Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1980 Meeting e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL May 21, 1980 Adjourned meeting from May 19, 1980, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m., May 21, 1980, in the Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APP01NTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS e A. Items for Mayor and Council--Mayor Keller stated congratulqtions to the winners of yesterday's election and to the losers as well, since he feels participation is the important part of the process. He expressed gratitude to those who helped ensure the passage of Ballot Measures 51 and 52, particularly Brian Obie and Betty Smith, and also to the Chamber of Commerce for financing. Ms. Schue stated agreement with Mayor Keller and expressed thanks to Jack Delay for the listing of the ballot titles and their order, which she felt helped passage of these two measures. Mr. Obie noted agreement with Ms. _ Schue in regard to Mr. Delay and stated he felt the council as a whole deserved praise for putting forth a program unanimously and cooper- atively. He also expressed gratitude to Carol Baker, Community Relations Director, for the effort she had put forth. He noted that the council has provided a solid financial base for the community for the next few years. He stated that looking back over the years he had served on the council, he felt the most significant things that the council had done were in regard to Eugene Performing Arts Center and the Eugene plan; the council was unanimous on both of these issues. He's looking forward to the next few years and hopes the new people on the council will see what working together can accomplish. Mr. Henry noted his appreciation for the leadership of the council and the Budget Committee, and stated the Budget Committee had approved every item unanimously. He felt that Jim Ellison, Chairman of the Budget Committee, did a remarkable job and he also stated that Carol Baker, Bill McGuire, Finance Director, and all the department heads had worked very hard. He said it is a good feeling to see how the com- munity responded to continuing services for the next few years rather than making this a less livable community. Tom Hoyt, Chamber of Commerce, stated that one of the chamber's goals was to work with the City as a partner. The Chamber of Commerce has always opposed a business license tax and real estate transfer tax and they will continue to oppose those taxes. The Chamber had budgeted $1,000 to promote the Eugene plan and spent $2,250. This has culminated in a partnership for responsible government. e 5/21/80--1 B. Meetings--Mr. Henry stated the Condominium Task Force meeting in the ~ McNutt Room would be at 2 p.m. immediately following the council ~ meeting. The council meeting will continue in the McNutt Room from 1 to 2 p.m. to continue the presentations/discussion on the Metropolitan Plan Update. The Joint Parks Task Force will meet at 7 a.m., May 27. A City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 27, at 7:30 p.m., rather than on Monday due to the Memorial Day holiday. The Lenders' Task Force will be meeting Thursday, May 22, 1980, at 11:30 a.m. at the Eugene Quality Inn. This will be their first meeting; staff and lending institutions will be involved and Mayor Keller will chair the task force. Mr. Haws noted that he would not attend the meeting since that facility is being picketed. He asked if the City is spending money there and stated his displeasure with that idea, but stated he would attend future meetings, since he is on the task force, if the meetings would be moved elsewhere. Mr. Henry noted that most civic organizations will be moving out of the Eugene Quality Inn within the next two weeks. Mayor Keller noted that the next meeting of the Lenders' Task Force would not be held there but it would be difficult to change tommorrow's meeting at this late date. Mr. Haws asked if there is a policy about City employees/officials crossing picket lines. ~ C. Agenda Adjustments--Mr. Henry stated that there would be two changes to the agenda. One would deal with Council Bill 2124, and the other would deal with Resolution No. 3372. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Elections Ordinance--Mr. Henry stated that this council bill would repeal Resolution Nos. 33~4 and 3365, which would delete the A and B ballot measures from the June ballot. Council Bill 2124--An ordinance concerning elections; repealing Resolution Nos. 3364 and 3365; amending Ordinance No. 18603; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with the unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Delay asked for clarification as to what this coun~il bill would do. Mr. Henry stated that the A and B ballot measures would be removed, the supplemental budget would remain, and so would the DDS budget. e 5/21/80--2 e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2124 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given fin~l passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18631. B. Agreement With Lane County for Bike Path--Mr. Henry stated that they had received notification from the County that the County is eligible to receive, if executed rapidly, money to construct the bike path on the section along the Greenway running from the Valley River Bridge north and west to the disposal plant. Lane County would construct the path; the City would be responsible for maintenance and policing. This project has been recommended by the Public Works Department. Res. No. 3372--A resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Lane County for the construction, maintenance, and policing of a bike path and bike path bridge along the west bank of the Willamette River between Briarcliff and the south end of Copping Street. e Mr. Lieuallen asked if this would be on the east bank to the sewer plant. Ernie Drapela, Parks and Recreation