|
<br />~
<br />
<br />114
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3/10/58
<br />
<br />WILL~MtTTE TO DONALD STREET., THE,COMM,ITTEE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY
<br />MANAGER CONTACT THE SUPERINTENDENT Of SCHOOL DISTRICT #4 CONCERNING THEIR VIEWS
<br />ON THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. HARTMAN THAT ITEM 4 BE HELD OVER.
<br />MOTION,CARRIED.
<br />
<br />PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
<br />I., REQUEST fOR ENfORCEMENT Of ORDINANCE, #8292 CONCE~NING BUILDING, AT IOi6
<br />STREET (CONDEMNATjON) - THE CITY MANAGER, REPORTED THAT THE,BUIL~INGON
<br />CONDEMNDATION ORDINANCE HAD BEEN REEUESTED TO BE ENFORCED IS CURRENTLY
<br />DOWN SO NO ACTION IS NECESSARY.
<br />
<br />FI'LLMORE'
<br />WH,I CH THE
<br />BEING TAKEN
<br />
<br />No ACTION NECESSARY.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
<br />I. REQUEST fOR VARIANCE fOR SIGN~ MOOSE LODGE - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT: EUGENE LODGE: 686,
<br />LOYAL ORDER, Of, MOOSE, , HAD, REQUESTED A VARI ~NCE fOR AN I DENT I f I (;A.T.I'ON 's I'GN TO 'BE' ' ,
<br />MOUNTiD 'OVE'RTHE' '1'3TH'AVE'NUE,'ENTRAN'CE' OF 'THE 'LODGE BU fLDI NG 'LocATE'o AT '1'3TH 'AV'E'NUE
<br />AND, CHAMBERS "STREET:': ,'r~E' 'SoARD 'or ApPE'ALS 'HAD' C'ONS IDE:R~D 'THE 'R'EQUE'ST: 'AN'D':REC'O,~~
<br />MENDED THAT THE VARIANCE BE GRANTED fOR SUC~ SIGN., AT TH~:CoMMITTEE, SESSION iY'
<br />WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE HAD BEEN A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT THE SIGN
<br />SIZE IS ALLOWABLE BUT THAT IT CANNOT BE AN ILLUMINATED SIGN IN THIS PARTICULAR
<br />AREA UNLESS A VARIAN~E, JS'GRANTED~ REpRESENTATIVES OF THECOM~ITTEE DROVE PAST,:
<br />THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SIGN, AND THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THAT, A VARIANCE
<br />BE ALLOWED fOR THE ILLUMINATION Of THE PROPOSED SIGN.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />2. CONSIDERATION Of REQUEST BY STATE SOARD OF SANITATION CONCERNING TREATMENT Of
<br />SEWAGE - A LETTER, fROM THE OREGON STATE SANITARY AI;jTHORITY CONCERNI'NG: P'OLLUTION'
<br />OF THEWILLAMETTE RIVER AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE SANITARY AUTHOR.ITY WAS, EX-
<br />PLAINED TO THE, COMMITTEL MR. RALPH RODERICK Of THE ENGINEERING FIRM, OF CORNELL,
<br />HOWLAND, HAYES, & MERRYF'IELDINDICATED THAT ,HE, THE CITY MANAGER AND OT,HER REPRE-
<br />SENTATIVES OF' THE CITY OF', EUGENE HAD MET, WITH THE STAH SANITARY ENGINEER CONCERN-
<br />ING THE PROBLE~ fACING JHE CITY AT THIS TiME. 'SASI~ALLY,THE, PROB~EMWA~ EXPLAINED
<br />AS A:fA.lLURE TO OBTAIN DESTR,UCTION OF BACTERIA. TH.lS ,IS E?PECIALLY TRUE DURING
<br />., ." .' -
<br />PERIODS Of H,IGH INDUSTRIAL"WASTE LOADS AT THE SEWAGE TREATMENT. pL~NT WHICH OCCURS
<br />DURING SUMMER MONTHS. IT WAS EXPLAiNED THAT CHLORINE I~ USED, TO DESTR6v BACTERIA
<br />AND THAT THESE INDUSTRIAL WASTES WHICH CAUS~ THE MA~OR PROBLEM HAVE A HIGH CHLORINE
<br />DEMAND AND BECAUSE Of THIS DEMAND IT IS DiffiCULT, If NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO DESTROY
<br />THE BACTERIA PRESENT AT THE TREATMENT PLANT.
