Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1977 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL - October 24, 1977 Adjourned meeting from October 19, 1977, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m., October 24, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS I-A-l A. Change of parcel boundaries for properties located at the southwest corner of Jacobs and Pattison (Foelker)(Z 76-34) Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission September 26, 1977. Manager said there were two parcels next to each other which have different zoning; to make more usability, a slight shift in boundary and a slight change in zoning was required. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1558--Authorizing parcel boundary change for properties located at the southwest corner of Jacobs and Pattison was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member. e 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 thi s 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 18068. I-A-2 B. 10th and Oak Overpark Assessments Manager said the property to be assessed tonight was in the assess- ment district and until recently was exempt public parking. The two pieces of property have since been changed in use and under the City Code they become eligible for special assessments. The two properties to be assessed were for Citizens Associates, and Federal Home Savings and Loan Association. Public hearing was opened. - 10/24/77--1 7'13 . Dean Quick, attorney, 130 West 1st Street, Albany, spoke in opposition on behalf of the Home Federal Savings and Loan. He said the parcel was, at the time of the overpark assessment, held in trust. Montgo- - mery Ward leased the property and had established a number of parking spaces at the time. He said the entire area had been assessed at $186,000, but an appeal ,to the City Council. resulted in a reduced assessment to $101,000. The reason for the reduction was that parking spaces had been included on the Montgomery. Ward property. He noted there were; al so a number of other areas in the assessment di stri ct which had recetyed exemptions. On this basis, the appeal was made to the City Council that the trust was not receiving the same treatment as other pieces of property in the area. He said it was particularly important what use was being made at the time of the assessment. He said the Code indicates that once there is a change in use in exempt properties, then the City could proceed. Montgomery Ward had used the property has a parking lot and it was leased to the City for a parking facility. Home Federal purchased the property in the summer of 1976. There had been no change in assessment at that time. He said it included one-quarter of a block of which 14,000 square feet were fully assessed and 11,800 feet were exempt because of the use as a parking facility. When Home Federal Savings and Loan began building, it assumed assessments of $96,000 in liens existing against the 14,000 square feet. He said it was his company's position that there had been no change of use from the time the 11,800 square feet had been exempted until the present time. He introduced several exhibits: 1) A drawing showing the 27 parking spaces which will be i ncorporated i~n the faci 1 i ty. He cited City Code Section 7.475 which stated any real property on which there is located an off-street . parking facility operated as a profit-making venture for use of the general public, as distinguished from a parking lot owned or leased and operated primarily as a service and convenience for customers of a particular busi ness, shall not be deemed benefited by the proposed off-street parking facility improvement. He contended that definition had already been interpreted by the Council in 1966-67. He cited Quackenbush's, other businesses, and Montgomery Ward's parking lots were off-street facilities for general use of the public. The re- mainder of the exhibits entered were: 2) map showing the parcels; 3) property descriptions; 4) a series of pictures of various parking lots at the time exemption status was given; and 5) a number of pictures of the Montgomery Ward parking lot as it existed at that time. The Home Federal Savings and Loan will have 27 parking spaces designated in the same manner as Montgomery Wards, including parking for customers of the Home Federal Savings and Loan. He said the statutes authorize a new assessment only if there has been a change of use in parking. He contended there had not been, and never would be a change with Federal Home Savings and Loan. 10/24/77--2 e. l'lLf Public hearing was closed, there being no further t~stimony e presented. Sherm Flogstad, Finance Director, stated the Montgomery Ward parking parcel had been exempt until recently. The suit in 1969 was filed and at that time an assessment was made by Council. Through the process, it was determined property was exempt. He suggested Council set aside the hearing on this assessment to another meeting to allow staff to assess the matter further. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to table the assessment item to the November 28 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Williams asked who was the responsible officer for compliance with Fire Marshal's Code in regard to the number of persons present in the building. Manager replied he was responsible, but that a substantial number of persons would have to be asked to leave if the building were to be in compliance. Mayor Keller suggested there was a safety problem involved and requested that persons please step outside and clear the aisles to comply with the Fire Marshal's Code. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to change the Human Rights ordinance discussion to another night at another site. Mr. Williams said there was tremendous concern in the community for this issue and he would support having the item discussed at another place at another time. He also noted it was not possible to fairly permit all present at the - hearing to participate and testify. Mr. Haws said it should have been known in advance that there was going to be great interest shown in this item. Si nce the public hearing had been scheduled for two months, he saw no reason to delay the di scussi on. He requested that persons present clear the aisles and comply with the Fire Code law, and he was willing to go ahead with the discussion this even- ing. Mr. Lieuallen felt it also would be a mistake to put off the hearing. Mr. Hamel and Ms. Smith concurred the hearing should be held this evening. Mr. Delay felt the Council had some obligation to the public as the hearing had been advertised for two months and people had organized for discussion tonight. He requested the cooperation of the persons present to keep the aisles clear so that Council could proceed. Meeting was delayed for approximately 30 minutes due to a blown fuse and attempts by Ray Hicks, Jr., Fire Department Representative, to clear the building. Vote was taken on the motion which failed with Bradley, Williams, and Obie voting aye; Haws, Hamel, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. C. Amendment to Human Rights Ordinance re: Sexual orientation I-A-3 Manager said the amendment had been brought to Council by the request thru of the public through a Councilor. The actual proposed amendment III-B-3 relates to the Human Rights Ordinance. He explained the general content of the amendment regarding sexual orientation and its e 10/24/77--3 7Cf5 definition, noting the sex orientation phrase is introduced to areas to prohibit discrimination in housing, public accommodation, and . employment. Complaints of discrimination would be processed through '4It the Human Rights Council. He noted it did not include creation of any new commission. T~eamendment had been reviewed and endorsed by the Human Rights Council. He commented on the number of letters and petitions which had been received by the Manager's Office and City Councilors, both in favor and in opposition. George Russell, President, Human Rights Council, said it should be clear this proposal change does not endorse any type of nonmajority sexual behavior. It would provide a legal recourse for the citizens who may be otherwise deprived. It does not outlaw prejudices, although there exist some very strong prejudices in this community resulting in discrimination. If Council believes discrimination does exist, then it is necessary to protect the constitutional rights of all persons subject to this discrimination, noting the issue is a human rights issue. He said it was not a matter of Council forcing moral codes on private citizens, but rather a human rights issue. He said the ordinance would not interfere with the employers, landlord's or owner's rights to deny a person for homo- or heterosexual conduct. He felt it clearly inappropriate to construe community disfavor on a h~man rights issue. If this were true, he said, slavery would still be the mode of the day. The basis of the constitution is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority and he, again, cited this as a human rights issue. He said under the constitution, individual citizens are assumed to be free to make any transactions they so. wish. He said there are those who argue social prejudice cannot be ~ overcome by legislation, but said it was not the prejudices that would. be forbi dden but only the arbi trary and caprici ous acts of di scrimi na- tion that come from such prejudices. He said Council should att~mpt to understand the issue of social prejudice, and the amendment snould be considered only in light of human rights. Public hearing was opened. Mayor Keller noted proponents and opponents would be given one hour each for testimony. He explained the ground rules of testimony before City Council, and asked those who were testifying to be brief and not repeat testimony. He said the first amendment allows the right for each person to speak as he feels compelled to, and cautioned the crowd that that right should be owed and respected to each person tonight. He requested no applause, booing, hissing, or heckling. Those speaking in favor of the proposed amendment were the following: Larry Monical, 1344 Pearl, Citizens for Gay Rights Carole Kirkpatrick, 1633-A Oak Street, clinical psychologist Andy Thompson, 2910 Ferry Street, psychologist Irwin Noparstak, 2324 Alder, psychiatrist Glenn Gordon, 1136 East 20th, physician Phil George, speaking for Thomas Payzant, 249 Coachman Drive, Supt., Eugene Schools . Barb West, 3025 Fri endly Street, 4-J School Board member ( . 