The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/22/1978 Meeting e e - ~ M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL May 22, 1978 Adjourned meeting from May 17, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President D. W. Hamel on May 22, 1978, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber, with the following Councilors present: Ray.Bradley (arrived late), Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Mayor Gus Keller and Councilor Tom Williams were absent. I. Public Hearings A. Rezonings 1. From RA to RA/SR property located north of the northeast corner of Riverview Avenue and Floral Hill Drive (Tal brook) (Z 78-4) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission April 4, 1978. Jim Saul, Planner, said the zone change request involved two acres in laurel Hill, with the purpose of change to allow a cluster subdivi- sion instead of conventional subdivision on an elongated parcel, with a total of eight units. Site review specifics were attached if the zone change were approved. Ms. Adrienne lannom, Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1681--Authorizing rezoning from RA to RA/SR property located north of the northeast corner of Riverview Avenue and Floral Hill Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read it full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 4, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 tjme. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. 5/22/78--1 3&3 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18183. 2. Rezoning from C-2 (Tax Lot 2200) and RA (Tax Lot 2300) to RP/SR property located on south side of 9th Avenue between Garfield Street and Hayes Street (Kaiser) (Z 78-6) Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission April 4, 1978. Mr. Saul said the zone change involved two lots comprising 10,000 square feet. Site review procedures addressed concerns listed on page 3 of Planning Commission minutes. He said the Planning Commission did express concern that too many II uni quell si tua ti ons in thi s area woul d eliminate all single-family zoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Archie DuGuid, 4320 Avalon, represented Mr. Kaiser and was available to answer questions. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. C.B. 1682--Authorizing rezoning from C-2 (Tax Lot 2200) and RA (Tax Lot 2300) to RP/SR property located on south side of 9th Avenue between Garfield Street and Hayes Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay requested clarification regarding Acting Mayor voting while chairing the meeting. Mr. Hamel responded he would not be considered Acting Mayor unless the Mayor were absent for an extended period of time. As "acting chairll he was entitled to vote. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 4, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be con- sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18184. 5/22/78--2 36'+ - - e- 3. Rezoning from M-2 to RP property located at the northeast corner of West 1st Avenue and Madison Street (Coleman) (Z 78-7) - Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission April 4, 1978. Mr. Saul said the zone change involved a small parcel (4,240 square feet) presently occupied by a single-family residence that has been used for a variety of purposes. It is in the process of being remodeled. If the zone change were approved, the structure would be used as an office, a purpose which would not be allowed under M-2 zoning.Plan- ning Commission indicated its recommendation for approval should not be construed as approval of a waiver of either screening or yard requirements of the RP District in order to secure required parking spaces. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were ente~ed as part of the record. C.B. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. 1683--Authorizing rezoning from M-2 to RP property located at north- east corner of West 1st Avenue and Madison Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 4, 1978, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18185. B. Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of appeal re: Planning Director's Approval of Minor Partition (Plater) (M 78-20) e Unanimously denied by Planning Commission April 10, 1978. Mr. Saul said the minor partition application had been submitted January 30, 1978, and approved by Planning Commission March 8, 1978. The appeal had been heard by the Planning Commission April 10, denied and subse- quently appealed to Council. The property involved contains two pieces of property of 16,000 square feet; if the minor partition is approved, two lots would be created, one 7,800 square feet and one 8,200 square feet. Regarding the two issues raised in the appeal, both points were raised before the Planning Commission and considered at some length. . 5/22/78--3 3'5 Regarding appeal statement No.1, he said the Planning Commission's discussion was reflected on page 3; appeal statement No.2 was reflec- ted on page 4 of the minutes. Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, ~. was present to answer questions. II' In answer to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said the panhandle applicant had complied with code provisions. Mr. Haws then wondered if the appeal form complied with the code. Mr. Saul said the code simply states the appeal should be made on a form prescribed by the Planning Department. The handwritten appeal was submitted on the prescribed form (retyped by Planning Department staff). Mr. Haws understood the appeal statement would have to point out specifically where an error had been made, and he felt the present appeal statement did not do that. He requested that in the future that be included. Mr. Saul said it was not staff's function to decide if the information supplied was correct. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. William Zangwill, 1051 East 36th, spoke in favor of the appeal. While generally supportive of the panhandle policy, he felt Council had recognized the policy needs review and some changes. Given the moratorium on panhandle lots has only four and one-half months ~ to go, he wondered why there was a need for such precipitous action as approving this panhandle lot. There may be some changes after the review, and he wished for Council to approve the appeal to allow for any revisions. Two concerns were expressed: that the five-foot fencing may not provide enough privacy for his adjacent lot, and a safety issue, in that cars might go off the driveway of the panhandle lot over the curbing, and down the hill to his house. He requested Council either delay the approval of this panhandle lot until the review is completed by the committee, or make some changes to account for his rights and needs regarding privacy and safety. Daryl Plater, 1135 East 36th, spoke against the appeal. He passed among Councilors five photographs and reviewed them as they related to the panhandle application. A written statement was entered into the record, which he reviewed. He noted the Planning Commission had viewed the property in question first-hand and subsequently unani- mously denied the appeal. Regarding the safety issue raised, the City Traffic Engineer had indicated a curb is not a traffic barrier and that he reviewed the lot split and did not envision any likeli- hood of a car using the driveway to go over the side of the hill. 5/22/78--4 . 