HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1976 Meeting
M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
e August 16, 1976
Special 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 August 16, 1976 in the Council
Chamber with the following Council members present: Gus Keller, Eric Haws, Wickes Beal,
Tom Williams, Neil Murray, and Edna Shirey. Council members Ray Bradley and D.W.Hamel
were absent.
The meeting was called for the purpose of considering Charter revision and
whether to refer a revised Charter to the voters at a September election
or some subsequent date. Other items were also considered.
I - Public Hearing
A. Liquor License - New outlet
The Steakery, 1775 West 6th Avenue - DA (Class A Dispensers)
Larry and Sandra Bliss
Manager reviewed the OLCC report which indicated two objectors, nine non-
objectors. Staff had no objections.
Public hearin~ was held with no testimony presented.
Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to recommend approval of the
application. Motion carried unanimously.
e II - Charter Revision Corum
A. Final Draft 8/11/76
Charter Revision - Charter draft has been distributed to Council, updated as of
August 9. Four matters remain to be discussed - freeway amendment, garbage,
penalties for violating city ordinances, and collective bargaining. Memos
outlining suggested rewording on those four subjects have also been distributed
to Council.
Mrs. Shirey, who served on the freeway subcommittee, noted that the changes to
Section 41 (1) are mostly for purposes of clarification. New wording in the last
half of subsection 1 has been substituted for the former Section 2 which said
that "approval by the voters shall be obtained, after publication of the notices,
plans, and maps required by this Act, within one year prior to any agr~ement
approving or facilitating construction, or the commencement of actual
construction". Mrs. Shirey said the one-year time element has been removed
because, after talking with Public Works, it was felt that one year was
not a reasonable amount of time from ballot measure passage to signing
of the contracts. .The concern was that the public did not want to give
an open-ended approval for freeway construction - i.e. giving the go-ahead
to build and then not having any recourse after that. By putting a time
limit on the ballot for each project, the voters can assess that time
element and vote accordingly. Mrs. Shirey stated the rewording also
stipulates that the city could "plan such a thoroughfare and prepare
specifications for its construction and statements of its impact. "
.
The public also was concerned with that as they did not favor extensive design
- work if the project is terminated. Subsection 2 streamlines the type and amount
of information that is required to be published in the newspaper.
Monte Marshall, 1865 E. 28th, pointed out that the first part of subsection 1
says that any proposed route must first be approved by a majority of the voting
Lj/~ 8/16/76 - 1
electors. The second part says that plans and specifications for construction and
impact statements may take place without voter approval. There is a difference
between the planning and preparation of plan specifications. He thought it
would seem unwise to proceed with any project in that detail prior to voter e
approval. Mr. Marshall also mentioned that the first part of the section
refers to "freeway" and throughway", then later the wording is "thoroughfare" .
Since throughway is defined by statute, he wonders if that should not be used
throughout ~.
Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, suggested that, if there is
concern about the term "specifications", perhaps the wording could say "general
plans" to connote a less detailed planning process.
Mayor Andefson feels that "specifications" does give engineering some latitude
and there is a need for enough information to provide for a good public debate.
Mr. Marshall suggested leaving out "and prepare specifications for its
construction". Assistant Ci ty Attorney Stan Long did not feel that "specifications"
necessarily meant working drawings - he feels it is wise for some general details
on environmental impact to be included. Additionally, when federal funds are
involved, the flow chart is complicated and involves the public in the
development of plans. Any assumption that the public will not be included in
the planning is inaccurate, said Mr. Long.
There were no objections to changing "thoroughfare" to "freeway or throughway".
Mr. Williams suggested deleting the words "for its construction", to read
"specifications and statements of its impact". Mr. Murray thought the word
"general" should be placed before "specifications".
In answer to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Marshall clarified that contract .
documents of any public body are considered plans. Specifications means .-
specific elaboration on those plans. Mr. Haws suggested deleting "specifications
for its construction".
Mr. Long thought "planning" could mean saying there should be a freeway and where
it should be, with specifications going beyond that. On the other hand, too,
planning might be construed to include all manner of things, incl uding
construction drawings.
