Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1977 Meeting .' M I NUT E S e EUGENE CITY COUNCIL October 26, 1977 Adjourned meeting from October 24, 1977, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m. on October 26, 1977, at the Kingls Table, Oakway Mall, 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. Items from Mayor and Council A. Executive Session--Mayor said Manager was requesting an Executive Session today at 1:10 p.m. for Council to consult with legal counsel concerning current litigation. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, in accordance with ORS 192.660(2)(d) the Eugene City Council meet in Executive Session at 1:10 p.m. October 26, 1977, for the purpose of con- sulting with counsel regarding current litigation. Mr. Lieuallen asked why it was necessary for the Executive Session. City Attorney said the discussion would be regarding relevant liti- gation, which could be discussed in public if Council so wished. He It felt uncomfortable doing so in regard to legal profession ethics about pre-trial problems and it was contrary to Council1s traditions. Mr. Haws noted the information could be made public after the Session. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. B. Procedures for Referendum Petition--Mr. Hamel had received tele- phone calls from constituents regarding procedures. He asked staff to inform news media of the proper procedures. Manager said that would be done, and added that citizens should be aware that a referendum petition could not be circulated until the ordi- nance is passed November 28, and legal advice should be sought to assure correct wording. City Attorney said the number of signatures required remains to be determined because the final vote of the Council is not assured. The present ordinance has an emergency clause which requires six votes to be effective. If the emergency clause is effective, a referendum is not possible. If not, both a referendum and initiative are possible. The process and number of signatures required are different, depending on referendum or initiative. e 10/26/77--1 806 1 I Mr. Williams wondered if people who wanted to circulate an initi- e ative petition could do so at any time. City Attorney said that process is available to citizens at any time, but cautioned citizens would have to seek legal advice to prepare correct wording. Mr. Obie said as it seems to be a very technical area, he asked City Attorney to prepare an outline for the process so citizens could be correct. Manager replied proper guidelines are available in the Finance Department. Assistant Manager noted, also, it was not the practice of the City Attorney.s office to draft initiative petitions, that citizens would have to seek their own private counsel. However, the City does have legal responsibility for referendums. C. Public Hearing re: Human Rights Amendment--Mr. Obie had two phone calls from constituents who could not attend the meeting October 24. They were questioning the legality of the public hearing itself. City Attorney said the only issue that is presented by what happened is political and not legal. He said City Council had met the minimum legal requirements for a pUblic hearing. D. Vacancies on Budget Committee, Boards, and Commissions--Memo dis- tributed to Council. Manager suggested Friday, December 2, 5:00 p.m., as the closing date for receiving applications, after community publicity. There are two vacancies on the Planning Commission and he said e Council had always attempted to fill those vacancies before January 1. He wondered if Council wanted to reduce the amount of time for receiving Planning Commission applications so Council would have time to review those and make appointments prior to January 1. There was also the question of reappointment of existing Planning Commission members versus appointing new members. The questions Council should address were whether December 2 was suffi- cient time for receiving applications for these vacancies, whether Council wanted shorter recruitment time for the Planning Commission, and how it wanted to proceed with appointment for Planning Commission. Mr. Obie felt December 2 was too soon and suggested extending the date to December 15. In regard to the Planning Commission, he said he would not want to be in a position to indicate any prejudice to reappoint present members. He noted Council had often been in conflict with Planning Commission and felt it should look at that as the Council determines who should be appointed. Mr. Delay felt December 2 was adequate time, and perhaps City Manager's office could do a better job of advertising. e 10/26/77 --2 801 Ms. Smith wondered if there would be a problem if the Planning e Commission members were not appointed by January 1. City Attorney said Planning Commission members remain in office until a suc- cessor has qualified. Ms. Smith then said she felt December 2 was adequate time for advertising. Mr. Hamel agreed with December 2 also. In regard to the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Haws reviewed the process for selection, that the Council President and Vice President interview and suggest appointments. He