Laserfiche WebLink
<br />V.fJ ' <br />( . <br />~ <br /> <br />Hershner also questioned the apparent inconsistency and asked about the status' of <br />arterials in the Willakenzie area, Planning Director said the Planning Commission <br />recognized the inconsistency in its action, but it is the result of the Commission's <br />not liking the original designation of Norkenzie Road as an ar~erial and asked the <br />staff to review procedures to allow greater densities on that street. <br /> <br />It was agreed to include referral of this item to a joint session of the Planning <br />Commission and Council in the original motion, making it read: <br /> <br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to uphold the Planning Commission <br />recommendation to deny Items 1 and 2, and refer Item 3 to joint session <br />of the Planning Commission and Council. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />E. Bid Opening, Public Works <br /> <br />Project and Bidder <br />Paving and Storm Sewer <br />Brewer Avenue from Gilham <br />Road to Norkenzie Road <br />Devereaux & Pratt, Inc. <br />Benge Paving, Inc. <br />Eugene Sand & Gravel Co. <br />Wildish Construction Co. <br /> <br />Projects, Opened March <br /> <br />Contract Cost <br />Basic Alternate <br /> <br />21, 1972 <br /> <br />Cost to <br />Abutting Property <br /> <br />Cost to <br />City <br /> <br />Amount <br />Budgeted <br /> <br />$24,024.57 <br />24,190.09 <br />24 , 36 8. 80 <br />24,451. 55 <br /> <br />$23,622.64 <br />24,132.00 <br />24,283.20 <br />24,421. 25 <br /> <br />36' Pvg $13.86/ $ 909.25 <br />Fr.Ft. <br />Direct Stm $984.38 <br />Completion Date: September <br /> <br />15, 1972 <br /> <br />,fj <br /> <br />Storm Sewer <br />In area between 16th and <br />17th Avenue between Olive <br />and Willamette <br />Shur-Way Contractors <br />Kenneth R. Bostick Const. <br />Wildish Construction Co. <br /> <br />$ 2,107.20 <br />2,132.00 <br />3,130.00 <br /> <br />$2,107.20 $3,200.00 <br />(Engr.Est. <br />$2,000.00) <br />Completion Date: July 1, 1972 <br /> <br />Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to award contracts to the low and <br />alternate low bidders as noted on each project. <br /> <br />Councilman Hershner asked about the $909.25 cost to the City on Item 1. Public Works <br />Director explained it as the City's expense for intersection portion of the project. <br /> <br />Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all coUncil- <br />men present voting aye. <br /> <br />II - Items Considered With One Motion. Previously discussed at committee meeting on <br />March 15, 1972. Minutes of that meeting'> appear below printed in i tali cs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A. Fire Fighters Contract - Manager distributed copies and read a memo from the Per- <br />sonnel Director concerning result of arbitration on the contract with the Inter- <br />national Association of Fire Fighters, Local 851. He recommended permission to <br />sign the contract (for period ending June 30, 1973) be granted. <br /> <br />Councilman Williams asked wi th reference to the statement "Union membership <br />will be a condition of employment only for those who have voluntarily become <br />members" whether a member is obligated to remain a member or will no longer be <br />permi tted to work for the fire department if he wi thdraws. Manager said there <br />is a two-week period once a year in which a member may withdraw. <br /> <br />Councilman Mohr asked the Manager's iIflpression of the "final offers" system of <br />arbitration. Manager 'said some problems experienced in the whole process may <br />not be attributable to the "filial offers" procedure. Staff has some qualms <br />about the City's paying all of the costs of arbitration in that it may remove <br />motivation for bargaining in good faith. He said the procedure has created a <br />good deal of interest nationwide. It was noted that Senator Packwood has <br />written this procedure into a bill he has introduced on transportation, and <br />that the arbi ters themselves do not care too much about not being able to nego- <br />tiate. Further, that there seems to be no way of being sure that the final <br />offers have anything to do with disputes unresolved during negotiations. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the contract with the Fire <br />Fighters be signed. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Comm <br />3/15/72 <br />Approve <br /> <br />B. Ridgeline Park and Reactivation of Joint Parks Conmrittee - Planning COnmllssion <br />Report February 28, 1972 - Planning COnmllssion recommended approval of a Ridge- <br />line Park proposal and reactivation of the Joint Parks COnmll ttee to develop <br />physical and economic feasibilities for the proposal. Public hearing before <br />the Planning COnmllssion has been set for April 11, 1972 (Resolution 2026 adopted <br />b.y Counc:i,l on Mqrch l3r 1972) to cQntiider "interi,..m densit':! l:i..mi.tation" on hillside <br />ti1ope!;i of 15% or lIDre for a one-year '/8 period. <br /> <br />3(27/72 - 4 <br />