|
<br />e
<br />
<br />-~
<br />
<br />-(77
<br />J 0
<br />
<br />,- -11 '
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />14
<br />
<br />~..
<br />.~
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />,
<br />:,
<br />I
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />
<br />II
<br />II
<br />:1
<br />.
<br />
<br />'!
<br />:1
<br />;
<br />
<br />(4) 'THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AGREES THAT ANY TIME THAT THE ~REGON STATE SANITARY
<br />AUTHORITY, AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH SEWAGE OUTFALL LINE, DETERMINES THAT THE
<br />EFFLUENT THEREFROM CAUSES OR IN ANY SIGNIFICANT DEGREE CONTRIBUTES TO THE 'CONTAMINA-
<br />TION OF THE WATER IN THE EUGENE MILL RACE, THAT THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD WILL FORTH-
<br />WITH EXTEND THE SEWE~ OUTFALL LINE 50 THAT THE EFFLUENT ENTERS THE WILLAMETTE RIVER,
<br />BELOW THE I NTAKE FOR THE MI LL RACE,. ANY SUCH CONSTRUCTI ON: TO BE, AT, THE SOLE COST AND
<br />EXPENSE Of THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. CONSTRUCTION OF ANY SUCH EXTENSION OF THE, SEWAGE
<br />OUTFALL LINE REQUIRED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS HEREOF SHALL BE MADE AT SUCH
<br />DEPTH AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE USE OF THE LAND OVER WHICH IT WOULD TRAVEL.'
<br />
<br />EXAMINATION OF THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES IN THIS MATTER INDICATES
<br />THAT A FURTHER FACT REGARDING ~HE COST OF THE CO~STRUCTION OF THE LONGER LINE~ AS
<br />PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF EUGENE IN ITS LETTER OF JULY 29TH; MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MADE
<br />CLEAR BY US TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL. THE ENGINEERS OF THE CITY OF SPRINGfiELD ARE UNABLE
<br />TO GIVE ANY ASSURANCE THAT THE CONSTRUCT~ON OF THAT OUTFALL LINE WOULD BE SAFE FROM
<br />ANNUAL WASHOUTS. INASMUCH AS THAT LINE ~UST CROSS A SUBSTAN~I'AL SLOUGH, ANY FILL
<br />CONSTRUCTED, UNLESS AT MUCH GREATER COST THAN ESTIMATED, COULD FREQUENTL~ BE EXPECTED
<br />TO. WASH OUT IN THE ANNUAL HIGH WATERS, AND WOULD BE ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL IN THESE
<br />AREAS.
<br />
<br />i
<br />;1
<br />::
<br />
<br />MAY WE REQUEST THAT THIS MATTER AGAIN BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COMMON,
<br />COUN,C1L, OF, THE CI TY' or EUGENE AT ITS REGU,LAR MEETI NG ON JANUARY II TH. THE SPRI NGFI ELD
<br />UTILITY BOARD EARNESTLY HOPES THAX THE MODIFICATION' PROPOSED HEREIN WILL BE ACCEPTABLE
<br />TO THE CITY OF EUGENE AND WILL THUS PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR A SATISFACTORY AGREEMENT.",
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY CRUMBAKER) SECONDED BY BOOTH THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE
<br />PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />COMMUNICATION FROM GAIL D. ELLIOTT - RE: ASSESSMENT ON SEWER BETWEEN MILL AND FERRY
<br />AND 12TH AND, 13TH AV,ENUEWAS, SUBMI:TTED AND READ AS F.OLLOWS:
<br />
<br />. "TWICE BEFORE IN WRIJING AND ONCE ORALLY I HAVE PROTESTED AGAINST THE SEWER,
<br />ASSESSMENT ON MY PROPE'RTY. ',I DO NOT BELl EVE ALL THE. COUNC I L MEMBERS OR THE COMMI TTEE
<br />WHICH THIS' IS BE~NG HANDLED, BY HAVE HAD YET A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE PROBLEM.
<br />
<br />So FIRST I STATE,: My PROPERTY HAS PA I,D A SEWER, ASSESSME.NT TAX; AND I NOW USE
<br />THIS SEWER FOR WHICH IT PAID. THIS SEWER HAS PROVED SOUND FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT
<br />THIS NEW SEWER RUNS INTO IT. WHY THEN MUST I PAY ASSESSMENTS ON THE SAME SEWER TWICE?
