Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1981 Meeting . e \e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 10, 1981 11: 30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, and Cynthia Wooten. Gretchen Miller. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller and Councilor Emily Schue. Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Her Honor Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Downtown/Performing Arts Center/Fifth Street District Shuttle Mr. Lindberg stated that at the last City Council meeting, there was an exten- sive discussion regarding the vacation of Willamette Street between 6th and 7th. A number of ideas have surfaced regarding promotion of the downtown district and the success of that business area. One is the possibility of implementing shuttle service between the mall, the Fifth Street District, and the Performing Arts Center. He would like staff to review and bring back a report on the options for implementing such a service and possible options for funding this service. B. Promotion of Downtown Mr. Lindberg stated that there are a number of problems in the downtown area and he feels they are due, in part, to an image problem. Staff could look at a series of public service announcements or other activities to promote downtown ~development as downtown development is a high priority goal with the council. He indicated that he would have to leave the meeting early today and asked if the discussion on assessment policies could be held over~ Mr. Gleason stated that it could either be held over or a brief staff report could be given with individual briefings given to the councilors later if needed. The council concurred that a brief staff report would be presented today. Ms. Miller reiterated that she would like to see an additional report brought back at a later time. Mr. Gleason indicated that this could be done. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 1 . C. Metropolitan Wastewater Presentation Ms. Smith distributed packets of information to the council regarding the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. She indicated that the packets contain testimony from Congressman Weaver as well as a description of the legislative and administrative approaches to be taken at the Federal level. Four cities will be hiring a lobbyist through the League of Oregon Cities for work on these kinds of projects in Washington, DC. D. Appointments 1. Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Eugene Private Industry Council (memo distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to appoint Judy Bronson, 1711 Del Rose, Springfield, to complete the unexpired term of Susan Shephard, ending September 30, 1984, and Jack Wesolowski, 82086 Lost Creek, Dexter, to complete the unexpired term of James Goodman, ending September 30, 1983, to the Eugene Private Industry Council. e Mr. Lindberg indicated that neither of these applicants reside within the city of Eugene, although both of them work in the city. Gary Long, Staff Services, stated that Department of Labor regulations do not require residency. The DOL requirement is that the appointments are for people who have businesses of 500 or more employees. Both of the companies for which these people work have had representatives on this council previously. Ms. Miller indicated that this case would fall within the residency exceptions, since no qualified applicants reside within the city limits. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. E. East Bank Trunk Construction Project Presentation Mr. Gleason introduced Bill Pye, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Waste- water Management Commission. Mr. Pye presented a bar and graph schedule of the work to be done. The trunk construction is contract C-32 and begins at the entrance of Alton Baker Park, involving both Country Club Road and Club Road. He explained that the hash lines on the schedule refer to the contract. Ms. Wooten asked how damaging this construction project has been to local businesses. Mr. Pye responded that a number of people have indicated problems with the single direction access. They will get the job completed as soon as possible. There is disruption, but they are trying to minimize it. Ms. Miller Pye stated completed. closed and has had to asked if the schedule indicates when the road will be reopened. Mr. that by November 10, the final portion of the project should be Ms. Miller stated that she has been told that Club Road has been asked if that was correct. Mr. Pye stated that an EWEB water line be replaced and it is scheduled to be done by June 15. The road e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 2 . had been closed in order to locate a Pacific Northwest Bell duct bank. Also, there was some delay in the construction equipment arrival. Ms. Miller asked if the road is being completed in sections. Mr. Pye responded that it is being done in two sections--Club Road and Country Club Road. Access will be available from one direction or the other at all times. Ms. Miller thanked Mr. Pye for the presentation and indicated that staff should refer calls to him. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of February 18, 1981, March 11, 1981, April 29, 1981, May 11, 1981, and May 13, 1981; and Legislative Subcommittee Minutes of May 27, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve City Council minutes of February 18, 1981, March 11, 1981, April 29, 1981, May 11, 1981, and May 13, 1981; and Legislative Subcommittee minutes of May 27, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Improvement Petitions e Mr. Gleason stated that these are all citizen-initiated petitions. The hearing for the bid awards will be in July. Construction will begin and assessment hearings will be held next year. 1. Bailey Hill Road (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving, total front footage, 2,331 feet, 88%, total footage petitioned, 2,064 feet; sanitary sewer, total square footage, 568,925 feet, 52%; square footage petitioned, 295,014 feet; sidewalk, total front footage, 715 feet, front footage petitioned, 448 feet, 63%; City cost, extra width, $64,060) Res. No. 3526--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, and sidewalk construction on Bailey Hill Road from 5th Avenue to 11th Avenue (1795). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2. Todd Street (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving, total front footage, 3,115 feet, 64.3%, total footage petitioned, 2,003 feet; sidewalk, total front footage, 3,115 feet, front footage petitioned, 0 feet, 0%; City costs, none) Res. No. 3527--A resolution authorizing street paving and sidewalk con- struction on Todd Street from West 18th Avenue to 500 feet south of Ellen Street; and Ellen Street from 85 feet west of Buck Street to 110 feet east of Coventry Way (1931). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 3 . e e 3. Fifth Avenue (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving, total front footage, 1,795 feet, total footage petitioned, 1,343 feet, 75%; City costs, extra width paving, $99,000) Res. No. 3528--A resolution authorizing street paving on 5th Avenue from Seneca Road to Bailey Hill Road (577). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 4. Chippendale Subdivision (affected property on petition--assessable costs: paving 94.7%; sanitary sewer, total square footage, 560,442 feet, square footage petitioned, 479,926 feet, 85.6%; sidewalk, 100%; City costs, storm sewer, $16,200) Res. No. 3529--A resolution authorizing street paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk construction in and adjacent to Chippendale Subdivision; and storm sewer construction 650 feet north of Harlow Road from Arcadia Drive to Calvin Street; and street sewer 1,450 feet north of Harlow Road from Arcadia Drive to 300 feet east (1712). Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Ordinance Expanding Joint Housing Committee (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason explained that this is a housekeeping item to include the increase of two members to the Joint Housing Committee to the listing of boards and commissions in the code. CB 2319--An ordinance concerning the Joint Housing Committee; amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Council Bill 2319 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18813. Mr. Haws arrived at the meeting. III. CIVIC CENTER COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT (memo and report distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Les Anderson, Chairperson of the Civic Center Commission. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 4 e e - Mr. Anderson stated that the Civic Center Commission has given periodic reports on the construction progress of the Performing Arts Center and that progress has been considerable since the last report. The commission began with a bond issue, selected architects, reviewed design, checked cost estimates, and are, monitoring the progress of the project. The project is on schedule. The facility will be ready for inspection in July or August of 1982 with the grand opening in September 1982. The committee is already planning the opening festivities. The commission's work is nearly finished. Operation of the center will be the responsibility of the Performing Arts Commission. The Civic Center Commission has been very dedicated, with 12 of the original 15 appointees having served almost four-and-one-half years. They have had problems and pleasant experiences. Inflation has been their biggest obstacle with the CPI increasing 39 percent through 1980 and a projection of an additional 10 percent in 1981. No other program has had more citizen participation. They have held many meetings to hear both citizens' and experts' input which has contributed to the final package which will be one that will fit the needs of the City of Eugene. Some of the obstacles that they faced were higher bids than anticipated which caused them to place some items on the deferral or buy-back lists. About half of the $1.9 million buy-back list has been replaced by the Eugene Arts Foundation contributions. The foundation has committed $900,000 for construction of the green room, rehearsal hall, etc. The foundation will also help sustain oper- ating costs and give support to local arts groups. One positive factor in- dealing with the inflation problem has been the authority of Project Director Ed Smith to invest the interest moneys. This project was value engineered, which was a wise decision, enabling cost control. They have also followed the policy of owner-purchased items which allowed direct purchase of items such as a resonance system, the lobby timbers, the sound equipment, furniture and fix- tures, and the visual arts program. The final decision on the Willamette Street vacation request awaits council action but the Master Site Plan calls for some kind of treatment between the facilities and this will be the next development portion of the design. The parking structure is completed and in use. The visual arts program is under way thanks to the help of the Eugene Arts Founda- tion and the National Endowment for the Arts. Nearly $200,000 has been commit- ted to provide visual complements. Many of the pieces of visual art are being done by local artists. They have had reasonably good cooperation from those people. Next September, everyone can share with the commission in the pride of the