Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1980 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 27, 1980 Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:45 a.m., February 27, 1980, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Scott Lieua11en was absent. --- -.----..--------- . I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Bowling for Goodwill Ms. Smith stated that Bowling for Goodwill would be Saturday, March 8, at 10:30 a.m., at Emerald Lanes. B. Tri-Agency Ms. Smith indicated that she would like some follow-up on what the plans are for dog control since the blitz, which Tri-Agency was going to initiate, does not seem to be in effect. Mr. Henry responded that a discussion of the spay/neuter clinic was scheduled for the March 12 council meeting: and perhaps a general update on Tri-Agency could be presented at that time. Mr. Delay noted that the Tri-Agency policy board will get a report as to the problems with implementation of this program, and that could be given to the councilors. e C. Parade Ordinance Ms. Miller noted that last fall. the parade ordinance was amended. She stated that staff, acting through the police chief, was to bring back proposed administrative rules which were to be presented to the council. She noted that she had seen the first draft, and it seems to have some proposed regulations which might have legal implications. She suggested that staff work with the City Attorney's office on these regulations. Mr. Henry indicated that this is being done. D. Proposed Power Lines on 13th Avenue Mr. Haws asked if action had been taken regarding the petition sent to him from Mr. Johnson regarding the proposed power lines. Mr. Henry indicated that the petition had been distributed to the council. Mr. Haws asked if anything could be done by the council and if the council wished to pursue the matter. Mayor Keller clarified that Mr. Johnson's concern is with the proposed EWEB transmission lines on 13th Avenue. Mr. Henry indicated that council had met with the EWEB Board e 2/27/80--1 on this issue, and EWEB staff had made a presentation stating the disadvantages but that the board over-rode their staff recommendation. ~ The EWEB Board stated they would proceed with these lines on 13th ,., Avenue. Mr. Henry stated further communication is expected from them regarding an easement request for right-of-way on property the City owns where the Marine and Naval Reserves are located. Information from the neighborhood association and from Lincoln Community School was given to the board at the time of that meeting, but EWEB is going ahead with the proposed changes. Mr. Haws asked if the City's only leverage was the right-of-way easement. Mr. Long responded that the legal authority for the electric utilities placement is strictly EWEB'ss but land use and right-of-way questions are under City author- ity. Mayor Keller indicated that during the hearing, he had expressed concern with this and thought there might be an alternate route that he could support. He also stated that it was a difficult environment at the hearing and they were questioned on what right they had to be there. He indicated it had not been an "open forum" with EWEB. Mayor Keller said he could support the idea of raising the issue. He stated the problem seems to be that those concerned citizens were never involved in this decision because this route had not been previously considered. Because of public input on the other routes, it was easier to use 13th Avenue even though it was not cost-effective. Mr. Haws noted that he does not know what the best answer would be but that citizens are concerned. Consensus was to not pursue the power line placement issue at this time. E.. Cancellation of March 19 City Council Meeting Council meeting of March 19 is canceled. F. National ~eague of Cities Conference Mayor Keller encouraged any councilors or staff to consider attending the National League of Cities conference in Washington, DC, during spring vacation. e G. Downtown Parking for Downtown Housing Mayor Keller referred to the discussion at the February 25 council meeting regarding downtown parking/housing. He felt the council got off base in discussing parking for housings rather than discussing the housing. He asked whether there was support in the council for a change in the zoning ordinance for downtown housing. He asked for any comments by the council. Mr. Obie stated that he hesitates to change the ordinance but that he would ask the council to reconsider the decision on these six units. He stated that three parties are involved: the lender, the developer, and the renewal agency. The lender will not loan the money unless the City provides a variance for the parking. . 