Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/1981 Meeting e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber March 18, 1981 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. Councilor Eric Haws was absent. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Toxic Dump Site Ms. Wooten stated that an article had appeared in the LCC TQrch last week regarding a toxic dump site on Bloomberg Road, which the City may have been using. She requested a report back on this issue. Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, said that he had made a visit to the site and there is no evidence of a chemical dump. Carol Baker will follow up and ask the LCC Torch editor to provide information. City administration is also concerned about this. B. Potential Absences of Mayor Mayor Keller stated that it has been rumored that he and Mike Gleason, City Manager, are resigning. He has no intention of resigning. He will, however, be taking some additional classes in preparation for a new occupation and therefore may miss some council meetings. He has worked out the details and will be here at least once a month for Monday evening meetings. He asked the council to excuse him for the absences that he is anticipating. Mr. Gleason stated that he also has no intention of resigning. C. Legislative Subcommittee and City Council Meeting Schedules Mr. Gleason stated there would be no City Council meeting, nor would be there be a Legislative Subcommittee meeting, next week or the following week due to spring break. The next City Council meeting will be held April 8. D. Agenda Adjustment Mr. Gleason indicated that this is an amended agenda so those that had received them in the mail would be looking at a different agenda than the one in use for today's meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 1 . II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes of February 25" 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the council minutes of February 25, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Improvement Petitions 1. 39th Avenue (affected property on petition--assessable costs; storm sewer 100%; City cost, none) Res No. 3483--A resolution authorizing storm sewer construction to replace ditch running through Ellis Park Elementary School property at approximately 39th Avenue and Potter Street (1847). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Thornebrook Subdivision (affected property on petition--assessab1e costs: sanitary sewer, total square footage 114,300 feet; square footage petitioned 86,000, '74 percent; storm sewer, total square footage 142,800; square footage petitioned 106,700, 54 percent; City cost, storm sewer $20,750) e Res. No. 3484--A resolution authorizing sanitary and storm sewer construc- tion to serve Thornebrook Subdivision and the area within 160 feet of the north and east boundaries of Thornebrook Subdivision (1887). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 3. Adams Street (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving, total front footage, 193 feet; front footage petitioned, 160 feet; 82.9 percent; City cost, none) Res. No. 3485--A resolution authorizing street paving on Adams Street from 3rd Avenue to railroad tracks (1912). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 4. Williams Street (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving, total front footage 2,554 feet; front footage petitioned 1,737 feet; 68 percent, City cost, storm sewer $30,500) Res. No. 3486--A resolution authorizing street paving and storm sewer construction in Williams Street from Harriet Street to Royal Avenue (1930). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 2 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. 4It Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 5. Todd Street (affected property on petition--assessab1e cost: paving, total front footage 2,456 feet; total footage petitioned 1,735 feet; 71 percent; City cost, none) e e Res. No. 3487--A resolution authorizing street paving on Todd Street from West 18th Avenue to 500 feet south of Ellen Avenue (1931). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Payment of Bills, Claims, and Progress Payments (distributed) Res. No. 3488--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period February 23, 1981, through March 18, 1981. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Approval of 1981-82 Community Development Block Grant Application (memo, complete packet distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Chris Hofmann, Housing and Community Conservation Depart- ment. Ms. Hofmann stated that this is a recommendation from the Community Development Committee and the CDBG application is to be submitted in early April. The program would begin in July and would be for the purposes of helping to eliminate urban decay and helping to provide low-income and moderate-cost housing. The Community Development Committee held two public hearings and the package is now being recommended. The Community Development Block Grant program has two sections. The first is a Neighborhood Improvement Program (NIP), which focuses on low-income population and housing areas and cycles every three years to a new neighborhood. She showed the council a chart and explained a minor adjustment that has occurred this year between two NIPs--West University and Jefferson/Far West. The second section of the program is the Individually Funded Applications (IFA) which are based on neighborhood needs, which are not as great as those in neighborhoods that qualify for the NIP section of the program. For example, last year Bethel was funded as the IFA, and received water lines for community gardens and benches at Petersen Park Barn Community Center. This year they are