundaries of the Greenway would remain as adopted by the LCDC until modified later this year by the city. He added that concerns of the Planning Commission with regard to location of the Greenway boundaries in cer- tain areas of the city and cla~ification of Statewide goals could be resolved if the recommendations were adopted as presented. . Councilman Murray wondered if not adopting even a temporary or tentative boundary would in any way jeopardize receipt of funding assistance for acquisition. Also, how the timeing of this process would work out with the 1990 General Plan update. Mr. Saul answered that staff felt receipt of funding would not be jeopardized. He said the program for reviewing the boundaries would occur between June and December of this year, then incorporated into the General Plan. It would not be a part of the major update process. In answer to Councilwoman Shirey's question regarding Planning Commission minutes, Mr. Saul said the intent of the minutes was to reflect the position that if the recommended action was taken by the Council, that action would not impair the city's ability to recommend changes later. Public hearing was opened. Mel Jackson, 2006 Grant Street, was in favor of the Commission's recommendation even though staff position was more strongly stated. His main concern was for protection of the River. He thought it was understood that the boundaries pre- sented were "planning" boundaries, so there would need to be some changes. He noted great amounts of energy and resources expended by the city in protecting the River and that there would,certainly be support for continuance of that effort. . 4/12/76 - 4 11'1 e Walter deMartini, 1313 Lincoln Street, wondered if lack of action at this time could be misinterpreted by the State. He thought the Plan as now written consti- tuted "acquisition" of property. He expressed the opinion that location of apart- ments and automobile agencies within the boundaries was ridiculous. Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, favored delay of recommendations to LCDC with re- gard to the Greenway boundaries because properties (specifically the Valley River office park) now under county jurisidiction but committed to annexation to the city would have to go through "another layer of government" to continue present planned unit development procedures. He felt that property and others like it should not be included within the boundaries. Ellis Jones, 1030 Coburg Road, was concerned that a wider boundary would be man- dated by LCDC unless the ISO-foot strip set by the Goodpasture Island study was maintained. He said that he understood from statements made in hearings before the Transportation Department that rights to Greenway funds would be forfeited by those communities not establishing Greenway boundaries. He added that there was no established criteria for setting boundaries beyond the ISO-foot strip, nothing to indicate which properties would be included. He felt criteria similar to that used by appraisers and the tax assessor for rating properties should be established. . Jim Britton, 245 West 25th Avenue, generally liked the idea of the Greenway Plan but he felt the Transportation Department used poor judgment in establishing the boundaries so as to include, for instance, the University of Oregon physical plant and commercial properties along Franklin Boulevard. He thought boundaries as now proposed were untenable and said there had to be a concerted effort to estab- lish a reasonable and proper line that would recognize the "economy" referred to in Goal #15. Mr. Britton said that expanding the boundary beyond 150 feet would become a burden on the public. He suggested that the ISO-foot boundary be main- tained and that individual property owners join forces to point out to the LCDC the error of including certain properties as now proposed. Art Johnson, 101 East Broadway, chairman of the Governor's Adviroy Committee on the Willamette Greenway, thought there might be some misunderstanding with regard to hearings on the Plan before the State agencies. He didn't recall any state- ment with regard to forfeiture of right to funds, except as the result of ques- tioning from a Harrisburg citizen who said their council had elected to take no action. A date was set for continuing the question of Greenway boundaries to be set by the LCDC at that time. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Copies of letters were distributed to Council members, received from Walter deMartini and Richard Hansen, with regard to the effect of adoption of the Plan- ning Commission recommendations upon development in Valley River Center and adja- cent properties in the Goodpasture Island area. Mr. Saul said the effect would be the same as now - public hearing would be required for any development within 150 feet of the low-water line. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the recommendations as presented in the March 15, 1976 Planning Commission official report. . Councilwoman Shirey wanted to make sure there would be no problem as the result of taking no position at this time. Mr. Saul said that question was raised three or four time in Planning Commission hearings, and each time response from LCDC staff and from the Commission itself was that there would be no problem created. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. 1'18 4/12/76 - 5 D. Code Amendment re: PUD, Conditional Use, or Site Review in connection with Preliminar Willamette River Greenwa Plan Planning Commission recommendation: March 15 - Recommending adoption of amendment to Section 9.259 re: Willamette Greenway Plan (report distributed to Council). Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to schedule public hearing for April 12. Motion carried unanimously. Manager read the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission in its March IS, 1976 official report. The amendment would provide for use of planned unit development or conditional use procedures when required by the Greenway Plan, as well as adoption of appropriate findings. Mr. Saul explained that the LCDC Goal IS directed local governments to establish special Greenway conditional use procedures. Prior to adoption of the Greenway Plan, conditional use procedures were required in the development of any land within ISO feet of the low-water line. The Plan as adopted requires those procedures on any de- velopment within the proposed Greenway boundaries. The city was requested to adopt those procedures by April 1 of this year. However, staff recommended that rather than institute procedures separate from those already in the code, the code be expanded to include the necessary provisions. That action, he said, would comply with LCDC requirements. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1086 - Amending Section 9.259 of City Code re: Development in connection with Preliminary Willamette Greenway Plan was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by. Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- .ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall Vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17599. E. Improvement of South Willamette Street from 40th Avenue to 600 feet south of Coachman Drive Manager described the project proposed and said it would correct an existing hazardous facility as well as improve drainage and handle anticipated increase in traffic load because of residential development to the south. The work, he said, will include a traffic signal'at the intersection of Willamette and 46th. Don Allen, public works director, said that although the project was initiated by the Council, it was presented to the voters as part of a bond election in 1972. Staff presented the project to affected property owners in public hearing and in- formation resulting from that previously had been presented to the Council. Council also has viewed the project area on tour. Mr. Allen said the Council had two options at this time - either proceed to final design or stop the project. If it is decided to prOceed, he said there would be one more public hearing at the time of awarding contract for the work. .He added that the project would be funded under the City's assessment policy; owners of abutting residential prop- erties would be assessed on 28-foot and 36-foot basis which could be Bancrofted 4/12/76 - 6 '119. 1- e Comr. 4/717l Pub Hrn~ tit "- I-B-3 through II -A-8 e '--' . at the rate of 7% interest. Mr. Allen said the main point of dissatisfaction that came out in staff hearings was with the city's assessment policy. He pointed out that the present assessment policy was thr esult of a rather lengthy study conducted in 1974 and that staff at this time knew of no circumstances that would justify amending that policy. A short recess was taken, after which public hearing was opened. Howard P. Egger, 4200 Oak Street, was in favor of going ahead with the improvement. He said it would remove the hazard of a narrow and unimproved street with inade- quate grade and lack of turn lanes; it would provide a needed traffic light at 46th and Willamette; restroation of guard rail along his property would be bene- ficial; inflationary trend would increase the cost if the project was delayed. He said that sidewalks were needed, but he proposed that they be installed on one side only adjacent to the cemetery area; if they were installed on both side, he thought they should be used as bikeways. He noted that the terrain in the South Willamette area tended to make bike traffic nonexistent and said that the $90,000 for increased width of the street improvement for bike lanes would be a waste. He thought it would be better used for a pedestrian crossing light at 46th and Willamette. He noted the increase in cost for the project since it was brought to the Council eight years ago and urged the Council not to delay any longer; he felt there had been sufficient time since then for those presenting remonstrances to provide for financing. . Louis Farnsworth, 715 East 44th Avenue, speaking for the executive committee of the South Hills Neighborhood Association, said a more equitable assessment pro- cedure was needed for properties abutting arterial street improvements. The pre- sent procedure, he said, is ambiguous and assessed only those properties abutting the improvement rather than all of those receiving the benefit of its use. He suggested holding up the assessment for this project until a more equitable assess- ment procedure was developed that would spread the cost over a broader base. Citing similar reasons for proceeding with the project now were Reverend L. Roda- kowski, 4330 Willamette Street, and Connie Wilson, 435 Lochmoor Place. Opposed to the project were Joy S. Goolsby, 18 East 47th Avenue; Rosalie and Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th Avenue; Charles Wiper, 805 West 36th Avenue, representing Rest Haven Memorial Park; Steve Mayer, 50 Coachman Drive; Jon B. Schultz, 40 Oak Court. Objections were based on financial impact on owners of abutting properties, suggested need for a more equitable method of assessment, lack of benefit to some of the abutting properties, detraction from some properties because of the resulting proximity to property lines, increase in traffic counts. The Lemerts presented slides of the area showing access to various properties, or lack of it. They also presented a petition suggesting delay of the project until the November election to give the opportunity for a vote on the issue of changing the assessment method. Mr. Wiper opposed the installation of sidewalks on both sides of the street, saying the landmark wall constructed by the cemetery property would have to be taken out if a sidewalk was installed there. Also, other plans for development and beautification of that property would be altered if a walk was put in on the west side of the street. . Mr. Mayer, as well as the others, thought assessments against owners of abutting properties should be shared by those people living farther to the south who would also benefit from the improvement of this section of Willamette. Mr. Schulz in jest noted the neighborhood association's proposal for construction of a toll booth at one end of the project so that those using the street would pay for it. Seriously, he said, the Association did take action - to seek support from other 180 , 4/12/76 - 7 neighborhood associations for an initiative petition to effect a Charter change for a more equitable assessment procedure, and to support those people owning property abutting Willamette between 39th and 50th in attempting to convince the Council to more equitably assess the cost of this project and to reduce the cost thereof through elimination of bike lanes and installation of sidewalk on one side only. e Mayor Anderson in response to Mr. Schulz' proposal for toll booth and Mr. Wiper's concern about the cemetery property, proposed the title of "Pearly Gates" for the entrance to the improved section of Willamette Street. Mr. Allen noted Charter amendment that provided for assessment against properties on both sides of the street for sidewalk installed on one side only. He said if a sidewalk was installed on one side only and another was later determined neces- sary on the other side, the new one could be built and also assessed against both sides. He said that even thought the Willamette Street project had been bid twice before, there had never been a formal remonstrance