Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1978 Meeting . -- - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 10, 1978 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, 7:30 p.m., April 10, 1978, in the Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amendments to Systems Development Tax--Memo dated April 6, 1978, di stri buted. Previously considered by Council January 23 and March 15, 1978. Manager said the public hearing would focus on the amendments to the tax. Those changes include the following: To change the name from "charge" to "tax" which would allow collection of the tax without imposing a lien and also allow credit for general revenue sharing; to allow exemptions of certain geographical areas of the city, urban renewal area, and city-subsidized housing; to provide more flexible financing options; to provide for reduced street assessment for residential property along arterials; and to provide for an effective date. Mr. Obie asked for explanation of the philosophy behind the exempt areas and how particular geographical areas were designated. Manager replied basically the exempt areas were determined by reports from ERA, JHC, CDC, and the Planning Commission. The exemptions for older neighborhoods were designated to prevent any obstacle in redevelopment of these areas and to encourage density building of apartments, etc. He noted it would not result in loss of a great deal of revenue. New development would also be exempt in these areas. Mr. Hamel questioned the reduction of width of streets from 28 feet to 20 feet on arterials when the remainder of city residents have to pay for 28-foot streets. Manager replied this had to do with the use of arterials as through streets, and the fact that sometimes parking and bicycle lanes are banned. He noted heavily-trafficked streets were not conducive to residential living. Public hearing was opened. 4/10/78--1 2.28 f' - Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th, questioned a possible conflict of interest for Councilor Obie because of his proposed development on West 11th Avenue. David Rynerson, 4468 Fox Hollow, was in favor of the use of the new tax in partial funding of arterials. He felt an overall city-wide tax to help pay the cost of such projects was beneficial rather than having those who live on a particular arterial being assessed for the entire improvement project. - Those speaking against the systems development tax were as follows: Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak, represented the Homebuildersl Association of Lane County and Eugene Board of Realtors. The basic position was that there had been no real changes in the proposal and the ones that have been made create even greater inequities than the first proposal. He said there was no factual basis for this assessment. If this is clearly a tax, he believed it was contrary to the Oregon Constitution. and cited various sections which he felt were violated. It was also believed that this tax would increase the cost of housing and drive development outside of the city into outlying communitites. However, persons living outside the city will still be using city services, but will not be paying the basic taxes. He said regarding the financing, there was some question as to whether the ordinance is sufficiently definitive in that the finance offic~may have the discretion to declare a lien. He also raised the possibility that some lenders will require payment of this tax before a mortgage goes on the record. Further, he believed the exemptions created inequities and noted that some of the utilities in the older areas (in the exempt area) are in very bad condition and would have to be replaced, thus causing other citizens in the city to subsidize the exempt area. Regarding the exemotion of the urban renewal area, it was felt there was no need for this exemption as it had already had advantages from many other programs and, again, people in the outlying areas would have to pay additional taxes to support this area of the city. Regardless of the change in the name to tax, he felt the proposed ordinance was an amendment to the assessment ordinances and should belong in the Code chapter dealing with assessment practices, and according to City Charter would have to be adopted by a two/thirds vote of Council. He was further concerned regarding the emergency clause in that if this is a tax and not an assessment, the measure is subject to referendum by the voters and the emergency clause cannot be affixed. He said if the emergency clause were permitted, the proposed language of Section 7.235 did not comply with provisions of Section 32 of the Charter (sic Code) which requires the ordinance set forth the reasons why it is necessary. He felt the entire proposal should be dropped and the only logical way to raise the revenue would be to increase the tax base of the city. If that were not obtained, then a monthly charge could be included and collected by EWEB such as is done with the present sewer-user charge. Figures he used were $1.25 per month for residential users' and SlO per month for industrial users, which would raise revenue of approximately $656,000. It would be easily collected. Thus, he disagreed with the entire systems development tax proposal. - Z~ 4/10/78 -- 2 Richard Unruh, 3225 Fillmore, said he personally found the tax pro- posal to be very offensive. He felt it woul d be a speci al asses'sment which would be levied only on some citizens in the community. He noted the city was not an island and he hoped Council would adopt some tax that would be equally dispersed throughout the community. Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount, said he agreed with the statements made by Mr. Gleaves and Mr. Unruh. Regarding the exempt area in the ordinance, he said the older neighborhoods are areas where there are older systems which will need replacement much sooner than the newer areas. Compacting growth in the central core area will increase the load on those systems and create the necessity for their replacement sooner than would take place normally. He felt the result of this tax would cause a movement to outside the city limit area and felt this to be unwise. He thought the amendments had attempted to make the payment program much easier, but it is not going to make any differ- ence as it would still be considered a lien against a house or property. This would add to the value of the house and thus would increase the cost of the house when it was sold. He felt there were much better ways of raising the money than creating an.inflationary situation which will compound the existing situation in the housing market. He also noted the high record for building permits, but said that would not always be the case and, therefore, the city would be faced with a fluctuating amount of income. He felt it would be much wiser to charge a small amount to everyone than to adopt this proposed tax. Vernon Gleaves noted there had been a rumor that the systems develop- ~~ ment tax would be no obstacle as far as annexation of the River Road/ Santa Clara area because it would be an exempt area. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Obie requested City Attorney to respond to his possible conflict of interest. Stan Long, City Attorney, said when a City Councilor was considering a legislative matter (such as this), it is governed by two general sets of rules: (1) If a Councilor has a direct substantial pecuniary interest that is particular to him; (2) if the Councilor has an indirect pecuniary interest (that is, there is some possibility a Councilor might benefit to some degree other than what other people would) then the Councilor is obligated to disclose that conflict. He noted in this particular instance, unless there was something unusual, he did not feel there was a conflict of interest in a legal sense. Ms. Smith asked for clarification regarding the conflict of this tax with the Oregon State Statutes and the City Charter vote requiring two-thirds approval of Council. . Mr. Long said with respect to the ordinance and possible conflict with the Charter, the prime author of the ordinance was Mr. Orval Etter, also the prime author of the Charter. 4/10/78--3 ~30 (. ~ - It was felt there was no conflict. Regarding the vote of the public on a tax issue, he said it was a common tradition but not required by law. Regarding the violation of referendum rights, he said almost any ordinance was subject to a referendum unless it contains an emergency clause. He said almost any jUdgment could justify imposition of such an emergency clause. In this particular instance, the emergency clause was included to provide for implementation of the tax, which he felt to be an adequate legal reason. e Ms. Smith expressed concern about the exemption of the older neigh- borhood areas containing older systems which might have a need for .additional improvement. Don Allen, Public Works Director, said there is much validity to that statement, especially with regard to the sewer systems. He noted the City did not have a policy of assessment under the present policy for improvement of existing streets. He was hot sure whether or not the funding for replacing the antiquated sanitary sewer system would come from the water-user charge or from this tax. He noted the present five-year program was only a portion of the City.s share on these proposed improvements. The proposed tax would pay 30 to 40 percent of the City.s share of paving. He said there was no question some of the tax money would be used for payment of rehabilitating this area. Mr. Obie wanted clarification regarding the City Charter saying City Council could not implement a tax without two-thirds vote of the Council. Mr. Long said the two-thirds ordinance vote would be required for a modification of assessment procedures. The position taken by legal counsel is this is not modification to such an assessment. Mr. Obie questioned annexation of an area and whether that would be subject to the assessment tax. Don Gilman, Public Works, said the ordinance is written so that an annexed area wherein there is an existing structure would only have to pay for the sanitary sewer