HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1981 Meeting
. >
e
e
-
M I NUT E S
Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
May 11, 1981
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller,
Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, and Cynthia Wooten.
Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to
order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller.
I. UPDATE ON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. He indicated that the council
had performed a real service to the community several months ago by directing
staff to prepare emergency plans and by adopting an interim budget to be used in
the event that private provision of emergency medical services was terminated.
He indicated that because of this forethought, the transition from private to
public provision of service had been very smooth. With only two hours' notice,
the 1,000-square-mile service area had available a full complement of emergency
services.
Mr. Gleason indicated that since that time, the City has responded to 58 medical
emergencies, 51 of those inside the city limits. He felt that the City was
responding from a better deployed station house arrangement than in the past,
with an improved communication and dispatch arrangement and good quality
service. Mr. Gleason emphasized that this has been a metropolitan solution,
with Eugene and Springfield cooperating to provide the service needed in the
metro area.
Mr. Gleason noted there had been some criticism that the two cities had acted
precipitously in switching to the emergency plan. He indicated that he would
rather receive this criticism than be criticized for failing to provide adequate
emergency service. He felt that criticism would have been much more severe if
someone had been seriously injured or had died because adequate emergency
service was not available.
Mr. Gleason said that the Purchasing Division did an excellent job of acquiring
for the City the equipment needed to provide quality emergency service. The
City has purchased four ambulances, one new and three formerly used by Medical
Services, Inc., (MSI). The average cost per vehicle, equipped and on the road,
was about $22,000.
Mr. Gleason stated that the cities of Eugene and Springfield are in the emer-
gency services business for the foreseeable future. He felt that it was neces-
sary to respond to allegations made to the press by a Seattle firm which claimed
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 1
-
e
-
that its overtures to the City regarding taking over provlslon of emergency
services had been rebuffed. Mr. Gleason said that he had not spoken with
representatives of this firm, although he was aware that they had telephoned.
He indicated that the City is prohibited from providing an exclusive license for
emergency services. There is a complete review and licensing process required
for paramedics and managers, and there is no way that the City can expedite this
process. There are established standards for provision of service which must be
followed. The problem is a metropolitan one, not just a City problem. Mr.
Gleason summarized by stating that there is no way t9 simplify the licensing
process for anyone. For this reason, the cities found no option but to respond
to the.crisis by taking over provision of emergency services themselves.
Mr. Gleason recommended to the council that the City continue for the present
with the existing arrangement and that a study be made at some point in the
future to determine how the process is working and to what extent user fees are
paying for the service. At that time, the council would have a much clearer
idea whether it wants to continue in the busi~ess and what other options are
available.
Ms. Smith commended the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, department heads,
and support staff for the very fine way in which they handled this very diffi-
cult situation.
Mr. Lindberg added his compliments to those of Ms. Smith. He felt that all
those involved had done a "super job." He said that he had heard that there was
concern from county residents that a metropolitan service would not be able to
meet their needs. Mr. Gleason said that the service currently being provided to
the county is the same, and in some cases better, in terms of response time,
than the former, private service. In addition, the same licensed, quality
paramedics are being used, so there is no drop in that level of service. Mr.
Gleason said that representatives from fire departments in outlying areas were
meeting at this time with representatives of the Eugene Fire Department to
discuss deployment plans and to help outlying areas decide whether they want to
stay with this service in the future. Mr. Gleason felt that outreach communi-
cation had worked well during the transition from private to public provision of
service.
Mr. Lindberg asked if the City has also assumed the business of providing
non-emergency medical transportation. Mr. Gleason indicated that two services
have been left with MSI--provision of first aid service on a contract basis, and
Mobilchair transportation for non-emergencies.
Mr. Lindberg summarized what he had heard Mr. Gleason recommend: that the City
had entered the emergency services business in a crisis situation; that the City
would remain in the business long enough to see how cheaply and effectively it
can provide that service; and that at some point in the future, the City will
examine these factors, compare them with other options such as private provision
of service, and will then make a decision on how to proceed from there. Mr.
Gleason indicated that Mr. Lindberg had correctly summarized both the situation
and Mr. Gleason's recommendations for dealing with it.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 2
e
Ms. Schue joined in commending staff for a job well done. She wished to correct
the impression which may have been given in press reports on the past week's
activities that the City Council wanted to be in the ambulance business and
viewed it as a municipal service. Ms. Schue said that the council had concurred
that this was a necessary step in view of the crisis situation, but she wanted
to go on record as believing that the council needed, at some point in the
future, to spend time studying various theories of the best way to provide
ambulance service. Ms. Schue personally felt very open-minded in considering
more permanent solutions to provision of this service.
Ms. Wooten thanked staff for the smooth transition during this crlS1S. She also
thanked Councilor Obie for his work on the Emergency Medical Services Task
Force. She asked what effect would be made on Eugene's provision of ambulance
services if the City of Springfield decides to return more quickly to private
service. Mr. Gleason responded that whatever happens, the City of Eugene will
try to coordinate decisions with Springfield. He really could not predict
exactly what the impact would be without knowing the level of service which a
private firm might offer in Springfield'. Mr. Gleason indicated that there are
four or five different levels of emergency service, and that without knowing who
would be providing each of these, it is not possible to predict what effect they
could have.
e
Mr. Obie said that while he had learned to be wary of quoting local newspapers,
he felt it necessary to comment on the Saturday headline in the Eugene Register-
Guard, which indicated that there was a lack of harmony between City officials
relative to the ambulance service. Mr. Obie criticized the Guard for this
headline which indicated erroneously that officials in both cities were in
disagreement over decisions which had been made. Mr. O~indicated that the
Eugene City Council had not experienced any such disagreement over the handling
of the situation. Mr. Obie offered Mr. Gleason whatever assistance and support
he needs from the council in this controversial situation.
Mr. Hamel congratulated Mr. Obie, the Emergency Medical Services Task Force, and
Mr. Gleason and his staff on a job well done. Mr. Hamel said that he had had
much concern during the crisis for the public's sake and was gratified by the
smooth transition. Looking to the future, Mr. Hamel said that he would look
favorably on a return to private provision of ambulance service and to getting
the City out of this industry.
Ms. Miller felt that this was a good opportunity to point out that when services
are needed on a metropolitan-wide basis, such as emergency services, metro-wide
cooperation through task forces such as this can be very effective. She also
noted that the task force has received numerous position papers on the best way
to provide emergency services and that these would be useful in making decisions
when the situation is reviewed in the future.
Mayor Keller joined in commending Mr. Gleason in his handling of this difficult
situation. He said that it is the duty of the council and of the City to take
care of Eugene's citizens and that this had been well done. He agreed that
taking some time to experience and evaluate the emergency services provided
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 3
e
e
e
under the new arrangement was a good suggestion. He asked if the council could
have an update; perhaps in six months, on the situation. He felt that it might
be appropriate to have a public hearing at that time to allow citizens to give
comments evaluating the services.
Mayor Keller said that he had received a request from Dennis Percell to speak on
this item, but that this was not listed as a public hearing on the agenda.
Mayor Keller said that the City expects its staff to perform as well as any
staff in America could, and that he felt staff had fulfilled this expectation in
its handling of the emergency services situation. Consensus was to receive an
update on the ambulance situation in six months, at which time a public hearing
could also be scheduled.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Council-Initiated Improvement Resolution Regarding Street Paving and
Sidewalk Construction on Goodpasture Island Road (memo distri~ute~)
Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that the
process traditionally followed for items such as this included a public hearing
with property owners in the affected area of the community; a City Council
public hearing to initiate the project, such as that being held tonight; and a
third hearing to award the contract. Mr. Teitzel said that the project involves
reconstruction of Goodpasture Island Road with curbs and gutters and a widened
section from Tabor Street to Happy Lane. The project will include bike lanes
and sidewalks. The sidewalks will be on both sides of the road between Tabor
and Stone Crest and on the south side from Stone Crest to Happy Lane. Two bus
turnouts in the vicinity of Ridgeway Drive are also included in the design. Mr.
Teitzel said that the neighborhood area hearing had been held on April 1, 1981.
At this time staff discussed the project with the property owners and went over
the estimated cost to them. Several design details were brought up at that time
which have been addressed in the project. Mr. Teitzel felt that the only issue
raised at the hearing which staff has not addressed is the issue of the assess-
ment for approximately 950 feet of double-frontage lots. He explained that the
term double frontage applies, in this case, to properties which have their
access off another street but would back up onto Goodpasture Island Road. Mr.
