|
<br />IV-ORDINANCES..,...>.
<br />Council Bill No. .9-621 - Vacating alley.between
<br />east 160'-' feet, 'submittedand':read the .firstc.time"on
<br />date, was~brought backfor':consideratmon.
<br />
<br />7th and 8th Avenues from Olive Street
<br />April' 10,.:.1:9 nand' held" over to tIfis
<br />
<br />. - -I":
<br />
<br />" .
<br />
<br />--'1:
<br />
<br />~.(. .~. . ~' '.
<br />
<br />..t .
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the bill be read the second time by council bill
<br />number only, and that enactment be considered at this time.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />. . '. . . ~ - - - . --
<br />.,.'. . .
<br />
<br />.' .
<br />
<br />Joe Richa~ds, attorney for Eugene Renewal Agency, reviewed local grant-in-aid and co-
<br />operation agreement between the City and the Agency with regard to the :downtQwn renewal
<br />project. He'said one of theHUD requirements' was' that' the' City agree ,to,whatever steps
<br />necessary to'niake'.vacated land' in theproje'ct availab-le to :the Agency: at,'no cost..to the
<br />Agency. He said vacation of this alley was, contemplated in the original, plan for,the urban
<br />renewail pr'oj ect .antl~ contained wi thin- the..terms', of: that 'agreemetl:t.~ '.~,Oregon '~aw p~ovides no
<br />requirement for reimbursement to Paci:fic"Northwest. BelL "There is noway, the Agency can
<br />legally obtain vacation other than for the City to meet its agreement. As to the suggestion
<br />for retention of easement, Mr. ,Richards said in that event, HUD will not grant funds.
<br />
<br />,c.' !
<br />
<br />Brooks Dickerman,- manager for P,acific Northwest Bell; said his company still feels vacation
<br />of the property will' benefit a private individual"and not: the general public and since by
<br />franchis'e -ri'ght formany,"years .thecompany has' utilized alleys .. for. its facilities and has
<br />moved to underground installations in alleys in the downtown area, they should be reimbursed
<br />for removing those: fa:cili ties. . He' said .the. Company' has considered asking for retention of
<br />easement forcing the Agency to go t'ocondemnation, but:'they have decided that it is a Council
<br />decision and will ask for what they think is fair to Pacific Northwest Bell.
<br />
<br />Stan Long, assistant city atIDorney, said the. City is obligated to vacate the,alley in re-
<br />sponse to the Agency's request at no cost to the Agency, and .that. it appears a breech of
<br />that agreement would leave the, Agency no choice but to go to condemnationand'pay for ease-
<br />ment rights. . . ." ., ~L~.-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />. ,
<br />
<br />::} '.. . ; '.
<br />
<br />Answering Mr. Teague, Manager :explained .the original plans :of the Agency and showed maps of
<br />the area requested to be vacated and properties which will be consolidated by that vacation.
<br />Manager further explained provisions of the franchise. agreement with Pacific ,Northwest Bell,
<br />in answering Mr;' Williams T. 'questions',with regard' to. removal, of privat,ely-owned public
<br />uti.lifies' for publi'c"benefit'; 'C: Mr~-Wi-ll'i'ams, said if. .vacating. for public bene'fitmeans that
<br />it allow~ consolidation of properties for better utilization to increase. building in the
<br />community' and more land.on the" tax rolls ,then he feels there' is no' such-thing .as vacating
<br />for private benefit. . He 'referred to the ,alley vacated and reverting to ,tl1e ,Register-Guard
<br />and said if there are certain kinds of vacations that ac cr'ue. to the ,private .sector, funda-
<br />mentally public land going into a project ending with the private sector, then he doesn't
<br />believe. -ltis dorrect. to say.the public:utilities should .be.force_d to bear ,the cost for
<br />what is essentially benefit to private venture.
<br />
<br />Mr. -MdDon'ci.ld':remarked that-the' Register'-Guardvacation. was petitioned' by private property
<br />owner whereas -this' vacation is petitioned. by. .the Renewal Agency , a public body.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hershner 'asked' whether private 'landor Agency land abut's. ,the alley and whether the
<br />phone ci::>Tlipan~rcables were: installed before' .or 'after the renewal, p:lanswere ,announced.
<br />Manager explained that :h"alf of. this vacation will revert to the Agency which owns property
<br />abutting on one side of the alley, the other half will revert to privately-owned property
<br />on the other side. Mr. Dickerman s-aid. the. telephone cablesw,ere"install~d :quite. a while
<br />before 'the urban' renewal'pro]ect was'-planried';:,' :~. ' " ..,
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />',7-j/
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams suggested that ,the Council vacate. the alley but not the utility easement,
<br />rather' that' it go' to . condemnation .by the Renewal Agency or in. some other manner be retained,
<br />leaving the phone company its rights in the alley pending satisfactory .solution -of the issue.
<br />
<br />Manager in .ahswer.~to Couneilman Her.shner said the phone cables,'in. the, alley are there by
<br />franchise rights, not easement. rights. . Mr.: Hershner questlorie:d whether the phone company
<br />can retain franchise rights should the alley become . private property thrQligh vacation.
<br />Manager said the suggestion was' that 'part of the alley. be.reserved as ,public land for
<br />easement.pur'pcises.. "! ;'.',"" . ." ,,' '-;,
<br />
<br />Councilman Teague suggested the 'Council vacate the half which-will revert to the Renewal
<br />Agency, but that the owner of private property to which _the other half of the alley will
<br />revert be asked to pay a.fair-share of the cost'for-moving.,the'utilities,pllls buying the
<br />larid froIIi:'the' city 'at' 'afair' price; '.Managersaid there ~is _the legal ~obligatiQn to abide by
<br />the. co':'operation agreement 'wi th' the Agency, and since : the' Ci.tYohas, the l~gal right to re-
<br />quire that the al'ley-be abandoned by the phone 'company the.:Federal go.vernment will not
<br />allow Agency funds to pay for removing those facilities. That being the case, there ap-
<br />pears to be no way of requiring the owner of private property to also make that payment.
<br />He said the City's'legal position, appears 'such that-it would be a'violation of the contract
<br />with the Agency either to retain an .easement 0r. refuse to vaeate unlesp payment is made by
<br />someone. The Assistant City A~t6rney recommended compliance with the Agency's request for
<br />vacation soas-not:to. prejudice. any possible future litigation. :.' "
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />" -
<br />
<br />'r
<br />
<br />/13
<br />
<br />4/?4/7?
<br />
<br />14
<br />
|