09/14/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ .' J~ v 9/14/70 ... -.... I ~. Dr. Purdy left the meeting. 3. Storm Sewer Financing, Lutheran Layment of Lane County - At a previous meeting the question of city contribution to private low-cost housing developments was referred to the Joint Housing I Committee of the City Council for discussion and recommendation. The Committee met September 11 and has forwarded a recommendation to the Council which is basically as follows: 1. That there should be no automatic or guaranteed City participation 2. That ideally there should be a differential in the aid available to non-profit sponsors, who have no resources to draw on, and limited i di vidend sponsors. II 3. That a flat per project limit or flat per unit limit should be avoided. i On th1e basis of tax differential between public housing and private housing it was believed ~ the Council would be justified in assuming part of participation costs customarily paid by the I ,., developer in a storm drainage project - up to an amount equal to one or two years tax benefits. !I The committee submitted a general formula for Council consideration. On the basis of this I l formula the Committee recommended that the Council participate in the amount of approximately II $7700. " I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to accept the report submitted by the Eugene Joint I I II Housing Committee and the recommendation of staff for subsidizing of the Lutheran Laymen League II , in the amount of approximately $7700. II Mrs. Betty Niven said in the case of tillB particular project the amount requested is not actually $7700. If the estimate is correct, the'amount requested will be approximately $5800, since the project budget covers a certain part of the assessment. The Committee ~erely proposed this amount as a maximum. She suggested the motion be amended to say that the Council will I request not more than $9300 from Lutheran Laymen of Lane County for the storm sewer to be I , built across their property. II !! Mr. Teague moved a substitute motion seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Lutheran Laymen of Lane ,! I County would be asked to pay not more than $9300 assessment for storm sewer to be constructed through their property. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. I I 4. Bids, Parks Department, Celeste Campbell Center Irrigation System - Bids were received September II 11, 1970 f~r installation of an underground sprinkler system in the area between Celeste Camp- I bell Senior Center and the Ferry Street Bridge. Staff recommends awarding contract to Ramsey I Waite Company, apparent low bidder at $5,300.00. Other bids were Kennen - $7,831.80; James - $5887.00. Office estimate was $6,145.60. II I, i I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward that the contract for installation of underground II I sprinkler system at Celeste Campbell Center be awarded to Ramsey Waite Company for $5,300.00. I I 'I Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. I: II " COMMITTEE REPORTS Ii I Meeting held September 2, 1970: !I I Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Ma::.onald, Teague", Purdy, Hayward, Beal, Gribskov, Iii Mohr and Williams; City Manager and staff; and others. I! . I I ell. . Vi~i1:ile Emiss~ons .0rdinance- Councilwoman Beal requested review of the Visible I Emissions Ordinance at the next Council meeting. I I ! I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to receive and file Item 1 of the Committee report. Motion I I carried. I I ' I In answer to Mrs. Beal the City Manager said the Cief of Police has just returned and will work Ii . wi th the City Attorney on enforcement procedures. The Ordinance will then come before the Council. Ii II Vote taken. Motion carried. I II I: i 2. Appeal from Sidewalk Setback Requirement - Manager read a letter from Mr. Wendell II II Hiatt requesting waiver from the requirement that sidewalk .be set back in front of ,I ; his property, rather than at the curb. He explained manner of issuance of permit II II and notice given Mr. Hiatt that his sidewalk was improperly placed. A complaint I was filed in Circuit Court, at which time Mr. Hiatt forfeited bail, but this did Ii I II not ~limir;ate the vio~ation. Every effort ?a~ been maq.e to. get. compliance. If Ii I' a wal ver lS granted, l t should be well quallfled so that thls wlll not be considered I! , I standard procedure. ii II " , I Iii Mr. Hiatt said at the time the permit was granted he had not realized it was not I: I in accordance with plans submitted. He siad the sidewalk was poured before it Ii II was inspected and he was informed it was in violation of the perm~t. II II ,.. ---c'; ':-t~':-s.c'.~ - :<", _ -,-.' -- -_.'. - I! r e II --- ,~- ~.~ - - - II -~ " -~;; I .. _~. '. ~ -.!' I, I' - ~ '.-...' . ---'-.--.-.-~- ,-- 9/14/103'4 i: :1 ,. ~~. ~;~ ~~~~ ._'=::~::.. - :. -:~.'_ ~_h Ii ~