HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/1977 Meeting
;
. ,
. M I NUT E S
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
June 22, 1977
Adjourned meeting from June 15, 1977 of the City Council of the City of Eugene,
Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 12:15 p.m. on June 22,
1977, at the King's Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Council members present:
Eric Haws, Tom Williams, D. W. Hamel, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and
Betty Slni th. Ray Bradley was absent.
I. Items from Mayor and Council
A. Facilities and Aid for Battered Women--Mr. Delay noted that during
the budget process, a need for facilities and aid to battered women
had been brought to the attention of Council. He noted nothing
had happened, and requested staff to ask the Women's Commission to
come to Council in two weeks with a status report.
B. Third National Conference on Alternative State and Local Public Policy
Mr. Delay said the conference was being held July 7-10, 1977 in Denver,
Colorado, and that he wished to attend. He requested the item be
addressed at the end of the meeting today in which he would review
the agenda.
e C. Oregon State Police Crime Detection Laboratory--Manager noted an
invitation had been extended to City Council to attend an open
house for the new facility Tuesday, June 28, from 1 to 4 p.m., at
1500 Valley River Drive.
D. Outline Agenda for Monday Night Council Meetings--Manager reviewed
the procedure for Council receiving agendas for Monday nights had
been changed from the preceding Friday to the Wednesday prior to
the Monday night meeting. He noted also the public hearings
scheduled for the following Monday night's meeting would be noted
on the short outline agenda.
Manager said the public hearing scheduled July 11 for the Highway
99 improvement had been withdrawn at the request of Public Works.
The State Highway Department, requested the delay for until after
September 1977. Public Works had not been given the necessary
figures it needed to proceed with the public hearing. Don Allen,
Public Works, said it would not be appropriate to hold a public
hearing July 11 to discuss the matter because it would revolve
around the costs the City would have to put into the project.
Public Works would not have those figures by July 11.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to postpone public
hearing regarding Highway 99 improvement from July 11 until
- sometime after September 1977. Motion carried unanimously.
6/22/77 --1
LfCf3
.
,
E. ~osed Schedules for Council Meeting pa~erflow--Memo distributed .
o ouncil--Manager reviewed the process or changes.
F. Fountain on Mall--Manager had met with a delegation of businessmen
from the Mall at which time the notable effects of substantial
savings in the use of energy by the merchants were considered. To
recognize these efforts in energy conservation, manager felt it would
be appropriate to accede to the businessmen's request to turn the
fountain on during business hours. He is to receive a report on
these savings before taking action.
G. Awards Ceremony June 27 Council Meeting--Manager noted the cere-
mony would be held for recognition of those who had given service
to the City as members of various commissions and boards.
H. Assessment Panel Report June 20, 1977--Minutes attached.
There were two controversial items, CB 1495 and CB 1496.
Council could accept the Assessment Panel report as proposed, or re-
vise it. Don Allen reminded Council if it wished to open any item
for hearing, it would take a two-thirds vote of Council. Also,
Council could officially hold a public hearing only during a Monday
night meeting, as that was the only legally advertised meeting for
that purpose.
Mr. Haws requested, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to not consider
the Assessment Panel report at this Council meeting, but e
to consider it at the June 27 Monday night meeting.
Assistant Manager noted the two-step notice to property owners:
1) identifying the hearing date before the Assessment Panel; and
2) identifying the time when the City Council would take final
action from that hearing. He said the Assessment Panel report
always comes as an information item to Council on the Wednesday
following the Monday Assessment Panel hearing, and automatically
appears on the following Monday night's agenda.
Mayor Keller asked if the people who disagreed with the assessments
were under the impression they would be heard at the Monday night
meetings. Mr. Haws and Mr. Lieuallen both expressed understanding
that the persons who attended the Assessment Panel hearing were of
the impression they could be heard at the Monday night meeting June
27. Assistant Manager said staff would look at the legal notices
given for these meetings.
Stan Long, City Attorney, _told Council it had just scheduled a hear-
ing Monday night by the action taken by the two Council members re-
questing to hold over the item. He said the further issue involved
whether someone would make a motion, with two-thirds vote of the
Council, to reopen testimony; then Council would have to decide
to accept or modify the Assessment Panel report at that time.
Mr. Delay noted, in regard to procedural questions, he wished -
clarification on two items: 1 ) that Council not be requested
6/22/77 --2
Lt9Lf ,
e to take final action on any item for which it receives information
the first time at that meeting; and 2) why the second reading of
council bills had not been placed on this Wednesday's agenda.
Manager replied in regard to the second reading of the council
bills, he felt there was no urgency to have them heard at Wednesday's
meeting. He preferred to carry the second reading of Council bills
from Monday to Monday, unless it was urgent for them to be heard
earlier.
