04/22/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G. Petition - Sanitary Sewers for Lots, 5-10, Point Thomas Addition _ 79% -~-.-'---- -~_._------ IH. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. M~rray to accept the Petition. Motion carried, all members present voting aye. Comm: 4/17/7111 Approve' e' Referral to Room Tax Allocation Committee - Request of Triple-H Ranch School _ Manager would ten~ to feel it is not eligible for room tax allocation funds. However, the Room Tax Committee would know more about how the money should be used. It should be referred back with the attorney's opinion. Mrs. Beal'moved seconded by Mr. Keller to refer it back to the Room Tax Committee with the attorney's opinion. yotion carried, all Council members present voting aye. .CQmm. 4/17/74 . Approve. I. Letter from Planning Commission re: Fountain in Willamette River Proposed by Valley River Inn - The letter from the Planning Commission was distributed with the agendas. It was referred only as an item of interest unless Council wished to endorse the opinion. of the City Planning Commission, which was to oppose the installation of a fountain in the river by the Valley River Inn. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to support the op~n~on of the Commission._/o19-~io!l carried, all members present voting aye. Comm: Planning : 4/:17/74 : .. .n ____~____.__c. - ~ Approve! J. Assessment Panel Report - Hearings of 4/15/74 Mr. Wood moved seconded by Mr. Keller to place panel on the consent calendar for the April 22 all members present voting aye. Present: Councilwomen Campbell mid Beal; MaUrice and Bert Teitzel~ City Engineer. the minutes of the assessment Comm . Council meeting. Motion carri~~7/74 Approve . - - Mitchell~ Assistant Finance Officer; _. I I 'Assessment ordinances to be considered by Council on April 22~ 1974: 1. C.B. 501 - Levying as~essments for paving Ridgeway Drive from Goodpasture Island Road to 1000 eet North in Knutson Bros. Planned Unit Develo ment (72-44) No written protests on file. No objections presented at hearing. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 2. C.B. 502 - Levying assessments for sto~ sewer within Replat of Shasta Gardens (72-66) No written protests on file. No objections presented at hearing. Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed. 3. C.B. 503 - Levying assessments for sto~ sewer between Sally Way and Marlow Lane rom Norwood Street to Gilham Road (73-50) No written protests on file. - Since three property owners were present for the hearing on this assessment ordinance~ the panel asked the city engineer to provide the background of the project befo~e any testimony was heard. He eXplained that the ditch was relocated to, the N. boundary of the Marlow Lane properties at the time of platting in 1966 to accommodate the development of the lots. A petition to install a sto~ sewer in this ditch was received in 1971 and the project was not constructed due to high bid costs. A new petition was received from a portion of the property owners in 1972 to have a stor.m sewer pipe installed in order to fill in the ditch. A poll of property owners was taken prior to award of the contract stating the estimated cost for each lot. A favorable response from owners of 64% of the affected property was received. Bids were awarded on this basis with one written protest from Mrs. Theodora SaZmon. The . city engineer explained that the entire subdivision should have shared in the cost of the stor.m seWer at the time of platting; however~ at that time there was no stor.m sewer system existing in the area and the subdivider was not required to install the stor.m sewer. Since only haZf of the Zots in the subdivision are sharing in the cost of the sto~ s~wer at this time~ the City is assuming the portion of costs that would nor.mally have been borne by the other half of the ... properties. The City's total participation in the project is 75%. ~ Mr. Delmont Dougherty of 2181 Marlow Lane objected to paying such a high pr~ce for fiZling in the ditch and stated he felt the property owners on Sally Way were benefited as much as Marlow Lane properties and should share in the assessment. He stated that with the pipe being located on Sally Way~ their properties are benefited,~ydrainage into the stor.m sewer and should be assessed a portion of the cost.'-~1;'!l Engineer explained that the 12ipe ZJas located on SaZZu WaZ/ because i l~ 4/22/74 - 8 ~