3" e Mr. Plater felt there had been some emotionalism associated with the recent panhandle moratorium, with this appeal resulting. He requested approval of the minor partitition be upheld because it conforms to the regulations in effect at the time of application and approval. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to deny the appeal and adopt findings of fact. Mr. Haws acknowledged his opposition to panhandle lots. However, he noted this application had complied with the code, and he reluctantly would vote to deny the appeal. Mr. Hamel said he had not been in favor of panhandle lots in well- established neighborhoods. He said since there was a moratorium on panhandle lots, he would vote against the motion. Mr. Obie felt both parties deserved an explanation as to Councilors' voting. He was going to vote for the appeal and against the motion because the review of panhandle lots now being conducted may result in some further regulations that could make panhandle lots more livable situations. He did not see the necessity of possibly destroy- ing the livability of a particular neighborhood for the sake of expediency. Mr. Delay felt it was a matter of law, not expediency, which Council had adopted and with which the applicant had complied. He said Councilors should remember they are not talking about what they do or do not like, but a matter that has been appealed to it under quasi- judicial proceedings. He did not see that this panhandle lot would undermine the particular neighborhood, and noted the Planning Commis- sion had reviewed it first-hand and had made their recommendation to uphold approval of the panhandle lot. He saw nothing that would justify denying the applicant. Ms. Smith said Council had a policy that it had not yet changed and she supported the motion. e Mr. Saul noted this particular application was not submitted in the last-minute rush, but before Council had even considered a mora- torium. Secondly, he had a concern that the Council might say the application should be denied because Council is presently reviewing panhandle lots. He said if Council took that position, then the staff and Planning Commission should be so apprised. He felt when discussing the moratorium, Council had made it clear that it wanted any applications submitted before the moratorium deadline to be judged solely on the basis of the present code standards. Staff has been so advising applicants, and if that is incorrect, staff should be apprised. - 5/22/78--5 3'7 Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with Delay, Smith, Haws, and Lieuallen voting aye; Hamel and Obie voting no. c. Code Amendment re: Merchant Police Licensing Manager noted the code amendment had been requested by the Police Department to provide more adequate public protection. The ordi- nance as presented provides for agency license, two classes of merchant police (one armed, M-l, and one unarmed, M-2). It would provide for a firearms certification requirement to ensure proper handling of same, and establishes 18 years as minimum age require- ment. Except for unarmed on-premise personnel, police background checks would be required for each applicant and principals of an agency for each license renewal. Firearms proficiency certification would be required for licensing or renewal for each armed merchant police. The ordinance differs from current practice in that there is now no minimum age requirement, only one class of license, and no distinctions in licensing requirements for armed and unarmed merchant police. Currently, bond requirements apply only to the agency, and there is no liability insurance for either agency or individuals. The present ordinance would require $2,500 bond for each individual. A fee schedule would be implemented with the ordinance. Under current procedures, an individual or agency may secure a license by paying a $15 application fee, with the license fee an additional $50 per year. Under the new fee schedule, an agency would pay a $10 appli- cation fee, plus a $25 annual license fee. In addition, the agency would be required to pay a $25 application fee, plus a $25 annual ~ license fee for each merchant police employed, as well as the annual ~ $25 certification or recertification fee for armed merchant police. The fees would be required for any employees hired after issuance of the initial license to 'the agency. An individual not employed by an agency would pay the $25 application fee, $25 annual license fee, and $25 certification or recertification fee, if applicable. If adopted, the ordinance would not invalidate any currently issued licenses. However, upon their expiration, all licensees would be required to comply with these new provisions, including certification requirement for the armed merchant police. - Sergeant Mel Olson, Eugene Police Department, noted there had been some incidences resulting in death and injury because of improper arms handling by armed security officers. Thus, the Police Department wished to eliminate such happenstance in Eugene by requiring certi- fication for armed merchant police. Certification programs are available at lCC, at a cost of $8/course. He said the emphasis was not on how to shoot, but when and when not to shoot. . 5/22/78--6 ~8 - Mr. Obie wondered how involved the industry had been in the prepar- ation of the ordinance. Sergeant Olson said the agencies had attended a meeting in January, at which time the ordinance intentions were outlined. He said there had not been general input other than casual communication. Mr. Delay wondered if there was an estimate on the costs of the program. Shirley Swenson, Finance Department, said the costs were estimated on the actual cost by the Police Department for back- ground checks. She reviewed previous experience under the existing schedule by which an agency paid $50 no matter how many individuals were employed; in some larger agencies the turnover is heavy, yet the Police Department has to conduct extensive background searches for each new individual. For three agencies, the charges were $45 versus what would be $1,000 under the present fee schedule. e Public hearing was opened. Robert Heilman, 3231 Fillmore, owned a local business which provides security police to various businesses in the area. He was not really against the ordinance. His only concern was the substantial