03/28/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Public hearing was opened with no testimony being presented. Council Bill 1426--Code Amendment re: Forming of juries in Municipal Court, adding Sections 2.790, 2.795, 2.800, 2.805, and 2.810 and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously. The bill was read the second time by the bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Role call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17941. ~ 1-8-5 thru II-A-I F. Public Works Department (opened March 22, 1977) (tabulation attached) Bids were for various improvement projects by the Public Works Depart- ment, with the tabulations distributed to the Council. Don Allen reviewed the various bids. e Public hearing was opened. Dean S. Morrow, 1888 Sunrise Boulevard, spoke against the proposed improve- ment (No.1, Job No. 1198). He said there had been some question as to whether Sunrise Boulevard was the appropriate name. He was one of four property owners on the street and all were objecting to the paving improve- ment. He said it was being requested by one property owner at the expense of the other property owners. The property owners felt that more people were involved who owned property than just the one man, noting that the improvement had raised taxes and cost a lot of money. The property owners did not feel they would get their money's worth out of the improvement and asked the City Council not to award the contract for the improvement at this time. Dave Swaggerty, 1895 Sunrise Boulevard, noted he had sent a letter of opposition in November of 1976. He said in pursuant discussions with City staff, the sole criterion for improvements was the number lineal foot of frontage. He said the four combined property owners own more property and are all opposed to the improvements in that area. They do not want the street improved and he petitioned to Council to oppose this improvement. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. e Mr. Allen noted that the criterion for improvement petitions was 50 percent of the front lineal footage on any piece of property in an area. He said the Eugene City Council has complete authority to approve with zero percentage. It had been the policy to try to improve no less than one public block at a time, noting that the property owners have the right to petition, but that the decision was completely the City Council's. 3/28/77--7 ~7