Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/31/1977 Meeting ~ - . -. --. ..-. --- -" -- --- --.. --'-."" . ..- - .---. ,. -- ...."--- ---'" -..-.- -" -._. .-- - '-.. -..-" M I NUT E S - EUGENE CITY COUNCIL August 31, 1977 ... Adjourned meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oreg~~, August 22, 1977, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:3gYa.m. on August 31, 1977 at the King's Table, Oakwall Mall, with the following touncil members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack D~lay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Mayor Keller welcomed Planning Commissioners who were present: Susan Franklin, James Pearson, Adrienne Lannom, and James Bernhard, and expressed appreciation for the fine work they are doing. 1. Items from Mayor and Council A. Council Special Meeting--Scheduled for Tuesday, September 6, 7:30 p.m. in the McNutt Room. Manager noted the reason for the special meeting was to approve an EDA grant which had a September 7 deadline, as well as some park bids and improvement positions. B. LCDC Invitation--City Council and Mayor have been invited to luncheon - Friday, September 9, noon, at the Eugene Hotel. Manager noted this would be shortly before LCDC would be reviewing the City's compliance program and encouraged all Council members to attend. C. Public Service Financing Inequities between Incorporated and Unin- corporated areas--Memo distributed to Council. Mana,licr reviC\lc<l memo which ~nclllded summary of two reports re~~~ding service di5tribution c:.n2 "LaX <.:!lui ty: Marlett & A::;socia~es. C:or Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission.) "Economic Implications of Fringe Development Adjacent to Major Cities. A Case Study: Eugene, Oregon." July, 1973; and tvlultnomah County Office of County Management. "An Analysis of Financial Planning Report No.8 with Findings and Recommendations." f-Iarch, 1977. f-lanager will be talking to other administrative officials in Springfield and Lane County as to how they might proceed in updating such reports. Copies of each report are available in City Manager's Office. - ...- ., D. Airport Commission--Resignation of John Altucker was received. Mayor will make an appointment with confirmation by Council. Eo Womenspace Report--Report distributed to Council. Ms. Smith noted that Council had directed the Joint Revenue Sharing Committee to take another look at the request from Womenspace. An evaluation team was formed and the report was the result of their efforts. The Womenspace problem had been reviewed thoroughly and the Committee had approved e $4,750 to be used for rental of facilities. Three con- tingencies were noted in the funding: that the agency receive CETA funding, which Ms. Smith reported Manpower had authorized Tuesday; that the agency obtain liability insurance; and that the agency con- tinue to coordinate with existing programs. Ms. Smith expressed concern to Council that the procedure had worked well in the past lo 5 :z.. AnlI77__1 e and hoped Council would seriously reconsider before requesting the Budget Committee to look at extenuating circumstances again. She said it would be extremely difficult to deal with under normal circumstances, as money would not be available. F. Human Rights Ordinance Relative to Sexual Preference--Manager noted the request had come from a City Council member to schedule a public hearing date for possible amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance. He said Council would have to consider the process it had followed in the past and look at any specific amendments suggested. Staff felt the request should be forwarded to the Human Rights Council with a report back to Council for action. The report could properly define issues and arrive at specific wording, whether a new ordinance or amendments to the present ordinance should be adopted, and whether a commission was to be established. Mr. Lieuallen said the request had been made to him by a citizens' group and he would like to suggest a hearing date of October 24. He felt it unnecessary to refer to the Human Rights Council first. George Russell, chairman of the Human Rights Council, had polled the Council and they felt to avoid a duplication of efforts and time, the matter should go directly to a public hearing by City Council. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to schedule public hearing October 24 to consider possible Code amendments regarding sexual preference. - Mr. Lieuallen had been in discussion with the Attorney's offi~e to make a Gomprehensive revi@w. with thg intgnt to includ~ ;" 3"~ ~~tti6n of any ordln~n~e in the City Code the protection for people regarding sexual preference where any other class of citizens are protected based on race, religion, sex, etc.. Mr. Obie asked staff if scheduling public hearing for October 24 would be proceeding in an orderly manner. Manager responded the staff was concerned that it had no specific statements in writing from this group, and would prefer to have specific changes before it for a Council hearing. He said there may be several ordinance changes, a new ordinance written, or a commission established. Mr. Lieuallen said he was not asking for creation of a new commission, but simply to add to the Code and other City documents where pro- tection of certain classes of people are included, that the addi- tion include protection of those of a certain sexual preference. Mayor Keller reminded Council it had certain procedures it normally followed. In listening to the discussion to date, he felt there was a need for an intermediate hearing by the Human Rights Council. He cited previous instances in which the Council had requested e 8/31/77--2 ~53 written reports from commissions for various changes, and it seemed as though there would be a deviation if Council acted to set a public hearing without going through the Human Rights Council. He e felt Council should seriously consider the