Teitzel called the council's attention to the fact that staff would, in the
coming year, be bringing two other projects before the council involving double-
frontage situations. He indicated that the assessment policy under which staff
was currently working had last been reviewed by the council in 1978 and requires
that both faces of double-frontage lots be assessed. Mr. Teitzel reminded the
council that any change in the assessment policy or code requires a six-month
delay in the initiation of the project.
Councilor Wooten asked if the double-frontage policy had been established to
deal with the inequity of assessments for panhandle lots. Mr. Teitzel indicated
that this was not the same issue. He said that the issue of double-frontage
lots had been raised most recently when Willamette Street was paved in 1976. At
this time, the council had directed that lots having frontage on two streets
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 4
e
e
e
must be assessed for both frontages, even if access is only taken off one of the
streets. Mr. Teitzel explained that this differed from the assessment policy on
panhandle lots which had been instituted so that owners of panhandle lots which
have limited street frontage paid assessments for a minimum frontage of 60 feet.
Ms. Wooten asked how many owners of double-frontage lots involved in the project
under consideration had objected to the assessment. Mr. Teitzel said that he
did not know. Several people had objected at the neighborhood hearing, and one
objection has been made in writing. He indicated that several people were
present to testify to the council tonight. Ms. Wooten felt uncomfortable
with the existing double-frontage policy. She asked that at a future meeting
the policy be explained to her and perhaps reviewed in more detail.
Ms. Schue expressed confusion over figures in the staff notes: She asked
whether property owners were being assessed for 20- or 28-foot street widths.
Mr. Teitzel responded that the street will be improved to a 36-foot width. He
said that the assessment policy specifies that on an arterial or collector, the
existing residential or duplex lots pay for a 20-foot-wide street, and that
those properties which are of a multi-family nature, such as the planned unit
development, or which are undeveloped, pay for a 36-foot width. He did not
believe that there were any 28-foot assessments on this particular project.
Mr. Haws asked if there were any alternatives available to the council in
assessing double-frontage lots other than that used in the Willamette Street
situation. Mr. Teitzelsaid that staff had reviewed its records on double-
frontage assessments and had found that the council had never wavered in its
policy of assessing both frontages. He indicated that the only other alterna-
tive suggested in the past was for the City to pick up the bill for one lot
face. Mr. Haws said that the City did not want to pay the assessment of
someone else's lot and that this had been his reason in the past for supporting
the existing assessment policy. He felt that if the policy were changed now,
someone would get a "free ride."
Mr. Obie said that there were two issues before the council, one being the
assessment policy itself and the other being the Goodpasture Island proposal.
He said that he has always felt that the existing assessment policy is not only
unfair to those property owners involved, but also in opposition to much City
policy and direction. He said that he had always gone along with the policy,
based on arguments similar to those cited by Mr. Haws. He felt, however, that
.with the advent of the systems development charge which provides funds for
city-wide improvements, his view of the policy had changed. He felt that the
council needed to debate this issue and should seriously consider using systems
development funds for improvement of streets where there is a double-frontage
issue, particularly when one of the streets is an arterial which affects people
on a city-wide basis.
Mr. Obie requested clarification of the layout of the proposed improvements.
Mr. Teitzel referred to a map of the project. He indicated that the project
only goes as far as Happy Lane, because a County study is currently under way on
how to deal with the Delta Highway/Goodpasture Island Road interchange.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 5
-
Mr. Lindberg noted that several area residents who live downhill from the
project had expressed concern about safety. He asked if the guardrail which
staff proposed for the project would be sufficient to protect these residents.
Mr. Teitzel indicated that staff believes that the proposed guardrail is suffi-
cient. He indicated that from an engineering standpoint, there was a question
as to whether any guardrail is even needed at this location, but that staff had
decided to include the rail to make residents feel more secure.
Mr. Lindberg asked if property owners in the area were eligible for low-income/
elderly deferment of assessments. Mr. Teitzel said that staff had not gone into
this with the property owners. Mr. Lindberg asked how this process works. Mr.
Teitzel explained that after the assessment is levied, property owners need to
apply to the City Finance Department for the deferral. He said that eligibility
for the deferral is based strictly on income and age.
e
Mr. Lindberg asked if the deferment alternative could be expanded to apply to a
broader group of circumstances. Mr. Keller indic.ated that this was a policy
decision which the council should address in the future. Mr. Lindberg felt that
the council had identified two policy areas for discussion related to this item.
He wondered if decision on the item should be postponed, or if there was a need
to resolve the question tonight. Mr. Teitzel responded that the improvements
had been initiated out of concern for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians
in the area. He reiterated that if there is a change in the assessment policy,
the project must be delayed for six months. He said that the council would have
to make the decision on whether safety would be endangered by delaying the
project. Mr. Lindberg asked if this is a major corridor for bicycle commuting.
Mr. Teitzel responded that this is becoming a major corridor to the river bank
bike path system. Mr. Lindberg asked if there were schools in the area, which
would make pedestrian danger especially great. Mr. Teitzel responded that this
area had not been identified by the School Safety Task Force. He did not
believe that students used Goodpasture Island Road very much.
Ms. Wooten said that she agreed with Councilors Obie and Lindberg that if there
is no great urgency, decision on the item should be postponed until the assess-
ment policy issues can be resolved.
Mayor Keller opened the public hearing.
Speaking about the improvements:
Arthur A. Mehas, 1220 Goodpasture Island Road, indicated that when he bought his
property, Goodpasture Island was a County road. He indicated that he owns a
large amount of frontage on the road and that his bill for the assessment at the
rate of $28 per foot would come to $14,000. He indicated that figuring in the
interest over ten years, his total expense would be about $28,000. Mr. Mehas
noted that throughout its length very few houses front on the road; that his own
house is half a canyon away from the road; and that this is not a typical City
street. He urged the councilor staff to pursue some alternative way to finance
construction of the improvements.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 6
e
e
e
Speaking in opposition to the improvements:
Carl Raynor, 2169 Stone Crest Drive, said that he and his wife own one of the
lots which was described as having back-yard access to Goodpasture Island from
Stone Crest. He distributed ten pictures with accompanying explanatory text,
showing the existing road and the extent of the right-of-way. Referring to the
map of the project area, Mr. Raynor said that three lots on the loop of Stone
Crest Drive have a total frontage on Goodpasture Island of 463.31 feet. The
assessment for these lots at $36 per foot would come to $15,289.23. He indi-
cated that these lots were also assessed for the improvement of Stone Crest
Drive when it was paved. He said that Stone Crest is not a through street. He
indicated that the portion of his property which fronts on Goodpasture Island is
wild and that pheasants feed there. Mr. Raynor said that according to the
assessor's map, there are 25 lots that front on Stone Crest, but that only three
of these lots would pay the assessment now under consideration for Goodpasture
Island Road. He pointed out that if all 25 lots were assessed, the assessment
would be on the order of $611 per lot.
Mr. Raynor said that he concurred with the opinion expressed in earlier council
discussion that the existing policies and ordinances on assessment are inequi-
table and need review. Mr. Raynor suggested that the council postpone decision
on this item until the County has concluded the study it is currently making of
the Delta/Goodpasture intersection.
There being no further testimony, Mayor Keller closed the PQblic hearing.
Mr. Gleason explained to the council that existing assessment codes require that
if the assessment procedure is changed, consideration of all projects must be
postponed for a six-month period. He indicated that there are two other assess-
ment projects, Crescent and Bailey Hill roads, scheduled to come before the
council in the near future which also deal with the double-frontage issue. One
of these is in response to recommendations from the School Safety Task Force.
Don Allen, Public Works Director, indicated that if the Goodpasture Island
project is approved by the council tonight, it must be approved under the
existing assessment process. If the council changes the process and the policy,
then it cannot consider a project under the new ordinance,for six months.
Mr. Teitzel responded to a question raised during public testimony. He indi-
cated that the proposed project stopped at Happy Lane. Staff had felt that this
was far enough from Delta Highway to allow plans for the Delta area to be
coordinated with plans resulting from the County traffic study which is cur-
rently in progress. '
Mayor Keller said that the question had also been raised of whether the County
is participating in the proposed project. Mr. Teitzel indicated that this is a
County road and that the County is participating by agreement with the City.