filed, it was simply a matter of the Council's having decided not to proceed. He said the bid prices in 1968 were $7.18 per front foot; in 1970, $13.38, so there was no question about an in- flationary spiral on public works improvements. Al Williams, traffic engineer, speaking with regard to comments on bike lanes, sug- gested that lack of bikes in the South Willamette area now was not good criteria for determining whether a bike facility should be installed. The primary purpose of bike paths, he said, was to attract bikes and encourage their use. He said the Bicycle Committee, in updating the Master Bikeway Plan, made the decision not to remove this bike route from the overall network. Mr. Williams continued that staff recommendation for installation of sidewalks on both sides of Willamette was in line with direction to enhance pedestrian uses where possible. It seemed ~ to him that uses on the west side of the street - the cemetery, church, etc. - ~. would generate a certain amount of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Allen explained that programs under which Federal or other agency funds could be used for this project had been investigated. However, he reminded the Council that even if Federal or County funds were used, the same general procedure would have to be used to meet the cost - assessment to abutting properties for the 28-foot minimum width. Federal and County funds could not be used to increase the subsidy to abutting properties, he said. Manager asked whether adoption of the ordinances proposed for action at this meet- ing would preclude any design changes in the project. Mr. Allen thought provi- sions of the ordinances were broad enough to allow the design to proceed in line with testimony presented at this meeting. He said that would be taken into con- sideration in the final design. Council Bill No. 1087 - Paving Willamette Street from 40th Avenue to 600 feet south of Coachman Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Councilman Bradley asked whether a two-thirds vote of the Council would be re- quired to override the objections presented. Mr. Allen answered that a formal remonstrance would have to be filed before the tWQ-thirds majority would be required. . 4/12/76 - 8 ),g,t e Councilman Keller commented on the question of benefit derived and equitableness of assessments. He noted the matter of assessment procedure had been pursued at great length and it had proved to be a really complex problem. He said that it was a fact that everyone has to pay for street improvements at some time; on an arterial it becomes more of a problem; but the reality is that streets have to be improved and delay will only add to the cost Councilwoman Beal thought the cost of developing new areas should be p~id by the developer because very often the facilities are adequate to serve the people living between the new development and the rest of the community. She acknowledged that the assessment procedure had been "hashed over" but it still seemed unfair to her. She wondered if those objecting to the assessment procedure in this in- stance would be willing to support any move to change the provisions. So far, she said, there hadn't been much success. Council members Shirey and Bradley thought it would be proper to review the assess- ment procedure again, either the Council as a whole or a subcommittee. Mrs. Shirey said that objections were raised to the assessment method every time an improve- ment was made. If nothing else, she thought information should be disseminated with regard to why the procedure had not been changed. Councilwoman Beal moved to delay action on this project and take another look at the whole assessment policy. The Mayor ruled the motion out of order since there was already a motion on the floor. e Mrs. Beal then moved to table the council bill until the next Council meeting to give the opportunity to further consider assessment policy review. There was no second. Councilman Hamel noted the same problems ar1s1ng in the past with regard to improve- ment of 18th and Oakway Road and the consensus that nothing could be done other than the change to assess in residential areas on a 28-foot basis. He was in favor of proceeding with the improvement, but with the sidewalk on one side only and eliminating the bike lanes. Councilman Williams doubted that the interest of property owners was being con- sidered if there was further delay in view of the rising costs - $27.00 now compared to $13.00 when last before the Council. He doubted that additional costs, sure to result if the work is delayed again, would benefit anyone. Mayor Anderson declared out of order (because of motion already on the floor) a motion by Councilman Bradley to reconvene the assess- ment policy committee - or establish a new one - to look into the assessment procedure before final action on this project. Vote was then taken on motion for second reading. 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 17600. Council Bill No. 1088 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Willamette Street from 40th Avenue to 600 feet south of Coachman Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. ,g~ 4/12/76 - 9 Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 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 17601. Council Bill No. 1089 - Sidewalk on both sides of Willamette Street from 350 feet north of 40th Avenue to 600 fee south of the south end of Coachman Drive (382) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment 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 17602. Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for the discussion and the manner in which it was presented. He noted the importance of the project to the entire city and said the final outcome would be determined only after bids were called. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Shirey to establish a study committee to report to the Council on the city's assessment policy. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no. e F. Liquor License Applications - New Outlets 1. Dari-Mart Store #12, 1890 Agate Street (PS-Package Store) II-A-9 Applicants are Gladys Gibson, et ai. da te . ME. Haws m:>ved seconded by MIs. the above application for April Manager noted much opposi tion registered to Beal to schedule a public hearing on 12. Motion carried unanim:>usly. Comm 3/31/76 Pub Hrng Manager noted that the OLCC report indicated considerable objection from resi- dents in the neighborhood to the proposed establishment. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was opened. Gary Straube, 877 Walnut Street, Junction City, spoke in favor of the application. He noted the property was properly zoned for the outlet, that the proposed con- venience grocery store would be appropriate for that neighborhood. He described proposed gasoline sales in conjunction with the store. The right to sell al- coholic beverages'was requested to make the facility economically feasible, he said. They were asking the same advantage given other grocery stores in the city. Speaking against the application were Bill Skillern, 1960 University Street; ~ Tom Hodges, 1470 East 19th Avenue; Max Ingerson, 935 Oak Street, attorney for ~ Mr. and Mrs. Carl Williams; Lynn Daly, 1599 Moss Street, Apt.B; A. W. Urquhart, 1960 Agate Street; William G. Bond, 1605 East 19th Avenue, Gentry's Ice Cream; Thomas Hubka, 1961 Agate Street, representing the Fairmount Neighborhood p1an- 4/12/76 - 10 183 It ning committee. Their objections were based on the number of stores in the area now selling beer and wine, proximity of schools, increase of traffic where con- siderable congestion now exists, convenience items could be provided without the liquor license, anticipated rejection by the OLCC. Mr. Ingerson presented a petition from neighborhood residents opposing the issuance of the license. Mr. Hubka said the Fairmount group would not be opposed to a neighborhood grocery store, but did oppose the gas station. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. ~,...) Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend that the OLeC deny the license. Councilman Murray said he was in favor of the motion. However, he thought it important for the public to understand that denying the liquor license would not solve the problem of traffic - other uses may generate more. Mrs. Shirey agreed and asked why a service station would be condoned at that location. Jim Saul, planner, said that service stations were permitted as a conditional use in C-l zones. Testimony, he said, indicated a service station had been at that'loca- tion for some time - prior to 1958 stations were permitted in C-2 districts. In this instance, he said, if a gas dispensing pump was totally subsidiary to the market function, it would be permitted as an accessory C-l use. Counclman Haws withdrew his second to the motion when he ascertained the intent was to send OLCC a recommendation for denial rather than transmitting the application with no recommendation at all. Second was then given by Councilman Hamel. - Vote was taken on the motion as stated - to recommend denial. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Beal, Murray, Hamel, and Shirey voting aye; Councilman Haws voting no; Councilmen Williams and Bradley abstaining. II - B- 2 2. Porter's Foods Unlimited, 160 East Broadway (PS - Package Store) William Hervey Porter, et al, applicants. Mr. Keller IOOved seconded by Mr. Haws to call a public hearing for April 12 on the above application. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/7/76 Pub Hrng Manager noted there were no objections indicated on the OLCC report. Staff had no objections. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to recommend approval of the application. Motion carried unanimously. - G. Bids ~arks Department - Irrigation, Opened April 8 and 9, 1976. Tandy Turn Park Irrigation Fairway Irrigation Del's Lane County Nursery Ramsey Waite Willamette Cascade JOB Landscaping & Irrigation Office Estimate fencing, turf renovation at various parks II-B-3 $ 5,169.00 5,077.00 4,599.00 4,362.00 3,396.00 $ 3,917.00 I 8''-1 4/12/76 - 11 Amazon Ballfields Parkin Lot lrri Del's Lane County ,Nursery Willamette Gascade Ramsey Waite JOB Landscaping & Irrigation Fairway Irrigation Office Estimate Shasta Ballfield Turf Renovation Jensen Landscaping Emerald Landscape & Nursery Office Estimate Backstop ConstrUction for School u. S. Steel Valley Fence Pioneer Fences Office Estimate Quickcoupler for School Sites JOB Landscaping & Irrigation Willamette Cascade Ramsey Waite Fairway Irrigation Office Estimate ation 3,782.00 3,291.00 3,280.00 2,990.00 2,780.00 .. $ 3,950.00 $ 2,~54.00 1,770.00 $ 1,997.00 Sites $ 3,189.00 2,854.00 2,412.00 $ 1,912.00 $ 9,224.00 7,440.00 6,195.00 4,788.00 $ 5,145.00 Manager reviewed the bids as presented. Staff recommended contract award to the low bidder on each project. - Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contracts to the low bidder on each project as recommended. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. 2. Public Works - Various improvement projects (Opened April 6, 1976) -.-...--. - -... ~ .- - --- ._~---- - ,--.--.-------- II-B-4 III-A-l ;:0,"" 0f Eidd~r and l'rojeet Contract Cost Cost to City PAVING: '1. Haite Street from Bell Avenue to Elmira Road (1203) Cost to Abutting Prop. runou,;r- Budge ted BASIC RIO ALTERNATE RID 1. Wl1dish Construction Co...............$27.882.10......$25.499.70...............28' Pav........$17.50/FF..................0..................0... 2. Eugene Sand & r,rave1 Co...............No Bid..........$26.435.62...............Conc.Drive.....$ 1.32/SF 3. Rabb Constr..dba Delta Const. Co......$29.686.87......No Bid 4. Benge Paving..........................$29.893.19......No Bid 5. Shur-Way Contractors. Inc.............$35.985.34......No Bid 2. Sarah Lane from Bonnie View Drive to 200 feet north (1209) ~--------------------~-------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------ COMPLETION DATE: June 15, 1976 1. Wildish Construction Co...............$19.902.05......$19.125.05...............28' Pav........$25.00/FF.........Storm Swr. $8.000.00.........0... 2. Shur-Way Contractors. Inc.............$20.021.64.;....$19.452.15 . 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel Co..............;No Bid..........$22,333.40 4. Benge Paving...........................$22.038.84......No Bid 4/12/76 - 12 -- COMPLETION DATE: June 15. 1976 :lgS' --------------------------.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------_. 3. Concord Street from Jacobs Drive to Hughes Street (1220) ~1. EUgene Sand ^ Gravel..................No Bid..........S54.555.88...............28' Pav........S18.80/FF.........Pav.......$ 5.050.00.....$3.200 2. 1~11dish Construction Co...............~56.5fi1.90......$55.999.25...............36' Pav........$23.50/FF.........Storm Swr $25.100.00....$23.200 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co....No Rid..........$60.574.58...............Conc.Drives....$ 1.16/SF.. 4. Babb Const.. aba Delta Const. Co......$56.958.00......N.o Rid J 15 1976 COMPLETION DATE: une . - - ----:..---.-.----. BICYCLE PATH: 4. Fairmount b1ke route from East 15th Avenue to Franklin Boulevard to Sylvan Street (1140) 1. Wlldish Construction Company...................$ 10.888.75........................................................... .$10.B88. 75....... .$lS.000.0C 2. 5hur-Way Contractors. Inc......................