Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1968 Meeting "..- " , 474 ~ I 12/19/68 - _.. h. _ CC.C ~_. .-----.-.._..,-=-'~_=_., _~ ------,-0.- .--,~ -0-..-, -- _7- -c:- - u.~,-,~~ ".._._-~ ---- -- - - ,. ... ---- - - - ~ - --- -- - I - -' -- .-. ~ - .-...- - -- ..---- - --- -- - - - - r- .- I I ,Council. Chamber i ".' ..- . ;.., Eugene, Oregon ,~ , ( . Dec.e~be+ .19,1998 I Adjourned meeting of .the Corrnnon Council of. the c.ity of Eugen~', Oregon -',adjourned .fr:om,th~,'me.eting. held 'December 9, 1968.,.. was called to order.by Counci.l, presiden,t Lester E.:Anderson. at 7.:-30; p','m.:on December 19.,' 196~,in. the Council Chamber with the' followingot,her..councilmen present:.' ~:s'.: (~auri~, Dr. Purdy, Mr: Lassen, Mrs. Hayward, and Me.s~rs. :Wingard and) Teague.: 'Mr. McDo_nald':was.~bsen~. Mayor Cone arrived later in the meeting. . (-, .. 1 Public Hearing, Eugene Renewal Agency - Council President Anderson turned the ~eeting' :c:>ver I to Eugene Renewal Agency Chairman Frank Shearer for presentation of the Central Eugene I Project .Plan'. Mr. .Shearer said the Plan' was accepted by the' :Department. of: Houping and.' Urban Development,. that only $37.0,-000.:00 .of-the -$4~.o, eoo'~ OOpl?nning~and survey funds was. used, and that completion of this phase and approval by the Council moves .the ProJect: t?' II the execution stage. . . .' , . I Mr. David H1,1ut, director for the. Ren~w:al, Agency; :gav~. a. s'lide presentation. of, the downtow~ . ~rea involved in ther proposed :,project and, re?d the legal .descriptipn.of ,the preject boundary.' Mr. Theron Rust, assistant director, corrnnented on the status of buildings in the project area, giving st~tistical ,c;:1ata on. s!:ructl,lralco,ndi.t~ons.'.and', .criteF.ia f?r 'determining.c;:1e- terioration. Fire Chief E. L. Smith reported on condition of buildings in the project area ,from the viewpoint of.fi~e prev:en,ti~m.. :He ~a.id buildiJ;lgs-in tpe.dowljltown core. areaar.e~ suh- I . standard and do not meet the public need :under today'-s 'sqmda:r:ds, -.and.that -r:emov,al,,~ill sub- stantially benefit the City's rating for fire insurance purposes. I I- .. . - " . , I _' _ ~. J . superintendent ofbui~lciii1g inspection. for the ci.ty, commented on f.ind-' ' ~ Mr. Emile Mortier, I I ings of the Building Department in inspecting buildings in the core area. He said re~ul~s of I ," I a preliminary building department survey were substantiated by a survey made by a firm of I consulting.engi~eer.s, based, on.th~ ,City.ls. codes and. con;tained.in :the'P17oject plan under ,dis-. I cuss ion. The project area boundaries are entirely within Fire Zone 1 calling for higher cori~truction standards than in the balance of the City which makes practicality of remodel- \' ingimpossible'. ' H.e said .there ,is noth:ing in the' project' plan' rela.ted to Eugene's code and I! ordinances wlii,ch' sets, d:ifferent standards than has been in. ex.ist~nce.: in .the City,. - .. I' I Mr. Hunt reviewed the Plan, statipg objectives, and describing proposed land use provisions I and limitations, parking requirements, signs, design criteria, land acquisition, clearance I and redevelopment, etc. He said the Plan conforms with the City's Comprehensive General I I Plan, and he touched on some detail of proposed improvements such as resurfacing of streets, \ .- I landscaping, sidewalks, overpasses for pedestrians, traffic signals, fire alarm system, I water lines, hydrants, sewers. I p I Mr. Rust presented the program proposed for relocation of residential and business uses displaced in execution of the Project. Mr. Hunt explained tax increment financing and reviewed reports from financial consultants giving assessed value in the downtown area, j I tax rates, and projections. He said the Agency feels there would be a substantial decrease I in the tax rate if activity is not increased in the downtown area. I Mr. Shearer then asked the Council's approval of the Plan as submitted to allow the execu- , I . I tion phase of ~he Project to corrnnence. Mr. Hunt said that-a procedure has been established I indicating how changes can be made in the Plan if desired. - I I r I I Mr. William Myer, 318 West 20th Avenue, asked what brought about the elimination of the I I cultural center from the Plan. Mr. Hunt answered that it could not be included in the I financing of the Project until a method of financing the auditorium itself was determined. I He said the Plan does provide a land use category for a cultural center so that it can be I I i developed within the area. !