Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/1981 Meeting . . M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 24, 1981 11:30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Cynthia Wooten, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, and 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. 1. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Economic Development Coordinating Body Ms. Wooten stated that yesterday the Eugene Economic Development Committee unanimously voted to support the concept of a coordinating body through L-COG e for economic development in Lane County. This is not to thwart current economic development activities but to encourage broader participation. B. Presentation of Award Councilor Obie presented a plaque to Acting Mayor Gretchen Miller for her excellent service in the spring of 1981 acting as mayor pro-tern. C. Gillespie Butte Ms. Miller stated that she had been receiving letters regarding Gillespie Butte~ People are gathering signatures to place the purchase of Gillespie Butte on the ballot. After the signatures are verified, there is a 90-day waiting period, so this item could not be placed on an election ballot prior to November. This could be more expensive than if it were placed on the September election ballot or for another election date when other items are being considered. Th i s item would require council action if the council desired to place it on an earlier ballot to save money. She suggested that staff check with EWEB to determine their position. Les Swanson, City Attorney, stated that under City Ordinance 2.981, 8,300 signatures are needed to place the item on the ballot. If the Finance Officer determines that enough signatures are valid, then the council would have 30 days to enact a one-year special serial levy to purchase Gillespie Butte, but that could not be done without voter approval. If the council chose to place this on the ballot, they could do that 35 or more days prior to any election date. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 1 Council could pass an ordinance placing the purchase of Gillespie Butte on the - ballot within 35 days before September 15, 1981, which would be the next possible election date for something of this nature. If the initiative petition process is permitted to go to completion and enough signatures are verified, the election could not take place until 90 days later. The signatures would have to be veri- fied by July 25, 1981, to go on the November ballot. Ms. Smith asked what the election costs would be if this were the only item on the ballot. Bill McGuire, Management Services Director, stated that it would cost the City approximately $10,000 if it were the sole item on the ballot. Ms. Smith suggested waiting until after this Tuesday's election to see what else might be on the ballot since with other issues from other jurisdictions on the ballot, the cost would be divided between the jurisdictions that have items on the ballot. If there are other budget items on that ballot, it would be cheaper to have it placed on the September ballot. Mr. Obie noted agreement with Ms. Smith. He suggested asking EWEB to delay any action on Gillespie Butte to see if enough signatures are received to place it on the November election ballot. Ms. Wooten noted agreement that consulting EWEB would be a good idea, even though EWEB had previously agreed not to act until it was determined what the residents of Eugene wanted. She would like consideration given to the cost-effectiveness of having this item placed on the September ballot. Ms. Smith stated that the council must turn this issue back to EWEB. She would like a response from them as to which direction the council should take and which date they should set. Ms. Miller asked how long the proponents have to collect signatures without the petitions becoming void. She asked if there is a way that staff could check the signatures without triggering the official e procedure which would cause the 90-day waiting period. She does not feel council should place this item on a ballot if enough signatures are not received. Mr. Swanson stated that the signatures need to be secured within 100 days after the first signature is affixed to the first petition. If someone wanted to informally count the number of signatures on those petitions which have come in without having the Finance Officer verify the authenticity, that could be done without triggering the process. However, this would be an informal process with no assurance that the necessary number of signatures have been received because they would not be verified. Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, added that there may be a difficulty in collecting money from a serial levy once the yearly tax assessment notices have been sent out. He would need to check on that. Ms. Miller noted that the last time this had occurred, follow-up assessment notices had to be sent out and that was more expensive than if it had been able to go out with the regular assessment notices. Mr. Haws arrived at the meeting. Mr. Whitlow said staff would bring a report back at the next council meeting, July 8, 1981. Ms. Wooten expressed concern that the collection of signatures might exceed the allowable time limit. Warren Wong, Management Services, responded that the petition drive began in mid-May so they had until sometime in August. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 2 - D. Next Council Meeting -- I Mr. Whitlow stated that the next council meeting would be held July 8, 1981. E. Animal Control Agreement Mr. Whitlow stated that the Lane County Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the animal control agreement with the City of Eugene. F. Application for City Boards/Commissions Mr. Whitlow stated that tomorrow is the cutoff date for applications for various City boards and commissions. Information will be distributed to the council in their packets on Friday. G. Local Electric Energy Commission Ms. Miller stated that the L-COG committee of local community responses to the Bonneville Power Authority Regional Power Bill has been set up. Coun c il or Wooten has expressed an interest in serving on this committee. Council consensus was to authorize Ms. Miller to appoint Ms. Wooten to the local Electric Energy Commission. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of March 18, 1981, and e May 27, 1981 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve City Council minutes of March 18, 1981, and May 27, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Ordinance Concerning Community Schools Coordinating Committee Membership (memo distributed) Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, stated that this item is to bring the code into conformance by reducing the membership of this committee by one member-at- 1 arge . He indicated that Ruth Miller, City Managerls Office, was available to answer questions. CB 2323--An ordinance concerning the Community Schools Coordinating Committee and amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2323 was read the second time by council bill number only. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 P ag e 3 './ 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 passeo and numbered 18822. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pedestrian Way Easement Vacation for Freitas/King (PV 81-1) (map distributed) Mr. Whitlow stated that this is for a 10-foot-wide pedestrian way and has been unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. He noted that Jim Croteau, Planning, is available to answer questions. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2324--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a 10-foot-wide pedestrian way located west of the intersection of Amberland and Tabor. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2324 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved e and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18823. B. Easement Vacation for Campbell/Abbott/Everett (EV 81-2) (map distributed) Mr. Whitlow stated that this is a public utility easement and noted it has an emergency clause. He indicated that Jim Croteau, Planning, is available to answer questions. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2325--An ordinance authorizing the vacation of a 14-foot-wide public utility easement located east of Ingalls Way, south of Tiara Street; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2325 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 18824. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 4 IV. ADOPTION OF THE 1981-82 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EUGENE (memo e distributed) Mr. Whitlow stated that except for the Tier II election, this is the final step in the process for the 1981-82 budget. Mr. Lindberg stated that in reading over the budget, there are a number of changes of which he was unaware. Apparently some administrative decisions have been made to eliminate items and he asked for clarification. Mr. Whitlow stated that after the budget committee had taken final action, it became necessary to transfer about $250,000 from the capital budget back into the operating budget to pay for labor union settlements. They had previously asked departments to identify low-priority capital projects that could be eliminated and that is what was done. Mr. Lindberg indicated that his concern was for an elderly crossing, listed incorrectly as a school crossing, that is one block from Lane Towers on Willamette. This was withdrawn from this year's budget, but he understands that it could not have been accomplished this year anyway. Warren Wong, Finance Department, agreed and stated that Public Works staff had indicated that they could defer this project and that was the reason for eliminating it from this year's budget. Ms. Wooten asked if this project was deleted after originally being approved. Mr. Lindberg responded that it was, but it had been a low- priority item within the department. Mr. Whitlow added that this had also received low priority by the council subcommittee that reviewed the Public Works budget. That subcommittee was chaired by Councilor Smith. CB 2326--An ordinance adopting the budget; making appropriations; determin- e ing and levying the annual tax for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1981, and ending June 30, 1982; 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. Ms. Miller stated that this is another step in a long process. She feels the budget is very good this year and people are more in favor of it. She has been encouraged by the process and the outcome so far. Ms. Wooten added that she is pleased with the way staff assisted the budget committee in preparing the budget. She hopes that Tier II will be operative. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2326 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 18825. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 5 V. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE SELECTION e PROCESS (memo, ordinance attached) Ms. Miller stated that she has been working on this item for about one year. She has two concerns with the current process. There may be ways that less money can be spent while still receiving competent judicial services. Her concerns are: 1) there is presently no automatic review mechanism; and 2) the position seems to entitle life tenure, at least that seems to be the current practice. She thinks with the current procedures, the judgeship would never be reviewed unless major problems developed. She is proposing modifications to the guidelines, including terms of office for the judgeship and that a poll be taken of the Lane County Bar Association for a preferential ballot of the candidates from applications received. The council should receive information about those applying for the position of Municipal Judge. The same judge could be rehired, but it would be a decision, rather than something that happens by default. She does not feel life tenure should occur automatically and thinks reviews would be good. She has suggested four-year terms beginning in 1985, so this process