10/24/77--4 19b Rev. Donald Purkey, 2530 Fairmount, Central Presbyterian Church pastor e Rev. Douglas Huneke, 3060 Olive, Cooperative Christian Ministry Sister Janice M. Jackson, 1340 E. 23rd, SNJM Rev. Duane Alvord, 4375 Blanton Heights, Rector St. Mary's Episcopal Church Charles F. Hinkle, 900 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, attorney Harriet Merrick, 876 Lawrence, OSPRIG report Sheila Malbrain, 333 West 11th Coleen Gragen, 1736 West Broadway The thrust of their testimony was to call attention to the fact there is substantial evidence that discrimination does exist in Eugene. Position papers presented by psychologists have identified homosexuality as a social behavior rather than a physical disease. Their is no potential harm for society in general from homosexuals (gays), they are not violent or criminal; the amendment would give a segment of the community a opportunity to develop individual lives openly and without fear of reprisal. Sexual preference was not a matter of being right or wrong, rather the question of whether individuals have the right to live open and honest lives. Discrimination forces homosexuals into economic, psychological, and social insecurity and thereby alienates a segment of the community. Present judgment of potential employers of gay people is based on prejudice and requiring employment of known homosexuals could dispel that prejudice. Other statements included the following: The relegation to second-class status because of society's fears and phobias; they are seen in terms of their sexuality and as defective persons; they are not criminally oriented, nor child molesters, nor actively recruiting others to their way of life, nor are they any more perverse or e immoral than are hetrosexuals. Unfair economic and social discrimination does exist in Eugene, as cited by many first-hand experiences. The American Psy- chiatric Association has gone on record as advocating elimination of discrimi- nation on the basis of homosexuality. There were many statements made of the effect of fear of discovery and the resultant human suffering involved; state- ments made for the need of protection of a class of human beinqs who need support and understanding and assurance of their basic human rights. Biblical evidence was cited of justice and hope for the oppressed; Council would not be condoning a life style but protecting basic human rights. The church's position is to judge on moral or immoral behavior, and these people are entitled to equal protection under the law. Mayor Keller requested a show of hands in the audience of those supporting the amendment, with about 200 persons indicating support. A request was made for the proponents to continue a few more minutes with testimony. Mayor Keller ruled the alloted houris time was up. Mr. Lieuallen took issue with the Mayorls ruling, saying Council was dealing with the actual discrimination by first-hand experiences, noting these people were willing to give that evidence and he felt they should be allowed to testify as this was the most essential element of the entire issue. e 10/24/77--5 iq7 - ~--- 1 I Mayor Keller declared a ten-minute recess. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Li~uallen, to appeal the e decision of the Chair on the ruling of debate time. Motion carried with Haws, Bradley', Delay, lieuallen, and Smith voting aye; Obie, Williams, and Hamel voting ~o. In continuing the discussion favoring the amendment, Mike O'Brien 5085 Nectar Way; Carole Queen, 906 West 4th; and Dominick Vetri, Route 1 Gap Road, Brownsville; reiterated some of the earlier remarks made and gave first-hand experiences of discrimination. They sai d the proposed amendment woul d not protect ill ega 1 or offensive acts, only that it would prevent unfair treatment. The fear of public knowledge of their homosexu~lity was expressed, with the resultant loss of jobs and living spaces. They also reiterated it was a basic human right for protection, and they were not asking for rights other than the protection other people had. Those fears could be minimized and life could be less risky if the proposed amendment were passed. Homosexuals were stated as being a variety cross section of society, citizens of the community of all types of work and all walks of life. Mayor Keller noted the proponents had used 13 additional minutes, so an hour and 13 minutes would be allotted to the opponents. Those speaking in opposition were the following: Representative Bill Rogers, Vida, Oregon Dr. Sterling G. Ellsworth, 2237 Cal Young Road, clinical psychologist .e Walter L. Taff, 25292 Perkins Road, Veneta Eva Adkins, Junction City, Chairperson of I WILL Maureen Gieber, 3147 Sorrel Way Donna Fisher, 25687 Fleck Road Lynn Greene, 1333 Oak Patch Road, No. 1 Robert Russell, 506 Sunshine Acres Dale Morris, 298 Hawthorne Avenue Joe Ponder, 2615 River Road Their opposition was based on their concern for the welfare of society and this community in particular. They bel i eved that there was ,no way homosexual s could be encouraged and still keep the present standards of morality familiar to the community, and that the matter was brought up by a few people and not by demand of the majority of the community. Also stated was the belief that the practice of homosexuality was demoralizing and adoption of the amendment would force discrimination against employers and landlords, in that they would be required to rent or hire people they did not want. It was stated the rights of the minority should not be sacrificed for the rights of the majority, as under a democracy the majority rules; a suggestion was made to send the matter to the voters and let the majority decide. Dr. Ellsworth, a clinical psychologist, said there should be a difference made between discrimination in areas where people cannot control (i.e., sex, race, national origin), as opposed to legislation in e 10/24/77--6 ..,qg areas of personal preference. legislating in these areas of personal preference would indicate protection of other groups of people should be included, i.e., . various marital preferences, family size, psychotherapy preference, or