$ 11,267.26 3. Benge Pavin~...................................$ 11.703.80 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc......................$ 15.800.50 5. Park Construction Corp.........................$ 19.887.61 COMPLETION DATE: June 1. 1976 ________w__w_____w___._____________________w_________________w____.__________________________________.______---------------------------------------------- SIDEWALK: 5. Bailey Lane from Coburg Road to 650 feet Clast (1039) 1. Fred Stubbert Construction Co..................$ 3.755.56......................4" 5idewa1k...$1.50/SF................$ 978.00..............0.... 2. W11dish Construction Co........................$ 4.772.00......................5" Sidewa1k...$1.65/5F COMPLETION. DATE: May 21,1976 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. SANITARY SEWER: 6. Between 18th Avenue and 18th Place from Tyler Street to approximately 155 feet cast (1229) 1. Emerald Excavating & Construction..............$ 1.724.40......................San. Lat. $O.071/SF........................O................O.... 2. James r... Hil1..................................$ 2.909.60 3. L. D. Van Over.................................$ 3.002.50 4. Kenneth Bostick Construction Co................$ 3.139.50 5. Shur-Way Contractors. Inc......................$ 3,330.50 6. Wi1dish Construction Company...................$ 4,605.00 ~. H ~ J Construction.............................$ 4.960.00 ~. Dan D. Allsup Contractor. Inc..................$ 5.465.00 COMPLETION DATE: June 1, 1976 -------------------*------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Garnet Street from Dillard Road to 130 fect south (1266) 1. Wlldish Construction Company.........................$ 3.567.00...................San. Lat. $ O.l77/SF......................O...................e 2. H & J Construction...................................$ 4.503.25...................San. Swr.$459.0D/EACH 3. Kenneth R. nostick Construction Co...................$ 4,967.20 4. Shur~Way Contractors. Inc............................$ 5.077.25 5. Norm Green & Sons....................................$ 5.154.99 6. Emerald Excavating & Construction......:.............$ 5,377.00 7. James A. Hil1........................................$ 6,398.13 8. Dan D. Allsup Contractor. Inc........................$ 6.991.60 9. Eugene Sand & Gravel Co..............................$ 8,799.50 COMPLETION DATE: June 1, 1976 6:--T~-;;~~;-th;-;~~~-b;t:;;~-Vl~~-M;~i;-D~j;;-~-----------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------. and 300 feet southwest of Vine Maple Drive and between 100 feet and 750 feet southeast of N.orth Shasta Loop (1082) 1. Emerald Excavation.~ Construct1on....................$ 2. James A. Hill........................................! 3. Norm Green & 50ns....................................$ 4. Shur-Way Contractors. Inc............................$ 5. Wi1dish Construction Company.........................$ 6. H P. J Construction...................................$ 7. Dan D. Allsup Contractor. Inc........................$ e. EugClne Sand & Gravel Co..............................$ 9. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co...................$ 2.762.00. ..... .. .... .. ...... Lat... .. . . $0. 083/SF.. ... ... ..... . . . . .. .. . . O. . ... .. . .. ..... . .. ( 2.793.80....................Services $24.64/EACH 2.890.85 3.682.20 3.707.75 4.252.00 4.509.BO 4.643.00 7.555.80 CDHPLETlON DATE: Nay 21,1976 -- -.. .-- -~-_..__..---~--~-.----..__.. ----.....------,...--- -.. -.- . -... ----.._--.- ----":'~~~..:'~.~----:-- -- -------- ------ - --- --- --- --- ------ - -- ------- - - - ---- -- - --. 9. Between 43rd Avenue and 500 feet south of 43rd Avenue and between Dillard Road and 700 feet cast of Dillard Road ( 1212) . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. H.~ J Construction Company......................,...$ 6.253.00...................... .Lat... ..$ 0.046/SF.................... .O..................e Wi1dish Construction Company.........................$ 6.387.75.......................Service $21.00/Each Norm Green & Sons....................................$ 7.210.00 Eugene Sand ~ Gravel Co..............................$ 8.359.10 Shur-Way Contractors. Inc............................$ 8.404.96 Kenneth Bostick Construction Co......................$ 10.534.60 Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc........................$ 10.756.90 James A. Hill........................................$ 11.129.70 L. D. Van Over.......................................$ 12.845.00 COMPLETION DATE: June 1. 1976 ,~ 4/12/76 - 13 Public Works Director Don Allen reviewed bids received. Contract award to the low bidder was recommended on each project except No.1 (paving Waite Street)_ and No.5 (sidewalk on Bailey Lane). Mr. Allen explained that the Waite Street paving was initiated by a 65% petition. However, since bids were re- 4It ceived, a 55% petition against the project had been filed., For that reason, staff recommendation was being withheld until after testimony was received in public hearing. With regard to the Bailey Lane sidewalk, Mr. Allen said it was previously bid in 1974. However, it was delayed because right-of-way had to be acquired through condemnation. On No.6 (sanitary sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th Place) Mr. Allen asked the Council to award contract to the low bidder subject to property owners' working out an agreement acceptable to the city attorney. Some of the assessable property had been assessed previous- ly for sewer, and a 100% agreement of all property owners is necessary before connection can be made to the city lateral. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the paving of Waite Street were Leonard and Arlene Jensen, 542 Waite Street; unidentified persons living at 621 Waite Street and at 631 Waite Street. They felt the main objection to the project was the estimated cost, noting that probably some of those objecting would change their minds when it became known the estimated cost was lower than that quqted when the petition initiating the project was circulated. Also, an improved street would benefit the neighborhood and would be less costly now than if delayed. Speaking against the paving of Waite Street were Dan Maupin, 442 Waite Street; Ida Johnson, 3745 Elmira Road; Grace Darrah, 450 Waite Street; and Barbara Spores, 511 Waite Street. Their objections were based on cost to adjacent properties, especially since assessed values had recently been raised. They felt the street was satisfactory in its present condition for the type of traffic it carried, that the cost of improvement would be a real hardship on property owners who were for the most part on retirement incomes. . The hearing turn to the construction of sanitary sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th Place with Nancy Bonynge, 1140 West 18th Avenue, stating her property would not be benefitted by the installation and that it could be connected to a sewer already installed. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contracts to the low bidder on each project, with that on No. 6(sanitary sewer between 18th Avenue and 18th Place from Tyler Street to approximately 155 feet east) subject to agreement between property owners that met the city attorney's approval with regard to acceptance of this bid and assessment for the project. Councilman Murray asked if assessment deferral policy was discussed as a rule when projects were planned, such as in the case of the Waite Street paving where property owners indicated financial hardship. He thought if that in- formation was relayed to property owners earlier than when they applied for Bancrofting, some of the problems might be resolved. Councilwoman Shirey had the same concern and asked if a vote could be taken separately on contract award on that project. Manager suggested that questions which property owners ... might have with regard to assessment deferral should be directed to the ~ finance ~epartment. At Councilwoman Beal's request, it was understood a report would be brought to the Council with regard to how the assessment deferral program is handled 4/12/76 - 14 , {'3'1 e e III-A-2 - and at what point information goes out. She was interested in knowing how people receive the information with regard to eligibility, etc. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried all Council members present voting aye, except Councilwoman Shirey voting no on No. I (paving Waite Street From Bell Avenue to Elmira Road). II - Items acted upon with motion after discussion of individual items as requested. Previously discussed in committee on March 24 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shire), March 31 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Haws, Beal, Williams, Murray, Hamel, and Shire), April 7 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Council members Keller, Haws, Murray, Beal, Williams, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey) and April 12 (Present: Council members Keller (presiding), Haws, Muwray, Beal, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed in italics. A.Appointment - Room Tax Allocation Co~ttee - Mayor Anderson has recommended appointment of Miriam Fulbright, 1600 Adkins. Term ending January 1, 1979. Replaces Glenn Cougill who resigned. Corom 3/24/76 Approve Mr. Keller llDwd seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the appointment. Motion carried unanimously. B. Budget Committee Appointment - Mr. Murray announced that Bob Napier was resigning from the Budget Committee due to having to be away from the City during the entire budget process. Mr. Murray recommended appointment of Scott Lieuallen, 1190 West Broadway, for balance of term ending 12/31/76. Mr. Keller llDved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the appointment. Motion carried unanillDus1y. Corom 3/24/76 See action below Councilman Hamel asked that this item be segregated and voted upon separately. He said he did not want to vote in favor of the appointment if it could be interpreted as an endorsement of Mr. Lieuallen in his candidacy for the position of council member. Mr. Murray explained that because of the concern expressed by a number of people from his ward, he had moved quickly to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Robert Napier. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Lieuallen had been willing and able to serve as a budget committee member and had experience and had been active in affairs of that ward. Awkwardness of the situation was recognized, he said, but he didn't feel he could ask Mr. Lieuallen to alter his plans to run for the council position simply because a budget committee member was needed. He didn't feel there would be any problems. Councilman Williams said that Mr. Lieuallen's appointment to the budget committee with full knowledge that he had announced his candidacy for the council could be interpreted as nothing else but a Council endorsement, and unfair to anyone else who might choose to become a candidate. Councilman Bradley asked if a quorum in voting for such an appointment would be de- termined by members of the Council present or by votes cast, taking abstentions into account. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, said that Council members present ab- staining from the vote do count toward a quorum; if only one voted in favor and the rest abstained, the vote would carry. He made a distinction between that type of majority and the two-thirds majority required for certain legislative action - emergency clause or other actions requiring a weighted vote. Councilman Keller expressed his concern, given that information, and said he would abstain. /Kt 4/12/76 - 15 Councilman Murray then withdrew the name of Scott Lieual1en for appointment to the budget committee, saying he did not care to embarrass Mr. Lieuallen by pursuing the issue further. He suggested that any other persons wishing to serve on the budget ~ committee should make contact with him. .., C. South Goodpasture Island Annexation fA 75-3) - Recommended by planning Commission February 23, 1976. Maps of the area have been distributed to Council. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray to set a public hearing on the above matter for April 12, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. GOodpasture Island Annexation Hearing - Manager noted staff's desire to change the GOodpasture Island annexation hearing from April 12 to April 26 because of agenda load. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to postpone the hearing as requested to April 26. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 4/7/76 Approve D. Building Abatement Action - 2375 Madison - The situation, according to Mick Nolte, Building Inspection Superintendent, has prevailed since about 1971. Council acted in September, 1973, to abate the conditions. The situation now is worse than in 1973, and all attempts to effect compliance have failed. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to set a public hearing on the above matter for April 26. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 3/24/76 Approve E. Appz:ovarof 12 Principles foi-- Development or Metro Area Transportation Plan Tabled from 3-10-76 meeting. Letter and report distributed at that time. e Mr. Murray expressed trouble with the statement in Principle 7 that the plan will "address, only those issues which can be agreed upon as valid regional concerns by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County.". That statement further noted that. co~sensus was reached only for auto and transit modes. He wondered then what would happen to Eugene's responSe that the plan call for bike, pedestrian and paratransit planning as well. Mr. Bill Guenzler, LCOG, explained there is no intent to ignore the goals set by Eugene. . Modes planned for do reflect the demand reduction which simulates the decisions of Eugene and Lane County. Concerns of a particular jurisdiction would best be addressed by that juriSdiction, and he noted Eugene has made progress in that direction already. He added there is concern of a regional staff such as LCOG spending time on matters related to one jurisdiction but not particularly regional in scope. . Mr. Murray does not feel, though, that Council intended Eugene to address its goals on its own but rather that they would be more directly provided for in the regional plan. Mr. Guenzler assured Mr. Murray no elements are ignored, but the idea is that speci~ic facili ty planning should not be done in a regional context ~ Mrs. Shirey said it seems some coordination is necessary. will it do the job for a juriSdiction to address concerns on its own, she wondered. e 4/12/76 - 16 18'1 - Al Williams, Traffic Engineer, responded that LCOG recognizes the subplans and will take them into account, i.e. in vehicles assigned to the network. Overall, street network planning will reflect all of Eugene's goals - that is a key factor, he said, though it is suggested that pedestrian and paratransit goals be developed by the Eugene staff and incorporated into the plan itself or adopted as a subplan by the City Council. Mrs. Shirey wondered if Principle 7 could be rewritten to state that Eugene will develop and contribute plans for its particular goals. Dave Reinhard, Planning Engineer, felt it might suffice to direct staff to proceed along those lines concurrently with the regional plan. Mr. Murray, however, felt Eugene's concerns and the strength of its comrndtment should be on paper as well, and he read a statement he had drafted to that effect, outlining Eugene's comrndtment to bikes, pedestrian and paratransit modes, mentioning budgetary commdtments and requesting that status reports also include a report on those three concerns. Manager wondered if Mr. Murray was suggesting reducing Eugene's financial contribution by the amount of time and money contributed by the City to pedestrian, bike and paratransit planning. Mr. Murray responded it has always been the city's intent to include those elements and that its contribution to the development of a regional plan should include assurances that monetary support will fund those elements. e Assistant Manager's understanding is that LCOG is attempting to reach unanimity as to their role. Eugene has taken into account in budgeting that it will contribute its share to those functions handled by LCOG and then additional money into its own efforts. Traffic Engineer said LCOG's work program will outline the part each agency will play in the development - it is an ongoing process each year. Mr. Bradley's position is that bike, pedestrian and paratransit modes are regional concerns since facilities are shared. He feels that to address Eugene's concerns in a refinement study does not convey the intended meaning. Public Works Director called attention to the last paragraph of No. 6 which says that, when eval ua ting the need for street and highway and public transi t improvements, the trips to be carried by the three elements in question will be modeled simply by "removing them from the street and highway and transit network and considering the subsequent reduction in traffic". Mr. Keller does not feel a regional study can allow one jurisdiction to be adamant about their views, and LCOG must be having great difficul ty trying to determine what is feasible for all. It seems reasonable to him that concessions may have to be made for the benefit of the entire region. Assistant Manager said there did not seem to be any serious disagreement with Mr. Murray's draft but suggested, if acceptable, that he review it with staff and SUbsequently bring it back for final action. e Manager distributed a letter from the Chamber expressing disagreement with Levels of Service D & E. The Chamber notes that approving those levels allows for traffic congestion seriously impeding all vehicular movement. Level E, they feel, as the condition under which improvement would be considered, is far too excessi ve . I~O 4/12/76 - 17 Mr. Murray noted there is nothing in the principles to address earlier agreement on correcting violations of the 1990 Plan, particularly in terms of major arterials dividing neighborhoods. ~ Mayor Anderson suggested that, rather than try to make material modifications, it ~hould be remembered the plan will have to be adopted. The record does reflect posi tions taken, and he does not envision a staff deliberately overlooking: what appears to be the trend. He would encourage moving forward now toward uni versal adoption. It was understood Mr. Murray's draft would be revier.red . . ~" w~th staff, along w~th language.of Principal No.7, and broug.ht back .t:or March 31 COmmJ.ttee meeting. .LI considerat:ion at Corom 3/24/76 Approve 12 Principles for Development of Metro Area Transportation Plan - Report on the 12 principles was distributed to Council March 10. Some rewording proposed by Mr. Murray has been reviewed by staff, along wi th the language of principle No. 7, and redraft developed by staff has been distributed to Council. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt proposed rewording of Principle 7 as suggeste~ by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 3/31/76 Approve Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that, at each point during the ESATS process that the Ci ty CowlCi1 receives a report of progress, that report must include a Eugene staff report on the development or plans for bikes, pedestrians and paratrarisi t. Mr. Murray clarified that the schematic shown to Council outlined that, at various points along the way in developing the Plan, reports would be brought to Council. It is at those times that he is requesting reports on plans for bikes, pedestrians and paratransi t. - Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Councilman Williams expressed the opinion that Level of Service E is not what the Ci ty should use as a planning tool for determining when to consider improving a thoroughfare; "E" had been defined in the principles as the level at which congestion would warrant street improvement plans. He feels that Level D should perhaps be the level at which improvement is considered. Mr. Murray disagreed, feeling that testizrr::my he has heard would indicate the communi ty does not want to move in the direction Hr. Williams suggests. Councilman Williams responded that, for p.lanning purposes, a nearly impossible level of congestion would have to be reached before planning any street improvement and that seems an incredible disservice to the communi ty . Movement throughout the city would be severely restricted, he said. Mayor Anderson shared ME. Williams' concern; "We are talking about planning and not implementation", he said, and it would seem a disservice to avoid even planning until congestion exceeds Level E. Mr. Guenzler, LCOG, in describing Level E, noted that as volume increases 'the speed slows .down until it reaches a point where traffic flow is extremely unstable, at least for that section of the street. Any disturbance at all would create a stop and go situation. In long-range planning, he said, some streets would be projected to be in that category. It would be only for - ~ 4/12/76 - 18 l''ll e -. ----- - -- those streets that solutions would be sought. Too, he noted, the principle talks about capacity criteria only. A different criteria might be involved if places are discovered where drivers are avoiding congestion and overflowing into neighborhoods. As it now stands, any street in danger of exceeding Level E would fall into the category of a major problem area. Al Williams, Traffic Engineer, clarified that, when talking about Level E, the congestion would be for an hour-long condition. There may be situations in which a street meets Level E for 10 or 20 minutes. When the guidelines were put together,he said, it was the intent to make it clear that E is a substantially higher congestion level than the metro area is experiencing at present. Planning engineers went overboard in that direction, however, since the public may not choose to accept that congestion. Councilman Williams does not believe the community will accept a system in which street improvement is not even considered for places exceeding Level E. To not plan for a reasonably uncongested transportation system, which includes all lTDdes, seems very unwise. Mr. Murray thought it should be remembered that discussion is being confined to level of service when in fact the plan is much broader than.that. It is implausJble to him that Co~cil could collectively reach an opinion that the community is demanding any simj1en-'thing. It seems wise only to assure that there is some reasonable plan for the future. Mr. Williams reiterated his concern that he does ,not believe the community wishes to congest the area to a point worse than what it is now experiencing. - Mrs. Beal felt that previous testilTDny indicates the population does not want lots of traffic. She wondered, though, if it is desirable to discourage use of the auto by making traffic movement so difficult people will seek other IOOdes. Mr. Murray also alluded to the possibility of planning for street improvement when the community decides it has had it with congestion and demands improvement. Right now that condition does not exist, he added, and it seems devisive to build roads not fallOred by the public. In answer to Mr. Murray, Mayor Anderson noted a point overlooked, that there should be sufficient lati tude to at least plan for improvement before a road becomes so congested as to cause traffic hazards and impede alternative flows that are considered important. The word "exceed" bothers him and he suggested it would perhaps be mre comfortable to stipulate "reach level E". ME. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to reconmend to the other jurisdictions that, under Principle No.8, the word "reach" be substituted for "exceed", to read that "streets and highways will be considered for improvement where vol ume is projected to reach the maximum capaci ty (level of service E) ." Ccrrun 3/31/76 Approve Mr. Hamel expressed pride in staff and Council efforts in the past; as the area has grown, they have not been one step behind but rather right in line in planning efforts, he said. -- Public Works Director remarked that, in arri ving at Level E, the engineers in no way meant that they would design at Level E. 1'~ 4/12/76 - 19 Vote was taken on the motion which' carried unanimously. Corom 3/31/76 Approve . Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to adopt the twel ve principles wi th the approved changes. Motion carried unanimously.. ------- F. ~slent Room Tax Fund AllocatTon Guidelines - Letter, staff report and comndttee recommendations have been distributed to Council. Finance Director explained the original ~lidelines were adopted by Council in May, 1974, and since that time the allocation committee, staff and Councll have had problems with it. Basically the proposed guidelines define recreational, educational, cultural and tourist activities, as well as set priorities on use of funds. Council had expressed concern with applications coming to Counoil sporadically and a recommendation had been made for semi-annual review. The Room Tax Committee would prefer quarterly meetings, however, and staff has no objections. Mr. Murray' wondered about item 9(c), that consideration will not be applications "in competition with private profit-making ventures". if that would present problems, if "in direct competition" would be Mr. Fairchild, Chairman of the Room Tax Committee, responded he did would cause problems to leave as is. gi ven to He wondered wiser wording. not think it Mr. Murray then questioned No. 14, which says preference would be given to those not previously funded. He was troubled by that since there are some which are funded, and justifiably so, each year. Finance Director noted there will be certain activities that Council will want to fund each year. Therefore, the guidelines should be open to that but still indicate some preference for those items that are not necessarily so continuous. e Corom 3/24/76 Approve Mr. .Keller was bothered by No.1, which indicated 30% of the annual fund should be allocated in April and 70% in August. Discussion was held on the merits of having four meetings a year ,which of course would negate those percentages. Hr. Fairchild said thecommi ttee definitely feels it would be unwieldy to try to meet only twice a year. It was agreed that the words "special consideration" would be substituted for "preference". Mr. Haws wondered about 3(b) which provides that information will be made available to non-residents about recreational or cultural oppo~tunities in Eugene, incl uding promotion of tourism and conventions. Finance Director explained it provides for acti vi ties the Chamber is doing now - to prepare brochures to hand out, etc. It encompasses the convention bureau which is invol ved in enticing conventions through trade journals, etc. to come to Eugene. Distribution of materials at other conventions is another method. Mr. Haws wondered about research on di verting funds to Parks. Mayor Anderson replied that issue was discussed but never pursued~ Mr. Haws requested staff to submit possibilities on using funds on culturally related activities in Parks. Mayor Anderson said they have been used that way. He noted a previous issue had been whether all room tax money could be plugged back into the general fund. There was some comment then indicating it was not possible in view of charter amendment provisions. . As there were no objections, the Chair ordered a redraft to be brought back indicating four meetings would be held a year at definite times and that the 30% and 70% figures would be eliminated. ,Ttt3 Corom 3/24/76 Approve 4/12/76 - 20 e Room Tax Allocation Guidelines - Proposed rewording has been distributed to Council. Finance Director noted a couple of changes from the original proposed guidelines. Paragraph 1 stipulates that the Room Tax Committee shall provide reasons for their recommendations when presenting them to the City Council. Also, Guideline No. 19 was added to provide for appeal to the City Council by an applicant whose request is denied. Such an appeal must contain reasons for objecting to the Committee's decision and it must be submitted to the Council at the time the COmnUttee recommendations are submitted, which are on the first of the month following the COmnUttee meetings. That allows the applicant ample time to prepare an appeal if his request has been denied. since reasons for denying must be stipulated, it gives the applicant tools to decide whether an appeal is worthwhile. Lack of funds, for instance, would not be logically appealable. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the guidelines as revised. Motion carried unanimously. - ------ G. GiilespTe Propert-Y-COiUTemnat:ion-= Memo an(Tcopy;i- conciemnation resolution . previously adopted have been distributed to Council members. The memo exp1a~ned attempts to purchase-the property--had been uniiiiiccessfuT.-'- It --was understood when the resolution was adopted that the matter would be brought back to Council after every attempt had been made to acquire the property without condemnation. Staff recommendation is that no action be taken so that staff can proceed with condemnation under the authorization of the resolution. Comm 4/7/76 Approve Corom 3/24/76 Approve ~ H. Zoning Ordinance Re: Christmas Tree Lots - Memo has been distributed to Council members. Staff has found that there are indeed violations occurring. There is no authorization for such sales in areas residentially zoned. No action was taken. e Mick NOlte, Building Inspection Superintendent, suggested an administrative procedure which would require a slight amendment to the zoning ordinance _ to write temporary permits for Christmas tree sales lots and include fireworks stands as well to have additional control. Mr. Murray was not sure if the recommendation would apply to residential as well as commercial~ and he wondered if the permits could be restricted to commercial zones. Mr. Saul suggested referring the matter to the Planning COmmission since it would involve an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Comm Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to refer the proposed amendment to 3/24/76 the Planning COmnUssion for recommendation. Approve The temporary permit system Mr. Nolte refers to, said Mr. Saul, is a simple code amendment providing for a permit system in commercial zones. He had not anticipated a permit system for residential zones. Mr. Murray wondered about notifying those with residentially zoned lots before the Christmas season. Mr. Keller thought there might be instances in which having a Christmas tree lot in a residential zone would be favorable. e Mr. Bradley concurred with Mr. Keller, feeling that the Planning Commission should consider temporary permits in any zone. t'l If 4/12/76 - 21 Mr. Murray said that every part of the city has adequate commercial property to accommodate lots and many problems occur with lots in certain residential neighborhoods. Vote was taken on the motion to refer,which carried, all present voting aye except Mr. Murray voting no. - I. Appointments to 1990 UPdate Policy Cornnuttee - It w~s noted that the Planning Commission representative to the Policy Committee will be Alan Maxwell. It was felt best to select a Council representative when all Council members are in attendance. It was understood Council member seleation would be made at the March 31 Committee meeting. Appointment to Plan Update POlicy Co~ttee - Council members interested 'in serving as representative to this committee were to contact Councilman Keller. Mr. Williams and Bradley both expressed interest, and Mr. Keller recommended appointment of Mr. Williams. Corom 3/24/76 Approve Mr. Hamel llDved seconded by Mr. Haws to appoint Mr. Williams to the committee with Mr. Bradley to serve as alternate. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haws moved second by Mr. Bradley to table Item I until the April 14 committee-of-the-whole meeting. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Hamel voting no. Corom 3/31/76 See action below J. Improvement Petitions Paving - Whitbeck Blvd. from Lorane Highway to 1000 feet west. 66.6% of assessable front footage on petition. tt, paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Souza Park 1st addition - 100% Sanitary Sewer on Seneca Road from Roosevelt Boulevard to the north approximately 600 feet - 79.7% of assessable square footage on petition. Paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within 11th addition to Nob Hill - 100% None of the peti tions invol ves ci ty costs. Under Item C, Mr. Williams recei ved a telephone call regarding concern about street improvement on Seneca. Public Works Director noted that improvement project was initiated by Council last December. Paving will be deferred at this time, however, due to difficulty with right-of-way acquisi tion. He noted it will not be costlier to do the sewer and paving projects separately. Mr. Haws llDved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the petitions. Motion carried unanillDusly. Conun 3/31/76 Approve Improvement Petition - Sanitary Sewer on 25th Avenue from approximately 650 feet east of Cleveland Street to 320 feet east (a portion of 2nd addition to Leach Subdivision) - 77.57% assessable area on petition. No city costs. Mr. Keller llDved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the petition. Motion carried unaninously. Comm 4/7 /76 APprov. 4/12/76 - 22 {'IS e K. Reconsideration of Abatement, 1442 Pearl Street - Merro from Public Works Department and letters requesting stay of::abatement authorization have been distributed to Council. Manager noted Mr. Tom Link has expressed interest in purchasing and will be refurbishing the outside by April 20, the inside by January 1, 1977. M.ick Nolte, Building Inspection Superintendent, said that, subsequent to Council action to abate the property, Mr. Link has rehabilitated the house next door to the property in question and has been quite successful in that effort . Mr. Murray spoke strongly in favor of allowing an extension of abatement proceedings. He has seen work done by Mr. Link and feels the work is highly satisfactory. Manager noted that action suggested if extension is desired would be to change the abatement resolution to provide for rehabilitation and bringing the property up to code, also requiring completion in 180 days' time. Mr. Nolte recommends the time limit be included. e Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize staff to prepare, for action at the April 12 Council meeting, an amendment to the abatement resolution as suggested. Motion carried unanimously. -- -- ----------- ---.- L. In-ter-Agency Rape- Team - Mrs. BeaTreferred to LeOe Director Doug Halley's reply to Mayor Anderson's letter to him expressing Council concern for.. continuation of the Inter-Agency Rape Team. Mr. Halley's letter explained t~at the Technical Advisory Comndttee had declined to hear a delegation from the Eugene Women's Commission supporting the Team continuation. Mrs. Beal feels Council should request further information from LCOO concerning the decision and, at the same, reiterate its concern. Comm 3/31/76 Approve Mayor Anderson felt perhaps another request could be made to LeOG to hear a delegation from the Women's Commission and Council. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the City of Eugene request the LCoe Board to place consideration of the Rape Team on its next agenda and, at that time, listen to a presentation by the WOmen's Commission to the full LeOe Board. Comm 4/7 /76 Approve selinda Grier, Women's COmuUssion, stated they had met with the LCOG Citizens Advisory Committee. There was no quorum at that meeting, but the CdImJi ttee members present seemed generally supporti ve though they fel t any action was not within their Jurisdiction. Manager thought that, in addition, it might prove successful to refer the ma~ter back to the TAC requesting them to hear a presentation. Mr~ Williams noted that the LCoe letter defines no reasons behind the TAC action. If their reasons were proper and sound, he would question whether the Board should be asked to reconsider. e Mayor Anderson, however, views the letter as rather inadequate. Since the di,rect line of communication would rightly be with the Leoe Board, he feels that body should be requested to re-examine the matter, bringing in the TAC if they wiSh to do so. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanirrously. I" 4/12/76 - 23 M. Assessment Panel Report - April 5 Present: Council members Murray and Bradley; City Engineer Bert Teitze1 - 1. C.B. 1078 - levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer - C~nter Way from Martin Street to 650' South of Martin Street (75-29) No written protests or requests to be heard were received. Comm 4/7/76 Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Approve 2,- C.B. 1079 - levying assessments for --all-~Y pav-ing between 13th Avenu;-a~d 14th Avenue fromPattersonStreet't6Hi1yardStreet(75~39) , . '. .,'. No writ~en protests or requests to be heard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. Comm 4/7/76 Approve 3. C.B. 1080 - levying assessments for alley paving between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washin ton Street tolawrence Street 75-40 No wrltten ,protests or requests to be heard were recelve . Recommendation: levy assessments as proposed. Comm 4/7/76 Approve 4. C.B. 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 .., Ir tten protests were received from Harold Primrose an Emmade Prlmrose 0 4 ld Dillard Road and Robert Horowitz and Mrs. R. A. Horowitz of 100 Barber Drive. Requests~ to be heard were received from Carl Richart 4873 Old Dillard Rd., Gladys Kokotan of 4839 Old Dillard Rd.. and Eugene Moyer of 4895 Old Dillard Rd. Messrs Richart and Moyer did not appear. Mr. Teitzel explained that the project came about by the annexation of the Skyline loop area as a health hazard, therefore. the property owners were forced into the City without their consent. This sewer project came about by virtue of the City Council initiating an improvement ordinance on April 14, 1976. Comments from property owners have generally been on the City's assessment policy. Mrs. G,ladys Kokotan stated that her major concern was that she could not understand the statement she had received. She stated it is not an itemized statement, and she does not know what she is paying for. Also, she stated that she has two lots and only has a sewer hook up on one lot. Mr. Teitzel explained that Tax lot 3900 was assessed for the lateral, 1/2~ levy and one service hook up; Tax lot 3800 was assessed for the lateral and 1/2~ levy. No service was left for lot 3800, and therefore, she was not charged for service hook up for Lot 3800. Councilman Murray stated that Mr. Teitzel could explain the statement to Mrs. Kokotan after the meeting.____ ______ , Mrs. Kokotan question~d.whY the property across the ~treet could ~Qt be deve~oped and therefore share in the expense of this sewer proJect. Mr. Teltzel explalned ~.'