Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/1980 Meeting .. M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL . July 9, 1980 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor, Mayor Gus Keller, in the Council Chamber, at 11:30 a.m., July 9, 1980, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieua11en, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, and Gretchen Miller. Councilor Emily Schue was absent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Requested Hearing from Owner of Briarwood Mobile Home Park Mr. Obie stated he wished to discuss the Briarwood Mobile Home Park conditional use permit requirements and alternatives. The owner has requested a hearing before the City Council and wishes to resolve the problem. He does not feel he has received a satisfactory staff response. Mr. Obie would like to allow the owner to come before the councilor to have staff work out the problem within the next two weeks. Mr. Henry referred to a memorandum from John Weber, dated July 9, 1980, outlining the action. The procedure is to go to the Planning . Commission, not the City Council. Efforts have been made to take care of this problem. The City and adjacent property owners have com- plaints. Jim Farah, Planning, stated that Mr. Harrison has talked with them. This has proceeded into the enforcement process of the Planning Department and he is no longer involved in making this decision. They have been told that they could request a hearing. Mr. Obie stated the individual wants to act with either the Planning Commission or the City Council and asked for further direction. Mr. Henry stated he would like to consult with the Attorney's Office and bring back a report next week. Mr. Obie stated that one of his concerns is not to spend more legal fees than necessary. Mr. Haws stated that he is concerned about the lawsuit filed by John Franklin. He does not want to be involved but thinks the attorneys should handle it since they are involved. Conditional use generally goes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Obie stated that he does not have a problem consulting with the attorneys and that this will eventually come back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Haws stated that he feels the council should be careful to have the attorneys start the lawsuit and then stop it if possible. He would like for Mr. Henry to bring back the report. He noted that sometimes money must be spent for code enforcement. Ms. Miller noted that she would like to see the January 31 letter from Bill Sloat. They should be informed of the avenues of appeal. She wondered whether they had been told about the appeal process, and Mr. Delay stated that the memorandum says that Mr. Harrison was told in a meeting. ~. . 7/9/80--1 , Mr. Haws stated he would be leaving at 1 p.m. B. Metro Plan Update . Mayor Keller stated the council meeting would be adjourned at 1 p.m. to devote one hour to the Metropolitan Plan Update in the McNutt Room. C. Parking Structure Bids and Ground Breaking Ceremony Mr. Henry stated that bids were received on the two-level parking structure for the Conference Center, and they were $600,000 under the estimate'of $2.5 million. The low bid was $1,900,000 from Vik Con- struction. He stated that the ground-breaking ceremony for the Hilton Hotel and the Conference Center would be held on July 21 at 11 a.m. He noted that recommendations on bids for the parking structure would be made in a week. D. Performing Arts Commission Meeting Mr. Henry indicated that the Performing Arts Commission would be holding a meeting tonight at 7:30 in the McNutt Room to review design alternatives of the Performing Arts Center. This meeting will not be to discuss cost cutting; that meeting will be July 22. This meeting will have some impact on possible opportunities for cost cutting but primarily will be to check some design details. There will be a luncheon following the ground-breaking ceremony. E. Sister City Delegation Visit . Mr. Henry stated that the Sister City delegation would be in Eugene from July 19-23 and a barbeque will be held July 20 at the Elks Lodge. F. State Short-Fall Mr. Henry indicated that the council must consider events at the State level and the $200-million short-fall. A special legislative session will be called. G. Emergency Board Meeting Mr. Henry stated that on July 17 there would be a subcommittee meeting, and on July 18, a full committee meeting of the Emergency Board dealing with boundary commission funding would be held. The plan is that they will fund the boundary commission for one month, leaving ten months unfunded. They will also be meeting with the League of Oregon Cities representatives on July 16 to discuss various bills which have been vetoed and will be discussed during the special session. Mr. Lieuallen asked when the special session would be. Paget Engen, Data Processing, stated the session has been called for August 4. Mr. Henry noted that Ms. Engen and Bill McGuire, Finance, would be ~ 7/9/80--2 attending with representatives from the League of Oregon Cities. Ms. Smith asked what role the council should play, and Ms. Engen responded . that it would be pro forma, there was nothing for the council to do. H. Property Acquisition/Disposal Mr. Henry stated that there is an ordinance which attempts to clarify the rules of the City and EWES regarding property acquisition and di sposa 1. He noted that objections might be forthcoming from EWES. He stated that if it were the council IS desire, that he and Stan Long could meet with EWES to see how they feel about the ordinance and report back. The consensus was to have Mr. Henry and Mr. Long meet with EWES representatives. I. Agenda Additions Mr. Henry stated that two calls for public hearings would be added to the agenda. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approve Council Minutes of June 23, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve council minutes of June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . S. Motion for Indemnification for Edmond Lowery Mr. Henry noted that Mr. Lowery is a police officer who was in per- formance of his duties and the council should support indemnifica- tion for him. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to authorize indemni- fication for Edmond Lowery of the Eugene Police Department in Lane County Circuit Court Case No. 16-80-03613. Mr. Haws asked if the council had received memoranda on this item, and Mr. Henry responded that they had not. Mr. Haws noted he would like information in the future regarding circumstances that lead to potential indemnification. He asked if the reason that no informa- tion was given is because the City is self-insured. Mr. Henry responded that there was information on the briefing paper. Ms. Miller noted that councilors had received information two or three months ago. Mr. Haws reiterated that he would like additional infor- mation in the future. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . 7/9/80--3 C. Mayor's Proclamation of June 24, 1980, Election Results, At a special City election duly and regularly held within the terri- . torial limits and boundaries of the City of Eugene conducted by the Lane County Election Department on June 24, 1980, the following measures were submitted to the electors of the City of Eugene, to-wit: MEASURE NO. 51 AUTHORIZING DOWNTOWN FREE PARKING DISTRICT TAX. PURPOSE: Measure authorizes tax of $229.740 outside Consti- tutional six-percent limitation on ownership of real property in Downtown Development District only and not elsewhere in the City for operating expenses of district July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981. If measure is approved, operating budget of district to be financed by taxation on ownership of real property in district for tax year 1980-81 will be $18,172 more than operating budget so financed in preceding year. MEASURE NO. 52 AUTHORIZING GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $1,521,766 OVER CHARTER LIMIT. PURPOSE: Measure authorizes $1,521,766 property tax outside 1980-81 Charter limit for general City operations during the tax year July 1, 1980-June 30, 1981, with tax to be financed partly by State of Oregon. The City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, and I, on the 9th day . of July 1980, have canvassed the election returns for said special election conducted by the Lane County Election Department submitted in the abstract of votes of said election, the date of the abstract eing June 27, 1980, and certified by D. M. Penfold, Director of the Department of Elections for Lane County, Oregon, and the abstract shows the results of the City election as follows: TOTAL VOTE YES FOR MEASURE NO. 51, AUTHORIZING DOWNTOWN FREE PARKING DISTRICT TAX 8,775 TOTAL VOTE NO AGAINST MEASURE NO. 51, AUTHORIZING DOWNTOWN FREE PARKING DISTRICT TAX 2,555 Overvotes 21 Undervotes 626 TOTAL VOTE YES FOR MEASURE NO. 52, AUTHORIZING GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $1,521,766 OVER CHARTER LIMIT 5,426 . ,/ 7/9/80--4 TOTAL VOTE NO AGAINST MEASURE NO. 52, AUTHORIZING GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $1,521,766 OVER . CHARTER LIMIT 5,566 Overvotes 6 Undervotes 979 I hereby proclaim and declare as follows: That Measure No. 51, Authorizing Downtown Free Parking District Tax was passed. That Measure No. 52, Authorizing General Property Tax Levy of $1,521,766 Over Charter Limit was defeated. Dated this 9th day of July 1980. /s/ R. A. Keller Mayor D. Call for Public Hearings 1. Public Utility Easement for Wilfred Jensen (EV 80-1) . CB 2167--Call for public hearing for August 13, 1980, re: vacation request for Wilfred Jensen of public utility easement located east of Miramar Street, north of 53rd; repealing Ordinance No. 18668. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent to the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2167 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage; roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18675. 2. Pedestrian Right-of-Way Vacation for Lloyd Lindley (PV 80-1) CB 2168--Call for public hearing for August 13, 1980, re: vacation request for Lloyd Lindley of pedestrian right-of-way located south from Bardell Avenue and Stonegate Street; repealing Ordinance No. 18669. . 7/9/80--5 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this . time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2168 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage; roll call vote, all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18676. 