requested attendance records for those persons who are up for reappointment, and also suggested that those persons be notified to allow indication of interest for reappointment. Mayor Keller said it appeared to be the consensus of Council that vacancies be advertised to 5:00 p.m., December 2. Also, an attendance record would be provided for those persons on the Human Rights Commission who are up for reappointment and a letter would be sent to allow them to reapply for appointment. E. Schedule of Future Meetings--Manager reviewed for Council the future meeting dates: November 1, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m., Eugene Hotel, special meeting to select Civic Center architect e November 1, Tuesday, 7:30 p.m., joint Planning Commission-Council meeting November 2, Wednesday, Council meeting cancelled November 8, Tuesday, 7:30 p.m., Rodeway Inn, L-COG presentation on T-2000 November 9, 12 noon, City Council meeting, King's Table, Oakway Mall November 9, Wednesday, 7:30 p.m., Civic Center Commission hearing for site selection Manager noted he and Assistant Manager would be out of the office for a period of time next week, necessitating designation of an acting City Manager. Memo will be distributed to Council on that matter. Mr. Obie wondered what the format of the joint Planning Commission- Council meeting would be. John Porter, Planning Department, replied all the items on the agenda are joint items: The joint meeting process and zoning issues. Planning Commission is intending to take action on these matters, noting both the Council and Planning Commission would be seated at the Council Dais. e 10/26/77--3 8& E. Update in Council Goals Discussion Manager said the schedule for November was: November 9, Police e Services; November 16, Economic Development; and November 23, Council Assistants. II. Report and Request for Council Instruction on Presentation at Department of Transportation Hearing on Preliminary Six-Year Program Excerpts from Program and draft of Mayor's letter distributed. State Highway Commission notified the City on October 13 of a sched- uled hearing on the six-year program for October 27. Excerpts from the proposal were distributed to Council for information as to what is being proposed for Eugene, with Manager noting it was practically zero. He said there were two programs: An "A" program if the gas tax passes; and a "B" program if it does not. He said staff had conferred with L-COG and had looked at the T-2000 plan. He noted the omission of 6th and 7th streets which had high priority in years past, need rehabi- litation and reconstruction and are State responsibility; along with Highway 99 from Roosevelt, north. He said the City's desires could be expressed through a letter from the Mayor, to be presented at the hearing, and used in staff negotiations in Salem. He noted there was a request from people in Junction City for endorsement of their program. He felt the City of Eugene should not be in any position of competing with any particular group for state highway funds. Mr. Haws wondered if it were the process that needed to be changed. - Manager said in the Mayor's letter there is reference that an improved process of allocating funds should be looked at. Mr. Williams noted the seriousness of the situation, saying it was not just in Eugene, nor just 6th and 7th avenues. He said the State was doing almost nothing anywhere in the state in terms of highway construction, as they have few funds. The road systems are deteriorating and with that deterioration the potential for mass transit. He supported the Mayor's letter in expressing the deteriorating conditions in Eugene. Mr. Delay wondered if Eugene was really at a disadvantage, and was not clear how projects are planned and funded. Don Allen replied one of the purposes of the Mayor's letter was to provide an arena for staff to talk to State officials as to how priorities were set. He continued that City staff had been on the initiative and had good rapport with the State staff. He said both Highway 99 and 6th and 7th streets had been high as local community priorities. Staff feels Highway 99 is a state project, noting local capability of financing that project is not present. He noted neither of those projects appear in the proposed six-year program, and staff had assumed they were "a committed status" with the state. e 10/26/77--4 BOG} . Roxanne Spaulding, Junction City, representing the Committee for the Improvement of Highway 99, said in talking to the Department of Trans- portation about priority, the group was assured that with the proper amount of pressures, the priorities could be changed. In that vein, the Committee had been requesting from various cities around the area endorsement by resolution for improvement of Highway 99 from Airport Road to Junction City. She requested the Eugene City Council send a letter to Governor Straub endorsing this plan and send a resolution to the Department of Transportation for immediate improvement. Mr. Delay understood the pressures that existed for this request, but felt the City should not be playing the role of the State by requesting priorities of ones which are more