differ- ence in costs. He noted the particular business was probably one of the lowest-paying professions and had a great deal of turnover. Therefore, his agency was facing an increased cost for the many individual licensing fees. The cost increase had not been budgeted for, and he noted it could be devastating for smaller businesses. Regarding the penalty, he said the ordinance could subject a business to a $500 fine if an individual does not have his license on his person. He felt that to be excessive. Chuck Collins, Collins Security, had been in the business eight years and had had no problems with any of his employees who carried firearms. He only had been made aware of the firearm portion of the ordinance, and was basically for it. However, he requested time for the business to look over the entire ordinance and give input to staff before Council adopted it. He expressed appreci- ation for rules and regulations, but felt the present ordinance went too far. Leonard LeBlanc, 3713 Scenic Drive, was manager of Loomis Car. He expressed concern regarding the amount of money that the proposed change will cost. He noted also the City did not do background checks for his business. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. - 5/22/78--7 3&'t In answer to a question from Mr. Delay, Ms. Swenson explained the applications expire at the end of the fiscal year. However, appli- cants would pay only the $25 renewal and $25 certification fee, if ~ applicable. .., Mr. Lieuallen expressed concern regarding the fines and penalties imposed and questioned Sergeant Olson as to how much of a problem there might be with individuals not carrying their ID cards. Sergeant Olson said the ordinance does place the responsibility on the indi- vidual to have his ID card on his person. If a person unknowingly' neglected to have an ID card with him, the recommendation probably would not be for suspension of a license. Intent of this section was directed to fraudulent use of ID cards. There is also a fine directed toward the agency in Section 3.317 of the new ordinance. Mr. Obie had not heard sufficient evidence of why the Police Depart- ment was proposing this amendment. Sergeant Olson said it was primar- ily to regulate the use of firearms to ensure proficiency and skills in their handling. He noted if a person did not want to take the LCC course, the Police Department would conduct the same certification standards and exam for qualifications. However, it was felt by the Police Department there was a need for some basic fundamental knowledge in the use and handling of guns and the applicable State statutes. He said it was promulgated by the lack of any State statutory control, noting Oregon is one of the few states that has no regulatory power regarding local private security police. He also noted there had been some shooting deaths in Portland, and Eugene wished to avoid such occurrences. Mr. Hamel felt the ordinance was definitely needed to provide safety for people who are carrying weapons. Mr. Collins reiterated he was not against the basic regulations regarding carrying firearms, but did not feel the rest of the ordi- nance to be reasonably fair. Regarding the licensing now, he said new personnel applications take about 30 days, with a cost of $50, and then cited the heavy turnover in personnel. He was concerned about the cost that would result. e C.B. 1684--Concerning merchant police; amending Sections 3.005, 3.010, 3.314, and 3.990 of Code, 1971; repealing Section 3.315; adding Sections 3.315, 3.316, 3.317, 3.318, and 3.319 to Code; and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. - 5/22/78--8 370 e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, 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, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18186. D. Public Works Bid Awards (attached) Don Allen, Public Works Director, reviewed for Council the bid awards, and recommended awarding to low bidders. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award to low bidders as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. II. Consideration of JHC Recommendations A. Request for funds to aid in construction of ISO-unit highrise for low-income elderly, sponsored by National Benevolent Association e Recommended by JHC May 12, 1978. Manager noted the request was for approval of $65,000 from general revenue sharing funds previously committed to housing in fiscal year 1976-77 and 77-78, as limited capital investment to aid in development of a 150-unit highrise located corner of 11th and Olive Street. Commercial space on the first floor, as well as community space, would be provided. A con- dition is attached that if the project is not completed, allocation will be returned to the City and not be used to defray any expenses. Groundbreaking is scheduled for June 11. He noted the project met criteria established by JHC and detailed in memo distributed to Council. Although the project is 100-percent tax exempt from pro- perty taxes, the total amount of property taxes exempted will be returned as a refund each year to taxing districts and distributed on a percentage basis. Eugene would receive $41,000 in 1977-78. The project would provide much needed downtown housing for low- income elderly. It was noted there were many who have indicated interest in living in the project, and there is little hope of any additional funding coming from HUD in the near future. A short recess was taken. Mr. Bradley arrived at the meeting. e 5/22178--9 311 Manager noted the County was being asked to provide $35,000 from their funds, and would do so contingent upon the City providing $65,000. e Mr. Haws wondered how critical the timing was, and wondered whether the forthcoming State measure/would make State funds available. Betty Niven, Chairman, JHC, said the issue of the election and State funds was irrelevant to this project, as it was being financed by HUD. Regarding the timing, she said the project had already been in the process for two years and would not be able to keep the bids after June 11. The request is being made because of inflation and the requirements by HUD, which create an either/or situation for this project to be completed. Don Jarmon, National Benevolent Association, said a June 5 closing date was the deadline, with construction to begin June 30. He said after that date, prices would be inflated and might make the project impossible. In answer to a question from Mr. Delay, Mrs. Niven said the City's participation was not contingent on Lane County's. She said the money was available and the project is very desirable. Lane County had definitely determined if the City makes a contribution, they will contribute $35,000. Clarence Townsend, 52 East 23rd, spoke against the proposal. His concern was that in going through the 1990 General Plan, there was no policy statement that only senior citizens should live in high- rise buildings. He wondered if future citizens would see such struc- .4It tures as a kind of special religion that only senior citizens can live in highrises. He read a statement from the Willamette Observer regarding the State measure. He felt it was peculiar for the City to have a policy which says people in the state institutions should be put in group homes that are small, but yet are building 150-unit high-rise complexes for the elderly. He wondered if his generation would have to tear down those highrise structures as this generation is tearing down state institutions. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve JHC recom- mendation and allocate $65,000 for the project. Mr. Delay hoped highrises would not be just those that serve special classes, but could be developed as high-density environment for all the city's citizens. He said this was not something to be built and forced on someone, but there was a demonstration there are persons in the community who want to live in such a building. To be successful in restoring the downtown area over time, he felt it would be extremely attractive and will integrate the elderly into the lifestyle that all ci ti zens now enj oy. - 5/22/78--10 372. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. - B. Recommendation to Fund Request from Lane County for Additional Home Repair Funds Recommended by JHC May 11, 1978. Manager said the request was for $6,000 from revenue sharing funds previously committed to housing, for lane County housing and energy program to carry the program outside CD areas for the period of late spring and early summer. There was an assurance that the households in greatest need of home repair affecting health and safety would be served first by addi- tional funding. Currently, there are 40 applicants in need outside the CD eligible areas. It is anticipated CD rules will change in early summer to allow city-wide home repair and/or additional funding, so this would be a one-time-only request. It was noted the program is the same one as based on income formula and the money is available. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to authorize funding of Lane County home repair as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. C. Recommendation re: Palace Hotel . Recommended by JHC May 11, 1978. Manager said the request was for Council to reaffirm its previously stated position made September 1977, to solicit public uses of the hotel. If no viable proposal for pUblic use was received, the City would allow Mr. Sorgenfri to sellon the open market, with outstanding loans to receive priority on the sale proceeds, and the City to receive second priority, and any excess to Sorgenfri. Details were in the JHC memo distributed to Council. Request is for written reaffirmation of the position to allow Sorgenfri to proceed with the sale. Manager noted the request includes requirements that the historic integrity of the building be maintained as it is eligible for historic grants, and that ample vacation notice be given to tenants. It was noted that Mr. Sorgenfri could sell to any party that wanted to buy. The proper notice to tenants would be considered 60 days. Mr. Hamel wondered who would authorize the amount for which the property could be sold. He wanted to make sure the City would receive back some of its investments. Manager noted the contract said, depending on the amount of sale, the City would receive second priority after the outstanding loans on the property were paid. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to reaffirm the contract clauses set forth in Section 21.2 having to do with allocations of sale proceeds. Motion carried unanimously. e 5/22/78--11 313 III. Systems Development Tax: Motion to Reconsider Regarding procedure, Manager explained Council's motion to reconsider, in ~ effect, suspends the action previously taken April 24, 1978. Thus, the ,.., ordinance is suspended and that suspension continues until motion to reconsider has been adopted or defeated. If the motion to reconsider is actually adopted, its effect is to place immediately before Council the question of approval and final passage; that is, the Council is placed in the exact position it occupied the moment before it voted originally. At that juncture, the Council has the perogative of reconsidering approval and final passage, postponing action indefinitely or to a certain time, amending the ordinance, tabling the ordinance, or any of the actions that it normally takes with respect to ordinances it is considering. If the Council fails to take action, the motion to reconsider will expire at the end of the month of June. In the meantime, the ordinance is suspended. If the motion is defeated, the underlying ordinance remains in effect. If the motion to reconsider is not adopted, staff would suggest con- sidering amending the ordinance through other proposals. Manager said the motion to reconsider was brought about by concerns of JHC and Councilor Obie who felt information being supplied by the banks and savings and loan institutions seemed to indicate that they would not allow the time payment provision to occur when making loans. It would have the effect of possibly raising the market value of homes, as well as other property in the housing market generally. If the motion to recon- sider is passed, one of the reasons staff is opposed to approaching the amendment process at this time is that the April 11 effective date would be ineffective. It would take one to one and one-half months, at a minimum, to complete passage of the ordinance and another effective date 4IIk would have to be considered. Thus, the ballooning effect of applications being submitted, such as happened with the panhandle lots when moratorium was declared. Manager then gave some arguments from staff's point of view against the passage of the motion to reconsider. He felt by passage of the ordinance and implementation for a six-month period of time, it would be easier for Council to consider how the ordinance needed to be amended through experience of it being in effect. He noted the concerns about the affect on the market value. He noted the one-percent impact on property sales price was probably a high estimate. Land values are going up and the systems development tax would not relate to land cost, but building permit values. Thus, in face of inflation, the charge becomes less than had been estimated. Also, it was felt that most buyers would elect to use a mortgage payment because that is the easiest route. The delay in implementation of the ordinance also raises questions as to whether or not the concurrent ordinance regarding street assessments should be recon- sidered. He noted budgeting for 1978-79 had been done based on these assessments being collected. Also, the machinery for collection has been established by the