3. Public Hearing A. New Liquor License Outlet: Taylor.s Coffee Shop (Retail Malt Beverage); Located at 1214 Kincaid Street; Applicant: Taylor.s Coffee Shop, Inc., Jon LaBranch, President Mr. Henry stated that from the City.s viewpoint, this appli- cation meets all requirements. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public I hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. . Mr. Obie left the chamber. Mayor Keller asked if this is a new license application. Mr. Henry responded that Jon LaBranch is a current licensee, only the location is different. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. ORDINANCE TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUE SHARING FUNDS (memo distributed) CB 2164--An ordinance electing to receive State revenue sharing funds distributed through the Oregon Liquor Control Commission account for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981, 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 unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2164 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18672. . \ 7/9/80--6 V. CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION . A. Widening of Hilyard Street from East 29th Place to West Amazon Drive (memo and map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this is to increase the turning radii in the intersection. Mr. Delay asked if buses would be making the turn at Hilyard and West Amazon. Irv Berman, Public Works, stated that they assume that only cars would be turning there. CB 2165--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of fee simple title for the widening of Hilyard Street from East 29th Place to West Amazon Drive; 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 unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2165 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Mr. Obie back in the chamber and Mr. lieuallen voting no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18673. . B. Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue to Stewart Road (memo and map distributed) Mr. Henry noted this is part of the "dusty roads" project. CB 2166--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of prop- erty interests in the vicinity of Bailey Hill Road from 11th Avenue west to Stewart Road for the purposes of street widening and the construction of drainage and sewer purposes; 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 unanimous con- sent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2166 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18674. . 7/9/80--7 VI. LANE ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION--STATUS REPORT (memo distributed) Jim Farah, Planning, stated that funds for the Lane Economic Improvement . Commission were in the Tier 1 budget and that money is available. Mr. Haws asked if this would mean that the City would fund LEIC as well as the City's Economic Development Board. Mr. Henry responded that the City is funding a portion of the intergovernmental commission. Mr. Haws then asked how much money is involved. Mr. Farah responded $23,000. Ms. Smith asked how much came from the other jurisdictions. Mr. Farah responded that funding from the jurisdictions in the LEIC is based on a per-capita ratio of 17.14 cents per person. Nick Landis, Staff Director of LEIC, stated that Springfield has paid $4,000 rather than the average contribu- tion of $7,000, and the County is also about $3,000 short. Ms. Smith asked what impact that would have on the commission. Mr. Landis responded that they would be meeting tomorrow night, and he hopes Springfield will be able to help. Ms. Smith noted she is willing to continue with the recommendation, but she does not like to see Eugene pay and not Lane County and Springfield, who also benefit from the services. Mr. Obie noted agreement with Ms. Smith's comments. He noted that recent results from the commission have been positive. He feels Eugene should limit its funding to a fair share rather than an ongoing funding situation. Mr. Haws noted that this project had come about because of Lane County and now they are not fully funding their portion of it. He agreed that the City should pay only on a fair-share basis and could place some funds in reserve, should the other jurisdictions pay their full fair share. Mr. Farah stated that other items are happening with longer range impli- . cations for the City, such as outlining the capabilities of the City for bonding which the staff feels is important. City support of the Economic Improvement Commission is important and the City is committed to economic development. He feels progress has been made. It is the understanding of the staff that they would come back with recommendations on confirmed funding on a yearly basis. Mayor Keller asked who raised the basic question of the LEIC i~self. Mr. Farah responded that the impetus c'ame from Lane County, but it was an understanding that went beyond that. Mr. Haws stated he knows it is true everyone else got involved but thinks that Eugene does not get any more advantages than when this was under L-COG. Mr. Delay noted that a question of equity ended up with a $4,300 reduction to L-RAPA. It is obvious that the equity question will have to be dealt with. He suggested continuing participation and requesting that the other jurisdictions fully fund their portions. Mr. Landis stated that at tomorrow's meeting, they will talk about the equity level. They are working with individual cities that are not contributing. Those making less or no contributions get less help. The other way they could deal with this would be to have a multi-year budget so that agencies which cannot fully contribute in one year could make it up in another year. Ms. . 