Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1981 Meeting - . e ) ~ w M I NUT E S EugeO€ City Council City Council Chamber March 11, 1981 ,11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. Mayor Gus Keller was absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Expression of Sympathy Ms. Miller expressed sympathy on behalf of the council to the Keller family in their loss. B. School Closure Testimony Mr. Obie thanked Ms. Wooten for providing copies to the council of her testimony regarding school closures. He had heard reports that this t~stimony was misun- derstood as a council position, but the testimony clearly shows that it was a personal position rather than a council position as the Cit! Council' has not taken a position on school closures. The community does not need the contro- versy that that would create. Ms. Wooten noted that she had taken special care to indicate she was speaking as an individual councilor and not for the entire council. She indicated willingness to discuss the issue,if the council desired. C. Request for Response From EWEB Ms. Miller stated that the council has received a letter from EWEB asking for a response following EWEB's public hearing on Gillespie Butte. She feels that the council should respond. Mr. Obie commended and thanked the EWEB board for holding the public hearing and sending transcripts to the council. The letter from Mr. Tiffany indicates that EWEB has a cash flow problem. He feels this item should be placed on the council IS agenda for March 18. Mr. Lindberg and Ms. Miller noted agreement. This would give the council time to study the issue. Council consensus was to place this item on the March 18, 1981, agenda. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 1 D. Public Access Responsibility 4It, Ms. Miller stated that the Teleprompter issue will be decided soon. She asked who oversees public access for cable TV. This is a critical question. Carol Baker, Community Relations Director, stated that she is preparing material for the councilors for consideration at the March 18, 1981, council meeting. She will be meeting with Councilor Hamel tommorrow after the work session. Ms. Wooten asked what date is set for the Metropolitan Cable Television/Translator Commission's public hearing on Teleprompter's franchise. Ms. Baker responded that the franchise is not in question, only the rate increase request. The public hearing will be held March 24. The franchise review will be in October, and the commission will need to decide whether to look at public access at that time. E. Agenda Addition Mr~ Gleason stated that the review of the school closure issue will be placed as the last item on this agenda. F. Appointments 1. Consideration of Mayor's nominations to the Construction Codes Board of Appeals (memo distributed) . Mr. Obie requested that the council consider the Mayor's nominees as follows: David Shellabarger, 2427 Riverview, a building contractor, to a one-year term ending January 1, 1982; Paul Edlund, 547 Ful-Vue Drive~ an architect, to a five-year term ending January 1, 1986; Eugene H. Schaudt, 2730 Harlow Road, an engineer, to a three-year term ending January 1~ 1984; Ken Hamilton, 1430 Flintridge, an electrical contractor, to a two-year term ending January 1, 1983; Ermal Phillips, 504 South 68th Street, Springfield, an electrical journeyman, to a four-year term ending January 1, 1985; Jim Vos, 2599 Terrace View Drive, a plumbing contractor, to a four-year term ending January 1, 1985; Grant Chase, 4125 Hilyard Street, a mechanical contractor, to a two-year term ending January 1, 1983; and James Balzhiser, 1621 Braeman Village, a mechanical engineer, to a four-year term ending January 1, 1985. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to appoint the people noted by Mr. Obie to the Construction Codes Board of Appeals. Ms. Wooten asked whether consumer representatives are represented on this board. She noted that such individuals are technicians and asked if there is a quota of technicians on this commission. Mr. Gleason stated that the Mayor makes the recommendations from applications that have been received and the council makes the final appointments. This board does not normally handle appeals on consumer issues. Ms. Wooten asked if there is a specified representative for consumers. Mr. Gleason responded that there is not. Usually the board deals with appeals of technical issues not related to consumerism. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 2 e G. Health Status of Charles Kupper Mr. Gleason noted that Charles Kupper, Director of HCC, is now out of intensive care. He has viral pneumonia and will be in the hospital in Portland for some time but is doing better. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of January 21, 1981, and February 9, 1981; and Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of February 26, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve City Council minutes of January 21, 1981, and February 9, 1981; and Legislative Subcommittee minutes of February 26, 1981. e Ms. Wooten stated that there is an incorrect inclusion on page 1 of the Legis- lative Subcommittee minutes in regard to tort liability and trial lawyers. She feels the comments referring to congressmen Fadeley and Kulongoski and their association with the bar might be inappropriate. Ms. Miller stated that if that was what was said at that meeting then it may be. Mr. Obie indicated that the minutes reflect what occurred. Mr. Gleason noted that their statements could be clarified at this time. Ms. Wooten stated she would like to know if the comments were actually made. Ms. Smith stated that it was a response meaning only that they are members of the bar. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the Legislative Subcommittee minutes of February 26, 1981, by deleting the refer- ence "their association with the bar" concerning congressmen Fadeley and Kulongoski. Ms. Schue stated that those statements were made at the meeting. Roll .call vote on the amendment; motion carried unanimously. Roll call vote on the approval of the City Council minutes and the amended Legislative Subcommittee minutes; motion carried unanimously. B. Call for Public Hearing 1. Street vacation for Duncan and Hammer (SV 80-3) (map distributed) CB 2256--An ordinance calling for a public hearing for April 22, 1981; re: street vacation for Duncan and Hammer for property located south of Lorane Highway at the terminus of Van Buren Street. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously with Councilor Haws abstaining. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 3 Council Bill 2256 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded and given final passage. voting aye with Mr. Haws and numbered 18763. by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved Roll call vote; all councilors present abstaining, the bill was declared passed 2. Easement vacation for Inverson-Poppen-Mulvihill (EV 80-9) (map distributed) CB 2257--An ordinance calling for a public hearing on April 22, 1981; re: easement vacation for Iverson-Poppen-Mulvihill for property located south of Highland Oaks Drive, east of Bowmont Drive. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2257 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded and given final passage. voting aye with Mr. Haws and numbered 18764. by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved Roll call vote; all councilors present abstaining, the bill was declared passed e C. Code Amendment Regarding Licensing Requirements for Masonry Contractors (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this is a housekeeping item to ensure that the code conforms to council action. CB 2258--An ordinance repealing Section 3.305, 3.306, and 3.307 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2258 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18765. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Easement Vacations e 1. Easement vacation for Spring Construction Company (EV 80-7) (map distributed) MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 4 . e e Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Department. Mr. Croteau stated that this is an easement vacation for part of a subdivision that was approved in January 1980, and it is shown on the vicinity map. The proposed subdivision currently is not feasible due to an old landfill that was on the western. portion of the subdivision which was not known at the time of the subdivision approval. This action will wipe the slate clean and allow a new plan for the subdivision taking this into account. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this easement vacation unanimously on December 15, 1980. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2259--An ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of a subdivi- sion located east of Beltline Road, north of and adjacent to the proposed storm channel and Roosevelt Boulevard extension. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2259 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18766. 2. Easement vacation for Ruth Thorne (EV 80-8) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Department. Mr. Croteau stated that this was obtained on a previous minor partition done several years ago. Thornebrook was approved last year. The storm sewer was realigned at that time and is no longer needed, nor does it fit in with develop- ment plans. On December 8, 1980, this was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2260--An ordinance authorizing the vacation of a 17-foot-wide storm sewer public utility easement located between Riverview and Augusta streets, south of East 26th Avenue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2260 was read the second time by council bill number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 5 B. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and number 18767. New Liquor License Outlet--Red Carpet Mini-Market (package store license); located at 43 Corliss Lane; applicant: Charles and Linda McCowen ~ Mr. Gleason stated that this was reviewed by all affected departments and staff recommends approval. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward to OLCC with recommendation for approval, subject to conditions, if any. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. DISCONTINUATION OF DOWNTOWN SHUTTLE SERVICE--INFORMATIONAL (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this item was placed on the agenda due to a request from the council. Using his administrative authority, Mr. Gleason said he notified Dorsey Bus that the shuttle service will be discontinued at the end of this month. This administratlve action was taken but could be rescinded by council action. Council previously approved continuation of the program through June, but ridership is now less than 100 riders per day and Lane Transit District's Park and Ride program has been activated. The City is trying to cut its losses, 4It and that is the reason for termination of the program. Ms. Wooten thanked the Downtown Development Board for initiating this program and hopes its efforts will be continued through the Park and Ride program. Mr. Lindberg asked if the Park and Ride program is taking over the shuttle operation. Elaine Stewart, Paratransit Coordinator, stated that Park and Ride went into effect March 1. It is not the same system, but provides a similar service. Those who had been using the shuttle are using various alternatives now, such as Park and Ride, carpooling, or monthly parking permits. Although Park and Ride provides a similar service, it does not provide direct service downtown. Mr. Lindberg asked if many people are taking advantage of the Park and Ride program. Ms. Stewart stated that all of those who used the shuttle system probably will not use Park and Ride. Some will carpool, some will use Park and Ride, and some will continue to violate. Ms. Schue asked if any statistics are kept on ridership. Ms. Stewart responded that participation is minimal at this point as this program is only two weeks old, but they will continue to monitor the situation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 6' " V. CONSIDERATION OF SPYGLASS-GREENVIEW BIKE CONNECTOR 4It (memo, maps, petitions, letters distributed) Mr. Gleason stated staff is recommending that council schedule a public hearing on this item on April 27, 1981, since there is considerable public concern. He would prefer that a staff report be given and questions answered at that time. e - Ms. Smith stated that there is a large degree of interest in this, so it would be appropriate to hold a public hearing. Mr. Lindberg expressed agreement that it is a controversial issue. He is interested in the concept of financing construction of the path through user fees for those living near the path. He asked for clarification on this type of financing. Don Allen, Public Works Director, stated that two citizens came forward and offered to pay $20,000 for land acquisition and construction. Mr. Allen said that this amount would not cover the entire cost; about $12,500 will come from the Public Works budget. Mr. Obie asked when the public hearing would be held. Mr. Gleason responded April 27, 1981. He noted that council could delay the project or send it back to the Planning Department for more information. Mr. Obie stated that he questions holding a public hearing. He feels it would be more logical to delay the project until it is determined if the project will be funded. He would be opposed to holding a public hearing if one is not needed. He feels that the need to hold a public hearing should be determined by Planning once it is decided if the project will be done. A public hearing should then be at the Planning Commission level regarding the Bikeways Master Plan. Ms. Smith asked if the project would be included in the proposed budget. Mr. Gleason responded that it is in the Bikeways Master Plan and it has already had hearings. Mr. Allen noted that the $20,000 could be used for right-of-way acquisition or other costs. Mr. Gleason stated that the right-of-way could be secured with the anticipation of reconstructing the project but the capital improvement decision rests with the council. Ms. Smith stated that the council needs to deal with the issue; however, it makes sense to delay until a deter- mination on funding is made. If it is delayed, the council should tour the area to try to understand the concerns. Mr. Gleason noted that that would be fine but recommended that the decision not be deferred until the budget process is completed. Council could make the determination to at least secure the right- of-way and the question would then be "when," not "if." Mr. Lindberg noted agreement. If it is delayed, it could create problems for the Budget Committee. The council has the obligation to make a decision. The decision should be made based upon information received in the public hearing. The fifth annual review of the Bikeways Master Plan is upcoming. He asked when the most recent development along this route occurred and if the Bicycle Committee has looked at this plan since that time. Mr. Allen responded that when this was first considered by that committee, it was a vacant lot. Houses were built last summer. There is an annual review process of the Master Plan and it has already been through the Planning Commission. Jim Hanks, Traffic Division, stated that this route has been discussed by the Bicycle Committee since the houses were constructed. Mr. Allen noted that the petitions to the council were referred to the Bicycle Committee and that committee recommended leaving the project as currently designated in the plan. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 7 e He stated that this particular issue had not been discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Gleason stated that the Planning Commission, however, reaffirmed the Bicycle Committee's Master Plan and recommendations. The Planning Commission and the Bicycle Committee are recommending compatible plans. If this were to be sent back to them, it should be sent back with a specific recommendation. Mr. Lindberg agreed that a public hearing should be held. Ms. Schue noted agreement with Mr. Lindberg. This has gone through the established procedures. She knows that it is controversial, and before a decision is made, she would like for public comments to be received. She feels that if someone is willing to give money for the acquisition of the right-of-way, the council should take advantage of this. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that council hold a public hearing on April 27, 1981, to determine if the Spyglass- Greenview bike connector should be constructed. Mr. Obie asked what would happen if nothing is done. Mr. Gleason responded that the City Council can accept or reject gifts. If nothing is done, it will do nothing but complicate the issue. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. UPDATE ON ATTORNEY GENERALIS OPINION AFFECTING CITY'S CETA OPERATION (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Long, Staff Services Department, to provide a 30-day 4It update on the CETA legal and fiscal questions. Mr. Long stated that on February 11, 1981, staff reported that the Attorney General's opinion indicated that the State CETA program as currently structured is unconstitutional, and that the City had similar constitutional problems. The City Attorney had focused on the prohibition in the Oregon Constitution of cities lending their credit to private companies or corporations. Since the February 11 discussion, staff has modified the current contracts to agent agreements. Staff has worked extensively with other jurisdictions in Oregon to try to develop a coordinated position of state and local prime sponsors. Congressman Weaver's office has been very helpful in getting requests for assistance out to the balance of the Oregon delegation and in arranging a meeting with Department of Labor officials in Washington, DC. City staff has also been working directly with staff in senators Hatfield's and Packwood's offices. However, the President announced on February 18 that the Public Service Employment section of CETA would end in fiscal year 1981-82--which represents $1.7 million of our current $4.2 million--and on March 2, 1981, froze further PSE program expenditures beyond the funding level of that date. Those fiscal decisions forced the City to financially reorganize the current program regardless of the legal issues. Although the legal problem is legiti- mate, City staff has concluded from the Department of Labor meeting that its resolution is long-term as it will require both statutory and regulatory changes. Staff will continue trying to get other prime sponsors and possibly other states to work with us on this problem. The Eugene Private Industry Council will have to playa part in making this work regarding planning and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 8 e e e marketing for the private sector. This has been reviewed with Ray McIver and Liz Cawood, as well as employees and contractors. The legal issues are long- term. Steve Bauer, League of Oregon Cities, has offered their assistance. On February 11, 1981, staff mentioned rearrangement of the program as an option, but now it is the only choice for the least disruptive impact. There is a need for a long-term solution. Ms. Wooten indicated that she has concerns and asked for clarification regarding maintaining the prime sponsorship. She asked if terminated non-profit PSE and private employees in Title VI will be picked up by other agencies. She also wanted to know how jobs will occur with termination of the contracts. Mr. Long responded that in order to meet the 60-day deadline they should rearrange the programs to meet the legal advice. Title lID and Title VI moneys are running out at just about the same time. The shutdown phase will coincide with the legal reorganization of the program. They can transfer participants to other public sector slots if possible, or to other programs, and if it can be done, it will. They can put the displaced homemakers into Title lIB from lID. They will be flexible whenever possible. Ms. Wooten asked if by discontinuing the program 45 days earlier than they had anticipated they will fit in with the government budget constraints. Mr. Long responded that that is correct for the non-profit sectors. Ms. Wooten asked how many jobs will be affected. Mr. Long stated that 20 jobs would be affected in Title lID and approximately 60 more by May 30 because of the fiscal cutbacks. Ms. Wooten asked how many jobs will be affected in the private sector. Mr. Long responded that it would only affect those participating in the Singer and Ingram programs. They will try to bring as many employees in-house as possible. Ms. Wooten stated that LCC and School District 4-J do not seem to be under the same legal restrictions. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, stated that that is correct. The Constitution states that credit cannot be lent to private companies. The City would have been liable for how the money was spent. Public agencies do not have the same restraints. Ms. Wooten asked if the council would still be subject to a similar liability. Mr. Sercombe responded that they would not be for private groups, only for City actions. That is the same as it was previously. Now, however, we are not assuming liability for private corporations. Mr. Gleason noted that this would not impart itself onto the council. Ms. Wooten asked what kind of public explanation can be made why other prime sponsors are not responding as the City of Eugene is. Mr. Long responded that the State's position is similar to ours. The Portland attorney's office was offering similar advice but he has not yet seen it. Ms. Wooten asked what Lane County is doing. Mr. Sercombe stated that understands they are going to wait and see. Perhaps other jurisdictions are waiting to see what Eugene does. Mr. Gleason stated that one of the basic thrusts has been toward the private side and that will remain. CETA will still be constructive in helping with unemploy- ment. Staff appreciates the council IS efforts, particularly Councilor Wooten. They also appreciate the assistance of Congressman Weaver. The League of Oregon Cities is trying to resolve the constitutional problem. The legal staff has done all they can to relieve the council of their dilemma. However, clear direction is not being received from the national level. We will have a some- what smaller program, but it will still be to help people find jobs. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 9 e e e Ms. Smith asked if there will still be Department of Labor communications if 32 other states are in the same situation. Mr. Long responded that 32 other states are involved as far as he knows. Last week in Washington, DC, they found 16 out of 20 in two committees with similar problems. He is hoping to be able to work toward resolution with them. Ms. Miller asked if there is similar language in their state constitutions, or if their attorney generals have given them similar advice. Mr. Long responded that they are reviewing state constitutions regarding lending of credit. Ms. Wooten noted that some have chosen to interpret this differently. Ms. Schue stated that she is sorry to see this situation occurring, especially for the non-profit groups using Title VI and Title lID. Assistance is needed. However, this is beyond the control of the council and the govern- ment cannot spend dollars not available. The council can only do what is best with what is left and that is regrettable. Mr. Lindberg indicated agreement with Ms. Schue. He noted that some businesses will have to close down if they do not have CETA help, but he does not know what else can be done. One option might be to juggle other resources. Mr. Long stated that this is the best creative effort possible to retain the program. They cannot enter into a partnership with anyone else because that would create legal liability. However, they are open to ideas. They will have to focus on "how" rather than "who" will be providing service delivery. The options are far more limited than they were six months to one year ago. Ms. Wooten asked if this will come back again for action and if there will be opportunity for public comment. Mr. Long stated that the council's action is not needed as contracts are written for a 30-days notice. Mr. Gleason responded staff would come back in 60 days with another report. Council then could give direction to staff or hold a public hearing. Ms. Wooten noted she would like to hear from the public, particularly from non-profit agencies. Ms. Smith stated that if a public hearing is to be held, parameters must be clearly defined. There are areas where the City can do nothing because of the Federal restric- tions. She noted she would like to talk about this with Ms. Wooten informally. The council needs to be realistic about what can be accomplished. Ms. Miller stated that she also is sorry for the disruption and the burden this will place on efficient delivery systems. She would like to have the hearing on what the best direction might be, given the Federal constraints. Mr. Long stated that the advisory councils should be involved prior to a public hearing. Mr. Obie stated he has confidence staff will come back with the best options and council can make a decision. He does not think a public hearing would be of value because it might create expectations that can't be fulfilled. Councilor Haws left the meeting. VII. UPDATE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT 4-J SCHOOL CLOSURES Mr. Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, and Mike Brott, 4-J School District. MlNUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 10 e e e Mr. Chenkin stated that the task force has met for a total of 15 hours over the past five months. The earlier sessions focused on information on the schools and projections based on demographic data. The task force has looked at existing zoning, and existing uses in the Metropolitan Plan. From L-COG, the task force received the Metropolitan Plan policy information, particularly as it related to schools in the central area. Steve Gordon and he explained the Metropolitan Plan to the task force and the plan diagram and map by attendance area of new dwelling units for each area based on the Metropolitan Plan. They explained where new single-family dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, and mobile homes would be constructed. A draft model was presented by staff to the task force which indicated what the district would look like with some schools closed. Mike Brock was asked to present the model. The task force is going through a thorough process. They have looked at scenarios of a kindergarten through fifth grade model, with middle school and four-year high school (K-5), and they are also looking at a kindergarten through sixth grade scenario (K-6). Public hearings will be held on the various models in April. He feels the task force has all the data on comprehensive planning and City policies it needs at this time unless they ask for development of a model based on a different configuration. He introduced Mike Brott to provide information on the process. He also introduced Kay Robinette, Chairperson of the task force. Mr. Brott stated that their task was to develop the K-5 model assuming that no schools were present in School District 4-J and only looking at where students lived. They looked at concentrations of students within a three-quarter-mile radius for clusters. Then they looked at the programs and the buildings within that area and considered the efficiency of the buildings. The next step was to decide how to redo the boundaries. They looked at how they could bring students into certain schools and close others. He used Edgewood School as an example. At this point, the schools that would be closed would be Dunn, Fox Hollow, Laurel Hill, Condon, Magladry, Westmoreland, Silver Lea, and Coburg if this model were chosen. Ms. Miller asked what happens to Coburg School. Mr. Brott said that it would be closed and those students would be brought into Gilham and Willakenzie schools. Ms. Wooten asked for transportation dollar figures. She asked how much would be saved per school if the schools were closed. Mr. Brott responded that they do not know yet, but he would guess approximately $150,000 per closing. There would be savings in the areas of personnel costs, heating, lighting, and gas. Ms. Wooten asked how many public hearings would be held and the number of recommendations that would be made to the board. Ms. Robinette responded that there would be more than one public hearing. Each school area should be heard from. However, this should not occur until the task force makes its recommen- dations in early April. Mr. Brott noted they are receiving written material from school areas which were targeted. Mr. Obie commended the task force on their logical approach. Two schools in his ward are targeted and he feels people know it will cause problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 11 '* e Ms. Wooten asked if the figure of $150,000 was a net savings, taking into account the transfer of personnel to other schools to accommodate more children. Mr. Brott stated that the savings would result from the reduction of admini- . strative salaries while maintaining a similar teaching ratio. However, this is only an estimate. Ms. Miller asked if they are assuming a certain number of schools should pe closed and whether there is a certain dollar figure they are trying to reach. Mr. Brott responded that there is not; they are looking only at the K-5 and K-6 configurations. They do not feel that small schools afford children the same opportunities as larger schools, and that the district should provide equal opportunity for all students. Ms. Miller asked if this might be a good time to look at the school district boundaries of the three local school districts: 4-J, 19, and 52. Mr. Brock stated that he personally thinks it is a good idea but it is out of the realm of the task force. Ms. Wooten asked if Mr. Chenkin would come back to the council after the K-6 configuration is considered by the task force. Mr. Chenkin stated that he will report on the K-6 configuration but will not make a recommendation. He will only provide data and facts. The council will have to determine the direction to take. They will continue to receive information, keeping in mind that they need to react to the task force recommendation. The K-5 configuration is only a draft at this time but he assured council he would keep them up to date. Ms. Wooten asked how the K-5 configuration would interface with the Metropolitan Plan. Mr. Chenkin stateG he would bring back an analysis. e Mr. Lindberg asked how they have related the school closures to the existing community schools. Mr. Brott responded that they are being considered, and that Lincoln and Whiteaker schools would be combined with other community schools. Ms. Schue asked if future growth has been taken into account. Mr. Brott responded that the maps take that into account as well as the data from L-COG. Ms. Miller noted appreciation for the information. The meeting was adjourned to March 18, 1981. RespectfullY~ ~~ ~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG: LN: ky/CM8a6 - MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1981 Page 12