City. It was felt the tax to be the most equitable approach to take care of the growth needs of the city. Information from various banks and savings and loan institutions indicate a mixed response to the proposed tax. e 5/22/78--12 31~ ~ J e Regarding the amendments to be considered during the next few months by Council while the ordinance might be observed in operation, staff has preliminary figures regarding Mr. Obie's reques~ for exemption of the first $20,000 on residential property. Also, amendments could be addressed toward exemptions for the central area and urban renewal areas. This study is to be presented for Council consideration. Also, a study on the impact on housing costs and what further could be done about it would be forthcoming. Ms. Ni.ven said the memo from JHC indicates their concerns regarding the tax. She said some banks and savings and loan institutions have indicated even if the tax were a secondary position as a lien, it still might not be accepted. Thus, the City would have to collect the charge without recourse to a lien, but recourse to a penalty payment. She indicated JHC was not happy with the situation as it stands. Regarding the April 11 effective date for the ordinance, Manager said that date may have to be defended as an amendment process could take a lengthy time. Stan Long, City Attorney, said at some point that effective date would become unreasonable but he could not specify at what point. He said two months would probably be within a reasonable limit for consideration of amendments. e Mr. Obie said his motion to reconsider was for adjustments, not for defeating the tax. He thought Council had voted on the basis of the information presented, i.e., the feasibility of time payments. How- ever, it now seems obvious that that is not feasible and there are other things to consider such as reduction in maximum loan eligibility, lending institutions who might not set up a reserve for payment, and the time payment plan as presented is not workable. His motion for reconsideration was to allow a short period of time for altering the ordinance regarding the method of time payments to avoid additional up-front charges. His main concern was that in our society today, those who own property are the monied and the government. It is becoming less feasible for individuals to acquire property. He felt if the ordinance were going to be used, then it shoul d be impl emented in the most gentl e manner. Mr. Haws considered the issue a bunch of hot air. He said anything new to the system was often viewed as not being workable, and felt this might be the reason the banks and savings and loans were opposing it. He felt the attorney would be able to come up with creative ways for imple- mentation. He was going to oppose the motion because he had heard nothing valid for reconsideration. Mr. Delay's general inclination was to agree with Mr. Obie that there are other things that might be done to fine-tune the ordinance. How- ever when considering the front-end costs, he felt there was no way to avoid that problem. A certain amount of taxes are needed to accommodate the growth of the area and it was a question of who was going to pay for those. This ordinance would ask that 35 percent not be paid by capital funds and general taxes, but by those persons who are purchasing " 5/22/78--13 375 facilities that are creating the demand for this investment. He said it was consideration of an allocation of who will pay for the particular kinds of investments for growth in the city. He noted the cost of housing ~ is going up, and he felt there was no question that it was not by virtue .., of this kind of tax that inequities are being created in the housing market. He noted the purchase of many homes as investments and public policy programs that create that kind of situation. He would be suppor- tive of considering some of those concerns, but did not think that this particular tax is the problem. He would be in favor of looking at amendments if he thought it could be done in a short period of time. He favored the exemption as proposed by Mr. Obie, but said there was more research that needed to be done to establish the exempted dollar amount as it could have other affects on City policies, i.e., increasing single- family residences when multiple-family residences are needed. In summary, Mr. Delay felt the ordinance could probably be amended to be more workable, but he did not think there could be any resolution of the inevitable front-end costs. He did not think it could be done in 30-60 days. Vote was taken on the motion to reconsider which failed with Haws, lieuallen, Bradley, and Delay voting no; Hamel, Obie, and Smith voting aye. Mr. Delay requested that staff consider the questions that had been raised regarding the ordinance, and suggested perhaps Mr. Obie and other interested parties could work with staff in proposing various amendments. Manager noted that some time in June staff would be bringing to Council some studies regarding amendment suggestions. Mr. Lieuallen wondered what the experience of other jurisdictions had ~ been with such a tax. Don Gilman, Assistant Public Works Director, said experiments in Corvallis had shown that the tax was not recorded as a charge during the initial stage, the builders were bancrofting, and the homeowners were paying it off when they got their final home mortgage. It is considered a lien right from the start. He said it was found there was no way to get around the front-end charge. Manager noted staff could check with Cottage Grove, Florence, and perhaps Salem in their experiences with the tax. IV. Ordinances for Second Reading A. Hearings Panel Report May 15, 1978 (attached) Manager noted the appeal by Bruce Halverson from Zoning Board of Appeals was being carried over to the June 5 Hearings Panel meeting. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to accept hearings panel report dated May 15, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. . 5/22/78--14 31' e The following ordinances, read the first time May 8, 1978, and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing May 15, 1978, are returned for second and final reading, with Panel.s recommendation to levy assessments as proposed. C.B. 1668--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision; and sanitary sewer in area between Minnosota Street and West Irwin Way and between Barger Drive and Jessen Drive (1307) (77-3) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full . Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18187. C.B. 1669--Levying assessments for sidewalk 28th Avenue; Friendly Street to Chambers Street (1089) (77-05) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given fi nal passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18188. C.B. 1670--levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within Briarwood Subdivision; 1st Addition to Briarwood and 2nd Addition to Briarwood and sanitary sewer to serve the area 160 feet south and west of Briarwood 2nd Addition (1188, 1377 & 1378) (77-09) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18189. C.B. 1671--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within 1st Addition to Velkommen Park (1366) (77-13) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given 'final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18190. C.B. 1672--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Souza Park 2nd Addition (1352) (77-14) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. -- 5/22/78--15 317 Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye~ the bill was declared passed and numbered 18191. C.B. 1673--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Gillespie Butte Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within Lots 121 and 122, 1st Addition to Oakway Subdivision (1386) (77-22) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18192. C.B. 1674--Levying assessments for paving, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Concord Street from Hughes Street to Berntzen Street (1428) (77-24) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bi 11 was declared passed and numbered 18193. - C.B. 1675--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Panorama View III Subdivision; paving Shields Avenue from east boundary of Panorama View III to 60 feet east; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet west of Panorama View III (1387) (77-46) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. e Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given fi nal passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18194. C.B. 1676--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Candlelight Park 3rd Addition (1353) (77-50) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18195. C.B. 1677--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer; Norkenzie Road from Green Acres Road to Holly Avenue (1492) (77-54) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18196. 5/22/78--16 - 318 e v. Ordinances for First Reading C.B. 1685--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Universal Industrial Park 2nd Addition; and sanitary sewer to serve the areas within 160 feet of the subdivision boundaries; and paving 5th Avenue from east boundary of Universal Industrial Park 2nd Addition to 450 feet east (1350) (77-16) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for consider- ation June 5, 1978, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration and second reading June 12, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1686--levying assessments for sidewalk--Willamette Street from 34th to 40th (1053) (77-21) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for consider- ation June 5, 1978, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration and second reading June 12, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. e C.B. 1687--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Parkwood Subdivision (1356) (77-23) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for consider- ation June 5, 1978, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration and second reading June 12, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1688--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Oak Crest Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north boundary of Oak Crest Subdivision (1392) (77-27) was read by number only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for consider- ation June 5, 1978, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration and second reading June 12, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. - 5/22/78--17 37Cf C. B. 1689--Levying assessments for pavi ng, sanitary sewer, and stonn sewer within and adjacent to Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north, south, and east boundaries of Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision (1396) ~ (77-36) was read by number only, there being no Councilor .., present requesting it be read in full., Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the fi rst time and be referred to Heari ngs Panel for consi der- ation June 5, 1978, with Panel recommendation to be brought back for Council consideration and second reading June 12, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Resolutions Res. No. 2916--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period May 8 through May 22, 1978, was read by number and ti tl e. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Haws, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Approval of Minutes Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve Council minutes May 8, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimous 1 y. e Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to May 24, 1978. ~d~ City Manager DT:so/CM12b16 5/22/78--18 e 380 e DEPART~lliNT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 1. PAVING Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to 800 feet West. (Job No. 1490) Bid No. Opened: 4 Hay 16, 1978 Contract Cost Basic Alternate Bidders: 1. Wildish Construction CO.-----------------$ 53,414.02 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------__$ 0 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 0 $ 46,750.00 $ 51,767.65 $ 59,076.30 Co~~ to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted 36' Pav. $26.15/FF San.Lat. - North $4,300.00 (Trunk) - South $5,700.00 $16,000.00 $10,800.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1978 ----.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING, Sfu~ITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER & PEDESTRIfu~ WAY within and adjacent to Skywood Subdivision (Job No. 1458) e Contract Cost Basic Alternate Bidders: 1. Dan. D. Allsup Con~ractor, Inc.----------$ 2. Wi1dish Construction CO.-------------____$ 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------__$ 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------__$ 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 36' Pav. San.Lat. San.Serv. Stm. Swr. Ped.Way $33.70/FF or $2,880.00/Lot $l,370.00/Lot $385.00/Lot $860.00/Lot $195.00/Lot 0 $ 116,709.15 122,484.96 $ 117,670.41 0 $ 117,975.39 123,629.02 $ 123,208.22 139,643.50 $ 139,175.25 Cost to City Amount Budgeted 0 0 Gost to Abutting Property 'COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1978 -------.------------------------------------------~---------------------------1------------- . " L.. d i:" I:.... J b 'X .'1'[ I{ '\ 1 '11\" 'I "Ft ~ ~,. l...ji.... .lYt,,--:, :. e '. /~; ~ 7.~~ hI' I j'~ / ~~:~..1.:1t(; 7) , ~1 ~ ~ "'; . ~ i 381' " r. \" P;H'J' 1 of 1 3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWEij., STORM SE\.,rER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY within Seychelles t.Jest II Subdivision (Job No. 1359) Bidders: 1- 2. 