fine center which Eugene will have. He indicated that Ed Smith could answer any technical questions. Ms. Wooten stated that the original bond was for $18.5 million. She asked if the $4 million has been interest accrued to date, or if that includes estimated interest accrual as well. Mr. Anderson responded that that is the estimated amount that will accrue and that about $3 million has already been accumulated. They are assuming that approximately another $1.3 million will be accrued. Ms. Wooten asked if this money would be used to purchase more of the buy-backs. Mr. Anderson stated that this is possible. However, the big hurdles have been crossed. Ms. Wooten asked for clarification on page 3 of the report and how the bond interest was used for the arts program. Mr. Smith stated that the project concept is being expanded, and to meet the project criteria, they needed an MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 5 . e . additional $1.8 million. Mr. Anderson stated that the Civic Center Commission appreciates the cooperation received from the City Council and working with this commission has been a nice experience. Ms. Miller stated that this was a big job and that the work has paid off. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Animal Control Services Agreements (memo and agreements distributed) Ms. Miller stated that she and Ms. Schue had been on the task force studying animal control services and are presenting their recommendation due to the comtemplated reorganization of the Tri-Agency Animal Regulation Authority. Ms. Miller provided a basic outline of the recommendations. The task force feels that the service should be provided by Lane County and contracted for by the City of Eugene for those areas within the city limits. This raises some old concerns. However, the City will be contracting for a higher level of service within the city than will be requested in the unincorporated areas. There are still some continuing problems. The County will be leasing the facility for practically no cost and the City will continue to operate the Spay/Neuter Clinic. The animal control agreement sets out a basic description of the services to be provided. Exhibit A includes details on the program. These agreements have been reviewed by the County and those who are working in the field. Everyone agrees this is a basic document with which they can agree. The task force feels it is very important that all the agencies cooperate with promotion of the Spay/Neuter Clinic. On Exhibit A, page 2, the work program is detailed. There is a need to control kittens and puppies at the Saturday Market, particularly. Also, there will be an active education program for dog owners. The University of Oregon will be one of the target areas, since it has been a continuing problem in that area. On-the-spot licensing and appointments for spaying/neutering will be included with the education program. Officers will be given a goal of 30 citations per officer per month which should be increased next year. They are expected not just to meet these goals, but to exceed them whenever possible. If 75 percent of the dogs are licensed, then fewer dogs will be running at large and owners will be easier to locate. Fees may have to be adjusted in order to assist in the licensing program. More people may be willing to license their dogs if there is more than one place in which to acquire a license. They must be assured that other agencies that are placing animals are operating under the same goals. They are expecting a 30-percent return to owners of dogs this year and 40 percent next year. She feels this is a modest start with goals that can easily be met. No referrals are to be made to kennels or agencies without spay/neuter or licensing provi- sions. Those who wish to adopt an animal and do not wish to spay or neuter at the time will have to pay a deposit equal to the spay or neuter fee, which can later be used to spay or neuter the animal. They have requested that a tickler system be set up so that when the deposit is made, a card will come up a few months later for the owner to be recontacted to make sure that the opera- tions are being performed. It will be the responsibility of the council and the City Manager's Office to make sure the provisions are met. The County says they can live up to the City's expectations. She feels this is a good approach to animal control, with good solutions for the problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 6 e e e Mr. Obie asked if the County could subcontract with other agencies to provide services. Mr. Whitlow stated that now they do not plan to subcontract the service but there is a gO-day withdraw period if the City is not pleased with the services. Mr. Obie asked if that would be put in the contract. Mr. Whitlow responded that he did not know if the subcontracting issue could be addressed in the agreement. Mark Pangborn, Lane County Management Analyst, stated that the County had not envisioned subcontracting the services at this time, although they had con- sidered that at one time. If in the future they change their minds, the County will come back to the City of Eugene and discuss it first. Mr. Obie asked if that could be part of the agreement. Mr. Pangborn responded that it could. Mr. Hamel stated that he has received calls from concerned citizens regarding the reliability of service by contracting with the County. Some citizens feel that a 90-day termination agreement would not be sufficient. Mr. Gleason stated that the City Manager's Office would monitor the goals and the performance contract. If the performance goals are not met, then staff will meet with the County to discuss any problems. The contract could be breached if