7/9/80--8 Miller stated she would like to see Mr. Delay's proposal followed up for all interjurisdictional agreements. She does not know how a formula could . be done, but would suggest authorizing a larger per capita contribution of Lane County or Springfield. She is not certain that the cities contribute more than the others. Mr. Lieuallen feels participation should continue. Mr. Obie noted there never seems to be an appropriate time to deal with intergovernmental agreements. The only way to deal with the issue and have them clarified is to deal with them as they come up. He stated he is only willing to see the City participate on a fair share basis. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to continue to participate in the LEIC program for the next 12 months up to a maximum of $18,168 on a fair share basis with the City's per capita contribu- tion matching that of Springfield or Lane County, whichever is greater. Mr. Haws noted that any funds that have been set aside for participation in LEIC but that would go above the fair share amount could be set aside for the City's own economic program. Mr. Delay noted he opposes the motion and feels it is a piecemeal approach to the problem. He feels that there are many problems like this one and they should be dealt with comprehensively. Mr. Lieuallen noted agreement with Mr. Delay. He feels the time and place for dealing with this matter at the council meeting is not appropriate. He stated that there have been problems every time the City has been involved in an . intergovernmental agreement. He feels that continuing participation should occur only when it serves the City's best interest. Ms. Miller stated she does not feel it is a piecemeal approach and thinks it is the only way the council can take on the problems, since each of them are different. She does feel, however, that is appropriate to modify th~ City's contribution based on what the other jurisidictions contribute. Mr. Haws stated support for the motion. The City gets involved in projects and then stops funding them. He feels the City's fair share should be spent and no more. Mr. Obie noted that the agreement was devised on a fair share basis, and that is how support should continue. There is an obligation to the city voters. The council must maintain its creditability, not pay other jurisdictions' bills. Mr. Hamel stated that perhaps the City should not participate in this at all . He has noticed improvement in the last two years and hopes that that improvement will continue. He felt the City should continue to partici- pate in the LEIC. Mr. Delay noted it is the process that disturbs him. Mayor Keller stated that he feels the council should support this budget request and deliver a letter of intent to the other jurisdictions for the future. He noted that he hoped the council would vote against the motion. . 7/9/80--9 Roll call vote; motion carried 4:3 with Councilors Delay, Lieuallen, and Hamel voting no. Mayor Keller instructed staff to bring back a report to the council on . City participation in inter-agency funding arrangements. Mr. Haws noted a show of appreciation for Mr. Farah and Mr. Hamel because their work on this committee is needed. VIII. NORTHWEST REGIONAL ENERGY BILL--STAFF REPORT (memo distributed) Mr. Henry introduced Greg Page, Technology Coordinator, City Manager's Office, to make the presentation.' The report which was presented to the council was prepared with the help of proponents and opponents of the bill--proponents helping were Roy Hemmingway of the State Public Utility Council, and Robert Greening, the chairperson of the Public Power Committee; opponents helping were Con- gressman Weaver's Office; Keith Parks, EWEB; and Chris Attnase. Mr. Page stated that he feels the council should be interested in this bill since energy was set as one of the high priority items for staff to work on in November and the legislation would have a strong effect on the incentives and how they are developed regarding local control. The key issues are local control, methods of financing new generation, allocation of hydroelectric power, and energy conservation programs. Eugene receives 60 to 75 percent of its power from Bonneville Power Authority. Eugene is a preference customer of BPA, but they no longer have enough power. , Some power deficits are expected to occur beginning in 1990. So, the . first question is how hydroelectric power will be allocated to investor- owned utilities, direct service industries, and public utilities. Direct ~ service industries such as the aluminum industries are important. They receive about 25 percent of the Bonneville Power Authority output. The bill would provide for a contract with the Alumex Corporation, although it is not yet constructed and will receive approximately 320 megawatts, a figure comparable to that which the City of Eugene receives. Proponents believe that