Department, said this would be on the east side. Mr. Lieuallen asked if all the right-of- way has been acquired and when construction would begin. Don Gilman, Public Works, stated that this would be under contract by June 12, and the right-of-way has been acquired. Mr. Lieuallen stated that was good news. Mayor Keller asked for the location of the bridge. Mr. Gilman responded there is a slough which the Parks Department would like to keep open for canoe use and the original plan called for a culvert there. The Parks Department has requested either a box culvert or a bridge be added, but this will be handled by a separate contract. Mr. Drapela stated that the bridge would be located across from Marist High. The department has asked for a bridge crossing and the cost difference between a bridge and a culvert would be assumed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motioned carried unanimously. C. Agenda Deletion--Mr. Henry stated that previously there was an error in the description of the property described in Section C. Mr. Henry noted that the councilors had received the full corrected copy of the ordinance and it would be put on next week's agenda for first and second reading. e 5/21/80-3 D. . Approval of Council Minutes of April 28, 1980, and May 5, 1980--Ms. Smith noted that on the April 28, 1980, minutes, on page 10, section D, paragraph 4, there is an error. The language should read "Ms. e Smith said she had been contacted but did not consider it a conflict of interest." Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the amended council minutes of April 28, 1980, and council minutes of May 5, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. Improvement Petitions--Mr. Henry stated that the first three improve- ment petitions that thelcouncil would be dealing with relate to streets; the second three petitions to be dealt with relate to private property. On all of these petitions, the plan is to require the petitioner to pay engineering costs as they are accrued by the City and collections will be in the current year. Mr. Gilman noted the subdividers had agreed to do this. Subdividers can proceed with the design work if they are willing to pay in advance for the costs, then they will have to take their chances as to whether the council will be able to Bancroft the contracts at a later time when the bond sales market is more favorable. 1. Sundial Plat (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footage and footage petitioned 2,131 feet, 100 percent; sewers: total square footage 351,544 feet, total square footage petitioned 335,544 feet, 95 percent; City costs: ~ none) .. Res. No. 3339--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within Sundial Plat (1673). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Esmeralda Subdivision (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footage and front footage petitioned 1,240 feet, 100 percent; sewers: total square footage and square footage petitioned 141,159 feet, 100 percent; City costs: none) Res. No. 3340--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within and adjacent to Esmeralda Subdivision (1735). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. - 5/21/80--4 . 3. Isabelle Plat (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footage and front footage petitioned 2,062 feet, 100 percent; sewers: total square footage 480,900 feet, square footage petitioned 384,000 feet, 80 percent; City costs: storm sewer $2,250) Res. No. 3341--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction within and adjacent to Isabelle Plat (1779). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 4. Augusta Street (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footage 1,152.79 feet, front footage petitioned 705.5, 61 percent; City costs: none) Res. No. 3366--A resolution authorizing street paving and sanitary sewer construction on Augusta Street from 26th Avenue to south city limits (469). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. ce 5. Pattison Avenue (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footage 1,544.07 feet; total footage petitioned 1,102.67 feet, 71.4 percent; City costs: one-half of pedestrian way $1,800) Res. No. 3367--A resolution authorizing street paving on Pattison Avenue from Waite Street to 750 feet west; and pedestrian way construction from Pattison Avenue termination west of Taney Street (216). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 6. Friendly Street (affected. property on petition: assessable costs; alley in accordance with the weighted front footage and area, 72 percent; City costs: none) Res. No. 3368--A resolution authorizing alley paving between Friendly Street and Monroe Street from 27th Avenue to 28th Avenue (1853) . Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 7. Hawkins Lane (affected property on petition: assessable costs; paving: total front footaqe 4,639 feet, front footage petitioned 3,147 feet, 67.8 percent; City costs: none) (e 5/21/80--5 ( Res. No. 3369--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer and sidewalk construction on Hawkins Lane from Glen Mar to the south city limits (1846). e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. F. Eugene Economic Development Committee (memo and resolution distributed)-- Mr. Henry stated thlS resolution would contlnue the life of the Eugene Economic Development Committee. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this would be a permanent standing committee and was assured that it would be. Mr. Obie noted he still feels it is important that new industry be solicited by this committee. Mr. Farah stated he had transmitted those comments to the staff. Res. No. 3370--A resolution amending Resolution No. 3102 which established the Eugene Economic Development Committee. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING ( A. Supplemental Budget (memo and ordinance distributed)--Mr. Henry noted that these two items have been presented to the Budget Committee. One item has to do with the spay/neuter clinic, which became a City operation May 1, 1980, and so the May and June revenues and costs need to be included in the budget. Total appropriations at this time will be $29,664; operating costs were $18,797; leaving a balance of $10,867. The second item has to do with Transient Room Tax funds, which relate to the Eugene Summer Program and will be coming out of the 1979-80 budget. Five thousand, five hundred dollars came from estimated revenues exceeding the original estimate and $12,000 came from the Room Tax fund balance. e Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2123--An ordinance adopting supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Euqene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1979, and ending July 30, 1980; and declaring an emerqency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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 2123 was read the second time by council bill number only. ( - 5/21/80--6 ce ce l.e . _. < __.... _. _. _'___'._0. '. __.._ ,__,_,~.,._ ,_'._,. __._._.___.. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18632. IV. PREPARATION OF NEGATIVE FINDINGS CONCERNING REQUESTED ANNEXATION (Aird/Mace/ Miller/Hutchinson) (AI 79-11) (memo and findings distributed) Mr. Henry stated the hearing and action was held on May 21. The findings relate to the denial of this request to annex property located north of Division Avenue and east of River Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt findinqs dated May 21, 1980, concerning requested annexation for property located north of Division Avenue and east of River Road. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Mr. Obie abstai ning. V. MEDICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED--INTERIM REPORT (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this is a discussion on the request of Medical Services, Inc., for increased rates and there will be a public hearing on Tuesday, May 27. This item was first brought to the council's attention at the April 30, 1980, council meeting with the request for a May 1, 1980, effective date. This was denied due to the short notice but the council is now considering the possibility of an interim adjustment since the Touche Ross study has not yet been completed but should be by the middle of June. There has not been a rate increase in 18 months. Springfield officials are meeting to discuss this item at this very moment; Shirley Swenson is attending that meeting. The Medicare reimbursements that Medical Services could receive are dependent on the rates they are charging June 1, rather than May 1 as was originally stated. At this point, there are no strong recommendations regarding the rate comparison which was distributed to the councilors, but there are some ideas, and more definite guidelines might emerge from the public hearing. Comparison with other cities, particularly Portland, of the base service charge, emergency charge, and mileage charge, seems to be in line, but looking at other special services, the requested rates are substantially higher than other cities. He would be hesitant to go along with this recommendation for these increases. These charges would also be significantly higher than the current charges. Council could hold off on an increase for special services and just focus on the emergency services. Mr. Delay asked why there was a necessity for action at this time when a better decision could perhaps be reached in 30 to 60 days with addi- tional information. Mr_ Henry responded that the main reason is the Medicaid situation. Mr. Delay wondered whether these charges would be in effect for the entire ensuing year. Mr. Delay stated that one of the components of the study they are going to do is to analyze the charges to 5/21/80--7 ( determine if the patient's finances might be a reason to use or not use various services, since they are individually charged. The study will also be addressing various questions in regard to the rate structure as well as providing recommendations, and he wanted to know if these rates would be in effect for Medicaid collections. Since there will be a public hearing at the May 27 council meeting, he would like to request that this be explained. Mr. Henry stated that Medicaid administrators could be asked for additional information. Mr. Haws asked if it is an ongoing situation that Medicaid collections can be made only by what is being charged by a certain date or if this is a new situation. Mr. Henry indicated that those are some of the questions that will be pursued. Mr. Delay stated that, if it is established there is a compelling rationale to adjust the rates, it should be made clear that this would be a temporary adjustment. A more specific evaluation after the Touche-Ross study would determine what the new rate schedule would be. Mayor Keller stated he did not feel that 15 minutes pro and 15 minutes con would be adequate time at the public hearing for testimony and consensus was to change that to 30 minutes pro and 30 minutes con. Mr. Lieuallen noted that he had questions both about the rate structure and about the individual items. Mayor Keller stated that he would like to see the questions answered by both sides and suggested waiting until the May 27 council meeting. c Mayor Keller asked Mr. Delay if the task force had encouraged MSI to apply for an interim adjustment if it were necessary. Mr. Delay responded that they had done that on two different occasions. They had told Mr. Leonard that if there were a specific need it should be stated and it would be up to him to bring that forward and to justify his request. IV. WEATHERIZATION FINANCING PROPOSAL (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that in order to facilitate action by the EWEB Board to move forward on a financing program