neces- sary. Then, the City would be in the enforcement business, which is something the City is capable of doing. This agreement allows the City to set its own standards and provides for the easiest way to deal with the situation--from admini strator to admini strator. Ms. Smith asked, in regard to enforcement, how the number of employees compares to the current situation. Mr. Whitlow stated this would be equivalent to what the City has now--four employees who would be working just for the City of Eugene. Mr. Whitlow stated that currently officers have been issuing 20 to 25 citations per month. Mr. Lindberg stated that the City has just taken over the ambulance business and had wisely developed a contingency plan which proved to be necessary. He asked what would happen if after evaluation, inadequate service was occurring for animal control. He is concerned that administrative, financial, and political problems could occur and asked what contingency plans have been developed if the City had to resume provision of the service. Mr. Whitlow responded that some plans have been developed. The City could take over enforcement on very short notice. In regard to the shelter, however, each of the three jurisdic- tions owns a portion of the facility. He would like to consider this in more depth and bring back a report. Mr. Gleason stated that Mr. Whitlow is correct that having the City resume the service would be difficult, but that does not mean it could not be done. The City has the budget and program setup which could be used if necessary. To implement the program, the City would need to use a number of resources. That is why this alternative was recommended. The City could enforce its own poli- cies and goals and then work out the details of the structures, which would be more complex and may make the goals harder to achieve. Ms. Miller stated that another related issue is a concern from the Management Board of Tri-Agency in regard to gift (abandoned) animals, which are given to a shelter in hopes that they will be adopted. The City and the task force want MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 7 e e - these animals to be adopted, but Tri-Agency said they will be referring these animals to Greenhill. It is her belief that if there is to be a referral, the referring agency must meet the same criteria and use the same policies as Tri-Agency regarding licensing and spay/neuter. Mr. Pangborn stated that the County could work out the arrangements for adopt ion and that animal s would have to be spayed or neutered and licensed. If that cannot be agreed upon, then there could be a county-wide ordinance as far as County staff is concerned. These details ha~e not yet been addressed. Mr. Whitlow noted that in the service contract, the budget amounts were left blank. The budget amount that should be filled in was $249,000 and that falls within the budget appropriation of $262,000 within the City budget. Educational and licensing services could be purchased with the remaining money. Public hearing was opened. Bill Dwyer, 1362-1/2 South 2nd, Springfield, stated that he has questions regarding the structure. He thinks the structure should be owned by only one agency, since that seems to be the major bone of contention. The parties could give notice of intent to leave Tri-Agency and give a right of first refusal for sale of the property. He feels the City Council should look at buying this building or releasing it and he feels Springfield should do the same with their share. Triple ownership does not make sense if only one agency will be using it. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie stated that he would be presenting a motion in the form of a resolution to rescind the original agreement and authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the appropri ate agency. He does not feel the specific 1 anguage necessari ly has to be adopted, but that the performance contract should be entered into. He noted that he would like to see if this can become a permanent relationship before consideration is given to selling the building. As long as the problem is being worked on, that is what the public wants. He feels the subcommittee recommendation is good and he feels that analyzing the performance by monitoring it is a good way to ensure control. Res. No. 3531--A resolution concerning the rescission of existing lease agreements and authorizing the execution of new agreements in connection with the Tri-Agency Dog Control Authority facilities. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. Ms. Wooten asked how the Tri-Agency management feels about the recommendation. Mr. Pangborn stated that staff and management have reviewed the situation and agree with the recommendat ion. The work program wi 11 have to be aggressive and they will do that. They concur with the budget and the work program. The County management does not see a real change in the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 8 ~ e e Mr. Lindberg stated that this is a sensitive matter and nationally, dog control complaints are the number one complaints in most cities in the United States. This has been a grave problem locally, although slow progress is being made. Eugene's needs are different from those of Springfield and unincorporated areas of Lane County. Since the City of Eugene has taken the initiative, he wonders if it might not be better for the City to pursue this matter on its own. He complimented staff and the task force for their statements of the goals to be achieved. The goals and objectives are excellent and should be used for standards to increase public safety and humane animal treatment. His concern is that the task force proposal removes Eugene too far from