important, noting there are needs allover the area. He also felt Council should more fully explore the issue, and it simply did not have time. There should be a reasonable stand based on information which Council does not have time to obtain; he noted sympathy to the request and pressures. Mr. Haws expressed sympathy for the request, also, but noted he would like to know what effect passing such a resolution would have. He said there were other highways such as 126 and 58 that also need im- provement. Don Allen felt only the higher officials of the State Department of Transportation will evaluate how effective such pressure might be. Staff could not evaluate how fruitful such a resolution might be. Mr. Haws said, assuming it were effective, should the City support it over Highway 126 or 58? Mr. Allen replied that becomes a e personal opinion. He said no one could gauge how effective a reso- lution would be. He suggested there was no harm in passing such a resolution of supporting the program. He clarified for the audience and Council that the Highway 99 improvement City staff was requesting was from Prairie Road to Roosevelt Boulevard. Manager said staff was symphathetic and would like to see that portion of Highway 99 improved; however, from the City's point of view, the City has far more traffic on Highway 99 between Prairie Road and Roosevelt Boulevard. He said it would be far more difficult to take any position other than City Council should support City requests and be sympathetic to others. He noted the low resources for which all were competing. Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Delay1s comments, saying the Council was not qualified to make decisions between competing uses, and further- more, those were not decisions for City Council to make. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to endorse Mayor1s letter to the Department of Transportation. e 10/26/77--5 8/0 Mr. Bradley wondered to what extent the state considered certain amend- ments requiring public vote on freeways and highways. He felt if that . were true, it was a form of discrimination. Mr. Allen said with the advent of new federal regulations and environmental impact statements which have to be filed, such state requirements no longer affect programs. Vote was taken o~ the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Obie returned to the Junction City request. He could understand City Council, as a group, not wanting to endorse the request. He said he was'in favor of endorsing improvement of that highway, and would write a letter as an individual endorsing it. Ms. Spaulding said in the research work her committee had done, the accident rate is high on all three highways; however, the other two highwys do not have their EIS prepared and are not ready for requesting state funds, noting the Highway 99 project is ready. She felt endorsement would help their cause. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to endorse the request, through a resolution, that improvement is needed on Highway 99 from Airport Road to Junction City. Mr. Delay reiterated his previous comments. He felt it inappropriate for Council to operate in a vacuum and make a resolution without adequate s tu dy . He said there are roads in deteriorated conditions allover the state, and similar roads with high death and accident rates. However, he did not want to ask staff to duplicate the state efforts to see how - to allocate state money. Mr. Lieuallen and Mr. Williams agreed with Mr. Del~y's statements. Mr. Obie felt Highway 99 was as much a concern to Eugene as to Junction City. Mr. Bradley agreed with Mr. Obie. Mr. Haws said he heard Mr. Allen say it would do no harm to make such an endorsement. Mr. Allen said a simple endorsement that that project is needed might be useful. He said it would not hurt the City as far as its own projects are concerned. The endorsement could be worded in such a way that it would not put priority over City projects. Mr. Williams again expressed difficulty with the shallowness of making such a decision with no thought or materials to study beforehand. Mr. Lieuallen felt the City of Eugene was not responsible to make it easier for people to get from Junction City to Eugene than they already do. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Williams, Lieuallen, and Delay voting no; Haws, Smith, Obie, Hamel, and Bradley voting aye. e 10/26/77 --6 811 III. Park Land Development Process and Program--Materials distributed tit Ed Smith, Parks Director, referred Council to the brochure sent out- lining the Parks Development and Acquisition program. He said the original serial levy request was $7.5 million, and indicated on a map the South Hills area which would be affected. He said the review for park land development and acquisition under the serial levy began in 1975; however, because of operational impacts that development would have on the budget at that time and to try to make the program acceptable to voters, the serial levy was reduced to $5 million. The original charge was to present a comprehensive program that covers all the needs of the city. He reviewed for Council the eventual outcome