|
<br /> 383 ~
<br /> e
<br /> 12/8/58
<br /> ~~--- * --~-- - ------ ----- --------.-- -- -- --- -- --- - -- ----. --- --- ----- -- -- - -----. --*------
<br /> ------- -----_..~ ~_.- -~ ~--~--------- --~--~-~ ~---~- - -- --- ----~ ~- _.~._- ~ -- --- ~_.__._-~--- ------ ~..__.-
<br /> ---. - - - - . - 1 -- _. - - - : - -- -- - - - - - . -- "- - .
<br /> - - --- . -.. -.
<br /> Ii
<br /> I I
<br /> 2. DISCUSSION Of DOWNTOWN .STREET LIGHTING PROGRAM - THE COMMITTEE RECEIVED AND THE I;
<br /> Ii CITY MANAGER EXPLAINED A GENERAL S~REET LIGHTING PROGRAM WHICH WOULD EXTEND AT
<br /> I)
<br /> ITS WIDEST PART fROM LINCOLN TO HIGH STREET AND fROM THE SOUTHERN PACifiC STA- I:
<br /> TION TO 14TH AVENUE. IN THE PRESENTATION IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE CORE Of THE i'
<br /> I] I
<br /> BUSINESS AREA CURRENTLY HAS ON THE STREETS AN ,ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING ,SYSTEM, [I
<br /> I: AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD PR090SED THAT THESE BE REPLACED BY A MERCURY
<br /> i VAPOR LIGHTING SYSTEM, AND THAT,THE GORE ~TREET:L'GHTIN~AREA BE EXPANDED TO IN- "i
<br /> eLUDE' THE B~SINESS UISTRICT AS IT IS KNOWN TODAY. :'1
<br /> . -... " , ,,'
<br /> ,;,
<br /> 11 .. . . . ~j
<br /> " THE PROPOSAL .WOULD BE TO LIGHT:
<br /> I . . . . ' , , .. . . - - -
<br /> 6TH AND 7TH AVENUES fROM LINCOLN TO HIGH STREET !I
<br /> "
<br /> 8TH AVENUE fROM LINCOLN TO PEARL STREET II
<br /> " BROADWAY AND 10TH AVENUEfROM,CHARNELTON TO HIGH,S~REET'
<br /> , H
<br /> I
<br /> I! 11TH AVENUE fROM OLIVE TO PEARL STREET !I
<br /> " 13TH AVENUE fROMCHARNELTON TO OAK STREET"
<br /> :i
<br /> iI CHARNELTON STREET fROM 7TH TO 10TH AVENUE
<br /> ;:t
<br /> e 'I, OLIVE STREET fROM 5TH TO 13TH AVENUE :\
<br /> \, WILLAMETTE STREET fROM SOUTHERN PACifiC STATION TO 14TH AVENUE ,I
<br /> , iil
<br /> II
<br /> OAK STREET fROM 7TH TO 13TH AVENUE 11
<br /> Ii PEARL STREET fROM 7TH TO I I TH ,AVENUE
<br /> II
<br /> I: HIGH STREET fROM BROADWAY TO 10TH AVENUE I,
<br /> I ~i
<br /> I I
<br /> :'!
<br /> THE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM RROPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD INCLUDE ALUMINUM I'
<br /> I ~ POLES TO REDUCE THE COST Of MAiNTENANCE AND -WOULD INCLUDE THREE '35,000 LUMEN LIGHTS :1
<br /> I
<br /> It
<br /> t ~ IN THE MID-BLOCK AREAS AND fOUR 21,000 LUMEN LIGHTS AT EACH IN~ERSECTION.THE COST
<br /> I, ,i
<br /> Ii TO THE CITY Of EUGENE, 1 f IT WERE TO AMORTIZE THE INSTALLATION COST AS WELL AS THE ;\
<br /> Ii OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Of THE LIGHTS OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD, WOULD BE $18,000 \
<br /> i PER YEAR WHICH IS $10,000 MORE THAN THE COST Of THE PRESENT LIGHTS IN THE SAME AREA, tl
<br /> I
<br /> i BEING $8,000 PER YEAR. :1
<br /> , il
<br /> i
<br /> I THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION IN THE COMMITTEE AS TO THE PROPRIETY Of ASSESSING THE
<br /> II i
<br /> I' ORIGINAL INSTALLATION COST TO BENErlTED PROPERTY HOLDERS IN THE AREA, AND IT WAS ;,;1
<br /> Ii
<br /> EXPLAINED THAT THE INSTALl~TION COST WOULD APPROXIMATE $.50,000 'WHICH WOULD HAVE II
<br /> I! TO BE ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY If IT WERE TO BE DONE ON'AN ASSESSMENT BASis. IT WAS !I
<br /> 'I :1
<br /> II fURTHER EXPLAINED THAT If THE CITY AMORTIZED THE COST OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD AT
<br /> I $16,000 PER YEAR, THIS RATE WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE INTENT OfMAIN1AINING AN UP ~l
<br /> 1 TO DATE STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE fiXTURE MODifiCATION BEfORE 'I
<br /> THE END Of THE 20-YEAR PERIOD. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED AS TO WHAT THE RATIO Of !