2/27/80--2 e The developer says they cannot build it with the present parking requirements. The Eugene Renewal Agency would like a "good faith" effort toward having housing there. Yet, the City seems to be the loser on this opportunity to have six housing units due to inflexi- bi1ityof policies and procedures. He feels the parking problem would be solved by the people who buy the units. He also stated, however, that if offices are put there, which would generate more need for parking, there is no requirement for additional parking space. Ms. Schue stated she shares the concern with others and would prefer to see houses there rather than offices. She said that no plan was presented by the developer for dealing with parking, which is what she found unacceptable. If the developer had presented an option to the parking requirement, then perhaps a variance would be in order. Ms. Smith asked, when discussion was occurring about changing the ordinance, if that would impact the present project. Mayor Keller answered that this is a pilot project and thinks the council will be confronted with this sort of thing more often. He further stated the council seems to support housing in the downtown area. e Ms. Smith stated that she would support review of the ordinance and reconsideration of the variance request for this project. She also stated the City could assume some responsibility for helping to negotiate parking for a developer as in leasing space in City lots. Mr. Henry stated that under the existing ordinance, space probably could be found but it would be necessary for some changes to occur in policies of the Downtown Development Board. One suggestion that has been made is that the Downtown Development Board provide parking space for small housing projects. He noted that these kinds of conversions, such as second-floor retail stores into apartments, would not be possible unless some leasing options were available. Ms. Miller feels that the council seems to agree on looking at changes in the ordinance regarding downtown parking for residents, especially since they are supportive of downtown housing and realize that people want to have their cars nearby. She feels the ordinance should be changed in a general sense, not for special projects. She also said that this particular project seems to have been poorly planned and many deadlines have been missed at checkpoints along the way. They have already asked for extension on their time and after receiving an extension, came in and requested a variance for parking. She feels that there is not any reason to change the decision for this project, but rather the ordinance as a whole for future impact. Mr. Obie stated he cannot see the negative impact of these six units without parking spaces but could see some positive learning experi- ences in regard to how people would handle downtown parking problems. He would like to find out if there are people who do not have cars and would choose. to live downtown. e 2/27/80--3 Ms. Schue stated that a further problem seems to be that the Eugene Renewal Agency policy is concerned with businesses, not with housing. ~ Mr. Delay noted the variance code is specific and difficult to comply .., with. He stated that he would not be in favor of changing the previous decision on these six units. He felt that this would be setting an extremely bad precedent. He feels that situations such as these need to be looked at in a comprehensive manner. Mayor Keller stated that he had two points in mind when bringing this before the council. First, he felt bad about losing those six units for downtown housing; and second, the council will be confronted with similar proposals in the future and they will need to determine how these will be dealt with. Mr. Obie stated that it seems the council has moved beyond those specific six units and expressed concerns regarding the total issue of downtown housing and parking. He said this larger question could not be resolved within the developer1s time line for these specific units. He also said he would like to see staff prepare a downtown parking study. Mayor Keller said that perhaps this could be addressed in the near future. Mr. Henry said that staff will go to ERA and the OOB and perhaps they can solve this problem. H. Jefferson Pool Tour Mr. Henry stated a tour of Jefferson Pool would be held immediately following this council meeting. e I. Meetings Budget Committee Meeting, Thursday, February 28, 7:30 p.m. Joint Parks Meeting, Tuesday, March 4, 7:00 a.m., in the McNutt Room. Energy Board Meeting, March 5, 7:30 p.m. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of February 11, 1980, and February 13, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the council minutes of February 11, 1980, and February 13, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Improvement Petition 1. Fergus Manor Subdivision (Affected Property on Petition: Assess- able Costs; paving, total front footage, and front footage peti- tioned 2,669.97 feet, 100 percent; sewers, total square footage 270,964.4 feet, square footage petitioned 230,752.0 feet, 85 percent; City costs: none). e 2/27/80--4 . Res. No. 3315--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within Fergus Manor Subdivision and sanitary sewer construction within 160 feet of the boundary of Fergus Manor Subdivision (1732). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. c. Segregation of Assessments 1. Located south of 1st Avenue, east on Bertelsen Road; applicant: Willamette Valley Title, c/o Vic Bender (SE 80-3). Mr. Henry noted that this segregation of assessments is in order and approval is recommended. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve segregation of assessments as noted. Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. D. Safe Deposit Box Rental Agreement Mr. Henry indicated this resolution is to allow the Finance Director access into the safe deposit box and would require a change of names on the authorization slips. Res. No. 3316--A resolution authorizing safe deposit box rental agreement. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. ~ Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. E. Finance Resolutions (Distributed) Mr. Henry stated he did not feel the memo attached to the agenda was clear. He said that the memo specifies that this money will be transferred to personnel services which will allow the City to comply with Federal regulations which require the monies to be appropriated for specific expenditures rather than in a contingency account. This money has been used for the redesign of the budget and purchasing systems. The resolution has come about because the Federal government requires that the resolution should designate the money be shown as an appropriation rather than in a contingency fund even though it will be used in 1980-81 for completing the redesign of these systems. Res. No. 3317--A resolution authorizing the transfer of operating contin- gency monies and the countercyclical fund for the acquisi- tion of personnel and for materials for audit of special grants. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. e 2/27/80--5 Mr. Hamel asked if these funds should have been in the budget last year. Mr. McGuire responded that these monies cannot be held over, but must be committed, according to Federal law. This resolution commits it to the fiscal system's development program. . Mr. Hamel asked whether this could I:>e considered "under the cover" funds. Mr. Henry stated that countercyclical funds are given to the city based on unemployment and other aspects and are based on a , Federal formula. Money has been appropriated to the various projects and they are trying to extend these through next year. He also said , that the money might not be entirely used. Ms. Miller asked what the money would be used for. Mr. McGuire said that the money would be used for ongoing projects to develop an automated budget system. The budget report that the council would receive on April 17 would be the initial product of that design. This project will include the expenditure system. It will take about , 18-24 months to complete the project. Mr. McGuire also stated that this money has been appropriated through the Data Processing budget and this department had six positions funded by countercyclical funds; the recommendation is that this money be kept in that section of the budget. He said that there may be some unspent funds in the Finance Department relating to this project and they would request that these funds be transferred to the Data Processing budget to keep those six positions on the project until it is completed. Mr. Henry noted that the number of positions had been reduced to four. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . Res. No. 3318--A resolution authorizing the transfer of operating contin- gency monies in the general fund for the acquisition of a security and fire alarm system for the Library and for repair and upgrade of the sound equipment for the council chamber. Mr. Henry noted that this is an emergency, especially pertaining to the Library security system. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Mr. Obie questioned the urgency of these items in regard to the council chamber sound system. He stated that he felt there were other priorities rather than the sound system upgrade and repair. Ms. Smith asked if there were restrictions on what this money should be spent for and if it had already been appropriated. Mr. Henry responded that in regard to the sound system, they were trying to make corrections to the system and to make it a more workable one, but in regard to the Library, it is much more of an emergency situation. - 2/27/80--6 e Ms. Smith asked if this money could be used to keep the pools open. Mr. Henry responded that staff did not recommend using contingency funds to keep the pools open. Ms. Miller thought the sound system would do for now. Ms Schue said she would like to have her microphone fixed. Mr. Henry noted that this could be amended to a figure of $10,000 and recommended deletion of the repair and upgrade of the sound equipment in the council chamber. e Mr. Obie noted that if it is not an emergency, it should be considered with the rest of the budget. Ms. Smith moved to delete the words "and for repair and upgrade of the sound system for the council chamber" from the proposed Resolution No. 3318, seconded by Mr. Hamel. Roll call vote: motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Delay voting no. Roll call on amended motion; motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3319--A resolution authorizing transfer of non-contingency appropriations within a given fund between programs and/or object groups. Ms. Miller asked if the $17,000 from the Police Department is part of the matching share of the Integrated Criminal Apprehension Program (ICAP) grant; Mr. McGuire responded that it is grant money. Mr. Obie asked if this was based on a re-evaluation of the ICAP program and noted he would like more information. Mr. Henry stated we are receiving such good marks on the ICAP program, that we will receive additional money and some techniques such as criminal analysis, reporting, and data processing are being demonstrated to other cities. He said that earlier in the week, this had been demonstrated to cities of over 10,000 population and it looks as though this will be contin- uing and better use will be made of personnel and equipment resources. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEE INCREASES (Memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Henry noted that this is the most comprehensive study done in recent years. He indicated that affected groups have been notified by mail of this proposed fee schedule. If adopted today, it could become effective March 15, and any funds generated by building activity beginning March 15 would be included. He said that it would be the largest single period for permit activity throughout the year. e 2/27/80--7 Mr: Henry introduced Larry Reed, Assistant Building Superintendent. Mr. Reed stated that fee schedules have not been increased in approximately ~ five years. These increases are being requested at this time to bring ,., them more into line with the State fees already adopted. He stated that it is important to note that Eugene will still remain lower in single- family and duplex fees since the City of Eugene is the only local jurisdic- tion that has adopted a combination one- and two-family dwelling permit. He said they had contacted the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, the National Electrical Contractors Association, Mid-Valley Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association, and the Association of General Contrac- tors. These proposed increases were reviewed by the City Attorney's office and Department of HCC. He noted he was available to answer any further questions. Mr. Keller asked if any groups responded to these increase proposals and Mr. Reed stated that the General Contractors Association said they would support the fee increase, but they indicated that there were other areas they wished to talk with the City about. Speaking about the issue: James McAlexander, 310 Garfield, stated he was at the council meeting to represent the Homebuilders Association. He stated that the letter to the users, dated March 14, was received by them on March 17. He stated further that this time was inadequate to respond to such extensive coverage of fee increases. He requested that the council table the motion until their organization had time to study the fee increases and comment or to table the motion indefinitely. He stated that permit fee increases would ~ have a ripple effect, increasing plan check fees, systems development fees, increasing the cost of new construction, which increases replace- ment cost, which in turn increases taxes. To illustrate his point, he said that for one house for which they have complete records--the house consisting of 11,720 square feet and the garage consisting of 464 square feet--in 1977, the valuation was $34,430 and the building permit fee was $262. In 1978, the valuation on the house was $41,388; the building permit fee was $274.56 plus a systems develop- ment charge of $593.53 for total permit fees in 1978 of $869.09. In 1979, the valuation of this house was $44,695, the building permit fee was $287.04 plus the plan check fee made the cost of the building permits $373.04, and the systems development charge was $629.92, for total permit fees in 1979 of $1,000.96. In 1980, the same house was valued at $46,628, the building permit fee was $295.36, the plan check fee was $89, the systems development charge was $648.03, for a total in 1980 of $1,032.39. He further stated that although the building permit fees themselves had not increased that much, the cost of total permit fees for the same house within four years has risen from $262 to $1,032.39. Mr. Hamel stated he agreed with Mr. McAlexander's presentation; when the systems development charge was added, it was quite a shock to the builder. He stated this would be discouraging to someone building since the fees have been increased about 200 percent. He stated that if the fees need to be increased, that should be done on a more regular basis, not in five-year ~ increments. ,., 2/27/80--8 e Mr. Obie asked how long the Homebuilders Association had had to review this matter and Mr. McAlexander responded they had had approximately ten days from the time they received the letter. Mr. Obie then asked how long it would take for them to properly analyze the matter and Mr. McAlexander responded that it would take 30 to 45 days. Ms. Schue stated that it seemed to her that the fees were small increases and were intended to raise the City to the level that the State had adopted. She further stated that the systems development charge was not the matter for discussion at this meeting. Mr Delay asked if the proposed permit fee increases would actually cover the cost of the department's operation or if it would still be subsidized at least in part by taxes. Larry Reed responded that still about 30 percent of their operation would continue to be funded by general funds. Mr. Delay agreed that the systems development charge is not related to this matter. It becomes a question of whether everyone in the city pays for construction or whether the user pays. The funds will either come from increased taxes or from the increased permit fees. e Ms. Smith suggested that this matter be delayed for one week. She stated she felt the fees should be charged to pay for the services. Mr. Haws stated that this is one way that the city can make up part of the deficit which comes, in part, from subsidizing new construction. He felt the fees should cover 100 percent of that operation. He also stated if people want something, especially if they are making a profit, they should pay for it. He also stated he would not be willing to delay this matter longer than one week. He also suggested that the fees should be raised to be made current with other jurisdictions. Mr. Obie agreed with Mr. Haws and felt that the Homebuilders Association should be allowed to have time to prepare an adequate argument. He then asked if the matter were held over until March 10, if it could be imple- mented on March 15. Mr. Reed stated that March 5 would be better since new forms will have to be printed. Mayor Keller responded that this could be done. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to delay action on this matter until March 5. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. STATUS OF CETA CONSORTIUM DISCUSSIONS--STAFF PRESENTATION (Memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that since the agenda was prepared, the City has been given approximately one more month to deal with this matter. He stated this is a very complicated situation and the hope is to resolve something with the County within the next week or two. Mr. Delay asked if there would be a formal presentation and Mr. Henry responded that Gary Long, Personnel Department, would make a statement. e 2/27/80--9 Mr. Long stated that because Oregon1s population information had not yet been published by the Bureau of Census, the City would have an additional 30 days after publication to submit its consortium application. The ~ discussion this week would focus on the City Option Three of the February .., 21, 1980, memo (distributed). Mr. Long said he was available to answer ally quest ions. Mr. Delay asked if the previously announced March 3 deadline was still in effect and Mr. Long responded that that was the Federal deadline but an extension will be given because the Oregon population data has not yet been p~b1ished by the Bureau of Census. Mr. Delay stated he found the information in the memorandum to be inadequate for his understanding to even be able to d'scuss the matter. He stated he feels this is an important decision and would like to have more input from the City and the County about what is being negotiated. He could not follow it from the memo. Mr. Long stated this is a $10- to $14-mi11ion program representing approxi- mately half the City budget. He further stated he could provide any and all information needed. Mr. Delay asked if this was a filing for "intent" only. He asked if we could file and still keep our options open. Mr. Long responded that it is not just an intent, but would include some basic ingredients as to how the consortium would operate. March 1 is when they would need to decide how they will proceed. He further stated that April 1 to 15 would be critical since they are already looking at the phasing of responsibilities and to the consortium. Mr. Delay stated he feels he would like to hear from the City and the County on where they stand and how they see the issues as ~ well as hearing from some of the user groups. Ms. Miller stated she .., agreed with Mr. Delay; she would like to see information presented to the council as suggested. She stated she has some understanding of what the City wants and what the County wants and minimal understanding of what the user groups want and cannot see why the problems at this point seem to be insoluble. Mr. Long stated he does not feel the problems are insolvable. His hope is , the briefing memo will provide a basis for questions. He further stated they might want to develop some way of receiving user input. Ms. Smith stated that the Advisory Committee had met February 26, and the City is concerned as to what the best program for all user groups wi 11 be. She stated she would be happy to talk with any councilors regarding details of the proposal and the proposal itself. She is concerned that Eugene be a partner and be involved in decision-making and staffing issues. Mayor Keller stated that the councilors' points are well made and he would like to schedule a meeting between Gary Long and the councilors. V. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE BUDGET CUT PROPOSALS Mr. Henry referred to two memos distributed~ one memo from the librarian regarding restoration of Sunday hours, the other from the Parks and Recreation director regarding alternative budget cut proposals, especially in regard to swimming pools and ball fields. . 2/27/80--10 e Manager stated the Library has expended a majority of its book budget. If the Library were reopened on Sundays with that money, they would deplete all new book purchasing money. The librarian feels they should continue the closure on Sundays. Manager stated if any changes are going to be made in the Parks Department budget, they would like to see those changes made in reverse order from how they are listed on the memo. Mr. Henry introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks Department, to provide additional information. Mr. Drapela stated that his February 25 memo was a response to the councilors' request to identify potential sources of funding and how they relate to present service levels. He stated that by staying within the figures outlined in that memo, two things could be accomplished. First, this