Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/1977 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL May 9, 1977 Regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on May 9, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Ray Bradley was absent. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS I-A-l A. Liquor license: The Oregon Sampler, 123 Monroe Street (RMB, new outl et) (Evans) Manager reviewed OLCC report. He noted that due to the nature of this business, wine tasting only, and the limited consumption that will be involved, no interviews were conducted. Staff had no objections. Public Hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve and forward to OLCC the liquor license application. Motion carried unanimous'ly. e I-A-2 B. Easement Vacations 1. Located south of the intersection of Fox Hollow Road and Dillard Road (Entec, Inc.) (EV 76-9) Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the six-foot public utility easement of this request was dedicated when the area was subdivided to the. County some time ago. The City was unaware of the easement until a title search turned it up. The proposed vacation had been reviewed by all referral agencies and there was no need found to retain it. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1465--Vacating public utility easement located south of inter- section of Fox Hollow Road and Dillard Road was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. . 5/9/77--1 356 I-A-2 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17978. 2. Located west of Echo Hollow Road, south of Avalon Avenue (Sorenson)(EV 76-10) . Jim Saul, Planning Department, reported the easement was necessary at one time because an open drainage channel ran through it. The channel has since been converted to a culverted system and the proposed easement had been reviewed by all referral agencies and there was no need found to retain it. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C. B. 1466--Vacating easement located west of Echo Hollow Road south of Avalon Avenue, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present request- ing that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the second time by council number only, with upanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. All Council members present voting aye, except Haws abstaining, the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Haws abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17979. I-A-2 3. Located south of East 13th Avenue, between Columbia Street and Moss Street (Williams Bakery) (EV 77-1) - Jim Saul, Planning Department, reported when the alley was vacated. in 1964, the public utility easement was retained. The only utility in the easement is the sewer serving the Williams Bakery. The bakery has agreed to accept the responsibility of maintaining the sewer as a private system. The easement proposal had been reviewed by the pUblic utility agencies which have indicated they have no need to retain the easement. Public hearing was opened. William H. Allen, 2020 Monroe Street, represented Williams Bakery and was available to answer questions. Public hearing wa.s closed, there being no further testimony presented. C. B. 1467--Vacating public utility easement located south of East 13th Avenue, between Columbia Street and Moss Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting ~. that it be read in full. .... 5/9177 --2 351 e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was read the second time by Council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17980. J-A-3 C. Street vacation: A portion of Clinton Drive, east of Debrick Road (Dornbush) (SV 76-8) e Manager reported the street vacation had been recommended by the Planning Commission February 21, 1977, with a unanimous vote of 5-0. Jim Saul, Planning Department, explained that recently a minor partition had been approved for Tax Lots 700 and 701. During approval of that request, additional right-of-way along Clinton Drive was required. That right-of-way was dedicated by the owner of Tax Lot 701. Later it was discovered that the dedication included the north wall of the existing structure on Tax Lot 700. Therefore, the request for the vacation of 2-1/2 feet was in order to return the north wall of the existing structure to its owner. Public hearing was held with no testimony being presented. C. B. 1468--Vacating a portion of Clinton Drive, east of Debrick Road was read by council bill number only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17981. e 5/9/77 --3 358 I-A-4 D. Rezonings 1. Located west from Rutledge to Beltline Road, south of Wood Avenue and Hilton Drive, from AG and RA to R-l (Ogle) (Z 77-10) . Manager indicated this unanimous recommendation had come from the Planning Commission's meeting of April 5, 1977. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the property involved approximately 27 acres which had been annexed to the City in 1964 in the Bethel-Danebo area. He said the purpose of the rezoning was to allow development of a single- family subdivision on the property. All property in the area had been developed in single-family subdivisions. He noted the property was within the urban services boundary and all public services were readily available. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of April 5, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened with no testimony presented. C. B. 1469--Rezoning from AG and RA to R-1, property located west from Rutledge to Beltline Road, south of Wood Avenue and Hilton Drive was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present re- questing that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and ~ minutes of April 5, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr.' Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17982. I-A-S 2. Located northwest of Best Lane, south of Beltline, from AG to R-l (Summers) (Z 77-11) Manager noted the recommendation had come from the Planning Commission April 5, 1977, with a unanimous vote. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the Council had considered this piece of property for annexation under the name of Summers and Breeden and that it included 16 acres of property. He said the rezoning was being requested for a proposed subdivision of property. The ordinance would contain a contingency clause stating that the Council action would be final depending upon the Boundary Commission approval of annexation of this property. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes ~ of April 5, 1977, were received as part of this record by reference ... thereto. 5/9/77--4 . 3~ . Public hearing was opened. Leigh Iverson, 2869 Taylor Street, said he represented Breeden Bros. and was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C. B. 1470--Rezoning from AG to R-1 area located northwest of Best Lane, south of Beltline was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. I-A-6 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of April 5, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Delay voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17983. 3. Located west of the intersection of 4th Avenue and Pearl, from M-2 to RP (Barnes) (Z 77-12) - Manager stated the unanimous recommendation had come from the Planning Commission's April 5, 1977 meeting. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the small parcel of property was under 9,000 square feet and had its present zoning since 1948. He reviewed zoning and location of buildings in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission confirmed that the proposed zone change was in conformance with the objectives of the General Plan and zoning ordinance. No ex parte contacts or conflict of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of April 5, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Dennis Strand, 1981 Kimberly, represented the developer and was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e C. B. 1471--Rezoning from M-2 to RP area located west of the intersection of 4th Avenue and Pearl was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 5/9/77--5 3'0 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and '. minutes of April 5, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17984. I-A-7 4. Located on the east side of Willamette Street between 29th Place and 30th Avenue, from R-1 to RG-SR (Frosland-Mortenson Investments) (Z 77-13) Manager reported the rezoning had been unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission at its April 5, 1977 meeting. Jim Saul, Planning Department, noted the original request had been a zone change from R-l Single-Family Residential District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District. However, the Planning Commission was recommending a zone change from R-l to RG-SR. He said the property included about 22,000 square feet and reviewed zoning and building locations in the surrounding area. He noted there was one single-family residence on the property at the present time. He said the Planning Commission's reasons for rezoning to RG with Site Review were that for a number of years the Planning Commission had maintained the RG zoning along that side of Willamette Street. He said ~ there were differing development standards in the RG zoning as opposed ~ to R-3, which would allow for more compatible development with the area. He referred Council to the Staff Notes and minutes in regard to the Site Review attachment in the zoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of April 5, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Walt Mortenson, 1890 Tigertail, was a representative of the Frosland- Mortensen Investment Company available to Council to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C. B. 1472--Rezoning from R-1 to RG-SR with site review procedures, area located on east side of Willamette Street between 29th Place and 30th Avenue was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e 5/9/77--6 w . Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of April 5, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17985. I-A-8 E. Appeal of zone change denial: Located southwest of corner of 18th Avenue East and Oak Street, from RP to C-2 (Sipe) (Z 77-7) Manager reported that recommended denial had been unanimously voted 6-0 by the Planning Commission at its March 1, 1977 meeting. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said the property contains about 21,000 square feet and is presently occupied by an office structure, with the purpose of the rezoning to allow addition of another wing to the office structure. He said that for a number of years the Planning Commission had tried to establish a buffer strip between the core business district and residences to the south, with the RP strip along 18th Avenue established in 1948. The Planning Commission felt the request was contrary to the recommendations of the 1990 General Plan, which indicates that medium-high density residential use would be appropriate for this area. Also, the zone change requests contra- dicts the Planning Commission policy of encouraging high-density residential use around the core area rather than continued commercial expansion. Introduction of commercial zoning at this location would have a serious impact on the residential area to the south. There was no public need shown for a change of zone at this time. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of March 1, 1977, were received as part of the record by reference thereto. e Public hearing was opened. Ted Sipe, 2000 West 24th Street, said he was asking a rezoning on only one lot, with the middle lot rezoned to C-2. He noted the area would still have the RP buffer zoning, and he was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul replied that Mr. Sipe was requesting action for a zone change on property that did not correspond with what had gone before the Planning Commission, and he was not sure what Mr. Sipe was referring to, as there were two lots involved. . 5/9/77--7 3b~ Mr. Obie questioned if Mr. Sipe has changed his request from what had been denied by the Planning Commission, if he would be in a position to reapply for an adjusted request. Mr. Saul replied that . the City Code provides for a,new application to be filed one year from the prev i ous deni a 1 unless good cause coul d be shown. He said '.' the Planning Commission would have to determine whether there was good cause. Mr. Obie asked if the Planning Commission could choose to allow an earlier hearing, to which Mr. Saul replied yes. Ms. Smith questioned whether the Council could deal with Mr. Sipe's request, as it seemed to be different from the one that had been presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul replied that the City Council should deal with a request before it, as Mr. Sipe was requesting a zone change on certain Jand. He said the City Council should make a determination based on the information it had or refer the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. I-A-IO F. Requested Code amendment (Planned Unit Development), Sections 9.509-9.514 providing for consideration of Hearings Official Manager reported the Code amendment would allow use of a Hearings Official in regard to review of plans for PUDs. He said it would be an amendment to the Zoning Code, and considerable discussion had been held May 4 at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting with the Planning Commission members present. The proposed amendment had had a great deal of study on the part of both staff and the Planning Commission ~ and had been recommended for action by the Planning Commission by a ~ vote of 4-3. James Bernhard, Planning Commission, reported that in April 1976 the City had adopted revisions to the PUD ordinance with discussion of transferring the PUDs to a Hearings Official. At that time, the Planning Commission felt it would be best to give the new ordinance a nine-month trial period, which ended in March. Also, the Planning Commission approved that if the transfer to a Hearings Official was confirmed by Council, it would request a nine-month trial period, with a publ ic hearing to be hel d at the end of that time to review the Hearings Official change. He reviewed for Council the reasons for favoring the transfer of PUD hearings to a Hearings Official. It was noted that the ordinance was working very well and the Hearings Official could reduce the workload and cost to the City, staff time could be saved, and more time could be given by the Planning Commis- sion to refinement plan study, ESATS study, and other major items. He noted those on the Planning Commission opposing the change felt the PUD should be in constant review by the Planning Commission, that the major growth plans would affect the neighborhoods and would be better handled by a Planning Commission than a single-person. 5/9/77--8 . 3~3 .. Mr. Saul told Council that while one of the major amendments was the transfer of the PUDs to a Hearings Official, there were a number of other amendments to increase better functioning of the PUDs, such as housekeeping changes. He noted the requested amendment represented nine months of experience of the staff time to date with a new ordinance and that these changes would substantially improve the ordinance. Public hearing was opened. Sharon Posner, 2473 Columbia Street, spoke as a representative of the League of Lane County Women Voters, which was opposed, in part, to the new amendment. The League was aware of the workload of the Planning Commission, but felt that the Planning Commission should be continually aware of PUD growth. The League felt that off-site considera- tions were much more likely to be determined by subjective analysis and would greatly affect the neighborhood areas. The League suggested the Planning Commission hear the diagrammatic phase and the Hearings Official handle the preliminary phase of PUD developments. Another concern of the League was the additional cost involved. She reiterated the League's stance that the public would best be served by the Plan- ning Commission review of the diagrammatic stage. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Mr. Lieuallen questioned how many proposed PUDs had been denied in the nine-month trial period. Mr. Saul replied there had been 25 PUD applications considered, none had been denied, and one approval appeal had been upheld by the City Council. Mr. Lieuallen then questioned the cost, whether the Hearings Official would save or cost more money. Mr. Saul replied he did not have definitive cost estimates, that such a cost estimate would represent a guess as to how many applications would be received and that would be hard to estimate at this time. He said the cost figure in this year's budget for the Hearings Official would be an increase of $5,000. However, the cost would be recovered through the charges for processing applications. He reported that the experience through the use of Hearings Official in the conditional use permits had resulted in a lower processing cost per application for the staff because of the efficiency. Mr. Lieuallen then asked if his understanding was correct that it would not be a terrific increase, but only about $5,000 for a Hearings Official and not $20,000 or $30,000. Mr. Saul said no that that the $5,000 increase was the only one projected which would be reduced by the fee charges. He said the problem with -a legitimate cost analysis was that the City recognized the Hearings Official would cost money, but it was judged that the City would achieve benefits because the Planning Commission would be able to spend more time in policy planning. e C. B. 1473--Amending City Code re: Planned Unit Development regu- lations; amending Sections 2.370, 9.509, 9.510, 9.512, and 9.514 of Code, 1911; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. 5/9/77--9 3l:,'f Mr. Obie stated he felt very uncomfortable with a proposal that did not allow citizens to have access to the elected officials as it relates to procedures that affect the citizens in various .~ neighborhoods. He felt the off-site impact'of a PUD development in an area a very subjective judgement, and the citizens who were affected should have the right to appeal those decisions to their elected officials. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion to direct staff to come back with an alternative proposal that requires the Planning Commission to hold the diagrammatic hearings of Phase I and provide for an appeal to the City Council. Mr. Delay said he recognized the Planning Commission was overworked, but if it were going to give part of its processing away to free time for other areas, then he felt the Planning Commission should look to minor areas rather than a major area such as the PUD. He also felt the citizens should have recourse of appeal to their elected officials, noting the subjective judgement in diagrammatic phase and the off-site impact. He also felt it would be better for that particular phase of the PUD development to be heard by several people rather than just one person. Ms. Smith noted her opposition to splitting the various stages, saying she felt they were interrelated and should be kept with one agency. She felt it would be more difficult and time consuming if they were split and thus opposed the amendment. Vote was taken on the amendment which carried with Obie, Delay, 4It. Haws, Lieuallen, and Hamel voting aye; Williams and Smith voting no. 1-B-1 G. Contract Bid Award: Parks and Recreation, for Kennedy Bike Path. Manager noted the following formal bids were received by the Parks Department and opened April 29, 1977: Eugene Sand and Gravel Wildish Sand and Gravel Benge Paving Office Estimate $11,457.75 10,473.15 10,261,10 11,690.00 Staff recommended that the low bid be awarded to Benge Paving. Public hearing was opened with no testimony held. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr Hamel, to award the contract to the low bidder, Benge Paving. Motion carried unanimously. - 5/9/77--10 3bS I-B-2 H. Contract Bid Awards: Five various improvement projects, Department of Public Works. (Tabulation attached.) . Donald Gilman, Public Works Department, reviewed the bids noting that a basic bid and an alternate bid had been included in each. Staff recommended awarding contracts to alternate low bidders. Mr. Hamel questioned what the procedures had been in the past re- garding having basic and alternate bids. Mr. Gilman replied there were two options and the Department was looking for the lowest bid. He said it would give the bidder and developer a chance to have two alternates. There were two different types of paving that could be used, the basic bid being a crushed rock and asphalt on top with the alternate being a newer type consisting of solid asphalt from the ground to the surface from six to nine inches in thickness. He said the two types were equivalent and it was a matter of working conditions in which one area might be better suited for an alternate type of paving and another area might be better suited for the basic. Mr. Haws questioned the reason that in bid No.1 a tree could not be saved. Mr. Gilman replied that the basic design was for a 28-foot road and if the tree were to be saved they would have to narrow the road to 22 feet in width, and staff felt it could not recommend less than a 24-foot street. He noted also that the bike route would go through that area and would result in less safe conditions if the road were narrow. - Public hearing was opened. John Aaland, 488 Sunshine Acres Drive, said he favored the proposed paving in bid No.1 (job No. 1315), but he did have some reservations. He was concerned with the speed limit of cars going through the area and felt with improvement of the road the speed would increase, thus reducing safety for children. He noted that if the tree were saved and the street narrower in that area, the traffic might slow down. He said he would appreciate some type of traffic control, i.e, signs, to slow cars down in the area. Jon Burnham, 51 West 31st Avenue, said he was a property owner in the Sunshine Acres area (job No. 1315) and was in favor of the improve- ment. He questioned the unsolved mystery of the boundary in the area, saying that in about 1968 the boundary line was moved to the far east edge. He was in favor of the improvement project if the boundary line were moved back to where the old one had been down the center of the street. He said the east side was going to have to make a tremendous sacrifice and the west side would remain untouched. He asked for clarification as to the boundary line. . - William D. Egleston, 241 Jonquil Avenue, said he was manager of construc- tion at Eugene Sand and Gravel, which had been an awarded contract for bid No.3 (job No. 1352) at Souza Park and was available to answer questions. Ross Cowan, 270 Sunshine Acres, indicated his dissatisfaction with plans for eliminating the tree. He said it would be necessary to keep the tree there to slow the cars down. He also questioned about a substandard sidewalk that had been put in by the developer on the street and questioned why the sidewalk was put in where it was. He said that it could be put three feet further west. 5/9/77 --11 3bb A letter received from John G. Stewart, 767 Elizabeth Street, was entered into the record as opposing the paving and sidewalks on Elizabeth Street . (job No. 1427). Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, explained the design question in regard to bid No.1 for Sunshine Acres Road (job No. 1315). He said the right-of- way had existed since the area had been annexed into the City and staff had been unable to resolve where the right-of-way came from. He said staff had attempted to design the street improvements to go as close to the west side as possible. In regard to the existing sidewalk, which was in question as being substandard, he said it had been put in when the new subdivision was developed and was in a standard location. He said the City could not recommend tearing up the sidewalk because it was unsafe, but could do so only if the sidewalk there were a hazard. Regarding the existing fir tree, he said the Parks Department had notified that excavation should not take place within 4-1/2 feet of the tree, which would allow only a 22 foot paving. The City could not recommend such a narrow street. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the low bids as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. A short recess was taken. II. Items acted upon with one ~otion after discussion of individual items as requested. 4It Previously discussed on Committee-of-the-Whole April 27 (Present: Mayor Keller; Councilors Obie, Hamel, Delay, Williams, Smith, Bradley and Lieuallen); and May 4 (Present: Mayor Keller; Councilors Haws, Hamel, Williams, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie and Smith). ~1inutes of those meetings appear below printed in smalier type. April 27, 1977 COr:'JIlittee-of-the-Whole I. ~~e~s from Mayor and Council Com 4/27/77 A. ~~ne Regional Air Pollution Bud~et Cornmittee--Mr. Delay re- File ported the Committee had met April 26, and had reported a budget at the same level as it had been the last four years. He cautioned Council to expect budget increases in the future, noting that new measuring devices for air pollutants would be required. Mr. Keller asked whether there was any equipment for measuring slash burning pollutants. Mr. Delay replied there were no new techniques but there would be an increased level of effort in the measurement. Com 4/27/77 Affirm B. Soviet Union PoJicy Regarding Immigration of Jews--Mr. Bradley reported a recent newspaper article had indicated public offi- cials at the state and federal government levels were writing letters to the Soviet Union urging more liberal immigration policies. He noted that the governor, attorney general, and secretary of state in the State of Oregon had written such letters. He requested staff to retain a copy of the news article and report back to City Council to see if City Council would be interested in participating. - 3107 .5/9/77- 12 LOi.i 4/27/77 Affirm . Com 4/27/77 File Com 4/27/77 Approve e II. Com 4/27/77 Pub Hrg e C. ~eagues of Oregon Cities Legislative Conference--Manager re- ported on the recent meeting, April 24, in Salem. He said he would like Subcommittee review of legislation affecting: 1) tax increment financing; 2) LCDC; and 3) mobile home park con- trols set by State. He said Ms. Paget Engen wished to have a Legislative Subcommittee soon because of the number of hearings this week. It was decided the Subcommittee would meet MOnday May 2, at 4 p.m. D. Manager's Absence--Manager noted he would be absent next Wednesday, May 4, to attend a conference on urban planning 1n Kansas City, Missouri, at which he would serve on a panel. E. Transportation Systems Elements--Report distributed to Coun cil. Manager noted this report was going to be submitted to the federal and state governments to obtain conditional certifica- tion which would allow the LTD system to be subsidized after July 1. He said everything in the proposal had already been reviewed by Council except the LTD operation program for the next three years. Final action will be taken on this proposal on Thursday, April 28 by the L-COG Board. Mr. Bradley noted his concern of the role of the City Council in regard to the process of the LTD system. He expressed a concern regarding City Council input, decision, or authority for decisions that were being made, and asked for Council authorization regarding this report his vote at the meeting. Mr. Delay moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the proposal. Mr. Williams noted that the City Council had approved several elements in the proposal but the approval had hardly been unan- imous. He questioned the impact of the proposal in regard to altering the ESATS update and that perhaps Council would want to wait for a draft of the update to address those issues. Manager noted that L-COG, MATC, Chamber of Commerce, and other interested groups, had decided to await the ESATS presentation on June 30 before asking for substantial changes. He said it would be appropriate for City Council to address those concerns later. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Liguor License--123 Monroe Street, The Oregon Sampler, new outlet (RMB) Wenzl, Marie and Rodney Evans. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Smith to schedule public hearing May 9, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. 5/9/77 --13 368 III. Com 4/27/77 Approve Historic Review Board Fiscal Assistance Recommendations--Report distributed to Council. Manager noted the report from the Historic Review Board recommends the allocation of financial assistance funds to seven historic landmarks. The funds were approved as a room tax allocation for the Fiscal Year 1975-76 and are the unused portion of that allocatioR They are not affected by the current discussion of long-range goals and future allocations of room tax funds. Manager noted that the expenditures fall within the exception to public contracting ordinance found in Code Section 2859(f). . Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, reported that $30,000 had been allocated for the 1975-76 year for the Historic Review Board; there had been only three applications at the time, spending $10,500 of the $30,000. The ordinances require the Historic Review Board assess needs and pass to the City Council its recommendations for final authorization by them. He continued there are now 14 historic homes in the area and seven require money this year. The Board used the following criteria in considering the requests: 1) work should be vital to the structural well being of the landmark; 2) restoration should enhance the historic value of the landmark; and 3) work must be done in careful and craftsmanlike manner. The Board spent a considerble length of time reviewing these requests and determining the seven presented to Council. He said the top priority was whether the structure was in imminent danger. Mr. Lieuallan expressed a concern regarding the future of the whole program. He asked whether there were enough possibilities for historic preservation at this level of funding which would be required in the future. Mr. Chenkin replied there are many possibilities in the community and the possiblity of zoning into historic districts exists to preserve clusters of buildings. Money may not be available from the private sector and one question the Historic Review Board must address is to determine where the money will come from. . Mr. Obie asked what the policy had been regarding the hold- over of room tax funds. Manager replied that appropriations were made to different groups and if the money was not spent or totally appropriated it was held over for the following year's allocations. Mr. Martin said groups were notified of availability of funds but if they did not enter into an agree- ment for the money it was held over. He said there were no legal problems under the contract code provisions. Mr. Keller asked if groups receiving funding would ask for additional funding next year and how priorities would be set. Mr. Chenkin replied groups would probably be coming back as funding was not adequate for all work needed. He said the Historic Review Board is going to address the problem of how to handle groups who have received funds in the past and the differences between residential and commercial requests for historic preservation. . 3~9 5/9/77--14 e Com 4/27/77 Approve Com 4/27/77 VI. Approve --~ e Mr. Keller then asked what requirements or techniques were used for determining if the work had been done properly. Mr. Chenkin replied that the allocation of funds was done only upon completion of the work, and that the work was thoroughly inspected to make sure it met the criteria set by the Historic Review Board. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the 1975-76 Historic Review Board fiscal assistance recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. V. Skyline Park Property--Memo and map distributed to Council. Manager noted this gift of approximately 3.5 acres from Skyline Park Water Company via Nature Conservancy and resulted from the dissolution of the water district in the area. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Willaims to accept and approve the gift and express appreciation. Motion carried unanimously. ~ousing and Community Development Committee--Memo distributed to Council. Manager noted that the Housing and Community Development Commission at its April 5 meeting made the following recommendation to the City Council: That the City Council approve recommendation of a task force to disband the Housing and Community Development Commission and take the necessary steps to reorganize the Commission into two separate committees--accept the Housing and Community Commissions recommendation for a seven member Community Development Committee and five member Joint Housing Committee. Charles Kupper, HCC, explained this decision had been under discussion for quite some time as a result of the shared concern in the duplication of effort and responsibilities. The finding of the task force was that the Joint Housing Committee and the Community Development Committee functions could be separated very clearly into two separate committees. He noted there had been a difference of opinion regarding membership on the committees, that a suggestion had been made that the twelve member committee be split up into two committees with six members each. However it was determined that the Community Development Committee would be dealing with large sums of money and therefore the decision was made to make it a seven-member committee and the other five members to be on the Joint Housing Committee. He noted the group was asking Council approval for code revisions and authority for the change. Mr. Greg Lipton noted the concept was a very good idea and he requested the lines of responsibility be very well spelled out. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Delay to speak to the issue of the split of the five-seven members on the two committees. Mr. Delay said he had no strong feelings either way and was inclined to support the recommendation. Mr. Obie expressed a concern regarding the committee makeup and noted a legitimate question as to whether a Council member should be a member of either committee. Mr. Delay replied he felt it was very important for the City Council to be represented in order to report back to Council in an in- depth manner with background information. 