focusing on Edison Park in the Bethel Triangle. This year, South University has not submitted any proposals for University Park. In addition to neighborhood-specific projects, the City is allowed to fund city-wide projects such as the Neighborhood Housing Resource Center study of higher density development, emergency home repair, architectural barrier removal, MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 3 e e e home maintenance for senior citizens, and a revolving loan fund for historic preservation. The CDC will look at the revised Block Grant program with new data from the 1980 Census and evaluated the NIPs regarding their cost-effective- ness and usefulness during the next year. Nationally, there have been rumors of change involving increased responsibility in the program and she will provide information as it becomes available. The CDC recommends approval of this application. Ms. Smith said that in regard to revisions in the approach for the Block Grant funding, that the program will probably continue but it will be included with other programs such as those for energy. This will mean that all programs will depend upon funding from a single source and funding may not be available for the number of programs. Ms. Hofmann responded that although funding is year-to- year, once NIPs are initially funded, they are expected to receive funding for three years since the program cycles to a new neighborhood every three years. IFA projects are only funded year-to-year. Some can be phased, but each year's phase is an independent project. Mr. Lindberg asked what criteria will be used to evaluate the NIP programs. Ms. Hofmann said that CDC will be discussing this. It could possibly be done by an outside evaluator, although that has not yet been determined. Mr. Lindberg asked if rehabilitation is part of the Block Grant application. Ms. Hofmann responded that it is. Mr. Lindberg asked if the committee or staff has targeted rehabiliation. Ms. Hofmann responded that they have in NIP areas. This is an existing procedure. Mr. Lindberg asked if anyone has considered using rehabilitation moneys for leverage with private-sector funds for financing. Ms. Hofmann responded that they have and that is why the loan program is so large. Mr. Obie asked for the proposed location of the community center in the Jefferson/ Far West proposal. Ms. Hofmann responded that she was not sure of the location, but it could be a trailer or within a community 'school. Another option would be to rent a facility. However, maintenance of the facility could be a big concern. Mr. Obie responded that that is also one of his concerns. He is not sure that there is a need for a community center when schools are being closed. He has a concern voting affirmatively for the package because of this one issue. Ms. Hofmann stated that the Patterson School is not appropriate for use as the community center, and this item will have to be researched. Mr. Obie asked if the City owns any community center that would be within two blocks of that area. Ms. Hofmann responded that there are no community centers in either the Jefferson or Far West neighborhoods. Mr. Obie stated that the money should be used for positive development. It seems some projects are getting a long way away from the intent of the program. He asked if the $10,000 allocated to the 17th and Charnelton Park will be for design only. Ms. Hofmann responded that the majority would be used for design with some development later. Mr. Obie asked how large this park would be. Ms. Hofmann responded that it would take up one-fourth block. Mr. Obie asked what the $5,000 for viewpoints and soap boxes would be used for. Ms. Hofmann stated that this would be for mini-parks along the bike paths where small gathering places of 5 to 10 could be located and where people could find out about neighborhood activities. Benches and bulletin boards would be placed there. Mr. Obie asked about the $10,000 being allocated for a traffic study and asked if there was an identifiable transportation problem. Ms. Hofmann responded that Jefferson/Far West is just beginning a refinement plan and that 11th and 13th avenues are of major concern to the residents. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 4 e e e Mr. Lindberg stated that his sympathies lie with Mr. Obie's concerns regarding a neighborhood spending money for a project that perhaps would eventually need general fund moneys for maintenance and staffing. He feels that Community Development money should be used as "seed" or "stimulus" money with the neighbor- hood aware that they will need independent funding at the end of the three-year period. The function of the neighborhood center and the soap boxes is to create a neighborhood forum for residents to implement plans and voice their concerns. . Public hearing was opened. Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, said that since 1979 the Cal Young Neighbor- hood Association has been trying to apply for Community Development funds. The criteria is being misinterpreted. She feels that there is a prejudice on the part of the council against areas that are not targeted and do not, therefore, receive funding. The program is not fair to all of the areas in the city. Cal Young is the largest area but since their average income is higher than that of West University, they are not eligible to apply. They did submit a neighborhood need request to the Parks & Recreation Department, but they were not considered. The Cal Young Neighborhood has over 5,000 dwelling units (13,000 residents). By comparison, Whiteaker neighborhood contains 2,500 dwelling units, Jefferson contains 1,300, and West University contains 2,900 dwelling units. The total of all three of these neighborhoods is slightly more than