I. Appointments--There were none.
J. Approval of Council Minutes--June 15, 1977.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to ,approve Council
minutes June 15, 1977. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Improvement Petitions
A. Paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 38th Street PUD;
assessable property totally within subdivision; no city costs
B. Paving 13th Avenue from Bertelsen Road to approximately 300 feet
east of Ocean Street; 65.5 percent assessable property petitioned
by property owners; no city costs
e Mayor Keller opened public hearing, with no testimony being presented.
Mr. Haws moved. seconded by Mr. Hamel, to authorize proceeding with
necessary processess to undertake the above public improvements.
Motion carried unanimously.
III. Revisions in Whiteaker and Westside Neighborhood Charters--Memo and
revisions distributed to Council.
A. Whiteaker Charter revision--Manager said the main purpose was
to define more precisely the relationship of the main Council to
four neighborhood groups within the area. He said it also provided
more definitive roles for officers and particular committees.
David Filer, representative of the Whiteaker Neighborhood Council,
said he was available to answer questions.
Mayor Keller noted the amendments were to establish four district
areas into one neighborhood organization, asking if it might be
better to have four separate neighborhood organizations. Mr. Filer
replied he would have to have more discussion with the neighborhood
groups and the City before making such a determination. He did
not know why or when the present boundaries were drawn, but noted
they were separated by mandate or natural factors. He said these
barriers divided the communities into various sections, and to
address various problems in those sections, it seemed more logical
to have the four groups working on a small scale. The issue of
e having four separate neighborhood groups had not been discussed
and not felt necessary by the Whiteaker Council, so had not been
cons i dered.
6/22/77 --3
Lf95
Mr. H~mel thought the four separate groups under one neighborhood
Counc~l a goo~ idea. Th~s is a very closely knit area in geographical
locatlon, maklng boundar~es hard ~~ def~ne. It was a s(edh in the right dir4jtlon
Manager noted a concern ln recognlzlng our separate nel borhood .
groups, as there were already 17 such groups in the City. There
were substantial staff committments to each one of these groups. Mr.
Obie wondered if Manager saw this as a significantly increased burden
to the staff. Manager replied no, not as was being proposed.
Ruth Miller, Neighborhood Liaison, said the amendments simply were
spelling out how the Whiteaker Council is currently functioning, and
would not significantly alter its current structure.
Res. No. 2692--Approving and amending charter revisions for Whiteaker
Community Council, was read by number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. 'Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Ro 11 ca 11 vote. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Westside Neighborhood Quality Project--Memo and revisions distributed
to Counci 1 . Neil Murray, representative of the Westside group, said
most of the revisions had been made some time ago. The changes had
not constituted any significant changes in the operation of the
group, but were mostly rewording and better definitions of officers'
roles and active membership roles. He directed staff to Article IX,
Section 1, as being the most recent change--establishing some new
committees. He offered to review for Council the significance of
those committees.
Res. No. 2693--Approving and amending charter revisions for Westside e
Neighborhood Quality Project was read by number and
title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Ro 11 ca 11 vote. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. . Code Revisions for Eliminating Housing and Community Development Commission
and Redefining Roles and Relationships of Joint Housing Committee and
Community Development Commission--Ordinance distributed to Council.
Manager noted information and discussion of these code revisions had been
held previously at Committee-of-the-Whole meetings. He said there was a
slight change in the wording of the ordinance.
Charles Kupper, HCC, said the changes had come from the HCDC meeting, not-
ing its desire to split the 12-member committee into two six-member com-
mittees. There was some discussion of reducing the membership from six
to five. When the Code ordinance was drafted, the change did not appear
in the Code, and a page was distributed to Council reflecting the changes
which had been decided upon by the HCDC. Section 2.244 would create a
Community Development Committee with membership consisting of: one
Counci 1 or appoi nted by the Mayor, one member from the Pl anni ng Commi ss ion
appointed by the Commission, and four members from the public appointed
by Counci 1. However, upon the resignation of or the failure of the
Council to reappoint a lay member, whichever occurs first, no appointment
will be made to fill the vacancy and the permanent public membership will
have to remain at three members. Section 2.254 creating the Joint Housing e
6/22/77 --4
ljqb
- Committee, membership would consist of one Councilor appointed by the
Mayor, one member from the Planning Commisison appointed by the Commission
and fourmembers from the public appointed by Council. However, upon the resig-
nation of or failure of Council to reappoint a lay member, whichever
occurs first, no appointment will be needed to fill the vacancy and the
permanent public membership will have to remain three members. Mr.
Kupper said this revision reflects the desires of HCDC of the membership
for the committees. He also called to Council IS attention the Code
reflects the phasing in of a Eugene Renewal Agency member into the public
membership of the two committees.
Mr. Obie questioned in the memo accompanying the ordinance regarding
the wording "older, declining, or lower income neighborhoods," whether it
was an intent to do anything different than had been done in the past.