<br />
<br />MR. RODERICK INDICATED THAT SEWAGE TREATMENT PROBABLY COULD BE WORKED OuT BUT THAT
<br />THE COST WILL NO DOUBT BE HIGH AND THAT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS SECP.NDARY TREATMENT
<br />WILL UNDOUBTEDLY BE NECESSARY WITHIN A fiVE TO TEN YEAR PERIOD. HE F'URTHER INDI-
<br />CATED.THA~ I~ SECON~~RY T~EATMENT I~ GOIN~ TO BE ,NECE~SARY IN THEHNEAR F'UTURE, PER-
<br />HAPS IT SHOULD BE, T~E MAJOR CONSIDERATION AT THI~TIME.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />THE MEANS Of GiviNG SECONDARY: TREATMENT TO SEWAGE WASTES WAS ,EXPLAINED, TO THE,COM-
<br />MITTEE AND"IN, BRIEF IT WA~ INDICATED THAT THE SECONDARY TREATMENT DjSPOSED,OF', OR-
<br />GANIC MATTER"HELD IN, SOLUTION." THE OVERALL, COS,T OL$ECONDARY TREA,TMENT WAS, ESTI-
<br />MATED AT $400,000 AL TH,OUGI:t SUCH WORK' ~AN BE DONE: I N STAGES .,' No, EXA~T ESTIMATE WAS
<br />POSSIBLE SINCE, AN: ENGjNEERI,N~ STUDY WILL HAVE, TO BE MADE: BEF',ORE VALID FIGURES, <:AN
<br />BE ACH IEVED. ,lH,E , CITY MANAGER REQUESTED THA.TI:IE BE ALLOWED TO ENGAGE ' ,I ~ ,A STUDY
<br />OF THE P~OBLE:MS PRESENTED AT,JHESE~AGE: JREATMENT PLANT; ~ND,THE COM~ITTEERECOM-
<br />MENDED THAT THE CITY MANAGER, BE AUTHOIH ZED TO PROCEED wi Tii A STUDY Of THESE'WAGE
<br />TREATMENT PROBLE~, BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARYJ,AND ON BOT~ AN ~NGINEERIN~ AND
<br />F'INANCIAL BASIS.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />3. CONS I DERAT ION OF REQUESJ fOR PAYMEN,T FOR AUST I N-WES,TERN SwEEPER ,ENTERED B,Y COLUMB I A
<br />EQUIPMENT COMPANY - THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DIRE,CTOR Of, PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWED FOR
<br />THE COMMITTEE THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CONCERNING THE PURCHASE Of AN AUSTIN-
<br />WESTERN SWEEPER.
<br />
<br />IT WAS 'INDICATED THE SWEEPER WAS ORIGINALLY 'DELIVERED TO THE CITY 'iN 'LATE 'AUGUST 'Of
<br />1957'ONA 'TRIAL,BASis AND THAT AT TH.E END. OF' niE TRIAL 'PERIOD IT WAS DETERMI'NED
<br />THAT THE SWEEPER WOULD NOT B~ PURCHASED. SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DETERMiNATioN 'AND ~T
<br />THE REQUEST OF' THE COLUMBIA EQUIPMENT COMPANY, ADDITIONAL TRIALS WERE GIVEt'! THE
<br />MACHIN~, THE LATEST, OF' WHI~H TOOK PLACE IN LATE DE~EMBER 1957 AND EARLY JANUARY 1958.
<br />THE CITY EXPERIENCED, SOME DIFFI,CULTY WITH VARIOUS MECHANICAL DEfECTS, AND ,DuRING THE
<br />ABOVE MENTIONE.D TRIAL PERIOD THE MAJOR DEfECT WAS O,CCASIONED BY THE CON,ING OF',THE
<br />BROOM. FOLLOWING THIS :TRIAL PERIOD A MEETING WAS HELD WITH THE REPRES,ENTATIVES OF
<br />THE COLUMBIA EQU:IPMENT, COMP,ANY AND REPRESENTATIVES Of THE CITY OF EUGENE, AND THE
<br />VARIOUS FACTORS AND DIFFICULT,IES IN: OPERATION WERE GONE OVER AGAIN ,AT THIS MEETING.
<br />SUBSEQUENT TO TH:I S MEET. I NGWH I CH WAS HELD. IN MID-JANuARY 1,958, A FACTORY REPRESENTA-
<br />TIVE Of THE AUST~N-WESTE~N CORPORATION CAME T~ EUG~NE, WENT OVER THE MACHINE AND
<br />
<br />MADE CERTAIN CORRECTIONS TO FACTORY ASSEMBLED AREAS WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED WAS THE
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~I
<br />
|