development charge. Mr. Bradley requested response from an Assessment Committee member regarding the three exempted areas, whether or not the committee had considered those exceptions. Les Anderson, Assessment Committee member, said the committee considered a number of exceptions, but ultimately felt that those were political matters that City Council should determine. Mr. Lieuallen clarified for Council that there was not an exception ordinance before Council, but only an ordinance saying Council may exempt areas of the city. Manager clarified the exemption on city- subsidized housing would apply when such development might occur because it would not relate to a geographical area. Regarding the proposed geographical area, after the ordinance is adopted Council would have to pass a resolution outlining the borders of that area to be exempt. - 4/10/78--4 l31 The Mayor questioned whether the utilities in the urban renewal area had already been paid. Mr. Allen said the sanitary sewer, a major 4It effort, has been completed within those boundaries in cooperation with urban renewal funding. He said at least 80 percent of the utilities within those boundaries are completed. Mayor Keller then wondered on the average price of a home in Eugene what the systems development tax would be. Mr. Gilman said the tax was based on the building permit value, thus only applying to the structure and not the land. He said it would range from 1.2 percent to 1.6 percent of the building permit value with the variation deter- mined by the time of annexation to the city. Mayor Keller then wondered what the assessment might be on a commercial building valued in the area of $250,000. Mr. Gilman said in the area of $300,000 assessed value, the tax would be $4,000 to $5,000. Mr. Obie requested that Betty Niven, Chairman, JHC, respond to the tax and what implications there might be. Ms. Niven said JHC remains basically opposed to the systems development tax. However, if there is going to be one, the changes made in the ordinance are a consider- able improvement over what was originally proposed as it would not be a lien on a house and there would be an option to spread the payments out over a considerable period of time. Mr. Obie then wondered if Ms. Niven had any data regarding how this tax might affect the price of houses and how many buyers might be left out because of the increased amount of purchase price. Ms. Niven said two or three years ago a study was completed which indicated an increase of $1,000 in a $23,000 home would eliminate 21,000 persons in the state, approximately 800 in Eugene. She said as a rule of thumb, as the price of housing increases, more and more persons would be removed from the market. e Mr. Obie wondered if the committee had considered exemptions on lower cost housing, $40,000 and less. Mr. Anderson said the whole matter of exemptions was felt to be the responsibility of Council. Manager noted the ordinance does provide for that exemption of lower cost housing such as mobile homes. Manager noted a change in the wording of the ordinance to provide for an effective date would be as follows: To change the term "governmentally authorized" to "of which governmental authorization is validly applied for". The reason for the change was to clearly indicate whenever a valid effort had been made to secure a building permit. He noted Council must fill in the effective date, which would be April 11 if the ordinance were adopted this evening. - 4/10/78--5 :t32. e C.B. 1592--Regarding charges for land development; adding Sections 7.275, 7.277, 7.279, 7.281, 7.283, and 7.285 to Code, 1971; and providing for an effective date and declaring on emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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 this proposed tax will only pay a portion of the revenue and was needed to raise money to make improvements on the systems. Regarding the equity of the tax, he said no tax system is equitable. He felt Council should adopt the ordinance and attempt to make further improvements for a more equitable distribution at a later da te . e Mr. Delay spoke in favor of the motion, saying he felt this was not creating a new tax but simply shifting revenues for improvements that are needed from the general populace to those areas of development that are creating the most need for that expansion. Ms. Smith expressed her concern regarding housing cost and felt this tax would raise those costs. She supported the need for providing street and sewer improvements, but was also concerned about a group of special people being exempt and a special group being taxed. Mr. Lieuallen reiterated Council was not talking about a new tax, but money that will have to be raised by some source or. another such as a bond issue or assessment. Regarding raising the cost of housing, he did not recall anyone saying it would not. He said perhaps it was more a matter of degree. He questioned why people who have already paid their share of assessments should continue to have to pay for those in the new developed areas. Mr. Obie viewed the tax as