|
<br />,...--
<br />
<br />647
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />4/12/71
<br />
<br />I
<br />Ii
<br />I:
<br />
<br />4, Within Sheldon Parkside PUD
<br />Wildish Const. Co.
<br />D &, D.Backhoe
<br />Shur-Way Contractors
<br />D-A-Tone Const. Co.
<br />Kenneth R. Bostick
<br />Devereaux &, Pratt
<br />
<br />7 ,92 3 . 40
<br />9,557,32
<br />77,995.07
<br />8,649.00
<br />7,433.20
<br />8,905.00
<br />
<br />6,576.00
<br />7 ,0 47 . 40
<br />7,828.75
<br />7,893.00
<br />No bid
<br />No bid
<br />
<br />Stm. Swr4,877.29
<br />~clevy 2,233.45
<br />
<br />2~674.17 2,940.00
<br />(proposed
<br />71-72 budj)
<br />
<br />ii
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />\:
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />COMPLETION DATE: July 1, 1971
<br />
<br />Public Works Director'recommended that bids be award to lowest bidder in all. cases except
<br />Number 3. He recommended that action be withheld on this bid and held for later consideration,
<br />
<br />Mr, Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that contracts be awarded on Items 1, 2 and 4 and that
<br />action be withheld on Item 3.
<br />
<br />Mr. Leigh Iverson, representing Breeden Bros. , circulated copies of Saratoga Plat to Council-
<br />men and explained the 'problems which would be caused to their proposed Edgewood Addition Plat
<br />by placement of the sewer line. He explained proposed streets in their plat, and how they
<br />intended to make sewer connections. He did not feel their proposal would hold up development
<br />of Saratoga Park.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Public Works Director said these changes could be made, and this pipe could be deleted, if
<br />that was Breeden Bros, wish. His staff will check, and if it is feasible, the changes will be
<br />made.
<br />
<br />Mr, Teague added an amendment to his motion to authorize staff to delete a portion of construc-
<br />tion in Street "A" if alternate methods of providing service on Street "B" can be worked out.
<br />Mr. Mohr seconded. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />IV, Planning Commission Reports, March 2, 1971
<br />A, Rezoning from RA to R-2 PD, (Noble Chowning' and Frank Swartz) ..
<br />Located on the east side of Coburg Road between Willakenzie Road and Bailey Lane
<br />
<br />,
<br />I'
<br />
<br />C.B. 9387 - Rezone from RA to R-2PD property located on the east side of
<br />Coburg Road between Willakenzie Road and Bailey Lane.
<br />
<br />This ordinance was tabled in 1969 for approval of a planned unit development. Planning
<br />Commission now recommends adoption.
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be read tHe second time by council
<br />bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
<br />at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the biil was read the second time.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />Mr, Teague moved seconded by Mr, Mohr that the bill~be approved and given final passage.
<br />Rollcall vote, All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
<br />numbered 16198,
<br />
<br />B. Eugene-Springfield Mass Transit Study Report
<br />Planning Commission recommended approval with the following comments:
<br />1, The Transit Study Report represents a sound basis upon which to initiate a public
<br />mass transit system. However, further studies are necessary to integrate transit
<br />into the long-range, balanced transportation planning process and to develop more
<br />precise transit system operational plans.
<br />2, Economic self-sufficiency should not be a priority objective for the transit system.
<br />3, The Transit Study Report should be referred to the E-SATS committee for review and
<br />comment prior to adoption by Lane Council of Governments in the interest of furthering
<br />the long-range, balanced transportation planning process.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />The City Manager said that Councilman Williams had expressed some concern about the para-
<br />graph relating to economic self-sufficiency.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />i
<br />"
<br />I,
<br />;1
<br />
<br />I:
<br />
<br />Mayor Anderson felt this paragraph could be worded to infer that we should move toward
<br />self-sufficiency, if possible.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr suggested the wording might be turned around to stress public service. At.
<br />a later time the need for economic self-sufficiency should be recognized.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell thought one of the points for leaving the paragraph as it is would be public
<br />realization that transit systems are not self-supporting. They are subsidized throughout
<br />the United States.
<br />
<br />ii
<br />1
<br />I'
<br />I.
<br />
<br />Mr. James Pearson, Planning Commission member, explained that this recommendation had
<br />originated with the coordinating committee composed of members of the Eugene, Springfield
<br />and Lane County Plannigg Commissions, and that he is a member of that committee. The
<br />words were chosen with care. These recommendations were made to each Commission for
<br />adoption by each of them. The Committee felt as a body that economic self-sufficiency was
<br />an illusion, and if it was to be supportive, the purpose would be defeated. It is not
<br />possible to strive for a successful, viable mass transit system and expect it to be
<br />self-sufficient.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />;
<br />i ~
<br />
<br />"
<br />,\
<br />j:
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal said she would be against amendment of the recommendations,
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />,Councilman Teague felt it was possible for some mass transit systems to do a good job and
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />4/12/71 - 4
<br />
|