Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1978 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e October 9, 1978 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, October 9, 1978, 7:30 p.m., 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. Cable TV Franchise Manager said Council's action for consideration would be to grant the Teleprompter Corporation a nonexclusive franchise for the operation of a cable communications system. The franchise has been the subject of a considerable amount of effort by the staff, City Attorney.s office, and Cable Commission. The Commission has unanimously recom- mended City Council adoption of the ordinance. Both Springfield and Lane County have approved the franchise. A cablegram had been received from Harold Horn, Executive Director of the Cable TV Information Center, a nonprofit organization whose major role is to assist cities in achieving reasonable negotiation contracts with cable TV companies. e The thrust of the telegram indicated Mr. Horn felt the City had achieved an excellent agreement, had protected the interests of the public. and that a 15-year franchise period was reasonable. Les Swanson, City Attorney, reviewed negotiations between Telepromp- ter and the Cable Commission. Agreements achieved were as follows: 1. Teleprompter agreed to rebuild its system. 2. Teleprompter will replace the 12-channel capacity with a 27- channel capacity with no rate increase. 3. Rebuilding will take place within three years, (by 1981), with a second tier providing an additional seven channels with no charge. Individuals may rent or buy converters for the second tier. 4. Within one year of completion of the second tier programming, the franchise calls for a complete review as to whether or not the converters should be mandatory and who should pay. 5. There will be a maximum of four public-access channels, 18 hours per day per channel for religious programming and Teleprompter will maintain its studios for origination of e 10/9/78 "'" public programming and provide a port-a-pac camera for video playback free of charge for public access programming. e 6. An individual may appeal to the Commission any problems regarding public access, with the Commission having final decision. 7. Teleprompter must submit any requests for rate change to the Com- mission. The Commission will decide whether or not Teleprompter is receiving a fair rate of return on its investment and whether or not the metropolitan area is receiving reasonable programming standards. Based on review of those two considerations, through public testimony, the Commission will make its decision as to rate increases. 8. Teleprompter has agreed to expand its service by December 31, 1980, to all homes in developed areas within the urban service boundary which were completed and occupied by December 31, 1977. Furthermore, service must be activated to new areas when occu- pancy reaches a density of ten homes per quarter mile. 9. Detailed performance standards suggested by consulting engineers have to be met by Teleprompter. 10. Performance bonds will be required such as a general $25,000 bond and $450,000 bond for rebuilding. 11. The Commission will be responsible for individuals' dissatisfac- tion regarding maintenance of service by Teleprompter. e 12. The Commission may have the system tested and can use Tele- prompter's testing equipment without charge. 13. A 15-year franchise has been negotiated. One year after the rebuild, there will be a review as to whether or not additional channels and additional programming are needed. Every three I years the franchise will be reviewed for the following points: Additional channel public access programming" service extension policies, technical adequacy of the system, franchise fee, and any new developments that are technological or legal that would provide new services. 14. Local governments may terminate the franchise if Teleprompter violates material provision of the franchise. The juriSdiction can then purchase the system at cost minus any depreciation. 15. If the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) deregulates cable television, the franchise says the Cable Commission then has the power to regulate Teleprompter in the same areas as now regulated by the FCC. Mr. Swanson said criticism of the franchise centers on three areas: 1) The 1S-year franchise period; 2) lack of a competitive bidding process; and 3) use of franchise fees for public access. - 10/9/78--2 ~~~ Mr. Swanson said possible open bidding was considered during franchise e negotiations. However, Teleprompter had a large capital investment. Another television company would have had to make a very large capital ,investment to purchase the system. He said it was a tactical choice on the part of the Commission not to open pUblic bidding, thus hoping to conclude with a much better franchise with Teleprompter. It was felt that if the bargain with Teleprompter did not work out, then the option was to open to public bidding. Regarding the lS-year franchise period, he noted the cablegram from Mr. Horn, an expert in the business, said a lS-year franchise period is reasonable. He said the terms of the franchise can be reviewed at any time. Regarding using fees to provide a public broadcasting center, Mr. Swanson said at the present time there are centers at Lane Community College, the University of Oregon, and Teleprompter. Experts had indicated to the Commission it would be a waste of tax payers. money to provide