being somewhat regressive and preferred to have a tax that would exempt perhaps the first $20,000 in valuation and be more accelerated as the evaluation of single-family homes increased. He did not want to implement a tax that would eliminate the opportunity to buy housing from some people in the city. He also viewed the tax as a limited growth or no growth tool. He found no. problem with that except if such a tool were forcing people to live beyond the boundaries of the city. He preferred a tax to be areawide-- including Springfield, Eugene, and all of Lane County. Further, he said if Council were to adopt the tax in its present form this evening, he felt very strongly it should be referred to the voters. e 4/10/78--6 233 Mr. Delay felt there might be things that could be done to make the tax proposal better and make it more effective in terms of equity, but ~ he felt that to be true of any tax law. He supported Mr. Obie1s intent and felt those were things that should be looked at. However, just because there may be other ways in which to make the tax a more effective vehicle, he did not feel that was any reason for delaying action this evening. Regarding the cost of housing, he said the new housing in the area is not accessible to low- and moderate-income people anyway. The tax dollars that are not collected from this tax will have to be collected somewhere else, possibly by general revenue sources. Regarding the forcing of growth beyond the city boundaries, he felt the tax law ought to be adopted on a metro-wide basis, but felt again that was no reason to delay Council action this evening. He reiterated he would like to look at ways to make the tax more effective, but thought Council should take this step in the direction of allowing a 35 percent shift in the tax burden with this new tax. Regarding the referendum, Mr. Delay said in speaking to constituents in his community most people are generally supportive of the tax as proposed. A referendum would be expensive and time consuming, and would defer the possibility of this tax being implemented during the peak building season. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to amend the motion, page 1, Section 7.277, Subsection 1a and b, to delete the exemption of religious organizations. Mr. Haws felt that facilities for religious groups were used more than ~ just once a week and to exempt them would be contrary to the policy of ~ separation.of state and church. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with all Councilors present voting aye except Smith voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion on page 2, Section 7.279, Subsection 3a, to delete the exemption of geographical area lying in the central planning district or officially designated urban renewal or neighborhood improvement area. Mr. Haws felt the tax should be city-wide and felt there was no reason to exclude portions of the city. To have an equitable tax, it should be evenly distributed throughout the city. Mr. Lieuallen was opposed to the amendment as he wanted a chance to debate the issue of exemptions in detail and felt there was not time at this meeting to do that. This amendment would, in effect, cut off that opportunity for discussion of exemptions. He felt there were some strong arguments to grant exemptions. e 4/10/78--7 2.3'+ e Mr. Delay agreed with Mr. Lieuallen, stating also the Council would be denying itself the opportunity to adopt policies noting complementary versus opposing policies on the record. In clarification he cited as an example, the ten-year tax abatement program for various areas in the core city which has been adopted by Council, and yet to adopt a tax program which would be opposed to that central area being developed. Mr. Long noted for Council this particular ordinance provides the Council may create an exemption that complies with the conditions listed in the ordinance. It simply authorizes Council to do so under certain circumstances in the future. If the amendment were passed, the only way Council could create an exemption would be by amending the ordinance. If the amendment fails, Council would have the pero- gative, by resolution or other means, to create the exemption without amending the ordinance. e Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Haws, Williams, Bradley, and Obie voting aye; Smith, Lieuallen, Hamel, and Delay voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion to have staff change the ordinance to allow an exemption from the systems development tax for the first $20,000 valuation of a single-family residence; for staff to estimate the amount of tax to be generated under the proposal and to prepare a progressive taxation proposal for consideration. Mr. Obie said this amendment would, in effect," raise the same amount of money by a graduated development tax. Mr. Delay questioned whether Mr. Obie's intent was to delay action on the proposal until staff came back with his suggested proposals. Mr. Obie affirmed that. Mr. Del~ said other items that should be considered were such things as multiple- family housing exemptions. He