CC Minutes - 01/25/99 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson suggested that use of the term "emergency" was misleading and that the nature of the council action might better be conveyed by the term "expedited." There was no emergency associated with the construction of the improvement. The motion was approved unanimously, 7:0. 5. ASSESSMENTS FOR WILLAKENZIE STORM DRAIN TRUNK LINE (CONTRACT #98-18) (JOB #3546) Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4677, an ordinance levying assessments for the Willakenzie storm drain trunk line from a point 160 feet north of Crescent Avenue west of the west boundary of Crescent Meadows Subdivision, North 1,870 feet, and declaring an emergency (Contract #98-18) (Job #3546). Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that the Council Bill 4677, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Rayor asked whether a property owner included in the Local Improvement District for the storm drain would forfeit any opportunity to raise objections by adoption of an emergency clause. City Attorney Glenn Klein replied that the same appeal procedure applied to an assessment, regardless of whether it was adopted with an emergency clause. The motion was adopted unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Johnson announced that the council would consider Council Bill 4677 by number only. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, that Council Bill 4677 be approved and given final passage. Mr. Kelly stated that he was troubled by the definition of a special benefit accrued to Sacred Heart Medical Center by construction of the storm drain trunk line in the project under consideration. He said that subdivision properties adjoining the trunk line are not assessed because they are reported to already be served. He observed that Sacred Head was making the same argument for being served by the Crescent Avenue trunk line. Mr. Lyle stated that the Hearings Official had evaluated that the Sacred Heart property could be served by either the trunk line being constructed or the Crescent Avenue trunk line. He said it had been determined that the property could most efficiently and economically be served by both trunk lines being in place. Mr. Kelly said that it appeared that Sacred Heart had disagreed with the determination of the Hearings Official. He asked why the argument applied to the Sacred Heart property could not be applied to the subdivision property. Mr. Lyle replied that one basis for the determination to apply only to the Sacred Heart property was that the subdivision property was fully developed and the storm drain systems to fully serve it had been fully extended. He said that the Sacred Heart property, on the other hand, was vacant and that the depth and capacity of the existing trunk line was not adequate to serve it or vacant property to its north. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 25, 1999 Page 9 7:30 p.m.