~ I ! Mr. Dave Knox, 2131 McMillan Street, asked the significance of classification of Parcel I I I: I 7600 as opposed to Parcel 7700. Mr. Hunt explained that Parcel 7600 was cleared of a I service station subsequent to the early planning stages and since has been used as a I parking lot.. He said the property would not be subject to rehabilitation standards. ! Mr. Knox opposed the present classification of Parcel 7600 and asked that it be changed i I i to correspond to that of Parcel 7700. ,I Mr. Charles Potterf, 2685 Floral Hill Drive, asked if the bonds proposed were to be general I 11 obligation or revenue, and if revenue bonds, how they were proposed to be paid. Mr. Hunt I explained that the bonds will be paid from the tax increment - increased taxes brought ! about by new development which must be in excess of existing base - and places no obliga- i I tion against the City in anyway. ~. ! Mr. Jack Stafford, memberof the Planning Corrnnission, referred to regulations in the newly I \ adopted sign and zoning ordinances, and asked if there WE!-S anticipated any danger that I i t I views of some of the existing natural features of the City would be destroyed by high-rise I ... development. Mr. Hunt said all restrictions provided are in addition to City ordinances i I I I , and that the more restrictive would apply. He said the Agency is also concerned with pre- I ; serving the views from downtown Eugene. The Plan provides for an urban design plan which I I I will more specifically detail types of development. Height limitations cannot be controlled i I I \ on private development other than through restrictions of zoning regulations. ! .fJ ~ :! !I 12/19/68 - 1 4~' 1'">~ "j.:} ....:,... . I : 12/19/68 L , - Mr. Robert Harris, 2385 Birch Lane, asked what consideration there is for effect of · this Plan on properties adjacent to the Project area. He questioned the exclusion of housing as a land use. Mr. Hunt said there are no provisions in this Plan nor is there any legal method by which development adjacent to the Project can be controlled other than through zoning regulations, and other controls existing or changed by the Council and Planning Commission. He said although housing is not proposed for reuse purposes, rehabilitation of existing hous'ing in the Project area is not precluded if it can be successfully completed. He said the Council and Agency could amend the Plan if a de- veloper has an interest and can finance high-rise housing. Mr. George Boehnke, 3120 Agate Street, asked what assurance the~e is for displaced businesses, as, a corporation, to have first right in the area planned for a~ditorium use if the auditorium is not located in that area. Mr. Hunt ~aid,it is very difficult to decide a method under which "first rights" will be determined - tenant or owner. The Agency can under Federal guidelines establish a period of time under ,which the Agency would accept proposals from prior owners, after which the Agency may go to others. Mr. Hunt mentioned that loans to small displaced business co~porations may ,be made by It the Small Businessmens Administration to provide specifically for such i~ances. He , suggested ciose working relationship with the Agency to accommodate this type of development. Statements supporting the proposed Plan were made by Byron Price, general manager of Eugene Water & Electric Board; Lee Bishop, chairman of the La,ne County Allditorium . Association; Dick McClintic, president-elect of Eugene Chamber of Commerce; Mrs. Edward Kemp, League of Women Voters; Trygve Vik, 2255 Alder Street, property owner concerned , about upgrading the core area. There was no opposition to the Plan. . Councilman Purdy asked' for comment on Mr,. Knox's r,equest for ch.ange of classification on Parcel 7600. It was understood~ after consultation between Mr. Hunt, Mr., Knox, and Mr. Joe Richards, the ,Agency's attorney, that the present 'classification would in no way subject the property to rehabilitation standards since the ,land was cleared prior to execution stage of the Project. Attorney Donald Husband raised the question whether adoption of a resolution r~ther than . an ordinance was the proper method of authorizing the Plan and Co-op~ration Agreement. City Attorney Hendershott said it had been determined to be the proper method. 