310 5/9/77--15 VI. Com 4/27/77 Approve Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, noted a concern for the public representation of having only three individuals making important decisions. Mr. Williams expressed a concern of the two different sizes of membership of the two different commit- tees and Mr. Kupper concurred with Mr. Williams. He said the membership issue was discussed in regard to who was entitled to representation, the feeling being that there should be one Council and one Planning Commission member as the only two permanent members of the Commission and the rest being from the public. He noted reasons for the decision of the seven- five split were that the Community Development Committee would be handling more money and the issues of the CDC were still in insipient stages. e Mr. Delay moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the recommendations to develop the appropriate ordinances and resolutions for Council approval. Mr. Wiliiams moved to amend the motion seconded by Mr. Hamel that the Community Development Committee contain only six members and then five as originally recommended. Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Delay and Mr. Bradley all expressed opposi- tion to the amendment citing reason of the need for broader citizen participation, the dealing with large amounts of money, the need for diversity of opinion from citizens groups, and the deletion of elite groups making these decisions. e Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which carried with Hamel, Smith, Williams, and Obie voting yes; Lieuallen, Delay, and Bradley voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which passed with Hamel, Smith, Williams, Obie, and Lieuallen voting yes; Bradley and Delay voting no. Sewer service and annexation position paper--Memo and draft distributed to Council. Manager noted that the pos1t10n paper was intended to reaffirm the City's current policy requiring annexation prior to the provision of sewer service to individual parcels with some modification in terms of allowing for phasing in annexation by groups of parcels and allowing for phasing in of both service levels and tax rates. He said this came about as a result of the work being pursued by the Metropolitan Waste Management Commission which is concerned with the County Service District as related to financing and operation of regional aspects of the over- all system. He said the local collection component of the overall system would have to be addressed and resolved particularly by Eugene and Springfield. The position paper was prepared in the format usuable by both Springfield and Eugene and hopefully it would be a joint position paper. - 311 5/9/77--16 . Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, reported that the source of this paper came from the City's current policy. He said there was a need for an effective and coordinated manner in which to deliver services in regard to urbanized areas. The boundary lines and policies as they exist now have assured that Eugene provide urban type services on the west side of Interstate 5 and the the City of Springfield provide services on the east side. He noted that it is a city and state concern to eliminate the problems of fragmen- tation of jurisdiction and isolation of service systems. He said the problem and the question involved the Metropolitan Sewer System Commission, and where the boundaries should be drawn for financing for sewers. He noted that the City's current policy requires an- nexation and it would be best now to determine if the City Council wishes to affirm that policy or make some changes in policy. He noted the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission would be holding public hearings in the community very soon and the question should be answered so the public will know where the City stands. - Manager noted that the position pape~ suggests the fact that annex- ation should not have to be done in a total manner, as in the past, but that it would be possible to have alternative approaches and that phase-in could be done over an extended period of time. Mr. Chenkin noted that the City's current water policy requires that in order to receive service a property owner has to sign to agree to annexing to the city when appropriate. He said that approach is worthy of exploration in this particular situation. He said the staff was not in a hurry to annex but wanted to be sure that would be one of the positions. He said a property owner would have to sign an agreement to annex at the appropriate time if the owner wanted sewer service, thus allowing annexation to occur in a logical planned manner. Mr. Obie questioned how the metro system fits into City policy, whether the Commission had the right to make a decision or whe- ther it made a policy recommendation and referred that to Council for decision. Mayor Keller responded that the basic issues in- cluded the formation of a financing district. He said Council would have to decide whether it wanted to follow the historic provisions of the two cities providing for urban services or if it wanted a County District which would encourage competition and creation of other service districts. He said that histori- cally the cities had been providing the services through annexa- tion but that perhaps there would be a better way to accomplish that by a phase in period. e Mark Westling, a member of the Wastewaster Management Commission, said it had been his understanding that certain instructions had been given from the cities and the County to develop a program which contemplated an area financing system. He said there was a necessity for clarification for what kind of policy the Wastewater Management Commission should have to carry out the facilities and services. He said the alternate. of keeping it at 'a two-city level seemed to be in opposition to at least the implicit instructions which were to include all three areas. 37~ 5/9/77 --17 VII. Com 4/27/77 Approve Assistant Manager noted that the Council should keep in mind the separation of financing from servicing. He said in regard to financing, the cities would bear the initial cost but the unin- corporated areas would buy in when they needed the service. He note~ that the expansion of County services had never been en- gaged in, but that they would have a direct impact on the city. Mr. Hamel questioned whether the decisions made regarding annex- ation in the River Road and Santa Clara areas would be made by Lane County or whether the people would make the decisions them- . selves. Manager noted that the Wastewater Management Commission has to recommend to the County the decision to determine the financing boundary but the service boundary would be the entire metropolitan area. He said to follow the historical p~ocedures of the city and to have some control over future ,annexation, it needs this policy. He also noted that the Council needed to realize that if it is a metropolitan area financing district and is voted in, then that means these people will be entitled to receive sewer service and annexation for large areas within the urban service boundary would be very doubtful because they would then have the sewer service they needed. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Ms. Smith to conceptually approve the sewer service and annexation position paper. Motion carried unanimously. Presentation of Master and Satellite Fire Service Proposal for Concept Approval--Memo distributed to Council. Chief Ev Hall, Fire Department explained that in order to provide an acceptable level of service to all areas of the city at less expense than would be incurred by traditional methods, the Fire Department is proposing a system of master and satellite stations. He said this would somewhat minimize increases of future Fire Department costs, yet provide an acceptable level of fire suppression protection to the community. The plan has the advantage of reducing the number of personnel needed for response to certain alarms, using comparative- ly low-cost fire equipment and giving quicker initial response to portions of the community where the present response time is inade- quate. The adoption of this concept would improve the proficiency of the Department and provide greater safety to the community and firefighters. Jerry Runyon, with the use of several charts, explained the site locations, service station, and response time to calls in fire de- mand zones affected by the new plan. He said this new concept would result in increased protection and give services to an ex- panded area of the community. Chief Hall said he was asking for endorsement of the concept so the Department could proceed with purchasing land for the additional sites, noting the money was provided by Revenue Sharing funds. He said there had been identi- fication of two fiscal years that did not have to come in consecu- tive order but the identified plan had to be implemented in its sequence and not in a piecemeal order. He explained the phases of conversion and identified problem areas such as Fox Hollow and Amazon, noting those would have to proceed as growth dictates. 313 5/9/77 -- 18 . - . . Com 4/27/77 File e e Mr. Hamel questioned how this would affect the budget procedure. Assistant Manager noted that the program would not work until the problem of Station No.5 was dealt with. He said when the pro- gram does begin it would have a $200,000 initial investment and would be a No. 1 priority. He said the funding resources were available for the land acquisition but the actual implementation of the plan would occur with the $200,000 expenditure which would be a front-end capital investment. He noted no additional person- nel would be required for the first year. Mr. Obie complimented the Fire Department chief and staff on a job very well done. He said he was very intrigued with the possibility of security, safety, and service offered to the neigh- borhoods in the community. Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mr. Obie to conceptually approve the proposal and instruct staff to purchase the land. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Downtown Redevelopment Proposals--Memo distributed to Council. Mr. Barry Elbasani, ELS Design Group, used various charts to explain to Council the progress to date. He said the Committee was working to prepare a document to encourage major retailers to come into the downtown area. He noted many reasons for re- tailers not wishing to locate in downtown areas: 1) it's easier to find acreage in the suburbs; 2) avoidance of government ap- proval processes required for downtown location; 3) cost of land; and 4) difficulty in assembling land in one large parcel. He said the task before the development group was to prove to developers that there were opportunities to make a shopping development in a downtown area. He noted the immediate task was to keep Sears in the downtown area. The more general goal would be to reinforce the downtown as it exists and make it better. He said that in the past seven weeks he had been meeting with two various groups to develop the concept which would make sense to developers and the City both. He noted some of the goals that the Committee had been trying to reach were to upgrade the Bon Marche and Sears stores, add additional shops, additional pedestrian ways, and parking. He noted this would probably be developed over a ten to fifteen year period of time. He said the goal was not to expand in the Urban Renewal property, but to make the area look more like a shopping center. The location of department stores, an arcade to creat~a focal point with the mall, civic center closer to the mall area, and further development of professional offices were some of the positive influences that he noted. Mr. Obie left the meeting. 