another center. In summary, Mr. Swanson felt the Commission had provided a good franchise, probably one of the best in the country. Councilor Williams said he was proud to recommend adoption of the franchise by the City Council. He said in private discussions, Mr. Horn said that if the franchise had been put out to public bid the . chances of getting a better one were slim, and the possiblity of a worse one were significantly greater. Further, Mr. Williams felt Council should reconsider the way in which it deals with franchises. He cited the recent ambulance rate franchise, in which the SUbject was not terminating and going to some other company, but rather what the public was getting for its money. The Cable Commission attempted and had succeeded in providing a good franchise that includes controls for vehicles for change. He felt this was the appropriate way to deal with franchises: To provide a mechanism to force the supplier to comply and resolve dispute, rather than to "scrap" them. Mr. Lieuallen wondered, under the purpose of statement, the meaning of a "nonexclusive" franchise. Mr. Swanson said it is not an exclusive franchise and would leave open the possibility of another cable system. In regard to the1S-year period for the franchise, Mr. Lieuallen wondered if there were any statistics showing whether or not that was an average period. Shirley Swenson, Finance Department, said the FCC standards recommend lS-years. Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern regarding public access and whether or not the public will actually be able to afford the cost ($40 per hour) for use for equipment and studios at Teleprompter. Ms. Swenson said the FCC requires five minutes of free time be provided e 10/9/78--3 "3 . and beyond that the cable operator can make reasonable charges for time and services. Mr. Williams said the issue of the cost of public _,- access is that it is somewhat expensive. However, Teleprompter is making its facilities available at two-thirds of cost with free use of their port-a-pac and free air time. The Commission had been asked for a two-percent increase in the franchise fee to fund the public access broadcasting. However, Mr. Williams said such a motion was never made before the Commission. The Commission felt to write an increase into the franchise fee solely for public access would have been a mistake. No one knows how that money might be used. However, he said if Council believes that it wants to fund the cost of public access and broadcasting, it can increase the franchise fee by two percent, but has to allow Teleprompter to pass that fee on as a rate increase to users. The Commission felt other sources of funds, such as room tax monies or revenues, should be used on a temporary basis, rather than a franchise fee increase. If, during this probationary time, it is found that the fee might be necessary and usable, then the jurisdic- tions can seek a franchise fee increase in three years. However, that franchise fee increase would have to be passed along by Teleprompter as a rate increase. Further, Mr. Williams understood that if the Council were to demand that Teleprompter underwrite costs of public access (no cost to users and provided free by vendor), Teleprompter could then ask that it be deducted from its three-percent franchise fee and the FCC would probably agree. . In summary, Mr. Williams said, "There is no free lunch. II Also, any part of the franchise that comes into controversy, other than the length of the franchise, is subject to negotiation and arbitration. Mr. Bradley wondered if there had been any discussion regarding the amount of religious programming allowed during the week. Mr. Swanson said the Commission had discussed whether or not that might be a problem with the First Amendment of the Constitution. Teleprompter said there was a large following in the community for certain reli- gious programs, but did not feel too much time was being reserved, especially with the additional tier service. Mr. Delay asked what the framework for upgrading the system in terms of capacity and quality were; would this be done immediately or at the end of the three-year period. Mr. Swanson said it has to be completed by the end of three years. He noted that until the entire system is completed, it would not be of any use. It was a question of completing the work and the company has three years in which to do th is. Public hearing was opened. e 10/9/78--4 fo(,'t \ Those speaking in favor were the following: e Dennis Percell, 5055 Nectar Wa~, attorney representing Teleprompter. Experts had been employed who 1ndicated a 15-year franchise term is reasonable. He reviewed for Council's consideration what the effects of changing that term might be. Businesses must allocate a period of time over which to amortize their debts to get a fair rate of return on their investment. The result of a 15-year franchise is of benefit \ to the subscribers in lower rates. Teleprompter is committed to a $900,000 investment over a three-year period. After that, to keep up with growth, the investment will be approximately $1 million per year. If the franchise term were reduced, it would be necessary to renegoti- ate the franchise because of the effect on amortization of these debts. He noted critics say the 15-year term "locks" the city in. He said they are not locked in, as all issues in the franchise can be reopened for negotiation whenever there is a problem, or every three years. Such things that could be discussed