the total number in the Cal Young Neighborhood. According to their interpretation, programs must give priority to the low-income residents, but they can approve any other community needs. She would like to see some of these funds used for acqusition of property such as streets and parks. She does not understand why the CDC has interpreted eligibility so narrowly. Although the funds have been used well, she does not approve of spending a large amount of money in neighborhoods serving a small number of people. This money could be used to buy Gillespie Butte. She agrees with councilors Lindberg and Obie. In Salem, the funds are distributed to all neighborhoods. She feels the needs of the whole city should be considered. Jonathon Stafford, 1060 Madison, stated that he is a member of the Community Development Committee and would be willing to answer questions. The committee has tried to keep the council informed. They have held public hearings and worked with the options to the best of their ability. They have worked with the cit i zens. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason stated that the Block Grant program is constantly evolving. The Salem program focused on urban renewal. Every Block Grant prog,ram mandates targeting. Ms. Hofmann stated that a 1977 memo from HUD indicated the mandate for targeting. HUD must also approve all programs. Mr. Gleason stated the reason for targeting is to create incentives for private investors. Although the council may feel all neighborhoods should be viewed as equal, the statutes prohibit thi s. Ms. Miller arrived at the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 5 e e e Mr. Obie asked for more information regarding the nodal parks. Ms. Hofmann stated that this would be for small park development with the same intention as the soap boxes. Mr. Obie asked, regarding the $66,000 for West University, what would happen when there is more low-income housing. Ms. Hofmann stated that the intent of this is to increase family dwelling units because of the high student population. Some options would be cooperative housing or other means for low-income ownership. Mr. Obie asked if low-income housing would still be dispersed, how Womenspace would be affected by the CETA cutback, and how that would affect their viability. Ms. Hofmann responded that CETA is not their main source of funding. They need $20,000 for a down payment and $6,000 for rehabilitation if an acquisition is made. The facility is owned by the State Highway Department but they could look at other places if necessary. Mr. Obie asked if there are any funds allocated for rehabilitation of Jefferson Pool. Ms. Hofmann responded that there are not as no application had been submitted for funds. Funding had been requested last year but then the application was withdrawn. Mr. Lindberg stated that there has been an ongoing debate about targeting and whether it creates some negative impact. Positive feelings in the neighbor- hood need to be created as well as spending money on physical problems. There has also been a question as to whether Block Grant moneys should be spent only on physical projects or if is legitimate to put it into social services. If targeting is approved, psychological improvements must also occur. The City should not create the impression that it is providing or promoting development in specific neighborhoods; rather, the neighborhoods are doing it themselves. In NIP areas, the neighborhood needs should be defined by those who live there. He is willing to agree with the targeting policies and vote in favor. In regard to disbursal of funds, there are conflicting City policies. He would like to discuss that further to see if it can be changed. There seems to be a 1960s idea of breaking up ghettos. Perhaps another look should be taken at the pockets of poverty allover the city in some other way besides targeting programs. Ms. Schue stated sympathy with Ms. Lansdowne's concerns. She repre- sents a ward which is not targeted either. The Community Development Block Grant funding are small amounts. She understands the targeting policy. She knows that that is not much comfort, but there are financial constraints. This is not an ideal program, but it is the best that can be done with the situation. There is a proposal to include $50,000 for neighborhood projects for non-targeted neighborhoods in the City budget. This would not buy Gillespie Butte, but it could provide street trees. Ms. Smith noted that the Womenspace program for next year does not include CETA employees. Ms. Hofmann said that this goes through the committee, and not through the City Council. Ms. Smith stated that it should be made clear that if groups are helped to acquire facilities, that they do not expect general fund moneys. Mr. Obie asked how much the West University Neighborhood is currently receiving. Ms. Hofmann responded that they are receiving $274,000. Mr. Obie stated that he has no problem with targeting. It is effective. However, he does have a problem if money is not spent concretely. He would like to see 100 percent of the funds going into "doing things," not administration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 6 . e e About $136,000 of the West University funding would go for administrative costs. He has difficulty spending half of their money on those types of items with no long-term impact. He does not feel that the people in that area want the money spent that way. He also has a problem with funding for the community center. He would like to hear what the people desire. He does not believe the arguments that have been presented. He is not confident about the soap box concept. He feels the design costs on parks are high and that this is not what the people want. Ms. Miller noted