by showing the areas on the map, including the South Hills ridgeline ,and other areas. He reviewed the parks standards for Council, noting that in 1960 there were 15.2 acres per 1000 population; that had re- duced in 1977 to 9.28 acres per 1000 population. The staff had assumed 15 acres per 1000 a good standard. Besides proposing bond issues or serial levies to relieve this inequality, some other equalizers were suggested as a means of assisting standards in meeting other recre- ational demands: Locations of space, programs conducted on it, physical condition of the space, and relative accessibility for people who will use the facilities. Mr. Smith noted the Joint Parks Committee was activated and had met on Tuesday night; it will be evaluating future park needs, development, and acquisition in the future. He noted there was a great need in the city for special facilities, indicating tennis 'courts, swimming pools, e and areas to serve handicapped and senior citizens. A table outlining a park and open space development program anticipated Mr. Smith noted the Joint Parks Committee was activated and had metrams on Tuesday night; it will be evaluating future park needs, development, and acquisition in the future. He noted there was a great need in the city for speci the budget would always be a consideration when pre- senting any development. Another problem cited was whether acquisition or development should be considered first. The assumption had been made under this program that it was best to acquire land while available; he felt that had been a good decision at that time. However, staff now feels it needs to look at the special needs in the community and the demand placed on the use of the Parks systems. He noted the recent time period during the gas shortage when every park and program was fu 11 . He said that trend had continued to the present time. Mr. Smith also reviewed development cost per acre for park land, saying it would cost $250,000 for a five-acre park. He said the City has never had that much to complete development. e 10/26/77 --7 ~/~ Another aspect of the controversy of the acquisition versus develop- ment was land costs. In a chart distributed to Council, he reviewed e from the years 1974 to 1977 various acquisition projects and the cost per acre, which indicated a fantastic increase in acquisition costs. There are many constraints in acquisition of park land: Unwilling sellers, unavailability of funds, costs associated with acquisition, multiple ownership, or absentee ownership, method of payment for pur- chase, and possible relocation requirements and provisions which in- fluence time schedules. Another focal point determined was to identify all park areas within a five-mile area of the city. He presented a map to Council showing staff had located all park areas within a 30-minute travel time that would be available to the citizens of Eugene. In considering the placement of parks, he said accessibility and safety in travel were major factors. Staff had not always dealt in just a five-mile radius, noting that would consume most of the city. The Parks Department is in the process of adding more information, which would include the private recreational opportunities and updating of schools. He reviewed for Council the suggested acquisition and development project possibilities, which would in total amount to $70.5 million. He said if there were special concerns that Council wanted further reports or study done, the Joint Parks Committee would be available. The Committee could, through its process, identify needs in the community and make priority lists to present to Council. Mr. Haws wondered if there were any requirement in the City Code which e provided, under annexation of large parcels of land, that park land be given to the City. Jim Saul, Planner, said that was not a manda- tory requirement, although it occasionally happens. City Attorney reviewed for Council a recent court case where this question had been raised. He said as a result of that case, if such a requirement were in the Code, it would be limited to requiring dedication only because of special projects which required additional services. Mr. Bradley thought Council should consider adding a provision that would make such dedication of property for park purposes available, especially in newly-annexed areas. Mr. Hamel noted bond levies had been used for acquisition of land the past two or three years. He would like to see the Parks Department start prioritizing areas that need development so such monies could be used to develop property already acquired. Mr. Delay noted the obvious problem of the deteriorating system, with the lack of money available for improvements and acquisitions, and the sum it would take to develop those properties acquired. He wondered if the Joint Parks Committee was willing to pursue and discuss these matters and present to Council some options and recommendations. Mr. Obie felt the Parks Committee had the desire to pursue the objectives - 10/26/77--8 813 f presented by the Parks Department, but he indicated he had his own e individual biases and concerns regarding various developments. He