|
<br />p^'n:~';r.;'CDr~T.!,~lMl W'\~~,-r...MI.I!.^n{ r.1~H.~:n At!~' SToB!:,__:~I':!!'~Il-, . ,
<br />2". .," .,t l'aul ~ l'ark ~uLdlvlulall; :;atrc :;tr~ct teuw Wcotern '",'F,.:
<br />;d, u to 150 ft. Gouth of BoUey Lone, and W~atctn Drive ~ :.1;:,y .
<br />b~ 2.;'0 It. "~at of Satre St. to 250 ft. coot of lIaverly: .^J:' ';..
<br />St., San. SC"'9' an,1 otolla DOliceD in area Lel"'",," 160 ft. '.:.
<br />. ,')u,h oC l,cuto~'n Dr.1vu alld 1:;0 ft..aouth 01 Dailey Lune. ",'
<br />, !r.o,.j 160 ft. went af Satre St. to 160 ft. ooot of I/ovorly ::. :;'
<br />I ~l..,:ct (tf extended) (85J,6lJJ) '. . . .: '
<br />\ . , '"
<br />PROPOSAL NO.1 .';<"-"1'J';,'
<br />.!!.~ AI,TERNATE '\:':~;.,:.Y' ,;.
<br />--- ,"'r./.I',f"l
<br />l.. \/lldluh Construction Comf'ony.........$ 87,J18 55. $ 82 674 65 .: . .... . :;':y , ;,".~1' (
<br />, :1. ~ug~lIu Bond' Crave! Com'.any.........llo DId . ...~ 0<'702.JO..'..,",...,.,..SJ6 1pRv.......$$ 15.41 fr/Ct........StOl'1ll $36.894.00....,$6.'9,.810.00
<br />3 . ........... J, . tm. cr Lot.. 977.27 'v'''' , "., ,~
<br />Deveroaux' Pratt....................$1l1,707.00....$106 298.15 . 1 S "d I....,... ,. ".
<br />f n Uu. " so.. '.
<br />
<br />I l'Il01'0SAL /10. 2 ~, K"r~. t '. '.:)
<br />. . BASIC AI.TERMAn: i';:~>'" ! "
<br />1. \/lldlnh ConDtructton Coml'any...... $23 '52 95 '''T2-0l920 .;: :.... ':'.
<br />2. r;ugcno Sand & Crovol Corny.4ny....'..::\,o n:d' .....$~26.19'J.80............11....,S20' ruv...."'.$ 12.80 fr/ft........Stolta $ 3.194.00 \',.'~....'<~:,' ~P:."
<br />, .... "" ......... · t ttu. Per Lot..$499.06 "":'J'k:~"" '
<br />J. lH..vcrr.Aux' Prott.........~..........$29.32/..SS.....$27.87G.3.5 in Subc1. ',:';"','" "
<br />~,.,;!~~. :..
<br />PROPOSAL NO. 3 ~ '.' :.;~
<br />~g, . AI.TERt/ATE . .~ ",' '
<br />, ,- ~~.
<br />1. ,lUdhh Construction Comp~,"Y".......072,/'57.4S. 069 137 15'. , ." '; (,7"
<br />. 2, tuson~ Sand' Crave1 Company No Bid -' ...$68.S'4.90..'....~.,........28, [av.......O 12.09 lr/tt....,...Storm $ 8,458.00
<br />i I .,......., .......:.. .. . 36 cav.......$ 15.41 fr/ft , __'_
<br />. tlavOUlIUX' Prntt.....................$84.0S2.61.....$79.851.6S Lat $325 07 ,~.;.." 0',
<br />' .. ... . .. . . . . "\ .
<br />. Sorv......... .$170.18 1,,;)(:,:'. '. . 1) .~l
<br />Pod. Way,.....$ 1/..40 ' "'t
<br />Stm. Por Lot..$541.24
<br />. . . . .. . in Subd.' .C'" .