would enable the $38,000 savings to still be accomplished, and second, they would be able to identify potential service reductions which are currently being cut back so these services could continue to be reduced in the 1980-81 budget preparation process. He further stated that resources are available to accomplish Options One, Two, and Three. He stated the staff recommends Alternative Two as most acceptable, as it restores ball field maintenance and allows for rehabilitation of Jefferson Pool. e Mr. Obie stated that the previous motion had included two budget cate- gories: Library and Parks and Recreation. He would like to change the motion to adopt Alternative One as proposed in the February 25 memo. Mr. Haws asked if this motion involves the Library and if the staff recom- mends Alternative One for the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Obie said the motion does not include the Library. Mr. Drapela stated that staff recommends Alternative Two if the original course of action is not maintained. Mr. Haws then asked if there were any other places which could be cut to obtain the goals. He stated that citizens had called him and stated that there is $100,000 in the Parks budget to maintain parking spaces. Mr. Drapela stated that they could discuss all the funds within the Parks Department budget, but some funds cannot be shifted to other areas. The required cuts apply only to funds under the general operating budget of the Parks Department. He stated the options listed on page 3 are readily available and feels that Alternative Two would be the most equitable choice. Mr. Haws stated he would like to know if there are alternatives in the complete Parks Department budget, for example, if they could terminate ten staff from the Parks Department if that was determined to be the best choice. Mr. Drapela responded that in the February 15 memo, they had outlined $91,920 in cuts, a number of which would adversely affect the operating programs, and they have since withdrawn those suggestions. Mr. Haws stated that he realized they could choose either way but none of the choices was ideal. e 2/27/80--11 t M~. Obie stated he had met with Mr. Drapela last week and felt that at that time, Mr. Drapela was supporting Alternative One, but that he would still speak for the motion he had made. On page 2, the cuts seem to ~' be a reasonable list of cuts taking a broad cross-section of the department. ~ He could not justify maintaining and operating the ball fields. He also stated he firmly hoped that when the Community Development hearing was held that $23,000 be allocated for Jefferson Pool rehabilitation. He further suggested that the City take another look at its revenue situation since there may be some increased revenues which could be put to use in this matter. Alternative One seems to be the best solution to a bad situation. Ms. Miller asked for clarification on the uses of funds set aside for parking spaces at the Overpark and the Parcade. Mr. Henry responded that the Downtown Development District pays the Parks Department to administer the parking lots. Ms. Miller then suggested that perhaps the Downtown Development District would like to pay for a swimming pool. She further stated in looking over the engineer's report, that the engi- neer's Option One stated that the repairs need to be immediate and she would like clarification on what immediate should be. Mr. Drapela stated he felt the engineer meant that the repair needs to be done as soon as possible. Whether that would occur during the scheduled shutdown time or during the summer, or next fall, it should be done at a time when the roof repairs could also be made. They would like to reduce interruptions to users of the pool to the extent that they could. Ms. Miller stated that it seemed the repairs could be made during the ~ scheduled shutdown time and savings from the shutdown could be applied ~ to rehabilitation. Ms. Miller stated she does not wish to put the repairs off in hopes that the Community Development funds could be used. Mr. Delay stated he would like to clarify the situation with regard to the Community Development Committee. First, the committee decided that it would take no action on this year's grant proposal. He stated there was an accumulation of $79,000 in contingency funds from the previous years' grants and that money could be used on pool rehabilitation if the City and the core area neighborhood groups were involved together with the committee. He stated the $23,000 needed for repairs could not come from Neighborhood Block Grants. These funds cannot be used for operation and maintenance. These kinds of things should come out of the General Fund. He stated, however, that he does think the group will come to an agreement. He then asked if it was better to make across-the-board cuts that would affect more people a little rather than affecting fewer people a lot. He asked Mr. Drapela if Alternatives One and Two were better options than closing the pools and if so, why they had not been considered earlier. He then asked if the council should go with Alternative One or Alternative Two. He felt the Jefferson Pool should be repaired while it is closed. . Mr. Drapela stated that the staff had reviewed all the alternatives and the ones listed for alternative cuts on this memo were services the staff had considered at