Laserfiche WebLink
<br />....~ <br />77 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />COUNCIL CHAMBERS, <br />EUGENE, OREGON. <br />MAY 10, 1954. <br /> <br />THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE WAS HELD ON MAY 10, <br />1954 AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY HIS HONOR, <br />MAyOR V. E. ~OHN~ON WITH THE FOLLOWING COUNCILMEN PRESENT: CRUMBAKER, BOOTH, KOPPE, <br />SIEGENTHALER, WATSON, CONE AND OWEN. COUNCIL~AN GODLOVE WAS ABSENT. <br /> <br />THE MINUTES OF THE LAST REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 12TH AND 26TH WERE READ AND <br />APPROVED. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CRUMBAKER REQUESTED THE FLOOR TO MAKE A STATEMENT PERTAINING TO CERTAIN FACTS <br />ABOUT THE MILLRACE. THE STATEMENT WAS AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />"THE QUESTION OF THE AMOUNT Of CONSIDERATION GIVEN THE MILLRACE BY THE EUGENE CITY <br />COUNCIL HAS BEEN RAISED. ACCORDING TO RECORDS AND ESTIMATES THE COUNCIL HAS SUPPLIED <br />TAXPAYER'S FUNDS AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />INITIAL FUND PROVIDED IN 1947 TO START PROJECT <br />(THIS PRECEDED ANY FUNDS SUPPLIED BY THE MILLRACE Assoc.) <br />PURCHASE OF MARTIN TRACT AT HEAD OF RACE (PARK fUNDS) <br />ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE & OPERATION FOR:1953 (SEE REPORT). <br />(STREET FUNDS, NOT ,BUDGETED FOR MILLRACE) <br />~STIMATED COST OF REMOVING TRASH, ETC. PARK FYNDS <br />(NOT BUDGETED TO"MILL RACE) <br />~STIMATED COSTS OF MAI~TENANCE, ETC. FOR YEAR~ 1950, 1951, 1952, 1954 <br /> <br />IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THE COUNCIL EXPENDED FROM MILLRACE <br />ASSOCIATION FUNDS <br /> <br />$ 10,000.00 <br /> 6,000.00 <br /> 7,600.00 <br /> 790.88 <br /> 33,561 !52 <br />$ 57,941 .90 <br /> 20,000.00 <br /> <br />TOTAL EXPENDITURES TAXPAYER'S MONEy 1950-54 ESTIMATED AND OF RECORD <br /> <br />WHAT DOES THE TAXPAYER GET FOR HIS MILLRACE MQNEY? <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />I. THE MILLRACE IS A PRIVATE STREAM. ONLY ~HERE IT CROSSES A STREET OR HIGHWAY DOES <br />THE PUBLIC HAVE UNDISPUTED RIGHT OF ACCESS, E~CEPT TO THE ~URFACE OF THE WATER ONLy. <br /> <br />2. WATER ~VAIL~BLE FOR THE MILLRACE HAS BEE~ MUDDIED BY DREDGING AND GRAVEL WASHING <br />OPERATIONS UP STREAM FROM THE INTAKE. <br />. , <br /> <br />3. THE DIVERSION DAM IS IN DISREPA~R. <br />TO CITY OWNED LAND NORTH OF THE RIVER. <br />. " <br />DAM INCREASES THE FLOOD HAZARDS. <br /> <br />IT CAUSES AN ESTIMATED $1000 PER YEAR DAMAGE <br />. , <br />IT HA~ BEEN ASSERTED THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE <br /> <br />4. THE OUTLET FRO~ BROADWAY TO THE "RIVER IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />5. THE MILLRACE BAN~-FULL MIGHT CAUSE LITIG~TION ON ACCOUNT O~ BASEMENT DAMAGE. <br /> <br />6. ESTIMATES OF COM~LETE RESTO~ATION OF THE.MILLRACE RUN FROM $143,604 FOR A FLOW <br />OF 100 CU. FT. PER SEC. TO $301,0~0 FOR FLOW qF 200 C.F.S. AN ADDED $100,000 AND UP <br />WOULO BE REQUIRE~ FOR LANO, IF THE MILLRACE I~ NOT TO BE"A PRIVATE DITCH, MAINTAINED <br />By TAXPAYERS FOR THE BENEfiT Of ADJOINING PRO~ERTY HOLDERS. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />7. FOR A RECREATION AREA THE MILLR~CE .IS ON,THE WRONG SIDE OF FRANKLIN BOULEVARD~ <br />ALMOST THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF EUGE~E ~OULD HAVE TO CROSS FRANKLIN BOULE~ARD TO GET <br />TO THE AREA. INSURMOUNTABLE TRAffiC PROBLEMS,WOULD RESULT. <br /> <br />8. SOME CRITICS ACCUSE THE EUGENE CITY COUN~IL OF BEING NIGGARDLY ~N SPENDING MONEY <br />FOR MILLRACE IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE. OT~ERS MAY DEMAND.THAT THE COUNCIL JUSTIFY <br />THE~EXPENDITU~E OF NEARLY $60,000 Of TAXPAYER~S MONEy TO MAINTAIN A PR~VATE DITCH, .SO <br />LOCATED THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC PROJECT." <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED By C~UMBAKER, SECONDED By SIEGENTHALER THAT THE STATEM~NT BE RECORDED IN <br />THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ANOTHER POI~T OF INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD W~S BROUGHT OUT BY DR. CRUMBAKER. HE STATED <br />THAT ~E HAD .GONE THROUGH THE CITY RECORDS SINCE 1947, THE YEAR O~ THE BEGINNING OF THE PLAN- <br />NING ~OMMISSION ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THE RECORD RE~EALS THAT DURING THE PERIOD 1947 TO THE <br />PRESE~T THE PLANNING COMMISSIO~ HAD MADE 248 REPOR1S TO THE COUNCIL. 21~ OF THESE PLANNING <br />COMMI~SION REPORTS WERE APPROVED BY THE ,COUNCIL AT .THE TIME OF THE REPORT, AND THAT 30 <br />REPORTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED AT THE TIME OF THE .REPORT. HOWEVER, SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS <br />WERE ~FFECTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE TIME OF THE INITIA~ REPORT. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />...... <br />