1 Resolution No. 1609 - Approving 'Urban Renewal Plan and Feasibility of Relocation .. (Central Eugene Project - ORE R-18), wa,s submitted and read in full. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt the resoLution. Motion carried unanimously. 2 Resolution No. 1610 - Approving Local Grant-in-Aid and Co'::operation Agree1l1ent between Renewal Agency and City (Central Eugene Project - ORE R-18), was submitted and read in full. ' Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to a~opt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. Council -President Anderson expressed appreciation to the Eugene Renewal Agency member for their service and to members of the staff, and charged them with the ,second phase of the 4It Project~ that of execution. 3 Resolution No. 1611 - Approving Application ,for Preliminary Loan for Low-rent Public Housing and Co-operation Agreement with Housing Authority 'and Urban Renewal Agency of Lane County (30 units - four- and five-bedroom), was submitted and read in full. . Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to adopt the resolution. Motion carried. Mayor Cone arrived at the meeting and assumed the Cha,ir. COMMITTEE REPORTS Committee meeting held December 12, 1968: "Present; Mayor Cone; Councilmen Anderson, Lauris, Purdy, Lassen, Hayward, McDonald, and Teague; Councilmen-elect Beal, Gribskov, and Mohr; City Manager and staff; and others. 4 1. Self-service Postoffice - Councilman Purdy presented a brochure describing self- service postal centers and asked that copies be forwarded to Dave Hunt of the R~newal Agency and to John Porter and Betty Niven of the Planning Commission with the idea 1t that such postal centers be included in the downtown area renewal project. I Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen that Item 1 of the Committee report be received and filed. Motion carried. 5 2. Bids, Mahlon Sweet Field Improvements - The Public Works Department report was read recommending 'award of contract to the second-low bidder, subject to approval 'of the, Federal Aviation Administration. The City Manager said the extraordinary amount of contention between the low bidder, Montag & Sons, and the City on the present project at the airport was the basis for the recommendation. He said because of the apparent it ~' 12/19/68 - 2 ..... ~476 '""" ". :v : I 12/19/68 u ,_ ' " _... ." ~, --,.. ~. - .., ., .,.'.., .. '-<;'---" - ___d :-r---- I I substantial disagreements which would ,result in claims and counterclaims, ,the City : hired Cor.nell,' Howland, Hayes & Merryfield to'review the entire record as a disin:-'. terestedthird party. The report resulting from that review, copies of which, were previously dif:ltributed to Council members, was read, stating the co'nc1usion that the contractor failed to accomplish the work according to specifications prepared by the Public Works Department' to meet the minimum standard requirements set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration for, airfie1d.construction. ' The City Manager recommended award of the ,cqntraci, subject to FAA approval, for, i apron and runway over1ay'and taxiway renovation to Wi1dish Construction Company on their alternate low bid based on the CH2M report and the following factors: (1) ,The project being bid is similar to the one on which the report was made, except that there is a higher percent of asphaltic conrete work in the present bid; ,(2) there was continual dissatis~~ction,on the project ,now under .contract; (3) the work must be acceptable to the FAA to assure receipt of grant funds; (4) incomplete status of the present project; and (50 litigation between Montag (M&S Construction) and the city of Salem on sewer construction. The Manager recommended contract award to Steeck Electric for the taxiway lighting. it ~. Mr. James Harrang, speaking for Montag, said compaction was the main problem and that Montag claims the engineers'. requirem~nts were not adequate with regard to removal of materials, resusting in necessity for'more excavation than .specified. He said per- formance on the present ,project would not. interfe~,e with Montag's ao.ility .to ,perform on the new work. ',' .f Mr. C. J. Montag, presiden. t of the company., .said a report obtained from another engineer- I r.' ing firm, would