Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1980 Meeting - e e ~ M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL May 7, 1980 Adjourned meeting from May 5, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was callerl to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., May 7, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, Eugene, Oregon, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Bill Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Jack Delay was ~bsent. I. ITEMS FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Proposed special Joint Parks meeting Ms. Miller requested that the Parks Department set up a special meeting with the Joint Parks Committee, including any EWEB commis- sioners who might wish to attend, to tour a site off Delta Highway on Gillespie Butte, which is presently owned by EWEB, and could be considered for a potential City park. B. Support for 4-J Community Schools Program Councilor Lieuallen stated he would be attending the 4-J School District Budget meeting that evening and speaking in support of the School District 4-J community school program although he would not be speaking for the council. Consensus was to approve Councilor Lieuallen's request to testify. C. Mr. Haws stated he had received an invitation to meet Mrs. George Bush, but the invitation came too late to attend. D. Sidewalks on Richard Street Mr. Haws stated he had received a petition regarding sidewalks on Richard Street and would like additional information about this. Mr. Henry stated that this matter is before the Planning Com- mission and a public hearing was held last night on a sidewalk plan. Residents of Richard Street submitted the petition and staff asked for certain changes in response to that petition. Mr. Haws stated that he would like additional information on the situation to keep himself informed. 5/7/80--1 7 E. Real Estate Conference - Mr. Haws stated he had attended the real estate conference and missed last Wednesday's council meeting. He thinks the council should pur- chase one copy of the book which they are promoting. Mr. Haws stated he would be leaving at 1 p.m. to go to Bankruptcy Court. F. EWEB Open House Mayor Keller, on behalf of EWEB, invited the councilors to attend an open house Saturday, May 10, from 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., at the EWEB Hayden Bridge plant. This is a part of National Better Water for People Week. G. Students Going to Kakegawa Mayor Keller stated he had received a card in the mail from the stu- dents who are on their way to Kakegawa, Eugene's sister city in Japan. H. Special City Council Meeting Mr. Henry stated that on Monday, May 19, at 8 a.m., there will be a special meeting of the City Council regarding the June 24 election. I. Meetings Mr. Henry stated that for the last item of today's agenda, the council would be moving to the McNutt Room for a work session on the Metropoli- tan Plan Update. Because of this, the Condominium Task Force will not be meeting until 2 p.m., as well as the budget subcommittees. e J. Council Meeting Time Changes Mr. Henry asked for council to consider an schedule through the month of June for the sessions on the Metropolitan Plan Update. the schedule. 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m. meeting councilors to have work Consensus was to approve K. Appointments 1. Performing Arts Commission Mr. Henry stated that James Aday and Randi Douglas have been recommended for two vacant positions on the Performing Arts Commission. e 5/7/80--2 e' e e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that James Aday and Randi Douglas fill the open positions on the Performing Arts Commission. Mr. Lieuallen noted that he recommends these appointments. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Lane County Employment and Training Advisory Committee Replacement Mr. Henry stated that Carolyn Kelly, 2715 Harris Street, is recommended to complete the unexpired term of Linda Bennett on the Lane County Employment and Training Advisory Committee. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to appoint Carolyn Kelly to complete the unexpired term of Linda Bennett on the Lane County Employment and Training Advisory Committee. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lieuallen left the meeting. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approve Council Minutes of April 23, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the council minutes of April 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unan- imously. B. Ordinance Concerning Assessment (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated the wrong address was used in levying the assess- ment. This has since been rectified and this ordinance corrects the error. CB 2113--An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 18566 passed by the City Council on January 28, 1980, and approved by the Mayor on January 30, 1980; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consensus of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 5/7/80--3 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved 4It and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18618. C. Call for Public Hearings (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that these are street and easement vacations. 1. Street Vacation for Terry Stimac (SV 79-8) CB 2114--Call for public hearing for June 11, 1980; re: street vacation for Terry Stimac for property located south of Sweetbriar Lane, east of East 43rd Avenue. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voted aye and the bill was declared passed and numbered 18619. 