smoking preference. Statements were made that it is a choice of behavior and those choosing that type of living should take the responsibility for their behavior. Others were concerned that the amendment would increase cases of child molesta- tion and encourage young people to follow the same life style. Also, it was suggested if Council passed the amendment it would lend legitimacy to homosexual behavior, and it would be unwise for government to legislate in such a private controversial concern. Concerns were expressed that homosexuals were organizing to infiltrate the school system and to provide sex education that would set forth homosexuality as a sexual life style. Others stated that human rights were very much a concern, but they wanted to live their life the way they wanted to and did not want others to force them to accept a way of life that was contrary to their beliefs. A concern was expressed regarding homosexual teachers and their influence on younger children. Some opponents quoted passages from the Bible in support of their stand against homosexuality, and expressed it as being an unnatural, perverse sexual -activity. It was suggested that homosexu- ality is a learned trait and it could be unlearned; that modern medicine says it is not in the range of normal behavior. Results of various petitions circulated, telephone polls, and Register-Guard polls were cited, showing an indication of of general community disapproval of the passage of this amendment. The Council was urged to reject the amendment on the basis that it did not reflect the wishes of the majority of the community. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e C.B. 1560--Concerning Human Rights; amending Sections 4.615, 4.620, 4.625, 4.630, 4.635, and 4.645 of the Code, 1971; 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. 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. Mr. lieuallen said he was going to support the amendment for many of the reasons stated by the proponents. He felt the amendment was consistent with the oath Councilors took to support the constitution, but that it was difficult because of the inherent contradiction between majority and minority wishes. He felt Council should focus on the basis on the process, noting if Council were to make an exception in protecting certain human rights it would seriously undermine that process. He felt Council should then consider the amendment within that process of the constitution and protection for human rights. He said minorities by nature are always unpopular, but that should be resolved through the process and not by how people feel. He urged Council to consider approval of the amendment. - 10/24/77--7 7~q Ms. Smith noted all Council members had asked many questions and did a great .amount of reading on the issue, and she noted appreciation for testimony and conduct of those in attendance. She said it had not . been an easy decision to reach, but she had decided it was not a question of approving sexual orientation, but a human rights issue. She felt it was Council IS responsibility to amend the human rights ordinance to include sexual orientation and thus she was going to support it. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to a~end the amendment to read in Section 2(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice: (f) in any context treated in this section, for a party to consider and make decisions based upon a person's sexual orientation where the person would be, or is, working primarily with individuals between the ages of 12 through 15. He said when Council considered this issue a few years ago, he was never forced to. fully address the concerns. He felt at this time he was forced to address the issue in a way with which he was comfort- able. He expressed real concerns for the kind of personal human trauma that had been expressed in testimony. One of the main things w~ich bothered him was the impact in school systems of a known homo- sexual teacher during the formative years, and he noted he had con- tacted a local psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Wilson for input. Discussion centered around whether homosexuality results from role modeling or whether it's learned early in life. He said there was substantial evidence of the potential for role model of children who have a predetermined orientation which could be sUbstantially reinforced by - role mOdeling of a male teacher during the ages of 12 to 15. He said based on that fact, combined with the fact that most people in the community do not want Council to adopt the amendment, he had introduced this amendment. Mr. Delay felt it very important for Council to keep its sights on the issue and not base its decision on such fears as had been expres- sed by Mr. Williams. He said the thesis for that amendment was nothing but an elaborate cover for a fear or prejudice. He said there was no evidence that at any particular stage or age role modeling was effective in regard to homosexuality. He said this particular amendment to the motion would take a prejudice and turn it into discrimination. He said the result of passing the amendment proposed by Mr. Williams would be that a certain class of persons would have about as many rights, but not quite as many. He felt Council should be acting on rationa~ and not elaborate fears. Mr. Obie felt the evidence presented in testimony at the meeting was very subjective, stating that no evidence for determination of homosexual behavior was a strong point, and he felt the amendment was prudent. Regarding the question