05/14/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - situation was dangerous and that the failure of the City to follow up and take action would leave the City with some degree of risk if someone were injured on the property. He said he had no concerns if the council were willing to accept that responsibility. Councilor Smith said she had observed that progress was being made in the demolition. She said she was also aware of the concerns of the area residents. She asked what result would occur if the City was forced to complete the demo- lition. Mr. Gleason said that it was not mandatory for the City to complete the demolition if the contractor was making good progress. He explained that the issues were replete with the numerous presentations to the council. He said action usually occurred most effectively and consistently when the council made its wishes known publicly. Councilor Hansen said the council must address the issues of the present contract and the length of time the City would tolerate the eyesore. He felt the council and the residents in the area had been very tolerant in regard to the situation. He did not believe that the four-month contract signed by the property owner met the criteria previously set by the council. He said he was prepared to move forward with the process; he did not feel any further delay was appropriate. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe said the May 29 date for completion of the demolition was calculated using the minimum amount of time as stipulated by the corresponding sections of the Eugene Code. He said the date for abatement of the nuisance was changed according to a different time provision of that ordinance. He said the minimum times were traditionally used in such resolutions and that 10 to 15 days were usually allowed before the City proceeded with its own action. Mr. Sercombe said the City had made findings that a dangerous building and nuisance existed and that the issue was to develop a timeframe in which these conditions would be corrected. In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe said the resolution would give the City the authority to go in on either of the two dates specified to abate the nuisance or correct the dangerous building. The charges incurred by the City would then become a lien on the property. He said the council could change the dates on the resolutions to provide the owner additional time in which to abate the nuisance. He explained that the City in the past has not held strictly with the dates set down in the resolution; therefore, the City could mandate the flexibility or do it administratively. Councilor Wooten said she would be supportive of providing an additional two weeks for the contractor to complete the demolition. She felt that the May 29 date was an unnecessary threat since the demolition was proceeding. Councilor Nichols asked if staff would have to come back to the council for permission to abate the nuisance if the demolition were not completed even with an extended deadline. Mr. Sercombe said that staff could act under the Nuisance Abatement Resolution. In response to a question, Mr. Reed said it was possible to complete the demo- lition by June 15. He explained that the contract was being completed over four months in order to salvage building materials and because work was being performed only on weekends. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 1984 Page 6