The agreement states that the City must assess according to City policy in order
for the County to contribute to the cost of the project. Councilor Haws asked
if this meant that the County will only contribute to the City's share of the
expense. Mr. Teitzel said that this was correct. Mr. Teitzel elaborated by
explaining that at the time County participation became available in 1974, the
MINUTE$--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 7
e
council reduced the assessment on arterials from a 36-foot standard assessment
to a 28-foot standard assessment. The revenue was used in a general way to
support all projects rather than specifically helping out individual projects in
which the County was participating. Referring to the systems development tax,
Mr. Teitzel said that when that tax was instituted in 1978, revenues from the
tax were used to further reduce the assessment on arterials for existing single-
family residences to a 20-foot width.
e
Mr. Haws asked if a decision to delay consideration of this item and to examine
the assessment ordinance would mean that all projects would have to be delayed.
Mr. Teitzel responded that if only the policy on assessing double-frontage lots
is changed, then only double-frontage projects would be affected, but that if
the council changes the entire assessment policy all projects will be affected.
Mr. Lindberg asked if the council could postpone consideration of this single
project without considering the assessment policy at this time. Mr. Teitzel
said that if this occurred, staff would return to the council with this project
next year. Mr. Lindberg said he felt it was important to examine the advantages
of proceeding with the project now rather than later. He wondered if sidewalks
and barriers to prevent rock slides are really needed. Mr. Lindberg asked how
rapidly the area is developing and how soon the "crunch" might come when the
work would really be needed. Mr. Teitzel responded that staff .felt that this
point would be reached in the near future, especially when people begin moving
into the houses on Goodpasture Island Road which are being constructed at this
time. At that point, school children will be using the road to get to school.
Ms. Schue asked if staff could estimate how much the cost of such a project goes
up with each year.s delay. Mr. Teitzel said that this averaged about ten
percent per year, but that the differential for this particular project could be
as great as 15 percent from 1981 to 1982.
Ms. Miller asked if staff could develop a mechanism for spreading the cost of
such an improvement more widely. She referred specifically to the testimony
that owners of three lots would bear the cost for improvements affecting 25
lots. Mr. Teitzel said that this issue had been addressed in the past when
the assessment policy was reviewed, but that it had always been the council.s
feeling that each person's share of the costs of the streets of Eugene is that
piece which fronts on his property. Staff has therefore never tried to develop
an assessment that spreads over a two- or three-block area.
Mr. Gleason added that the cost to adjoining property owners of an arterial
street was reduced both by the systems development fees and the City's fee
relationship with the County. In this way, arterial streets have a two-phased
cost. On residential streets which are not arterials, the assessment in focused
on the individual lots.
Ms. Miller asked what other double-frontage projects would be coming before the
council in the next few months. Mr. Teitzel said that one of these is on
Crescent Avenue between Gilham and Coburg roads, with a little over 1,100 feet
of double frontage. The other is Bailey Hill Road from Warren to Bertelsen,
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 8
e
with a little over 750 feet of double frontage. Responding to a question from
Mr. Obie, Mr. Teitzelsaid that both of these projects were requested by the
School Safety Committee, and that the Bailey Hill project had been requested for
three years by that committee.
Mr. Obie felt that since this was a council-initiated improvement, there was no
immediate urgency to commence the project.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the project be tabled
and that the Mayor be asked to appoint a council subcommittee to
review the assessment policies relative to double-frontage lots.
Roll call vote. There was a tie vote, with Councilors Smith,
Lindberg, Obie, and Wooten voting aye, and Councilors Hamel,
Miller, Haws, and Schue voting no. Mayor Keller broke the tie by
casting a no vote. Motion was defeated.
Mr. Lindberg felt that one factor involved was that the area in question is a
low-density population area. He did not feel that people who live in low-
density areas should be rewarded by having the cost of their low-density
ownership spread among all the other people including those who live in high-
density areas.
e
Mr. Haws felt that the street needs to be improved. He said that there is a
high school in the area, with students traveling both ways on Goodpasture Island
Road. He therefore felt that the council should approve the project.
Ms. Schue agreed with Mr. Haws. She felt that delay would only make the project
more costly when it is done. She thought that examining the policy on double-
frontage lots would be opening a "huge can of worms. II She indicated that every
corner lot in the City has paid assessments for two frontages. She would not
like to have to tell the property owners on South Willamette that they had to
pay double-frontage assessments in the past, but that Goodpasture Island prop-
erty owners would not have to do so. She was in favor of going ahead with the
project.
Ms. Smith suggested that even though it would probably not affect this partic-
ular project, the council in the future should review the double-frontage
assessment policy.
Ms. Miller pointed out that corner lots have traditionally been assessed for two
frontages, even though in the majority of those cases the lot takes access from
only one of the two streets, and residents of the corner lot probably seldom use
the second street. Ms. Miller said that she would not oppose allowing council-
ors who were interested in the issue to set up a subcommittee to review assess-
ment policy. She felt that there are difficult questions involved, with no easy
answers.
Mayor Keller agreed that the council has never made any good friends in post-
poning projects that eventually end up costing more when they are finally done.
He thought that the project is reasonable and necessary and that the council
should therefore support the long-standing policy it has on these issues.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 9
i
Res. No. 3500--A resolution authorizing street paving and sidewalk con-
struction on Goodpasture Island Road from Delta Highway to
Tabor Street (1710).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution.
Ms. Wooten asked if the resolution passed whether there is any way in which the
City can assist in the two unusual and unique cases which had been presented in
the public testimony.. She felt that an assessment of $28,000 for a portion of
property which the homeowner will never use, but which will serve traffic to and
from Valley River Center, is excessive and very difficult. Mr. Gleason responded
that staff follows assessment procedure very strictly and really has no preroga-
tive for change.
Mr. Obie referred to the photographs which Mr. Raynor had distributed to the
council. He said that it was obvious that there is no way in which Mr. Raynor
could ever use his frontage on Goodpasture Island Road. Mr. Obie felt that the
assessment policy should have been changed ten years ago.
Roll call vote. Motion carried 5:3, with Councilors Lindberg,
Hamel, Miller, Haws, and Schue voting aye, and Councilors Obie,
Smith, and Wooten voting no.
B. Charter Revision Request for Westside Neighborhood Quality Project
Neighborhood Organization
Mr. Gleason introduced Tom Andersen, chairperson of the Westside Neighborhood
4It Quality Project (WNQP).
Tom Andersen, 790 West Broadway, indicated that he had sent a three-page letter
to the council giving some background on this item. He said that the issue of
expanding the neighborhood boundary had been raised at the request of residents
of the area proposed for annexation. Many of these residents had assumed that
their homes were a part of WNQP and had been very surprised to find out that
they were not included. Requests for inclusion of the subject area had been
made to Mr. Andersen as chairperson of the organization, had been received
through the City Neighborhood Liaison office, and had been forwarded by Lincoln
Community School.
The WNQP executive board had discussed this issue at two monthly meetings and
sent out a notice in the neighborhood newsletter that the issue would be con-
sidered at the group's January general meeting. The newsletter was distributed
within the present boundaries of WNQP as well as in the area between 7th and
13th avenues and Washington and Lincoln streets. Mr. Andersen indicated that
this area has always been and always will be on WNQP's newsletter route. The
WNQP membership had discussed the issue at the January general meeting and
decided to proceed with annexing the subject area.
Mr. Andersen said that notice of discussion of the item had been included in the
newsletter announcing the WNQP February meeting. In addition, this notice,
accompanied by a map of the area in question, was distributed by hand to all
nonresident property owners in the area who had addresses in Eugene, and by mail
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 10
,j
to those with addresses outside Eugene. An open meeting was held in February
for the regular WNQP membership and for residents and property owners in the
affected area. Turnout at the meeting was good, and discussion on the item
lasted almost two hours.
Notice that the proposed annexation would be voted on at the March WNQP meeting
was included in the newsletter distributed prior to that meeting. The executive
board of the neighborhood organization had understood from the Neighborhood
Liaisons in the Eugene City Manager's Office that according to the WNQP charter,
only residents of the existing neighborhood area could vote on the issue, not
residents or property owners of the area proposed for annexation. The vote had
been in favor of annexation.
e-
Mr. Andersen indicated that WNQP had received petitions related to the annexa-
tion proposal. A pro petition, containing 39 or 40 signatures, has been sub-
mitted to the council with other materials related to the item. A con petition,
circulated by Chester Pietka, had inadvertently been misplaced by Mr. Andersen.
He thought that it had contained approximately eight or nine signatures.