2. Easement Vacation for C. G. Investment Company (EV 79-14) CB 2115--Call for public hearing for June 11, 1980; re: easement vacation for C. G. Investment Company for property located between Chambers Street and Garfield Street, north of 27th Place. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2115 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18620. 3. Easement vacation for Mary C. Ralls (EV 79-15) CB 2116--Call for public hearing on June 11, 1980; re: easement vacation for Mary C. Ralls for property located north of 2nd Avenue, west of Taylor Street. Council Bill 2116 was read the second time by council bill number only. e 5/7/80--4 e e e 4. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18621. Easement Vacation for Jim Hicks Enterprises (EV 79-16) CB 2117--Call for public hearing for June 11, 1980; re: easement vacation for Jim Hicks Enterprises for property located east of Calgary Street, south of Holly Avenue. Ms. Smith moved, ,seconded by Mr. Hamel, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2117 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voted aye; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18622. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Request by Garbage Haulers for Rate Increases (memo distributed; additional information under separate cover) Mr. Henry stated that the item will not be a public hearing at this meeting, but rather a discussion prior to the public hearing which will be held on May 12, 1980. The garbage haulers are asking for a 16.9-percent rate increase due to increased fuel and personnel costs. He stated the request is to have this item put on the May 12 agenda as a public hearing. Mr. Henry introduced Shirley Swenson, Finance Department, to answer any questions. Mr. Haws asked if the garbage haulers' rates had been increased in the last two years. Ms. Swenson stated that rates had been raised once a year ago. Staff has worked with the garbage haulers to get a consolidated format for their expenses and revenue which would provide an indication of true expenses for the industry. The 16.9- percent increase is being recommended at this time due to the garbage haulers' increased costs. Ms. Miller stated the memo they had received indicates adding on the costs of the Lane County disposal fee. She asked for clarifi- cation as to whether they had only the right to add on up to 90 5/7/80--5 cents or whether they could pass along the actual fee. Ms. Swenson ~ stated that whatever the fee would be is what they are requesting to ~ be passed along. Mr. Henry indicated a public hearing would be held May 12. IV. CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FOR PARADE ORDINANCE Mr. Henry stated this is consideration of various administrative rules developed to implement the recently enacted parade ordinance. Certain changes have been inserted into these rules to comply with constitutional 'requirements. The City Attorney's office has requested the Pol ice Depart- ment's input and Charles McGlinchey will provide background information. Mr. McGlinchey stated that this proposal contains rules developed by the police chief for issuing parade permits. The intent is not to deny citizens the right to assemble or the right of free speech, but to balance the liabilities. He said the costs of the police and insurance are necessary elements. There are provisions within these rules for those people unable to pay for the insurance required by this permit application. Ms. Smith asked what the cost would be for a parade permit. Mr. McGlinchey responded that the only cost would be for insurance or if the event would require additional police officers. She asked if there were provisions for waiving these requirements or the fees. Mr. Glinchey responded lIyesll ~ for those who were indigent. Ms. Smith asked what the cost would be for .., additional police officers. He responded the cost is usually $15 per hour per officer. If an organization already has insurance coverage, they can generally name the City as co-insured for no additional cost. If the group or individual does not have insurance, it could cost between $300 " and $400, depending on the type of event. Ms. Miller asked if the insurance is available locally and whether it is available from more than one source. She asked what would happen if the indivi.dual or agency would be unable to get insurance. John Janzen, Risk Management, replied that insurance is very likely available, but certain types of events might be deemed IIhigher risks.1I The insurance would be available through local insurance agencies. Ms. Miller asked if the ability to obtain insurance could depend upon the political background of the applicant or purpose of the parade. Mr. Janzen responded that he did not know what criteria underwriters would use. Ms. Miller noted that there has been a court case in Illinois where the Nazi Party had been unable to obtain insurance. She recommended that perhaps a provision could be included in these rules stating what would happen if a group e 5/7/80--6 e was unable to get insurance for other than financial reasons. Mr. Janzen stated that these guidelines have been designed to be as flexible as possible, but with the City being self-insured, there is a liability factor. The City could be seen as being liable for damages for injuries to the public. Council needs to determine how much risk the City wishes to assume. Ms. Miller asked what kind of incidents had happened in the past to substantiate the need for these rules. Mr. Janzen responded that there are not good natural records to provide a history of this. Ms. Miller stated there had been one parade which .resulted in damage and asked him if he knew of others besides the one. which occurred in the 1960's. e Pat Larion, Police Department, stated that in the 26 years he has been with the City, there have been a number of incidents. One of the prob- lems is that there is no way of pre-determining how many people will show up for a parade. There have been incidences of people driving through parades resulting in injuries. There have been other incidences of damage to public and private property. The big factor is that it is difficult in a parade situation to exercise control of or responsibility for the behavior of the group. Ms. Miller asked if the City had sustained any liability as a result of claims resulting from these incidents. Mr. Larion responded that to his knowledge there were none. Ms. Miller asked if the City would also be responsible for events occur- ring at the University of Oregon. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's office, stated that the City would be responsible only for parades on City prop- erty, not on the University of Oregon campus, unless they were using City streets. Ms. Miller asked who would decide if an applicant was or was not indigent. Mr. Sercombe responded that the definition would have to be determined depending on the factors of each case. The rules state an affidavit would be signed by the applicant stating whether he/she could afford insurance. If the applicant signs a false affidavit, that would be grounds for charges. Mr. Haws asked for a better definition of "paradesll and whether this ordinance and these rules would also include marathons, marches, etc. Mr. Sercombe responded that these rules would apply to any gathering of more than ten people, covering more than 100 feet, and for a common purpose. It would cover athletic events. Mr. Haws questioned whether the City should bear the costs of indigent parades or determine that if a group cannot afford the police and insurance, they would simply not grant a parade permit. Mr. Sercombe responded that there would be Constitutional problems in regard to First Amendment rights for assembly if this were the case. He would recommend that the City not prohibit parades for indigent people. Rights cannot be denied for economic e 5/7/80--7 reasons. Mr. Haws asked if the City would be liable for damage costs if ~ the parade was sponsored by an indigent group. Mr. Sercombe said that it ~ would depend upon the individual case, but if the City was found to be negligent then the City would have to absorb the costs. Mr. Obie asked if the City would be more liable or less liable if there were no requirements for a permit at all. Mr. Sercombe responded this is in a state of flux right now in the courts. The City's liability might be less with no permit system, but there are risks in that as well. Mr. Keller stated that on page 2 of the Rules where "hold harmless" agreements are referred to, he remembered in the past these agreements were not upheld in court. Mr. Sercombe stated that in some circumstances the negligence could be passed on for some types of events, but that in other cases the City would be held liable; again, it would depend on each situation. Mr. Keller asked if the intent is to have the City IIbuy Offll on its liability when the applicant is indigent, and who would be liable. Mr. Sercombe responded that if the City was found liable, and a person had signed a IIhold harmlessll agreement to pay for damages, then there would be a means to recover costs from assets from the applicant. Mr. Keller stated that he understood that the individual would sign an affi- davit saying that he/she did not have assets enough to buy insurance and wanted to know how the City could then recover costs. This seems to be a discrepancy. Mr. Sercombe replied that if the affidavit is correct, the City would be hard pressed to recover costs, but sometimes one might not tell the truth or acquire assets later which could pertain to the IIhold harmless" agreement. Mr. Keller asked why the need for an affidavit. Mr. Sercombe responded that in most cases the person would be e telling the truth on the affidavit. Ms. Miller stated that while it is worthwhile to keep in mind the City's liability, the City does not automatically become liable for people who riot and cause property damage or injury. The City would have to be found negligent in order to be found liable. Also, there is not a history of problems with injury or property damage in this City. The First Amendment right to assemble is being discussed here. She stated that she feels that if people cannot afford the requirements in these rules, it would be appropriate for the whole population to bear the cost since it is a Constitutional right. That is one of the costs of democratic government. She indicated she would like to propose some additions. Mr. Keller asked how many parades have been approved. Mr. Larion responded that 14 parades were approved in 1979. He is not certain how many have been allowed for 1980, but thinks around 20. There seems to be no consis- tent pattern as to how many applications there will be; it depends upon the general kinds of issues occurring. Mr. Keller asked how many applica- tions have been rejected because of their inability to afford insurance or police protection. Mr. Larion responded that none have been rejected but there have been some cases where they have negotiated for alternative routes or other kinds of things to reduce the City's liability. . 