Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1981 Meeting ------ M I NUT E S e. Eugene City Council City Council Chamber September 16, 1981 11: 30 a.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Councilors Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Eric Haws. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor, Mayor Gus Keller. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1981 Ms. Wooten stated that she has been more and more concerned about Senate Bill 898--Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1981--which would e strip franchise regulations from local governments. There is a broad concern across the country and she has worked with the Metropolitan Area Cable Television/ Translator Commission. She has drafted a mailgram which she hopes the council will agree to send. Pat Lynch, Council Administrator, distributed the draft mailgram. The August 1981 League of Oregon Cities newsletter contained addi- tional information about this proposed bill. This will be heard by the Senate on Monday and she has asked that provisions regarding cable television be separated so that proper public hearings can be held. She asked for council consideration of this draft mailgram. Mr. Obie stated that although he is not involved in the cable television industry, he has written a letter on his own supporting the legislation. He wou 1 d prefer that, if the council is to take a position, they have the opportunity to hear both sides of this issue. Mr. Lindberg stated that the mailgram is only request- ing the Senate to separate the issues into two components but does not suggest taking a position on the legislation. A position could be taken at a later time. Ms. Smith noted support for Mr. Lindberg's suggestion. There may be some misunderstandings with this issue. She would be willing to ask that the components be separated but she would not be willing to take a position at this time. Mr. Obie indicated that he is not familiar enough with the legislation to know what impact there would be in separating the issues. Mr. Hamel stated that as the council representative to the Cable Commission, he would support Ms. Wooten's suggestion of sending the mailgram. He talked with , Senator Packwood I s aide 1 ast week. Therefore, the council may already have e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 1 e taken a position through the commission and this could put the council on the spot. Ms. Wooten stated that her concerns are no different than those of the National League of Cities and municipalities throughout the country. The Cable Commission has gone on record against this bill. They have sent a staff person to Washington DC to lobby against this bill and he is there at this time. The House has no intention of adding the cable industry language to their companion bill. The cable issue should be separate from the AT&T issue. Because of the lack of public hearings, this could become public law without benefit of public opinion. Ms. Miller stated that the mailgram indicates that the cable provisions should have public hearings. That language pertaining to the cable industry has not had hearings nor public notice. This is an important issue. A 1 oc a 1 hearing could be set up so that public opinion could be received. Mayor Ke 11 er stated that this request could be appropriate for the council. This is an area that should be discussed with proper hearings. If a hearing were to be held, it would be only to receive public input. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to forward the mailgram to Senator Packwood from the Mayor and City Council. Ms. Wooten noted that there is a typographical error in the draft; it should read "5898" not "5898." Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Obie abstaining. B. Emerald Canal Feasibility Task Force e Mr. Lindberg stated the council has approved formation of the Emerald Canal Feasibility Task Force but there is no set procedure to make those appointments. There could be a committee-of-the-whole or the Mayor could make suggestions. Ms. Miller stated that the Mayor should appoint a subcommittee to deal with this process. Mayor Keller agreed and asked for those interested to contact him. C. The Gut Councilor Lindberg stated that there are many people in the community who are concerned about the "gut." He rode with Eugene Police Department in that area . last Friday night. He feels police service in that area is excellent and they are devoting as much attention to the situation as is feasible. He hopes other solutions will be forthcoming to help balance the policing efforts. Ms. Schue agreed that the police are making an effort to work on this problem but the problem has not been solved. They could do more if more resources were available. D. Parks Master Plan Councilor Lindberg stated that he has distributed a memo regarding citizens' participation in the Parks Master Plan. He knows the process has begun but he thought his reflections might be beneficial. E. Mayor's Absence Mayor Keller noted that he would be absent from the council meeting on e September 23, 1981. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 2 F. Request to Testify e Mayor Keller stated that he had received a memo from William Eaton, and in turn, wrote a memo dated September 15, from the Mayor to the council. Mr. Eaton wou 1 d like to address the council regarding repaving a bike path from 24th to 30th avenues. Council consensus was to allow Mr. Eaton to speak for five minutes on September 23, 1981. G. September 15, 1981, Election Mayor Keller stated that yesterday.s election did not bring about the results for which he had hoped. He feels the effect of the State and School District 4-J matters may have had an impact on the City election. Or, the economic condition of the area may be such a hardship on citizens that they could not support additional taxes even if they wanted to. He does not feel this should be taken back to the voters for a third time. He is hopeful that the economy wi 11 improve. Mr. Obie asked if he is recommending that the Budget Committee not put this to the voters again. Mayor Keller stated that he had only expressed an opinion, not a recommendation. Ms. Miller indicated that the Budget Commit- tee has more work to do and the next Budget Committee meeting will be a busy one. Mr. Obie agreed. It is difficult to say that the issue should be stopped because he is not sure the public is aware how necessary the items in Tier II are. Mr. Hamel indicated concern that only 15 to 16 percent of the people voted. He would like to see how the other 84 percent would vote. H. Slide Show Presentation e Mike Gleason, City Manager, stated that Brian Livingston is present to give a slide show on community self-reliance following the council meeting. II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of City Council Minutes of August 10, 1981, and August 12, 1981 (minutes distributed) Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve City Council minutes of August 10, 1981, and August 12, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Payment of Bills, Claims, and Progress Payments (distributed) Mr. Gleason stated that bill payments are now on Wednesday council agendas to improve the payment process. Res. No. 3580--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period September 9, 1981, through September 16, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 3 e c. Resolution Creating Staff Review Board To Replace the Emergency Medical Services Task Force (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason stated this will carry out the previous authorization regarding the medical services program. Dave Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, is available to answer questions. Res. No. 3581--A resolution authorizing the creation of a staff review board. Ms. Miller asked if this review board would continue working with the medical community. Ms. Wooten indicated that she would like the answer to that question, also. She would also like to see a consumer advocate position involved. She asked what kind of appointments would be made. Mr. Whitlow responded that an ex officio member on the review board will represent the medical community regarding the quality of care. The appointments made by Mr. Gleason were Ev Hall and Dave Whitlow. That is also how Springfield handled their appoint- ments. This is a staff review board, not a citizens' committee. Mr. Gleason added that the objective was to create a relationship with the medical society, along with a working relationship with the operators and outlying districts, to develop a functional program. Rates and level of service are to come before the council. Protocol, recommedations, Code 3, cost, and quality of care will be considered. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Mr. Gleason added that the City of Springfield has been very helpful to work with. D. Resolution Authorizing Execution of State Highway Agreement re: Amazon Creek (Danebo Street) Bridge (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason stated this proposed resolution would authorize entering into a project with the State and Federal Aid Special Bridge Replacement construction moneys with the City paying 20 percent and the State paying 80 percent. Ms. Smith asked for the amount of the costs. Don Gilman, Public Works, stated the total cost will be about $200,000. The City has budgeted $44,000 in the Bridge Repair Fund for this project. Res. No. 3582--A resolution authorizing execution of contract No. 7482 with the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, concerning an urban system construction project. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. I I I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of e an appeal of the Planning Director's approval of a minor partition MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 4 e located on North Grand Street (Joint Venture) (M 81-12) (memos, map, and packet of information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Croteau, Planning. Mr. Croteau stated this is an appeal on a minor partition. The minor partition was approved by the Planning Director several months ago. The property adjacent has three existing units and the rear part of the property has a garage and a converted structure on the south corner which is used as a dwelling. The condition of the minor partion is for one of the two rear dwelling units to be vacated. The applicant requested to use an access drive through Tax Lot 2701 which is to the north of the site and is under his ownership and that was approved. The Planning Commission upheld the decision to approve the partition and it was appealed to the council. Staff discussed this issue with the City Attorney and determined that an alternative access would not be permitted by City code. Option 1 would be for the council to approve the appeal and deny the minor partition; Option 2 would be for the council to support the Planning Commission and Planning Director's appeal and deny the minor partition. ~aff would recommend that if council wants to support the decision they should require that the panhandle drive on Parcel 1 be paved and that the applicant not be allowed to use access across the northern property (Tax Lot 2701). Ms. Schue asked if the original reason for not using a panhandle designation for this parcel was because of the existing use. Mr. Croteau responded that that is correct. Also, a hedge would have to be removed. Alternative access is not allowed at present in the code so it could not be approved. During the code e update, staff would like to increase flexibility in dealing with problems of this nature for infilling. If the partition is approved, the panhandle drive should be paved. Mr. Hamel added that during the addition of the section of the code dealing with panhandle lots, much work was involved and that should be considered before changes are approved. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jeff Seigel, 247 Grand, identified himself as the appellant. The parcel on the north portion of the property has two houses on it. The front one was moved there in 1967. The back unit is attached to the front unit. Because of lack of adequate parking, people began parking on the front lawn. The adjacent parcel has two dwellings on the rear which have had access through the other property. The original objection was to the single driveway which is only 15 feet wide and is serving as the only driveway for four residences. It also serves as the turnaround for four cars. He objects since this would cause the front parcels to have parking on the front lawns. Grand Street is 30 feet wide and if this is approved the front lawn would be the only place where these people could park. He lives across the street and sees those four cars having to back out onto the street. There have been two cars hit in the last year that have been parked in front of his house. Grand Street is also a signed bike path. Paving would help with the parcels on the north but there would still be singular access with no e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 5 alternatives for parking except in the front yard for the other parcels. If the appeal is denied, he asked if they would have to pave the south access. If the e appeal is upheld, the whole process will be denied. He objects to the fact that there is no alternative parking except for in the front yard and that is also the objection of those who signed the petition that was distributed to the council. Mike McLain, 3509 Coburg Road, stated that he is one of the principals in this lssue. He stated that if the appeal is upheld then everything will remain the same and the property will remain status quo. The parking situation on both of these parcels is not different than anywhere else in town. People allover town back out of the driveway onto the street. The parking spaces are legal and comply with the code. The original proposal was for alternative access which has been used for the past 12 years and is the logical way to use this property. Paving would destroy existing landscaping and there will have to be two sharp 90 degree turns past the garage as well as destroying garden space for the lot. He urged the council to ignore the legal staff's position on this matter. There are a number of!iituations where alternative access has been approved. He would like the council to direct the Planning staff to change the code when it is logical and beneficial to the city, which this is. In rebuttal, Mr. Seigel stated that the council is being requested to allow a "horse trade." Those parking spaces are legal. The council is being asked to allow alternative access and this would solidify it. Someone has occupied a chicken coop and an apartment off a garage and that is what is being upheld as status quo. If they park in the back, this would help alleviate the parking problem. He would suggest denying the appeal and have staff come back with a plan to alleviate the problem. e Mr. Croteau reiterated that staff's position is to have the panhandle driveway paved if the appeal is denied and the partition is approved. The lot to the north, Tax Lot 2701, is not germane to this issue. In regard to parking improve- ment, single-family residents have permission to park there. The decision of land use is not discretionary, but rather a right of the property owner. Mr. Hamel asked if this is an improved street. Mr. Croteau said that it is an improved street with gutters and it is a standard width for that type of street. Mr. Hamel asked if there are sidewalks on this street. Mr. Croteau responded that there are not. Mr. Hamel asked what would happen if sidewalks were required. Mr. Croteau stated that access could accommodate sidewalks. Ms. Miller stated that in many ways, it is too bad that the council cannot be more flexible for additional open space and garden space and less paving. Those living there would be happier with more green and less paving. She would like the Planning staff to look at a way to try to preserve the extra flexibility as infilling occurs. Although parking in the front yard is not socially accept- . able, people do it allover town. It is the same situation whether it is a paved singular driveway or gravel. Mr. Obie stated that the council is compelled to deny the appeal for reasons previously stated. He would like the Planning staff to prepare a revised ordinance to allow more open space and less paving. Also, he would like to know e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 6 , e what the ordinance actually says. Mr. Croteau stated that if someone is dealing with a panhandle lot, then they have to abide by certain requirements. In other requests with a partition, they could take a variance but this is not open to those variance standards. This was done originally to show what would be allowed. Staff would like to be able to consider a variance process to panhandle lots in the code update. The code states, liThe panhandle drive shall be paved," and the City Attorney's Office says that must be upheld. Ms. Wooten stated that the council is trying to promote compact urban growth but in some cases that conflicts with neighborhood pride. She would like for a more certain directive to be given to Planning to have them come back with a proposal to resolve the parking situation. Mayor Keller indicated that staff could bring back a report in a week or so.. Ms. Schue stated that council will have to deny the appeal. She regrets the loss of the laurel hedge. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to deny the appeal. Mr. Croteau asked if that includes language regarding pavement of the panhandle driveway. Ms. Miller indicated that it does. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Consideration of Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 1981-82: Version 1 (Core budget); Version 2 (Core budget plus revised Tier II); Version 3 e (Core budget plus revised Tier II plus Gillespie Butte); and Version 4 (Core budget plus Gillespie Butte) (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason stated this is to replace the existing ordinance with a revised ordinance because of yesterday's election. The council will be voting only on Version 1: the core budget approved by the Budget Committee. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2379--An ordinance repealing Ordinance 18825, adopting the budget, making appropriations; determining and levying the annual ad valorem property tax for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1981, and ending June 30, 1982; and declaring an emergency; as outlined in Version 1. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18867. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 7 . C. Alley Direction Change--Oak/Pearl and 10th/11th (SC 81-1) (map distributed) e Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3583--A resolution establishing that the east/west alley and the north/south alley between Oak Street and Pearl Street and 10th and 11th avenues be changed from two-way to one-way east and north respectively. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SIGNING OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Pat Larion, Police Department. Mr. Larion stated that as a result of the public hearing held last week, staff had met with citizens representing the Police Department, the attorney for Emerald Towing, two citizens, and the City Attorney to discuss concerns. The ordinance was designed to address the concerns. Section 1 of the ordinance will remain the same. A compromise was reached on Section 2 which would allow scheduled rates for impounding and connecting vehicles to be displayed with a statement stating that there is no fee until the vehicle is connected. This could be done by magnetic or other type of sign and should be visible from 20 e feet. Section 3 requires signs for parking facilities before unauthorized vehicles are towed or impounded. The signs should be displayed and they should be not less than 3 square feet but no larger than 10 square feet. He showed samples. As the ordinance is written now, property owners would have three alternatives for signing: posting entrances to lots, posting the lot with a sign, or posting each parking space with signs not less than 1 square foot and no larger than 3 square feet. Also, they eliminated the requirement for phone numbers since owners of impounded vehicles must contact the Police Department anyway. This should help to eliminate disputes between owners and towing companies over rates. This will address the problem of inadequate signing in many lots. Staff suggests that this be reviewed in 90 days to see if the concerns have been met. Alan Ludwick, 1717 Centennial, stated that the issues presented were in agreement with the draft ordinance. He is not sure the ordinance will address the problems at the scene of a tow, but there will not be negotiations at the scene. The posted rate will be the imposed rate and if the owner of the impounded vehicle does not have the money, then there will be no choice but to impound the vehicle. The towing company owners were afraid their vehicles would be defaced by signs, but the compromise will work well. Rates will be posted for discon- necting, impounding, and stating that there will be no fee if a vehicle is not connected. The requirement will be only for three lines of wording. Also, implementation of that section of the ordinance requiring the posting of parking facilities with signs of a specific size and wording is deferred until November 15, 1981, tQ allow property owners adequate time to comply. Until that - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 8 . e time the signs currently posted will be adequate for the purposes of impounding unauthorized vehicles. Mr. Obie asked for clarification. Keith Martin, City Attorney, stated that Eugene Code 5.540 states that parking facilities have marked spaces for customer use. This will not be a problem in single-family units. Mr. Obie asked what the situation would be in small spaces, with abandoned vehicles, or in trespass situations. Mr. Martin stated that the owner could call the police and have them carry out their duties. They will probably not deal with these situations if lots are signed but only if a vehicle is abandoned or if it is a trespass situation. Ms. Smith said she is glad to see a compromise on the signing of the trucks. Some already have them. Last week, it was discussed that some owners or drivers of towing vehicles carry guns. She would like some follow-up regard- ing the legality of carrying guns in volatile situations. Mr. Gleason said it is appropriate for the City Attorney's