|
<br />~
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />0201
<br />
<br />6/9/69
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />rail.
<br />
<br />The 16th Avenue project will. pave the street to Jefferson Memorial Pool. A letter of protest was
<br />received from Mr. John A. Beck, 1590, Washington Street, citing old age and lack of income as a
<br />basis for protest.
<br />
<br />Paving of Alley between Portland and Wi1Uimette, Mr. Edgar ',D. Tower, 2290 Parks ide Lane, owner of an
<br />apartment abutting this alley objected to paving and stated he had not been petitioned. Manager
<br />explained that this project is result of exchange of land between City and Mr. Rubenstein, which
<br />resulted in vacation of a portion of 26th Avenue. Director of Public Works said petition signed by
<br />81% of owners of property.
<br />
<br />In answer to question from Councilman Mohr, Director of Public Works said construction costs had
<br />increased in paving projects, which involved mate~ia1s climbing in costs. Department. now includes
<br />a 10% figure in the bids for contingencies, and there has been a 5% increase in engineering costs.
<br />Contractor employee wages are continually increasing.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr felt it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify passing on increased costs
<br />to property owners, and that perhaps there should be a moratorium on certain projects to allow
<br />stabilization of costs in this area.
<br />
<br />Question called on motion. Rollcall vote. Motion carried with all councilmen voting aye.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved
<br />on No. 8 subject to
<br />to filing of plat.
<br />
<br />seconded by Dr. Purdy to accept the recommendation of Public Works Department
<br />approval of subdivider within two weeks and accept recommendation .on No. 9 subject
<br />Rollcall vote. All counci1ment present voting aye, the motion carried.
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to accept recommendation of Public Works Department on
<br />No. 15, subject to opinion of City Attorney. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye,
<br />the motion carried..
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to accept the recommendation of the Public Works Department,
<br />on Item 13, to reject the bid.
<br />
<br />Mr. Neil Brown said he represented 75% of the frontage involved on this project, and that they were
<br />opposed to the project at the present time.
<br />
<br />In answer to a question from Mr. Teague, Pub1icWorks Director said the City pays cost of installation
<br />of anything over 8" line, and the difference in this price was so inflated that it was an unreason-
<br />able amount for the City to pay. The bid will be withheld until petitions ,are receiv.ed from the
<br />property owners.
<br />
<br />Question called on motion. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting ,aye, motion carried.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to refer to the Joint Housing Conunittee the question of'assess-
<br />ments for benefits to property where the owner would suffer definite hardship because of age or low
<br />income.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />r
<br />In answer ,to question from Councilman McDona1~ the Finance Director- said once a project is bonded,
<br />money has to be available to pay bonds when they mature. The City would have to absorb this cost,
<br />
<br />Mr, McDonald wanted to point out that the City had never foreclosed on anyone, and that persons
<br />seemed to manage to pay their assessments and still remain on their property.
<br />
<br />Question called on motion. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />COMMITTEE REPORTS
<br />
<br />Meeting held June '4, 1969:
<br />
<br />"Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen HayWard, Purdy, McDonald, Wingard, Beal, Teague, Gribskov
<br />and Mohr; City Manager and, staff; and others,
<br />
<br />1. Items from Mayor and Council
<br />a. Assessment Ordinance hearings; suggested new' system -Mr. Mohr asked to have placed
<br />on the Agenda of Wednesday, June 11, institution of anew system for hearing assessment
<br />appeals. j,
<br />
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Wingard to receive and place on file Item 1a of the Conunittee
<br />Report. Motion carried,
<br />
<br />b. and c. (see after Item.2)
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />2. Since there were many persons present to discuss this matter, the Council heard it, first.
<br />
<br />Delegation, Nuclear Generator Planning - Mrs. Bea1 moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward that the
<br />City Council offer to cooperate with EWEB in spo~soring public discussions of a proposed
<br />'nuclear power plant, and in these discussions seek, the advice of the State Sanitary Authority,
<br />Board of County Commissioners, Central Lane Planning Council and other interested governmen-
<br />tal and quasi-governmental units.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />"
<br />11
<br />
<br />Mrs. Bea1 explained that a number of. people are concerned about the power plant authorized
<br />by the voters. They are conc~rnedabout the facility, and whether it should be built at all.
<br />
<br />6/9/69 - 3
<br />
<br />"
<br />\.
<br />
<br />..~
<br />
|