Mr. Kupper replied the focus of the Committee's efforts were to be toward
older homes, and the CDC would by nature be limited to older, declining
neighborhoods.
Mr. Williams noted in Section 2.242(a) and (d), the emphasis on older, declining,
or lower income neighborhoods was also included. He wondered if that
were important and asked whether it needed to be rewritten. Stan Long
replied, if it were read literally it would mean the Committee could
function in ~ that area, asking if that was the intent of Council.
Mr. Wi 11 i ams asked if there woul d be any reason why the language "empha-
e sis on older, declining, or lower income neighborhoods" could not be
deleted and perhaps lanuage such as "planning and programming public
services as they relate to community development and city policies"
could be inserted.
Manager felt it very important to carefully define the roles of these
committees, as there were many commissions and boards which have policy-
making functions and certain responsibilities with respect to advising
Council in community development. The ordinance was written in a way to
focus on what the CDC has been doing and what it intends to do, and try
to eliminate overlapping functions among the various committees in the
City. He said that particular language was also used because of federal
interest in older neighborhoods. Mr. Lieuallen felt it better to leave
the phrase in, as it defined more clearly what the CDC will be doing. It
was necessary to recognize the intent of federal legislation, as ulti-
mately CDC would have to go back to the federal government which ulti-
mately specifies intent and uses of money.
Mr. Haws left the meeting.
Mr. Delay felt the problem could be easily resolved by changing in
Section 2.242(d) the word "in" and replacing it with "emphasis on." Mr.
Kupper said the same change would have to be added to Section 2.242(e)5.
Mr. Williams questioned whether the revisions regarding membership ap-
pointments would be included in the ordinance for Monday's hearing. It
e was the consensus of Council that this should be included with the
re vis ion s .
6/22/77 --5
ttcH
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that public hearing .
be scheduled June 27, 1977. Motion carried unanimously.
V. Human Rights Council Annual Report--Distributed to Council.
George Russell, Chairman of the Human Rights Council, reviewed with
Council the procedures which established the present Human Rights
Council and the various Human Rights commissions. He said the current
annual report was the result of a year of working under the new struc-
ture and an evaluation of the results. He called Council's attention to
several areas which he felt were very important: 1) the City ordinance;
2) staffing and how it relates to the intregal working of the commis-
sions; 3) program evaluation; and 4) recommendations in the report.
Mr. lieuallen expressed concern regarding the statement lithe City Council
was reluctant to judge the activities and accomplishments." He ques-
tioned whether the ordinance specifically outlined evaluation procedures.
Mr. Russell replied the ordinance was clear in that the Human Rights
Council has a responsibility to evaluate performance of the various
commissions and report back to the City Council. He felt the Human
I Rights Council had not had sufficient time to allow for those judgments.
The commissions had been faced with growing pains and developmental
problems which he hoped would be worked out during the next year. Mr.
Lieuallen replied it seemed they were being very careful, and said he
expected a more critical judgment in the next report. Mr. Russell replied
the Human Rights Council and commissions structure as it exists was very
political in nature and included many sensitive areas. He said some of e
the commissions had functioned very well, but that some had not. The
expectation of Human Rights Council was that these commissions would be
more accountable and more responsive to their constituencies in the
future.
Ms. Smith asked Mr. Russell to compare the previous system to the pre-
sent one. Mr. Russell expressed an opinion it might be difficult to
do. He said one problem with the present structure had been one of
publicity about the various commissions, noting they would have to do a
better job in the future of letting the community know of each commisison
and its activities and'functions. He felt under the current structure,
this potential could be more fully realized.
Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the amount of money budgeted for
the commissions, and the seeming lack of interest, noting the various
changes in staffing and persons serving on the commissions. He asked
how Mr. Russell felt the current structure had assisted the City Council.
Mr. Russell replied he was not sure what type of assistance Council ex-
pected from the commissions. He also was not sure the commissions had
reached a point where they could provide any type of support expected.
The one exception might be in lobbying with the State Legislature. He
felt the commissions should be advising the City Council more consis-
tently on the status of women, minorities, etc., and how they are being
affected by what the Ci ty Counci 1 does. He stated there was a need to
look at the communications between City Council and the Human Rights e
Rights Commission as to what expectations were. One area in which the
Human Rights Commission had been been involved with the Council was
6/22/77--6
:,Y9&
I
. regarding the Affirmative Action report. He felt the Human Rights
Council should be working more closely with the City in regard to areas
of potential discrimination. His final response was that if by this
time next year, a similar report were made to Council) he felt Council
was going to have to take a hard look at whether the Human Rights Council
and commissions structure was functioning as Council felt it should.
