02/23/1960 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~326' e 2/23/60 II I THE MATTER O~ WHETHER TO HOLD THE URBAN RENEWAL ELECTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PRIMARY ELECTION ON MAY 20J 1960 OR HOLD IT OVER TO THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEM- BER. THE LETTER FURTHER STATED THAT CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS GIVEN TO T~IS MATTERJ AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL THAT THE UR~AN RENE\r(AL ELECTION BE HELD IN CONJl,!NCTION WITH :THE GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER 1960. fOLLOWING THE RE~DING Of THE LETTERJ MAYOR CONE INTRODUCED THE IDEA O~ ASK- ING THE VOTERS TO VOTE ON ~UNDS F'OR URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM. THE MAYOR INDICATED HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS AS TO HOW THE CITY'S PORTION O~ THE URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM COULD BE SQUEEZED ~ROM THE REGULAR OPERATil:NG BUDGET. SOME DISCUSS I ON WAS HAD ON , ' THE AMOUNT OF' F'UNDS WHICH WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY'S PORTION O~ THE COST WOULD APPROXIMATE $125,000. THERE WAS A GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER WHICH INCLUDED SUGGESTIONS THAT THE CITY GO AHEAD ON A 'WITHIN BUDGET' BASIS, THECQUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE BONO ISSUE WOULD BRING ADDEO RESISTANCE TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO EXPLAIN URBAN RENEWAL TO THE PEOPLE I~ AN ELECTION WERE HELD ON THIS SUBJECT IN MAY. Ii I! !I 1: Ii " " " I i I I I , I II II I j II I 1: " " ii Ii " 'I i' I " I i' fOLLOWING THIS DISCOSSION,IT WAS RECOMM,ENDED THAT A BOND ISSUE BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT AT THE MAY 20,. 1960, ELECT ION FOR $125 ,000 ~OR THE URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIEDJ MR. MCGA~~EY ABSTAINING. " " ! , i! I, " i: " 11 'I :: II I' I! I' ,I if Ii 1! e MR. SHEARER EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT THE CITY S~OULD NOT JEOPARDIZE TH~ C1VIC CENTER IDEA BY PLACING A BOND ISSUE ON THE SA~E BALLQT WITH A MEASURE REQUESTIN,G APPROVAL OF' T~ URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM. I AF'TER SOME DISCUSSION IT WAS MOVED BY MR. MOLHOLM SECONDED BY MR. SHEARER THAT THE URBAN RENEWAL MEASURE BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT WITH NO REQUEST fOR fUNDS. MOTION CARRIED 4-2. fOLLOWING SOME GENERAL,DISCUSSIONJ IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF' THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION BE ASSESSED TO THE BENEfiTTED PROPERTIES AND THAT THE COST or THE RIGHT-Of-WAY ACQUISITION BE PAID FROM THE SEWAGE & DRAINGE FUNp. MOTION CAR- RIED UNANIMOUSLY. 'I I. 11 :1 j, :1 I[ p I, ii ! I: Ii :1 " Ii I ~ I' ;1 Ii II I' " i' ii Ii il I' II ,: II 'I ;1 I ,I :i ;I 'I I, I: ii ,I I: i; I, " " ,I il II " Ii :1 II ',I 'I II 1'1 , :1 Ii II I' I' Ii II !\ ~ ! I IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MOLHOLM THAT ITEM 3 O~ THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE RECEIVED AND ,PLACED ON F'~LE. MOTION CARRIED. I L , , 4. CONSIDERATION Of ASSESSMENTS ~OR SEWER ,IN RIVERVIEW AVENUE AREA - TH~ PUBLIC WO~KS DiRECTOR EXPL,AINED THAT THE EN~INEERI.