Mr. Etter feels that the phrase "general specifications" is a contradiction
of terms. General is not specific, he said. He said there will be protection
for the public because the city will be hard enough pressed for funds that it
will not go overboard on plans prior to voter approval. He would suggest the
wording "plan the freeway or throughway and prepare statements of its impact".
It was agreed to leave the wording "the city may plan such a freeway
or throughway and prepare statements of its impact", with the
understanding the. City Attorney's office could brong back any alternate
wording that would make the intent clearer.
On garbage collection, Section 43(3), a new subsection, has been added which
states the council "may not grant an exclusive citywide franchise to haul solid
waste" .
It was Council consensus to accept that wording.
On Page 17, Section 48, Penalties - Limitation, the wording says that no fine --
or imprisonment for ordinance violation may exceed $1000 or 100 days, except that
city penalty may be as much as state if violation is also a violation of state
statute. Mr. Etter has suggested the wording, "No penal ty for violating a
8/16/76 - 2 '1\1
city ordinance may exceed the penalty prescribed by state law for the violating
conduct" . Mr. Etter commented he would favor omitting the limitation from the
charter, leaving it to the discretion of the City Council. Mrs. Beal concurred,
but Mr. Williams felt it would be unwise to drop the limitation, thinking it
.- could raise an argument. Mr. Long said that, in some instances, the city can
provide different or greater penalties than the state and some latitude should
be maintained. He would prefer deletion of the section.
Mrs. Shirey moved seconded by Mr. Murray to delete Section 48.
Motion carried, all council members present voting aye except
Mr. Williams voting no.
Manager stated that the staff and union organizations have worked out both a
charter amendment and an ordinance, which should be adopted at about the same
ti me . It was the consensus that both should become effective in time for this
fall's collective bargaining. Regarding the section on collective bargaining,
the staff and union representatives have met with council subcommittee.
Personnel Director Gary Long said that AFSCME has raised some slight objections
to material in the August 6 letter which will be revised. He noted too that the
charter language deletes procedural statements in the original charter amendment
and prescribes certain matters shall be governed by ordinance. Gary Long
said the only other change is on impasse procedures, costs shall be mutually
shared. He said the ordinance is comprehensive, that they looked to state and
federal procedures because they anticipate federal grants may have attached
requirements about collective bargaining. Other modifications on impasse
procedures are that police and fire are treated as under state law - they do
not have the right to strike but rather to submit disputes to binding third
party decisions. The only other binding matter would be work stoppage which
would injure public health and safety.
a Mayor Anderson said he was impressed with the amount of work going into the
document, plus the cooperation between staff and union representatives.
Red Smith, AFSCME, 3095 Floral Hill Dirve, said they have a concern relating
to the charter itself. It specifies that fire and police cannot strike, and
it allows non-health and safety employees to strike. The union is not
convinced that is proper procedure. It feels strongly that, if necessary, a
binding 3rd party decision should come down. He acknowledged that those points
could be handled in ordinance form, however. He noted the ordinance will go
through the regular procedure of public input and, at that time, if
problems arise, there can be a work session.
Mr. Marshall noted that Section 41 on Freeways says notice shall be
published in a newspaper with the largest general circulation publiShed
in the city; Section 43 says that notice shall be published in one or
more newspapers of general circulation printed in the city. He wondered
about that ambiguity. Mr. Etter said the difference in wording was carried
over from the former charter provisions. He added, too, that on Section 41,
if the Oregonian has the largest circu~ation in Eugene, notice would have to
be printed in that paper. No council member felt the necessity to reconcile
these differences.
Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to call a special council meeting
for Noon, Monday, August 16, to set an election date of September 21
e to consider the charter revision.
Mrs. Shirey asked if Council would reconsider the question of future council
and mayor pay. Mr. Williams said he does not think Council ever made a decision
on that - the voters did. He feels to resurface the issue now would be unwise,
that it should be handled separately. Mayor Anderson agreed.