also wondered about the establishment of the Parks Committee, what its official charge and duties were to be. He said some direction from Council would be very helpful to the Com~ittee. Assistant Manager said the Parks Committee came about in the 1960's, from a need for long-range planning in park needs, with Council being involved in policy issues. He said he was not sure there was any recorded charge for the Committee. Ed Smith said the present charge was to develop the South Hills area and to present a total package to the voters, with review in one year; he noted that review took place Tuesday night. He agreed that direction from Council would help both the Parks Department and the Committee. Sam Sadler, Office of Appropriate Technology of Lane County, said his office was studying two projects: 1) use of recovered solid materials in the streams; and 2) compost experiments. He would like to see the parks that are going to be developed consider use of these projects. He said recovered materials could be used in place of materials brought in. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the Joint Parks Committee pursue development of facilities, financial planning, develop a system of prioritizing projects, and report back to Council. Mr. Lieuallen indicated he would like to see the Committee develop its e own goals, and let the Joint Parks Committee present those goals and objectives to Council. John Porter, Planning Director, said there are goals and guidelines on park development and acquisition as presented . in the 1990 Plan and Community Goals and Policies. He said that was the basis of how the original committee was established. Vote was taken on the motion Which carried unanimously. Assistant Manager said a Tri-Agency item had to be acted on at this meeting to allow exercising option on acquisition of property for the pound. It was requested the executive session be delayed until after that discussion. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to postpone executive session to allow discussion of Item IV--Tri-Agency. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Amendment to Tri-Agency Dog Control Contract and Acquisition of Real Property for Pound--Materials distributed Assistant Manager said Council was confronted with choosing two alter- natives: A position taken by Springfield to allow them participation in the spay/neuter clinic without financial participationjor a position taken by Lane County Commissioners for Eugene and the County to proceed without Springfield unless Springfield will contribute financially. He said Council should consider what importance should be assigned to e 10/26/77--9 8/~ the spay-neuter component of the Tri-Agency agreement. He reviewed the decision by the Tri-Agency Policy Board to establish a spay-neuter e clinic, with the three jurisdictions cooperatively participating in the administration and policy of, the clinic, but only Eugene and Lane County participating financially in the initial stage. Springfield objected to the financial support on the philosophical basis of citizens in Springfield paying twice, both County and city taxes. The recom- mend~d amendment to the Tri-Agency contract is to reaffirm the three jurisdictions participating as proposed by the Policy Board. He noted for Council any profits made in the spay-neuter clinic would be re- turned on the basis of the financial support given by both Eugene and Lane County. There was also a sundown clause included which indicated that after three years' existence, the spay-neuter clinic would cease to exist unless all three jurisdictions would continue to support. At Monday night's meeting, the Springfield City Council voted 6:1 to approve the amendment. He said, however, since that time there had been concern expressed whether Springfield should have an equal voice in managing without sharing the financing. La~e County will be addres- sing the issue at a meeting later today, and it is assumed the County will not approve the amendment, but will authorize proceeding with the acquisition of the property for the pound. Lane County's position seems to be if Springfield does not want to participate financially, then Eugene and Lane County shoul d go ahead with the spay-neuter cl i ni c. The issue is participation by a non-financing agency. The original agreement had the agencies sharing in the deficits of the operation on the basis of use that came out of the activity on a percentage ratio. e . However, in actual operation, each of the three jurisdictions has one equal vote. Springfield had made a commitment to stay in the Tri-Agency and to be included in the spay-neuter program without financial support. He said the key issue was a question of what the course of action should be taken by the Eugene Council, whether such a compromise is acceptable. Diane Sukol, 828 Snell; Jeff Sherman, 794 E. 11th; Mike Ryan, 1158 Mill; and Jan Golick, 1129 Oak, all spoke in favor of Eugene and Lane County establishing a spay-neuter clinic and eliminating Springfield from parti- cipation if they would not share their financial portion. They also stated support of an independent staff for the spay-neuter