05/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . lots on the street in the past two years. She had worked with the City to have the drainage problem corrected and had been told by the City Engineer that installation of storm sewers was the only way to correct the problem. She indicated that her property is a low point in the area and that therefore all the water for the area collects on her property. She felt that the rain comes from all properties in the area and that it was therefore only fair for all properties to share in the cost of correcting the problem. She sympathized with the financial hardship which the improvement assessments would place on property owners. She felt that the City should share in the cost, since the City was responsible for annexing the area with incorrect drainage and then allowing additional building and partitioning to go on. Ms. Patterson said that she had received an anonymous note chastising her for thrusting the cost of assessments on her neighbors, but that she felt that the burden belongs to everyone and that the value of her property was being destroyed by the water problem. Shannon Walter, 941 Williams, distributed photographs showing the accumulated water around and under her house. She said that the problem got worse each year. She sympathized with those who could not afford the cost of the assess- ments, but she felt that she could not afford to let the value of her house deteriorate. Speaking in opposition to the street improvements: Pat Trimble, 1001 Williams, said that the people at the south end of the street are flooded out, but that the north end is dry. She said that many property owners on the street are low-income or seniors and cannot afford to pay the assessments. She said that small children play in the street, and she was concerned that paving the street would allow cars to travel too fast and endanger the children. She asked if her name is on the petition to pave; whether sidewalks are included in the project; and who will pay to keep up the street once it is paved. She also said she lived on a panhandle lot and asked for clarification regarding assessments for such lots. She said that there are several other streets in the area whose drainage is contributing to the problem on Williams Street. Ron Lewis, 971 Williams, said that the City had caused the drainage problem on Williams by covering up a drainage culvert when Royal Avenue was put in. He felt that the problem on Williams could be corrected if this culvert were replaced. Mr. Lewis said that the first petition which property owners had been asked to sign had not been clear and had not discussed the cost or the fact that the sidewalks and drainage were included. He said he spoke for 75 percent of the people on the street. James Kitterman, 999 Williams, said that he agreed with Mr. Lewis. He offered to help dig the culvert out to improve drainage. He indicated that he is unemployed and that the assessment would be a great financial burden to him. Bob Glasgow, 975 Williams, said that he has lived on the street longer than anybody has. There had never been a water problem until Royal Avenue was- put in. He said that before the area was annexed to the City, he had paid to have an eight-foot ditch put in the back of his property and that this ditch had taken care of the water problem. The ditch had been filled in by the City, and this was the cause of the water problems. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1981 Page 22