Office and the Police Department to come back with proposed solutions. Ms. Wooten stated that last week, Mr. Obie had suggested that rates be posted for towing charges. She feels it would be a deterrent if people were aware of the costs. She has read a letter from Dr. Mossberg which she will share with Mr. Gleason and Chief Packard regarding the situation at Amtrak. Mr. Martin stated it is difficult to sign Amtrak since it is unimproved private property. He is not sure there is a solution for that difficult lot. Ms. Wooten stated that if people were aware of the cost, that might prevent some unauthorized parking. Mr. Gleason stated that unless there are uniform rates, e that could be a problem. Rate setting would be the next step in enforcement. He would like to keep the regulations at a minimum. However, if this continues as it has, staff will come back with a rate setting recommendation. Ms. Wooten added that the airport and bus station have public lots but Amtrak has a private lot and there is no provision for temporary parking. She asked if a change in the situation could be pursued. She asked about the six spaces adjacent to the building that formerly housed the Daily Planet. She asked if the contract for towing continues there even though the restaurant is not in operation. Mr. Martin stated that that is possible; it depends on what the owner wishes to do with the property. Mayor Keller stated that Dr. Mossberg had requested being allowed to testify. Council consensus was not to allow this but to have Dr. Mossberg speak with Deputy Chief Larion after the meeting. CB 2361--An ordinance concerning tow cars; regulating the signing of private and public parking facilities; amending Section 3.005 and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding Section 3.460 and 5.540 to that code; providing for an effective date; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 9 e Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18868. Mayor Keller asked staff to monitor the situation for any incidents that might result and if that is the case, he requested a report back from the Police Department. Mr. Gleason indicated a report would come back in 90 days. V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM--UPDATE (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introducted Chris Hofmann, HCC. Ms. Hofmann stated that the funding application was submitted to HUD last spring. In July, they received notification of a two-month delay from HUD. Most issues have been resolved. Staff will come back before November with Community Development Committee recommendations. A subcommittee came up with recommendations which are outlined in the memo. She asked that the council forward any ideas to her. A public hearing will be held September 29, 1981, to present a staff outline. Mr. Lindberg stated that as a member of the subcommittee, he felt that the work was productive. HUD decided they did not like the City's application and John Bonham consulted with CDC and staff. There has been a loss of communica- tion since then. It is apparent that the Federal government is moving in the direction of using its own ideas on how the City can address neighborhood needs. e He has been in contact with others who have been in negotiations with their district office and what is occurring in Eugene is unique. He feels Eugene may be suffering first but the City and council need to examine how they can redesign the neighborhood services. This has shifted into a phase similar to the War on Poverty where the Federal government dumped money into neighborhoods for a time and then it was taken away from them. The City needs to pay special attention to make the phasing process an easy transition to avoid the kinds of things which have destroyed neighborhoods in the past. Within 50 feet of the West University Community Center, a sign has been erected saying that that was the location of an attempted rape. Four months ago they had an anti-crime program which would have addressed problems such as that. Now the neighborhood group is restricted to brick-and-mortar projects. He has a number of recommendations for the council to consider: 1. Continuing to negotiate with HUD, going over the heads of the district office, to clarify whether there has been a change in the interpretation of the law. However, this could be costly. . 2. There has been input that HUD's major complaint was with the high level of administrative cost in the budget. He would hope that in the process of designing a three-year plan, staff could look at the administrative cost problem and look at HCC's relationship with the Finance Department's charges as well as others. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 10 3. Opening an administrative cost review should include CDC and the NIP e neighborhood. He asked if there is any room for negotiation left from the NIP alternative. Ms. Hofmann stated that staff went through with the HUD regulation and they had to do it the way they did. Those activities that were eligible but did not fit under the 20% administration limit are being reprogrammed into physical development. Mr. Lindberg asked what is allowed. Ms. Hofmann stated the budget allows only 20 percent to go into adminstrative cost and planning. Mr. Lindberg asked what our current costs are. Ms. Hofmann responded that with neighborhood staffing, costs are 36 percent. Additional discussion continued regarding the administrative costs. Mr. Gleason stated that the City will go from a pre-audit to post-audit monitoring system with HUD. Eligibility becomes an important issue. If the city can come to agreement with CDC and neighborhoods, then staff can check to make sure