Mr. Andersen noted that the charter revision request presented to the council
included a first and a second option of boundaries for the annexation. The area
bordered by Washington and Lincoln streets and 7th and 13th avenues contains
over 50 dwelling units per block and is thus more densely residential than the
additional area bordered by Charnelton and Lincoln and 7th and 13th, which
contains approximately 15 to 20 dwelling units per block. WNQP members who
had supported the Charnelton boundary over the Lincoln boundary did so because
they felt that it made more sense to have the WNQP boundary dovetail with the
boundary at Charnelton of the Eugene Renewal Agency (ERA). They had also felt
that residents of this smaller area deserve representation just as much as
those in the area west of Lincoln.
Mr. Andersen explainedthat a portion of the area proposed for annexation was
once a part of WNQP but had seceded from the organization and formed its own
neighborhood group. This group was later disbanded by the City Council because
the group was inactive. Mr. Andersen understood that one reason that the group
had seceded from WNQP was that the focus of the area it represented was pri-
marily commercial. The focus in the area has since been changed, by application
of mixed-use zoning, to include much high-density residential development. Mr.
Andersen felt that there was a continuing misconception on the part of owners of
businesses in the area that WNQP is anti-business. Mr. Andersen felt that this
was not the case, and pointed out that the WNQP charter is one of the few Eugene
neighborhood group charters which includes business owners as voting members of
the neighborhood organization. He cited specific instances in which WNQP had
supported the concerns of neighborhood businesses in the area. He also added
that some businesses in the area, specifically Wilson's Music Shop and Diana's
Records and Tapes, have gone on record as supporting being annexed by WNQP.
Mr. Andersen listed issues of concern to the entire downtown westside area: the
future of Lincoln School, the plans of the Eugene Renewal Agency, the Downtown
Housing Study, the urban village concept, and the Emerald Canal. He felt that
these issues need to be studied and addressed by citizens within the area
proposed to addition to WNQP as well as by members of the existing WNQP.
.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May llt 1981
Page 11
.
Mr. Andersen summarized his remarks by stating that there are two main reasons
why the council should approve the requested charter revision:
1. The subject area contains over 650 dwelling units which are currently
not represented by any neighborhood organization, yet represent too
small an area to form their own neighborhood group.
2. This area is a natural focus for the concern of existing WNQP--the
issues do not stop at Washington Street.
Mr. Andersen added that the Eugene Planning Department routinely sends referrals
to WNQP on land-use matters regarding the subject area, even though it is not
technically within the boundary of the group. He also noted that a represen-
tative of WNQP serves on the ERA Advisory Committee because it was recognized
that the ERA has and will have a great affect on the WNQP area.
Mr. Andersen concluded his testimony by reading and submitting a letter in favor
of the proposed charter revision addressed to the City Council from Ruth Koenig,
Lincoln Community School Coordinator.
Mayor Keller opened the public hearing.
Speaking in favor of the charter revision request:
e
Dustin Posner, 983 West 10th Avenue, stated that he is a homeowner in the WNQP
area. He favored the expansion of WNQP, because he felt that the subject area
is undergoing strong pressures for change and that area residents need an
organized mechanism to be represented in that process. Mr. Posner said that he
had lived for two years in the area proposed for annexation and that he had felt
the lack of a neighborhood group to deal with problems such as parking and
zoning. He said that he has worked with the WNQP and has been impressed with
the group's way of dealing with issues and of giving fair representation to all
interests, businesses as well as homeowners. Mr. Posner recognized that the
smaller of the two boundaries proposed for annexation might be more workable,
but he preferred the larger boundary because otherwise a uno man's landu would
be created between WNQP and the ERA.
Rhonda Budd, 1239 Washington Street, indicated that because she lives on the
UwrongU side of Washington Street, her family is not represented by any neigh-
borhood organization. She said that the area in which she lives had seceded
from WNQP in 1973. The people who were responsible for the secession still do
not want to rejoin the group, but Ms. Budd and several of her neighbors do want
to belong to the group. She said that interest in rejoining had been prompted
specifically by efforts to obtain more street lighting in the area to reduce
crime and to deal with traffic problems on Washington. Ms. Budd felt that all
City residents and property owners should have the opportunity to belong to a
neighborhood group. She felt that representation by a neighborhood group was
especially important for the many senior citizens and parents of small children
in the area who cannot attend meetings of City bodies to speak out on issues
of concern to them. Ms. Budd felt that residents of the area proposed for
.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 12
e
annexation have much in common with existing WNQP residents--all have made a
conscious choice to live downtown and are committed to the area. She added
that the possible closure of Lincoln Community School, which served as a focal
point for the area, heightens the need for a neighborhood group.
Nancy Clogston, 971 Lawrence Street, No.5, said that she wanted to be included
in the WNQP in order to join with that group in addressing concerns in the area
and overseeing changes which are made. She felt that working with an organized
group is the best way to effect change, to preserve livability, and to maintain
a safe, clean, healthy, and pleasant environment for residents and businesses.
Jon Pincus, 1054 West 8th Avenue, read a statement from the Board of Directors
of the Community Center for the Performing Arts which indicated that the board
had voted unanimously to support the proposal to expand the boundaries of WNQP
to allow residents of the area to work together to solve problems affecting the
residential and business community.
Mr. Pincus then read a statement to the City Council from Lenny Goldberg, owner
of Diana's Records and Tapes, 348 West 8th Avenue. Mr. Goldberg said that as a
business person in the area proposed for annexation to WNQP, he was very much in
favor of the annexation.
e
Mr. Pincus then read a statement from Candy Crosley, 372 West 10th Avenue, who
said she is a resident of WNQP and owns a business at 380 West 10th Avenue,
in the area being considered. She supported inclusion of the area in the WNQP.
Mr. Pincus then spoke for himself. He said that the downtown west side is an
area of unique opportunity for business people and residents and that both
groups must work together to participate jointly in decisions affecting the
area.
John Eden, 409 West Broadway, said that he lives in the subject area and that he
and other adults in his household want to be part of WNQP. He thought it was
important to note that most of those supporting annexation live in the area and
that most of those in opposition do not.
Stephen Wood, 971 West 10th Avenue, said that he used to live in the area being
considered for annexation to WNQP. He indicated that from 1976 to 1979, he had
chaired the Neighborhood Advisory Group for the WNQP Neighborhood Improvement
Program. One project funded through the NIP was a planning project aimed at
resolving differences in the subject area between 1948 zoning, the Metropolitan
Area General Plan designation, and existing uses in the area. Considerable
compromise had been reached during this process, but because planning is an
ongoing process, a forum is needed to keep the dialogue going on between busi-
nesses, residents, and all parties in the area with different ideas on what
should take place. Mr. Wood felt that a neighborhood organization is one of the
best ways to provide this forum for debate and that it was therefore important
to include the subject area within the boundaries of WNQP to allow the dialogue
to continue.
.
MINUTE$--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 13
e
David Cater, 971 Lawrence Street, said that basically what the people in the
area proposed for annexation want is to be represented. He thought that our
whole society is based on representation and that it seemed un-American and even
unconstitutional to deny someone representation.
Speaking in opposition to the charter revision request:
Chester Pietka, 372 West 12th Avenue, responded to Mayor Keller's earlier
request that those wishing to testify coordinate their testimony to avoid
repetition. He said that those opposed to this annexation had not gotten
together to testify because they wished to speak, however briefly, as
individuals.
Mr. Pietka said that he lived at 372 West 12th Avenue and that he owns and
operates a business at 1251 Lincoln Street. He said that he never received the
notices of the WNQP discussion of the proposed annexation which Mr. Andersen
said had been distributed to all residents and property owners in the area. He
indicated that other businesses in the area also did not receive the notices.
Mr. Pietka said that he had been a resident and a businessman in the area in
question since 1951. He opposed annexation of the area because, from past
experience, he feels that most of the people who are involved with the neighbor-
hood organization are short-term residents and are primarily interested in
family housing, parks, recreation, beautification, bicycle paths, and traffic
diverters. Again citing past experience, Mr. Pietka said that these people are
anti-business. He felt that when businesses had formed their own organization
in the area, they had been harassed.
e
Mr. Pietka said that there are 137 businesses in the area in question and about
30 apartment houses, ranging from four to 150 units each; yet the neighborhood
can make decisions affecting the whole area with a quorum of only ten persons.