Mr. Obie questioned why a year's time was needed for this. Mr. R u sse 11
replied a year's time would be necessary for evaluation of the current
sy stem. There had been a problem of continuity, citing three changes of
staff members in the last year; and noting the problems the people who
had been selected for the commissions and whether they were ones who were
really effective and committed to serving on those commissions.
Ms. Smith said the recommendation in the report regarding appointments
addressed the selection process, and she was hopeful that participation
by the commission members in the interview and selection process would
be accepted. She hoped there would be better communication between the
commissions and the Council in selecting new members for the commissions.
Mr. Russell urged Mr. Obie to review the report as some of the responses
for questions he had raised would be found there.
Mr. Delay noted in Recommendation No.4 that he was in favor of the in-
crease in a fine for discrimination. He questioned how much discussion
had been held regarding that issue. Mr. Russell said there had been a
- great deal of discussion, and the recommendation had come as a result of
recommendations from staff. It was difficult to resolve the problem of
complaints as the ordinance did not provide for a stiff enough penalty to
make people comply. Betsy Merck, Human Rights Specialist, noted the $100
fine for discrimination and a $500 if it were a criminal penalty. The
complainant could never recoup money. It was felt a $1,000 fine would
discourage employers from discriminating. Mr. Delay asked whether this
would make the City Human Rights Commissions more viable to individuals.
Ms. Merck replied that most individuals were interested in recouping
money for themselves; the Human Rights Commissions were more interested
in getting employers to comply. Mr. Russell added that the inreased
fine might be an incentive to employers to sit down and talk about
discrimination.
Mr. Lieuallen asked whether alternatives regarding discrimination com-
plaints had been considered. Ms. Merck replied they had, but it seemed
they were very limited alternatives under the charter.
Mr. Lieuallen felt the recommendations under the new procedures were
going to make the appointment process a better one, noting that was
one of the main defects. He was curious about the staffing and assign-
ments, and the report's statement that the human rights staff should
reflect the constituency it served. Mr. Russell replied it was aimed
mostly at the Minorities Commission, with the Commission feeling that
it was difficult for a non-minority staff member to be effective in
e working with the Minority Commission. A more general concern was
6/22/77 --7
ttqq
that the City was, in effect, backsliding in terms of minority emp10y- .
ment within the City itself. He continued that the Minority Commission
was very concerned regarding the new staff person who would be working
with the Minorities Commission, feeling there ought to be some effort
to have someone who had sensitivity towards minority problems. Mr.
Lieua11en then questioned staff what was going to be done about the
staffing of this position. Assistant Manager replied the vacancy had
been advertised and recruiting was in process, with 178 applications
received to date. He added the City could not practice discrimination
in its hiring procedures. He continued that the Code said the Manager's
office is to make the assignment, but the change had occurred because of
the staff recommendation. ~
Further discussion would be held at.Counci1 meeting June 29, 1977.
. .. . Youth on Mall Report--pos.tponed to June 29 Council meeting.
VII. Council meeting adjourned to executive session to discuss land acquisition
for park purposes. ,
"
VIII. Resumption of Council Open Session for Action on Land Acquisition
Res. No. 2694--Authorizing staff to procede with acquisition of property,
Tax Lot 601, and to authorize exercising power of eminent
domain was read by number and title.
Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. ,_
Roll ca 11 vote. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Obie expressed a desire that the Joint Parks Committee be re-
activated to work more closely with staff regarding future land
acquisition procedures. Assistant Manager noted that a number of
changes needed to be made, that future action of the Council should
be guarded so that its action did not bestow benefits on others.
He said staff would look into the matter and bring the recommenda-
tions back to Council.
Upon ,motion duly made, seconded, and passed, meeting was adjourned to
June 27, 1977.
~en~~
Ci tyManager
CTH:DT:m1jCM21a11
e
6/22/77--8
500
- Assessment Panel Hearing
June 20, 1977
Present: Council members Haws and Lieuallen, City Engineer Teitzel
A. C.B. 1495--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer on
Hawkins Lane from 18th Avenue to Highland Oaks Drive (75-34--1156)
Requests to be heard were received from Lawrence E. Legas, 2060 Hawkins Lane;
Antonio A. Balsalobre 1860 Hawkins Lane; and James P. and Jo Anne Widmer of
2000 Hawkins Heights Blvd; and written protest was received from Donald and
Debbie Shannon of 2050 Hawkins Lane.