._ that the portion across the street is in the County and he was unsure of ~ow much .., of it could be served. but believed a portion of it could be served by thlS sewer. Mr. Teitzel stated that one of two things could have been done in a situation like this, (1) Not include the property in the assessment. then when 1~1 4/12/76 - 24 e e e the property is annexed to the City collect an assessment equivalent to that of the property across the street as provided in Section 7.055 of the City Code, or (2) The property outside the City can be included in the assessment area now and the cost deferred until such time that the property is annexed to the City. Mr. Teitzel stated that the property was not included in the assessment due to the fact that staff was unsure of what the use of the property across the street would be and how much of it could be served by the sewer line because of the future use. Councilman Bradley inquired how much property within the County could be served by this sewer and have a deferred assessment and whether it was in the realm of probability that within the next ten years the property could be annexed. Mr. Teitzel replied that a strip approximately 100 feet wide could possibi1y be serviced by the sewer. This could reduce the assessment rate from B.6t per square foot to 7.4t per square foot. It is within the realm of probability that this property could be annexed. Councilman Bradley further inquired whether another line would be required on annexation to serve this property. Mr. Teitze1 replied a large portion of the property would require an additional sewer. Mr. Murray and Mr. Bradley stated they would like staff comment on the ramifications of this deferred assessment. This is to be supplied to the Committee of the Whole meeting on Wednesday, April 7, 1976. Mr. Bradley made a motion to include that area on the south side of Old Dillard ~oad in the assessm:nt and defer the collection until such time as the property lS annexed to the C1ty. Mr. Murray stated that he had reservations about the motion because of the financial aspects to the sewer utility fund and becaus~ of encouragement of outside development. The motion did not carry. Recommendation: Refer matter to City Council. . - Don Allen, Public Works Director, referred to Item 4 of the report, explaining it involved a sewer assessment in the Skyline Loop area annexed because of a heal th hazard. During the process, Public Works prepared est:imates and timetables on the sewer system. Those engineering decisions were prelimcinary and, in this particular case, major changes were made during the final design phase. A line was relocated in a street right-of-way that was a borderline street to the city and the property on the other side of the street was not annexed. The assesslfJent was based on properties which could use the system at this time, i.e. within the city limits. There is a possibility that a portion of the property outside the city could be serviced by the sewer system, depending upon what the owner Subsequently decides to do with the undeveloped property. City ordinances do allow deferral of assessments when in the best interests of the city. Rather than pay assessments for undeveloped property, deferral is recommended until such time as the property owner wishes to use the sewer system. The question, then is whether in this case the City wishes to be the "banker" in the interim for those who may wish to use the system at some future point. Mr. Allen cautioned there is some $380,000 invested at present in the deferred assessment program which goes into the sewer utility fund. He also explained there is a legal question involved - State law permits assessment: of property outside the city but city ordinances state that it is mandatory to annex before the sewer system can be used and property assessed. Assistant Manager explained that properties inside the city bear the full cost of the sewer. When others annex, they will be levied an equi valent am::>unt: or assessed for another sewer to serve them. If assessment is deferred, they would then pay the aID:;)unt of that deferred assessment:. If they are levied at: some future point in time, the current rate at that time can be charged. f"8 4/12/76 - 25 Mr. Bradley was concerned with fairness and equity. He wondered about criteria to be used in deciding whether to defer assessments. Mr. Allen noted the property owner outside the city would, in this case, most likely be willing to have the city defer the assessment. He added the owner ndght be willing to annex also, but at his leisure. The City cannot actually levy the assessment until that annexation takes place. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to levy the assessments as proposed without deferring the assessment for that portion outside the city limits. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley and Mrs. Beal voting no'. . Comm 4/7/76 Approve " s.e.B. 1082 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer in area between 160 feet west of Wi11amette Street and Pearl Street and between 4th Avenue and 225 feet north of 4th Avenue' 75~56 . tten protests or requests to be eard were received. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. N. Planning Commission Recommendations March 8. - Forwarded wi th no recommendation because of a tie vote re: Annexat~on - K. Ray Barnes (A 76-1) - Tax Lots 300, 400, 500 and 800, ,located north of Holly Avenue (map distributed to Council). Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to schedule a public hearing on the above annexation for April 26. Motion carried unanimously. O. Segregation of Assessment Tax Lots 4700, 5400 and 5500 - (SE 76-3), City of Eugene, West Side of Pearl between 3rd and 4th Avenues. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the segregation. Motion carried unanimously. P. Authorization of Issuance of $2,160,000 in General Obligation Bancroft Bonds To be awarded at special Council meeting May 26. Report has been distributed to Council. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize issuance of $2,160,000 in General Obligation Bancroft Bonds and set a special Council meeting for May 26 at 2:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. -- <. Q. Ferry Street Bridge and South Bank Bikeway Projects - Public Works Department memo has been distributed to Council requesting authorization for construction- finance agreements with the State Highway Department. P~lic Works Director noted the projects are top priority Bicycle Committee projects. They involve widening of the Ferry Street Bridge, $140,000, on the east from the north end southerly for 250 feet to a new ramp down into Alton Baker Park, and also the installation of a pathway on the south bank of the Willamette River from the bridge to the Autzen footbridge, ($90,000). The State would share 50% of the total cost of $230,000. Mr. Murray wondered if it would be feasible to put rails on the sid~walks at the southwest end of the bridge, and Public Works Director 'answered ~t was 4/12/76 - 26 tC\'t .- . .::. . Comm 4/7/76 Approve Comm 4/7/76 Approve e Comm 4/7/76 Approve Comm 4/7/76 Approve . too narrow to accommodate the rails. The widening project on the east side will have appropriate rails, he noted. . Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize the agreements as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/7/76 Approve George Boehnke, 344 Foxtail Drive, commented on the recent decision not to pursue a business license tax and said that spending this money ($140,000 for one; $90,000 for the other) was "one of those cadillacs." He thought in future city budget talks, con- sideration should be given to construction of this type of project by community service clubs or people who ride bikes, rather than with tax money. When informed that half of the project cost would be funded by grant money, Mr. Boehnke said he thought the match- ing funds should be provided by contributions (rather than tax money). In answer to questions from Sol Cuddeback, 2022 Jefferson Street, Manager described the proposed bike route, approaching the bridge on the north side and leading downt to the riverbank to avoid crossing the street under the bridge. Another section would run from the bridge downstream to the pedestrian bridge, forming an important link between the two bridges. Don Allen, public works director, explained that the structure on the east side of the bridge would involve widening the sidewalk and installing a down ramp. Existing walkways would still be used by pedestrians. Mayor Anderson expressed his personal opinion that the installation would provide a viable means of transportation, noting the increasing number of people in the com- munity who were using bikes. He thought the city could be proud of the forward thinking which was establishing bike paths. Use of bikes would be encouraged, he said, and as more and more people turned to bikes for transportation there would not be the conflict with autos that now exists. . R. Request to Release $22,000' from"Revenue -Sharing for County Home Repair Program April 2 memo from Joint Housing Committee has been distributed to Council requesting continuation of funding of the low-income home repair program. Robin Cushman, staff member for the Joint Housing Committ:ee, said the program has been funded using revenue sharing money for the past two years for a total of $44,667. Crawford Lyle of the Lane County Social Service Housing and Home Repair Program noted there have been 232 houses serviced since the start of the program. Also, beginning in July, 1975, qualifications were changed. Prior to that time home repair was for seniors. Now it is low-income home repair. The ratio now is 76.5% low-income seniors to 23.5% low-income non-seniors. The average assessed value the way it was set up was to be $15,000 or less and it has been averaging slightly over $8,000. The average income is $247.45 a month which is a $5,050-a-year standard set by Eugene. The most common types of repair jobs are plumbing related i terns and the most expensive jobs are roofing repairs. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to approve the request to release $22,000 from Revenue Sharing as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Comm 4/7/76 Approve . s. Vacating of West 2nd Avenue from Jefferson Street to Madison Street (SV 74-7) - (Jon geward/Howa rd) Map has been distributed to Council as well as Public Works memo stating the vacation was recommended by the Planning Commdssion January 13, 1975, Council voting on March 24, 1975, to hold final reading pending negotiations on valu~ of the land to be vacated. The petitioners have agreed to values of the land as established by staff, and agreements have been executed now. ~OO 4/12/76 - 27 Total value is $7165; Jongeward, Morris and Redden will pay $4100 by November 1, 1978, and Howard will pay $3,065 immediately upon vacation. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to authorize final reading as recommended. Motion carried unanimoUSly. Corom 4/7/76 Approve - T. Planning Commission Appointment (Vacancy created due to resignation of Howard Bonnett) - Mr. Keller has been informed by staff that there are currently 32 applicants on file in the Manager's office showing interest in serving on the Planning Commission. 13 of the 32 designate that commission as their first choice. He wondered if Council felt additional applications should be accepted. Mr. Haws felt the appointment to be highly important, that applications should be opened up. Mr. Murray felt that, before IlDre applications are accepted, consideration should be given to the pending natter of whether residents should be appointed on a geographic basis. Manager noted that item was not scheduled on "today's" agenda since P1ann.ing Director is out of town. It was understood further discussion would be held at the April 7 Committee meeting. PolIcies andProceduresfOrpTanningcorriiilIssion - AppOintments Corom 3/24/76 Affirm Mr. Murray IlDved seconded by Mr. Hamel that future Planning Commissioners be selected on a ward basis to ensure IlDre equitable geographic distribution and genuine citywide participation; that future selections be by open application, applicants applying for a position from the ward in which they reside; that the council member from that ward should have no more influence than any other in selecting; that the appointment method would affect only future .. appointments and not alter existing Planning commission personnel; that two Commissioners be added irnrrediately, one of them to expand the number from 7 to 8 and one to fill the current vacancy; that the appointments should be made from wards where no current members reside, Council to determine from which two wards; and that more precise geographic distribution be developed later as needed. Corom 4/7/76 See action below . Mr. Williams felt a possible danger would be that Planning Commissioners might feel they represent a specific area. Also, he would find an 8-member commission Objectionable for voting purposes - an odd number is far wiser, he said.. Mr. Keller agreed with Mr. Williams' points, feeling the whole concept is unsa tisfactory. MIs. Beal could not see the significance of geographic distribution if the members would not actually represent their area. Mr. Murray responded that, for those who feel there is significance, i,t is based on a feeling that experience of a first-hand' nature with an area or problem is a kind of knowledge which is useful in the planning process. There is also concern wi th eliminating any parochialism. He feels it is parochial at present, wi th many members coming from a limi ted area. Betty Niven, former Planning Corrunissioner, felt it would be helpful to adopt cri teria and have among them the effort to have geographic representation in a very broad sense. She is very uneasy, however, about having people from a particular district. Even though it is not the intent, she thinks people living in a certain area would be convinced that their representative should be treating them as a constituency. Mrs. Niven says the role of a planning . 