He also felt that the votes of the 137 businesses in the area could easily be
surmounted by the votes of the residents in the area. Mr. Pietka concluded by
stating that he felt that the City Council provides the forum necessary for
public debate and that City departments can be approached directly with any
problems. He did not feel that business people had time to go to neighborhood
meetings.
David Lowe, 88357 Fisher Road, represented a business at 390 West 11th Avenue.
He said that he was one of the people involved in the decision to secede from
WNQP. He has not changed his mind. He did not feel that the businesses in the
area had been represented by WNQP. He expressed satisfaction with the way
things were going on now and felt that he could speak directly to the council if
he needed to and did not need to be represented through a neighborhood group.
Paul Gilbertson, 1312 Lincoln Street, felt that representation is the issue. He
felt that he was well represented by the City Council and well served by paid
City staff. He said that he had heard of someone who had been told he needed
permission from his neighborhood organization to cut down a tree. Mr. Gilbert-
son felt that neighborhood groups should not have this veto power.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 14
e
e
e
L
Byron Baker, 824 Martin Street, represented property he owns at 352 West 12th
and on Lincoln Street, in the area proposed for annexation. He said that
citizens can speak to the council and do not need to be represented by neigh-
borhood groups. He urged councilors not to think of this as a commercial versus
residential issue, because he felt that the issues would change with time. He
passed around a clipping from the January-February issue of Industrial Develop-
ment Magazine which cataloged all the layers of bureaucacy and government
through which industrial permits must pass. He urged the council not to create
an additional layer of government for businesses in this area to deal with.
Wallace L. Mull, 275 West 13th Avenue, said that he resided in the area under
discussion. He did not believe that the figure Mr. Andersen gave of 650 resi-
dences between 7th and 13th avenues and Charnel ton and Lincoln streets was
accurate. He objected to being represented by a group which has veto power
over issues concerning him and his property. He was a member of the group
which seceded from WNQP and did not want to rejoin. He asked the council to
"protect the rights of businessmen according to the constitution of the United
States and not according to some neighborhood group."
Dale Ber~, 451 West 13th Avenue, said that he owns a half block of property
between ashington and Lawrence streets and a quarter block between Lawrence and
the alley on 13th Avenue. He said that he had not received newsletters from
WNQP. He was not interested in being represented by WNQP and was satisfied with
the rapport between businesses in the area and the City Council.
Theodore A. Larsen, 1100 Charnel ton Street, said that he is the owner of Poole-
Larsen Funeral Home which has been at the corner of 11th and Charnelton for over
40 years. He did not want a neighborhood group to represent businesses in the
area because he felt that such groups are primarily concerned with topics such
as single-family housing, parks, and recreation. He preferred direct communi-
cation with the City Council and did not welcome another level of government.
Margaret Ellis, 2486 Grovedale Drive, Springfield, said she owns three business
lots and four residential lots at the corner of 12th and Lincoln. She felt
comfortable with dealing with the City Council because councilors are elected.
She felt that neighborhood representatives are self-appointed and not responsible
to all the people. She felt that neighborhood groups were useful to deal with
issues such as crime prevention, but that they did not need to be formal. She
said that neighborhood groups speak with an implied larger authority than is
justified by the small number of people who attend their meetings.
David L. Seamans, 292 West 12th Avenue, concurred with the remarks made by
others who had spoken in opposition to the annexation.
Stan Kurilo, OD, 272 West 11th Avenue, said he had been a property owner in the
area since 1971. The building in which his optometric office is housed has been
used for that purpose for over 50 years. He felt that the Washington/Jefferson
couplet is a major divider between the existing WNQP and the area proposed for
annexation. He said that this boundary had also been recognized by the ERA
Expansion Study Committee. Dr. Kurilo said that even with the mixed-use zone
which had been applied to the subject area, there is a potential for over 70
percent of the area to be developed with commercial uses. He stated that the
existing WNQP area only has ten-percent commercial property.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 15
.
e
.
Mayor Keller said that the time allotted for public testimony had been used up.
Councilors agreed to hear briefly from the rest of the citizens who had asked to
testify.
Ron Schmaedick, 1742 West 34th Place, said that Mr. Andersen had indicated by
his remarks that he is a newcomer to this process. Mr. Schmaedick said that the
MU zoning involved a compromise on the part of WNQP which had wanted consider-
ably more down-zoning in the area. He felt that the whole downtown retail area
and downtown core increased housing density development will be put in jeopardy
if the council agrees to the proposed boundary change.
Julie Hill, 955 Louis, represented L. R. Brant Investments, which owns property
at 1001 Washington Street. She said that her firm opposed annexation of the
MU district to the existing WNQP area because the planning uses in the two
areas are not the same. She felt that the neighborhood group's interest in
single-family residential living would be in conflict with City goals for
increased downtown housing density.
Mayor Keller closed the public hearing and thanked those who had spoken for
keeping their remarks brief and to the point.
Councilor Wooten wished to make it clear that at no time does representation by
a neighborhood organization pre-empt access to the City Council by any group or
individual.
Ms. Schue asked staff for clarification of the role of neighborhood organiza-
tions relative to the tree-cutting ordinance. Neighborhood Liaison Ruth Miller
responded that she did not believe that tree cutting is referred to neighborhood
groups. - She said that neighborhood groups had in the past complained about
trees being cut, but that there is no referral process for tree cutting.
Ms. Schue referred to a reference made in testimony to the proposed expansion of
the Eugene Renewal Area boundary. She said that she knew that there is a group
currently studying this, and asked staff for information on the time line of the
study and on the boundaries within which the study group is working. Jim Farah
of the Planning Department indicated that the study area boundary goes to
Washington Street. He thought that the task force was about two-thirds of the
way through its process and would be making its recommendations on any boundary
expansion to the Renewal Agency in mid-summer.
Mr. Obie asked staff for information on the past secession from WNQP of the area
now being considered for annexation. He wondered how this had been done,
whether a vote was taken, and how many people were involved. Ruth Miller
referred to a memo from former Assistant City Manager Keith Martin which said
that a majority of those present at a WNQP meeting had voted to withdraw the
area from the neighborhood organization. She indicated that the item had not
been on the agenda and had not been publicized in advance. Councilor Obie asked
if it were possible for secession to occur againr Ruth Miller responded that
this was possible, but indicated that the WNQP charter had been changed since
the original secession to require that there must be prior public notice of
agenda items. Responding to another question from Mr. Obie, Ruth Miller
said that she did not know how many people had been involved in the vote to
secede.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 16
.
e
e
Ms. Smith referred to testimony that those who seceded from WNQP had formed
their own organization. She asked Ruth Miller to comment on this. Ruth
Miller said that the area that had seceded formed its own downtown association
which was in existence for about a year and was a recognized neighborhood group.
There had been problems with elections, meeting notices, and definition of who
could vote, and the Eugene Planning Department had recommended that recognition
of the group be withdrawn because of these problems, because it was felt that
the group was not meeting the needs of people in the area, and because the group
was in violation of its charter.
Councilor Lindberg asked for clarification on testimony that had suggested that
neighborhoods have veto power. Mr. Gleason responded that neighborhood groups,
like other City boards and commissions, are only advisory to the council and
only make recommendations. They have no veto power.
Councilor Wooten said that she had given serious deliberation to the concerns
of the business community regarding this issue. She felt that the interests
of businesses and residents in the area are not mutually exclusive and that
the two groups can maintain a cooperative and enlightened neighborhood organiza-
tion. She therefore supported the proposed extension of the WNQP boundary to
Charnel ton Street. She felt that having a downtown merchant's association for
the area, to work on a consistent and open basis with the neighborhood group,
would be very helpful.
Councilor Miller felt that in an area with mixed uses, there is always going to
be difficulty in pleasing all factions on all issues. She noted that the
methods, tone, and style of doing business of most neighborhood groups have
changed considerably in the past ten years. Anti-business and anti-developer
attitudes which once prevailed in some neighborhood groups have, for the most
part, given way to general concern for city-wide economic development and job
potential. She therefore did not feel that businesses in the area proposed for
annexation to WNQP needed to fear harassment or anti-business attitudes~ Ms.
Miller agreed with Ms. Wooten's suggestion that a near-in westside merchant's
association be formed to represent businesses in the area both at neighborhood
and at city-wide meetings.
Ms. Miller wished to correct the impression made in some of the testimony that
neighborhood groups are decision-making bodies. She said that this was not the
case and that neighborhood groups only have the power to make recommendations.