that costs are eligible and program-related. Other administrative costs would have to fall within the 20 percent. Anything in excess of 20 percent should be directly program-related. Mr. Obie asked if reprogramming of the $190,000 was necessary. Ms. Hofmann stated that it was. Mr. Obie stated that he finds what the Federal govern- ment is doing to be exciting and refreshing because it limits soft costs to 20 percent. He appreciates what is going on and thinks the council should have done it earlier. Mr. Gleason added that administrative expenses include programs that have fixed costs, software, and administrative costs. These must be separated out and distinguished from those that are program-related. They are e asking for specifics as to why soft costs are necessary to make a hardware program work. He suggested that this might be a good work session topic. The City is making a course correction and adjustment, not a 180-degree change. It is a change in focus. Ms. Miller stated that there are lots of kinds of programs the City cannot fund from Community Development money so perhaps those dollars could be used to help with the infilling situation. It is a misleading topic. Charlotte Lemon, West University Neighbors, stated that they are having problems with their crime prevention program. The definition is that there must be something physical such as dead bolt locks but this does not enable them to provide information on how not to be a victim of rape or assault. Neighborhoods need to be told why they can no longer have these services provided, not simply told that these projects are unworthy. She would suggest that the council review this process and make a decision soon to see if there is opportunity for council review and input as well as agreeing with the schedule for the process. She would like to see the council consider a process they are comfortable with. Mr. Lindberg noted that the City is going through a similar situation with the wastewater funding situation. The Federal government established a mandate and required the project and now they are taking the money away. However, the project still must be finished. There needs to be a balance developed between administrative expenses and what occurs in a neighborhood community development projects. Soft services such as crime prevention need to be linked with brick- and-mortar projects. It is not the council IS intent to focus on the projects but rather to focus on the product and to use the leverage of City resources to - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 11 accomplish the projects. He feels this would be the best way to serve the e neighborhoods. Mr. Obie stated he is comfortable with the schedule for involvement and implemen- tation and feels that will help resolve the conflict. The City will have only a short time to act on the $190,000 that needs to be reprogrammed and he would like information on how that will be used before it is approved. He also would like a list of options. Ms. Wooten noted agreement with Mr. Obie and stated that she would also like comments from CDC on this matter. Mr. Gleason indicated this could be done in report form to the council. VI. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION (memo distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bill Guenzler, Public Works. Mr. Guenzler stated in the early stages, the cost estimates were $104,000,000 and that is still similar. In one way, the economic problems of inflation have been beneficial in this project and the city has not been hurt as much as originally anticipated. The Federal grant funding picture has changed and will require changes from the City for implementation. Staff is trying to use the remaining money from the grant to do as much as possible. Future funding will be much lower and subject to changes in implementation. This will take more time to implement, and construction and operation will overlap. He feels operation should begin now. Over time, there will be adjustments and by revising e the project and with the City accepting connections, the system should be operational. The recommendations came from the two Public Works staffs to the City Managers and then to the two City Councils. Springfield acted on the 7-point recommendation plan and now staff is asking the City Council of Eugene to do the same. This program will be used as policy guidance to Public Works and MWMC. This should begin on schedule with dates on the timetable. Ms. Smith noted appreciation for Mr. Guenzlerls position and summary. The fact that the two City Managers and the Director of the MWMC are working together is important. This will give direction to MWMC and the staffs. She would recommend adoption of the 7-point program while retaining some flexibility to use the items in the 7-point program for guidance. Mr. Lindberg stated that as a member of MWMC Advisory Committee, he is grateful for the work that Ms. Smith has done and the committee supports it. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the 7-point recommendation program as outlined at the council work session held September 14, 1981. Mayor Keller noted appreciation for the support. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 12 c V I I. ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION TASK TEAM REPORT ON PROGRESS OF EUGENE'S ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM (memo, resolution, additional information e distributed) Council consensus was to hold this item over to September 23, 1981. The meeting was adjourned. Re~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) MDG:LN:pv/CM23a1 e - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 16, 1981 Page 13