|
<br />percentage of properties'p~titioning the sewer, recognition by propertyowner:s of
<br />need for the sewer, and basis of assessment for ?ny future permanent installation.
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman Hershner, Public Works Director said the County has not indi-
<br />cated there is any health hazard in the area. Mrs. Beal wondered if the award could be
<br />held until contact is made with the County in that regard. Manager said that a good
<br />deal of the land in the area is devoted to septic tanks and drain fields which could
<br />be used to better advantage if sewers are installed. Public Works Director commented
<br />on .the temporary nature of,pumping stations. 'He said if the City is to' pay for their
<br />costs it would leave choice for that type of system open to many areas in the City
<br />which dO,~ot"now have sewers. Property owners in those areas have' also' contributed to
<br />trunk line funds; The reason for pumping in this case is stpictlybecause of the topog-
<br />raphy. He cautioned the Council against approving temporary systems at the City's
<br />expense.
<br />
<br />1-
<br />
<br />Rollcall vote'was taken on the motion to award contracts to low bidder on
<br />each project. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
<br />
<br />II - Consent Calendar
<br />Items previously discussed at committee meetings on February 14, 1973 (Present: Council-
<br />women Beal (presiding) and Campbell; Councilmen Williams~McDonald, Hershner, Keller,
<br />Murray, and Wood) and February 21,.1973 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal,
<br />Williams, McDo~ald, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings
<br />appear below printed in italics.
<br />
<br />A. Important Things - Councilman McDonald stood and called attention to the date. -
<br />Valentine's ,Day, 1973., He felt the ladies of the Council and of other Boards
<br />and COnmUssions and COnmUtteesshould be given -special recpgnition on this day!
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/14/73
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />B. - Le'gTsi~tl~n 7J.fle~ting Ci tlzen Mobili ty - Councilman Wood iiitroduC;;;a.--ii;'ry Craig,
<br />~representing the Eugene-Springfield Chapter of the Oregon Architectural Barriers
<br />Council. Mr. Craig called the Council's attention to bills now before the
<br />Legislature which address primarily the issue of architectural baX'riers for people;
<br />twith mobility problems. He noted in particular that the Eugene City CoUncil
<br />;Chamber is inaccessible to the entire community. Other issues to which the
<br />legislation is directed are tax deductions for builders making their structures
<br />~accessible for the handicapped, tax status of people with mobility problems,
<br />;parking spaces, etc. Copies of the bills were left for distribution to Council
<br />imembers.
<br />
<br />Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Murray that the Council direct the staff to study ~\
<br />. the bills and other information availabl{3 on barriers and make recommendations to ,:
<br />the Council for guidelines that could be adopted to make Eugene a barrier-free
<br />.city. In making the recommendation Mr. Wood asked also that consiqeration be
<br />given to provision of access to the Council Chamber. He asked too that after
<br />staff and Council study of the legislation and other information, Mr. Luce,
<br />legislative analyst, be asked to support it before the Legislature. Motion car-
<br />ried unanimously.
<br />
<br />\':
<br />;,:
<br />
<br />~-----_.~~.-,j. - ~:".
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />C. Levying Assessments, 11th Addition Edgewood Estates (72-22 and 72-23), Hearing on
<br />Januarll 29 (,1973 - Copies of the Hearing Panel report were previously distributed
<br />to Council members. The Panel felt the request of Real Estate Development, Inc.,
<br />for deferred assessment invol ved a poli cy change and referred it to the Counci 1
<br />,-_.':=:':.;:I;-..-~ ~_...._ . . .__~____ __ __."'__,'. . - ...,.. .
<br />for discussion. Public Works Director displayed maps of the area and pOinted
<br />out the properties for which the sewers were constructed and those which would be
<br />assessed. He explained past policy with regard to assessment for lateral arid trunk
<br />,sewers and said that deferment is allowed by Code if to the best interests of the
<br />City (easement in exchange for deferment on trunk lines) or if not located within
<br />160 feet of a street. Public Works feels Real Estate's property does not meet that
<br />criteria because it faces on a dedicated street and it was not necessary to acquire
<br />an easement to come within 160 feet of it. Director. said that the property on
<br />which deferment is requested cannot be developed in the manner desired by the owner
<br />because there is no access other than on Willamette, therefore the sewer is of no
<br />benefit at this time. He said the only instance for which lateral assessment has
<br />been deferred was on the Roosevelt Boulevard sewer against that property lying within
<br />the Highway 126 right-of-way. The only way of terminating a deferment is through
<br />application for subdi vision of property or for specific use of a sewer, or if a street
<br />is platted within 160 feet and property has access to that street. Public Works reco~i
<br />mended that there be no change in the present policy.
<br />
<br />.!
<br />
<br />,
<br />_ ,.J
<br />
<br />'~-
<br />
<br />On questions from the Council, Public Works Director pointed out dedicated streets in
<br />the area and plans for traffic patterns. Mr. Hershner explained the Panel's feeling
<br />that this presented a new problem because development of Real Estate's property de-
<br />pends upon development of property to the south for which the owners have no plans
<br />at this time.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />2/14/73
<br />
<br />.,"-
<br />
<br />'. ,~.
<br />
<br />~ . ,
<br />
<br />S2
<br />
<br />2/26/73 - 4
<br />
|