for weatherization, this resolution was being presented to council. He introduced Greg Page, Technology Coordinator, to present background information. Mr. Page stated that last fall, the Energy Conservation Policy Board was established as one of the highest priorities of the City Council. Under the proposed weatherization financing proposal, existing and new homes' energy-efficiency is a very high priority. They also have been looking at the commercial and industrial sector to determine ways of conserving energy. Loan costs often do not make it cost-effective for a tenant or property owner to weatherize residences. Since there was no State or Federal financing, this had the appearance of being a very difficult issue. Also, 'last fall, EWEB was responding to a Federally mandated national energy act, the Residential Conservation Service Program. As a result of a suggestion by Councilors Obie and Miller, this proposal includes 100-percent financing with O-percent interest for owners ( 5/21/80--8 e e - - of electrically heated homes and of investor-owned prop€rty up to four- plexes. Matching grants for those who want to provide their own labor would mean that EWEB would provide the material. This has been made retroactive to the time that the board might approve it. It will take time for the court case to test the legality of this proposal. The retroactive date would probably be May 27. Conservation is much more cost-effective than investing in new generation; future energy costs will be less. The council's action today is to encourage the EWEB Board to approve the financing. Mr. Lieuallen asked if EWEB needs to wait for the decision on. the court case for the authority to begin this weatherization program. Mr. Page stated that they are asking for authority to loan money to private individuals. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this would be financed by revenue bonds or some other means. Mr. Page responded that it could be either by revenue bonds or included in the base rate. The discussion at the next meeting will be to set a policy for establishing the loan program and the grants. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the matching grants would consist of. Mr. Page responded this would be for people who want to do their own work and EWEB would pay for the materials. EWEB would inspect for completion of the weatherization and upon presentation of the bills would reimburse the individual. Mr. Lieuallen asked what would happen to those who weatherize between now and the time that this would become available. Mr. Page responded it would be retroactive to May 27. Mr. Obie spoke in favor of the proposal and the resolution. He feels this is an important and significant first step in energy conservation. He feels it is fortunate that EWEB and the council have placed this as a high priority. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the mechanism for the court case was and how long it would take. Mr. Page responded that he does not know the legal specifics but would expect it would take one to two years and that the City has asked to be involved in this decision. EWEB will bear the legal costs. They must get approval from the Federal Department of Energy. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the statement would be made to the Federal government and specifics worked out later. Mr. Page responded that that is correct. . Ms. Miller stated that this is to encourage EWES to take the first step in working toward energy conservation. This will not be a simple process but it is encouraging that the council is working with the EWEB board. Only by the council and EWEB working together will this be accomplished. Mr. Lieuallen asked if there is any indication that this will work and that the judgment will bear out. Stan Long, City Attorney, stated that their office has looked at this and feels it is worth pursuing. Res. No. 3371--A resolution recommending the adoption by the Eugene Water and Electric Board of the financinq program in the proposed ~~sidential Conservation Servic~ Program under the National Energy Act. (e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. 5/21/80--9 ( Mr. Delay thanked Mr. Obie and Ms. Miller for their work. He feels it is important that the council be able to deal with these problems on a local level and make progress toward this effective program. He stated there is a need to continue to bolster the power of local government and the council will have to take on more of these issues. - Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VII. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY GRANTS FROM JUNE 1, 1980, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1980 (memo distributed; additional information under separate cover) Mr. Henry stated that this is for approval of additional CETA Title II positions and they are listed on the priority list which the councilors received. The new positions will enable the City CETA program to expend anticipated recaptured funds and additional FY 1979-80 carry-over funds recently granted to the City CETA program by Lane County CETA Prime Sponsor. c Mr. Henry introduced Randy Miller, CETA Program Agent, to provide back- ground. Mr. Miller noted a correction on the priority list--Community Mental Health consultants would be receiving seven positions, not 15 as indi- cated. They had originally anticipated about $100,000 for CETA Title II and Title VI, but the Federal government froze Title VI so they are only funding Title II entry-level positions. Extra points for Eugene Summer were built in. They are trying to work with special-interest groups, minorities, handicapped, etc. They are trying to favor those who were applying for positions for Eugene Summer. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to accept the recom- mendations for funding as presented by the Program Agent Advisory Council. - e Meeting was recessed to McNutt Room for discussion/presentation of Metro Plan Update. VIII. METRO PLAN UPDATE Mr. Croteau stated the discussion/presentation today would begin with a review of Chapter 2, Fundamental Principles. He stated this is the most important part of the update. Section II-A-1 is the beginning of the listing of the Metro- politan Goals, which are a benchmark for getting into the plan in detail. Jim Farah will be discussing growth management and the urban service area. Mr. Farah summarized the findings. Efficiency in providing services was discussed and until the 1960's there was. no plan. The 1990 Plan was adopted to determine the urban service area and to formulate policies for growth management. One of the objectives is to keep the land supply and ratio appropriate for the city's needs and to allow outlying communities to plan for their own needs. Policy 1 ( e 5/21/80--10 e e e (page II-B-3) is one of the major foundations of this plan. It ties together the urban service area and sequential development. Policies 3, 4, and 5 (pages II-B-3 and II-B-4) focus on Lane County. Policy 7 (page II-B-4) states that conversion of urbanizable land within the projected urban service area will occur through annexation to a city under certain circumstances. Policy 7A--Lane County wants to insert "or other acceptable sewage treatment devices" in addition to sanitary sewers as one of the key urban services. Mr. Croteau noted that other acceptable sewage treatment devices such as local lagoons or sand fil- tration would only be suitable in the River Road and Santa Clara areas. The density normally allowed with these types of sewage treatment devices is a minimum 16,000-square-foot lot. Mr. Gordon noted that the DEQ has concerns about groundwater pollution. Mr. Delay asked, in regard to Policy 7, if conversion of urbanizable land to urban land will be through annexation only or if this is a wish. Mr. Gordon responded that he interprets the policy as stating that it only happens through annexation; Lane County may have a different interpretation. On page III-G-6, Policy 16, there is a definite statement about lagoons and collective sand filters being used in the Santa Clara area as an interim device until a central sewage system can be extended to that area. Mr. Delay asked whether there is agreement on the Santa Clara area. Ms. Miller stated that the wording is ambiguous and that there is no agreement. She further stated this is on the councilors' list as Difference 11. Mr. Henry asked if lane County is saying "prior to annexation" and Mr. Gordon responded that that was his interpretation. Mr. Obie noted that this could be interpreted in various ways depending upon where one lived. Ms. Miller suggested that the ambiguity of the language could be changed by "only" and the language would read "may be converted." Mr. Gordon noted that nort11"5j)ringfield and the Douglas Gardens area are also affected by this. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would prefer to deal with other items like this with additional background information and a better review prior to trying to deal with them. Mayor Keller stated that this issue would be discussed later at the coordinating committee level since it is' Concern 11. Mr. Farah stated that in regard to Policy 10 (page II-B-5), they are "turning up the wick" on density. Mr. Croteau noted that Eugene and Springfield are moving to greater density and this is a significant shift. Mr. Farah stated that Policy 11 (page II-B-5) is proposed as a deletion by Lane County; Eugene and Springfield favor retention of a growth rate management feasibility study. Mr. Gordon noted their apparent rationale is that they do not want public intervention that would interfere with the normal rate of growth. Ms. Schue asked if Lane County is viewing the industrial triangle as part the free marketplace. Mr. Gordon responded that they are and this is a difference between the County and the two cities. This is made more obvious in this document. The consensus was to retain Policy 11. Policy 12 (page II-B-5) is an insertion by lane County with concurrence by the cities. Mr. Delay asked if Policies 12 and 7A would allow development from the County's viewpoint. Mr. Croteau responded that it would and Policy 12 also couples with Policy 17 on page III-G-6. Mr. lieuallen noted that the only 5/21/80--11 e element that would really be involved for providing services to the River Road/Santa Clara area would be police services since all the others are con- tracted anyway. Mr. Obie noted he was concerned because it seems like an. endorsement of urbanizable land development. Mr. Delay stated that Policy 10 relates to NO.7 and institutionalizes that what has happened in Santa Clara can happen anywhere. Mr. Farah noted that Policy 12 has major administrative problems and applies only to Santa Clara and the north Springfield area. Mr. Croteau noted the example of Chevy Chase, which was platted at urban density. Streets and drylines for sewers and storm sewers were in place so it had been preplatted for urban service delivery. Ms. Miller asked why Santa Clara resi- dents could not just be told straightforwardly that the City is not going to annex their area right now, but would annex River Road. Mr. Obie suggested replacing Policy 12 with Gretchen's statement. Mr. Farah stated that policy 17, particularly on page III-G-6, needs to be worked on more. He added that Policy 16 relates to the Mohawk Valley and Policy 18 relates to the Lane Community College basin. Public hearings will be held on May 29, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. and on May 31 from 9 a.m. to noon and 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. at the round agriculture building at the Fairgrounds. Meeting was adjourned to May 27, 1980. Respectfully submitted, . ~)~ Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) - CTH:LN:so/CM26al 5/21/80--12