01/26/1948 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I ~ 103 3 A report of the Judiciary Committee re: appointment of Municipal Judge, was submitted and read asfoll.ows: o....lt. ~ "Your Committee on JUdiciary to whom was referred the matter of the nomination of a successor to Mr. Stanley Darling as Judge of the Municipal Court, begs to re- port as follows: That we have. canvassed the field of qualified persons. for this position and recommend to the Council the appointment of Mr. John L. Barber, Jr. as Municipal Judge for ,the City of Eugene, appointment .to be effective as of February 1, 1948." It was moved by Bailey,seconded by Wells that the report of the Judiciary Com- mittee be received and placed on file and that the nomination be confirmed. Motion carried. .;;~ . , " ". 4 A report of the Judiciary Committee re: establishment of Garbage collection rates, was submitted and read as follows: "Your Committee on. Judiciar.y to whom was referred the matter of establishment of Garbage Collection Rates for the period beginning February 1, 1948 and ending January 31, 1949, begs to report as. foll.ows:" Your Committee. has. examined the financial reports of those companies engaged in business of refuse collection in the City of Eugene for the calendar. year 1947, as provided for in Ordinance 8983 in the City of Eugene. The Committee feels that the operating profit as shawn. in the statementsd of the. r.efuse companies reflect a normal pr..Ofit taking. intoconsiderationthe,capi.tal investment. of the..operators. We, therefore, recommend. that the.. Council adopt a resolution establishing the garbage collection rates for the period February 1, 1948 to January 31, 1949 on the sam.e basis as thos,e charged. and coll.ected, during the last 12 month period. " It was moved by Bailey, seconded by Hawn that the report of the Judiciary Committee be received and plac.ed on fil.eand the ,recommendation approved. Motion carried. A report of the Finance Committee re: property offer by C. A. Wetterstrom on Lot 1, Block 4 of Victoria Heights Addition, was supmitted and r.ead. "Your Committee on Finance to whom was referred the matter of property offer on Lot 1, Block 4 o.f Victoria Heights Addition, begs to report as follows: That the matter of an offer by C. A. Wetterstrom for Lot 1, Block 4 of Victoria Heights Addition in the sum of $300.00 be rejected and that a counter offer of $650.00 be made." 5 It was moved by Davis, seconded by Hawn that the report of the Finance Committee be received and placed on file and that the.recommendation contained therein be approved. Motion carried.' .REPORTS OF OFFICERS . A report of the City Manager re: improvement of alley between Third and 6 Fourth, Jefferson and, Madison, was submitted and read as foll.ows: "At the last regular meeting of the Common Council this office was directed to make a further investigation. into. the. propos.ed paving of the all.ey between Third and Fourth Avenues West, Madison and Jefferson Streets. The Council will recall at that time that the original petition for the improvement had been Signed by the Pacific Cooperative, owners of all of the property abutting the alley on the north and by two of the six property owners abutting the alley on the south. On Tuesday of.the past week a meeting of all of the affected property owners was held at which time the improvement was furthe.r. discussed and the low bid for the job was considered. At this meeting., all of the individual property owners affected stated that they were opposed to proceeding with the project unless the Pacific Co-op would agree to assume two-thirds of the total cost of the work which would cost $2,681.00, based on the low bid as submitted for the work. It was the sense of this meeting that the low bid as submitted was not excessive and that in all probability there would be no point in re-advertising for bids. Since that me.eting I have been advised' by the Pacific Co-op that it would not be willing to assume any cost of the project in addition to the 50% which would be normally assessed against its property. The cooperative feels that the Council should proceed with the improvement'd on. th.e basis that the company has and is making a large investment in. anindus.trial development and tha.t the. paved alley will be necessary for its operations. The other property owners take the position that the alley would primarily serve the company and that it is not necessary at this time to have the pavement as a service road. This report is submitted for your information and for whatever action you deem proper under the circumstances." ~