the bill will reduce energy costs to customers of investor- owned utilities, aid in implementing regional planning of conservation and in generating facilities which they feel is necessary, and lower the cost of financing investor-owned generating facilities used in the regional energy network. Opponents disagree, feeling that the wholesale cost of electricity from BPA will soon be close to investor-owned utility prices, as BPA must fold in the cost of new thermal plants and that there will be no rate disparity, which they feel is unfair. Opponents also feel that the Federal government in the past has not been helpful to long-term planning efforts and giving BPA the authority for regional planning for conservation and new generating facilities will destroy local control and the inevitable time delays and lawsuits will delay construction of new generating facilities. Also, opponents question the precedent established by the bill for use of the Federal government to help private utilities lessen their costs for new generation by guaranteeing the purchase of a . 7/9/80--10 --- generating plant's designed capacity instead of the actual production. . The 22-page bill has many subtle aspects. Proponents of the bill claim that customers of investor-owned utilities, 80 percent of all Oregonians, would receive supposedly lower-cost melded rates from the Bonneville Power Authority. They also feel that regional conservation and generation are necessary. One of the questions regarding Eugene's mandatory weatheriza- tion plan is why Eugene should do it when other jurisdictions nearby are not. The answer locally has been that they will receive a larger economic benefit from recovery by conservation and EWEB will not have to invest in new generation. Opponents of the bill state that there has been a rate disparity since EWEB customers get low-cost power and PP&L does not. With the bill, there would be less of a rate disparity. Opponents also believe that local planning and conservation as well as local control for new generation will be eliminated. Local programs in the northwest supposedly are already better than what would be mandated by the Federal government. EWEB's primary objection is the loss of local control and the additional requirements necessary to finance new generation. They do not feel that new generation will be easily financed due to Federal controls for compliance. They also think local control is more important than any benefits that would be gained by regional planning. Mayor Keller apologized for limiting this presentation and noted appre- ciation for the work done by Mr. Page. He stated there obviously are two sides to the issue and he is not sure the council has had all of the information before them. . In response to Mr. Lieuallen's question about net billing, Mr. Page responded that net billing is an arrangement by which BPA guarantees to purchase the capacity of a plant. When Trojan was built, SPA entered into an agreement to purchase the capacity of that plant. If it had not operated, SPA would still have paid for it through its rates. With BPA guaranteeing the capacity of the plant, the plant will receive a more favorable reading on the bond market. This is similar to how the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) plants 1, 2, and 3 were financed in Washington. They were not able to do this because of an IRS ruling on the remaining two plants, numbers 4 and 5. This is important, because of the cost overruns experienced by those plants. 'SPA will assume the financial liability for the cost overruns of those first three plants but not for plants 4 and 5. Some proponents of the bill are trying to include plants 4 and 5. Pebble Springs and other nuclear plants might also be included. Mr. Lieuallen then asked if people who build plants would be insulated from financial risk. Mr. Page responded that that is correct. Mr. Delay asked if it is true that the net billing will no longer be available. One of the bill's features would be to reconstitute a net billing arrangement establishing a mechanism for new construction. They could sell the capacity of the plant to the system according to Mr. Delay's understanding and Mr. Delay asked for clarification. Mr. Page responded that that is true for nuclear plants and other plants. People . 7/9/80--11 - - who are advocates of renewable resources might state that the net billing arrangement will make it more feasible to finance riskier kinds of genera- tion such as wind power or co-generation. Mr. Delay then asked if the . system would guarantee financing of new generation capacity. Mr. Page responded it would guarantee the purchase of the capacity which in turn would aid the financing. Mr. Delay then asked if it is true that when they guarantee acquisition of the capacity that they will also guarantee delivery of power from the SPA power pool in exchange for the power from the facility. Mr. Page responded that that is true; and additionally if a private utility wanted to build a nuclear power plant or any kind of power plant, under the bill SPA would guarantee the purchase of the power if it meets SPA's cost-effectiveness criteria, and receives in return a net credit, getting access to the lower cost SPA system. So, a utility company could form a subsidiary and have the