felt if the staff were going to assess the vehicle for making it easier for persons to buy housing, then other things should be looked at. Mr. Hamel agreed with Mr. Delay, feeling the Council should take action on the ordinance this evening and felt further that Mr. Obie should have made his proposals earlier in the process. However, he did note he was not in favor of the width of streets being reduced from 28 feet to 20 feet. It was determined by staff the suggested proposals from Mr. Obie would take approximately a month before coming back to Council. In response to a question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Long said legal staff would consider Mr. Obie's motion as an effort to postpone. There was no way that wording could be implemented this evening to support a graduated tax. e 4/10/78--8 235 Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which failed with ~ Obie and Smith voting aye, all other Councilors voting no. .., Vote was taken on the main motion, as amended, which passed with Hamel, Bradley, Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting aye; Smith, Obie, and Williams voting no. Lacking unanimous consent, the council bill will be read the second time April 24. C.B. 1649--Regarding special assessments for local improvements; amending Section 7.180 of Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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 with Hamel, Bradley, Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting aye; Obie, Smith, and Williams voting no. Lacking unanimous consent, the council bill will be read the second time April 24. Mr. Obie requested staff prepare a resolution asking Lane County and Springfield to consider such a tax proposal. A short recess was taken. B. Rezonings 1. From R-1 to R-2 property located on east side of Villard Street, north of 15th Avenue (Daugherty) (Z 77-43). - Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission March 7, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, said the property contained 10,700 square feet and was developed with a single-family residence. It is located in an area characterized by a variety of uses. The original request was a zone change from R-l to R-3 heard by the Planning Commission in December and denied. That denial was appealed to the City Council for a February 13 meeting; prior to that hearing, however, the attorney representing the applicants indicated a wish to change the request from R-3 to R-2. The Planning Commission considered the revised request March 7, 1978, and approved unanimously. Findings of the Planning staff and Commission were that the request was consistent with the General Plan, there was a public need, and the need would be best suited by rezoning. Mr. Saul noted the findings were before Council in the material submitted. - 4/10/78--9 ~b - No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes received as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. John leising, 777 High Street, represented the applicant. He referred to a map of the area which indicated the surrounding zoning, including C-2, R-l, and R-3. He reviewed for Council the change in request by the applicant. He noted the area will remain primarily residential use if the rezoning were granted. However, he did note there was commercial growth in the area and this rezoning would encourage residential use. It would provide low- to moderate-income housing appropriate for the area and also addresses the compact growth goal of the city. He noted Fairmount Neighborhood Association felt this to be an appropriate area for multi-residential use. He said there would be very little additional noise or traffic and the visual effect would be pos i ti ve. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e C.B. 1650--Authorizing rezoning from R-1 to R-2 property located on the east side of Villard Street, north of 15th Avenue, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 7, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Williams noted he owned property in the area, but did not feel it created a conflict of interest for him. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18158. 2. From M-2 to R-3 property located west side of Lincoln Street between First and Second avenues (Vandenberg) (Z 78-1). - 4/10/78--10 2.31 Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission March 7, 1978. Mr. ~ Saul said the property contained less than one acre and was vacant. .., It is in an area with a mixture of uses: Residential, industrial, and public ownership. The area comprises 42,000 square feet and if approved, a maximum of 35 units could be built on the site. Findings submitted by the Planning Commission include high-density use would be much more appropriate than its present industrial zoning. The Planning Commission did include a recommendation that site review be attached. It is consistent with the 1990 General Plan and the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were e~tered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Emile Mortier, 767 Willamette Street, represented the