of recruitment, he said when people e 10/24/77--8 gOO become involved with one another on a sexual basis, that's recruitment and he believed it was there. In regard to the schools, he expressed e concern for the gay youth groups and felt passage of the motion would promulgate that type of activity. He preferred to have the motion passed with Mr. Williams' amendment attached. Mr. Lieuallen said if Mr. Williams' amendment were added, he would vote against. He felt discussion was centered around the stage where schools would fire suspects who engaged in a life style other than that accepted by the majority. He said Council was discussing a minority behavior, and felt the proposed amendment to the motion was motivated more by fear than facts that could be proven. He said there were many reasons why people choose their sexual orientation and he did not feel a case could be made that it happens between just the ages of 12 and 15. He felt it would undermine the process to make any exceptions, and the proposed amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance would move in a direction of protecting citizens~ human rights which are already set forth in the constitution. He noted a difference between status and conduct, saying if an exception were made, it would be discrimination on the basis of status and not on unlawful actions. Mr. Bradley felt Mr. Williams' amendment would make the ordinance so broad that there would be no control; that it would be experimenting with the rights of people. He would vote against Mr. Williams amendment. Ms. Smith felt the basic issue was to eliminate discrimination, and to except one group would be to continue discrimination. e Vote was taken on Mr. Williams' amendment which failed with Obie and Williams voting aye; Haws, Hamel, Bradley, Delay, Lieuallen, and Smith voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion which passed with Delay, Haws, Bradley, Lieuallen, and Smith voting aye; Obie, Williams, and Hamel voting no. Lacking unanimous consent, the second reading will be held to November 28 meeting. III-B-4 D. Public Works Bids and Awarding of Contract--Opened October 18, 1977 (Tabulation attached) Manager said the bid was for airport paving and storm sew~r, Phase I of the FAA 90-percent financed improvements. The City cost would be $21,560.75, with the low bid from Morse Bros. being $215,607.50. Staff recommended awarding to low bidder. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept low bid as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously with Mr. Haws abstaining. e 10/24/77--9 801 Ordinance for Second Readin~ · Manager noted C.B. 15 8 regarding prostitution lacked unanimous consent III-B-S on October 10 and was brought back for second reading and final passa~e. . Mr. Bradley wondered if Chief Brooks was of the same opinion concern- ing the motivation for this amendment, noting the department had handled the prostitution problem to satisfaction and he wondered if the amendment might be overreaction. Chief Brooks repl i ed "no, he was more in favor of passage of the ordinance in view of the recent trouble with locating witnesses". Ms. Smith urged support by Council and expressed her trust in the Police Department and its actions under the ordinance. -. Mr. Bradley wondered, in view of the recommendations made by the Youth Commission and the desire to work out compromise language, whether it would not be more ,prudent for Council to postpone action. Manager felt it important to act now, noting the difficulty in prosecuting pimps under the present ordinance. He noted Council would have the opportunity to amend the ordinance in the future; and noted that November 28 Council meeting date was a heavy schedule. Mr. Delay requested a point of order in that the motion was not on the table. The following council bill, read the first time October 10, 1977, and 1 ack i ng unanimous consent, was brought back for second readi ng'. C.B. 1548--Concerning prostitution; amending Section 4.745 of Code, e 1971 was read by council bill number an4title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in fu 11 . Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. M~. Delay said he still had the same objections which had been reinforced in testimony from ACLU and the Youth Commission. He had seen no evidence there was a clear and present danger to necessitate immediate passage. He felt this ordinance would not do a much better job in terms of pimps and j oh ns. He felt, in addition, the language was too vague and felt Council coul d ena,ct a more effective ordi nance and thi s was the time to do it. Mr. Bradley said he understood from Chief Brooks. comments that the Police Department actions are directed toward the pimps and that concern was handled in the amendment. He wondered if Section 2 could be deleted from the ordinance and still maintain adequate control of the pimps. He felt this would give staff and Council a chance to rework the language in Section 2. e 10/24/77--10 80~ Chief Brooks thought if Section 2 were taken out, the Police Depart- ment would be in the same position it is currently. He said there is e a problem existing now, even though on the surface it looks as though the problem had been handled because of the recent successful investiga- tion. He said for the record, the alleged pimps are still loose and until they go to trial and face charges, Eugene will still have the problem that it faces now. He said it's very important to note that witnesses have di sappeared. However, if Section 2 were to remain in the ordinance, and