subsidiary receive 100-per- cent debt financing under the current arrangement. Mr. Delay then stated that under the proposed bill, a proposal for a new generating facility could be made and a guarantee would be received from the system to pur- chase at a lower price than what they are building. Mr. Page responded that that was correct; but if the SPA melded rate was greater, they would not want to enter into an agreement. Mr. Delay then asked if this is one way a guarantee from SPA could be reached for power. Mr. Page responded that that was correct. Mr. Delay then asked what incentive there might be for any utility to not propose a new generating facility as opposed to conservation. Mr. Page stated that before SPA can enter into an agree- ment, there is supposedly a ranking system by which conservation would be measured first, but this is speculation based upon what the council appointed by the legislature would actually do. If EWES wanted to build a plant, SPA would evaluate it before entering into a net billing agreement. . If conservation were attractive, they would not finance it. There is a question of creditability since many people do not trust SPA. Some people are saying that the SPA administrator would encourage nuclear power and others say that because of the language in the bill, he would not be allowed to do that. Mr. Delay stated that in any case it would be another layer of decision making further away from the local area and Mr. Page responded that it would be. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Mayor Keller indicated interest from the council. Consensus was to place a question and answer session as the first item on next week's agenda. Mayor Keller also requested that EWES give a formal presentation on their long-range plan. He will get together with Mr. Page to make arrangements about this. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the nature of the council that would be created by the bill would consist of, who appoints then, to whom they are account- able, and what the role and the authority of the governors is with the council. Mr. Page responded that it is an 11-member council appointed by the Federal Secretary of Energy. Mr. Lieuallen asked if they would be appointed by the governors. Mr. Page responded that they would not be. . 7/9/80--12 .. Mayor Keller asked how much power Eugene is receiving. Mr. Page responded that EWEB receives 200 megawatts of the total of 300 megawatts used by the . city from Bonneville Power Authority and generates the other 100 megawatts from their own plants such as Leaburg and Carmen Smith. IX. CITY MANAGER'S SALARY Mayor Keller stated that the council needs to recommend to approve Mr. Henry's salary. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this is required by an ordinance, or if not, by what means. Mayor Keller responded that it is part of the charter. Ms. Smith moved that the council approve the Mayor's recommenda- tion of the City Manager's salary. Mr. Lieuallen seconded the motion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed to the McNutt Room. X. METROPOLITAN PLAN UPOATE--PRESENTATION/OISCUSSION Mr. Delay stated that there is the question of the kind of development and the conditions under which it will occur outside the incorporated areas and the urban service area. He stated he does not feel there will be any resolution but much of the language in the plan relates to this. Mr. Croteau stated there are three basic areas of difference between the City and Lane County. One of those items is the conversion of urbanizable . to urban land and the provision of key urban services. Springfield and Eugene staffs are trying to come up with common ground on those areas of disagreement. They hope to present them to Eugene and Springfield city councils next week. He hopes there will be agreement by the two cities. The staff wants the same documents to go to both Eugene and Springfield city councils and end up with one plan from the two cities. Ms. Mi 11 er stated that Lane County will not agree with what the cities want. Mr. Croteau noted staff has concerns about Policy 12 II-B-5 and would like direction from the council. Ms. Miller stated the very minimal language included should state that development should occur in regard to City standards. Mr. Delay suggested that if the cities are closer in their feelings about how this should be dealt with, then perhaps a stronger position should be taken. Ms. Miller noted that Policy 12 has been accepted by Lane County as it is written. Mayor Keller noted that if it is changed drastically, they could run into problems, since Spring- field has adopted Policy 12. Steve Gordon, L-COG, stated that that was true, but they understand there may be changes. They are showing an open willingness to work with Eugene on common points to represent a joint City viewpoint. Jim Farah, Planning, stated that the City is in a position to make wording changes but not to change the direction from which Springfield came. Mayor Keller suggested adding the language which Ms. Miller suggested in regard to development as City standards. Mr. Delay asked where staff is in terms of what will happen to land outside city limits and inside the urban service boundary. Mr. Lieuallen asked ~:. 