4/12/76 - 28 ,,"0 t' -- comrndssioner is to place him or herself in the exact center and take as comprehensive a view as possible and she feels Commissioners should have a commitment to planning, time, and a feeling for a balanced view of the whole ci ty. Mr. Haws appreciated Mrs. Ni ven ' s comments, though feels it is difficu1 t to tell his ward, from which there is no planning cOrmUssioner, that they are really being represented and considered in planning efforts. Mr. Murray felt a safeguard against a commissioner's prioritizing his own ward is the fact that there would be seven other members voting. Mayor Anderson expressed having serious reservations about the proposal, agreeing with Mrs. Niven's comments regarding building constituencies. He feels the city should be planned as a unit rather than in sections which can reflect pockets of resistance. He is also concerned that it would be a step backwards in the city's efforts to promote citizen participation since, under the proposal, an individual would have an opportunity to apply only once every four years. He feels, too, that the Council serves as the geographic representatives of the city and, it sOl!'e geographic balance is desirable on the Planning COnmUssion, there should be a better way to effect it and, at the same time, examine the full set of criteria to be used in Planning Commission selections. He would like to see the Council set forth criteria which are felt to be important at the time of a particular selection. For instance, if there is a vacancy in a particular area of town, people applying from that area certainly should have a higher priority than others. a Mr. Murray is not attracted to the idea of loose kinds of criteria and feels too that there are large segments of the community who do not feel adequately represented. Mrs. Niven felt general criteria would be satisfactory along with deciding what specifics need to be considered as particular vacancies arise, taking into consideration the role played by the person vacating the position and evaluating applications in that context. Mrs. Shirey would like to see more definite criteria formulated before voting on the matter. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey to table. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye except Mr. Murray, aJrad1ey and Haws voting no. It was understood a work session would be held Monday, April 12, Noon, in the MCNutt Room to further discuss the issue. Corom 4/7/76 Affirm Mr. Murray suggested that any Council members having ideas for different criteria should draft them by the time of the meeting. e U.~n;id~~ation of Policies ~d Procedures for Planning Commission Appointments April 12 memo from Planning Director has been distributed to Council, suggesting that major factors in Commissioner selection should include interest in community's future, time to serve, minimum of conflict of interest, ability to think objectively, ability to express thoughts clearly, comrndtment to community welfare. The memo also suggests that secondary factors should include occupation, geographic location, age, sex, race and home owner/renter. !'I () . ~ ~ 4/12/76 - 29 _.._._---~.-..~-- . , ----. .---- -- City Attorney distributed current Code provisions as well as State law, including changes made in 1975 which increase local government control over planning comRUssions and their organization. .- Also distributed was the form used in the past for Commission applicants, as wel) as the current form used for applying 'for positions on all boards and cOzmUssions. Nr. Bradley wondered if geographic representation would be required because of any federal funding the Planning Commission might receive; for instance, might it apply on rezoning matters in areas of urban renewal. It was understood staff would pursue and bring back an answer. Mr. Hamel stated that, when first contacted by Mr. Murray, he thought that geographic distribution had merit; but, after further consideration, he is disturbed about choosing members from each ward. First of all,. he said, the ci ty as a whole is represented by the total Ci ty Council, elected on a ward basis, who is charged with giving attention to each ward and to the city as a whole. He feels that selecting planning corranissioners on a ward basis would be "tying it down too much". What would happen if no one wished to run from a certain area, he wondered. I ! I Mr. Murray referred to Mrs. Niven's comments at the last Committee meeting, feeling they could not have been objective since she served so long on the Planning Commission. He takes exception to comments he has heard that the Planning Corranission has always been fair. He also noted difficulty with cohesiveness when there were only four Council wards and each council member covered a large area. Tqo, he feels the Ci ty Council should take issue with any remarks that a ward system creates parochialism. He disagrees strongly, especially when considering his time spent on community goals, ridgeline study, etc. - Mrs. Shi rey is concerned wi th the fact that the Planning Comrnissionnow is not representative of the city. She is not convinced that the Council would really keep all factors in mind at interview tirre if different criteria were determined each time a vacancy arose. The ward system seems the best to her so far, as she is 1OC1St concerned with "representation". Mr. H~ws feels geographic distribution is desirable, though not necessarily on a ward basis. More attention needs to be given the percentage of the population that feels neglected, he said; and, from a public relations standpoint, it would be wise to give them reason to think there is an objective decision being made. Mrs. Beal felt all Council members shared her op~n~on that the C01lllOOn objective is to have the best Planning Commission possible, even though that goal is being addressed in different ways by individual members. She noted, too, that the President of her local neighborhood group called her to say their executive board favored geographic representation. She felt the very fact that she received the phone call indicated a Planning Commission member, under a ward system, could also be phoned and requested to take certain actions. Mr. Hamel could see possible political hassles with a ward sljstem, but Mrs. Shirey has higher hopes for how people will behave. -~ Mr. Bradley favors some geographic distribution - whether it be planning districts or wards, and feels that the Planning Commission should be non-political. ~()3 4/12/76 - 30 e Mr. Keller felt it has always been possible for persons from any area to apply; the fact that there are some areas not represented could mean there simply were no people interested enough to serve. He feels the aim is to get the best planning for the city and no one has convinced him that geographic distribution is really that important. There are other factors' tha t seem much more cri tical, and he does not feel that an area would be shortchanged simply because no commissioner lived in tha t area. Mr. Bradley noted that the Planning Commission performs both quasi-judicial functions and planning functions. If in the future a hearings official assumes the adjudication function, perhaps it would be a detriment to have geographic representation for planning functions. Mrs. Beal suggested that Planning COmnUssion members be selected on the basis of interest in ci vic affairs, interest in planning, freedom from conflict of interest, competence in chosen profession or other areas of interest, and available time. She suggested too that consideration be given the applicant's special knowledge or residence in a geographic area of the city. e Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Shirey that future Planning Commissioners be selected on a ward basis to ensure more equitable geographic distribution and genuine citywide participation; that those selected shall also have an interest in ci vie affairs, interest in planning, freedom from conflict of interest, competence in chosen profession or other areas of interest, and available time; that future selections be by open application, applicants 'applying for a posi tion from the ward in which they reside; that the Council member from that ward should have no llOre formal influence than any other in selecting; that the appointment method would affect only future appointments and not alter existing Planning Commdssion membership; that two Commissioners be added immediately, one of thein to expand the number from 7 to 8 and one to fill the current vacancy; that the appointments should be made from wards where no current members reside', Council to determine from which two wards; that llOre precise geographic distribution be developed later as needed. Corom 4/12/76 See action below As another al ternati ve, Mr. Keller suggested meeting in advance of each selection to arrive at a process to be used for each specific selection. Each time a vacancy occurs, he said, categories could be established which were fel t to be important in filling that particular spot. They could be ranked by number on a grid - in order of importance. Candidates would be rated in all categories. The rating in each category would be multiplied by the number given that category and all scores added together for the grand total. Only those candidates with total scores above the median would then be given final consideration. -.. - ---"-. . Mr. Haws did not understand Mr. Keller-'s idea but felt it seemed too time consuming. Mr. Bradley wondered about the possibility of giving highest geographic balance but not stipulating it in the ordinance. Council would have more flexibili ty, he thought. priority to That way the .e Mr. Murray expressed not being against a process whereby, in the event there did not appear to be a satisfactory candidate from the vacant ward who also possessed all the other desirable qualities, then the Council could appoint a inember from another portion of the city at large. Hr. Haws wondered if that would dispel the fears of those opposed to the ward system. Mr. Keller felt it would not, in that the ward provision would still 'be wri tten into the c1 ty code and Council would be obligated to at least try to fill the posi tion by ward. ~~ 4/12/76 - 31 Mr. Hamel concurred, feeling that, under that system, pressure could still be put on the Council person from the ward in question. He would be uncomfortable being put in that position. Mr. Bradley wondered about a requirement that the Council annually certify that the Planning Commission does fairly represent the City geographically. If it is determined it does not, then one or two members could be added to effect it. -- Vote was taken on the IOOtion as stated, which carried, Council members Murray, Haws, Shirey and Bradley voting aye and Council members Keller Hamel and Beal voting no. ' Comm 4/12/76 See action below Mr. Murray roved seconded by Mr. Hamel tha t residency in the ward from which the c,ommissioner was selected be a continuing requirement of service. Motion carried, Council members Murray, Shirey, Haws, Bradley, Keller and Hamel voting aye, and Council member Beal voting no. Councilman Keller commented on the meeting held at work session today (April 12) on which formal action was to be taken now. Noting difference in composition of the Council at this meeting, however, he suggested elimination of this item from the consent calendar. The Chair ruled that either a substitute motion or a motion to table would be the appropriate action. Discussion followed with Stan Long, assistant city attorney, on procedure. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to table Item U. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Bea1, Williams, Hamel, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Council members Haws, ~mrray, Bradley, and Shirey voting no. tit Councilman Bradley moved that Item U be discussed in committee on April 14 or April 21. There was no second. Councilman Bradley moved that Item U be discussed in committee on April 14. There was no second. V. Introduction - Joyce Benjamin - Mr. Henry introduced Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, who will occasionally be serving as legal counsel at Committee meetings. Corom 3/24/76 File w. Countywide Library Ballot Measure - Manager announced that the County Commissioners "this lOOrning" adopted a proposal very similar to the one suggested by the City's legal office. The only addition requested by the County is that the ballot measure state that "all county library tax lOOnies collected in a city receiving library services from a public library district be refunded to said public library district, and that the lOOnies so refunded be used excl usi vely for public library services." Manager said that Council should now study the potential contractual relations and how the Eugene Library would be invol ved in the process. The subcommi ttee which had been appointed at the March 10 Committee meeting to study the original county proposal agreed that contractual relations and the role any city 7 library would play would be studied and recommendations made. The County requests continuation of the study with the hope that details worked out might enable the City of Eugene to take a firm position. -4It Mr. Murray, as a matter of clarification, was assured that supporting the ballot proposal does not commit participation of the Eugene Library and that 4/12/76 - 32 ~9~. e the que-s-tJ.on- is left open on differences of opinion expresseci"--regarding structure and financing arrangements; additionally that, if the measure passes without Eugene's participation, Eugene city residents would pay only lOC/$lOOO TCV which would revert to the Eugene Library. Mrs. Shirey expressed concern because of bUdgetary crises. She wondered if the public can really afford to pay for a countywide system when so many services are being cut. It seems