She added that those who feel that recommendations made by any neighborhood
group were arrived at by an inadequate process or by a segment not representa-
tive of the real feelings in the area, should state this at public hearings and
let the decision-making body then decide how much weight to give the neighbor-
hood's testimony. Ms. Miller said that the residents in the subject area
deserve representation by a neighborhood group. She therefore supported
extension of the WNQP boundary.
Councilor Lindberg said he felt that everyone needs the opportunity to be
represented by a group, and that he would therefore support expansion of the
WNQP boundaries. He noted that the WNQP charter allows businesses the unique
opportunity to be represented both by a neighborhood group and by a merchant IS
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 17
.
e
.
association. Mr. Lindberg felt that all residents in the near downtown area
need to be represented on issues such as increased housing density, the reloca-
tion of the Washington-Jefferson couplet, and the expansion of the ERA bounda-
ries. Mr. Lindberg reiterated that neighborhood groups do not have any veto
power. As a councilor, he recognized that neighborhood organizations are not
always right and felt that the City Council would always consider all input on
an issue, not just neighborhood testimony.
Councilor Smith said that she had gone on record in the past as supporting
neighborhood associations and the opportunities that they provide for citizens
in the community. Ms. Smith explained, however, that she intended to oppose the
expansion of the boundary because she felt that while there is a need for
citizens to be represented, there is also a possibility for over-representation.
She did not want to create too many layers of government for citizens to deal
with. She felt that all citizens have direct access to the council and that no
one should be forced to belong to a neighborhood groups if he/she does not want
to. Ms. Smith added that she also felt any action to expand WNQP should be
postponed until the ERA boundaries are reviewed.
Councilor Schue responded to the notion which had been expressed that people
could be forced to be part of a neighborhood groups who did not wish to be. She
said that each citizen could determine whether to become involved in a neighbor-
hood group and that no one was forced to be active. She also responded to
the point which had been made by those testifying who felt that they did not
need a neighborhood group because they could speak directly to the City Council.
She felt that while it is true that everyone in the city has access to the
council, it is also true that the council has a limited amount of time and
follows structured agendas dealing for the most part with the larger, more
pressing issues in the community. For this reason, issues of local interest
often cannot come before the council. She gave the example of the Willamette
Street "gut" issue which had been given some attention by the council, but a
great deal more attention through the area's neighborhood group in conjunction
with City staff. She felt sure that there were local issues in the area in
question which would benefit from similar treatment on a localized basis. Ms.
Schue noted that it had been eight years since the citizens in the area proposed
for annexation had tried to work as an organization. She urged them to try
again now and indicated that she would support the proposed expansion.
Councilor Obie indicated that he would like to ask the council to delay a
decision on this issue until the ERA boundary is determined in the area in
question. He said that if the Renewal Agency does extend its efforts into the
subject area, there will be an additional layer of government for citizens to
deal with. Mr. Obie said he could understand why there have been controversies
regarding this annexation. He felt that the land uses on the east and west
sides of Washington Street are very different and that many objectives of the
two areas may not be compatible. Mr. Obie cited his own experiences in trying
to develop property in the Whiteaker Neighborhood. He felt that having to deal
with that group had been frustrating, and had encumbered and delayed his
efforts. Mr. Obie reiterated that neighborhood groups did not have veto power.
He said, however, that in his five years on the council, he had not seen the
council make a decision that neighborhood groups did not support.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 18
e
Mr. Lindberg said that Mr. Obie's reason for asking to delay this decision was
precisely Mr. Lindberg's reason for wanting to proceed. Mr. Lindberg said that
he is a member of the advisory committee considering expansion of the ERA
boundary and an ERA member. He said that all the projects and areas being
considered by the advisory committee are represented by neighborhood groups
except that area under discussion. He felt that widespread input from the
business and residential communities is a necessary part of any decision regard-
ing the future of the ERA boundaries.
e
Ms. Miller responded to Councilor Obie1s remarks by stating that there have been
a number of times when the council did not do what the affected neighborhood
group wanted. . She felt that one person's encumbrance over a development pro-
ject, such as that cited by Mr. Obie in relation to the Whiteaker Neighborhood,
is another person's right to have a say on what goes on in the area where he
lives, and that it was necessary to preserve opportunity for a dialogue between
the two. Responding to the suggestion that the council postpone this issue
until the new ERA boundaries are set, Ms. Miller said that once the new ERA
boundary has been set, it may be advisable to pull back the boundaries of all
the affected neighborhood organizations so that no one has to deal with too
many layers of government.
Ms. Wooten disagreed with Mr. Obie1s interpretation that this a black and white
issue of businesses versus residents. She felt that there is room for compro-
mise and cooperation between the two groups. She agreed that business people
can speak directly to the council without being represented by a neighborhood
group, but she felt that business people have trained themselves to use this
process while others in the area may need help from such an organization in
framing and voicing their concerns.
Mayor Keller said that he had served on the task force which years ago had tried
to bring businesses and the WNQP neighborhood group members together and that it
just had not worked out. He did not want to force people into a group they did
not want to belong to. He suggested that the council again offer the leadership
to try to resolve the issues by ironing out diversity rather than enforcing
neighborhood representation.
Councilor Haws said he did not like either of the choices presented so far on
this issue. He sought another alternative. He personally felt that neighbor-
hood groups are for residents of an area, not for businesses. He asked if the
boundaries could be expanded only for residential uses and not for commercial
uses. Ms. Wooten noted that this suggestion would require a further change in
the WNQP charter. The neighborhood group would have to discuss this before the
council could act on it. Ruth Miller responded to Mr. Hawsl question. She
said that WNQP could amend its charter to allow only residents of the area to
vote on issues, but to allow everyone in the area to participate in discussion.
Ms. Wooten noted that there are 50 dwelling units in the block between Charnel-
ton and Lincoln and that the rest of this area is businesses. In the area
between Lincoln and Washington, there are 600 dwelling units and few businesses.
She therefore suggested that the council resolve the issue by choosing the
Lincoln Street boundary alternative.
.
MlNUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 19
.
e
e
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, that the City Council
return the issue to the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project and
asked them to consider either the possibility of removing busi-
nesses as members of the neighborhood association, so that they
would not be represented, or the possibility of making membership
an option for businesses fi,the area. In addit ion, that the'
council request reports back in writing from any groups or
individuals involved in the discussion on the adequacy of those
possibilities, with particular reference to the choice between
the two possible boundaries which had been given in the charter
revision request.
Ms. Miller noted that it should be at least two months before the WNQP could get
back to the council on this item and that by that time the results of the
discussion on revisions of the ERA boundary should be clear.
Mr. Lindberg suggested that leaders of the WNQP and of area businesses be asked'
at this time to respond as to whether they thought they could work with the
proposal made by Ms. Miller.
Mr. Andersen, representing WNQP, said that he could not speak for that group but
that he personally felt the group would prefer the Lincoln Street boundary
as a first alternative. If that is not possible, he felt that Ms. Miller's
motion would be acceptable because it would open a forum for dialogue between
the residents and the businesses in the area, which is what has been desired all
along.
Mr. Kurilo spoke for the businesses. He asked if Ms. Miller's intent was that
business properties would be physically excluded from the revised WNQP bounda-
ries. Ms. Miller responded that this was not the case. Mr. Kurilo did not feel
that businesses should be included within the neighborhood boundary but excluded
from voting. Mayor Keller asked for a direct answer as to whether the busi-
nesses were willing to get together with WNQP representatives to discuss alter-
natives and compromises. Mr. Kurilo responded that the businesses would be
willing to do this. '
Ms. Smith hoped that if the motion carried and the two groups do work together,
they would not be restricted to the alternatives suggested by Ms. Miller in her
motion but would feel free to present to the council any other alternatives they
came up with.
Mr. Obie said he would support the motion. He suggested that the Lincoln Street
boundary be chosen with the exclusion of businesses fronting on 13th Avenue, 7th
Avenue, or Lincoln Street. He asked that Ms. Miller and her second include in
the motion this and any other alternatives which the groups involved might come
up with. Ms. Miller agreed that this had been her intent.
Mr. Lindberg said that he would oppose the motion because he felt that every
resident who wishes to belong to a neighborhood organization should have the
option of doing so.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 20
.
e
.
Roll call vote. Motion carried 6:2, with Councilors Smith,
Miller, Obie, Haws, Schue, and Wooten voting aye, and Councilors
Lindberg and Hamel voting no.
