Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, CouncilJDanHershner inquired about the 1.05 acres of easement plus sewer assessment <br />in the Cone ownership. Public Works Director explained that the 1.05 acres is the <br />area actually oc~upied by the channel when oonstructed. 2'he sewer assessment is one <br />that was deferred in exchange for easement to run the major portion of a sewer line <br />through that ;property being severed. The Cones will still own the 1.05 acres, re- <br />stricted by the easement. 111:. williams wondered whether that ownership would permit <br />'building over the easement. Public Works Director replied that it probably could <br />be negotiated with the Corps of Engineers, although not likely because of specific <br />Corps prohibi dons . <br /> <br />*** <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />Vote ..as taken on tbe lJIOtion lIS stated. IIotion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />*** See correction of committee minutes in June 11, 1973 Council, showing City <br />owns 1.05 acres in fee. <br /> <br />N. . Underground Wiring, EWEB Inquiry - Inquiry was received from Eugene Water and' <br />Electric Board with regard to oonversion of overhead electric system to under- <br />ground on Franklin Boulevard from Onyx Street to east of Garden Avenue. The in- <br />quiry went to all property owners in that area asking whether they would be will- , <br />ing to participate in the cost and responsibilities of oonversion; if so, to what <br />extent. There was no indication of costs. City owns a strip of property fronting <br />on Franklin Boulevard in that area which EWEB is considering possibili ty of improv- <br />ing as a major entrance to the Ci ty. Present transmission lines are on the north <br />. side of Franklin, there is no indication whether properties on both sides or only <br />, one side cf the street would be assessed for the work. Manager fel t any response <br />~ to the inquiry would be the Council's indication of whether the undergrounding <br />was considered a good project and whether as one of the property owners the City <br />, would be willing to participate, assuming the costs are reasonable. '__ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Mayor Anderson expressed his concern about present policy on underground wiring. <br />He felt a broader policy should be developed whereby burying of large transmission <br />lines on major arterials would be the responsibi~y_pf EWEB mu~~_~responsibility <br />for trunk sewers are assumed by the Ci ty, thereby shiftLng-th~ burden from owners <br />of adjacent properties to the entire community for those major installations. <br />Individual neighborhoods then could be encouraged to assume the cost of underground <br />wiring on residential streets. He suggested meeting with EWEB to see whether a <br />policy could be developed. <br /> <br />Councilman Williams said he felt it would be better to meet with EWEB and agree on <br />an overall program for the community rather than agreeing to participate in the <br />Franklin Boulevard project. Councilwoman Beaithought it would be well for city <br />and EWEB staffs to develop costs and a proper way to establish some way of paying <br />for underground wiring other than being absorbed by property owners. <br /> <br />MIs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell that staff arrange a meeting between the <br />Council and Eugene Water and Electric Board at an appropriate time to discuss ways <br />in which underground wiring could be accomplished. <br /> <br />Corrun <br />5/23/73 <br />Approve <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilman Wood said underground wiring would be of benefit to the entire community, <br />increasing property values where there is that type installation, and he favored <br />the idea of an overall program rather than piecemeal projects. <br /> <br />I Manager felt the matter should be pursued as quickly as possible to give staff <br />direction because of improvement projects scheduled on major arterials this summer. <br />He referred to that planned for Oakway and said if present policy is continued it <br />may be better to_leave the overhead, wiring rather than adding its cost to that for <br />the street to be assessed against abutting properties. It was recognized as a <br />complex situation on which development of a plan is needed.soon. <br /> <br />Councilman Mf.!..r.r.~y asked that consideration be given in development of any policy <br />to older parts:,?f the City where electric lines go directly across back yards. <br /> <br />MOtion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />~--~ ~- ,-- <br /> <br />Glen Stadler, EWEB representative, told the Council that background'material his <br />office is preparing for testimony on legislation with regard to underground wiring <br />would be made available to Council members and staff to help understand EWEB's <br />position. ~ <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. <br /> <br />~" <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />oJ Improvement Peti tions ~ <br />;(:1.. Paving Spring Boulevard from North Shasta Loop to 450 feet. southeast - Petitioned <br />by owne,rs of 49% of abutting properties. The improvement is a short stretch <br />oonnecting paved portion of Spring Boulevard to North Shasta Loop, also paved, <br />on a curve whicJ,. results in front footage on one side being less than that on <br />the other side of the proposed improvement. Councilman Williams fel t since <br />the majority of abutting footage was not represented on the petition, the owners <br />should be notified that the improvement. is being considered. It was understood <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />a"~ <br /> <br />5/29/73 - 8 <br />