involvement of the Human Rights Council in this action. ,Mr. Lieuallen said Mr. Russell, speaking on behalf of the Human Rights Council, had just indicated it would prefer the City Council hold the hearing. He said the commissions are not required to make recommendations to Council and the Human Rights Council had just asked Council to hold the hearing. He did not feel the Council would be circumventing the present system. , Mr. Hamel agreed with Mayor Keller, saying the Human Rights Council had a duty to perform and he felt it should act on the proposed amendment first. He was in favor of following the past established process. Mr. Delay felt scheduling a public hearing was a necessity. He said it was not really a new issue and Council was not talking about changing procedures. The group was simply requesting protection for a class of citizens. Mr. Williams thought Council ought to specifically ask the Human Rights Council to give City Council a recommendation. If they fail to provide one in time, then consideration of changing the process could be done at that time. He did not feel Council should bypass the system. e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion to ask the Human Rights Council to give City Council a report ten days prior to the hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Vote was taken on the main motion as stated, which carried unanimously. G. Metropolitan Transportation Committee--Mayor Keller appointed Tom Williams as City Council Member. II. Joint Planning Commission--Council Session A. Citizen Involvement Program for 1977--Materials distributed to Council. Manager reviewed background materials for Council. The City Council had adopted a citizen involvement program in December 1975 to meet the requirements of Goal 1 of the Statewide Goals adopted by Land Conservation and Development Commission. The citizen involvement program gave the Planning Commission responsibility to coordinate citizen involvement in land-use planning for the City. An evaluation committee was established and made its report to the Planning Com- mission in May 1977. The committee proposed removing responsibility 8/31/77--3 e ~Sy. for coordinating citizen involvement from the Planning Commission - and vesting it, instead, in a Citizen's Advisory Committee which is to be created and which would report directly to the City Council. The Planning Commission decided that it, as the body responsible to the City Council for land-use planning, should retain responsibility for coordinating citizen involvement in the land-use planning process. The citizens advisory committee was proposed with a membership of three persons from the neighborhood organizations, three citizens at large, one Planning Commissioner, and one person from MAPAC. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the committee would advise the Planning Commisison on problems and opportunities for citizen involve- ment. The issues of concern were: 1) whether the committee should report directly to the City Council as opposed to reporting to the Planning Commission; and 2) the composition of the committee. Randi Bjornstad, Planning Department, gave a background of the program development in reaching the proposed Citizen Advisory Commit- tee. She said the substantive change was in the Coordination section (page 3). The evaluation committee had recommended the responsibility and coordination of citizen involvement be removed from the Planning Commission and be given to the Citizen Advisory Committee. However, as noted above, the Planning Commission had decided to retain the responsibilities. Staff recommended Council approval of the plan as presented. She said it would be entirely appropriate if Council wished to amend the plan as proposed and to hold the item for a Monday night public hearing. e Mr. Lieuallen commented it seemed there had not been much discussion by many people and he felt this was a very broad and important issue. He was not satisfied with staff's proposal and suggested a public hearing might be a good thing. Manager noted Council could choose that as an alternative, and staff did not feel this to be an over- powering issue of LCDC program review; so it could be held over for further discussion. Jim Bernhard noted the Planning Commission had held several public hearings, and had considered the issue at several meetings. The Planning Commission was proposing Alternate no. 2 after much discus- sion of the issue. Mr. Haws noted the vote of 4-3 by the Planning Commission, and asked for clarification on which issue. Mr. Saul and Mr. Bernhard re- plied the 4-3 vote was on the makeup of the committee, whether there should be three or four representatives from the neighbor- hood groups. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern regarding the land-use decision- making body evaluating and monitoring its own work. Ms. Lannom agreed with Mr. Lieuallen and said she would prefer to see an independent type of evaluation. Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether that was LCDC's original intention, to which Ms. Bjornstad replied LCDC left that as an option--the evaluation could be done by e the Planning Commission or it could be delegated to an independent 8/31/77--4 ~55 group. She clearly pointed out this program in no way allows the Planning Commission to evaluate its own activities. Mr. Lieuallen e felt there was a possibility they might be, noting they would be evaluating its process, and if it misused the process, then the Planning Commission would be evaluating its own processes. Ms. Franklin felt the Planning Commission should not retain the evaluation. Her major concern was that the Planning Commission had not participated in the citizen involvement program throughout the last year, noting a very heavy workload of the Commissioners. She felt staff had not notified the Planning Commission as to what types of things it should do in order to carry out the citizen in- volvement