that as the City Council representative to the Community Development Committee, she has noted that the Community Development staff and CDC members share some of Mr. Obie's concerns. They, too, are distressed about the amount of money that goes into administration. However, this is a massive program and there must be some staff. There must be supplies and someone to maintain the records. Not many people can volunteer for 40 hours a week. It is important that the program pay for the administration costs involved in the project rather than having a City department pay for the cost as that would not accurately reflect the true cost. Regarding low-income housing, she said that it is desirable to develop low-income housing in other areas but it does not make sense economically to subsidize it in that manner. She noted that two of the issues addressed in the NIP this year were infilling and higher density. They looked at providing home ownership possibilities while continuing to upgrade without displacing people. It would be desirable for downtown housing to be provided within increased density. She feels that perhaps more funding should be designated for these kinds of projects. Mr. Lindberg said that most people on the advisory group share Mr. Obie's concerns. He feels that if one monitors the comparison between hard- and soft-dollars over the three-year period, the gap becomes less over time. There is no way to determine what the people in the neighborhood want with the exception of going through the neighborhood associations. One possibility of increasing neighborhood participation would be to hire outreach workers and have them locate in a neighborhood center. The ultimate responsibility is with the residents who come before the council and the committee with the projects they desire. The role of the council is not to determine if the project is appropriate but if the projects are legal, if the guidelines have been met, and to see if the projects are community projects with as much reduction in.adminis- trative costs as possible. Mr. Obie noted agreement that administrative expenditures should not be the way to spend these funds. In the Jefferson area, $71,000 of $117,000 were allocated to be spent on administrative costs. He does not feel that that is cost-effective, nor does he feel that that is right. He indicated that he would vote no on the motion. He thinks a larger and larger bureaucratic function has developed and something needs to be done. Mr. Hamel thanked Ms. Lansdowne for appearing to testify and noted that she is the first from the neighborhood who has spoken of dissatisfaction. He personally has been against this program for the past six years and feels there are projects in other neighborhoods that would be more beneficial. He noted that he would vote against the motion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 7 -. e - Ms. Smith said that administration cost concerns have been discussed in the past. She asked about timing. She shares the concerns of high administrative costs but asked if it would be possible to revise any of the recommendations at this late date. Ms. Hofmann responded that the applications could be revised before the application is submitted to HUD on April 1. However, revisions at this point could be contrary to the stated needs of those who have partici- pated in the process. She would be concerned about those who have worked through the system on submitting their proposals. Ms. Smith noted appreciation for the work that has been done, but she would like to request an additional review by the committee and staff to see if there is a way to decrease the administrative costs involved in the program. Mr. Gleason responded that this could be done. He thinks that in the past six years, an elaborate process has been built and the outcome is now being observed. This might be an appropriate time for review of next year's process and outcome as well as a good time to make suggestions and recommendations. This is the City Council's only chance to make a decision. It would be awkward for them to interject themselves at this time and not submit the application. That might cause a negative impact. Work could be done to more finely tune the process but this is a late time to change the proposals. Ms. Smith noted that these concerns have been expressed by the council members for the past two to three years. Perhaps the process needs to be refined and studied prior to action being taken. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to delay action and request CDC come back with a response prior to the end of the timeline to see if the concerns regarding administrative costs can be addressed this year. Mayor Keller asked if the motion could be withheld until all had had an opportu- nity to speak. Ms. Smith agreed to that, as did Mr. Obie. Ms. Wooten noted agreement with Mr. Gleason that the application should be submitted to HUD. She agreed that it would be helpful to refine the process and to try to reduce administrative and design costs but she feels staff should proceed. Ms. Schue noted agreement with Ms. Wooten, particularly in view of the uncertainty of Federal funding. She does not feel this is the time to make changes, but she is concerned about the percentage of administrative costs. She feels neighborhoods have designed their own improvements and this is not the time to tell them that the council would have preferred something different. Mr. Lindberg stated that when this program was rewritten in 1977 and much of the money was to be distributed by cities, they had an obligation to build in citizen participation. At this time, the council IS role is to control adminis- trative costs as much as possible. He asked if perhaps City staff could provide some of the consulting assistance required. He does not feel the process should be interrupted at this time. Mr. Obie stated he had heard before that these elements would be looked at, yet no change has occurred. It is no longer acceptable. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 8 e Mayor Keller noted that staff has tried to involve the council as much as possible. It is important to note that council members are not critical of the work being done; rather, they are critical of the process. If more projects occurred like those on the west side, then the entire community can be proud. There would be time to take one more look at this but soon they will need to adopt it as presented. He said that he would take the responsibility to make sure the council has adequate information for decision in the future. Mr. Gleason stated that he had not heard the council's discussion before and was not aware of the feelings of the council regarding the process. This year, the staff attempted to provide more information but he will personally be responsible for ensuring the involvement of the council next year. Mr. Lindberg agreed that things can also be improved and evaluations are necessary. Ms. Miller restated the motion to delay action and request the Community Development Committee to come back on April 8 with a review prior to the end of the timeline to see if the concerns of administrative costs can be addressed this year. Mr. Obie seconded the motion. Roll call vote; motion was defeated 4:3 with Councilors Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting aye, and Councilors Lindberg, Miller, Schue, and Wooten voting no. e Ms. Miller left the meeting. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to approve the 1981-82 Community Development Block Grant application. Roll call vote; motion received tie vote, 3:3, with Councilors Lindberq, Schue and Wooten voting aye; and Councilors Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting no. Mayor Keller voted aye; motion passed 4:3. Councilor Schue indicated she would support a cut in administrative costs. Mr. Gleason said staff would provide additional information on the administrative costs in the application in the near future. IV. APPLICATION FOR STATE OF OREGON BUSINESS LICENSE FOR WRECKER/SALVAGE YARD OPERATION ~y SCHNITZER STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason noted that this item would be removed from the agenda for legal clarifications since more information is needed from the State of Oregon. V. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION INCREASING SIGN PERMIT FEES (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Mick Nolte, Public Works. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 9 e e e Mr. Nolte stated that the Building Division collects fees for sign permits. The current fees were established in 1974 and no increases have been proposed since, although other building fees have been increased a number of times. The current fees for sign construction permits are $10 minimum or $.15 per square foot whichever is greater and signs projecting over public property are charged an annual fee of $10 minimum or $.10 per square foot, whichever is greater. The proposed fees for sign construction would be a minimum of $20 or $.20 per square foot, whichever is greater, and the proposed fee for signs projecting over the public right-of-way is a $20 minimum or $.20 a square foot, whichever is greater. Staff feels the proposed fees will cover costs for inspection, checking plans, and other items related to sign construction. He indicated that he could answer questions. Res. No. 3489--A resolution increasing fees in connection with the adminis- tration of the Sign Code of the City of Eugene. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. EUGENE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER--AWARD OF PHASE 6 BIDS (tabulation attached) Mr. Gleason introduced Ed Smith, Performing Arts Center Development Director. Mr. Smith said that on March 10, 1981, the Civic Center Commission reviewed the basic bids and recommended that contracts No. 29, 30, and 31 be awarded to the low bidders. The bids came in $76,000 under estimate. These are good bids. The Eugene Arts Foundation has made a commitment to pick up certain items and the City has received a letter of assurance that the funds have been secured. The total amount is $907,000 for the contracts. They have completed issuing over $18 million in contracts and these are the last major items. Mr. Obie noted that he serves on the Civic Center Commission and recommends that the council award the bids as outlined. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award Phase 6 bids for the Eugene Performing Arts Center as outlined by staff. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VII. STAFF REPORT ON CABLE TV ISSUE (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Carol Baker, Community Relations Director. Ms. Baker stated that the purpose of this presentation is to provide information about public access, to outline the current issues facing the commission, and to ask for council sentiments on these issues, so that when the commission hears testimony, the City representatives will be able to put that information in perspective. The first issue is that Teleprompter,has requested a rate increase. Copies of the request have been distributed to the council. A decision on the MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 10 e requested increase must involve determining if the rate ensures an adequate rate of return for the company. The burden of proof is placed on Teleprompter. An evaluation and recommendation from Shirley Swenson, consultant, has been distributed. A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 