Mr. Teitzel explained that the project was initiated by Council action in June of
1975 and the contract was awarded in July of 1975. He further explained that the
estimated contract price was $112,140.80 with an estimated assessment cost for 28-foot
paving of $15.40 per front foot, 36-foot paving $19.30, asphaltic driveways $.51
per square foot, sewer lateral $.04 per square foot, concrete drive $1.22 per
square foot and sewer services $236.00 each. He stated that the City cost for extra
depth was estimated to be $7,680, extra width $6,910, storm sewer $7,292 and deferred
assessments $6,200. He explained that the final contract cost was $128,859.10, with an
assessment for 28-foot paving of $17.19 per front foot, 36-foot paving $21.35 per
front foot, asphaltic concrete driveways $22.0 per square foot and concrete driveways
$1.12 per square foot, lateral sewers $0.049 per square foot and sewer services
$260.00 each. The City cost of extra depth was $8,046, extra width $11,210, storm
e sewer $7,333 and deferred assessments of $3,244.00.
Mr. Haws asked why the final cost was higher than the estimated cost. Mr. Teitzel
explained that because of utilities in the area the project was stretched over two
summers and because of the delay in construction a difference had to be paid in the
cost to allow for inflation.
Lawrence Legas spoke not against the amount of the assessment, but against the fact
that the street can not be used for parking, that it has bike lanes on both sides
which he feels are a discrimination toward the property owners.
Hr. Balsalobre spoke, saying that his main objection was in not having parking
facilities on the street, and also on the high cost for something not needed by
him but which was provided for the benefit of developers in the area. He also stated
the City destroyed an apple tree on his property and that there is a stream of water
above his property which is discharged into the curb with no attempt to channel
the water into the sewer. He further stated that recently the City had put in a storm
sewer from his neighbor's property on down the street and that the storm sewer could
have been continued for another 100 to 150 feet and would have solved the problem
with the drainage above his property.
Mr. Widmer spoke requesting an explanation of the driveway apron. Mr. Teitzel
explained that the apron consists of all the work that was done in the driveway
back of the curb. Mr. Widmer stated that he was billed $572.92 for the driveway
apron and when he first bought the property he put a cement driveway to the existing
. Hawkins Heights pavement but that when the street was lowered they tore out the
driveway and replaced it with cement and charged him. He further stated that a
mistake was made on the corner at 2000 Hawkins Heights and it had to be torn up
and changed. He stated that his landscaping was destroyed because of the elevation
drop. Mr. 'vidmer stated that he had water lines sticking out in his yard and he
had brought this to the attention of the contractor and the City and nothing had
.501 ~/?n/77 _ D~~~ 1
been done to correct the situation. He stated that the name of the street should e
be changed to Hawkins Heights Freeway.
Mr. Teitzel responded to the complaints by stating that the bike lanes conform
to the ,Bicycle Master Plan of the City and ~hat for a street such as this, two
bike lanes are required because the bicyclists are required to adhere to the rules
of the Toad just as an automobile, and if lanes are put in on only one side of
the street it encourages the bicyclist to ride on the wrong side of the road. He
further responded in regard to water in the gutter that there are springs on the
hill and it was felt that the expense of a storm sewer was not warranted. He
stated that after the construction a storm sewer was put up part way because water
was jumping over a driveway apron where a house was built below the road and the only
way this could be taken care of was with a storm sewer to catch the water before it
reached the driveway. He stated that a few years ago the lip was removed from driveway
standards because of the frequency of accidents with bicyclists running over the lip
at an angle.
Mr. Teitzel stated that in regard to Mr. Widmer's property that a permit was
required at the time the house was built to establish the grades of the future
street. Mr. Teitzel stated that the builder of Mr. Widmer's house, although required
to take out the permit never called for grades so the driveway was put in without
benefit of knowing where the street was going to be built. He stated that with
regard to the destroyed landscaping that this was done in the right of way. He
further stated he would check on the exposed water lines to see if this was the
contractor's responsibility.
Mr. Lieuallen inquired about the problem of the driveway which was replaced due to e
improper grade. Mr. Lieuallen asked Mr. Teitzel what had happened in this matter.
Mr. Teitzel stated that at the time the building permit was applied for it was
indicated on the building permit that a grade permit should be taken out so that
the City could go out and stake grades to indicate where the curb or sidewalk was
going to be, and in regard to Mr. Widmer's property the grades apparently were
never called for. Mr. Widmer stated that if the contractor had put the driveway
in to the grade of the street as now constructed, he would have been 6 1/2 to
7 feet below the street level. He stated that the driveway put in by the contractor
was level with Hawkins Heights but that the street was dug down 6 1/2 to 7 feet
lower. Mr. Teitzel stated that he did not feel that the actual roadway was lowered
that far but that at the edge by the bank it might have been lowered that far.
Mr. Teitzel stated that the City's policy is that if a contractor puts a driveway
in to the City's established grades and the City has to remove it for an improvement
then the city assumes the cost of the new driveway. Mr. Haws stated that he did
not see how the City could be responsible for what the developers do before the
City puts in a street.
R,ecommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
B. C.B. l496--Levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on lvillamette Street
from 40th Avenue to 600 feet south of the south end of Coachman
Drive (76-10--382)
Requeststo be heard were received from John A. and Norene E. Miller of .