are how channels are used, extension policy, 'technical quality, franchise fee, and all new technical and legal problems that might arise. The effect of the renegotiation clause would be that, if Teleprompter did not agree, then it would go to arbitration. If after arbitration Teleprompter did not comply, the jurisdictions can penalize Teleprompter or can terminate the franchise. In regard to profits, Mr. Purcell had reports that showed Telepromter's e profits in this area were not unreasonable. He also said Teleprompter puts more money into the community than it takes out. Rega rdi ng the competitive bidding system, he said this is a nonexclusive franchise and asked Council to also consider the motives of the opposition. Initially, their criticism was whether or not a public body would pro- vide $70,000 for public access. Since that time, the 15-year franchise term has been raised. He asked Council to consider the critics expertise as opposed to the expertise of those who had negotiated the franchise agreement. He thanked the Commission and staff members for their hard work, and said he felt this was a good franchise. Those speaking against the franchise were as follows: Don Chalmers, 2500 Spring Boulevard, felt it would be a mistake for Eugene to tie itself into a 15-year franchise. He noted there will be an installation charge rate increase immediately after this ordinance is adopted. He said Teleprompter will be Changing from HBO to Show Time, whose programming is significantly less than HBO. Teleprompter operating profits had gone from 28.6 percent to 39.7 percent in two years. In regard to the testimony by Mr. Horn, that a l5-year franchise term is reasonable, he said Mr. Horn is funded by cable TV companies and would thus be inclined to support their view. He cited five experts who felt a 15-year term was too long, and favored a lO-year maximum franchise. e, - 10/9/78--5 "5 Mr. Chalmers felt there were advantages to competitive bidding, such as providing better service and more programming for pUblic interests. e He noted a monopoly is involved with cable companies in which one would not infringe if another were already established. I n regard to public access, he felt it meant more than having access to a studio; it meant being able to produce and air programs. He said none of the public broadcasting studios are available for public access, but are being used for educational purposes. He felt public access could be provided through the franchise without increased rates to users, as the Cable Commission has the power to approve or disapprove rate increases. He felt there was a need to have effective regulations to use public-access channels now. Mr. Chalmers said there was no evidence of a need or requirement for 15 years to amortize Teleprompter's costs. In regard to renegotiation and arbitration, he felt arbitration was not the way to 'effectively reach a solution as everyone looses. He said studies indicate the profits made by Teleprompter in this area are higher than the national average. The motives of his group are to provide the best possible cable TV system for the people in the metropolitan area. He noted also that 500 people in Springfield had signed a petition for a referendum requesting a five-year franchise, competitive bidding, and public ownership. John McCauley, 1570 Tyler, requested a point of order from the Chair. He questioned why only 30 minutes were allowed for public input. He felt there was resentment against public motives and said the Tele- prompter motives were well known--profits. He noted the sense of a . democracy as being public participation, yet he felt there was an attitude on the part of government officials to "freeze out" that participation, especially if it were an opposing point of view. He said the attitude of the Cable Commission was one of status quo, and if it had not been for the "nuisances," there would not have been the favorable franchise that is being presented to Council now. He again questioned the 30-minute restriction for critics to make their wishes known. Brion Marquez, 659 Clark Street, reviewed for Council public access and public broadcasting in other parts of the country. In essence, his statement indicated public broadcasting was well developed in other areas with public access for government, education, and the communi ty. In some instances, there was a higher rate charge for the services; in others he felt the rates were comparable to those in Eugene. He felt the public access Teleprompter was to provide under the franchise would be deficient. He said he had been trying to produce work here and found no facilities. If the present situa- tion continues, there is the possibility of no production by public broadcasters. Joe Weiner, 1810 Harris, said he had tried to present coverage of the Council meetings, local parades, and other community activities; however, there was no equipment available. He felt there was a high interest in the community for local programming. It should be made e available by decision of city government. 