'i18 8/16/76 - 3
vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
It was noted that the total revised text of the charter would be approved e
Monday noon as staff will need to make a few minor changes. It was noted that
the City Attorney would have latitude to take care of grammar changes, etc.,
with the understanding that any changes would be brought to the Council's
attention.
Most recent changes were presented to the Council in a final draft of the revised
Charter distributed at this meeting. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained
that wording of the freeway amendment was changed to clarify what has to be pre-
pared in the way of design and plans before going ahead with a road construction
project.
Orval Etter, city attorney's office, explained Section 49 in the revised version
and its repeal of certain sections of the original 1905 Charter. Manager noted
that Section 50 was revised to make collective bargaining provisions effective on
September 22, 1976.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Beal to approve the reivisions as
presented in the draft distributed at this meeting. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. Collective Bargaining
Manager noted that the revised Section 50, to make collective bargaining provisions
effective on September 22, 1976, was agreed upon by the labor organizations and
staff. He also noted that copies of an ordinance covering implementation of the
Charter provisions on collective bargaining were previously distributed, and was
recommended for adoption immediately upon approval of the revised Charter. Inter- e
pretation of that ordinance was set out in memo, copies of which were distributed
at this meeting.
Mr. Murray moved second by Mr, Haws that it is the intent of the Council
to adopt the collective bargaining ordinance as distributed immediately
upon voter approval of the revised Charter. Motion carried unanimously.
Copies of a new Section 50, entitled Public Education, were then distributed to
Council members. This new section was proposed for inclusion in the revised
Charter by Ray Wolfe, 1926 Potter Street. It would require a "balanced and un-
biased discussion of fact and interpretation" to be included in any controversial
or contested information distributed to the public. Also distributed to Council
members were copies of a legal opinion with regard to the suggested new section.
Manager said the proposed language would be very difficult to deal with, and the
attorneys felt there would be a great deal of argument and litigation if the
section was adopted in the form presented. He suggested that if better guidelines
were needed, they should be adopted in ordinance form rather than being included in
the Charter.
Mr. Wolfe called attention to his letter accompanying the proposed new Section 50
in which he invited any legally suitable modifications in its wording. He said
that, as well as the issue of including it in the Charter or in ordinance form,
was a fundamental thing; the idea was to give as much unbiased information as
possible to citizens if they were to be able to vote appropriately. He cited the .
Trojan nuclear plant and the litigation involving EWEB members as an example. - ~
He thought it important that some sort of statutory provision be made for this
type of public education.
8/16/76 - 4
t.t\'\
Councilman Haws asked if there was any citizen concern that something like this
was needed with regard to Planning Commission, Human Rights Commissions, etc.
ta Mr. Wolfe was unaware of any difficulty in that area, but he felt if there was
trouble with issues like the Trojan plant, the same thing could ahppen with
the commissions mentioned.
Councilman Keller asked Mr. Wolfe how the proposed Public Education section coold
have changed the decision on the EWEB issue ~hen four Board members were involved
in a suit stemming from the Board's publication of promotional literature OD the
Trojan plant). Mr. Wolfe thought a legally precise document would have been
required, presenting a balanced statement to the public. He thought in actuality
deception was involved to a certain degree.
Mayor Anderson wondered how the test of "biased" and "unbiased" information would
be met. He thought any governmental agency would run the risk of being biased
on practically any constructive program it attempted to promote, and that a
"morass of litigation" would be the result under the proposed charter section.
But Mr. Wolfe felt that although there are no absolute definitions of "biased"
and "unbiased" there would be certain "blatant" cases where unbalanced and biased
information would be distributed - only one side of an argument presented. The
Mayor thought as 10ng as open forums are maintained, it would be very unlikely
that biased information would be the only information presented. Mr. Wolfe
answered that it then would come back to the role of government and its relation-
ship or degree of credibility with the public. Something like this section would
tend to stabilize what is happening, even with stability of government itself,
he said.