that a luxury item is being created. Sh~ feels it wrong to bring it to the voters in its present form. Manager supposed the Budget COmrnUttee could consider and respond by reducing the general property tax by lO~/$lOOO and budget the library accordingly. Mr. Keller finds difficulty in supporting a program with so many problems to be ironed out and with a crash budgetary program underway. Mayor Anderson, however, believes the proposal reflects conceptual approval of a countywide system. Developing a contractual program is problematic and fundamental to the passage of the ballot measure. He recommends proceeding as quickly as possible on arrangements as the pUblic would not wish to vote on a measure without all details worked out in advance. Manager suggested Council not act on the proposal at this time but rather have the subcomrndttee discuss, review and consider the contractual arrangements. Council may then choose whether to support it. The fate of the proposal may heavily depend on those deliberations, he said. Mr. Keller would be more comfortable with an election later than May 25, but Mayor Anderson thought every effort had been made to meet the deadline e and that perhaps it should go ahead. Manager added there would apparently be some legal problems in delaying the matter in that the county may contract with the state for certain services and funding, one condition of that contract being that the issue be on the Hay 25 ballot. There would therefore be a concern with grant money loss if the measure were delayed. Comm 3/24/76 File Mr. Keller wondered if subcomrnUttee. members felt they could support the program as presented. Mayor Anderson responded he feels it is a step forward. His recommendation and own personal opinion are contingent on the contract between the city and the countywide organization. Mr. Murray feels a little skeptical - it seems to represent a "blank check", he thought. Signing should be contingent on resolving any differences outlined. Sorre of the structural problems seem academic but he is not optimistic about sol ving financial problems. No action was taken. x. Eugene Friends of the Library - Mr. Tom Gilbert, President of. the Eugene Friends of the Library, reported that organization was estab~~shed about two weeks ago. They have put together an extensive program ~n honor of National Library Week and extend an invi tat ion to all to attend the events. Comm 3/31/76 File e Y. Amendment to Oregon Transportat.ion Plan Re: Airport co~ssio~ Recommendation ,Report explaining further the Airport Commdssion's pos~t~on w~th re~ard to staff assumptions in amending the transportation pl~,and an excerpt ~f A~rport COmrnUssion minutes, were distributed .to Counc~l. Bob Shelby, A~rport Manager, noted that the project director, after input from air transportation people around ~06 4/12/76 - 33 'the state, had decided to rewrite Assumption F; Mr. Shelby said perhaps that rewri tten assumption should be available to the Council before consideration. There will be more opportunities for input before the plan is finalized, he said, ,as the Airport Commission would bring any official statement to Council before presenting to the State. ' z. Jail Tour - Council members adjoumed to a tour of the County Jail. facili ty . AA.Chamber of Commerce Letter re: City Budget - Mayor, Anderson has received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce noting that the business community stands ready to assist the Ci ty in the budget process. Representati ves would be happy to meet with the City Budget Committee to discuss observations and comments from the community as regards expenditures and possible revenue al ternati ves . Comm 3(31/76 File - .......-' Comm 3/31/76 File Comm 4/7/76 File BB. Purchase of property at 1458 Ferry Street Council was informed that the city offer of $19,700 for purchase of the property was accepted. That amount represents the fair market value based on independent File appraisal. Acquisition through negotiation and condemnation was authorized by Resolution 2493 adopted March 24, 1976. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to approve, affirm, and file as noted Items A, C through H, J through T, and V through BB, noting Item B (appointment of Scott Lieuallen to budget committtee) was withdrawn, and Item I (appointment, 1990 Plan Policy Committee) and Item U (Appointments, Planning Commission) were tabled. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. III - Ordinances Council Bill No. 1078 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer on Center Way from Martin Street to 650 feet south of Martin Street (75-29), read the first time on March 22, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 5, 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 memb-ers present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17603. Council Bill ,No. 1079 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue from Patterson Street to Hilyard Street (75-39) read the first time on March 22, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 5, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as pro- posed 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. III-A-3 - 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 17604. Council Bill No. 1080 - Levying assessments for paving alley between 6th Avenue and 7th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (75-40) ~ read the first time on March 22, 1976 and referred to Assessments Panel for hearing ,., on April 5, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as pro- posed 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. 4/12/76 - 34 ~oq, 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 17605. e Council Bill No. 1081 - Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve the Skyline Loop annexation area genrally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north, Dillard Road on the south and west, and east of Akyline Loop on the east (Phase 1)(75-41), read the first time on March 22, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 5, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments as proposed in cOID~ittee-of-the-whole on April 7, 1976, and read the second time by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present reqesting 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, except Councilman Bradley voting no because he felt the city's assessment policy/wasnot equitable, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17606. 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), read the first time on March 22, 1976 and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on April 5, 1976, was brought back with recommendation to levy assessments aspropsed 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 17607. e Council Bill No. 1090 - Authorizing issuance and sale of $2,160,000 General Obligation Bancroft Improvement Bonds, Series "C" (bid opening 10:30 a.m.; award 2:00 p.m. PDT May 26, 1976) 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 17608. Council Bill No. 1091 - Paving streets within Kincaid Oaks Subdivision and Kincaid Street from East Amazon Drive to the east and south (1244) 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 17609. Council Bill No. 1092 -Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within Kincaid Oaks Subdivision and Kincaid Street from East Amazon Drive to the east and south was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Counci 1 member present requesting that' it be read in full. ~oe 4/12/76 - 35 r 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 17610. Council Bill No. 1093 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Kincaid Oaks Subdivision (1244) 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 deelared passed and numbered 17611. Council Bill No. 1094 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Kincaid Oaks 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 17612. Council Bill No. 1095 - Paving Whitbeck Boulevard from Lorane Highway to 1000 feet west (1288) 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. -' --"" Councilwoman Shirey asked if this bill could be held over. She was concerned about the percentage that initiated. this project,~whether.it included considerable.land owned by Kroodieck.-Brothers. ; _~___ . _ -- _ . _ Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Bradley that the bill be held. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller voting no. Council Bill No. 1096 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving Whitbeck Boulevard from Lorane Highway to 1000 feet west (1288) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. -- Mrs. Shirey moved second by Mr. Bradley that the bill be held. Motion carried - all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Keller-~voting no. ;;1.0' 4/12/76 - 36 e Council Bill No. 1097 - Paving streets within 1st Addition to Souza Park (1245) 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 17613. Council Bill No. 1098 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 1st Addition to Souza 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 17614. - Council Bill No. 1099 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 1st Addition to Souza Park (1245) 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 17615. Council Bill No. 1100 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 1st Addition to Souza Park was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council members 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 17616. e Council Bill No. 1101 - Pedestrian way within 1st Addition to Souza Park (1245) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. ~/O 4/12/76 - 37 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 17617. Council Bill No. 1102 - Sanitary sewer on Seneca Road from Roosevelt Boulevard to the north approximately 600 feet (1289) 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 17618. Council Bill No. 1103 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on Seneca Road from Roosevelt Boulevard to the north approximately 600 feet (1289) was read by council bill number and title only.; there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moyed 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 17619. Council Bill No. 1104 - Paving streets~within 11th Addition to Nob Hill (1260) 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 17620. Council Bill No. 1105 - Adopting plans and specifications for paving streets within 11th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 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 ~ime by council bill number only. ~1I 4/12/76 - 38 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 17621. e Council Bill No. 1106 - Sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 11th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Co~ncil, 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 17622. Council Bill No. 1107 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 11th Addition to Nob Hill was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. 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 17623. Council Bill No. 1108 - Sanitary sewer on 25th Avenue from 650 feet east of Cleveland Street to 320 feet east within 2nd Addition to Leach Subdivi- sion (1278) 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 17624. Council Bill No. 1109 - Adopting plans and specifications for sanitary sewer on 25th Avenue 'from 650 feet east of Cleveland Street to 320 feet east within 2nd Addition to Leach Subdivision was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that i~ 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 17625. J./~ 4/12/76 - 39 , Council Bill No. 1110 - Storm sewer to serve Briarwood Mobile Home Estates (ll88) 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 mov~d 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 ~ill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17626. Council Bill No. 1111 - Adopting plans and specifications for storm sewer to serve Briarwood Mobile Home Estates 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 17627. IV - Resolutions Resolution No. 2494 - Prescribing form of notice of sale of $2,160,000 General Obligation Bancroft Improvement Bonds, Series "C" (May 26,1976 bid opening) was read by number and title. e Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2495 - Calling hearing April 26, 1976 re: Abatement of property at 2375 Madison Street (Dannemiller) 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 votiRg aye. Resolution No. 2496 - Amending Resolution No. 2473 re: Abatement of property at 1442 Pearl Street (to provide for rehabilitation and bringing property to code within l80 days) 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. Resoltuion No~ 2497 - Authorizing agreement with State Highway Division for 50/50 cost share on Ferry Street Bridge Bikeway Project ($140,000 total) 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. - 4/12/76 - 40 a.13 ,.- ,:I e Resolution No. 2498 - Authorizing agreement with State Highway Division for 50/50 cost share on South Bank Bikeway Project ($90,000 total) 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. 2499 - Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period March 22 through April 12, 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. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, April 26, 1976. ~:J~ Charles T. Henry City Manager -- - ~/~ 4/12/76 - 41