3. 4. Wi1dish Construction Co.---------.---------$ H & J Construction------------------------$ Morse Bros. Contractors, lnc.-------------$ Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------$ Cost to Abutting PropeESY 28' Pav. 36' p;w. San.Lat. San.Serv. Stm. S:wr. Ped. Way $21. 60/FF $29.00/FF or $2,072.00/Lot $720.00/Lot $250.00/Lot $450.00/Lot $45.00/Lot Pav. Stm.Swr. COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1978 e Contract Cost Basic Alternate 327,113.19 o o o $ 321,440.18 $ 398,781.65 $ 403,759.16 $ 410,939.33 Cost to City Amount Budget~;d $8,200.00 $35,100.00 Pav. StmSwr. $10,200.00 $32,300.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. PAVING. SANITARY SEWER, STORM SE~fER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY to serve DorelIa p'ark Subdivision (Job No. 1420) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Al terna te l. 2. 3. 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.----------------$ Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------~---$ Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------$ Wi1dish Construction CO.------------------$ Cost to Abutting Property 28' Pav. San.Lat. San.Serv. Stm. Swr. Ped.Way $31.00/FF or $2,370.00/Lot $860.00/Lot $335.00/Lot ' $l,440.00/Lot $160.00/Lot e 82,280.49 o o 95,298.1/t $ 79,960.91 $ 85,401.47 $ 89,511.00 $ 90,789.97 Cost to City Amount Budgeted Stm.Swr. $6,500.00 COMPLETION DATE: August 11, 1978 $2,600.00 -------------------------------------.-----------------------------------------------------. 38Z -- }O Page 2 of 3 *. SANITARY SEWER on Hickory AvenlJe from St.;reet Gum to Garden Way (Job No. 448) Bidders: ----- Contract Cost: Amount Budgeted o ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e - 1. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------______$ 11,537.25 2. Norm Green & 80n8--------------_____________$ 12,362.50 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------_____$ 13,434.55 4. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction CO.---------$ 13,472.75 Cost to Abutting PropeE!l Cost to City 8an. Lat. San.Serv. $0.095/ Sq. Ft. $195.00/Each $9,500.00 Deferred Assess. COMPLETION DATE: July 7, 1978 313 Page 3 of 3 J.-\ MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MONDAY, MAY 15, 1978 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, EUGENE CITY HALL Members Present: Staff Present: Councilor Ray Bradley Councilor Scott Lieuallen Bernard Gilkison, Zoning Administrator Bert Teitzel, City Engineer The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Councilor Bradley. . 1. Appeal by Bruce M. Halvorsen from the March 30, 1978, decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a request for relief from Section 9.536(2) to allow a 60-foot amateur radio tower at 1710 West 34th Place. Mr. Bradley opened the hearing by asking if there were any ex parte communications or conflicts of interest among panel members. Mr. Lieuallen stated that he had received a call from a woman, but that he had told her he could not discuss the matter with her. He stated that she told him she ha~ been advised through a communication she had received to call one of the Councilors with her concerns in the matter. ~ Mr. Bradley called for testimony from the appellant. Bruce Halvorsen, 1710 West 34th Place spoke. He stated he felt the denial of the appeal would constitute a harrl~hip, as he had $5,000 invested in the radio station, and without the antenna, it would not work as it was designed. He stated that in order to use the equipment as it was meant to be used, he would have to move. Mr. Halvorsen further stated that the station was used primarily as a public service station for events such as the Scout-O-Rama and bike-a-thons. His radio repeater is available to all amateurs in the area and was used with teletype equipment during the recent simulated emergency. He stated that without the antenna, he cannot get a signal over the hill into the downtown areas. Mr. Halvorsen stated he does not believe the antenna is an eyesore, but rather it is a clean installation with the bulk of the antenna being out of eyesight. He stated he is interested in what he can do for the community with his equipment. Mr. Bradley asked him if everything being done now could be done with roof antennas. Mr. Halvorsen replied that it could not, as the signal could not get over the hill. Mr. Bradley asked him if a height short of 60 feet would get the signal over the hill. Mr. Halvorsen stated that this was pretty near the optimum height. 3'~ . }~ ~ e MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MAY 15, 1978 Page 2 No further testimony was offered in support of the appeal. Mr. Bradley called for testimony from those opposing the appeal. Mary Jo SChmaedick" 1742 West 34th Place. presented letters from people who wished to express an opinion, but could not be at the meeting. She also presented photographs of the instdllation. Ms. Schmaedick stated all houses on the street, except for the duplexes on the corner, are owner-occupied, and there is pride of ownership in the neighborhood. She stated that people care how their homes appear. She further stated ~he felt this would set a bad precedent to allow a renter to put the structure up. Therefore, she asked the panel to deny the appeal. She stated she call ed the City Council secretary and asked her who was on the panel, and the secretary gave her the names of Lieuallen and Haws, and told her she could talk to these Councilors regarding this matter. Marsha Moser, 1751 West 34th Place, stated she had bought a home in this area because of the view and because of underground wiring. She stated all owners take pride in their homes, and this is the only rooftop structure in the vicinity. She stated that this antenna does block the view. - Bill Moser, 1751 West 34th Place, stated that he agreed that amateur radio people do good work. However, he felt that when he purchased his home, it was purchased for aesthetics and investment. He stated the antenna is in his view range and it does not fit in with the surroundings. He further stated the Halvorsens are fine people, but he does not wish to look at this structure because it is aesthetically not appealing and could also detract from property value. Ron Schmaedick, 1742 West 34th, Place, stated his son is also interested in amateur radio, but he persuaded him that no antenna could be put up on the roof. He further stated he felt Mr. Halvorsen was doing a good thing with his equipment. However, he (Halvorsen) assured the Zoning Board of Appeals that his major antenna would take the place of all other antennas. Since that time, a small antenna had been installed on the roof in addition to the large antenna tower. He stated he felt the owner of the property (James Silke) had misled Mr. Halvorsen into thinking he could put up an antenna. He stated he felt there were no findings of fact to justify the appeal. Mr. Bradley questioned whether there were any deed restrictions covering this matter in this subdivision. - Mr. Schmaedick stated the deed covenants did not allow clotheslines, but made no mention of antennas. He felt the spirit of the covenants was pretty specific. 