|
<br />e
<br />
<br />- -.. -- .
<br />..----- --- ~~-
<br />
<br />-, -_c-,T_c
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />~....~ cc
<br />11
<br />"
<br />"
<br />"
<br />'I
<br />I'
<br />
<br />;1
<br />11
<br />:1
<br />1'1
<br />:i
<br />I'
<br />;1
<br />!
<br />
<br />00
<br />~li
<br />"'~r
<br />C)
<br />,'""','""'I
<br />........"
<br />CO
<br />
<br />,~ ,
<br />"
<br />.,
<br />
<br />,I
<br />i,i
<br />1:1
<br />I
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />.i
<br />i
<br />I
<br />,
<br />,I
<br />~ I
<br />:1
<br />'I
<br />,
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />,,I
<br />".1
<br />'il
<br />
<br /> 2 ~ ;
<br /> :.1
<br /> "
<br /> 'I
<br /> 'I
<br /> :!
<br /> Ii
<br /> "
<br /> :1
<br /> ,
<br /> "
<br /> 3 'I
<br /> 'i
<br /> ."
<br /> ,
<br /> ;1
<br /> "
<br /> ~:
<br /> ~ 1
<br /> ;1
<br /> I
<br /> tl
<br /> lj
<br /> "
<br /> '.;
<br />I \'1
<br /> ,;
<br /> Ii
<br /> ::
<br /> I,
<br /> 'I
<br /> ,
<br /> I'
<br /> 1
<br /> 4 :.1
<br />e
<br />
<br />q
<br />;:
<br />~!
<br />
<br />it
<br />.,
<br />,
<br />'~ !
<br />
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />'I
<br />II
<br />i'l
<br />
<br />:1
<br />fl
<br />:1
<br />"
<br />'.,
<br />,I
<br />'I
<br />:1
<br />'1
<br />5 :1
<br />'1
<br />I:
<br />i;
<br />;1
<br />:1
<br />,!
<br />J
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />\1
<br />f!
<br />~;
<br />
<br />~.) t:
<br />kid
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />5/11/59_-"
<br />
<br />--'-~~--
<br />
<br />1""'::-
<br />
<br />BE REQUESTED TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS AT ONCE WiTH THE EUGENE fRUIT GROWERS
<br />ASSOCIATION CITING THE SEASONAL 'PROBLEM OF SEWAGE VOLUME AS WELL AS THE
<br />BACTERIA COUNT AND REQUEST THAT THE EUGENE fRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION PREPARE
<br />SOME SORT OF A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF BEING ON THE
<br />fRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION.
<br />
<br />II
<br />II
<br />ii
<br />:\
<br />II
<br />I)
<br />il
<br />II
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />I
<br />:1
<br />I
<br />I
<br />\
<br />I
<br />,
<br />
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />,I
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />I
<br />II
<br />II
<br />II
<br />II
<br />11
<br />!I
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />11
<br />I,
<br />II
<br />I!
<br />"
<br />:I
<br />11
<br />i
<br />i
<br />I
<br />:1
<br />II
<br />il
<br />11
<br />II
<br />II
<br />,I
<br />Ii
<br />"
<br />II
<br />II
<br />II
<br />'I
<br />11
<br />II
<br />II
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />II
<br />II
<br />
<br />il
<br />,[
<br />II
<br />II
<br />:1
<br />I'
<br />,[
<br />I,
<br />ii
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 23 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />24. CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN WATER USERS CHARGE - MAYOR CONE SUGGESTED THAT
<br />IT IS APPARENT THE CITY OF EUGENE NEEDS ADDITIONAL REVENUES TO PROVIDE AN
<br />ADEQUATE SEWER SYSTEM AND THAT TO PROVIDE SUCH REVENUES MIGHT REQUIRE A
<br />MILLAGE LEVY UP TO 10 MILLS. HE ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL WATER
<br />USERS CHARGE BE DOUBLED, THAT A STUDY BE MADE OF THOSE FIRMS AND INDUSTRIES
<br />WHO PUMP WATER FROM PRIVATE SOURCES INTO THE SEWER LINES, AND THAT SOME CON-
<br />SIDERATION BE GIVEN TO ESTABLISHING A HIGHER WATER USERS RATE FOR THOSE AREAS
<br />OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS WHO RECEIVE CITY WATER. SOME CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION
<br />WAS GIVEN TO THESE IDEAS AS WELL AS OTHER COMPARABLE IDEAS, AND IT WAS RECOM-
<br />MENDED TH~T THE CITY MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS BE INSTRUCTED TO
<br />ST-UDY THE WATER USER fEES WITH THE IDEA OF DOUBLING THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
<br />IN-CITY fEE, OF RAISING THE PER-METER FEE FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE CITY RECEIV-
<br />ING CITY WATER FROM AN APPROXIMATE 25~ TO $1.00 PER METER, AND BRINGING THE
<br />COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USERS TO A HIGHER RATE BASED ON SOME EQUITABLE
<br />BASIS fOR SUCH USERS, AND THAT A RECOMMENDATION BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 24 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT BE
<br />APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />25. CONSIDERATION Of SEWER CHARGE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON - SOME DISCUSSION
<br />WAS ALSO GIV~N TO AN INCREASE IN THE SEWER CHARGES FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF
<br />OREGON. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS ITEM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE DIS-
<br />CUSSION FOR STUDY OF THE WATER USER RATE AND NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN.