the time of the six-percent rollback. At that time, s~aff ~as ask~d to not pursue certain projects. Therefore, these reduc- tlons ln serVlces can be made at this time and no controversy is expected. e 2/27/80--12 e Mr. Obie stated he felt that Jefferson Pool could be rehabilitated by Community Development funds according to what he had understood from Mr. Drapela. Mr. Drapela responded that Mr. Delay was correct and that the request was for $100,000 and the hope was to obtain matching funds else- where. He stated that CDC has reserved about $80,000 depending on what success will be met in receiving matching funds elsewhere. He stated that the earliest any State or Federal matching funds could be secured would be in early Apri 1. Mr. Delay stated that he had noted that the Community Development Committee wants to hear from the affected core area neighborhoods. He felt that it is in everyone's best interest that the Community Development Committee monies should be used for this project. Mr. Obie stated he felt Jefferson Pool should be repaired when it is closed or close it when it is being repaired, but it should not be closed until after Amazon Pool is opened so that the South Eugene area would not be without a pool. Mr. Henry noted these proposed alternative cuts would not be without effect on certain groups. He noted that Parks Department staff are being urged to take leave without pay and certain programs and events would be dropped, for example, at senior centers, special events will not occur, and in the bicycle program, events will be eliminated and use of the van will be eliminated. These are little programs that are being dropped. However, he noted that some cuts are the result of attrition. e Ms. Schue asked for clarification of the $23,000 in Alternative Two that would be spent on rehabilitation of Jefferson Pool. She wanted to know how this fits in with the overall rehabilitation needs of Jefferson Pool. Mr. Drapela stated that the service cuts are identified with a dollar savings. He stated that the $23,000 in the engineer's report is included in Alternative Two. He further stated the Joint Parks Committee would need to devote more attention to the various options presented in that report, especially Alternatives Two, Three, and Four. Ms. Schue then asked if the repairs the $23,000 was used for would be temporary repairs that would need to be torn apart later. Mr. Drapela responded that this would not be the case. Ms. Miller stated she thinks it is a shame that the pools are being reinstated and that services such as Specialized Recreation and Bethel Youth Sports are being cut back. She further stated that she felt a lot of these reductions were caused by the general turmoil in the Parks Department by these budget cuts causing staff to go on leave without pay or terminate since they were not sure what would happen with the budget. She further stated she agrees with Mr. Obie's comments and felt they were very sensible, especially about not closing Jefferson Pool until Amazon Pool is opened. Mr. Drapela stated that the Amazon Pool would not be /e 2/27/80--13 e opened until about the third week of June. Ms. Miller asked if it has ever been opened in May in the past. Mr. Drapela responded not to his knowledge. Ms. Miller stated it would far superior not to close Jefferson until Amazon was open if they could, but the budget must be balanced this year. Money still would have to be found for repairs in 1980-81 and services will have to be cut again next year so she cannot agree with Alternative One. She would go with Alternative Two. It would be a hardship for people for six weeks, but this is not the only pool within 150 miles; there are alternatives. Mayor Keller stated that Alternative Two would be his first preference. He stated he felt the problem with Alternative One would be that the pools are already in the process of being closed and the community would have to have it explained why only the Bethel community was having their pool closed. He felt the process, even though it was not perfect, was a good process and that he felt the justification for the closure is in the needed rehabilitation. He stated that Amazon Pool would be opened during part of the time Jefferson Pool would be closed. He further stressed the importance of rehabilitating the pool within two years. He suggested continuing with the closures of the pools and that the opportunity to extend the life of the Jefferson Pool be pursued. Mr. Delay moved to amend the motion and substitute Alternative Two in place of Alternative One, seconded by Ms. Miller. e Mr. Obie stated he does not want to withdraw his motion and that what Mr. Delay is proposing to do is against Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Long stated it would against Robert's Rules of Order if it changed the subject matter. Mayor Keller stated that this amendment was out of order and indicated that a roll call vote would be held on Councilor Obie's amended motion to adopt Alternative One as proposed in the February 25, 1980 memo. Roll call vote; motion carried 4-3, Councilors Obie, Haws, Smith, and Hamel voting yes, and Councilors Delay, Miller, and Schue voting no. Meeting was adjourned to March 5, 1980. Respectfully submitted, II~/~ Donald Allen Acting City, Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) --e CTH:LN:al/CM7a12 2/27/80--14