10/9/78--6 tJJo Jon Silvermoon, 47 1/2 West 25th, attended school in East Lansing, . Michigan, where he found citizen and community organizations could produce programs for public broadcasting. He agreed with the points raised by Mr. Chalmers. He said TV can be more than just entertainment--it can be a very important communication mechanism. The better communication mechanisms available, the better people will deal with information and decision-making. He felt that to be the basis for a good democracy. If Eugene wants a first-rate system for a first-rate city, the Council should reject this ordi- nance and look again at the public access problem. Robert Zimmerman, 1765 W. 25th, felt the franchise would have an adverse affect on the general area. Teleprompter is now limiting service for those who do not want to pay. If Teleprompter were removed from the area, it might be possible for people in the commu- nity to receive, free of charge, channels from other areas. The City should not grant the franchise for Teleprompter to stay in business for 15 years. The franchise would further restrict people's chances of getting all networks free. He was in favor of letting Teleprompter stay in business, but did not feel the City of Eugene should be promoting that business. Loren Sears, 660 East 22nd, felt the Commission had not done its homework in that it had consulted with business and technology on the franchise, but had not consulted with the communications commu- nity. Technology people are not authorities on communications; experts in communications should be the ones consulted. In regard e to public access, he felt there should be more channels available and the public should decide how they are to be used. Further, the public should define how public broadcasting should be funded; that should not, be included in the franchise. Public access chan- nels should be dealt with outside of the franchise. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Shirley Swenson replied to the question of funding of Mr. Harold Horn. She said he was funded by the Ford and Markle foundations and did not work for the cable companies, but rather for local governments. She requested evidence to prove he was funded by the cable companies. Ms. Smith asked how directly the Commission dealt with the question of whether or not to enter into a 10- or 15-year franchise. Mr. Swanson said there was a motion made to change the term from 15 to 10 years but it had failed by a 5:2 vote. He said a franchise agreement could be for any number of years. However, he pointed out the 15-year franchise was about the only thing Teleprompter won during negotiations. It would provide them with stability and enable them to amortize; it is to their advantage, but not necessarily against the public interest. He felt the important question was whether or not the franchise has significant rview to protect the public interest, and he felt it did. e 10/9/78--7 ,~ Mr. Delay wondered if the review section in the franchise could be interpreted to allow the Commission to address the question of e better access, meaning that equipment would be available at lower cost. Is the flexibility there to open negotiations? Mr. Swanson said the fee would be open to negotiation and, if it were increased, might be used for public access purposes. In regard to the review section of the franchise, he felt programming carried with it the means to produce programming and that it was subject to review. Mr. Obie felt the IS-year period would give the people a little better rate due to Teleprompter's ability to amortize its debt and increase standards in the system. He also felt the pUblic bidding process would take a great deal of time and would increase potential hassles. He did question whether the proposed ordinance properly addressed public access and was also concerned about advances in technology. Mr. Williams referred Mr. Obie to page 30, section 16, part 2 (the subject of mandatory review). He said it was the intent of the Commission to give the community a good, solid, practical, and economical cable TV system and leave the technology options open for the future. In regard to the use of a two-percent franchise fee for public access, the Commission felt it unwise to make a IS-year commitment of that kind of money for an activity unproven and unknown in Eugene. - Mr. Lieuallen wondered if staff and Commission had studies available regarding other communities and public access telecasting. Ms. e Swenson said many of the communities referred to had been reviewed by the Commission. It seemed many of the cable companies were willing to put in a variety of channels to bring in' customers; however, the price goes up too. The Eugene Commission felt this community should not have to pay high costs just to get basic TV services. Public access telecasting could be done through other funding. She also noted that other areas in the country do not have to have cable to get reception. The important part of the Commission's efforts was to get good service for all of the community, i.e., extension to homes, expansion to new areas, and expanded channels. The Commission had questioned whether it should require extra services for public broadcasting when it is not known how it would be received in the community. Mr. Swanson said the Commission had decided against the possibility of increased franchise fees for public access. He cautioned Council to keep in mind the expansion capacity from 10 to 27 channels; that they should consider whether or not the public wants eight or nine access channels written into the franchise. The Commission felt it best to leave the franchise flexible to see what needs and wants of the community are, as well as what Teleprompter will provide in programming. This all can be reviewed. tit , 10/9/78--8 bb9 . Mr. Lieuallen wondered if it were definite that Teleprompter would e - have to have a rate increase to cover such things