04/26/1954 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~n Iv e As THIS EQUIPMENT REPRESEN~S A CONSIDERABLE INVESTMENT AND MUST NECESSARILY REMAIN IDLE UNTIL THE COUNCIL G~VES RESPONSE, WE ASK THAT THIS REQUEST BE CONSIDERED AND DET~RM1~ED AS QUICKLY AS IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. BUT WE RECOGN.IZE THE CONSTANT PR~SSURES ON ANY LEGISLATIVE BODY, AND SO WISH TO THANK THE COUNCIL NOW FOR ITS CONSIDER~TION OF THIS MATTER, WHAT€VER BE THE ULTIMATE DISPOSITION." I IT WAS MOVED BY CRUMBAKE~, SECONDED BY BOOTH THAT THE REQUEST BE REFERRED TO THE' PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. 27 COMMUNICATION FROM C. E. McLEAN - REQUEST FOR V~RIANCE AT 1224 WILLAMETTE STREET WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS: "I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR PERMISSION TO ERECT A GLASS PARTITION,ON THE.FRONT OF OUR BUSINESS AT. 1224 WILLAMETTE STREET. THIS PARTITION WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY TWELVE FEET IN LENGTH, AND WOULD COME OUT fROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE.BUILDING FOUR FEET. I AM ENCLOSING A SKETCH TO SHOW THE TYPE AND LOCATION OF THE ADDITION. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT SOME LENGTH, WITH BOTH THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PLANNING CONSULTANT, AND'IT WAS THEIR SUGGESTION THAT WE REQUEST PERMISSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE ADDITION. THE PARTITION COULD EASILY BE REMOVED, AND WE AGREE TO TAKE IT DOWN AT ANY TIME IN THE EVENT OF STREET WIDENING. IT WOULD NOT BE A SUPPORTING PARTITION, AND WOULD SET BACK A FOOT UNDER OUR PRESENT ROOF OVERHANG. IT WILL BE AN ATTRACTIVE ADDITION TO THE BUILDING AND BECAUSE IT WILL BE MADE OF LARGE PANELS Of GLASS IN TWO BY FOUR FRAMES, IT WILL NOT OBSTRUCT THE VIEW Of CARS COMING ON AND OFF THE PARKING LOT. e THANKING YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY IN CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST, AND TRUSTING THAT YOU WILL SEE FIT TO~GRANT IT~ 'I AM" I IT WAS MOVED BY CRUMBAKER, SECONDED BY GODLOVE THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED. 28 COMMUNICATION FROM THE VERY REV. EDMUND ,J. MURNANE - RE: SEWER ASSESSMENT ACROSS CATHOLIC CEMETERY PROPERTY WAS SU.MITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS: "REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF THE SEWER ASSESSMENT ACROSS THE CATHOLIC CEMETERY PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000.00 PLUS, PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT WE SHOULD LIKE TO PAY THE ASSESSMENT AT THE RATE Of SIX (6) ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS OF $1,000.00 PLUS ,INTEREST AT THE RATE OF THREE PER CENT PER ANNUM ON BALANCES REMAINING FROM TIME TO TIME UNPAID. . THE FACT IS, WE HAVE NO MONEY WITH ~HICH TO PAY SAID ASSESSMENT IN FULL, AND THE PAYMENT Of $1,000.00 PER YEAR PLUS INTEREST WILL TAX QUR FI~ANCIAL RESOURCES. WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATT€NTION TO THE FACT THAT WE UNHESITATINGLY GRANTED THE CITY AN EASEMENT ACROSS OUR CEMETERY, WELL KNOWING THAT WE WOULD NE~ER TAP THE SEWER AND THAT IT WOULD BE OF LITtLE USE TO THE OCCUPANTS OF OUR PROPERTY. ACCORD- ING~Y, WE WOULD LIK€ XOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION, THIS BEING THE ONLY APPARENT WAY TO SETTLE OUR INDEBTEDNESS." I IT WAS MOVED BY CRUMBAKER, SECONDED BY BOOTH THAT THE COMMUNICATION BE REFERRED TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION CARRIED. 29 COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL LANE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - RE: WATER DISTRICTS WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS fOLLOWS: "UNTIL A SHORT TIME AGO IT WAS ASSUMED THAT PORTIONS OF WATER DISTRICTS ANNEXING TO EUGENE HAD TO CONTINUE TAX PAYMENTS TO THEIR WkTER DISTRICTS UNTIL THE BONDED OBLIGA- TI,ONS (AS OF THE DATE OF ANNEXATION) ARE RETIRED. JHIS PLACES A SEVERE LOAD ON AN ANNEXED AREA, SINCE IN JOINING THE CITY THE AREA ASSUMES CITY OBLIGATIONS AND PAYS FULL CITY TAXES IN ADDITION TO THE WATER DISTRICT rAX. THE PI~E LINES AND OTHER ~ATER DISTRICT FACILITIES IN AN ANNEXED AREA BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE CITY AND ARE OPERATED BY THE EYGENE WATER AND ELECTRIC BOARD, BUT THE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO PAY ON THE BOND ISSUE UNDER WHICH THE FACILITIES WERE INSTALLED. HAD THE AREA JOINED THE CITY W)THOUT WATER SERVICE (RIVE~ VIEW SECTION), THE E.W.E.B. WOULD HAVE INSTALLED THE WATER SYSTEM AT NO COST TO THE PROPERTIES SERVED, OR IF AN ENTIRE WATER DISTRICT HAD ANNEXED TO THE CI-TY (SOUTH WILLAMETTE WATER DISTRICT) THE E.W.E.B. WOULD HAVE. ASSUMED THE OBLIG~TION FOR THE OUTSTANDING BONDS. e UNDER THE OREGON REVISED STATUTES WE NOW FIND: I e ~