<br />
<br />SECOND: I HAD AN ATTORNEY EXPLAIN THE CITY CHARTER TO ME O,N' THIS, SUBJECT. .IT,
<br />STATES THAT ASSESSMENTS WILL BE MADE ONLY ON PROPERTY DIRECTLY BENEFITING BY A SEWER.
<br />Now THEN, WHEN THE NEW SEWER WAS PUT IN, THE ENGINEERS PUT CONNECTING JOINTS FOR THE
<br />THREE PROPERTIES THAT THIS IS BENEFITING, NOT PUTTING IN ANY CONNECTION FOR MY
<br />PROPERTY BY SEEI NG THAT I COULD NOT POSSI BLY EVER BENE:FI T BY RUNN,I NG I NDI RECTLY INTO
<br />A SEWER THAT.I NOW USE.,' :i
<br />
<br />I
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />THIRD: THIS NEW SEWER IS A REPLACEMENT SEWER FOR THREE PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY.
<br />IT IS REPLACING A SEWER ~HAT WAS PUT IN ~OR THREE ONE~UNIT HOUSES. THESE HOUSES
<br />HAVE NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO APARTMENTS, THEREFORE OVERLOADING THEIR PRESENT SEWER
<br />SYS,TEM. THE CI TY HAS AGREED',TO' PAY HALF OF THI S EXPENSE FOR'THEM. WHY THEN SHOULD
<br />THEY NOT BE THE ONES TO PAY THEIR OWN HALF AS THEY ARE BENEFITING 'BY IT?
<br />
<br />I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT THAT THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS TO HELP THE
<br />CITIZENS, NOT. TO BURDEN THEM. THISPROBLEMI SEEMS TO BE THE THREE FROPERTY OWNERS OWN
<br />PERSONAL PROBLEM, NOT MINE.
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />'I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />I WISH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SEE THE UNJUSTICE I:N THIS, ASSESSMENT AND NULLIFY THE
<br />CHARGES AGAINST MY PROPERTY."
<br />
<br />, 1
<br />COMMUNICATION FROM C~ E. HAMMER - RE: AjSESSMENT ON SEWER BETWEEN MILL AND FERRY
<br />STREET AND 12TH AND 13TH AVENUE WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS:
<br />
<br />"I HAVE YOUR' LETTER' REGARDI NG M.Y PROTEST AGAI NST A PROPOSED A'SSESSMENT AGAI NST
<br />MY PROPERTY AT 1235 MILL ST. FOR A SEWER LINE PLACED IN THE ALLEY BETWEEN MILL AND
<br />FERRY AND 12TH AND 13TH STS. I AM HEREBY AGAIN PROTESTING AGAINST THIS PROPOSED
<br />ASSESSMENT AND' REQUEST THAT'TH1.S PROTEST BE'READ AT THE) NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE
<br />CI TY COUNC I L .ON JANUARY: 'I I, 1,954,.' 1. '". ,
<br />
<br />As POINTED OUT IN MY PREVIOUS PROTEST, ALL OF THE PROTESTING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE
<br />FOR MANY YEARS HAD THE1R 'PROPERTIES 'CONNECTED TO EXISTING: SEWER LINES. As A PROPERTY
<br />OWNER AGA I NST WHOM A PORTI.ON OF T,HE ,COST OF THE NEW' SEWER' I S TO BE ASSES,SED 'I, DEMAND
<br />TO KNOW FOR WHOSE NEED OR BENEFIT THE NEW SEWER WAS INSTALLED.
<br />
<br />IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN PROPERTY IS ASSESSED FOR THE COST
<br />OF IMPROVEMENTS MADE SUCH IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE OF SOME BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY. My
<br />PROPERTY ON MILL STREET HAD BEEN CONNECTED TO A SEWER LINE ON MILL STREET MANY YEARS
<br />BEFORE I ACQUIRED IT. THE NEW LINE IN THE ALLEY CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE or ANY BENErll
<br />TO ME AS I HAVE NO NEED FOR TWO SEWER OUTLETS.
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|