~G DEP"RTMf;NT I~ I'N THE ,PROCESS OF' PREPARING THE ASSESSMENT F'OR THE SEWER I N THE R I,VERV I EW AVENUE AREA AND STATED THERE HAD BEEN SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE RIGHT-OF'-WAY ACQUISITION COST IN THIS AREA SHOULD BE ASSESSED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR SHOULD BE BORNE A~ A PART OF' THE GENERAL CITY OPERATIONAL BUDGET AS IT RESPECTS SEWERS. HE ~URTHER EXPLAINED THAT THIS COST IS $2184, THIS BEING THE AMOUNT Of THE CONDEMNATIQN SU~T ON THE WILEY PROPERTY IN THIS AREA. HE F'URTHER EXPLAINED THAT WHILE THE SEWER IN THE AREA ,HAD BEEN CONSTRUCTED AS ONE PROJECT, THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE AREAS AND ONLY ONE or THESE AREAS COuLD BE ,RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE RIGHT-Of-WAY ACQUISITION NECESSARY BY THE CONDEMNATION SUIT. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CITY RECEIVES fUNDS fROM THE 1/2~ PER SQUARE fOOT CHARGE fOR SEWERS WHICH F'UNDS ARE APPLIED TO THE SEWAGE & DRAINAGE F'UND, AND THAT THE CONDEMNATION COST COULD BE PAID fROM THIS F'UND. IF' THEY WERE NOT PAID F'ROM THIS ~UNDJ THE SEWER ASSESSMENTS IN THIS AREA WOULD BE INCREASED ~ROM APPROXIMATELY 11% TO 20%, DEPENDING UPON THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS WHICH MIGHT BE USED. IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 4_0f THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED. ROLLCALL VOTE. ALL COUNCILMEN PRESENT VOTING AYE (MESSRS. MCGA~~EY AND MOYER ABSENT), MOTION CARRIED., - 2 5. REQUEST BY EUGENE TAXI SERVICE fOR TAXICAB LICENSE - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EUGENE TAXI SERVICE HAD PENDING A REQUEST fOR A TAXICAB LICENSE AND THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD ASKED ~OR fURTHER INfORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT. MR. CECIL STICKNEY , APPEARED ON BEHALf Of MR. CLAIR L. WELLMAN, THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF' EUGENE TAXI SERVICEJ AND EXPLAINED THE BACKGROUND,Of THE APPLICATION F'OR LICENSE,MADE BY MR. WELLMAN. MR. STICKNEY EXPLAINED THAT IN HIS BELIEf MR. WELLMAN IS WELL QUAUflED TO OPERATE A ,TAXI. ON QUESTION MR. WELLMAN INDICATED HE LIVES IN THE CITY OF' SPRINGflELDJ THAT AT PRESENT HIS OfF'ICE ADDRESS IS IN SPRING~IELDJ BUT THAT HE PROPOSES AS HIS COMPANY GROWS TO PROVIDE OF'~ICES IN THE CITY OF' EUGENE. MR. STICKNEY fURNISHED TO THE COMMITTEE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE OBSERVED BY EACH COUNCILMAN PRESENT, fOLLOWING WHICH IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE LICENSE BE ISSUED TO THE EUGENE TAXI SERVICE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I I I' I I I !I i I I , 3 i I I i ! IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. CHATT THAT ITEM 5 OF' THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. 6. REQUEST fOR AUTHORIZATION ~OR PROPER CITY OF'F'ICIALS TO EXECUTE DEED CONVEYING TO STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ON OPTION PREVIOUSLY GIVEN ON PROPERTY LYING IN SEI 4 SECTION 33 AND SWI 4 SECTION 34 T~7S R3W W.M. - IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS A PARCEL or PROPERTY LYING BETWEEN HIGHWAY 99 AS DESIGNATED AT PRESENT AND THE WILLAMETTE RIVER AND WOULD BE TO THE EAST AND WEST or THE PROPOSED BRIDGE AT JUDKINS POINT ON WHICH THE COUNCIL HAD PREVIOUSLY GIVEN AN OPTION. THE COMMITTEE I II I' ,I 11 II ,I I: 1\ 1/ I tit ~:I I, i