as public access telecasting. Ms. Swenson said studies show that Teleprompter is profitable in the Eugene area without much development; however, they ,have made a commi tment to rectify those thi ngs whi ch the communi ty wants. She noted she had received complaints for four years and the major problem was extension of service, with the franchise succeeding in that area. The second largest complaint was quality of reception. There had been little interest in public access broadcasting until very recently. Mayor Keller felt Council was dealing with a reasonable performance at a level that is better than in the past and at a reasonable cost to the citizens. He said it appeared to be a reasonable franchise that has some checkpoints. He felt the Commission had dealt with the problems in depth regarding public access and perhaps the Council could deal ~ith the issue in the future. Compared to four years ago, there has been substantial improvement in the program and overall this franchise appears to be reasonable. Council Bill 1774--Granting to Teleprompter Corporation a nonexclusive franchise for the operation of a cable communication system and declaring an emergency was read by 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 e the second time by council bill number only on October 23, 1978, and that enactment be considered at that time. Mr. 'Delay felt the public access question was one which Council should deal with, as he felt it had not been fully addressed. He agreed wi th Mr. Williams regarding dedicated fees to pay for public access. How- ever, he was in favor of the franchise and noted its flexibility to deal with some of the questions raised. Mr. Lieuallen saw the problem as being one of persons wishing public access and looking to future possibilities, as opposed to the Commis- sion dealing with realities and priorities. He felt it very important to consider and move toward public access. He questioned if Eugene were to decrease the term of the franchise from 15 to 10 years, how it would affect the other jurisdictions. Mr. Swanson said if Council were to change the 15-year term franchise, negotiations would have to be reopened. He said it might be possible to have a 10-year franchise but felt other desirable provisions might be eliminated. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Lieuallen and Bradley voting no. The bill will be read the second time October 23, 1978. e 10/9/78--9 '6C, . A short recess was taken. B. Transportation Improvement Program . PUBLIC HEARING RESCHEDULED TO OCTOBER 23, 1978. C. Recommendation to Revise IIUsell Section of Palace Hotel Historic Ordinance Unanimously recommended by Historic Review Board, August 24, 1978, to revise the lIusell section. The amendment wou19 insert in that section a list of permitted uses extracted from C-3 zoning. Those commercial uses were outlined in a memo distributed to Council. Judy Rees, Planning Department, was available to answer questions. In calling for ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest, Mr. Williams noted a conflict and that he would abstain. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Emile Mortier, 767 Willamette, owner of the building, requested it be referred to as the Lane Building. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1775--Amending Ordinance No. 17597 and reaffirming the designation . of an H Historic Dis~rict within the City of Eugene, Oregon, 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 support- ing the reaffirmation of designation of an H Historic District within the City of Eugene Oregon, as set forth 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 that time. Motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Williams abstaining, 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 voting aye, except Mr. Williams abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18281. D. Appeal of Planning Director's Denial of Minor Partition--Located on the south side of East 27th Avenue, west of Central Boulvard (Goldstein) (M 78-96) Unanimously denied by the Planning Commission August 21, 1978. e 10/9/78--10 fol0 . Manager noted for Council the item had been discussed at its September e 25 meeting, but was held over for another public hearing to allow the appellants to testify. In answer to a question from Mr.' Haws, Mr. Saul said there was a rental on the property that does not conform to present zoning and thus is illegal. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the appeal were as follows: Henry Goldstein, 1870 East 27th, read into the record names of nine neighbors supporting his request. He noted Council had passed policies permitting infilling to promote compact urban growth, and thus felt Council should not oppose three panhandle lots. His lot is 33 yards wide by 85 yards long. The present house is on the front edge and he would site one lot in the middle and one at the rear. Each lot would have 8,780 square feet. He noted the concerns expressed by the neighbors and felt these objections had little merit. The positive effects he could see were that his family would receive a monetary return for the property, that two additional houses would be available - for occupancy, and the city and general community would benefit from compact urban growth. The only negatives he perceived was the concerns of the immediate neighbors about impact. He felt the positive effects far outweighed the negative and requested that Council reverse the decision. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland, spoke for the Fairmount Executive Com- mittee. They supported the philosophy of compact urban growth and the Council's policy of panhandle lots. They felt the lot was well suited for partition and noted other panhandle lots on the block. The South Hills Study is designed to protect the trees and avoid erosion and she felt neither of those could be applied to this particular division. She summarized the Executive Committ~e's philosophy of supporting infilling in the community. Those speaking against the appeal were as follows: Joseph and Rachel Fiszman, 2700 Central Boulevard; Bob McNutt, 1810 East 27th; Edward Rubey, 2730 Laurelwood Lane; Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th Street; and Perry Powers, 2775 Central Boulevard. They were concerned about the impact on the neighborhood, the removal of trees, traffic safety, and sewer problems. Mr. Fiszman noted the Executive Committee of the Fairmount Neighbors is not the association, and none of the members who voted to sustain the appeal e 10/9/78--11 671 . is a close neighbor to the proposed panhandle. He said errors had been committed by the applicant and the map did not show the rental property. There was some question as to the actual dimensions of the -- property. Mr. Bonnett did support a two lot panhandle, but not a triple panhandle lot. Mr. Saul recognized the concerns of the neighbors regarding sewers and traffic. He said neither the Planning Department's nor the Planning Commission's actions were predicated on those grounds. Council has findings before it indicating the Planning Department recognized a one-lot panhandle for the site. Mr. Lieuallen asked how the South Hills Study would be violated by this request. Mr. Saul said that was a judgment and directed Council to the written material before it regarding slopes and heavily wooded areas. He said the application was deficient as it did not show the number of off-street parking spaces nor the impact the two lots would have. He said it would create excessive removal of vegetation and change of the slopes. Mrs. Goldstein, in rebuttal, said she had looked over the area where a driveway could be located and felt this could be done without dis- turbing any of the major trees. Four off-street parking spaces would not be impossible. She said in regard to traffic safety and sewers, the objectors could check with the City. She felt the inconveniences would be about the same for two as for three lots. She fel t the Council's political decisions about infilling and compact growth should be followed. She noted the yard is 90 yards long, according to a survey being done. . Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul said the three bases for denying the application were: 1) Zoning density would be violated; 2) relationship to the South Hills Study; and 3) relationship to the size of adjacent properties. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to deny the appeal and adopt findings of fact. Motion carried with all Councilors voting aye, exce~t Mr. Bradley voting no. E. Appeal of Condition Imposed by Planning Department for Horizon West Fi.rst Addition Subdivision (S 78-12), located on east side of Hawkins Lane, south of 25th Avenue RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING TO OCTOBER 23, 1978. F. Liquor License New Outlet: Poppi's (RMB), 675 East 13th Applicants: Richard and Calliope Cottam Manager noted all papers were in order and staff recommended for- warding approval to OLCC subject to conditions from the Building Department (any remodel or alteration will require building permits) and Fire Department (installation of two smoke detectors and removal e of burlap materials from ceiling). 10/9/78--12 fall . . Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to forward to OLCC recommendation for approval subject to conditions. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING C.B. 1768--Authorizing alley vacation located between Olive and Charnel ton streets, and West 23rd and West 24th avenues, and retaining a public utility easement (Lilja)(AV 77-3) 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Counci 1 ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18282. III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING C.B. 1776--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer 11th Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to Belt Line Road (1176)(76-54) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing e October 16, 1978, with Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration October 23, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1777--Levying assessments for storm sewer to serve Delta Highway (west side) from Valley River Way to Willamette River (1465)(78-07) 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 first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing October 16, 1978, with Panel recommendation brought back for Council consideration October 23, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3019--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for period September 25 through October 9, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Ro II call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e 10/9/78--13 ~13 . . V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council e minutes September 25, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to October 11, 1978. ~J~ Charl es T. Henry City Manager CTH:DT:sp/CM23b17 e e 10/9/78 -14 ~'tt