Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1979 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL April 4, 1979 Adjourned meeting from March 28, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Ke~ler at 11:45 a.m., April 4, 1979, in the Council Chamber with the following Councilors present: Jack Delay, Betty Smith, Eric Haws, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor D. W. Hamel was absent. I. Items From Mayor and Council A. Bicycle Committee--To replace Mr. Anderson who resigned, Mayor Keller appointed Burrle Elmore, 3276 Strathmore Place. He noted Mr. Elmore was an avid bicyclists, bicycling back and forth to work on 18th Avenue each day. - B. Joint Civic Center/City Council Meeting--Scheduled Wednesday, April 4, 7:30 p.m., South Columbia Room at Valley River Inn. C. Legislative Subcommittee--Meeting scheduled Thursday, April 5, noon, McNutt Room. D. Field Burning--Manager said no report would be made today. E. Community Schools Program--Mr. Lieuallen had met with the Eugene District 4-J School Board Chairman and indicated the Council's interest in discussing policies, goals, and recommendations of the recent report. It appears a meeting will not be feasible until after April 19. However, Mr. Brittain, Chairman, indicated he did not think the community schools program was in any budget trouble. Mr. Lieuallen had attended a Community Schools Coordinating Committee meeting, with that Committee indicating a high interest in being involved. A subcommittee was appointed to develop the Committee's own recommendations and Mr. Lieuallen and Mr. Obie were invited to be involved. That subcommittee will be thinking in terms of recom- mendations to the Committee; Mr. Obie and Mr. Lieuallen will be thinking in terms of a report to the Council. He said a report would come back to Council, with Council's direction requested. Then a meeting would be arranged with the school district. It was consensus of Council this process was acceptable. - 4/4/79--1 /86 II. Routine Items For Council Approval A. Council Minutes March 28, 1979 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes as noted. Motion carried unanimously. e B. Legislative Subcommittee Minutes March 29, 1979 Manager noted only two Councilors were in attendance at the Subcom- mittee meeting. He said the Subcommittee had unanimously voted on all bills as reported in the minutes. Perhaps Council would like to discuss some of the bills, and he referred them to HB 2424 and S8 659 regarding sexual orientation. The Human Rights Council had requested the City Council approve and support the bills rather than just author- izing the commission to testify in favor. Ms. Smith felt the Council should indicate to the Human Rights Council the City Council's approval of the commissions' testifying in support of those bills. She did support the bills. However, she felt, based on the recent referendum and vote of the citizens, it would be inappro- priate for Council to approve supporting the bills when the community had voted in opposition to that stance. She felt it more appropriate to authorize the commissions to testify rather than Council going on record in full support. Ms. Schue supported the action of the Legislative Subcommittee. She encouraged Councilors to make their decisions on the basis of what ~ they feel is right, and not on the basis of what they feel is popular. ,., Mr. Obie would not vote for the two bills. He said it had nothing to do with the issue, but that the Council has been directed by the people of the community as to how the citizens feel. The Council is elected not only as leader, but as the peoples' representative. He was uncomfortable with Ms. Smith's position, but felt he could support it. Rosemary Battori spoke on behalf of the Womens Commission. She strongly urged Council to endorse the stand taken by the Legislative Subcommittee in favor of HB 2424. She said any form of discrimination is a statewide problem, and should be handled by the Legislature. The bill would disallow discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the Legislative Subcommittee minutes as noted. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend the motion regarding HB 2424 and SB 629, authorizing the Human Rights Council to testify without the Council's support and approval. - 4/4/79--2 181 e Mr. Delay opposed the amendment to the motion. He noted support for the City's position on this issue had been overwhelming in his ward. He made reference to what he tenned IIdistortedll information during the campaign two years ago that might have convinced him to vote against the issue if he had not been better informed. Third, he felt this was an opportunity for Councilors to carry out what they believe to be right. He said the task of an elected representative is not to be popular, but to do the best job possible. He felt it encumbant upon the Council to act in the most responsible manner. Ms. Smith reiterated her personal support of the two bills; however, she did feel it was the Council.s responsibility to uphold the wishes of the total city and its citizens. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which failed with Smith and Obie voting aye; all other Councilors present voting no. - Vote was taken on the main motion which carried with all Coun- cilors present voting aye, except Mr. Obie voting no. C. Improvement Petitions Res. No. 3117--Authorizing initiating process for alley paving between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue from Jefferson Street to Madison Street (958) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3118--Authorizing initiating process for street paving, sani- tary sewer, and storm sewer construction within and adjacent to Court Royale Subdivision (1371) was read by number and title. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. D. Calling Public Hearing Re: Easement Vacation Manager noted this item had been on the Council's agenda March 28. However, it was delayed because Council, on April 9, has to consider a variance request for the same property. It was felt prudent that until action was taken on the variance reque~t, the easement should not be considered. C.B. 1863--Calling public hearing May 9, 1979, re: Easement vacation located at southeast corner of West 18th Avenue and Washington Street (A & X, Inc.) (EV 78-15) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. - 4/4/79--3 188 Mr. Delay 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. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18369. III. Duplicate Taxation Study Proposal--Memo Distributed. Manager said the memo distributed outlined the status, philosophy behind the proposed study, and request for proposal. It was estimated the cost for the study would be $5,000, and could be completed in a matter of a few months. As of Monday, the Springfield Council had approved the study. As of Tuesday, Lane County had turned it down 5:0. He noted the Lane County staff report which was distributed to Council recommended strongly against the study. A letter and report will be forthcoming indicating Commissioner Rust has been removed from the committee and will be replaced by Otto tlHooft as the County representative, with a request for a much broader study. When the study began, the committee talked about a study comparable to the Multnomah County study which attempted to cover every service and determine inequities in expenditures and revenues. Several services were ~ looked at in an attempt to agree on a list of services for study. It ~ immediately became apparent that unless the study was limited, it could cost anywhere from $20,000-$75,000. It was doubtful that support for financing would be forthcoming from the jurisdictions. Thus, the task force arrived at a much reduced scope of investigation. The statement of major concern was an attempt t~pinpoint what the task force felt to be the real concerns from people regarding duplicate taxation: Those services supported by county-wide taxes or by State and Federal grants, and which Lane County supplies at different levels in the incorporated versus unincorporated areas. Thus, the task force determined to limit the study to Lane County roads (maintenance and construction) and Sheriff patrol services. The committee discussed and agreed unanimously to focus on the proposal as it was felt to be a fairly simple study' and would address the most difficult questions. The study would attempt to gather facts in these two areas. It is not really known how much money is being spent or being distributed regarding these two areas when comparing incorporated versus unincorporated areas. Manager suggested Council adopt a position in favor of the study. Mayor Keller hoped Council would approve the study. He noted quite a bit of time had been spent thus far on developing the request for proposal and reaching this point. There would be an attempt to try to convince other bodies that this is the appropriate way to deal with the problem. He ~ expressed disappointment that the County did not support the study at this ~ time. I&~ 4/4/79--4 . - e . Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve staff's recom- mendation for a study of duplicate taxation. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Appeal by Paul Osborn, HCC, Re: Housing Code Board of Appeals Decision-- Memo Distributed Manager said it was hoped that an ordinance would be developed which would place such appeals before the Council Hearings Panel, rather than the full Council, in order to conserve Council's time. Paul Osborn, HCC, said the appeal was based on a decision of the Housing Code Board of Appeals regarding property located at 455 East 13th Avenue, owned by Connor, Connor & Colbert. He said the residence has a lodging house license. It was inspected in September because of a change of ownership. At that time it was discovered there were sleeping rooms in the basement. Because of an inadequate ceiling height, an air duct suspended from the ceiling, inadequate lighting and ventilation, Mr. Osborn felt the basement constituted a substandard condition based on City Code. Thus, he held an administrative hearing in November and determined that the sleeping rooms in the basement did constitute a substandard condition. Mr. Colbert appealed that decision to the Housing Code Board of Appeals, which granted the variance to the ceiling height. However, the variance carried no conditions for compensating alterations. Also, the Appeals Board made no findings of fact in support of the relief granted. Because of that, Mr. Osborn was appealing the decision to the City Council and requesting denial of the granting of the variance. Tone Colbert said the rooming house was licensed for ten years and he had purchased it on that basis. Mr. Haws wondered if the Housing Code Board of Appeals had to make findings of fact for a variance. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's office, did not have the Housing Code with her, but felt the Council had to make findings of fact in this instance. Mayor Keller wondered if Mr. Osborn was objecting to having living units in the basement totally, or because of the lack of proper ventilation and lighting. Mr. Osborn said his objection was based on the ceiling height. The owners were going to bring the ventilation and lighting conditions up to minimum code requirements. He found no compensating factors which would alleviate the ceiling height deficiency. He noted there was no record of any variance having been granted before this time. As the conditions exist now, they are very much below standards and he reiterated there were no compensating factors. Mr. Haws wondered why there was a ceiling height in the Code and why it was a concern. Mr. Osborn said, in general, it had to do with the amount of air that is in the room, in the event of fire, and safety for the occu- pants. He noted he was dealing with the Code as it exists now and what 4/4/79--5 I~o his responsibilities are under that Code. He also said that in order for persons to exit from the rooms5 they have to pass under an air duct which ~ is suspended eight inches from the ceiling. This constitutes substandard ,.., conditions. Mr. Delay moved5 seconded by Ms. Smith5 to grant the appeal to the Council 5 that the decision of the Housing Code Board of Appeals be overruled5 and to adopt findings of fact. Motion carried unanimously with all Councilors present voting aye5 except Ms. Miller voting no. Upon motion duly made5 seconded5 and passed5 the meeting was adjourned. .8(~J-~ Charles T. Henry City Manager DT:so/CM8a2 e . 4/4/79--6 1'\ \