7/9/80--13 '- , ~ what happened to the refinement plans that had been previously discussed. The response was that they are still in existence. Mayor Keller noted that most of those things seemed applicable to all areas with the excep- . tion of River -Road/Santa Clara. Mayor Keller stated that he felt every- one could agree on areas that could be annexed. Mr. Delay suggested that perhaps on item 11-B-5 12 they should more directly identify who would establish criteria for urban uses. He does not feel this should be a vague statement. Mayor Keller asked Mr. Gordon if items 1-11 deal with the question that Mr. Delay brought up. Mr. Gordon responded that not all of them do. They questioned whether the statements are strong enough. Mr. Farah stated that the language Mr. Delay suggested would make the plan more explicit in regard to right-of-way, etc. This would make it more clear rather than vague. Mr. lieuallen noted that this only applies to certain areas. What he would suggest would be language that would state "in a manner in conformance with the annexing city and adja- cent jurisdiction." Mayor Keller asked if this could be added and be ready for Monday's Elected Officials Coordinating Committee meeting. Mr. Farah responded that it could. Ms. Miller stated that lane County is not going to allow development in unincorporated areas. With the exception of River Road/Santa Clara, the rest of the land would be divided into five- or ten-acre parcels. Mr. Croteau stated that River Road/Santa Clara is the only area where it is feasible to use septic tanks for dense urban development. Mr. Gordon stated that language to the effect of "converting to urban uses and urban densities" be inserted. Various other minor language changes were discussed. . Ms. Smith stated she had talked with John Bennett from the Homebuilders' Association and asked what the status of the land north of State Street was. Mr. Croteau stated that they would be excluding land north of Jessen from the urban growth boundary. Mayor Keller noted that the City has a strong commitment to protect the Airport. Mr. Gordon showed on the map what the boundaries would be for development around the Airport. Ms. Smith noted that in looking at the map, she is concerned about available land for low-income development. Mr. Croteau responded that there will be available land, particularly in the Willow Creek area. There will be many locations available for future housing needs. Mr. Gordon noted that there are 735 acres in the Terry Street area. He cautioned the council not to equate income level with the geographic area by assuming that low-income building would occur in the Bethel area. Mayor Keller noted that some land had been approved for Agripac in the Awbrey lane area, which has been included in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Gordon pointed out the various EEOC changes based upon public testi- mony. Ms. Smith asked about the land in question that is owned by the University of Oregon. Mr. Croteau stated that only 50 percent of that area would be serviceable. Mr. Delay stated it would only be appropriate -a 7/9/80--14 to include that area if the entire LCC basin were included. Mr. L ieuallen asked about the Willow Creek land. Mr. Gordon responded that the EEOC, . on June 17, agreed in concept to treat that land in a phasing manner and they will come back next week with a report. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the plan is sent to LCDC without dealing with the River Road/Santa Clara issue, if LCDC will send it back. Mayor Keller responded that there are going to tell them not to give it back to them since they are unable to resolve it. Mr. Lieua11en asked Mayor Keller if he feels that LCDC will reach a better decision than the County has. Mayor Keller responded that he feels that they will. Mr. Delay noted he feels LCDC will send it back for resolution. Mayor Keller said he is not certain that the real story of environmental problems in the River Road/Santa Clara area was ever told. Mr. Henry stated that he was called by DEQ staff to meet with John,Gordon and Bill Young. The message was that they have asked the County to come back with a plan to develop for the River Road/Santa Clara ground water sewage problem. The report that was published in the media did not contain all the facts. In regard to the bacteria level in that area, 97 percent of the wells are exceeding acceptable drinking water levels. The nitrogen concentration is very high in the River Road area and less so in Santa Clara. The situation will continue to get worse since the concentrations of bacteria and nitrogen remain in the soil for a number of years. Ground water is contaminated to a point that it is unsafe for contact sports. Mayor Keller noted that they were mislead. Mayor Keller noted they were very concerned about this latest report. e Mr. Croteau distributed a summary of the staff proposed changes and changes in the green summary document with which the staff concurred. Springfield will be meeting on July 27 and 29. Mayor Keller noted that EEOC has approved the first three chapters, and if there are any great concerns in Chapters 4 and 5, requested they be made aware immediately. The meeting was adjourned to July 14, 1980. ReCZ;:tj' Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:db/CM23a1 4 7/9/80--15