21 East 47th Avenue, Joy S. Goolsby of 18 East 47th Avenue and Donald F.
and La A. Ford of 10 Coachman Drive; written protests were received from
Chulsoon & Yee Yu Khang of 30 Coachman Drive and Mr. and Mrs. David D.
Rowe of 4150 Oak Street.
501 6/20/77 - Page 2
. Mr. Teitzel explained that this project was initiated by the City Council, originally
in 1968, however the formal initiation for the.present project was in April of 1976
with an award of the bid in May of 1976. The contract price was $256,444.15 with an
estimated assessment for 28-foot paving of $18.70 per front foot, 36-foot paving
$22.83 per front foot, for one-half of the sidewalks $2.54 per front foot and
for the whole sidewalk $5.22 per front foot, 5-inch concrete driveways $1.07 per
square foot, asphaltic concrete driveways $.69 per square foot, total city cost
$117,586.75.
Mr. Haws asked why the contract price was higher than the estimated cost and yet
the assessments had gone down. Mr. Teitzel stated that the majority of the extra
cost was City cost.
Jim Lemert of 10 East 40th Avenue spoke stating that he did call in to be placed
on the agenda for the meeting, however, his name did not appear on the agenda.
Mr. Lemert stated that he realized what he had to say would have little effect on the
decision of the panel, but it needed to be said. 'He stated he felt the City's
assessment procedures need to be made fairer and Willamette Street epitomizes this
need. He stated that most of the people paying this assessment do not have direct
access to the street, all it is to them is a very noisy nuisance. He further stated
that the beneficiaries of the South Willamette paving are not the people paying for
it but the developments to the south. Mr. Lemert stated that the street did need
the improvement, however, those who benefit will not be paying. He stated that
he felt the fair share of the burden should be placed on the people who created
the burden. He further stated that the South Hills Association supports the proposed
development charge soon to be before the Council.
e John Miller spoke stating that his complaint was with regard to the loss of his
survey stakes, and also that the sidewalk around 47th Avenue destroyed a number of
his plants inside his property line. Mr. Miller stated that the street should have
been put in when Breeden Bros. started developing the area because then the
cost would have been charged to all lots in the area. He further stated he wanted
an explanation as to why the City charges the property owner for the improvements
instead of putting it on the tax rolls.
Mrs. Joy S. Goolsby spoke with regard to information she had received in a call to the
office before her assessment notice was received. She stated that she was told her
sidewalk would cost $224 and when she received her statement for her assessment it
was instead $278.24. Mrs. Goolsby further stated that she had written a lengthy
letter to the Council on May 16 and felt the points in this letter should be considered.
She stated that she understood the property owners are charged for the engineering
and financing and she could not understand why this would be. She further could
not understand why when the City had all of the extra costs for an arterial street
the City came up with only 40 percent of the cost and the property owners pay 60
percent. Mrs. Goolsby further stated that her driveway had to be lowered for the
benefit of the townhouses on the west side of Willamette Street. Mrs. Goolsby
asked Mr. Teitzel why there was a descrepancy in the sidewalk cost from the telephone
to. the assessment statement. Mr. Teitzel stated that he did not see anything in
the file to indicate why this was so, however, that is the reason it is difficult
to give an estimated cost.
e Mrs. Goolsby stated she would like to propose that this assessment be delayed until
the Assessment Study Committee has presented their findings and proposals to the
Council.
6/20/77 - Page 3
503
"
Mr. Donald Ford spoke stating that he had a corner lot at lvillamette and Coachman .
Drive and on Willamette Street he has 45-feet of property and in his contacts
with Engineering Department personnel he had only been told about his assessment
for the 45-feet, however, when he received his assessment he had l7-feet on Coachman
Drive which he now must pay. He further stated that he had an apprehension that
the street would have to be widened in the future and he wanted assurance that
he would not have to pay for the street twice. He stated that in regard to the
17-feet on Coachman that he felt this section should not be in his assessment
as this should have been settled by the builder and the City when Mr. Ford bought
the property. Mr. Ford further stated that there was a grading problem due to
this paving project and he felt the City should work with him in the cost of regrading
his pr.operty.
Mr. Miller stated that some of his plants had been killed and several yards of
dirt had been removed, he further stated that Eugene Sand & Gravel had not smoothed
off the property he maintains for the City. Mrs. Goolsby further stated that she
maintains 24-feet of City property.
At this point, Mr. and Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Goolsby left the meeting.
