01/22/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ?, -- ~.l Council Chamber> Eugene, . Dr>egon Janua+,y 22, 1973 Adjour>ned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Dr>egon - adjourned fr>om the meeting held on January 8, 1973 - was called to or>der> by His Honor> Mayor> Lester> E. Ander>son at 7:30 p.m. on January 22, 1973 in-the Council Chamber> with the following councilmen pr>esent: Mr>s. Beal, Messr>s. Williams, Her>shner>, Mr>s. Campbell, Messr>s. Keller>, Mur>r>ay, and Wood. Councilman McDonald was absent. Mayor> Ander>son r>ecognized the pr>esence of Dean Rea and his journalism class fr>om the Univer>sity of Dr>egon. They will attend the next sever>al Council meetings in connection with their> cour>ses at the Univer>sity. For>mer> Councilman Fr>ed Mohr> was also r>ecognized. Mayor> Ander>son pr>esented him with an en- gr>aved plaque in r>ecognition o.f his ser>vice on the Councilfr>om January 6, 1969 to January 2, 1973 . I__~ Public Hear>ings -A. Vacations 1. Easement east of Augusta Street between 30th and 28th Avenues (Weaver>) 2. Fairway Loop between Delta Highway and Country Club Road (Public Wor>ks) 3. Easement between Dr>r> Lane and Cleveland Str>eet at 23r>d Avenue (Public Wor>ks) Manager> explained that the easements ar>e no longer> needed, substitute easements have been acquir>ed. With r>egar>d to Fairway Loop, it is no longer> needed as a r>oadway. County has advised that because of the r>ight-of-way's pr>esent use as a par>king ar>ea it will have to be r>eturned to the tax r>oll. Richar>d Smur>thwai te, attorney, along with Donald Husband, attorney, r>epr>esenting W. C. and Eva Reynolds, expr>essed concer>n about the pr>oposed vacation and submitted a letter> listing objections. The letter> was r>ead stating that (1) the City does not have title to the r>oadway and ther>efor>e cannot convey the pr>oper>ty to owner>s of abutting pr>oper>ties, (2) City does not have author>ity to assess for> benefits on a City-initiated vacation, (3) such an assessment would constitute for>ced purchase of the vacated pr>oper>ty, (4) owner>s of abuttingpr>operties woUld r>eceive no tr>ue benefit since the City r>eser>ves a subsur>face utility easement with the r>ight of access, and (5) assessment of $17,330 as the value of the land in question is excessive, based upon full-use value and not upon actual value. Mr>. Smurthwaite said assuming the City is able to convey title to owner>s of abutting pr>oper>ties his clients would pr>obably pay taxes but would r>esist any attempt to levy the assessment for> any pr>esumed benefits. ....( \ Manager> said that in discuss~on with City Attor>ney's office it was discover>ed that this r>oadway was or>iginally pur>chased by the County in fee and subsequently dedicated as a . r>oadway: Ther>e is strong legal indication that vacation of the r>ight<:-of-way does not allow the City to tr>ansfer> title to owner>s of abutting pr>oper>ties, as is the case when a r>oad has been dedicated thr>ough subdivision pr>ocess. Any question about assessing for> benefit is moot until the question of how the title will be disposed of in the event vacation is wor>ked out between the City, County, and owner>s of abutting pr>oper>ties. Staff agr>ees the r>oadway ser>ves no public pur>pose and is being used for> pr>i vate pur>poses. Mr>s. Beal asked if ther>e would be objection to the vacation if ther>e wer>e no assessment. Mr>. Smurthwaite answer>ed that the special assessment is the pr>imary objection and clear> title to the pr>operty would er>ase that. Mr. Husband said ther>e is no objection to the vacation itself, since the pr>oper>ty will r>ever>t to the abutting proper>ties. Councilman Her>shner> said it was his under>standing the matter> of who would have title would have to be wor>ked out, that _ it would not automatically go to abutting pr>oper>ties. Manager> added that in discussion with Papers attor>neys the under>standing was that fee title would not be tr>ansfer>r>ed automatically. Stan Long of the City Attor>ney's office said detailed r>esear>ch is necessary befor>e a definite answer> can be given with r>egar>d to tr>ansfer of title. Council Bill No. 164 - Vacating easement-east of Augusta Street between 20th and 28th Avenues was submitted and r>ead the fir>st time by council bill number> and title only, ther>e being no councilman pr>esent r>equesting that it be r>ead in full. Mr>s. Beal mOTed seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be conside~ed at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council. bill number> only. Mr>s. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declar>ed passed and number>ed 1669.5. "'.' -' .'- . \0 1(22/73 - 1