03/28/1960 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e ",. -'''."~' ~ ~~ &...,,', r;.-~ u' \J \1-if. 3/28/60 :r 11 tl I.i 'i MR.LEROY BURCHAM APPEARED ON BEHALf OF PROPERTY HOLDERS IN THE AREA, .NQUIRED ON WHAT BASIS THE COUNCIL'S POLICY IS BEING CHANGED fROM THAT Of REPAIRING EXISTINGSEWER LINES AT C.TY'S EXPENSE TO REASSESSMENT. HE FURTHER ALLEGED THAT THE LINE SERVING THIS AREA IS ADEQUATE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA BUT IS INADEQUATE TO BE ADDED TO AND THE PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW SUBDIVISION IS THE REASON FOR THE LINE'S BEING RECONSTRUCTED. I 00 C\~ ~.. (.) CO CQ e I " ! .6. '.j' " , " ! 2 'i 17. , , I e :! , " : I 'I 'I ...! : , ., II I " 'j " e ~--:"'r -- COUNCIL PRESIDENT SHEARER INDICATED THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE fUNDS AND HAS NOT RECONSTRUCTED LATERAL SEWERS IN THE CITY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GENERAL TAXPAYER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE CITY FACES A LONG AND EXPENSIVE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE UNDER EXISTING REVENUES WITHOUT A REASSESSMENT PROGRAM. I If I' ,I II 'I I Ii q II " iI Ii ,. il I! Ii il " Ii II " Ii Ii Ii II I' II II II il , I I I Ii II I, II II ,I 'I I, Ii \1 II Ii II 'I 11 I' :1 I! !: ji Ii I I I il 'I I: II I, Ii ,I II 'I 11 (, 'I Ii II II ii II \i \1 I' Ii II 1\ :'~ MR. BURCHAM fURTHER STATED THAT HE KNOWS THE COUNCIL IS WORKING FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY BUT THAT HE fEELS THE REASSESSMENT PROGRAM IS A PREROGATiVE Of THE PEOPLE AND SHOULD BE EMBARKED UPON ONLY WITH THE APPROVAL Of THE PEOPLE, THAT THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE ASKED If THEY WISH TO BE REASSESSED. SOME EXPRESSION fROM THE COUNCIL AND fROM THE AUDIENCE WAS HAD AMONG WHICH MR. GALLOWAY INDICATED THE REASSESSMENT PROGRAM COULD POSE A D"'NGEROUS PRECEDENT If THE CITYIS ALLOWED TO REASSESS WHEN IT CAN SHOW A BENEfiT TO ABUTTING PROPERTy. IT COULD BY REPEATED EXTENSIONS OF SEWER LINES IN ANY AREA CAUSE MALfeNCTIONS IN THE LINE BY SURCHARGING AND ON A REASSESSMENT BASIS AN AREA COULD BE MADE TO SHOW BENEFIT AND REASSESSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO fAILURE OR ACTUAL REASON fOR SUCHLINE REPLACEMENT AND REASSESSMENT. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT A COMMITTEE MIGHT BE fORMED TO STUDY WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING IN THIS AREA. BASEO ON THE COMMITTEE REPORT ON CONTINUED STUDY IN THIS FIELD, THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS CARRIED, MR. WleSON VOTING NAY. DISCUSSION REGARDING LITTER ON STREETS - COUNCILMAN MCGAFFEY BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF LITTER ON 'STREETS, PARTICULARLY AROUND DRIVEIN RESTAURANTS, AND INQUIRED AS TO THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS REGARDING LITTER IN THE CITY OF EUGENE. THE CITY ATTORNEY INDICATED IN HIS OPINION THE CITY HAS ADEQUATE ORDINANCES GOVERNING LITTER BEING PLACED ON STREETS ALTHOUGH IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BASICALLY THIS IS AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AND TOWARD THIS END IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT VARIOUS DRIVE INS BE SENT COPIES OF THE ORDINANCES GOVERNING LITTER, AND NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN. COMPLAINT REGARDING SEWER ASSESSMENT ON 15TH AVENUE BETWEEN CHARNELTON AND LINCOLN STREETS - COUNCILMAN SWANSON STATED HE HAD RECEIVED A COMPLAINT fROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS BEING ASSESSED FOR SEWER LINE ALTHOUGH HE IS CURRENTLY SERvED BY AN EXISTING SEWER LINE. THE CITY ENGINEER EXPLAINED THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER IS SERVED BY A TRUNK SEWER LINE, H~S NEVER PAID AN ASSESSMENT FOR A SEWE~, AND THAT- IT WAS NECESSARY TO RUN A LINE ABUTTING HIS PROPERTY TO SERvE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. ON QUESTION THE CITY ATTORNEy INDICATED THAT THERE IS REALLY'NO ANSWER TO THE' PROBLEM SINCE UNDER THE CITY'S ASSESSMENT POLICY IT IS CONTEMPLATED THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WOUD BE ASSESSED FOR A SEWER LINE AT LEAST ONE. No FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN." IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MR. MCGAffEY THAT ITEM 16 AND 17 Of,THECOMMITTEE REPORT BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS Of BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS A REPORT Of A SPECIAL MEETING'OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MARCH 21, 1960 WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS FOLLOWS: "AT A SPECIAL MEETING Of THE EUGENE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AT NOON IN THE EUGENE HOTEL, MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1960, THE PLANNING COMMISSION BEGS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING RECOM- MENDATION TO THE COUNCIL: THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE AMENDED DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCE BE REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL fOR THEIR CONSIDERATION: SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCE CONCURRENTLY WITH THE ISSUANCE Of ANY BUILDING PERMIT fOR THE CONSTRUCTION Of ANY DWELLING OR BUSINESS STRUCTURE, OR ANY ADDITION TO ANY DWELLING OR BUSINESS STRUCTURE, THE VALUE Of WHICH IS $1000 OR MORE (EXCEPT fOR STRUCTURES WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE), THE OWNER, BUILDER OR CONTRACTOR TO WHOM THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED SHALL OBTAIN A SIDEWALK CON- STRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK WITHIN THE DEDICATED RIGHTOF-WAY FOR THE fULL STREET fRONTAGE IN WHICH A SIDEWALK IN GOOD REPAIR DOES NOT EXIST. SAID SIDE- WALK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND TO GRADES ESTAB- LISHED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCES Of THE CITY Of EUGENE. THE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PERIOD OR, WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE SIDEWALK PERMIT IS ISSUED, WHICHEVER IS THE LESSER. THE 01 RECTOR Of PUBL I C WORKS MAY I SSUE A PERM I T fOR NONCOMPL I ANCE TO THE 0 WNER, BU I LDER, OR CONTRACTOR, WHEN, IN HIS OPINION, THE CONSTRUCTION Of A SIDEWALK IS IMPRACTICAL FOR ONE OR MORE Of THE fOLLOWING REASONS: I. SIDEWALK GRADES HAVE NOT AND CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED fOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD Of TIME.