5/7/80--8 e Ms. Miller stated the Police Department has been very good trying to work with the public on this matter if they cannot afford the insurance or police protection. She did state that she knows of two groups that did not know of the process for waiver and thus did not apply. Mr. Obie questioned the need for the insurance requirement. He stated those who sponsor well-managed parades would generally have funds to pay insurance costs, but the unruly ones might not have the means to pay. He stated agreement with Ms. Miller that people must be able to assemble and petition as easily and in as orderly a manner as possible. He suggested that perhaps a document indicating responsibility for damage should be signed rather than ,a IIhold harmless" agreement. Mr. Henry stated that marathons or marches could cause great liability by the very nature of the event, not the fact that the people were unruly or unresponsible. Mr. Janzen stated that there are lots of events (marathons, etc.) as well as parades that create a substantial amount of exposure from other people on foot, animals, etc. He feels it is good to transfer the liabil- ity back to the person who creates the problem. Mr. Sercombe stated that the City's liability for damage is not the only issue as there is also that of legal costs. e Ms. Miller referred to a parade application that had been denied in December 1979 to the Iranian-American Friendship Committee. This applica- tion was denied on three counts: the application was not timely, there was no evidence of insurance, and the parade route was likely to cause excessive public inconvenience. She thinks it is appropriate that we have some rules or a program to guarantee that this sort of thing does not happen again. Mr. Haws stated he felt the insurance clause should be left in because this would transfer liability to the insurance company. Mr. Obie stated he feels the opportunity to shift the burden to insur- ance companies should be taken if possible. He said the area he is concerned with is when insurance might or might not be waived. He would be willing to adopt basically what was presented with a review forth- coming in six to 12 months. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the Administrative Rules as outlined be adopted. Ms. Smith stated she supports the rules, as well as the insurance pro- vision. Ms. Miller stated she would like to delay acting on these rules. She felt two additional items should be included. She felt there should e 5/7/80--9 be some statement included as to what would happen if a person was unable to get insurance and that there should also be some statement regarding the right to appeal an administrative decision under these rules. She also felt that there must be more effort made to make cer- tain people know that there are exemptions and an appeal process. e Ms. Schue stated agreement with the general thrust of the rules and stated concurrence with Ms. Miller and Mr. Obie in having a report brought back in six months. She stated that perhaps staff could be instructed to modify these rules and bring the modification back at that time also. Mr. Larion stated that the right to appeal is in the ordinance. He stated there may be reasons people would be unable to obtain insurance, but they would work with any group or individual to try to resolve the problem or that group would have the right to appeal to the City Council. Ms. Miller asked if, when people applied for the permit, they are given copies of the ordinance and the rules. Mr. McGlinchey responded that they are given copies of the ordinance and will be given copies of the rules after they are approved. Ms. Schue stated she felt the Police Department could give something in writing to people stating that there can be exceptions to these rules for special circumstances. Mr. McGlinchey responded that informing the applicant of that is an internal procedure and generally happens when the application is being discussed with the applicant. Ms. Schue asked if the people would receive that information if they came in for a parade permit application or should just inquire about one. Mr. McGlinchey responded that when they turn the application ~ back in, the issue is discussed. Ms. Schue stated that she would like to .., have some comments such as, IIWe wi 11 work with youll to be part of the package people receive. Mr. McGlinchey indicated this would be easy to initiate. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Miller stated that she would like to reiterate that staff should be directed to consider amendments to these rules in regard to people who cannot get insurance and the right to an appeal process. She stated that she would like to discuss with the Parks Department the process for the mall permit application. Ms. Schue noted that in regard to the mall permit, there should be an easier process. She stated it takes on the average at least two weeks to get a mall permit approved. V. PROPOSED USE OF COUNCIL ASSISTANTS FOR STAFF SUPPORT PURPOSES (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that at the present there is no person on City staff who is a policy analyst and this proposal is for one-fourth of the . 5/7/80--10 - e e , . ~ Council Assistants' time to be used for general office staff time in the City Manager's Office. A time log could be used to determine that they spend no more time than that. It is especially important to be able to have additional staff during budget time. Council consensus was to approve this proposal. The council meeting was adjourned to the McNutt Room to discuss the Metropolitan Plan Update. VI. METROPOLITAN PLAN UPDATE--PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION (additional informa- tion distributed) Jim Croteau stated that on May 8, Springfield would be holding a public hearing and any changes in their recommendations would be forwarded within the next week. This update has been adopted by three planning commissions. In places where there is disagreement, the update lists the addition or deletion and which agency is recommending the change. This presentation/discussion is going to be outlined chapter by chapter where any disagreements occur. Mr. Croteau stated he would