Mayor Keller noted that it was now 10:50 p.m. and said that all remaining agenda
items would be postponed for a future meeting, with the exceptions of items
II-C, III, and IV.
Councilor Hamel left the meeting.
C. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulations attached)
Mr. Teitzel indicated that there were several bids to award. He reviewed the
Williams Street bid, since there were several citizens present to speak regard-
ing this item. He indicated that the Williams Street paving and storm sewer
project would be assessed to property owners at the rate of $29.10 per frontage
foot for paving, $1.90 per square foot for concrete drive, $.45 per square foot
for asphalt drives, and $650 for each sewer service hookup. He said that the
improvements were initiated by a petition to the council and that since initia-
tion, 25 percent of the property owners had signed a second petition withdrawing
their names from the original petition. He indicated that there are several
minor subdivisions on the street which were required to file a petition for
paving as a requirement for receiving the minor partition. Counting the people
who signed the original petition and the people required to petition in connec-
tion with minor partitions, 54.3 percent were in favor of the improvements.
Mr. Haws asked if property owners who were required to partition for improve-
ments as part of the minor partition process could subsequently withdraw. Mr.
Teitzel said that a condition of their receiving the minor partition had been
that they would not object to the paving.
Ms. Wooten asked what percent of property owners remained in favor of the
petition if those involved in minor partitions were allowed to withdraw. Mr.
Teitzel responded that this would leave 39 percent in favor of the improvements.
Ms. Wooten asked if there had been similar cases before the council in the past.
Mr. Teitzel could not think of any specifically. Ms. Wooten said that she was
not inclined to consider improvements if less than 50 percent were in favor.
Mr. Obie noted that it was important to remember that the minor partition
probably would not have been granted if the property owners had not agreed to
petition for the improvements.
Responding to a question from Mr. Gleason, Mr. Teitzel said that this was a
residential street.
Mayor Keller opened the public hearing on item 2, Williams Street from Harriet
to Royal Avenue.
Speaking in favor of the street improvements:
Lauri Patterson, 943 Williams, said that she was in favor of the improvements as
a means of correcting the drainage problem which exists on the street. She said
that the drainage problem had been complicated by creation of nine panhandle
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 21
e
e
.
lots on the street in the past two years. She had worked with the City to have
the drainage problem corrected and had been told by the City Engineer that
installation of storm sewers was the only way to correct the problem. She
indicated that her property is a low point in the area and that therefore all
the water for the area collects on her property. She felt that the rain comes
from all properties in the area and that it was therefore only fair for all
properties to share in the cost of correcting the problem. She sympathized with
the financial hardship which the improvement assessments would place on property
owners. She felt that the City should share in the cost, since the City was
responsible for annexing the area with incorrect drainage and then allowing
additional building and partitioning to go on. Ms. Patterson said that she had
received an anonymous note chastising her for thrusting the cost of assessments
on her neighbors, but that she felt that the burden belongs to everyone and that
the value of her property was being destroyed by the water problem.
Shannon Walter, 941 Williams, distributed photographs showing the accumulated
water around and under her house. She said that the problem got worse each
year. She sympathized with those who could not afford the cost of the assess-
ments, but she felt that she could not afford to let the value of her house
deteriorate.
Speaking in opposition to the street improvements:
Pat Trimble, 1001 Williams, said that the people at the south end of the street
are flooded out, but that the north end is dry. She said that many property
owners on the street are low-income or seniors and cannot afford to pay the
assessments. She said that small children play in the street, and she was
concerned that paving the street would allow cars to travel too fast and
endanger the children. She asked if her name is on the petition to pave;
whether sidewalks are included in the project; and who will pay to keep up the
street once it is paved. She also said she lived on a panhandle lot and asked
for clarification regarding assessments for such lots. She said that there are
several other streets in the area whose drainage is contributing to the problem
on Williams Street.
Ron Lewis, 971 Williams, said that the City had caused the drainage problem on
Williams by covering up a drainage culvert when Royal Avenue was put in. He
felt that the problem on Williams could be corrected if this culvert were
replaced. Mr. Lewis said that the first petition which property owners had been
asked to sign had not been clear and had not discussed the cost or the fact that
the sidewalks and drainage were included. He said he spoke for 75 percent of
the people on the street.
James Kitterman, 999 Williams, said that he agreed with Mr. Lewis. He offered
to help dig the culvert out to improve drainage. He indicated that he is
unemployed and that the assessment would be a great financial burden to him.
Bob Glasgow, 975 Williams, said that he has lived on the street longer than
anybody has. There had never been a water problem until Royal Avenue was- put
in. He said that before the area was annexed to the City, he had paid to have
an eight-foot ditch put in the back of his property and that this ditch had
taken care of the water problem. The ditch had been filled in by the City, and
this was the cause of the water problems.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 22
e
e
Mayor Keller closed the public hearing.
Mr. Teitzel responded to the questions raised by Ms. Trimble. He said that her
name did not appear on the petitions in favor of or in opposition to the
improvements. She had, however, submitted a petition at the time that a minor
subdivision was approved. He explained that her panhandle lot would be assessed
for a 60-foot minimum frontage and that this assessment would be used to reduce
the total cost per foot to all property owners. He said that there would be no
sidewalks included in the project except through driveway aprons. He indicated
that the City is responsible for maintenance of the street.
Regarding the comments on the effect of Royal Avenue on the Williams Street
drainage, Mr. Teitzel said he did not see how Royal could have an effect,
because the natural drainage is to the northwest. He said that Royal is uphill
from Williams at this point. He noted again that the project does include a
storm sewer which the City will pay for.
Ms. Wooten asked what Mr. Teitzel estimated the project would cost each house-
hold. Mr. Teitzel estimated that the average frontage on the street is 60 to 75
feet. The cost for this would be about $1,800 for paving and driveway, not
including sewer hookups. Responding to further questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr.
Teitzel said that the low-income deferral is available to seniors but not to
other low-income persons.
Mayor Keller asked if the average payment, spread over ten years and including
interest, might come to something on the order of $2,500 total. Mr. Teitzel said
that this seemed correct.
Mr. Lindberg asked if there were any alternative ways to deal with the drainage
problem. Mr. Teitzel replied that the drainage has essentially been blocked by
the development in the area and that the only alternatives would be to create a
hazardous, deep ditch in the street or to cut across private property.
Mayor Keller said that the City operates under uniform standards for streets.
He felt that postponing work to deal with this problem would only cause costs to
escalate. He pointed out that the City will pay for the storm sewers. Mr.
Gleason concurred and said that a maintainable standard needs to be adhered to.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the bids as
outlined.
Ms. Wooten reiterated her concern that a majority of the property owners on
Williams Street do not support the petition for the improvements. Ms. Miller
pointed out that many of those now objecting had previously agreed not to object
as a condition of obtaining a minor partition. Ms. Wooten wondered if there
were any way to help those citizens for whom payment of $250 per year for ten
years was a great hardship. Mr. Gleason responded that the City did not make a
practice of selling the property of citizens because of failure to pay a Ban-
croft note. He indicated that the average homeowner only stays in his home for
four years and that when the home is sold, the Bancroft note must be settled.
The Bancroft is then cleared in this way. Mr. Gleason also noted that the value
of the property is usually greatly increased by the street improvements, which
~ are thus essentially an investment at very low rates.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 23
e
-
e.
Ms. Wooten told those who had testified that she appreciated their staying until
11:30 at night tO,be heard and that she was sorry that it appeared that commit-
ments made at the time of prior land-use agreements bound some citizens in the
area to agree with the street improvements.
Mr. Obie said that the manner of payment is not at issue in consideration of
assessments. He suggested that the City Finance Department return to the
council with a proposal on how to deal with assessments made to low-income
people.
Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
III. ORDINANCES LEVYING ASSESSMENTS--FIRST READING AND REFERRAL TO
HEARINGS PANEL ;
CB 2288--An ordinance levying assessments for paving on Jefferson Street
from Clark Avenue to 300 feet north of River Street (79-43).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
CB 2289--An ordinance levying assessments for paving Fuller Street from
Echo Hollow Road to Jay Street (80-13).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
CB 2290--An ordinance levying assessments for sidewalks on the east and
west sides of City View Street from Corinthian Court north to the
existing sidewalk on the west side of Garfield Street, 29th
Avenue to 100 feet north (80-18).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
CB 2291--An ordinance levying assessments for a sanitary sewer and storm
sewer 60 feet north of Vernon Way from Calvin Street to Arcadia
Street and sidewalk on the west side of Calvin Street from Dulles
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 24
.
e
.