Councilman Williams shared Mr. Wolfe's concerns. However, he said, given the fact
it that no one knows precisly how this provision would function or if it would, ex-
perimental provisions should not be included in the charter. Rather, it should
be in ordinance form if found necessary. Councilman Murray agreed. He thought it
might be applying a little broader principle than should be. Issues decided by
the Council or by EWEB, he said, are.done through public awareness in some way.
But with regard to the more specific charge - use of public funds in a campaign
issue - Mr. Murray said he thought that was a misuse of public funds. Mayor
Anderson said that was a different issue than what was proposed in this charter
amendment.
Councilwoman Beal commented that by previous action the Council had freed EWEB
from any city authority except the "small clause" on water extension, so there
was no way the Council could dictate EWEB's behavior. Attorney Etter said the
Council does have the right to make statements with regard to what EWEB does.
However, that falls within the political realm, rather than the legal. Mrs.Beal
replied that at the time EWEB was taking action on the nuclear plant, she
didn't think anything the Council might have said or done would have influenced
the Board inthe slightest.
Councilwoman Shirey asked about the very definite rules governing the Council in
the budget process and how that rule would apply here. Manager answered that that
process comes under state law. Stan Long noted that there exist very clear and
detailed statutes covering all 10cal governments as to how finances are handled,
budgets, what money is spent for, etc. Courts have held, he said, that emotional
appeals or one-sided arguments constitute unauthorized expenditure of public funds.
- Discussion continued with regard to relationship of the Council to EWEB and am-
biguity of the proposed section. Mrs. Beal thought there was room for such a
requirement, especially a general provision attached to all boards and commissions.
I 8/16/76 - 5
'i~o
Mayor Anderson thought it was a question not so much of what should be developed
in terms of information, but what the content would be if it were to be developed
in ordinance form. Mrs. Beal didn't agree an ordinance would suffice. Only a Jt
charter provision would give the right palicy approach with regard to EWEB or
any board or commission, she said.
In response to Councilwoman Shirey's request for an opinion on that, Mr. Etter
noted a great latitude of possibilities. It would depend upon what the Council
would decide EWEB could do - how far-reaching they wanted the Board's authority
to be. With regard to the proposed Section 50, Mr. Etter said there was no charter
he knows of that has this type provision. He added that he couldn't conceive of
any government that was "worth its salt" that didn't have its biases, that govern-
ment couldn't function without them. And it was the American tradition to bring
them out into the open forum, get at them, and try to arrive at the truth. Finally,
he said he would be appalled at this late stage in the charter revision to face
trying to insert this section, then make all the necessary changes in other sections
to avoid conflicts.
Mayor Anderson closed off the discussion, to be later pursued if desired.
III - Ordinances
Manager explained that the ordinance recently adopted placing the $5 million,
IS-year parks serial levy before the voters was brought back for repeal and re-
adoption because its provisions "wouldn't fit" with both the old and new charters.
Council Bill No. 1220 - Repealing Ordinance 17730 and calling special
election on September 21, 1976 re: $S million
IS-year serial levy for parks land acquisition 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 voitng aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 17738.
Council Bill No. 1221 - Calling special election on September 21, 1976 re:
Charter revision was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read
in full.
Mr. KelTer moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by council
bil1 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 17739. --
8/16/76 - 6
LiJ.. \
IV - Resolutions
-- Resolution No. 2550 - Repealing Resolution 2541 and submitting to voters at
spccial election on September 21, 1976 measure re: $5 million
IS-year serial levy for parks land acquisition was read by number and title.
Mr. Kel1er moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion
carried, all council members present voting aye.
Resolution No. 2551 - Submitting to voters at special election on September 21, 1976
a measure re: Charter revision 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.
Attorney Etter raised the question of use of the ampersand in Eugene Water &
Electric Board rather than "and." He explained the legal requirements for use of the
ampersand and consensus was that it should be continued.
Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Keller to authorize changing "and" to "&"
throughout the charter in referring to Eugene Water & Electric Board. Motion
carried unanimously.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned.
- ~ --
Charles T. Hen~~
City Manager
-
8/16/76 - 7
'i~~