applicant. He said they supported findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and agreed to the conditions of site review. David Filer, 235 East 3rd, President, Whiteaker Community Council, said the Council had sent a letter supporting the zone change and development. He expressed appreciation for the applicant's sensi- tivity to the historic value of the Skinner Butte area. The only concern was discouraging as much as possible the traffic from the development going over and through Skinner's Butte Park. " e PubliC hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1651--Authorizing rezoning from M-2 to R-3 SR property located west side of Lincoln Street between First and Second avenues was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of March 7, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Hamel expressed appreciation for the development as presented and felt this was part of the solution to the density problem. - 4/10/78--11 2.38 - Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. e Public hearing was opened. Glen Mitterman, 795 Willamette, attorney representing the applicant, requested Council to delay action for approximately three weeks. This would give the owner an opportunity to develop ways to rehabilitate the structure for a rental unit. He noted Ms. Graff, owner of the property, had been hindered in her attempts to rehabilitate the property by her husband. Subsequently, a divorce has taken place and Ms. Graff feels she will be able to improve the property. She was willing to cooperate with the City in any manner to see that the structure is made safe in the meantime, with perhaps fencing the property. He said it was not felt the building was a fire hazard to other houses in the area and the electrical system was turned off. Ray Willard, HCC, said staff felt the house was not worth saving. However, he was in concurrence if Council wanted to delay action for three weeks. Mr. Obie wondered if Council could pass the resolution with conditions to be worked out with staff so Council would not have to consider the item again. Mr. Long said he was not sure the decision could be left with staff. He said if Council decides tonight that it is a nuisance, he was not sure staff could later determine that it was not. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to delay action to May 8. Motion carried unanimously. - 4/10/78--12 Z3~ D. Liquor License New Outlet Marie Callender's, 1300 Valley River Drive, (R). Manager said all papers were in order and staff was recommending approval. Public hearing was opened. Warren Finley, 195 Blackfoot, manager of Marie Callender1s, was available to answer questions. He said the request was for a hard liquor license in the restaurant. Public hearing was closed there being .no further testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward with approval to OLCC, subject to Code compliance upon completion. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. - E. Public Works Bid Awards (Attached) Mr. Allen reviewed the various awards to be let, noting they were opened April 4, 1978. Public hearing was opened. John Smeed, 3655 Glen Oak Drive, spoke regarding Job No. 1438; he ~ owned one-half interest in the northwest corner of the block. He had no objection to paving the east half, but did object to paving the west half between Lincoln and Lawrence and the north half between 10th and 11th. He said the proposed paving would affect him more than any other property owner because he has 320 feet total and he would benefit less at this time. He noted he needed $2,500 to make improve- ments to an existing house on the property and that money would have to be used to pay for the paving. He would not be against the improve- ment if he were granted a ten-year tax exemption. Birtha Patterson, 1061 Lawrence Street, spoke regarding Job No. 1438, and was very much opposed to the paving. She noted she was a senior citizen and simply did not have the money to pay for such an improvement. Glenn Smeed, 458 West 15th, was against the paving also (Job No. 1438). He noted if apartments were built in the area, the heavy equipment would tear up the paving in the alley and would have to be replaced. He felt there was no advantage to paving at this time. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. . 4/10/78--13 z~o e e . Mr. Allen said the Smeed assessment would be about $7,218. He re-emphasized, under the present assessment policy for alleys, any commercially-zoned property qualifies for a deferment of 90 percent of the project and Ms. Patterson's amount would be $134. He said she could get a further deferment of the ten percent remaining if she qualified for eligibility under the senior citizens' deferral. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to accept low bids as recommended by staff. Mr. Lieuallen requested, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to segregate Item 7, Job No. 1438. Vote taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern about Ms. Patterson's ability to pay the assessment. Mr. Allen again said 90 percent could qualify for deferral and the remaining ten percent would be deferred if she qualified under the senior citizens' program. Mr. Lieuallen ques- tioned any future building program tearing up the paving in the alley. Mr. Allen said whoever tears up the paving would have to replace it. Vote was taken approvi ng the bid award for Job No. 1438, Item No.7, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye except Bradley and Obie voting no. It was requested staff contact Ms. Patterson to inform her of the procedure for obtaining deferred assessments. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to continue Council meeting to 11:00 p.m. to consider Council Bill 1647. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING A. Moratorium on Panhandle Lot Divisions Manager referred Council to the Planning Department memo, dated April 7, 1978, distributed. He said as a result of Council's discussion of declaring a moratorium on panhandle lot divisions, many applications had been received. He noted staff has been opposed to establishing a moratorium, but if Council wished to do so, it was requested that it either establish such a moratorium or reject it this evening. Mr. Saul said since Friday when the memo had been written, 25 more panhandle lot applications had been received. 4/10/78--14 2.'+1 Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the ordinance could establish a retroactive ~_- date. He felt delay of action by Council had exacerbated the problem and he would like action tonight. Mr. Long said Council had within its power the option of making the moratorium retroactive. The effect of such action would be to deny the Planning Department's approval after a certain date. C.B. 1647--Declaring a moratorium on panhandle lot divisions; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion to make the moratorium retroactive to March 8, 1978. Mr. Haws felt this would protect Council and staff. Mr. Saul said estab- lishing such a retroactive date would create no problem for staff. Mr. Delay agreed with Mr. Haws in that Council had botched the effort regarding the panhandle lot issue. He felt the actual merit of the case did not warrant a moratorium and he was going to abstain from any voting. Mr. Obie still supported his position taken earlier of allowing persons to ~ make applications and to allow them to make long-range plans under existing Ci ty 1 aws . Mr. Williams regarded the process as being unsatisfactory, but felt the exercise to review the process of panhandle lots as being legitimate. However, he felt the use of a moratorium to be unsatisfactory. He was not going to support a moratorium until a reasonable showing had been made of why there should be one. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which was defeated with all Councilors voting no, except Haws and Lieuallen voting aye, and Mr. Del ayabsta i ni ng. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to amend the motion to make the moratorium effective April 5, 1978. The motion was defeated with all Councilors present voting no, except Bradley and Haws voting aye, and Delay abstaining. Mr. Bradley encouraqed Counci' to adopt the ord~nance; Mr. Delay reiterated he was continuing to oppose the moratorium.. Vote was taken on the main motion which carried, with all Coun- cilors present voting aye, except Delay, Lieuallen, and Williams voting no. . 4/10/78--15 ~ I.f 2.. - e e Mr. Bradley requested one of the Councilors to change his IInoll vote to II aye II in order to allow the ordinance to go into effect immediately. Mr. Saul reminded Council that each of the pending applications stood a greater likelihood of appeal than any prior applications. He said the rate of appeal will probably be 90 percent, whereas the prior rate was one percent. The argument used for appeal will center on the issue of a moratorium being established. Regarding the number of applications, he said it was reasonable to anticipate an abnormal rate will continu~ to be received. Mr. Lieuallen indicated he would like to change his vote. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to reconsider. Mr. Delay noted Mr. Saul had reviewed problems of a moratorium which included if one were established, there would be a mass of applications which would be appeaed to Council based on the argument that if some- thing is wrong with the panhandle policy now, why not say that something was wrong a few minutes ago. He said this was another reason he was not going to support the motion. He felt it was a bad law to follow a bad dec is ion. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider, which carried with all Councilors present voting, except Delay and Williams voting no. i I Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Delay and Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18160. Upon motion duly made, seconded and passed, the meeting was adjourned. c~n/ Ci ty Manager DT:so/CM12b1 4/10/78--16 2.1f3 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 1. PAVING Clinton Drive from tfillagillespie Road to Crenshaw Road. (Job No. 1525) Bid No. Opened: It 2 April 4. 