Street to 400 feet south, and paving and sanitary sewer in Calvin
Street from 60 feet north of Vernon Way to 50 feet north of
Dulles Street (80-35).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
CB 2292--An ordinance levying assessments for a paving and storm sewer in
Hickory Lane from Sweetgum to Garden Way (80-45).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
~
CB 2293--An ordinance levying assessments for a sanitary sewer in Kincaid
Street from 19th Avenue to 300 feet south (80-61).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read for
the first time and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing
May 18, 1981, with panel recommendations to be brought back for
council consideration on May 26, 1981. Roll call vote; motion
carried unanimously.
IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS
Mr. Gleason asked to add an item for $91,449 for ambulances, $50,000 of which
the City will ultimately own, and a little more than $39,000 of which the City
will sell to the City of Springfield.
Res. No. 3505--A resolution authorizing the payment of bills, claims, and
progress payments for the period April 27, 1981, through
May 11, 1981.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution.
Mr. Haws asked for explanation of an item listing an amount of $13,148 to be
paid to Leisure Time Travel, Unlimited, for 68 spaces on a trip to Victoria, BC.
Mr. Whitlow explained that this is advance payment on a Parks & Recreation
Department program which will be compensated for by revenue.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 25
.
-
e
Ms. Wooten asked where the money would come from which had just been approved to
buy ambulances. Mr. Whitlow responded that this would come from a $300,000
supplemental budget approved last December. Operations beyond July 1, 1981,
will be financed by an amendment to the 1981-82 budget which will be presented
to the Budget Committee on May 12, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, May 13, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
~~-
Micheal Gleason
City Manager
(Recorded by Darcy Marentette)
MG:DM:db/CM26a1
MINUTES--Eugene City Council
May 11, 1981
Page 26
I
v'
e
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
BID NO. 1
Opened: Apri 1 21, 1981
1. ' STORM SEWER to replace ditch running through Ellis Parker Elementary School
property at approximately. 39th Avenue and Potter Street (1847)
~WARD
-
Bidders:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------- $
Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.---------
Bowers Excavating & Fencing, Inc.-----------
Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.--------------
Greensun1s, Inc.----------------------------
Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------------
Drainmaster/Northwest Excavating------------
Wildish Construction Co.--------------------
Egge1s Sand & Gravel Co.--------------------
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------
Henkels & McCoy, Inc.-----------------------
L. D. VanOver Construction, Inc.---~--------
Contract Cost
19,347.70
19,443.30
19,892.00
19,968.75
20,823.00
21,487.50
21,730.01
22,512.65
22,516.00
22,826.00
23,138.23
32,153.15
Cost to City
o
2. STORM SEWER at 11th Avenue and McKinley Street (1938)
AWARD 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
.
Cost to Abutting Property
$24,760.00 (School District 4J)
COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1981
Bidders:
Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-------------- $
Drainmaster/Northwest Excavating------------
Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------------
Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.---------
Tarheel Asphalt & Paving--------------------
Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------
Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.-------------------
Egge Sand & Gravel Co.----------------------
Wildish Construction Co.--------------------
Bowers Excavating & Fencing, Inc.-----------
Emerald Excavating, Inc.--------------------
Cost to Abutting Property
None
COMPLETION DATE: June 12, 1981
Contract Cost
10,520. 50
12,847.80
13,757.00
14, 11 6. 00
14,215.00
14,739.00
14,769.50
16,458.63
16,892.00
17,030.00
25,030.60
Cost to City
Amount Budgeted
$ 12,600.00
(531) $11,700.00
Page 1 of 3
~. PAVING Adams Street from 3rd Avenue to Railroad Tracks (1912)
Contract Cost
Alternate
/
Bidders:
Basic
AWARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------ $ 0
2. Benge Paving, Inc.--~-------------------- $ 11,798.00
3. Wildish Construction Co.----------------- $ 12,744.01
4. Tarheel Asphalt & Paving----------------- $ 13,254.10
5. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------- $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property
Cost to City
30-Foot Paving
14-Foot Paving
$ 41.00/FF
$ 21. 00/ FF
None
COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1981
$ 11,560.95
$ 12,270.00
$ 12,962.41
$ 0
$ 13,355.62
e
3. SANITARY SEWER TV INSPECTIONS for Willakenzie Island Annexation Areas
#1, 7 and 8 (AZ 78-11)
Bidders:
Contract Cost
AWARD 1. Eugene Concrete Pipe---------------------$
2. Gelco Grouting Service-------------------$
3. Chern Seal, Inc.--------------------------$
7,384.50
7,630.65
9,366.05
Cost to Abutting Property
Sanitary Lateral $O.OOl/Sq. Ft.
COMPLETION DATE: June 30, 1981
Cost to City
None
e
Page 2 of 3
v
."
e
5. SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to serve Thornebrook Subdivision and the area
within 160 feet of the north and east boundaries of Thornebrook Subdivision
(1887)
Bidders
Contract Cost
AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------ $ 41,814.50
2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-------------- $43,442.95
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------- $ 46,400.00
4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.--------------~--- $ 47,122.10
5. Wi1dish Construction Co.-------------------- $ 52,601.85
6. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co.--------- $ 54,739.20
7. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-------------------- $ 60,798.30
8. Bowers Excavating & Fencing, Inc.----------- $ 66,588.00
Cost to Abutting Property
Cost to City
Amount Budgeted
Sanitary Sewer $ 0.18/Sq.Ft.
Sanitary Service $ 225.00/Each
Storm Sewer (Sub) $11,000.00 --------------------$ 18,000.00
COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1981
(332) $21,000.00
e
e
Page 3 of 3
t' .j
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
e
BID NO. 2
Opened: May 5, 1981
- 1. PAVING Fairway Loop from Eastwood Lane to Southwood Lane (1660)
Contract Cost
Basic Alternate
Bidders:
AWARD 1; H.& ~ Constructio~-------------------------$ 85,401.60
2. Wl1 dl sh Construct 1 on CO.;';,:;.;:,:.:.:..---------------$ 86,664. 10
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$ -0-
4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------------$ -0-
$ -0-
$ -o-
S 88,334.70
$ 88,867.05
Cost to Abuttin~ Property
20-foot Paving
28-foot Paving
7-inch Concrete Drive
$30.60/FF
$39.50jFF
$ 2.65jSq. Ft.
Cost to City
Storm Sewer
$36,500.00
Amount Budgeted
$17,700.00 (531 & 331)
COMPLETION DATE: August 1, 1981
e
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
2. PAVING AND STORM SEWER on Williams Street from Harriet Street to Royal Avenue (1930)
Bidders:
Contract Cost
Basic Alternate
AWARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractor, Inc.--------------$ -0-
2. H & J Construction------------------------$84,690.40
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------$ 86,420.00
4. Wildish Construction Co.------------------$ -0-
$ 92,039.05
$ -0-
$ -0-
$ 93,992.20
Cost to Abutting Property
28-Foot Paving $ 29.10/FF
5-Inch Concrete Drive $ 1.90/SF
A.C. Drive $ .4S/SF
Sanitary Service $650.00/Each
COMPLETION DATE: August 31,1981
Cost to City
Storm Sewer
$23,000.00
Amount Budgeted
$29,400.00 (531)
-
Page 1 of 2
."
..
>,e.
AWARD
--
-..
,
3.
STORM SEWER at Leona Count and Dewey Street (1936)
Bidders:
.....Contract '{ost
1. Tarheel Asphalt & Paving----------------------~$'11~507:35
2. Egge I s Sand & Gravel Co. ---------------------.,.-$12",'5'97.70 .
3. Greensun's Inc.--------------------------------$ 13,832.25
4. Northwest Excavating/Drainmaster--------..,.-----$ 13,983.10
5. Morse Bros. Contrattors, Inc.------------------$ 14,521.50
6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-----------------$ 15,028.94
7. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc.----------------------$ 15,325.10
8. H & J Construction-----------------------------$ 15,483,30
9. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company--------$ 15,634.30
10. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------------$ 16,007.70
11. L. D. VanOver Construction, Inc.-.,.-------------$ 17,430.34
12. Kilpatrick Excavating & Backhoe Service Inc. --$ 21,463.69
Cost to Abutting Property
None
Cost to City
$13,800.00
COMPLETION DATE: July 1, 1981
Amount Budgeted
$14,000.00 (531)
Page 2 of 2
I'
I
I
~