37~ 5/9/77--19 He said that between now and May 11 the group would try to se- lect a scheme and present it,to various developers to show them how they could impact the Eugene downtown area. He said the issues involved were transportation issues, cost and funding in regard to the private and City factors, and the more detailed. issue of whether 10th Avenue should be closed or open. He sa1d they will have a brochure of offering for developers and would hope that the public and City Council would endorse the brochure. He noted that 27 developers had already been contacted and there was a possibility of 35 very qualified developers to do the project. He said he was very encouraged and excited about the possibilities to have an entire shopping center in the downtown area of Eugene. . Ms. Smith questioned the time frame and expres~ed a concern in regard to the development of the proposal and the possibility of the City Council and public being fully aware. Mr. Kupper, HCC, said the first step would be for the Renewal Agency to look over the proposals and make recommendations, then the Renewal Agency would bring the final product to the City Council for acknowledgement. May 4, 1977 Committee-of-the~Who1e: I. Items from Mayor and Council e Com 5/4/77 File A. Senate, Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee Hearing-- Mayor Keller noted the hearing would be Tuesday, May 10, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The subject of the hearing will be slash burning and Senate Bill 1052. Senate Bill 1052 estab- lishes vehicle emission testing stations in the Eugene-Spring- field metropolitan area. The bill was endorsed by the Council Legislative Subcommitee with the provision that all vehicles in the Willamette Valley be monitored. As information to the Council, Mayor Keller noted he planned to testify at the hearing presenting the City's stand on Senate Bill 1052 and also an endorsement of the control of slash burning. He noted the stand is consistent with community goals and policies adopted in 1974. He said his testimony will include the following points: 1) Slash and field burning should be regulated through a single body to insure a coordinated program; 2) A fee schedule should be established for field and slash burning to fund the air monitoring program advocated by DEQ; 3) Standards should be established for the combined burning of field and slash burning to insure the particulate primary and secondary standards are not violated in the Eugene-Springfield area; 4) There should be a reduction in slash burning encouraged to compensate for the increase in total suspended particulate that will result from the Legislature increasing the field-burning acreage from the legal limit now, 90,000 acres in 1977 and 50,000 acres next year, to that presently planned by the Legisla- ture--235,000 acres. He noted this is consistent with the community's desires for a clean environment and it was his hope that the community would respond by appearing en masse . ,315 5/9/77--20 -- and encouraged all Council members to attend. Ms. Smith noted a conflict with a Budget Committee meeting the same evening. Assistant Manager said if the Council members would notify Greg Page of their wishes to testify that some cooperative effort could be worked out between the hearing and the Budget Committee meeting. Com 5/4/77 Affirm B. Skinner Butte Petitions--Mr. Delay noted distribution to the Council of memos from the City Manager and Jim Saul, Planning Department, plus a petition from people in Skinner Butte area requesting City purchase of property there. He requested this item be placed on the agenda at the end of today's meeting. Com 5/4/77 Approve C. Legislative Subcommittee--Assistant Manager noted as a result of the meeting May 2, there was a split vote on two bills, House Bill 2471 and House Bill 2223. Ms. Betsy Merck, Human Rights Specialist, reviewed for Council House Bill 2471 which relates to domestic relation cases. She said that since no- fault divorce laws had become prevalent in many states, women and children were finding themselves in an inadequate economic position following a divorce. This bill would seek to create a more equitable economic solution of the property settlement child support, and alimony. She said it would require a judge to take into account the work a spouse had contributed to a marriage, even though that work might have been only within the home; a woman would get a higher property settlement or finan- cial settlement; and it would also allow the removal of a spouse from the home for physical abuse threatened, which now can be accomplished only if there are minor children in the household. She noted it would also require the court to take into account the cost of living increases as a factor in making property settlements. e Ms. Smith noted her interest in the reasons for the opposi- tion to this bill as she said it was of major concern to women who were homemakers allover the country. She said that she felt the position of a homemaker needed to be elevated and she was very much in support of the bill. . Margie Hendriksen, attorney who wrote the bill, noted this bill was a result partly of the action of the Oregon Women's Political Caucus. She noted the bill would also set up certain guidelines for support. In addition, other portions of the bill addressed the issues of the investment made by one person in the household to another's career, the allowance for payment of expert witnesses in a divorce case, the impact of inflation on support payments. She said generally the bill would provide certain economic protections for women which do not come out of no-fault divorce cases as they now exist. She noted another portion of the bill regarded that presently there are no com- munity laws for. property settlements, and sometimes this causes an undue tax burden on one or both parties. The bill would address the issue and equalize the contributions of both par- ties. She noted pleasure with the City's position and its support of the Women's Commission and the City Council's respon- siveness to women's needs in this community. 376 5/9/77--21 Assistant Manager noted that House Bill 2223 related to dis- crimination suits and the Committee had voted 2-1 to take no position. Ms. Merck explained that this bill would allow an individual who is filing a complaint for discrimination to have only a one-year wait before action could be taken rather than the present situation of at least two years before the State Bureau of Labor would look at the individual's complaint, or a nine-year backlog with the Federal Bureau of Labor. She noted the bill would also allow for punitive damages. Mr. Obie noted his feeling was that there were many laws on the books and the Legislative Subcommittee was not in an adequate position to deal with the matter, feeling they needed some expert advice to educate them in regard to this issue. Mr. Williams con- curred with Mr. Obie's statement, saying he had no opposi- tion to the concept, but saw no reason to support it, either. He said he felt he should have some basis to make a state- ment for support, but felt unqualified to do so. e Assistant Manager noted there are three remedies available to c1t1zens: A person could file with the federal government, which might take at least nine years; a person could file with the State, which might take at least two to three years; or a person could file with the City. The last remedy does not provide for payment of money damages to the complainant. Ms. Merck noted the hardship both for the employer and the person filing the complaint in having to wait at least the two- to three-year period with the State, that the employer had to retain an attorney from the time the complaint had been filed, which resulted in expenses for him; the citizen filing the complaint might lose witnesses, lose records, and find it very difficult to prove a case after such a time lapse. e Mr. Delay said he was in favor of supporting this bill, noting it was a hoax to have anti-discrimination laws and not have a meaningful action available to the citizens. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen to support House Bill 2223. Mr. Haws noted agreement with the concept that Eugene should support this bill. Mr. Obie expressed gratification for clari- fication which was made regarding the three areas of hearing available to a citizen, but said it could be a very expensive proposition for either the City, the individual, or the employ- er. He felt testimony should be taken from people involved on both sides, so the Council would have an opportunity to hear expert testimony in regard to this issue. Mr. Delay noted that he had heard no reason to object to the support of this bill. Mr. Williams said he felt that the Council was trying to take a position for the City of Eugene, but is making no effort to get a balanced presentation from both sides. He felt it unwise for the City to be spending public money to support a group which was taking a position in which the City of Eugene was not getting clear and balanced testimony from both sides in regard to what effect the bill would have. Ms. Merck noted that the bill had been introduced by the Commissioner of the Bureau of . 311 5/9/77--22 Labor at the State level. e Vote was taken on the motion which carried, with Smith, Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting aye; Williams, Hamel, and Obie voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. legislative report as amended. all members present voting aye, no. Hamel to accept the Motion carried, with except Mr. Williams voting Mr. Bradley arrived. Com 5/4/77 Affirm D. Tri-Agency Dog Control Authority--First annual report distri- buted to Council. Assistant Manager noted that this was a good summary of what was hoped for and what had been accomplished during the first year. He noted that the service by the Tri- Agency Authority had been much improved, and the complaint level had greatly dropped. Mr. Bradley noted that the Tri-Agency was attempting to estab lish two new programs: 1) a low-cost spay/neutering program; and 2) the use of a drug for euthanasia rather than the decom- pression chamber. He offered to respond to questions at the next Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. Com 5/4/77 ~prove E. Assessment Panel Report--See attachment. (Page 32) Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the report. Motion carried unanimously. Com 5/4/77 Affirm F. River Road/Santa Clara Sewer Problem--Assistant Manager noted the request for this item on the agenda had come as a result of the City's policy statement concerning annexation of areas outside the City with regard to the proposed metropolitan sewer system. Mr. Russ Bevans said he was attending the Committee-of-the- Whole meeting at the request of the Lane County Commissioners, who had asked an ad hoc committee member to ask the City Council some questions regarding the City's recent policy statement on the sewers and annexation of areas outside the City. He noted that Commissioner Weinstein was very upset by the recent policy statement from the Council and had made a motion to remove Lane County from the Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission. He said there were two questions the Lane County Commissioners wished answered before a vote was taken on the motion: 1) "Will you, as a City, allow a vote of the people in the River Road and/or Santa Clara area before annexing, barring a health hazard, would occur and would you honor that vote?" 2) "If the vote of the population is to accept the sewer e 378 5/9/77 --23 without annexation and with a statement that the property owners want sewer without annexation, would the City object to a special service district being formed for an extension of sewers 4It without annexation?" Assistant Manager cautioned