1978 Bidders: Contract Cost Basic Alternate 2. PAVING Corydon Lane from between Forrester Way and Tandy Turn to Tandy Turn (Job No. 1040) 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------$ 88,615.64 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------$ 0 3. H & J Construction------------------------$ 0 4. Wi1dish Construction Company-------:-------$ 99,307.57 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.----------------$101,674.00 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City 28' Pav Conc.Drive A.C. Drive $ 87,986.58 $ 90.007.49 $ 94,615.88 $ 97,964.89 $ 103,572.55 Amount Budgeted $22.85/FF ------------------- $ 9,000.00 -------$ 7.300.00 $ 1. 80/SF $ 0.35/SF Storm Sewer---- $ 15,500.00 -------$ 23,000.00 COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bidders: Contract Cost Basic Alternate - 1. 2. 3. 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$ Benge Paving, Inc.-----------------------__$ Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------$ Wi1dish Construction Company---------------$ .8,955.35 o o 10,793.50 $ 8,771.25 $ 8,784.70 $ 9,566.00 $ 10,882.60 Amount Budgeted None ----------------------------------------------------------------~------------------- Cost to Abutting PrQperty: Cost to City 26' Pav. Drive $26.75/FF $ 2.35/SF None COMPLETION DATE: July 1, 1978 3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve Yoder Estates (Job No; 1446) Bidders: Contract Cost Basic Alternate 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$ Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------$ H & J Construction-------------~---________$ Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ Wi1dish Construction Company---------------$ 16,071.80 o 18,031. 35 o 21,134.87 Cost to Abutting. Property: Cost to City Paving $2400/Lot San.Lat $ 550/Lot San.Serv.$ 450/Lot CO~WLETION DATE: June 2, 1978 None '-W $ 15.974.80 $ 17,424.00 $ 0 $ 18,917.01 $ 21,280.03 . Amount Budgeted None \" Pa2e 1 of 3 . - - 4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve First Addition to Concord and sanitary sewer to serve the area between the South boundary of First Addition to Concord and Be1tline Road (Job No. 152.4) Bidders: Contract Cost 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------------$ 90,844.30 2. Wild ish Construction Company--------------------$ 93,919.43 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------------$ 98,494.33 4. H & J Construction------------------------------$101,149.15 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.----------------------$106,464.56 6. Benge Paving, Inc.----_ ------------------------$110,279.90 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Paving San.Lat. San.Serv. Stm. Swr. $1900/Lot $ 460!Lot $ 200/Lot $ 100/Lot None COMPLETION DATE: June 30, 1978 Amount Budgeted None -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. SANITARY SEWER on Oxbow Way and the Westerly Extension thereof from Sunshine Acres Road to 400 feet East (Job No. 1513) Bidders: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------------$ Norm Green & Sons------------------------_____$ Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.--------------------$ Kenneth R. Bostick Const. CO.-----------------$ H & J Construction---------------------_______$ Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City San.Lat. San.Serv. $0.17/SF $lOO/Lot Deferred ----$ 1500.00 COMPLETION DATE: May 26, 1978 Contract Cost 8,678.50 8,898.75 9,992.00 11,288.60 11,371.00 Amounted Budgeted None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2~S \~ Page 2 of 3 6. STORM SEWER to serve Delta Highway (West Side) from Valley River \vay to Wil1amette River (Job No. 1465) Bidders: Contract Cost: 1. H & J Construction ---------------------------$ 35,100.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------------$ 48,848.00 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Const. Co.-----------------$ 52,864.60 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.--------------------$ 80,238.00 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted $45,500.00 None None COMPLETION DATE: May 26, 1978 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------,--------- 7. ALLEY PAVING between 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue from Lawrence Street to Lincoln Street; and between Lawrence Street and Lincoln Street from 10th Avenue to between 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue (Job No. 1438) Bidders: Contract Cost 1. Shur-Way'Contractors, Inc.--------------------$ 25,257.50 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 27,424.10 3. Wildish Construction Company------------------$ 29,573.52 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------~------$ 30,222.50 5. H & JConstruction----------------------------$ 30,465.00 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted Weighted FF. Weighted SF. 1.112 0.012 San.Swr.-------$ 8,100.00--------- $ 6,200.00 Deferred Pav.----$ 1,200.00 . COMPLETION DATE: May 26, 1978 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- '-I.f~ Page 3 of 3 - \f\