Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />179.-. <br />, - ,) : <br /> <br />1/2.3/67 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Chamber <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />January 23, 1967 <br /> <br />Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the regular <br />meeting held on January 9, 1967 - was called to order at 7:30'p.m. on January 23, 1967 in the Council <br />Chamber by His Honor Mayor Edwin E. Cone with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Lauris, Messrs. <br />McNutt, Anderson, Lassen, Mrs. Hayward, Messrs. McDonald and Wingard. Councilman Purdy was absent. <br /> <br />Minutes of the January 9, 1967 meeting, as maiE d to Council members, were approved. <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />10th and Oak ParkIDgAss~ment District - The City Manager's report was read with regard <br />to objections filed previously by Stanley Darling on behalf of the DeNeffe Estate prop- <br />erties on 11th between Oak and Pearl. Also read were affidavits of Dale Brueger, assistant <br />manager of Eugene Medical Center; Arthur R. Quackenbush, property owner; and John Porter, <br />planning director. The Affidavits concerned 'exempt' or 'non-exempt' parking status of <br />certain parking lots within the proposed district. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Robert E. Moulton, representing the 1st National Bank of Oregon as trustee for the <br />Fred Fisk Estate, owner of a parking lot at 11th and Oak, objected to the assessment <br />against the Fred Fisk property and joined with Stanley Darling in the matter. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Moulton claimed no substantial difference between certain lots in the proposed dis- <br />trict which have been exempted and the parking lot in the Fisk ownership. He stated <br />the Fisk property had been assessed $186,000, or 9% of the total_ cdst 6fthe fac1tity. <br /> <br />Stanley Darling, representing the DeNeffe Estate properties, reiterated his argument <br />that a double standard of assessment is being used, present use exempting some prop- <br />erties, others being assessed on proximity only. He asked that the parking assessment <br />district be re-initiated after complete examination and mentioned the possibility of <br />reassessment because of the change in 'exempt' or 'non-exempt' status of portions of <br />the Medical Center lots. <br /> <br />The City Attorney advised the hearing should be continued to February 6, 1967 Council <br />meeting in order to notify the Eugene Medical Center of ptDposed assessments on lots <br />not previously assessed (Parcel No. 33 - $34,540.33 and 54% of Parcel No. 42 - $49,738.07). <br /> <br />Mr. And~rson moved seconded:by Mr. Lauris to continue the hearing to February 6, 1967, with notices <br />to be sent to Eugene Medical Center. Motion carried. <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />7th and Wil1amette Parking Assessment District - Robert Elfers, attorney representing <br />Lane County, again stated the County's feeling that assessment using a formula based <br />on proximity only is in error. He said the value of property in governmental ownership <br />is not the same as that of commercial property. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Oscar Spliid, representing John Warren Hardware, said they were not protesting formation <br />of the 7th and Willamette par~ing assessment district, but wanted to call attention to <br />notice which had been given the Council previously with regard to property in Warren <br />ownership which is being converted to a parking lot. <br /> <br />No action was taken, pending consideration of ordinance (C.B.7827) forming district and levying <br />assessments. <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Bills - For':i:he "period- January 1 to 'January -21,: 1:967-~wer_epresented. and read as follows: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />_' ,.';;.-,.,. '-Wit,.-~..._~_._. _ <br /> <br />Ii <br /> <br />......a!IliIIoL.............__ __ <br /> <br />~,.._'"~~~~.- <br /> <br />1/ 2316~ "~,<c~~ <br />