24, at 7:30 p.m., and it will be broadcast live on KOlY. She feels that the second issue facing the community is public access. Public access means that the public is given the chance to air its own programming on television. It is programming by the public for the public and it does not compete for large audiences. She showed the council a video tape of an example done in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She feels that some testimony at the public hearing will deal with the adequacy and amount of access facilities. The current franchise contains minimal access provisions. Other communities have received extensive access facilities including staff and equipment as part of their franchise agreement. Staff is currently working with Teleprompter to produce a 30-minute color special on the City budget. This will provide staff with information and demonstrate how spending $40 per hour to produce a video tape works. The third issue will be the reviews provided in the franchise. A review must be done in October. The commission will begin reviewing the franchise in early fall once Teleprompter has completed their report indicating their new level of service. Another review could be done after: the rebuild is complete. The fourth issue is that of timing. The commission must decide whether to consider the rate increase now and whether to consider the access question along with rate increase, or to postpone both decisions until the franchise review in October. e Ms. Baker said that a decision does not need to be made today. This is only an informational item. However, she would like to get some indication of how the council feels. Mr. Lindberg stated that he is excited about the Eugene budget show being prepared and feels that this is a good way to get information to the public. Ms. Wooten thanked Ms. Baker for the thorough background material. Ms. Wooten is a strong advocate of public access and thinks the commission should consider this issue. The rate increase request must be decided by April 15, but additional decisions may be made later. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the following resolution: e "The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that Teleprompter Inc., has requested authorization from the City to increase the rates charged for its services. There has been considerable concern expressed by the public with respect to the present level of public access services and amenities provided by Teleprompter, Inc. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Eugene, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based upon the above findings, the City Council hereby expresses its support that further negotiations be conducted with Teleprompter Inc. with respect to an increase in public access services and amenities prior to considering its requested rate increase." MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 11 e e e Mr. Lindberg said that the written material indicates the specific types of rates which are being charged to specific evaluations and the other charges are a monthly service fee. He wondered if the service charge should be increased. He asked if one accepts the other parts of the information presently whether the monthly charge has to be increased. Ms. Baker responded that she does not think it has to be a package. Mr. Lindberg stated that other cities have been catching up in the area of public access. The City of Eugene should ask for everything it wants now. Ms. Baker indicated that the City already has a franchise but when the state of the art changes, it can be reviewed in that light. Mr. Lindberg asked for clarification on Portland's fantastic package. Ms. Baker responded that one big difference is the inclusion of the public access studio with equipment and staff to instruct, assist with production, and help with the equipment. Mr. Lindberg asked what are the requirements for community access in the Portland franchise. Ms. Baker responded that they provide five minutes free time. If someone feels strongly about a subject, one could walk in and have five minutes free time'to present one's views. She noted, however, that the five minutes free time is from the beginning of the set-up, not from the beginning of production. They also have a black-and- white camera available for a $100 refundable deposit to produce programming. Ms. Wooten noted that the Teleprompter model is not of the latest technology. Ms. Baker stated that Teleprompter will make studio time available at $40 per hour with color equipment and staff. She said that the Library has done some programming at KLCC which was aired on KOZY. Mr. Lindberg stated that this seems to be a growing business and many new channels are being offered. The franchise essentially provides monopoly rights. Ms. Baker stated that this is not an exclusive franchise. Another company could come in but so far everyone has declined to compete. Mr. Lindberg stated that he would advocate at least one community access channel and that rate revenues go to making community access a reality rather than a hollow promise. Mr. Hamel feels that this resolution would be putting the cart before the horse. He does not feel the council should take action prior to the commission's public hearing. As long as Teleprompter is current with their franchise, these provi- sions should be included at the time of the franchise review. Ms. Schue stated a concern about having the two issues tied together. It would be difficult to justify a rate increase at this time according to the report. She supports public access but that is a separate issue and should be discussed at renewal time. Ms. Wooten said that the resolution only suggests that discussion about public access begin, since there has