Mr. Teitzel responded to Mr. Ford's comment regarding the assessment of Coachman
Drive. He explained that the 17-feet was held so that there would not be an
abrupt grade onto Willamette Street until Willamette Street was paved, therefore,
Mr. FOrd's property was not assessed for that l7-feet. Mr. Teitzel stated that
traffic projections predict that a 36-foot wide street will carry the traffic volume
to the year 2000. Mr. Teitzel further stated that under present policy, a property
is only assessed for a .street once. He stated that the City Charter does allow e
a reassessment, however, to Mr. Teitzel's knowledge this had never been done. He
stated that as to the grading of the slope, the City cannot participate because
this is the property owner's responsibility. Mr. Ford questioned whether the
decision not to pave the l7-feet was for the City's reasons. Mr. Teitzel stated
that it was for the benefit of the people using the street. Mr. Ford stated that
if he had to pay for the l7-feet he felt he should pay for the assessment at the
rate that was charged when Coachman Drive was paved. Mr. Teitzel stated that
the City has no control of how the subdivider proportions the cost of improvements
when the lots are sold and that the lot 'was never assessed for that 17-feet of
frontage.
Recommendation: Levy assessments as proposed.
C. C.B. 1497 - Levying assessments for paving Warren Avenue from 450 f~~t south
of Kevington Drive to 1500 feet south of Kevington Drive (76-11--1063)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed.
D. C.B~ 1498 - Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within
Dakota Subdivision (76-53--1265)
No written protests or requests to be heard were received.
Recommendation: Levy assessment as proposed. .
SOY 6/20/77 - Page 4
t I,,'/j' / .'
", //
James P and Jo Anne Widm2r
e 2000 Hawkins I-Igts. Blvd.
Eugene, Oregon 97405
June 13, 1977
Public Works Deparbnent
Eugene City Hall
858 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
He: Assessment - Lot 12, Amended Plat of Hawkins Hgts.
Gentlemen:
We wish to appear before the Assessment Panel on June -20,
1977 at 7:30 p.m. to object to the assessment against our
property in the amount of $2,266.26.
\ve also wish to complai~ about the damage done to our
property by the construction crews, which damage we have
previously complained about to no avail.
Sincerely,
e ~fb~d2i~
jaw
r-~ ~'-~1 ,- i ' i ;- r
-( ~-- ~- ".. \, ;'- !
~ , "".' '.. j . L-._J
e ,) U!'~ 1 :j 191'T
DEF'T. OrFU~J:...j"::; \"'Of-ms
CITy OF EUG:.:i0E::
50S
I
( (
.
Donald Shannon
Debbie Sharu'1on
2050 Hawkins Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97405
Ci ty of Eugene
Public Works Dept.
858 Pearl
Eugene,Oregon 97401
. Dear Sirs:
We are writing in response to the street assessment
which Vie have received for our property, Lot 16, Amended
Plat of Hawkins Heights.
t'1edo not feel that the assessment is fair. ~1J e have
talked to several of our neighbors, and none of them wanted
bike lanes on both sides of the street. Some of the neighbors .-
spoke against the street proposal at a public hearing held
before work began, but the City Council.decided to put in
I both bike lanes in spite of the objections. (tve did not own
our property at that time, so were not involved.) 1;!hy
should we be forced to pay for a street which we cannot
use for parking and 'which the neighborhood strongly objects
to? We approve of bike lanes, but cars should be provided
for, also. With bike lanes on one side of a residential
street, there would be ample space for.cars to be parked
on the other side.
Also, we wonder why the.City Council even bothers to
hold public hearings when it does not consider the views of
those who take this opportunity to speak out.
,t~~~.G .' .
. u', . :._ ~ bblQ. 6b1\u'l'\91"
Donald Shannon
Debbie Shannon
RECEIVED'
JUN 1 7 1977 e
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF EUGENE
SOl:,
" ,
.
June 8, 1977
EUbenc City Council Her.lher s:
\~ know that it won't do us any gooJ to protest the assessment on our
property for improving tbe south \,allalTlette street, since you already
decided to make us pay for it. ~everthless I would like to point out
how unfair it is to us. The follot,/ing are a fe~v points ~lhich come to our
minu:
1. There are nany houses (about 50) on our Coachman loop \.1ho all use the
"inproved" Hillar.1ette street. \.'11y nake four houses on Coach~an loop bear
the entire burden?
2. He do not mind paying sone r::oney to help paving the street. But there
should be some kind of linit on the amount. After all $3248 is a lot of money.
Only those who have to pay knows the pain. I attended the City Council meet-
inG when it decided to pave the Uillarnette street and was greatly distressed
by the insensitivity shown by the council members ~]hen it comes to the t:;atter
of spending someoneelses' money.
3. If anything, the widened road decreased our property value. I really do
not mind if we are assessed on the basis of increased property value caused
by the paveI'lent, even \.;rhen it was not my desire to pave the road. I am
e perfectly \-Tilling to pay the difference bett.;reen the assessed values before
and after the "impr:oveT!lentlll. \'fuen I am saddled with $3248 assessment and
possibly decreased property value and with no legal recourse, I am beginning
to understand ,,,hy many American people are fed up ,vith their insensitive
governments which tread on little people. The worst part of all this is that
there i~not a damn thing we can do legal1y~orrect this situation.
