|
<br />r
<br />
<br />45
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />2/9/70
<br />
<br />"
<br />ij
<br />II
<br />]\
<br />!I
<br />I,
<br />!I
<br />"
<br />il
<br />!I
<br />Ii
<br />ii
<br />:1-
<br />
<br />ii
<br />I,
<br />11
<br />;1
<br />:\
<br />"
<br />II
<br />
<br />;i
<br />II
<br />1:
<br />:1
<br />!I
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />:1
<br />'I
<br />::
<br />;i
<br />"
<br />I
<br />,\
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the
<br />number only with unanimous consent of the Council.
<br />the second time by council bill number on~y.
<br />
<br />bill be read the second time by council bill
<br />Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Manager read a letter from Mr: Gordon R. Lamb stating that the Planninz Commission would not
<br />~onstruction to proceed on their property (Lots 44 and 45) until Sylvan Street is improved.
<br />therefore requested deferrment of assessment until these lots could be utilized.
<br />
<br />allow
<br />They
<br />
<br />\
<br />The Direc~br of Public Works said this would in no way qualify for a deferred assessment. In
<br />answer to Councilman Purdy, the Manager said it was his understanding the street abutting the
<br />property was dedicated, but ther.e was no dedicated street connecting the property, and there was
<br />therefore no way out. A Minor Subdivision was denied because there was no continuous dedicated
<br />street to serve the property.
<br />
<br />Mr. Lamb said the Planning Commis$ion had written saying the subdivision had been approved. The
<br />Planning Director said there was no minor subdivision involved. Mr. Lamb had requested dedication
<br />of the street so he would not 'be required to apy assessments on it. The Planning Commission would
<br />not allow development until there was street access.
<br />
<br />e'
<br />
<br />Mr. Lamb said it ,was possible to get to the property, and that he drives over it. Manager suggested
<br />staff be authorized to meet with Mr. Lamb and,attempt to straighten out this problem. As faraas
<br />the assessment is concerned, there is no precedent to defer the assessment, since it doesn't meet
<br />criteria for deferment of assessment. Manager recommended ,passage of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />il
<br />:!
<br />'i
<br />I
<br />II
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Manager read a letter of protest from Mr. Wilbur Crum, 2330 Floral Hill Drive, and the reply of I
<br />the Public Works Director, stating that the City had no choice qut to assess Mr. Crum for the new ,
<br />project. ,He explained in the letter that the sewer to which Mr. Crum is now connected was completed !
<br />in 1958 and owners involved were assessed at that time. Sin re his property was not part of the ,
<br />system nor within the city l~mits, an assessment was not levied. In May of 1963 Mr. Crum annexed I
<br />to the city of Eugene for the purpose of attaching to the sewer. No assessment was made at that
<br />time because the previous system had been paid for by others, and the Department was aware that a 1
<br />separate system would eventually include Mr. Crum's property. On November 21, 1968, property owners i
<br />located to the south petitioned the City Council to construct the sewer system which illncludes Mr. I't
<br />Crum's land, and Mr. Crum was mailed a call for bids and proposed assessment. No answer was received I
<br />, ,
<br />and no ~rotests were lodged at the, public hearing. The Director of Public Works explained that I
<br />attaching to a system already paid for does not relieve Mr. Crum from paying for a sys,tem required !
<br />for his property and other adjacent properties. If he was 'not required to pay the assessment,
<br />the other property owners would be required to pay a higher assessment, which would not be equitable.
<br />Mr. Crum has ,had seven years use of an existing sewer system at no charge.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />"
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />:1
<br />,
<br />,
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />"
<br />1
<br />"
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Crum explained that he obj ected to paying a higher charge. He had been quo,ted an assessment
<br />figure of $420.71 for the original sewer, and did 'not feel he should be required to pay a higher
<br />amoun t .
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman Williams Public Works Director said if Mr. Crum had been assessed for the
<br />original sewer, he could not now be assessed again.
<br />
<br />:i
<br />II
<br />,[
<br />!
<br />,
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />;1
<br />II
<br />:'
<br />;!
<br />I'
<br />,)
<br />1
<br />,
<br />;: Mr. Mcdonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague
<br />;1 --~~~t~<?f\.ll councilmen present voting aye,
<br />
<br />...."--.....,..-,,-..
<br />
<br />Mrs. Niven explained assessments made against her property, and that'it could be conceivable that
<br />Mr., Crum could still be assessed if a sewer were to be run along another side of his property.
<br />
<br />There was Council discussion of ,possible ways to assess property owners for future sewers at the time
<br />that they connect to a sewer already paid for.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />,:
<br />"
<br />:t
<br />I!
<br />
<br />I
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the third time by council bill number I
<br />only with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the !
<br />third time by counci,l bill number only. '
<br />i
<br />I
<br />that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcal~
<br />the bill was declared passed and numbered 15875 .- - . II
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />\1
<br />II
<br />i'
<br />. II
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the second time by council bill numbe~1
<br />only with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the j!l!
<br />second time by council bill number only:
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the third time by/council bill number 11
<br />only with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the :!
<br />third time by council bill number only. Ii
<br />
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be approved and given final passage, Rollcalll
<br />:1
<br />vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 15876. ii
<br />
<br />Coun~il Bill No. 9059 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewer within Hoffman ii
<br />Heights 1st A~dition was submitted and read in full the first time on January 12, 1970 and, held over I'
<br />to this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to be given owners of affected properties, and i~,ll
<br />brought back for consideration wroth no written protests on file. \ :
<br />::
<br />Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague that the bill be read the second time by council bill numbei:
<br />only with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the !i
<br />:1
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />1,'\",,,
<br />
<br />"
<br />,I
<br />,
<br />il
<br />: ~
<br />
<br />Council Bill No. 9058 - Levying assessments for paving 20th Avenue from Friendly Street to
<br />Washington Street was submitted and read in full tqe first time on January 12, 1970, and held over
<br />to this meeting to allow propertnotice of assessment to be given owners of .atfected properties,
<br />and brought back for consideration with no written protests on file.
<br />
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />2/9/70 - 13
<br />
<br />...
<br />
|