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED' By-MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 25 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />26. DISCUSSION OF MILLAGE LEVY FOR SEWER PROBLEM - SOME DISCUSSION WAS ALSO HAD
<br />AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A MILLAGE LEVY FOR THE SEWER PROGRAM. No ACTION
<br />ON THIS SUBJECT WAS TAKEN."
<br />
<br />IT WAS MOVED BY MR. SHEARER SECONDED BY MRS. LAURIS THAT ITEM 26 OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
<br />BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED.
<br />
<br />A REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON MAY 8, 1959 WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS fOLLOWS:
<br />
<br />"PRESENTi MAYOR CONE; COUNCILMEN SHEARER, LAURIS, MOLHOLM, MCGAFfEY, CHATT,-Mo~ER
<br />AND WILSON; CITY MANAGER; CITY RECORDER; CITY ATTORNEY; fiRE CHIEf;
<br />DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS; ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT; fRED BRENNE, EUGENE
<br />CHAMBER Of COMMERCE; MR. OLIVER, GAMEWELL CORPORATION; DONN BONHAM AND
<br />RALPH OLIVE, EUGENE REGISTER-GUARD.
<br />
<br />I. CONSIDERATION OF BIOS ON VARIOUS PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS - A TABULA-
<br />TION SHEET SHOWING BIOS RECEIVED ON FIVE STREET PAVING PROJECTS, ONE ALLEY
<br />PAVING PROJECT, AN~ ONE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT WAS GIVEN TO THE COMMITTEE. THE
<br />DIRECTOR Of PUBLIC WORKS ExpLAINED THAT BIDS HAD BEEN CALLED ON TWO DIFFERENT
<br />TYPES OF SPECIFICATIONS, ONE INCLUDING A CRUSHED ROCK BASE AND THE OTHER IN-
<br />CLUDING A BAR RUN BASE, SINCE IT IS DIFFICULT AND IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY
<br />MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN THE PROPER MATERIALS fOR THE BAR RUN BASE WHICH HAS
<br />BEEN USED IN PREVIOUS YEARS. SOME DISCUSSION WAS ALSO GIVEN TO THE PRICE PER
<br />FOOT ON THE ALLEY PAVING PROJECT AND THE PRICE PER fOOT ON ONE OF THE STREET
<br />PAVING PROJECTS.
<br />
<br />IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BIDS RECEIVED ON THE 30TH AVENUE FROM CHA~ELTON
<br />TO LINCOLN STREET PROJECT AND THE ALLEY PAVING BETWEEN BROADWAY AND 10TH AVENUE
<br />FROM WASHINGTON TO JEFfERSON STREET PROJECT BE REJECTED AND READVERTISED, AND
<br />THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE STREET PAVING-PROJECTS BE AWARDED TO THE LOW B1DDER.'
<br />IT WAS THEN RECOMMENDED THAT THE LOW BID ON THE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT BE
<br />ACCEPTED.
<br />
<br />ACTION ON AWARDING OF CONTRACTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WAS TAKEN UNDER "BIOS" EARLIER
<br />IN THE MEETING.
<br />
<br />2. CONSIDERATION Of BIDS ON FIRE ALARM BOXES AND EQUIPMENT - A TABULATION SHEET
<br />ON EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO EXTEND THE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, INDICATING TWO BIDDERS
<br />BIDDING ON TWO CIRCUIT CONTROL PANELS, 34 FIRE ALARM BOXES, 30 BOX BRACKETS, ,
<br />34 GROUNDING ASSEMBLIES, ONE GONG AND ONE RECORDING SET, WAS PRESENTED fOR
<br />THE COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT BIDS HAD BEEN RECEIVED
<br />
<br />fROM THE GAMEWELL COMPANY, THE MANUfACTURER OF THE SYSTEM CURRENTLY IN USE IN
<br />
<br />,
<br />~
<br />
|