Council to be aware of different remedies and problems under annexation laws. He noted that historically annexation occurred in many ways, but the two most prominent were that the City would initiate annexation or the groups would ask for annexation from the City. He noted there were thus two different groups to seek a vote from on this issue: 1) the residents of the area and 2) a triple majority annexation where the property owners request annexation. He said one vote could preclude another group with interests in that area from having a vote on the issue, and he cautioned Council on how to respond to the questions. Mr. Williams noted that, in fact, annexation is accomplished by the Boundary Commission and not by the City of Eugene, that the City Council action is advisory and not binding. Assistant Manager noted that the Boundary Commission had dis- couraged the creation of special service districts in areas around the City's boundaries. Mr. Bevans said the issue involved a large group of people who may not be able to speak to the issue until after the fact. Mr. Delay noted that Mr. Bevans might be assuming the City would go for a mass annexation of the River Road/Santa Clara area, where in fact, the policy statement did not say that. e Mr. Haws said he did not want to take action until he could see the questions in writing and consider the annexation policy of the City. It was the consensus of Council that Mr. Bevans would supply Assistant Manager with written statement of the questions requested by Lane County Commissioners; that staff would prepare, if possible, a response for Council action at Council meeting May 9. I-B-3 River Road/Santa Clara sewer problem--a request from Fred Manela, 88 North Madison Street, was received to speak on this item. He believed in a metropolitan sewer plant and metropolican government, and was not discuss- ing the sewer, but a fundamental issue revolving around a question of whether the City will annex without a vote of the people. He said the misunderstanding should be resolved, with a declaration by the City Council that it will not annex any area without a vote of the people involved. He said otherwise the Lane County Commissioners will be forced not to sign the Metropolitan Sewer Agreement. He felt that the Mayor had given a pledge that annexation would not be involved with the sewer system. He felt that acti on shoul d be taken by the Council niaki ng such a statement of a pol icy. . >,319 5/9/77 --24 e Manager noted the Council had considered the questions and the staff had prepared a statement, that representatives of the staff and Metro- pOlitan Sewer System had met until 5:30 this evening to make changes suggested. He noted that statement would be distributed for discussion at the Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on May 11, and with approval of the Council, the statement would be transmitted to the Lane County Commis- sioners Wednesday afternoon. Mayor Keller noted that Mr. Manela should convey to the Lane County Commissioners that Council would have a report Wednesday, May 11. Com 5/4/77 Pub Hrg III. Review with Planning Commission Amendments to Zoning Code (PUD); Sections 9.509-9.514 (Proposed changes and information distributed)-- Assistant Manager noted at the last time this proposal was discussed it was decided the Planning Commission should be represented so that both sides of the issue could be presented to Council before a decision was made. -- James Bernhard, Planning Commission, reviewed for Council the extensive study and work that the Planning Commission had done in regard to the revised PUD ordinance. He noted that one of those revisions was to have the Planning Commission hear PUD appli- cations. It was tried for a nine-month period of time which ended in March, at which time a hearing was held regarding transfer of the PUD hearing process from the Planning Commission to a Hear- ings Official. Written testimony from the Homeowners Building Association in Eugene approved the change. Verbal testimony from the League of Women Voters opposed the change. He said after lengthy discussion, the Planning Commission had voted 4-3 in favor of making the change. The reasons given for the persons voting in favor were as follows: 1) it would reduce the Planning Commission's workload; 2) it could consequently reduce City costs; 3) it would provide more efficient use of staff time; 4) it would eliminate delays in PUD requests; and 5) it would provide more time for policy planning by the Planning Commission. He noted the new ordinance was working very well. . Allen Maxwell, Planning Commission, gave the reasons for opposing the change. Those opposing had concurred that time might be saved and there might be greater efficiency of staff time, which could result in savings for the City. However, it was felt by the members opposing the change that the Planning Commission should retain the PUD control. The reasons given were: 1) that the Planning Commis- sioners are willing to give their time on Planning Commission processes and it was felt there are other areas that could be given up rather than this primary area of PUD approvals. It was felt seven members should be making the decision, rather than just one person, as the decisions for the PUD's had a great impact on many large areas of the community. He noted the Planning Commission took an advocate role which would bring out better a type of development for the City; (2) that the proposed appeal process puts the Planning Commission members in a position of having to prove the City staff wrong on value judgments which would be hard to do; (3) that there is a need for citizen checks and balances on the City 380 5/9/77 --25 where both the Planning staff and the Hearings Official are em- ployees of the City. He did not know that citizens would be able to accept a process where decisions were made by the staff. He noted that timing and planning were very critical with PUD developments, saying that these three members felt the PUD process should remain with the Planning Commission at least in the first diagrammatic stage. e Mr. Bernhard opposed the split of the diagrammatic and preliminary stages from one body to another, saying that some continuity would be lost, and it would probably not save much staff time. He noted both should be together, whether under the Planning Commission or a Hearings Official. Ms. Smith asked who would be responsible for hiring the Hearings Official. The City Attorney advised that the Charter made it the City Manager's responsibility. In subsequent discussion, it was determined that probably half of the extra meetings which had been required for the Planning Commission could have been eliminated had a Hearings Official been used. The appeal process, under the Hearings Official proposal, would go directly to the Planning Commission and then to the court system. It was noted by Mr. Bernhard that the Planning Commission had unanimously voted to review the new process again in nine months so that the City Coun- cil, neighborhood groups, and the public would be able to evaluate whatever is adopted. Mr. Delay noted he had trouble with the proposed change because citizens would lose recourse to their elected officials. He also noted it might be of some value for the Planning Commission to have some input in regard to the diagrammatic approval so that it could stay in contact with what was developing in the City. He expressed his opposition to the change. e Mr. Haws said he felt more inclined to favor Mr. Maxwell's pos1t10n, but that he would be willing to try one step at a time if the first step was kept before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lieuallen said he would like to see the Hearings Official change tried, noting that if it were only for a nine-month period, he was not convinced that a compromise of the Planning Commission retaining the diagrammatic approval and a Hearings Official being used for the preliminary approval would be effective or tell anything. He would like to try the new change and have it reviewed to see what its impact would be over the nine-month period of time and noted his satisfaction with the appeal process in the change. Mr. Obie said he felt it was a judgmental process, the issue being whether the Planning Commission should make the judgment or an individual. He said he felt the basic issue revolved around the citizen's right to access to the elected officials regarding the scope of something of this nature. Mr. Williams felt the change ought to at least be tried. . 381 5/9/77-.-26 e Jim Johnston, a member of the neighborhood organizations, noted that the neighborhood groups had not taken an official position in this matter, because they did not know what the amendment change would do. He said the groups felt that the Planning Commission should deal specifically with refinement plans and planning, but said most groups felt they would rather have the PUD's in the Planning Commission's hands rather than a Hearings Official. He said if the appeal went to the City Council rather than to the Planning Commission, the public felt it would have a better chance for impact. He said it came down to an issue of workload as opposed to a fair process. . Mr. Lieuallen asked about the use of the Hearings Official in the conditional use permit system and whether it had any com- parison to this process. Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, noted that the Hearings Official has to analyze and evaluate both off-site and on-site impact and arrangements. John Porter, Planning Department, said the effect of the Hearings Official under the conditional use permit seemed to have had a very good effect. He said the turnout at public hearings was just as high, that the people did not have to sit for five hours to wait their turn on the agenda, and he felt there was a better response received from the public. At a staff level, he noted that the staff was not getting to a lot of other business items it needed to address. He/said the Planning Commission could not even get out to the neighborhood group meetings because it had so many meetings of its own. He said the choice was the City Council's, that if the staff had time and the Planning Commission had time, it would rather retain the PUD process, but that the Planning Commission and staff were both faced with the need for addressing other major business items. \ Mr. Hamel requested that some input from the neighborhood groups be received by Council as to their response if this change were to take place. Assistant Manager noted that the public hearing would be held at the Council meeting May 9 at which time the neigh- borhood groups would have a chance to testify. Com 5/4/77 Approve III. Improvement Petitions A. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer Backlund Subdivision; assessable property totally within subdivision; no City costs B. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer Parkwood Subdivision; assessable property totally within subdivision; no City costs C. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer on 29th Avenue from City View Street to 360 feet west (adjacent to High Acres Plat); assessable property totally within subdivision; no City costs - Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve Items A, B, and C. Motion carried unanimously. 38~ 5/9/77--27 Com 5/4/77 Approve IV. Corn 5/4/77 Approve IV. Room Tax Subcommittee--Minutes of April 28 distributed to Council. Assistant Manager informed Council that the Room Tax Subcommittee had recommended allocating interim funds for the following: Uni- versity of Oregon, Summer Music Festival, $7,500; City of Eugene Parks and Recreation, $3,500 for Senior Citizens Heritage Art Festival, $2,000; Summer Entertainment Series, Youth Outdoor Rec- reation, cultural and recreational activities for youth, and a youth arts program, $1,500. . Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the expenditures as recommended. Mr. Bradley expressed a concern regarding the funding for support of private and non-profit organizations as opposed to public organizations which might not need support. Stan Long, City Attorney's office, said it was distinctly improper for the City to subsidize any private or non-profit instltut1on. The City couid buy services, deliver services, or enter into an agreement to provide services for the public. Mr. Bradley questioned whether it would be proper to purchase services just from a non-profit private organization, to which Mr. Long replied no, that any ser- vices contracted had to be opened up for bidding and a contract would be awarded to the lowest and the best bidder. Mr. Bradley asked if it would be a fair statement to say that the lowest and best will always be a public institution. Assistant Manager noted no, the proposal before Council recommended by the Room Tax Subcommittee was a good example. It was establishing a process whereby a need had to be established and then seeking to address that need in whatever arena required. Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether the allocation with the University of Oregon was consistent with that process. Mayor Keller responded it was consistent because, in fact, a need had been shown, the University can provide the service, and the City is in a position to enter into that contract. . Vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously. LCOG Request for Extension of Contract with Metropolitan Waste Water Management Commission--Memo distributed to Council. Assistant Manager noted the City had hoped to end funding for the staff of LCOG by May 8, but it looked as though LCOG would not be able to retain federal support until July 1. He said the request was for the City to continue to pay an amount of $2,800 a month until July 1 when funds would be available. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. LCOG request for extension of contract--Manager noted the fee would be $2,800 a month, plus a small travel expenditure. 1-3-3 - 383 5/9/77--28 Com 5/4/77 ~pprove - Com 5/4/77 Approve e V. Sewer System Evaluation Survey--Request for Authorization for Contract, (Memo and Information Distributed to Council.) Assistant Manager noted the need for a full physical survey of the sewer system of the City in order to seek federal grant alloca- tions and to meet federal requirements. He said negotiations were continuing with CH2M Hill, the selected consultant, with the contract to be a cost-plus fixed fee, fixed fee to be based on 15 per cent of the costs. He noted that under Phase I, a basic detail survey would be accomplished; in Phases II through IV, the City would proceed to negotiate which areas would require further study and identify problem areas. The cost for Phase I would be between $35-40,000 and the cost for the other Phases would be about $60,000. He said the expenditures had been included in last year's budget and are appropriate for this purpose. Mr. Hamel noted dissatisfaction with the amount of money already spent and requested more information on the dollar figure. Assis- tant Manager noted that there are 400 miles of sanitary sewers in the City, and that the survey involves 'a physical survey of the entire system as a pre-condition to getting federal funds. He said the City would ultimately be reimbursed and it would be using Public Works forces as much as possible to keep costs down. Don Gilman, Public Works Department, said that the contract would be renegotiated if the profit margin would seem to exceed more than 15 per cent. He noted much of the work had already been done and it was a matter of getting all the data accumulated and in a proper format. Mr. Obie questioned what the basis for the costs were, to which Mr. Gilman replied manpower plus overhead and fringe benefits plus the 15 per cent profit, noting that the basic salary was somewhere in the range of $12 to $15 per hour. . Mr. Williams ques- tioned how much work had already been done, to which Mr. Gilman replied about 90 per cent of the system had already been televised and inspected, but that some areas might have to be redone since they had been done five years ago. He noted there was a May 16 deadline for the federal grant allocation and therefore the Public Works Department was ,under a very tight deadline. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize the City Manager to sign the contract. Motion carried unanimously. VII. LCOG Request for Council Review of Reconstructing Membership of Metro Area Transportation Committee (MATC) (Letter, memo, and bylaws distributed to Council) Assistant Manager reviewed the background information from the memo distributed to Council indicating that the local officials would be the elected officials and the chief administrative staff would be the alternates but non-voting members. Mr. Bradley expressed a concern regarding the City Council's role 1n this organization. He wondered if key issues might be decided by LCOG without Council review or input and wanted to be sure that policy recommendations would come before the City Council before a decision would be made. Assistant Manager noted that LeOG had taken no vote or position that had not come previously before the Council. 3~ 5/9/77--29 He noted the City Council representative, Mr. Haws, could flag any issue and bring it before Council before a decision was made by the LCOG board. Also, staff, when it saw items that needed to be consi- dered by Council, contacted Mr. Haws. Mr. Bradley noted feeling uncomfortable with the process, saying that the Council should be tied in a much tighter process than it now provides. . .Mr. Obie questioned how the membership related in terms of the LCOG funding to the Eugene vote on the Board. He said he noted the City had one out of five votes and wondered if the City was paying 20 per cent of the costs involved. Assistant Manager replied the local share is split according to population and that when the LCOG Board vot~d the City had the option to call for a vote on the basis of population, although the City had never taken that option. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the concept as presented. Motion carried with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. Com 5/4/77 File VII. Review of Annexation Criteria--Memo Distributed to Council. Assis- tant Manager noted this was an informational item only that had been requested by Mr. Bradley and other members of Council. He said no action was required unless Council wished to change the policy. Mr. Bradley requested th~t the item be delayed to the Committee-of- the-Whole meeting May 11. Com 5/4/77 Affirm IX. Skinner Butte Petition--Mr. Delay noted a concern on the part of the people who lived in the Skinner Butte area for the development which was being proposed on the south face of the Skinner Butte area. A petition with 375 signatures had been received requesting City purchase of property in the area. He said the concern was in regard to retaining the S~inner Butte area as a park area for the City, to retain the historic value of the Shelton-McMurphy house, to retain the view of the home and the Skinner Butte itself, and to with protect the integrity of the area. - Assistant Manager noted this was a difficult problem to deal with as has been outlined in Mr. Saul's memo. He said the height limitation for development around the Butte was unclear in the memos, but that it could not exceed 40 feet on the site in question. He felt the Skinner Butte view would be protected. He noted with the exception of two parcels of land, the City owned the other parcels. Also, two years ago, the plans for the development had been made known to the public. He said the problem existed in terms of how to deal with the property owners who are proposing the development as they had already obtained variance permits. Mr. Haws said his general impression would be to retain the area as it now is and to discourage any d~velopment in the area. He asked what the City could do. Assistant Manager responded that it could condemn and purchase the property if the funds were available. Mr. Obie noted he felt much the same in that an indi- ~ vidual should have the right to develop property as he wants, but if the opportunity were available to the City to acquire the property, then he would support that. 385 5/9/77 --,30 -- Mr. Lieuallen expressed two basic conflicting policies: 1) the City had encouraged higher-density development close to the down~ town area; 2) the concern with preserving the view and historical value of Skinner's Butte area. He said he did not feel it would be a good idea to use the power of the City to deal with a proper- ty owner and not allow him to develop if he had complied to the City codes and regulations. He questioned whether the height limitation was going to retain and preserve the view of the Butte. He hoped that the development would be compatible with the area so that the policy of encouraging higher density development close to the downtown core area could be accomplished. Mr. Hamel expressed the same concern as Mr. Lieuallen, noting that the goals were for higher density development in the core area and this development complied with those goals. He also stated he did not want to see money used for a park in that area where one already existed, when there was a need for parks on the other side of the river. - Mr. Delay said if the development were going to damage the view, he would be willing to take dramatic action, but he said perhaps it would not be that much of a problem. He noted a concern for a need for site review of this development and a need for more information as to what the worst conditions could be once the development were done. Mr. Bradley noted the problem with the armory and asked if perhaps fast action should be taken by the Council, with something done in regard to rezoning with site review so that Council could take action Monday night to protect the area. Assistant Manager replied it would be best for Council to tour the area next week, with staff providing answers to the concerns expressed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried, with all members present voting aye except Bradley and Delay voting no. Quasi-Judicial Hearings scheduled May 9, 1977: Rezonings from April 5, 1977 Planning Commission meeting: 1. Located west from Rutledge to Beltline Road, south of Wood Avenue and Hilton Drive (Ogle) (Z 77-10), from AG and RA to R-I 2. Located northwest of Best Lane, south of Beltline (Summers) (Z 77-11), from AG to R-I 3. Located west of the intersection of 4th Street and Pearl (Barnes) (Z 77-12) from M-2 to RP 4. Located on the east side of Willamette Street between 29th Place and 30th Avenue (Frosland/Mortenson Investments)(Z 77-13), from R-l to RG-SR. . I-B-3 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that April 27 items one through eight and May 2 items one through ten be approved, affirmed, and filed as noted. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. 