be giving an overview of the general update, Steve Gordon from L-COG would be going into more detail on Chapter I, and Jim Carlson, Planning, would provide information on the population and employment projections which were used as the basis for the update. He noted also that a background report has been distributed. He hopes to be able to answer common ques- tions regarding projections and how the update was done. The 1990 Plan called for an update and this one was started three years ago. This document represents changes, but the concepts of the 1990 Plan remain the same. The Metropolitan Plan will continue to be the general long-range plan- ning document for these jurisdictions. The Metropolitan Plan inter- faces with surrounding rural areas of Lane County. The County has changed their approach to rural land use planning and will be doing away with separate subarea plans for rural areas. Rural planning will happen under the Rural Land Development Program. This plan meshes with the Rural Land Development Program. One of the critical issues is the disagreement of jurisdictional boundaries which the Metropolitan Plan covers. All three jurisdictions had to agree on changes to the plan. Lane County Planning Commission did not feel the plan should go so far out into the rural areas. Through a series of compromises, the juris- dictional boundaries were established. This would protect the City's interests around the Airport and in areas where they can expect legit- imate expansion. There is still disagreement regarding the Howard Buford/Mount Pisgah area--Springfield would like it included in the plan, but Lane County disagrees. This update is divided into five chapters, with the attempt being to make the document more under- standable. 5/7/80--11 Chapter I is an introductory chapter stating the purpose of the plan. ... It also introduces the use of the plan and the relationship of this ~ plan to other plans and policies as well as to the statewide planning goals and others. Chapter I also includes general findings and assump- tions (employment, population, etc.). There was disagreement as to whether these findings and assumptions should be included. Chapter II is the most important part of the plan. It lists the metro- politan goals, growth management in the urban service area, Eugene and Springfield jurisdictional responsibility, urban and urbanizable land, the plan diagram, and maps. Chapter III contains specific elements of the plan. The State goals have been adopted since the 1990 Plan was done. Chapter IV is a plan review showing amendments, refinements, and juris- dictional responsibility. Chapter V is a glossary of the plan which contains special terms and definitions for easier understanding. Steve Gordon stated that in addition to the plan and the background information, an erratum sheet was distributed. Because of the Planning Commission's final action last Wednesday, the first area of disagree- ment in the update should be changed to concurrence. On page I-I also is the general purpose of the plan. Page I-2 con- ~ tains the plan contents summary; page I-3 includes uses of the plan, .., definitions for findings and assumptions, and the relationship between the plan and the goals, objectives, and policies. I-3-a states that there are 54 suggested recommendations or areas for additional study which do not necessarily have to be undertaken immediately. Page I-4 states the relationship of this plan to other plans and policies. This page also shows the relationship of the plan to the plan diagram. Page I-5 shows the two statements, one of which must be adopted, regarding the Gateway Park Development area and the North Springfield area. Page I-6 shows the relationship of this plan to the County sub- area plans, statewide planning goals, and the technical supplement and working papers. Page I-8 shows the general findings and on item 7 at the top of the page there is now concurrence. Jim Carlson stated that on page I-7, General Assumptions, it was first necessary to prepare general assumptions, including population and employ- ment, before this update could be done. He presented graphs which were distributed as well as visual aids for clearer understanding. They project that in the next 20 years, there will be a 55-percent increase in popula- tion, mostly due to immigration. At the present time, approximately 2.8 persons per dwelling will be compared to approximately 2.3 persons per - 5/7/80--12 e e e dwelling in the year 2000, which will cause the need for about 60,000 additional households above the 65,000 existing households for a total of 125,000 households in this area by the year 2000. Mr. Carlson stated that there would be an 80-percent increase in employment, primarily due to more people being in the labor force years rather than youth, and the fact that more women would be working. There will be special strategies and inter- vention available which are defined later in the plan and will not be discussed today; the information he made available is based on current trends with no intervention. The non-manufacturing and service-oriented employment areas will increase while food manufacturing will remain constant and the lumber industry will decrease over time. Mayor Keller stated that if any of the items in this update are sur- facing for ~hanges, he and/or Gretchen Miller would be bringing this information back for the group. The council will be having this brief- ing session from 1-2 p.m. following each Wednesday council meeting through June, or until the Metropolitan Plan Update has been finished. The meeting was adjourned to May 12, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~y)~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:slb/CM8aI3 5/7/80--13