3f5 /-.) MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MAY 15, 1978 Page 3 e Mr. Bradley asked Mr. Halvorsen if he had any response to the opponents. Mr. Halvorsen stated that the small antenna was for testing and will come down soon. He further stated that as a tenant, he is landscaping the property to show good faith to the neighbors. He further stated there was a variance for an antenna which had been taken down in 1975. Mr. Bradley called for comments from the staff. Mr. Gilkison entered the following as exhibits: three photographs of the ~ntenna; memorandum of. May 15, 1978, with preliminary staff findings; memorandum of May 1, 1978. with procedures; letter from Mr. Halvorsen dated April 10. 1978, appealing the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals; minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals dated March 30. 1978; original appeal request filed March 9, 1978; letter from neighbors to ,Crest Drive Neighborhood Association dated February 27. 1978; letter from Crest Drive Association dated March 28, 1978; original staff report to Zoning Board of Appeals; notice of public hearing before Zoning Board of Appeals; notice of public hearing before the Hearings Panel and excerpts from City Code Sections 9.732 through 9.758 and Section 9.536. Mr. Giikison stated that the request was first heard on March 30, 1978, and after hearing proponents. opponents. and staff. a motion was made to approve the request. He further stated that two of three members present voted to allow the tower; one voted against. Because Section 9.742 requires three concurrent votes, the matter was denied. There were no further motions. He stated that Section 9.536 covers roof struc- tures and architectural features including antenna towers. allowing these features to be erected not more than 18 feet above the height of the building. He further stated the staff recommendation is based on Section 9.752, which sets forth criteria for evaluating variance requests. - Mr. Bradley stated he would like to have the opportunity to tour the property and see this antenna on-site and also have an opportunity to read the information which was presented today. He further stated that he would like to schedule the decision for a later date. e Mr. lieuallen moved to deny the appeal. Mr. Bradley stated he could not second that motion. Mr. lieuallen stated he felt the Code was quite specific and required affirmative findings on several counts, and no one had demonstrated that, and therefore the panel was not allowed to grant the variance. ~ 3" 1 ~ ~ ,- - MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MAY 15, 1978 Page 4 He further suggested that results of this hearing should be passed on to the Council. t4r. Bradley moved to tour the area in a 'fleek and report back on June 5 for a decision. The motion was not seconded. 2. Levying assessments for public improvement projects. C.B. 1668--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision; and sanitary sewer in area between t1innesota Street and West Irwin Way and between Barger Drive and Jessen Drive (1307--77-03) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1669--levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Seychelles West Subdivision; and sanitary sewer in area between Minnesota Street and West Irwin Uay;and between Barger Drive and Jessen Drive (1089--77-05) e No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1670--levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer within Briarwood Subdivision; 1st Addition to Briarwood and 2nd Addition to Briarwood and sanitary sewer to serve the area 160' south and west of Briarwood 2nd Addition (1188, 1377 & 1378--77-09) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1671--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Fir'st Addition to Velkommen Par'k (1369--77-13) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1672--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewers and pedestrian way within Souza Park 2nd Addition (1352--77-l4) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. l673--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Gillespie Butter Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within lots 121 and 122, First Addition to Oakway Subdivision (1386--77-22) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. l674--Levy'ing assessments for paving, storm sewer and sidewalk on Concord Street from Hughes Street to Berntzen Street (1428--77-24) - No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. 381 ).s ,~ MINUTES COUNCIL HEARINGS PANEL MAY 15, 1978 Page 5 e C.B. 1675--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Panorama View III Subdivision, paving Shields Avenue from east boundary of Panorama View JII to 60 feet east; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet west of Panorama View III (1387--77-46) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1676--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Candlelight Park 3rd Addition (1353--77-50) No letters of protest or requests to be heard were received. C.B. 1677--levying assessments for sanitary sewer; Norkenzie Road from Green Acres Road to Holly Avenue (1492--77-54) No letters of protest or requests to be heard'were received. Mr. Teitzel stated that although there were no requests to be heard before the panel on any of the assessment projects, there were apparently people in the audience who wished to be heard. Mr. Bradley called for testimony from the audience in this matter. Terry Coss of 2032 Greiner Street spoke, stating that he owned property at 4851 Avalon Street and had received an assessment on Project No. 77-09, Briarwood Subdivision. He stated that when he had purchased the property the builder had assured him that all assessments had been paid. He stated he was at the hearing to find out if there had been a mistake. Mr. Teitzel stated that the assessment was within the subdivision and if the lot was sold with representation that the assessments were paid it should be taken up with the person who sold the lot to him. Mr. Teitze1 further stated that the City is required by law to make the assessment against the current owner of the property. ' Mr. lieuallen stated he was not an expert, but he felt the matter should be taken up with the title insurance company or with the prior owner of the home. He stated that he felt the City had not been remiss in this matter. It was moved by Mr. lieual1en and seconded by Mr. Bradley to recommend that the assessments on C.B. 1668 to 1677 be levied as proposed. e - ," ~~