the solution to make it actually work. He also thinks Mr. Dwyer made some good points regarding the facility ownership. Unless there are contingency plans, however, it is not possible for him to support this resolution. Ownership of the property should be included in the lease arrangement. If the City of Eugene takes back control of this program and it becomes a political problem, this could leave the City in a vulnerable position and the kennel service could be discontinued. Private contracting is the reason this became an issue in the beginning. He has no personal feelings against Greenhill and respects their rights to not open their books or have the City change their procedures so that their procedures meet City standards. However, that makes it inconceivable that the City should operate with them. He disagrees to some extent with Ms. Miller's comments that the performance contracts are the most important portion of this process. He feels that animal control is the most important portion. The City will be requesting more services and now they are asking someone else to do their job, which he thinks is not acting in a very responsible manner. This is a temporary solution and historically, animal control has taken a long time for new remedies to replace the existing situations. He feels any solutions should be long-term because this should not be viewed as an experiment. He feels it is not an ideal situation to initiate another cooperative work program with the County. He would feel better if the County and Springfield would contract with the City of Eugene to provide the service. He feels the City should take the responsibility for its problem as it seems that two-thirds of the total problem is Eugene's problem anyway. Ms. Miller stated that she and Ms. Schue had discussed and extensively con- sidered City control as a solution. If the council wants someone else to take over negotiations, another task force could be appointed, but she thinks it would end up the same way since they tried but were unable to accomplish City control. Mr. Gleason stated that there is a need to develop a contingency plan, particulary regarding ownership of the facility. The contingency plan worked well with the ambulance situation and could be done with this situation as well. Staff could develop a plan, but it will take longer than 30 days and within 30 days, something must be in place since Tri-Agency will no longer be in existence at that time. Staff has worked on this issue and spoken with George Morgan and Steve Burkett. Mr. Gleason stated that, in his opinion, it is not possible for the City to become the contracting agent. There is not a consensus of the service level between the three jurisdictions. Eugene does not desire the same service level as Springfield and Lane County. Unless more funding can be found, Eugene can either handle enforcement or enter into a performance contract. In either case, the City desires increased standards. This experi- ence could provide consideration of other opportunities at a later date. He MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 9 e e e agrees with the established standards but knows of no way other than the per- formance contract to make certain that they occur. Mr. Lindberg asked how a 30-day time period could be in effect when the motion before the council has not been approved. Ms. Miller responded that six months' notice had been previously given to Tri-Agency. Mr. Whitlow added that both Eugene and Spring- field gave notice and as of July 1, 1981, there will be no Tri-Agency Animal Control Authority. It was action taken in agreement to the policy board commit- tee's recommendation. Ms. Wooten asked if people are afraid that the County will not do a good job. Ms. Miller stated that a substantial group of people feel that the current Tri-Agency management would not support the City's goals. Ms. Wooten asked who would monitor the program since Tri-Agency is being dis- solved. She asked how it would be determined whether the goals are being met. Mr. Whitlow stated that it will be done by the City Manager's Office which will receive monthly reports from the County with regard to the City's expectations of animal control. Mr. Gleason stated that if he can deal with the adminis- trators and speak only to the issues, he does not feel there will be any con- cerns. They are leaning heavily on the performance standards and if they are met, there will be no concern. At least there would be a gO-day period for transition rather than two hours to implement the contingency plan as was the situation with emergency medical service. Ms. Wooten stated that she would vote for the motion assuming that ongoing monitoring and evaluation would occur. Mr. Hamel stated that originally he felt the City should contract with Green- hill, but Ms. Miller and Ms. Schue were assigned to study and make a recommenda- tion. Mr. Lindberg stated that he does not have the solutions nor any hidden agendas, but he knows there have been disagreements over these services in the past. Being closer to the management will provide better control and monitoring. There are different ways to approach the problem. The differences are of special importance to those involved in dog control. He stated that if the resolution is approved now, there will be no way to develop a complete contingency plan within 30 days. He asked what would happen if in 60 days the plan is not working. Mr. Gleason stated that the City could handle the enforce- ment. The physical structure was the major hurdle. If there is a breach of the contract, he would like to be able to work with the other jurisdictions. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Lindberg voting no. Mr. Gleason stated that he would bring back a contingency plan for the council IS approval. Ms. Wooten stated that she does not ~nderstand the management dif- ferences that have occurred and would like clarification. Mr. Gleason indicated that this would be provided. B. Citizen Involvement Committee's Recommendation on Citizen Advisory Committee for Chambers Connector (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Pat Decker, Planning. Ms. Decker stated that the Chambers Connector is identified in the Eugene-Springfield Area 2000 Transpor- tation Plan (T-2000) as a four-lane arterial connecting River Road with 6th and 7th avenues, and incorporating a railroad overpass over the main Southern MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 10 e e - Pacific Railroad lines. The T-2000 Plan also suggests strong consideration be given to incorporating a railroad overpass to Roosevelt Boulevard and to the Chambers Connector project. The project area boundaries extend outside the city limits into the River Road area and are defined by Hansen Road and the Willa- mette River on the north, 8th Avenue on the south, Jefferson Street on the east, and Garfield Street on the west. A technical committee has been formed includ- ing representatives from Lane County, the City of Eugene, and L-COG. As the lead agency on this project, Lane County has programmed funding for preliminary engineering in fiscal year 1981-82, with construction planned for fiscal year 1984-85. Because the project area boundaries extend outside the city limits into the River Road area, and because Lane County is the lead agency on the project, the committee structure will require approval by the County Commis- sioners as well as the City Council. The Citizen Involvement Committee has reviewed the proposed committee structure and formulated a recommendation to the City Council. There is a need to balance broad community representation on the committee with the needs of the City and County interests in the project. The Citizen Involvement Committee has reviewed two alternatives. The first includes voting representation for each of the five neighborhoods in and around the project area (Whiteaker Community Council, Active Bethel Citizens, River Road Neighborhood, Far West Neighborhood, and Westside Neighborhood Quality Project), four voting representatives to be appointed by the Eugene Chamber of Commerce for commercial and industrial interests in the project area, and four voting representatives for the community at large--two of which would be appointed by the City Council and two by the County Commissioners. The second proposal would limit voting representation on the committee to the three neighborhoods within the project area (Whiteaker Community Council, Active Bethel Citizens, and River Road Neighborhood) and would provide ex officio or non-voting representation from the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project and Far West Neighborhood. In the second alternative, there would be four voting representatives of the commercial-industrial areas, two of which would be appointed by the County Commissioners and two appointed by the City Council based on recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce, along with an ex officio representative from the Metropolitan Area Plan Advisory Committee in its capacity as the citizen advisory committee for transportation planning at the metropolitan level. The Citizen Involvement Committee determined that voting representation should be provided for each of the five neighborhoods that are in and around the project area and that an ex officio member from the Metropolitan Area Plan Advisory Committee should be included. They also recommended four representatives of commercial and industrial interests and four representatives for the community at large, two of which would be appointed by the City Council and two of which would be appointed by the County Commissioners. The County Roads Advisory Committee has also considered the committee structure and forwarded a recom- mendation to the County Commissioners. Their recommendation includes voting representation for each of the five neighborhoods in and around the project area, voting representation for four representatives of commercial and indus- trial interests--two of which would be appointed by the County Commissioners and two appointed by the City Council based on recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce--four voting representatives from the broader community--two of which would be appointed by the County Commissioners and two by the Eugene City Council, and an ex officio representative from the Metropolitan Area Plan MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 11 e e e Advisory Committee. This item is scheduled for action by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on June 9, 1981. Based upon the action taken by the elected bodies, City staff will advertise for council appointees and contact the other groups to be represented on the Chambers Connector Citizen Advisory Committee. The council was given an outline of the project and the role of the Chambers Connector Citizen Advisory Committee will be to provide the technical committee with input on community attitudes regarding alternatives for the Chambers connection transportation facility. Mr. Obie asked if the establishment of this advisory committee is necessary. Ms. Decker responded that this is the recommendation from the Citizen Involve- ment Committee and it is similar to the advisory committee established t~ consider the Department of Transportation's 6th and 7th avenues extension. The reasoning is that this will affect the community at large and much represen- tation is desired in selecting design alternatives. Ms. Decker said that the Citizen Involvement Committee felt it was better to have citizens involved from the beginning. The recommendation is the same as the County Roads Committee with the exception of the commercial appointments. Mr. Lindberg left the meeting. Public hearing was opened. Robert Jordan, 2360 Haif, stated that he is chairperson of the Active Bethel Citizens and they wish 0 be involved in this from the very beginning rather than at a later point. They are concerned about hooking Roosevelt Boulevard into this and residents of the Bethel Triangle are almost unanimously against that portion of the project. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Wooten stated that as the council representative to the Citizen Involvement Committee, the recommendation from the committee is that the City make appoint- ments from the business sector based upon recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce. When this was first presented to her, she thought that it was cumber- some, but thinks now that it will save time in the long run. She would recom- mend council approve the Citizen Involvement Committee recommendation. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, approve the structure for a Citizen Advisory Committee for the Chambers Connector Transpor- tation Facility as outlined in the staff memo of June 2, 1981, and that the business and industry representatives be appointed after receiving recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. V. II LIFE. BE IN IT. Il--PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT KICKOFF FOR ITS SUMMER PROGRAM--STAFF PRESENTATION (materials distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks & Recreation Department. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 1.0, 1981 P ag e 12 e e e Mr. Drapela stated that the Eugene Parks & Recreation Department Spring Leisure Schedule is centered around the theme "Life. Be In It." Staff would like to enlist the council's aid to help publicize this program. Parks Department staff presented pins and bumper stickers to the council. Mr. Drape1a stated that T-shirts would be given to the councilors later. This program was started in Australia by professional recreation people who felt people were not actively involved in leisure. About 90 percent of the Australian population was reached by their efforts. The National Recreation and Park Association has followed this program and has begun a national program here. This is Eugene's first try at involvement in this program. Barbara Bellamy, Information Coordinator of the Parks & Recreation Department, stated that this campaign is scheduled to take five years and is in three phases: Phase 1 is "Get Moving" to encourage people to take part in unstruc- tured activities that do not require lots of equipment, such as going for walks. Phase 2 is "Where Youlre At." This would be educational for people to learn more about their parks and where they are and to make use of them. Phase 3 is "Learn To." This phase would be developed to help people use new skills and participate in recreation classes. There are cartoon characters which will be the focus of publicity and on television. This will be a humorous campaign and people are being asked to change their lives just a little. Posters with the themes are available at the Parks Department and T-shirts are in the mail to the councilors. VI. STAFF REPORT ON ASSESSMENT POLICY/COSTS FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS-- INFORMATIONAL (memos and various documents distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that as indicated previously, this item would be held over except for a brief comment from Don Allen, Public Works Director. Mr. Allen stated that there will be projects coming before the council in July with assessment considerations. In the reports the council has received referring to "double-frontage," the statement should read "multiple-frontage." Mr. Haws indicated that he would be leaving the meeting soon and would not be attending any of the City Council meetings this summer that occur in the third full week of the month. Mr. Haws left the meeting. Mr. Gleason stated that another time would be set for briefing and time for answering questions regarding the staff report on assessments. There are existing procedures for low-income residents and that will be refined, but it will take some time to analyze and bring back. Council concurred that this should be handled in this manner. VII. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT LETTER TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 4-J (draft letter distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that this draft letter was requested by the council. Mr. Obie asked if this was partly in response to the concerns raised by Kay Robinette's letter. ' MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 13 e e e Jim Farah, Planning, agreed and stated that the School Closure Task Force is addressing a shorter time frame than the Metro Plan adoption process. He realizes the Metropolitan Plan does not specifically address public facilities nor the kinds of agencies that should be available within each area. Mr. Obie suggested that perhaps these concerns should be addressed. Mr. Farah stated that the 4-J board and the task force are concerned about the same things as the council and there should be an effort to move forth in mutual effort. Ms. Wooten stated that she would like for the council to meet with the school board. Ms. Miller stated that staff would have to determine when that would be possible so that as many councilors as possible could attend. Ms. Wooten stated that the school district is planning to present their final recommendations in August. A serious attempt should be made to have this meeting occur prior to that event. Ms. Miller indicated that Mr. Farah could brief the council prior to the meeting. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the context of the draft letter to the School District 4-J Board of Directors. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VIII. LCDC ACKNOWLEDGMENT PROCESS--ORAL REPORT Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Farah, Planning. Mr. Farah stated that a hearing is scheduled for Friday, June 26, in Salem. It is scheduled for the purpose of acknowledging the Metropolitan Plan for Eugene. Staff has received the 1977 city limits acknowledgment. Terrific work is being done by LCDC staff and they are being very cooperative, as they always have been. He has met with staff three times to discuss what their recommendations might be. He feels the recommendations will be for a continuance of 120 days beginning in mid-August after the LCDC review of Goal 5, so that would go into January of 1982. He thinks some of the orders of compliance may be: 1) reducing some of the amount of industrial land or to provide a better reason for the amount of industrial land that is being included; 2) reducing the size of the urban growth boundary; 3) more specific policies or concurrence regarding conversion of urbanizable land to urban; and 4) resolution of the differences between the cities and the County versions. Mr. Gleason expanded on the issue ofa.cknowl eogement :wJt.'i,chhad been addressed by Mr. Farah. He said there are at least two points which he would like to make and then he would request that the council take action on a specific request. First he would like to affirm that the LCDC process is working. He thinks that the efforts by both cities and Lane County to cooperate in developing a plan for logical development of the urban area shows that cooperative government is working in the Eugene-Springfield area. As the Metro Plan is returned to the area for further work, he reads LCDC comments to date as saying that cooperative mode is the only way to proceed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 P ag e 14 - One of the issues he is sure will be addressed by LCDC is the issue of service delivery for Santa Clara/River Road. He feels the City needs to be in a mode of compromise on this issue. For instance, Eugene can and should take the posture of developing a phased service delivery program. This is consistent with the direction of LCDC for the River Road and Santa Clara areas. To that end, he requested the council consider adoption of the following motion: "Recognizing that the issue of urban service delivery is critical to the well-being of the residents of Eugene and River Road/Santa Clara, the council requests that the Planning Commission, as part of the Metro Plan review during the LCDC continuance period, review our annexation policies in the Metro Plan with the intent of providing for phased delivery of urban services in that portion of the metropo 1 it an area." e Ms. Wooten asked if that is just another way of annexing that area. Mr. Gleason responded that annexation would have to be voluntary unless there were health hazards, which has not been proved. Urban services must be provided. He does not favor the creation of another city. River Road/Santa Clara residents do not understand the City's policies and procedures. Eugene will have to take a more realistic .approach and services may have to be provided in ways other than through annexation. Something like a refinement plan should be developed for phasing in services including methods of delivery and payment for those services. Ms. Wooten stated that she does not feel it would be good if Santa Clara and River Road were allowed to form a separate city, but because of pending State legislation, the City may have to change its position. It seems that the River Road/Santa Clara residents feel they can provide their own services. Mr. Gleason stated that in his opinion, if the pending legislation passes, people will probably vote it down when they understand what the cost will be. If they form a city, they will have to provide their own services. However, there are other ways to solve the problem, and if it is not solved, it wi 11 keep coming back. It must be worked out better than with an "all or nothing" solution. Ms. Smith complimented Mr. Gleason on taking this action and felt this should have been done a year ago. This may provide an opportunity to work with the legislature and show that the City is trying to solve problems, since the efforts must be made. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to ask the Planning Commission to examine the River Road/Santa Clara annexation policy as outlined by Mr. Gleason and bring back a report to the council. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IX. . CONSIDERATION OF COUNCILOR OBIE'S RESOLUTION CONCERNING PROPOSED BUDGET REDUCTIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON (resolution distributed) Res. No. 3530--A resolution concerning proposed budget reductions for the University of Oregon. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to adopt the resolution. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 15 e - e Mr. Gleason stated that this resolution is very important in view of the current budget situation with higher education and that it is important that the legis- lators be aware of the City's concern. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to June 17, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~. .Mi:';:. Gle~.~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:db/CM23a1 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 Page 16