clinic answering to the Tri-Agency Board. They commented on the problems Springfield had created in delaying the establishment of such a clinic, noting the time and money of three jurisdictions' staff involved. They requested that City Council not approve the amendment unless Springfield were required to pay its fair share. They noted great support among" the communi ty for 'such a cl i ni c, and that it woul d reduce some of the needs and pressures on the pound. Bill Dwyer, Lane County representative for Tri-Agency, indicated Lane County Commissioners have not yet taken a position, but it would be debated later today. He noted the decision by the Tri-Agency Policy Board does not bind any of the jurisdictions. He also noted the idea e 10/26/77--10 g\5 of a spay-neuter program had come from Springfield, saying if even e one animal were altered, it would save seven from being handled by the pound. He felt integrity between the three jurisdictions was jeopardized when each time one balks, the other two have to go back and make another compromise. He noted Springfield had balked at the cost and then had locked Lane County and Eugene into a position of Springfield not paying anything. He felt it set a bad precedent for Lane County and any future joint ventures between the three jurisdictions. He said Lane County had not disagreed, but had agreed to pick up Springfield's share of paying, yet Springfield still balked. He said he did not feel it a good plan for Lane County or for the citizens of Eugene, and would make that recommendation to the Commis- sioners. He felt if Eugene and Springfield agreed to go ahead, then the future of the program would be with Springfield to decide to participate or not. He felt the terms of the original agreement should be adhered to by all three jurisdictions. Ms. Smith asked for clarification, wondering if Mr. Dwyer were saying he would recommend Lane County not agree to the amendment to the original agreement because of concessions that would have to be made to Springfield. Mr. Dwyer replied yes. Mr. Williams then questioned Mr. Dwyer as to what he was asking the Eugene City Council to do. Mr. Dwyer replied Lane County would re- affirm the original agreement, that the amendment is not necessary and the desire is to move ahead with acquisition of property in e building the pound. He said Lane County would prefer that the City Council of Eugene reaffirm no concessions are necessary and the City Council would approve going ahead with the program. Mr. Bradley said he understood Mr. Dwyer was saying the Eugene City Council does not have to approve the amendment because it is unneces- sary, and asked if the original agreement included a spay/neuter program. He questioned whether Springfield could still not contribute to the program under the original agreement. He said if so, the amendment was not necessary; if not, then the amendment was necessary. Mr. Dwyer said the position taken by Eugene and Lane County will determine whether the Tri-Agency will flourish or die. He said if no amendment were adopted by either jurisdiction, and Springfield refuses, then Springfield would have to take the initiative. In seeking legal counsel regarding the original agreement, he said Springfield thought the amendment was necessary; Eugene staff felt it might be; and Lane County felt it was not. Assistant Manager responded to the question of legality in the original contract, that to modify it was redundant. He said the language was in part to reaffirm the commitment to stay in the Tri-Agency. Springfield had recognized the spay-neuter clinic as part of the original intent. In every respect, the original agreement identified how deficits were to be picked up. He said staff agreed more with Lane County's e 10/26/77--11 8~ . than Springfield's, but not on the issue of legality. He said the philosophical issue is how City Council wants Tri-Agency to operate. . Mr. Delay wondered about the recently adopted resolution; Assistant Manager said it was an attempt to say the spay-neuter program was part of the original agreement, but did not include a sundown clause. The request before Council today was to authorize Manager to exercise option on property for the pound and a spay/neuter facility. He said the basic question was whether Council wanted to stay in the Tri-Agency. The financial success partially depends on Springfield participating, noting if only Lane County and Eugene built the pound, 30 percent of the financing, which would come from Springfield, would not be available. He noted Council should recognize separating the pound from the spay- neuter program. If Springfield withdraws from Tri-Agency, then in building the pound, Eugene would have to change its budget process. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding Springfield's lack of cooperation in this matter. He felt Eugene and Lane County should proceed without Springfield, unless Springfield wants to participate financially. He did not feel Eugene should be involved if Springfield were partici- pating administratively but not paying their fair share. He said the only alternative he could see would be for Lane County to take over the pound and the spay-neuter clinic itself. Mr. Williams said he had the impression the spay-neuter clinic was a small budget portion of the operation. He wondered if the spay-neuter clinic were eliminated from the pound, whether the jurisdictions could still go ahead. Assistant Manager said the budget allowed for $300,000 e for the Tri-Agency and $60,000-$70,000 for the spay-neuter clinic. He said the difficulty with Lane County and Springfield in this pro- gram is the lack of commitment for the spay-neuter clinic. He noted at the time the service was provided only by Lane County, it was very unsatisfactory, and that led to the establishment of the Tri-Agency. Manager noted there was more to the issue than the dollar figures. He said the future expansion or decline of the animal population and how much the citizens pay for spay-neutering under this, as opposed to private veterinarians were also considerations. Mr. Williams wondered if Council were to decide to go ahead with the pound and eliminate the spay-neuter clinic, whether that would have any significant influence or change any decisions as to how the pound was going to be built. Assistant Manager replied it would change the building design and would delay construction because of the costs. Ms. Smith expressed concern that a bigger question was involved than just allowing Springfield to participate in the program. She said there was a question in terms of the relationship between the three jurisdictions of other metropolitan programs that would be coming up. She felt it would be a mistake to break down communications between the three. Mr. Bradley said that was the understanding of the Policy Board and the reason the commitment was made to allow 10/26/77--12 - gn . Springfield to participate on its own terms. It was felt by the e POlicy Board to be more important for cooperation between the three juriSdictions in this matter, which would reflect cooperation on future problems in the metro area. Mr. Lieuallen questioned whether costs would remain the same with or without Springfield. Assistant Manager said a point was being missed. He said in budget appropriations for pound and spay-neuter clinics, Eugene and Lane County would play the role of bankers by putting up the front-end money which would be repaid by Tri-Agency with interest, on the basis of the initial investment. One of Springfield's concerns was that its citizens would be paying money which would eventually be used to reimburse Eugene and Springfield. However, Springfield committed itself that this money would be returned to the two agencies. He said nothing Lane County was proposing would change the vote of the three jurisdictions sharing equally in administration. He noted also the problems between urban and rural animal control were different, saying Eugene and Springfield's problems were more similar. Mr. Delay said he felt cooperation already existed, noting if Springfield were to cease participating in Tri-Agency, then Tri-Agency would no longer exist. He said possibly some other agency could take its place. He felt there was a mechanism in place (the original agreement) to continue the program, and City Council should not have to go through loops to accommodate Springfield. He felt this was not cooperation, but a hoax. He did not feel Council needed to take any action as the original agree- ment was an adequate mechanism. e Mr. Obie said the argument that Lane County and Eugene paying the way for Springfield would provide for future cooperation was an invalid argument. He felt it a poor precedent. Mr. Williams said he felt strongly to turn down the amendment would be to miss the point that 80 percent of the Tri-Agency operations are not involved in the spay- neuter clinics. He said because one agency of government did not wish to participate on a late added program, would be making that agency jump through hoops. ---- Res. No. 2784--Concerning acquisition of property and construction of dog control facility in cooperation with City of Springfield and Lane County was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Res. No. 2785--Repealing Res. No. 2748, and authorizing execution of an addendum to the Tri-Agency Dog Control Authority Agreement was read by number and title. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. e 10/26/77--13 8/8 Mr. Delay felt Mr. Williams' statement was wrong, saying Eugene and Lane County had worked out the funding of the spay-neuter clinic. He e again said he felt there was no need to pass this resolution. Mayor Keller said he thought Council had wrestled with the problem in the same manner Springfield had. He noted the commitment to the Tri- Agency and spay-neuter clinic had been made by prior city councils and he hoped Eugene's friends in Springfield would take another look at what they are doing and perhaps reconsider their position. Ms. Smith asked for a staff recommendation. Assistant Manager said staff would recommend accepting the Tri-Agency's most recent recommended amendment, and uphold the Policy Board's decision. Mr. Delay felt staff's characterization of the item might be inaccurate. He felt Council should have no part of it. Vote was taken on the motion to adopt the resolutions, which failed, with Obie, Haws, Lieuallen, and Delay voting no; Smith, Bradley, Williams, and Hamel voting aye; and Mayor Keller voting no to break the tie. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to authorize Manager to exercise option for acquisition of property for the pound. Motion carried unanimously. A short recess was taken. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Delay left the meeting. e Executive session of the Council was held from 2:25 to 2:45 p.m. V. EDA Grant for Coburg Road Storm Sewer City Attorney reviewed for Council its earlier action in September to accept a grant offer from EDA in the amount of $771,000. He noted some people in the community felt the acceptance of this grant was related to the land-use controversy regarding the Cone- Breeden property in that area. A lawsuit was filed against the federal goverment to withhold the grant, alleging the EDA's handling of the grant application was contrary to their own regulations. He said there was an extreme time deadline involved, and a restraining order from a federal court could mean the loss 'of these funds for Eugene now, and perhaps in the future. He also noted the ease of obtaining such a restraining order. He said the City of Eugene was not a party to the lawsuit, but had been told the City could be brought in. He said it appears that is not going to happen. On November 11, the Federal government is going to be asked to withhold those funds. City Attorney's office would like Council's approval to cause Eugene to be joined as parties in the lawsuit. This would give the City an opportunity to point out the City's position to the court. It may 10/26/77--14 - 819 or may not make any difference, but City Attorney felt it was a position e the City should take at this time. He also noted the result of this lawsuit would put the Secretary of Commerce in the position of reclaiming and reallocating funds. He had been notified by the citizens bringing the lawsuit that if the City would ,use the funds for a different project, they would be willing to cooperate with the City in obtaining those funds. But, the City Attorney noted, there was no way any other project could be substituted. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, to authorize City Attorney to cause Eugene to be enjoined in the lawsuit. Motion carried unanimously. Eric Haws left the meeting. VI. Public Hearings A. Easement Vacation: Property located south of Vine Maple Street, east of North Shasta Loop, vacation of public utility easement adjacent to Lots 4 and 5, Block 5, Second Addition to Vista Villa (Francis/Rusk)(EV 77-5) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission August 1, 1977. Public hearing was held with no public testimony presented. C.B. 1561--Authorizing public utility easement vacation located south e of Vine Maple Street, east of North Shasta Loop, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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 18070. B. Street vacation: Portion of Jessen Street located between Wisconsin and Dakota Streets, north of Barger Avenue (Jessen)(SV 76-6) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission August 1, 1977. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1562--Authorizing street vacation, that portion of Jessen Street located between Wisconsin and Dakota Streets, north of Barger Avenue was read by council bill number and title - 10/26/77--15 8ID only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smi th, that the bi 11 be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18071. VI I. Pub.lic Hearing--Liquor License Application Package Store, new outlet; Joel B. Robertson; name undecided, 3443 Hilyard. Manager said all papers were in order and staff had no objections. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward with approval to OLCC. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Schedule Public Hearing re: _~stems Development Charge Memo and materials distributed. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the process this issue had gone through to reach City Council for a hearing. Assistant Manager said Committee had been working for two years on the item, and staff would prepare a memo of those processes and procedures for Council. There was some question as to whether Council even needed to hold a public e hearing on this matter. Manager said it would be tentatively scheduled for January 9, 1978, with Council to discuss the item at a future date. IX. Schedule Public Hearing November 9 re: Withdrawal from Oakway Water District; recently annexed property along east side of Gilham Road (Kidder)(AZ 77-4) Res. No. 2786--Scheduling public hearing November 9 re: Wi thdrawa 1 from Oakway Water District for that property annexed to'City by Final Order No. 442 on October 6, 1977, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Remainder of agenda was carried over to meeting of November 9, 1977. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed the meeting was adjourned to N~7. Charles 1. Henry .J ~ City Manager CTH:DT:ml/CM23a16 10/26/77--16 - gll