coordinating body. She felt the citizen body must take on a strong role to carry out that function. The argument from the eval- uation committee strongly suggested consideration of having a neighborhood organization or some outside body participating. It should be independent and advisory to the Council. Mr. Delay felt there was a demonstration of lack of independence shown by the fact the evaluating committee had requested the citizen's advisory committee be set up by the Planning Commission, be indepen- dent of the Planning Commission and report directly to Council, yet the Planning Commission ignored the suggestion and wished to retain the citizen's advisory committee to itself. He felt it was very important for citizens to have access directly to elected officials. He felt in order to encourage citizen participation, then citizens' wishes should be considered. e Mr. Bernhard said he could see both points of view. He said as the Planning Commission was making decisions on land-use planning, it would have to be involved in how to get the citizens involved. He felt it should be Planning Commission activity rather than another city committee originated to get citizen involvement. Janet Calvert, 1062 Woodside Drive, President of League of Women Voters, read a statement from the League. It supported the concept of Goal 1 of the LCDC and said it seemed logical the Planning Com- mission should have the final decision in directing and coordinating the citizen involvement program. It stated the citizens advisory committee should be the group to handle the details of such a plan. It also supported the suggested makeup of the committee, and expressed hope the committee would help citizens understand and participate more in local government. A question was raised regarding the process of membership selection for the committee. Ms. Bjornstad replied the neighborhood groups would select their three representatives from their own organizations; the three citizens at-large would be selected by the Planning Commission, and publicity would be given through the news media for interest in this committee. The Planning Commission would select its own member and MAPAC would select its own member. e 8/31/77--5 ~% Jim Lemert~ 10 East 40th Avenue, felt some of the discussion of e the issues had been somewhat misleading. He said the evaluation committee had discussed five options and had proposed its fifth option. He distributed to Council the report from that committee. He said the evaluation committee had suggested an independent com- mittee be established. He also noted the city would require per- mission from LCDC if the City did not establish an independent com- mittee. A third point he made was that those involved in land-use planning were not just the Planning Commissioners, but also the Planning Department staff. Rob Robertson, 794 Crest Drive, was a member of MAPAC serving on the evaluation committee. He felt the citizens involvement com- mittee should be one set up to report equally to the City Council as well as Planning Commission. He said this was not a case of the neighborhood leaders' committee versus the Planning Commission, but noted the neighborhood leaders had significant membership on the evaluation committee. He stressed that the citizens involvement plan was more than just a procedure for dealing with the Planning Commission. He felt the group would be in a position to guide and counsel individuals as to their questions and dealings with city government in land-use planning processes. He felt the independent committee dealing on an independent basis would be in a far better position to provide this service to citizens. Mr. Lieuallen questioned in terms of the Planning Commission's heavy e workload and its lack of response to the citizens involvement program last year, whether it would be possible for the Planning Commission to effectively coordinate the Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Bernhard replied the Planning Commission wants to have the citizens advisory committee take some workload portion, particularly for the land-use planning. The committee would report back to the Commission. Mr. Williams said it seemed the question was whether the body should report to the City Councilor Planning Commission. He felt land-use recommendations were clearly a function of the Planning Commission and the advisory body ought to be spending the bulk of its time working with the Planning Commission. He said the City Council was always open for feedback. He did not think it prudent to create a body for citizen involvement in land-use planning which would not be involved with the Planning Commission. He felt it should be very closely related to the Planning Commission. Jim Johnston, 179 West 37th Avenue, said in response to Mr. Williams' concern, the alignment requested by the evaluation committee would be between citizens, City Council, and the citizens advisory committee. A reason for this process was there were other citizen involvment concerns, citing the Fasano procedures. He said Planning Commission members could not discuss certain Fasano proceedings, but an independent citizen group would be able to help other citizens in the community in this regard. He felt it would make the government more easily accessible to citizens. He agreed there was a bias in e 8/31/77--6 ~51 -- ------ the Planning Commission, and as a result of the hearing, he felt an e independent group should be established. It was not the intention to make this a neighborhood leaders' committee. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the recommen- dation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Delay said he would vote no on the motion. He felt it important that the committee have a sense of independence and be responsible to City Council. He also felt it important to get this committee active and functioning as soon as possible. Mr. Obie said he would vote for the motion. He thought the pyramid approach through the proper channels, especially in regard to dealing with the specific land-use problems, was best and the group should be working directly with the Planning Commission. He felt the City Council was always open and available for citizens to make their wishes known. Mr. Lieuallen said he would vote no on this motion. He cited a low level of confidence in local government and in all levels of government, and creat:ilng an independent ci ti zens group woul d be a move in the right direction toward improving confidence. He also felt there might be a conflict of interest in the Commission, and expressed concern regarding the workload of the Commission. e Mr. Delay noted Council was talking about citizen participation and said he would feel more comfortable with an independent body reporting directly to Council. He asked what does citizen parti- cipation mean if you ignore citizen participation, citing the in- volvement of the evaluation committee and its recommendations that were being ignored. Mr. Bradley requested, seconded by Mr. Delay, to schedule a publiC hearing September 26 for more publiC testimony. Mr. Obie had the impression that once public hearing had been opened, an item could not be held over at that point. He requested counsel to clarify at what point the Council could decide to hold an item over. Stan Long, City Attorney's office, said his understanding of Council's intentions was any time prior to a vote an item could be held over by request of two Councilors. Mr. Williams did not think that was the intent of the Council. He felt the intent was that if an item was considered by two Councilors to be important to have public partici- pation, then it would be held over. He did not feel it fair to go through two or three hours of staff time and public participation only to hold an item over for final decision. Mr. Long reminded Council he had raised that point and Council had discussed the matter when the Bylaws were changed. His understanding was that the majority of Council intended to have an item set over at any time prior to a vote. Mr. Delay did not see the problem, saying he felt this was an important e 8/31/77--7 lo58 -- - ----~ issue and Council, if it so desired, should have the time to reflect e and study the issue further, and ask for more citizen input. Mr. Obie moved that the Bylaws be changed at the next meeting. Motion died for lack of a second. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland, noted the neighborhood leaders received two notices and Council had had key responses from people in atten- dance today. She felt persons interested had sufficient warning of the meeting. Mr. Long noted that the Bylaws stipulate at the request of two Councilors an item would be set over to the next Monday meeting, which would be September 12, unless Council wished to direct otherwise. Mr. Bradley moved to schedule public hearing for September 26. Motion died for lack of a second. A short recess was taken. Mr. Bradley, with consent of a second, withdrew his request to hold the item over. He said the reason he had made this request was that he did not feel there had been enough input. However, he would be on vacation September 12. Vote was taken on the motion for approval of the Planning e Commission1s recommendation which passed with Williams, Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting aye; Haws, Delay, Lieuallen, and Bradley voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to add one repre- sentative from City Council to the citizen advisory committee. His reason for the motion was the informal access to the City Council and he thought having a City Council member would strengthen the process, and keep Council well informed. Mayor Keller referred to the statement made regarding the committee reviewing Fasano decisions. He wondered if that would exclude a City Council member from participating. Mr. Long said he did not under- stand the comment about the committee dealing with Fasano matters. He said if that were true, a City Council member who is subject to ex parte information generally would be obligated to abstain when the matter came before the City Council. Ms. Bjornstad clarified that citizens advisory committee would in no way deal with specific land-use actions the City takes. The purpose of the committee would be to see that citizens have an opportunity to participate in planning decisions and not in individual actions. e 8/31/77--8 ~59 Mr. Williams wondered if Council was starting to amend a report e which had already been adopted and whether that necessitated a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Long said it would be ruling of the chair. Mayor Keller ruled it was an appropriate motion. Mr. Haws and Mr. Obie both expressed concern about receiving more information and input before deciding a City Council member should be on the Committee. Mr. Bradley, with consent of the second, withdrew his motion. Mr. Bradley requested Council membership on the CAC be discussed Wednesday, September 28. B. Rezoning property located west of Pearl Street and north of 4th Avenue east from M-2 to RG (Evergreen Union Retirement Association) (Z 77-6) Materials distributed to Council. Manager reviewed for Council and Planning Commission that the request for rezoning had come from Planning Commission, and Council had amended the request to include a site review prefix. Staff and Planning Commission considered the site review unnecessary because the conditional use review was already required. Concern related to the effect on Skinner's Butte and the Shelton-McMurphy House. Mr. Bradley had raised the issue at Council meeting and expressed his concern about development in that area. He felt more control e was needed and site review would provide that control. Mr. Bernhard explained if the property were zoned RG, 20 to 22 units could be developed on the property at this time. The Planning Com- mission felt