<br />. " ~. "~' ',' '~';": _ "i' .-. j
<br />. ,; :~.;.. ..,. - 0.__ . _ _',__ CO.U'LET!EN DATE I O~tobcr ,1, ~92J .- , '..
<br />
<br />
<br />Rec.ommended award on low alternate bid price on Proposal N.o. 1 (paving Satre Street only,
<br />100% petition), low alternate bid price on Proposal 'No. 2 (paving Western Drive only, 50%
<br />::,. petition), and to Wildish Construction on sec.ond low alternate bid price .on Proposal No.3
<br />".";'" (paving streets within the subdivision, 100% petition). ,.i_
<br />,,' '.'
<br />'.' I ~ ,~'
<br />
<br />Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. ".. ,':; '".
<br />
<br />Councilman Hershner asked about award on Proposal No.3 and it was verified that therecom-
<br />mendation f.or award to Wildish was to allow the entire project to be accomplished by the
<br />one contractor. Councilwoman Campbell asked why Wildish Construction was the low bidder on
<br />so many of the projects. Manager said their method .of calculation was not known, specifica-
<br />tions issued to contractors were identical.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams t.o award contract to Wildish Constructi.on
<br />.on all three proposals. Rollcall vote. M.otion carried, all c.ouncilmen present
<br />voting aye.
<br />
<br />II - Consent Calendar
<br />Items previously discussed at Committee meeting on June 20, 1973. Minutes of that meet- '.\
<br />ing appear below printed in italics.
<br />
<br />A. ~nclusion of Historical Criterion in Land Use and Planning Processes - Copies of
<br />a paper entitled Historical Judgment As A Planning Tool, prepared by Council
<br />1:-. :members Murray and Campbelj..,.were distributed. Mr. Murray read the paper which
<br />, ' ! recorrunended appointment of a special commi ttee - three Council members, and .
<br />; three. lay people with special knowledge and expertise in the fields of architecture, \
<br />'local;' history, and real estate - to bring a recorrunendation to the Council for in-
<br />,cluslon of historical criterion in land use and planning processes. The special
<br />'co~ittee should consider (1) use of historical judgment by other cities; (2) defini-
<br />,tion 'of the term "historical" for use in land use and planning processes; (3) ex-
<br />ploration of ways of exercising historical judgment including but not. limited to
<br />'the addition of historical criterion.to the zoning ordinance, establishment of a
<br />.lis,t<of historical buildings and landniarks recorrunended for preservation, and
<br />designation of one or more historical neighborhoods in which only badly deteriorated :
<br />buildings could be destroyed and in which new building or remodeling must be com- !
<br />,pat'ible with prevailing architecture of the area; and (4) exploration of possi- ;
<br />;bf'i,ity for State and Federal assistance. :
<br />;';,- <- ~,
<br />iMr'.;~urray 'moved seconded by Mrs. Beal tha t the corruni ttee be appointed as recorrunended.
<br />i '.' ,
<br />\,\, .
<br />:Councilwoman Campbell noted past presentations with regard tO'preservation of
<br />i'historical buildings with no follow through. She felt some present day con-
<br />. str'uction, although of irrunediate commercial. value, would not be of lasting ,
<br />,significance. She mentioned a list of historical buildings prepared by the
<br />.~ ; Lane County Historical Society and thought it should be in the hands of the Re-
<br />newal Agency, Planning Commission, and the Council to give a basis for decisions
<br />when new deveLopment is being considered.
<br />I
<br />- ;CoEncilman Williams had no objection to appointment of a committee but e~pressed I
<br />Iconcern~about the recommended third charge. .He thought the committee should ad- k
<br />idress' itself to the issu~ of whether historical" criterion should be a part of "
<br />;land use and planning processes and to the mechiiU]ism to be used in determining!",;>
<br />iwh,ich buildings, areas, landmarks were to be designated of historical value.,.(
<br />(~~!felt that would be better than having one report from the corrunittee stating i
<br />specif~c buildings, sites, areas.
<br />
<br />~I' 6/25/73 - 11
<br />
|