My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/10/1991 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1991
>
06/10/1991 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 6:24:14 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:59:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/10/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 4:0. <br /> <br />Council Bill 4310 was read the second time by number only. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, that the bill be <br />approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all coun- <br />cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and <br />became Ordinance 19778). <br /> <br />V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING OFFICIAL <br />AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION FORMING A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR <br />CURB, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS ON HARLOW ROAD FROM GARDEN WAY TO <br />INTERSTATE 5 (JOB #2557) <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to approve the Hear- <br />ings Official's minutes, findings, and recommendations for <br />paving, curb, gutters, sidewalks, and traffic signal on Harlow <br />Road from Garden Way to Beverly Street. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald advocated support for the project and noted that the project is <br />very important to nearby property owners. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. MacDonald about the importance of the project, <br />but said that he does not feel that the property owner should be assessed for <br />sidewalk construction costs. Not only does the property owner have no real <br />access to the sidewalk, but it would be a detriment to the property, rather <br />than a benefit. Mr. Nicholson asked whether the City has a mechanism for <br />relieving the property owner from the costs associated with sidewalk con- <br />struction. . <br /> <br />In response, Les Lyle, Public Works, said that the only other mechanism <br />available for financing sidewalk costs would be through the use of other City <br />funds. He cautioned the council against taking such an action, noting that <br />doing so would be inconsistent with the council's past actions with respect <br />to sidewalk financing. Mr. Lyle said that this assessment is no different <br />from other double-frontage assessments and said that the property owner could <br />take access to the sidewalk from his property. <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom noted that while the City's sidewalk policies are not always sup- <br />ported by property owners, it is the best way for local government to get <br />pedestrian facilities throughout the city. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said that the Council Committee on Infrastructure (CCI) is taking a <br />detailed look at its transportation corridors and suggested that this might <br />be an appropriate arena for Mr. Nicholson ta raise his concerns. <br /> <br />Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />June 10, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.