a conditional use permit was more restrictive than site review. He said under the conditional use permit, however, the people could sell off a portion of the property, but it would still allow for 20 to 22 units to be developed. He felt the - addition of site review might cause an extra hardship on the developer and require more time. Ms. Franklin said staff had indicated site review would not be inappropriate and the applicant said site review would not present undue hardship for him. She felt because of the delicate nature of that parcel of land, it would be better to have site review. Ms. Lannom said she had voted against the proposal because site review had not been included. Mr. Pearson said it had been a question of how much was enough. He felt there were safeguards through the conditional use permit and a philosophical question of hardship on the developer if site review were required. He said there would be time delays and expense, that if one process could suffice to protect the publiC interest, then that should be enough. e 8/31/77--9 ~~O -- Mr. Lieuallen said he was hearing that staff had said site review e was recommended by staff and others saying site review had not been recommended, and he asked for clarification. Mr. Saul referred Council to the Planning Commission minutes which reflected that stance. He said the specific development proposed would have gone through under conditional use process. He said by attaching site review procedures to the development, it would not be an increased burden to the applicant. He said under site review, three depart- ments would review the development and make a decision. Under conditional use, the same three departments would review and make a recommendation to the Hearings Official instead of reaching de- cisions themselves. He said site review and conditional use permit could be combined with no extra delay or expense. The Planning Commission's discussion whether or not site review is necessary remains a legitimate point of discussion. He said there was a special height limitation around the Butte, there were a number of development standards within RG that are more stringent, but it was very legiti- mate to discuss imposing site review. Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, said she did not believe it had been the majority decision of the Planning Commission that it was not necessary to have site review. She noted the vote had been even, and perhaps this issue needed more study. Mr. Saul noted the item was scheduled for Planning Commission's agenda Monday, September 12. e C. Response to LCDC's Review--Materials distributed to Council. Mr. Saul reviewed the materials. He noted LCDC had been given authority to adopt the goals regarding land-use planning and that one year from that date, the local jurisdictions were to bring the plan to LCDC to see if they were in compliance. Eugene had been reviewed in February 1977 and had been found to be in compliance with the guidelines. At the same time, LCDC had urged Eugene as a city to look at its process of planning and make it more understandable for citizens; and secondly, to work more cooperatively with other jurisdictions in metropolitan urban problems, such as transportation planning, sewage, and urban service boundary. He continued that LCDC is required to evaluate on an annual basis to determine if the jurisdiction is still in compliance or to determine if the jurisdiction is making satisfactory progress toward achieving compliance. As Eugene had been found to be in compliance, the annual review will be to see whether it continues to be in com- pliance. The review is scheduled for September 9. Mr. Saul referred to the proposed letter to LCDC which responds to several points; namely, the City still remains in compliance, and a review of action the City has taken to address the concerns expressed at the February 1977 meeting. In addition, he said, the letter responds to LCDC's concerns in working with Springfield and Lane County in the areas of concern. He noted the two-phase economic reports had been included. e fob I 8/31/77--10 e Mr. Lieuallen said, from his review of the materials, it seemed LCDC was concerned about site-specific urban service boundary and working toward more citizen understanding in the planning process. Mr. Saul responded the two areas of concern were citizen understanding and continuing to work with Lane County and Springfield in metro urban problems. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the LCDC was concerned with a site-specific urban service boundary. Mr. Saul replied in the Fe- bruary meeting, LCDC had agreed that site-specific meant some clearly defined line, i.e., a river, a road, a ridgeline, etc. ~r. Lieuallen then further questioned whether staff thought LCDC would accept the report. Mr. Saul said according to materials provided by LCDC, once a jurisdiction has been determined to be in compliance, before a reversal of that determination is made, LCDC is required to notify, specify grounds, and give the jurisdiction an opportunity to respond. He said that has not occurred, so staff feels Eugene is still in compliance and is asking LCDC to recognize that. Mr. Delay noted LCDC had raised a question about exceptions pro- ceedings, especially regarding agricultural land. However, a more general concern of his was wondering if there was a problem of fric- tion between the City and LCDC staffs, citing some of the specific responses in the City's materials. Mayor Keller replied the reason the City was answering in that way was receipt of a letter August 5 in which it appeared LCDC felt the City was making no effort. Mr. Saul continued the letter had a number of statements which the City felt were prejudicial to the City. Mr. Delay said he was concerned, won- e dering if the staff response was not a bit inflamatory and wondered if the staff should move more toward a cooperative posture. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the recom- mendation and report. Motion carried unanimously. III. Street Vacation: Portion of Washington Street, south of 30th Avenue (Eugene Parks and Recreation) (SV 76-7) Recommended by Planning Commission June 27, 1977 with unanimous vote. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1531--Vacating that portion of Washington Street, south of 30th Avenue, and maintaining public utility easement 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 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, except Mr. Haws ab- staining, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e 8/31/77--11 ~b~ Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved e and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18044. B. Alley Vacation and Relocation: Portion of the east/west alley between Willamette and Olive streets, south of 11th Avenue (Eugene Hospital and Clinic) (AV 77-2) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission June 27, 1977. Public hearing was opened. Arlen Swearingen, 975 Oak, representing Eugene Hospital and Clinic, was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1532--Vacating and relocating portion of east/west alley between Willamette and Olive streets, south of 11th Avenue, and retaining public utility easement was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Bradley questioned whether this was the Eugene Hospital and Clinic or the Eugene Hospital Company. Mr. Swearingen said it e should be the Eugene Hospital Company Corporation and that correc- tion would be made when the deed was transferred. 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 be 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 18045. ~ C. Oakway Water Withdrawal (Oxbow Way/Sunshine Acres) (A/Z 77-3, Adams) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1533--Authorizing withdrawal from Oakway Water District that part of the district annexed to the City by Final Order No. 432 of Lane County on August 4, 1977 and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. e 8/31/77--12 ~~3 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read e 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 be 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 18046. IV. Street Dedication by EWEB--Map, Letter, and Resolution Distributed to Council Manager noted the request was for street dedication of EWEB right-of-way property on Buck Street for public improvements. Res. No. 2741--Authorizing street dedication of EWEB right-of-way on Buck Street for public improvements was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. v. Proposed Changes in Ambulance Rates--Memo and resolution distributed to Council. Manager reviewed memo from Sherm Flogstad, Finance Director. He noted the review process had cut the requested increase from ten percent to e 8.2 percent. Also, the review process had revised the zone proposal downward. Mr. Hamel noted he had served on the committee last year which recom- mended an increase of 30 to 35 percent in rates. At that time, he said the increases were to last another two or three years, and therefore he objected to this request. Mr. Haws was concerned that the persons living in his ward would be paying twice as much for mobile chair charges as persons living in a ward closer to the center of the city. Mr. Flogstad said the original zoning procedures had been a request for a charge of $7 with an additional $1 for each zone, up to $14. Staff had recommended a charge of $7 at the point of pickup and a $1 charge for each zone crossed. Mr. Haws indicated he was going to vote no, as he felt the rates were unfair. Mr. Obie felt a study committee needed to look at the proposed rate increases. He expressed concern of not having enough information or knowledge about ambulance services and a concern that the rate increase e 8/31/77--13 ~~~ - was based on an internal versus an independent audit. He felt a review e by a subcommittee should be made to see if the City is receiving the kind of service it needed in Eugene, noting that perhaps that study would show the rate should be even higher. Mr. Flogstad said the finance departments of both Springfield and Eugene had looked at the financial statements, balance sheets, etc. of the ambulance service. The ambulance service does employ a CPA who had cooperated in providing this financial information. He said the infor- mation did indicate a rate increase was needed. He agreed to go over any of the financial statements with the Council and review any of the reports. He noted Springfield has already authorized an increase in rates, and they are in effect in Springfield; and if Council wants to act today, the rates will go into effect in Eugene tomorrow. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the mobile chair service operated now on a zone charge. Mr. Flogstad replied no; there was a flat rate of $5 for mobile chair service. Mr. Lieuallen then noted the reason why he lived in the core area, noting Mr. Haws' concern of extra rate charges in the outlying areas of Eugene. He said perhaps Mr. Haws could pursue a satellite system. He understood the zone system and thought it was logical and was not opposed to the zone charges. Ms. Smith supported delaying a decision and exploring Mr. Hamel's state- ment of a commitment last year to not increase rates for two or three years. e Mr.Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to table the item. Motion carried unanimously. It was decided Mr. Obie and Mr. Haws would serve on a subcommittee to meet.witt Mr. Flogstad and review the ambulance rates increase and serVlce. VI. Council Assistance--Held over to September 7 meeting. VI I. Approval of Minutes Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council minutes August 17, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, meeting was adjourned to September 7, 1977. ~)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager CTH:DT:ml/CM8a20 ~ 8/31/77--14 ~45