<br /> , IN TH~S ~OWNTOWN AREA WOULD BE io THAT Of THE WHOLE CITY. ~;
<br /> l ASSESSED VALUATION
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> ,
<br /> ,; fOLLOWING SOME GENERAL DISCUSSION IT WAS RECOMMENDEO THAT fOUR 21,000 LUMEN I
<br /> :1
<br /> LIGHTS BE INSTALLED AT EACH INTERSECTION IN THE A~EA ABOVE DESCRIBED, AND THAT fI
<br /> Il THREE 35,000 LUMEN LIGHTS BE INSTALLED IN THE MID-BLOCK AREA. MOTION CARRIED
<br /> WITH MR. LINDEEN VOTING NAY. Ii
<br /> d - - ;1
<br /> I' IT WAS THEN RECOMMENDED THAT A STUDY BE MADE ON THE TOTAL-COST Of THE ASSESS- ,I
<br /> r
<br /> ,! I
<br /> II MENT If THE LIGHTS WERE TO BE INSTALLED ON AN ASSESSMENT BASIS AND WHAT THIS ~I
<br /> I I! WOULD COST EACH PROPERTY HOLDER ON A fRONT fOOTAGE BASIS, AND fURTHER THAT THE :1
<br /> CITY ADMINISTRATION DETERMINE THE RATIO Of "THE ASSESSED VALUATlON'IN THE DOWN- !I
<br /> II TOWN AREA TO THAT Of THE WHOLE CITY, IT BEING THE fEELING Of THE COMMITTEE THAT il
<br /> ~!~ THE DOWNTOWN AREA WOULD PAY A LARGE PORTION Of THE COST Of THE STREET LIGHTING'
<br /> 1\ H
<br /> SYSTEM IN TAXES If IT WERE fiNANCED ON A TAX LEVY BASIS. THIS MOTION CARRIED. :1
<br /> l' I'
<br /> t
<br /> Ii 3. SELECTION or ARCHITECT fOR-WEST SIDE fiRE STATION AND COMPLETION Of AIRPORT "
<br /> ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - IT WAS INDICATED THAT THE MAYOR HAD APPOINTED THE PUBLIC I,
<br /> e WORKS COMMITTEE WITH MR. MOLHOLM SUBSTITUTING fOR MR. SHISLER TO MAKE RECOMMENDA- I
<br /> (i H
<br /> TION fOR ARCHITECTS fOR THE.WEST,SIDE fiRE STATION AND THE COMPLETION Of THE t.,\
<br /> t,l il
<br /> II ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AT MAHLON-SWEET AIRPORT. THIS COMMITTEE-MET ON DECEM-
<br /> I !j
<br /> ,,I BER 3, 1956 AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE fiRM Of BALZHISER, SEDER AND RHODES BE
<br /> II
<br /> ENGAGED TO SUBMIT PLANS fOR THE WEST SIDE fiRE STATION AND THAT RICHARD C. CLARK !'I
<br /> II BE ENGAGED TO SUBMIT PLANS fOR THE COMPLETION Of THE ADMINISTRATION BUIDDING AT ;1
<br /> MAHLON-SWEETA,RPORT. THE COMMITTEE or THE WHOLE DISCUSSED THE RECOMMENDATION ;1
<br /> II MADE BY THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE REPORT. Of THE SPEC1AL :,1
<br /> COMMITTEE BE ACCEPTED AND THAT THE 'PROPER CITY OffiCIALS BE AUTHORIZED TO NEGO- 11
<br /> I, TIATE WITH THE ARCHITECTS AN AGREEMENT WITH REfERENCE TO THE BUILDINGS SPECifiED 1,,1
<br /> I( I'!
<br /> ABOVE. "I~
<br /> ::'1
<br /> Ii -- -. "
<br /> I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 11
<br /> 'I
<br /> , I. REQUEST fOR OVERLENGTH CURB CUT ON THE WEST SIDE or OAK STREET BETWEEN THE ALLEY II
<br /> i AND 11TH AVENUE, MONTGOMERY WARD - IT'WAS EXPLAINED'THAT MONTGOMERY WARD HAD RE- i,
<br /> :1
<br /> I 11
<br /> ! QUESTED THAT THEY BE ALLOWED A 43'8" CURB CUT ON PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY SOUTH Of
<br /> I I THE ALLEY BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH AVENUES ON OAK STREET. THIS REQUEST I S fOR 17' ii
<br /> I: "
<br /> BEHOND WHAT THE ORIDNANCE SPECifiCALLY ALLOWS, AND fOR THIS REASON REQUIRES "
<br /> .:1
<br /> I' COUNC I L ACT! ON. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH IS NEEOED SINCE :1
<br /> II II
<br /> Ii MONTGOMERY WARD fREQUENTLY HAS LARGE TRUCK TRANSPORTS WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED TO !!
<br /> 11 ENTER THIS AREA AND THE ADDED WIDTH IS NEEDED fOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE rl
<br /> If TURNING MOVEMENT. THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE \\
<br /> ,I REQUEST BE GRANTED SUBJECT, HOWEVER, TO NEGOTIATIONS ON A CURB CUT ON 11TH AVE- II
<br /> 'I
<br /> 11 "
<br /> NUE WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE ORDINANCE, SUCH REGOTIATIONS TO INCLUDE THAT l
<br /> e r' :,1
<br /> tl
<br /> II
<br /> ;,; I'l
<br /> r; ~
<br /> "
<br /> '.
<br />
|