3glo 5/9/77--31 ASSESSMENT PANEL HEARING May 2, 1977 -- "P.resent: Council members Bradley and Lieua11en, Acting Zoning Administrator Haxton. .1. Appeal from February 24, 1977 Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the matter of the variance request of Jack and Anna Gilbert for property located at 3869 Marshall Avenue. Request to be heard received from Bruce H. Anderson for Mr. and Mrs. Jack Gilbert. Mr. Anderson did not appear at the hearing. Mr. Haxton stated that Mr. Anderson had verbally requested a postponement and a combination of this appeal with an appeal pending with the Planning Commission. Mr. Bradley stated that he had a conflict on the Gilbert matter and would therefore abstain if he was on the panel hearing this matter. Recommendation: That the appeal be postponed to a later date. . Z. Appeal from February 24, '1977 Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the matter of the variance request of Mr. Thomas Connick for property located at ~. 1999 Kimber1yDrive~ . . . . . . . . .., Request to be heard from Mr. Thomas Connick Mr. Connick did not appear at the meeting. Mr. Haxton stated that Mrs. Connick had been contacted by telephone and she stated that Mr. Connick would appear and that she would inform the buyers of the property, a Mr. Seltzer, of the meeting. Recommendation: That the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals be affirmed. 3. Appeal by Gregor A.. McGregor regarding March 31, 1977 Zoning Board of Appeals decision in the matter of setback requirements for property located at '486~488'West'18thAvenue. . Request to be heard from Richard K. Quinn for Gregor A. McGregor. Mr. Quinn did not appear at the meeting. Mr. Haxton stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Quinn asking for postponement until the next regular meeting of the panel. Recommendation: That the matter be postponed until the next regular meeting of the Assessment Panel. . 381 5/9/77 --32 t:;_ ~_ 77 I-B-4 . - e ORDINANCES The following council bills, read the first time April 25, 1977, and held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, are brought back for second reading by council bill number and title only, if no Council member present requests they be read in full: C. B. 1458--Rezoning from M-2 to RA property located on the east side of Bertel sen Road north of 18th Avenue, wi th change of sign district from Industrial to Residential (Safley) (Z 77-1) was read by council bill number only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr.Hamel, that the bill be approved and given fi nal passage. All Council members present voti ng aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17986. C. B. 1462--Relating to the transient room tax, creating a Subcommittee of the City Budget Committee, and providing for procedures; adding Sections 2.070, 2.071, 2.072, and 2.073 to the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Haws and Delay voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17987. Bills for first reading: C. B. 1474--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve the area between 41st Avenue (extended) and 500 feet South of 41st Avenue (extended) and between East Amazon Drive and North Shasta Loop (951) (75-53) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1475--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer on McLean Boulevard from Durbin Street to Whitbeck Boulevard (1282) (76-49) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. 5/9/77--33 388 C. B. 1476--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer--Delta Highway from Goodpasture Island Road to 600 feet South (1267) (76-67) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the fi~ time and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1477--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve area between Agate Street and Emerald Street from 26th Avenue to 27th Avenue (1190) (76-73) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the first time,and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. C. B. 1478--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer Martin Street between \ West Amazon Drive and Canyon Drive (1340) (76-74) was read by council bill monber and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. , __ C. B. 1479--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer--1st Avenue from Seneca Road to 650 feet west (1343) (76-77) was read by council number and title only, there being no Council member present request- ing it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing on May 16, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration for final reading on May 23, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. II-A-l IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 2662--Authorizing street paving on Warren Avenue from Timberline Drive to approximately 1,850 feet south was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2663--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Shiloh Subdivision; street paving within Brewer Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet of the south boundary of Shiloh Subdivision was read by number and title. 5/9177--34 . 38<=t Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. . Res. No. 2664--Authorizing sanitary sewer construction on Foch Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to 400 feet south was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2665--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction within Sailor Flats Subdivision was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2666--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Thorne Estates Subdivision; and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet southeast of Thorne Estates Subdivision was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. - Res. No. 2667--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction within Kodiak Park Subdivision and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet of the south boundary of Kodiak Park Subdivision was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2668--Authorizing street paving on Holly Street from Norkenzie Road to 900 feet west of Norkenzie Road was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2669--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction within Backlund Subdivision and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet of the south boundary of Backlund Subdivision was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2670--Authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer construction within Parkwood Subdivision was read by number and title. - Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. 5/9/77-.:35 3'10 Res. No. 2671--Authorizing street paving and sanitary sewer con- struction along 29th Avenue from City View Street to 400 feet west was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 2672--Authorizing payment of bills, claims and progress payments April 25, 1977 through May 9, 1977 was read by number and title. .J Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the .resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to May 23, 1977. ~)~ Charl es T. Henry Ci ty Manager Recorded by: Dee Tipping DT: CHT:j m/CM4b3 - 5/9/77--36 e 3GJl DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division . 1. PAVING AND SIDEWALK: Sunshine Acres Road from Harlow Road to 150 feet south of Westward Ho. (1315) . Bid No. 3 Opened: 5-3-77 Bidders Basic Contract Cost 1. . Wil dish Construction Company................. $89,114.15 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc....................$ 3. Morse Bros., Inc.............................$ 4. R. C. Parsons & Son Construction, Inc....:...$92,390.55 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Storm Swr. $2,800.00 281 Paving 411 Sidewalk 5" Sidewalk Cone. Drive A. C. Drive $ 22.10/F.F. 1 .35/SF 1.47/SF 1 .54/SF .25/SF COMPLETION DATE: August 1, 1977 Alternate $82,764.80 87,451. 58 88,149.30 89 , 121. 40 Amount Budgeted None -----------------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------- ~PAVING AND SIDEWALK: Elizabeth Street from . "'Royal Avenut to 300 feet South. (1427) Bidders Basic Contract Cost 1. Wildish Construction CO......................$19,371.25 2. R.C. Parsons & Son Construction Inc..........$18,974.40 3. Benge Paving" Inc............................$ 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc.....................$ 5. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.....................$ 6. Morse Bros., Inc.............................$ Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Extra Pave Width $2,600.00 281 Paving 411 Sidewalk 511 Sidewalk Conc. Drive $ 21.40/F.F. 1.41/SF 1 .54/SF 1 .60/SF COMPLETION DATE: 'July 1, 1977 e 3~~ Alternate $17,606.30 17 ,644.95 17,651. 72 1 7,740.69 18,022.70 18,084.60 Amount Budgeted $2,900.00 (77-78 Budget) Page 1 of 3 5/9/77 --37 3. PAVING, SANITARY, SEWER, STORM SEWER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY: Within Souza Park 2nd Addition. (1352) Biqders Basic Contract Cost Alternate . 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.................... 2. Wildish Construction Company.................$142,194.01 .3. H & J Construction................ ...........$145,413.40 4. Babb Construction CO.,.......................$149,177.37 dba Delta Construction Co. 5. Morse Bros., Inc.............................$ 6. James A. Hill................................$153,604.87 7. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc................$155,268.90 8. R.C. Parsons & Son Construction Inc......~...$181~354.00 Cost To Abutting Property: Cost to City' Storm Sewer $3,500.00 281 Paving San. La tara l: San. Service San. Swr. Levy Storm Sewer Ped. Way $ 19.60/F.F. $ 780.00/Lot $ 200.00/Lot $ 40.00/Lot $ 820.00/Lot $ 35.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: August 15, 1977 $1 42 , 112 . 46 $142,116.57 $153,642.15 $157,905.55 $180,711.50 Amount Budgeted None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY: Within 3rd Addition to Meadowbrook. (1357) Bi dders Basic Contract Cost - Alternate 1. James A. Hill................................$69,923.15 2. H & J Construction...........................$ 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc....................$ 4. Wildish Construction Company.................$72,023.75 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc................$74,395.15 6. Benge Paving, Inc............................$ 7. R.C. Parsons & Son Construction Inc..........$7g,602.80 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City 28' Paving $ San. Lateral $ San. Servi~e $ San. Swr. Levy $ Storm Sewer $ Ped,. Way $ 17 .OO/F. F. 650.00/Lot 175.00/Lot 40.00/Lot 330.00/Lot 110.00/Lot None COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1977 3~3 $67,871. 35 $68,838.15 $69,901.95 $70,595.35 $71 ,765.40 $72 ,483. 90 $76,524.20 Amount Budgeted . None Page 2 of 3 It 5/9/77 --38 ._PAVING, SANITARY AND STORM SEWER: Within 1st Addition to Velkommen Park and paving Juhl Street adjacent to the south boundary of 1st Addition to Ve1kommen Park. (1369) Contract Cost Bi dders Basic Alternate 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc....................$ 2. Wildish Construction Company.................$59,011.53 3. Dan D . All s up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4. H & J Construction...........................$ 5. R.C. Parsons & Son Construction Inc..........$59,674.13 6. Benge Paving, Inc............................$ . 7. J ames A. Hi 11. . .. .. . '. . '. .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. $60,895.30 $54,761.06 $56,458.93 $56,899.60 $56,649.72 $59,119.03 $60,082.01 $62,104.03 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to Ci ty Amount Budgeted 281 Paving San. Lateral San. Service San. Levy Storm Sewer $ 21. SO/F. F. $ 530.00/Lot $ 200.00/Lot $ 40.00/Lot $ 145.00/Lot None None COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1977 . Page 3 of 3 . 5/9/77--39 3CJLf-