passed successfully, he said the Police Department could effectively neutral i zeprosti tuti on in the city by arresti ng the customer. He had faith in his department in saying that Section 2 would not present the problem that many perceive it to be. Mr. Lieuallen requested Chief Brooks to explain, if the investigation and arrests recently made had been been under the amendment, how the ordinance being considered would have made the witnesses more available. Chief Brooks replied if this amendment had been passed and had been in effect, the prostitute and customers could have been cited on the spot. He noted, again, that specific procedures for working out this ordinance would be worked out with the prosecutor's office. By citing the prosti- tutes and customers, he said again the problem could have been neutralized without having to go through the costly and timely procedure the Police Department had to use in August. Also, resources would be unavailable to the pimps, and thus put them out of business. Mr. Lieuallen said he still did not understand how the proposed amendment would make witnesses more available. Chief Brooks responded that his e goal was to eliminate the prostitution problem because of the side effects and various crimes that accompany it. He said if customers can be elimi- nated, then the operation could be neutralized. With Section 2 added to the ordinance, it would make it easier for the Police Department to operate against the customer. He said the arrests in August had been successful in neutralizing the prostitution problem, but not for prosecu- tion purposes. If the ordinance had been enacted at that time, he said the prostitutes and customers would have been eliminated, thus eliminating the pimps, and the extra time and money expended by the Police Department would not have been necessary. If a prostitute is cited for the purpose of loitering, and she leaves town, then in effect the problem is gone. He said the proposed amendment would allow for a less costly and more effective police operation. Mr. Bradley expressed difficulty in supporting an ordinance that has potential for abuse. He felt it was unnecessary for Council to put citizens and the City in that posture. Assistant Manager replied that both City Attorney's Office and Chief Brooks had responded to the matter. He said this ordinance has met constitutional tests in courts at the appellate level. He expressed the concerns for potential abuse are shared by both Chief Brooks and the City Manager's Office. He said those concerns are inherrent in virtually every ordinance the City Council passes. He also noted the constant discernment by police officers of such laws is one reason why the police officers were paid and the educational level and training was required. He also noted there are recourses when unreasonable conduct occurs. e 10/24/77--11 803 . I . , Mr. Delay recognized that every ordinance has a potential for abuse, but he felt this one was right on the brink of constitutionali~y. He said his concern was not for the existing staff but for the gray area e that is clearly not constitutional. He questioned City Attorney whether some mechanism could be inserted that would allow for review procedures without jeopardizing Police Department's actions. City Attorney replied that would be possible, but would involve building into the ordinance some delineations of the process that should be followed. Mr. Delay then recommended Council vote against the proposed ordinance to allow more exploration of those possibilities. . Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to cease debate. "'1... Motion failed with Haws, Lieuallen, Bradley, and Delay voting no; Hamel, Williams, Obie, and Smith voting aye. Mr. Bradley moved that Section 2 of the proposed ordinance be deleted and referred to staff for a more workable language. , Motion died for lack of a second. Roll call vote was taken on the main motion with Smith, Hamel, Williams and Obie voting aye; Lieuallen, Bradley, Haws, and Delay voting no; Mayor Keller voting aye to break t~e tie, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18069. III. Ordinances for First Reading--None III-B-7 IV. Resolutions Res. No. 2782--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period October e 10 through October 24, 1977, 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. 2783--Authorizing $10,000 from operating contingencies for City government opinion survey was read by number and ti tl e only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the r~solution. ,Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. ! V. Approval of minutes. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council minutes September 26 and October 10, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to O~77~ Charles T. Henry!- City Manager .. CTH:DT:jm/CM7a1 . 10/24/77--12 80Y . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bid No. 1 2 Opened: October 18, 1977 1. AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION: Paving and Storm Sewer Construction Apron E, Taxiway 0-2, and Taxiway G-l Bidders Contract Cost l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------_____________ $ 215,607.50 2. Wildish Construction Company-----------_________________ $ 224,391.92 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------_______________~- $ 228,612.54 Cost to F.A.A. Cost to City: Amount Budgeted: FAA Grant Phase I of 04 Grant (90%) $ 21,560.75 $ 17,650.00 $194,046.75 ~COMPLETION DATE: December 23, 1977 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e- KOS