, --4...
4. The unfairness of~Eugene's City ordinance regarding method of payment for
road improvement baffles anyone hit unaware. Abutting property owners are
forced to suhsidize anyone using the "improved" road, especially the real
estate developers ~-lho are primarily responsible for the increased volume of
traffic. 'J. 'f--
Jr. r. Ie, ~ 1 t, ,." )
-'1 ~
5. Ever since the street was improved ,t;'h~~~ many' sleepness nights. Some
motorists zoom up and down -as the road ,is a race track. Some kids use it to
practice their skateboards at mid-nights even during ~'leek days. Do you have
any suggestions to correct this situation?
Finally we know that you are all too busy to have time to bother with
such little matter as this \rllich do not concern you personally. But ~"e still
wish that there are some one who cares enough to study the whole situation.
We are victims of unjust and outdated rules and it is too late for us. We
ask you not to perpetuate this injustice to someones who ~ay be unfortunate
enough to be in the same predicament as we are. We ask no more. \-Ie do believe
in rules. But we also believe in changes when it is needed.
e R ,. .n j ". ; \ I ,-- 0 Sincerely" ').,. c{{
\ "- I, . r -, V t
\- '.~, ,~;. t _ ~~~~- ~ (-_"\C-~u. - ~r-"_-----'~
'/ : j Chulsoon a Yee Yu Khang-
, 1......:,\: 10 1977 30 Coachman Drive
Eugene, Oregon 97405
DEPT U,- , -.lE:!..:C 'wVUHKS
CITY OF t:UGENE 507
.
. ; ~
-.
June 15, 1977 .
City of EU38ne
1:'1). b 1 i c .io:cl~s j),;::.t.
853 ?ea.d St.
:Susena ~, 0 rezon 97401
:\.ttenthjn: Assessment Pune1
Dea.r Sirs;
The i)r0gert;y at 4150 Oak Street bilClcs up to ifilL.matte Street. It 1f~'.S tree
lined and ~'[illam0tte nas barely visable. Tha'~s the lTay i t ~iaS in June 1976
when ue iJlaced an earnest money agreement on it. In July 1976 the trees ~iera
gone G.nd in tiloir place ,"laS a 40 m. p. h. speedyTay. At no time -;rere we officially
or unofficii-:.lly notified of u;!coming street renovation. -:le W"eren1t even given
a.n option for an access to our pro}erty! NOH \'Te have to p1.:..nt ne1;'T trBes and
landscD.::!e or the city will chc.rge US $38.0J to cut the weeds! I realize t~iat
these points are not earth shcl~ing or life threatening--but the corner of
;'iil1c1mette Street and Oak Street is! Our one re~uest is thisj before you, the
ci ty, assess this tax to t,.e residents on 0a.1-c Street PLJEASE take your private
autos ::md clri vo along ~li1h,mette and turn left onto Oa.1c Street or drive on Oc;k -
Street and try to turn in either direction onto llil1amette. If ~TOU feel that
I ;}'ou can drive safely through th8.t intersection He nill pa.y our tax.
Beyond 40th Street we do not use Ui11amettc Street. It is unsafe ill1d
it certainly has not improved the value of our property. ~Ihy then should lie
pay?
On. any ot11er purchase a person has the option to return merchandise to
a vendor or to expect satisfaction on services rendered. Shouldn't a property
ouner have that same priveledge "'\'Then it comes to street improvements? To pay
only aft.3r t::,e street is cOUl)leted to their satisfaction!!
If you Cd1 make the stroet useable to the residents on Ode Street b,;'
lowering the terraine or installing a t2'affic signCLl at the intersection of
di1h'\Llette 211d. 02k Streets ,Te uill pa;)' our tax; if not ';Ie feel He s:'1ould not
have to pa;}" tile assessment because lie ca:mot and do not use the ueuly 'im-
proved' Hillc,mette Street.
Sincerely yours, . .<. ~. I' d
t'~."...... .-:?l, . ;/2" J If ~ > /--' -<? t:~C'~
t,.Q:.. :J ~~~;:--... ',,: /U <v ::fl.-v _..
f< \U.c:. <'-."; i:Z.'.ltF,~;-..,
Ar t~ I',Irs. David D. nOl-re
' ......." 7 'I
.. ':"""'1.;.".,..;1 415--' Oak Street
;, i .) "1 Euge~le, Oregon 97405
. r "z{j77 e
Dr:0- . !
'"'! I. OF PUB
CiTY 0" f LtC WORK\,'
r VG'-~ h
'"i..:/}E
508