would occur in off-election years to make it as non-political as possible. Ms. Smith stated she would like to delay this item and ask that the council consider holding it over while staff has reviews and prepares options for the selection process. She would like to know what alternatives there are and how the people in the court system would respond to those options. She also would like information on how the process is handled in other cities. She agreed that this should be non-political. The City of Eugene has a highly regarded court system and she wants this to continue, but she would like a report back on all e alternatives. Ms. Miller indicated agreement, but stated that she would not vote to authorize the Manager to renew the municipal judges' contracts for this year until information comes back. She feels that when the contracts are renewed, it should be under the new process. Mr. Whitlow indicated a report would be brought back within two weeks. VI. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR PARK PURPOSES LOCATED OFF LAWRENCE AND CHESHIRE STREETS (memo, map distributed) Mr. Whitlow stated that this proposed acquisition is near Skinner Butte Park. This has been negotiated with the seller with an agreed-upon price being close to the appraised value. The moneys for this project would be coming from the bond program previously approved by the voters. He indicated that Walter Haniuk, Parks & Recreation Department, is available to answer questions. Ms. Wooten asked where this property is precisely located and what is currently on the property. Mr. Haniuk responded that it is one dwelling away from the corner of Lawrence and Cheshire streets. It is contiguous to the Park. Three dwellings are currently on the property. Two of the structures could be reha- bilitated for housing, but one is in bad condition and should be removed. This acquisition would be for the future expansion of Skinner Butte Park. If the dwellings remain feasible for housing, they will remain so. Ms. Wooten asked how the property would be used and how many residents would be affected. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 6 ------ Mr. Haniuk responded there is one resident per dwelling and there are no imme- e diate plans for the property. This is part of the continuing program of River- front acquisition. Ms. Miller asked if buildings in acquisitions of this type are generally torn down or moved to another location. Mr. Haniuk responded that it depends upon the condition of the dwellings. At Monroe Park, the dwellings remained until the park was developed and then they were moved with the assis- tance of HCC to maintain the housing stock to the extent possible. Ms. Miller asked what happens to the housing at the time the property is developed for park use. Mr. Haniuk responded that the structures are placed for public bidding and then removed. Ms. Wooten asked if comments have been received from Joint Parks Committee or neighborhood associations or from the tenants. She also asked who the sellers are. Mr. Haniuk stated that the Jean Tate Real Estate office has been the prin- cipal contact for this proposed acquisition, but there are four or five other principals involved in ownership of the property. The tenants are aware this property may be acquired since HCC has looked at the dwellings for possible relocation. The neighborhood association is also aware of this possible acqui s it ion. The Parks Department staff has had no direct contact with the tenants. Ms. Wooten indicated that she is in favor of land acquisition for parks~ but is concerned about destroying low-income housing. She noted appreciation for the rehabilitation and moving efforts. Mr. Obie asked if the serial levy called for specific expansion of Skinner e Butte Park. Mr. Haniuk stated that that was not explicitly listed, but River- front/Delta acquisition is included as one of the major areas for acquisition. Mr. Obie asked if there are other areas in which land might be acquired, such as a parkland in the core area. He asked if this money is being taken away from other proposed projects. Mr. Haniuk responded that it is not, and that the money for this proposed acquisition is budgeted in the program for Delta/ Riverfront acquisition. Mr. Obie asked how far this property is located from the river. Mr. Haniuk responded that it is approximately 300 feet from the river. Mr. Obie asked if there is any other riverfront property in the City Master Park Plan which has not yet been purchased. Mr. Han iuk responded that the West Bank was identified as an area to acquire, but there were no other specific areas identified. Ms. Miller stated that the money from that serial levy which became a bond issue had been divided into five areas: Ridgeline, Wil1akenzie, Delta/River- front, Central, and Bethe1/Danebo. The riverfront properties have been largely purchased for bike path construction. The West Bank is completely acquired and now extends to the Beltline. Mr. Haniuk added that the property along the West Bank is now public ownership all the way to Beltline. He stated that part of the extension of this area is Wastewater Management property. Ms. Mill er asked if the property on the other side of the river is included in the Delta area. Mr. Haniuk responded that it is. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 7 e Mr. Hamel asked which of the five areas this proposed acquisition's funding would come from. Mr. Haniuk responded that this acquisition would be from the Delta/Riverfront section and would not jeopardize possible acquisitions in other areas. Mr. Lindberg asked whether, if we held off on this purchase, in Mr. Haniuk's opinion, there would be other riverfront property to acquire instead of this property. Mr. Haniuk said not at this time and stated that some properties were identified such as along the West Bank. The other aspect of the program was to expand any part of Skinner Butte Park when the opportunity arose. About one year ago, the City acquired some State property with the same intent. Mr. Lindberg asked if there is other property in this area under nego- tiation. He stated this does not seem to be an especially exciting expenditure of $107,000 and asked if it might be better to wait for a better piece of property. Mr. Haniuk stated that nothing that has been identified at this time for potential acquisition is better than this piece of property. They looked at expansion of the Rose Garden. When the opportunity arose to acquire this property, staff recommended that it be done. Mr. Lindberg asked how it would be 'developed. Mr. Haniuk responded that Parks Design staff could better answer that question, but there is a Master Plan for the Riverfront System and for the immediate Skinner Butte area. He feels this probably would be developed for general public use, but it would depend upon public need and desire. Mr. Lindberg asked if these dollars are restricted to this usage or if this money could be transferred into the Willakenzie area. Mr. Haniuk responded that that would be the council's option, but when the serial levy was passed by the voters, there were certain appropriations aimed for the five sections of the City. The Joint Parks Committee helped work on this pl an. Two-thirds of all the available money went for Ridgeline acquisition e with one-third remaining for the other geographical areas. The De 1 ta/R iver- front area received a major portion of that one-third as it was deemed high priority. The major reason for this is that three or four years ago, there was Greenway money available to enable them to purchase more land than they would have been able to purchase with just the money from the bond issue. The council, however, could reallocate these funds if they chose. Mr. Whitlow stated that the council is looking for information as to how much total money is available and where it is allocated, as well as what other riverfront acquisitions are possible. He suggested that this item be held over for two weeks if it would not jeopardize the purchase of this property. Ms. Miller stated that she would rather proceed with this purchase because it has been under negotiation. She feels this request should be taken to the Joint Parks Committee for more development with information being returned to the counc il . She does not feel the dollars should be redistributed; that would be a major undertaking and they could lose the opportunity to purchase this property. In addition, that would be going against what the voters were told at the time they passed the bond issue. It is complicated to compare properties and this could cause them to lose out on the possible acquisition of this land. Specific properties cannot be compared because there are a limited number of available properties for purchase and they are never precisely the same. Ms. Wooten " - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1981 Page 8 - .' . noted appreciation for Ms. Millerls sentiments, but she is not excited about e this parcel of land. She asked if a delay to assess the land acquisition program would jeopardize the sale. Mr. Haniuk responded that he thought that that would be the problem. Staff has been working on acquiring this pi ece of 1 and for over a year. When the bond issue was developed, all five areas had equal importance. This site is a priority in the Master Plan for Skinner Butte Park. If the opportunity arises to acquire land, this plan is a strong criterion in the determination. Ms. Wooten stated that she is ill at ease without more information on the status of land acquisitions. She does not intend to trade this property for potential purchase of another piece of prop- erty, but she would like more information. Mr. Haniuk stated that last year, the budget committee and the council indicated that a specific amount of money would be available for each area and this is the assumption staff has been work i ng with. Mr. Lindberg stated that the citizens approved the allocations in a separate bond issue, but this year at least 8,000 citizens are concerned about the possible loss of Gillespie Butte as a park area. It is that parcel he is concerned with. He feels the citizens would rather have the City spend this money on Gillespie Butte rather than add to an existing park. He is rel uctant to appr ove th i s purch ase. Ms. Smith stated that she is not interested in re-prioritizing what has already been approved by the voters, but some concerns of the council could have been eliminated with a council briefing on the status and plans of the land acqui- sition program. She would like to see more information available to the council - in the future prior to their consideration of specific acquisitions. Mr. Obie noted agreement. He said that for four-and-a-half years he has been trying to understand the Master Park Plan. The council needs to be kept informed by the Parks and Recreation Department. Two-and-a-half years ago, council consensus was to have a public park bond. He does not want to approve additional acqui- sitions until all the information is known about the park plan. He would rather purchase a meaningful piece of property. The problem is that the council is not involved in this planning. He would agree to delay action on this item. Mr. Hamel indicated agreement with Mr. Obie. The Willakenzie area is in need of flat park land for children to play, which is something he has been striving for for the past two-and-a-half years. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to table this item until staff brings back a report addressing the concerns already men- tioned and presents alternatives to this acquisition. Ro 11 c a 11 vote; motion carried 6:1, with Councilor Miller voting no. Mr. Haws stated that on page 9, paragraph 4, of the March 18, 1981, minutes, it was indicated that Councilor Hamel voted both aye and no, and he requested that staff research this item and bring the proper information back to the council. Staff indicated that this would occur. The meeting was adjourned. e ~~ Mich al D. - leas. ~ C'i ty Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) June 24, 1981 Page 9 MINUTES-~Eugene City"Council