been no demonstration of proof that the rate increase is necessary. She indicated that she could withdraw the motion including the resolution but she would like some indication that the Cable Commission will not approve the increase without evidence demonstrating a need for the increase from Teleprompter and an agreement for additional amenities. Mr. Obie noted that he would find that acceptable. However, he does want to use additional amenities as a rationale for the rate increase. He would like to know what the increased costs of Teleprompter will be and who will pay them. There is a need to have all that information. Ms. Wooten stated that she could reword her motion to state that public access should be available for Eugene for the same costs Teleprompter is charging other communities where they provide a similar service. Vancouver has seven access channels with the same fee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 12 e e e Perhaps these things could be absorbed by their profit. Mr. Obie stated that it would be difficult to make a decision unless all information is available. He would like to see comparison data. Ms. Baker noted that that kind of informa- tion is being provided by Ms. Swenson to the commission. Mr. Lindberg stated that there are two criteria for determining the necessity of a rate increase: a reasonable rate of return and a reasonable degree of service. He feels that cable access is a critical service. Ms. Wooten indicated that she could adjust her motion. Mayor Keller stated that the level of service should be the first thing to challenge. The rate payer should be assured of quality service. That seems to be a major concern. Ms. Wooten withdrew her motion with the agreement of Ms. Smith, the second. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the council go on record in support of the Metropolitan Area Television/Translator Cable Commission and to not support the rate increase being requested by Teleprompter unless council determines that there is a need for the increase. Ms. Wooten said that Lane County Commissioner Jerry Rust, who is on the Cable Commission has suggested that the rate of increase be delegated to a task force for review. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VIII. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF GILLESPIE BUTTE ACQUISITION--RESPONSE TO EWEB BOARD LETTER DATED MARCH 3, ,1981 /', . ,J .. Mr. Obie stated that the council had received a letter from the EWEB board with a deadline of March 25 for disposition of the Gillespie Butte property. Council had also received a letter from the EWEB board dated March 17, 1981, stating recognition of areas of possible disagreement involving EWEB and the City. That letter indicates a willingness to cooperate and work toward mutual agreement. Mr. Obie stated that last night's newspaper had said that EWEB was "softening" their position regarding Gillespie Butte. However, he feels that the council should not interpret this position as a "softening" although the letter is written in a conciliatory fashion. The deadlines for Gillespie Butte and the property at 8th and Pearl are still to be dealt with. The City staff memo indicates there have been 30 years of tradition regarding disposition of real property and that that procedure has only changed in the last three months. In the past, EWEB has transferred property to the City at market value, at less than market value, and sometimes at no cost. At this time, the water utility has a financial problem. This is why they want to sell Gillespie Butte. The City must weigh the public benefits and the important of Gillespie Butte and determine how to deal with property disposition issues in the future. The City Charter asserts that the City Council has authority to dispose of all real property and the code needs to conform with the charter. The City Manager should be authorized to deed Gillespie Buttee at the request of EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 13 e e e Ms. Smith stated that they need to acknowledge EWEB's financial situation and not overlook it. The past relationship has been pretty good. The letter from EWEB President Tiffany is important and there are issues that need to be discussed. She supports pursuing the suggestion of having the council and EWEB representa- tives discuss property transactions for surplus property as well as numerous other issues. This should be done in a spirit of cooperation. There is little choice but to agree that Gillespie Butte should be disposed of by EWEB. Ms. Schue noted agreement with Mr. Obie and Ms~ Smith. She agrees that there are items that need to be discussed and an ordinance needs to be passed to bring the charter and the code into conformance. Regarding Mr. Tiffany's first letter suggesting the acquisition of the property by a bond issue, she said they are working on capital improvement projects now. It would be inappropriate to place one special project on the ballot now just because EWEB needs the money as this would destroy the purpose of the Capital Improvements Program process. The second suggestion in his letter is for the City to make a down payment and some in lieu of taxes payments to be used for the remainder of the payments. She sees many problems with this. EWEB says they need 'the money now. This seems impractical but she appreciates the thought of the board of trying to solve the City's space problem. She would like for EWEB and the City to jointly make Gillespie Butte a park~ but since EWEB needs the money and the City does not have it, she sees no way to save the property for a park. She would support having the City Manager authorized to sign off on disposition of City property. Ms. Wooten stated that she has some concerns and recognizes EWEB's financial difficulties but she does not feel it is the City's responsibiity to trade Gillespie Butte to EWEB due to EWEB's short-sighted planning. Gillespie Butte is not just another piece of property but something that should be held on to. There are legal complications regarding the City's signing off on property transfers. She would like a staff report brought back with a proposed ordinance from the City Attorney prior to the EWEB sale. Mr. Gleason stated that if the council wants to confer the deed to this property, they can instruct the City Manager to sign the deed and allow EWEB to sell the property. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to instruct the City Attorney to bring back at the first April meeting, a resolution authorizing the City Manager to convey the Gillespie Butte property. Ms. Wooten stated she is upset. There are many issues that need to be coopera- tively handled. It is not fair to expect the City to bail EWES out of their $6 million problem. Mayor Keller stated that the City is willing and expecting to work with EWEB in the future. However, the only avenue left open is to authorize the City Manager to deed the property to EWEB for sale. Ms. Wooten stated that this is not a final action, only to have the City Attorney's Office bring back a resolution. Mr. Lindberg agrees that this is an unfortunate situation without many options. He hopes this will build understanding to prevent further similar situations. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 14 e e e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Obie stated that Ms. Wooten had made an excellent comment about the ongoing responsibility of the City Council. An ordinance outlining the proposed format for such transactions should be brought back as an agenda item in the future. There should then be a public hearing. Forty percent of EWEB's customers reside outside the city, and the City Council has a responsibility to city residents. EWEB is a municipally-owned utility. People in the community have a right to be heard and there should be a full hearing for EWEB as well. Ms. Wooten asked for clarification regarding the public hearing and whether it would be held to decide whether to allow the City Manager to sign off on this property for sale or if the hearing was to be on the accountability of public concerns. Mr. Obie stated that his intent is that it be on an ordinance which would bring the City Charter and code into line, and the public hearing would be held on that ordinance. Keith Martin, City Attorney, said that preparation of the ordinance would give those who attend the public hearing something to focus on. He asked for clari- fication as to whether staff wanted the hearing format to focus on this property disposition issue or on the broader-based public issues of accountability. Mayor Keller noted that the public hearing would be dealing with Gillespie Butte and deciding through discussion who falls into what categories. Ms. Smith asked for clarification on that proposed public hearing. Mr. Obie indicated that it would be to resolve the discrepancy between the City Code and the City Charter on land transfers. Ms. Smith stated that she would like the "extension of services" issue included either in that discussion or in some future discus- sion. Mayor Keller stated that extension of services would be discussed at a later time along with some other issues. Ms. Schue said that the focus should be on the charter versus the code. The next issue relates to land use planning and extension of services. Consensus was to hold a public hearing on an ordinance to bring the charter and code into conformity relating to the right to dispose of public property. IX. LINCOLN SCHOOL Ms. Wooten indicated that extensive information on Lincoln School has been received. She has provided testimony on her own behalf at the last 4-J School Board meeting. There seems to be overwhelming evidence to put Lincoln School back into the school closure task force process for consideration with the other 4~J schools. Mayor Keller left the meeting. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Lindberg, to go on record showing strong concern that serious consideration be given to the placement of Lincoln School back into the school closure task force process. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 15 - - - Mr. Hamel asked if there might be a strong reaction coming from other schools if a position is taken on one school. Ms. Wooten stated that this particular school has been separated from the others and the council would only be asking to consider it equally. She would be willing to deliver the message to School District 4-J. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to April 8, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~. Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:al/CM27b1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 16 J: ...-.... -. ..-... - - -..- -.- ------ ....--..,-..-.. -. -----.-.---.--.-.--.- _..--._-_.~-:--. PHASE 06 -- METAL ROOFING, SKYLIGHTS, HOl,JSE CURTAIN . CONTRACT BIDDER . 29 Skylights Estimate ~265,000 Eu ene Mirror & Glass Mid-Valley Glass (18-26 wk deli very; 3 mos to install) :: 30 !ole tal Roof Estimate $165,000 Arm riest Brainard Clarke's e ..31. . House. Curtain Estimate .... $40,000 Grosh Nolan Sta ecraft. Variety I. Weiss RECOMMEND..:l\TION: BID TALLY SHE~:r . . March 05, 1981 BASE BID $243,350 $295 273 98 575 . , SCHEDULE x X',. 160 600 139 281 $ 51 463 x 'X x x ,. . . .. The Civic Center commission recOITIIIEI1ds that contracts number 29,. 30 and 31 be . awarded to the low bidders and that thisrecc:xnrcendation be tr"".ksrnitted to the. City Council for final action. I'". ."-, BID BOND .x .. X X x x x .' -~..J .. .. r.... --