probably be in direct opposition to the CH2M,report. He further ex- -;;;;/ p1ain~d his Company's position as outlined in a 'letter addressed to Council members and " previously distributed 'to them. In answer to questions from Council members, Vaughn .G.. Sterling of CH2M, the Pub lic I Works Director, and the City Manager outlined the general practice and relationship I between contractor and owner for extra excavation, grad'e of material used, condition I of equipment used, testing methods, etc., and touched on operation of Montag's pit I on West 11th on whichcpmp1aints, have been r.eceived ,from owners of abutting properties 'I with regard to silting of ditches. Mr. Art Woods said soil conditions in the airport area ,are not average, resulting in I the compaction problem.: He said, h~, felt ~onttact award should not be based on per- formance on the current proje ct. 1P 'On question from Councilman McDonald as to whether the City feels the CH2M conclusion is correct, - that the contractqF, failed .tq aC;,complish the work ,as SRecified - the Public Wor~s Direc:tor said it is the City's opinion that the contract was b'rought to the asphalt stage in an acceptable manner. Mr. Sterling said that in forming 'an opinion on acceptability of a project, {t is considered that if anyone part fails I in testing, the .total wou~d be considered as not meeting sPecifications. He said the, ' asphalt portion, they felt, did not meet specifications, and 'that' the underlying ,soil is assumed to have met specifi~ations through a series of ,reworking and retesting., I The City Manager said the conditions under which this job was completed to the present I ~ time have some bearing upon the asphalt problem - it is the City's contention that had the' ~ , work progressed ,more ,rapidly, befor,e the rainy weather., there would 4ave been no problem i r with the ~sphalt. He outlined the difficulties experienced5n airport operation because I I of the contractor's perform"!nce, and said the contractor. should not be relieved of re- I I sponsibility for doing the work according to specifications. I I Mr. Richard .LaD:i,ck, Moontag' s .constru:ction foreman, said they ,felt the City should !. have taken tests each.day on compaction. On question from Councilman Purdy, the . I '. Public Works Director said although the City did not ,take daily tests, ,it was known I the contractor was having continual trouble on obtaining a proper mix and that he did II not hesitate to test on gradation and other problem areas and should have taken com- ' paction tests. In answer to question-from Councilman Anderson as to whether lack of daily tests resulted in not meeting specifications, Mr. Sterling said even though ,daily tests would have assisted the contractor, it does not relieve the contractor of the re- I sponsibility to provide the proper material. The City Manager commented that tests on gradation required continual correction but still asphalt was.. being laid and not meet- ing tests. I II Mr. George Goodfellow of McKenzie Road and Dri~~way' said he i~lt '.15eca~~e -oCthe con- j. I struction time element and elapsed time since t~e initial bid call, all of the, bids . I. ' submitted on this, project should be rejected and another bid call issued. The City fI' . I 'l Manager said under FAA permission the City has 60 days in which to award a contract , after the bid opening. He said three of the bidders, exclud~ng McKenzie Road and i I Driveway, have agreed to hold their present bid rates for 30 days in addition to the I '. 30 days called for in the original specifications. In answer to a question from Counyilman Lassen,. the Pu151ic Works 'Direcfor said that if the construction. schedule had, been kept, the projec:t could have been completed I. in the allotted time plus extension for rainy weather. I I ~ ,I 12/19/68 - 3 II .. '""'llIl 477' ill) '... 12/19/68 '. . Mr. Montag 'said in answer to a question from Councilman Anderson that prior to Con- tract #67-67 under discussion his firm had not done airport work, but he could see no difference between paving work and airport runways except grades of materials and that it is more difficult to meet specifications. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to award the contract for apron and runway overlay and taxiway renovation to C. J. Montag & Sons on their alternate low bid price of $319,089.21, and to Steeck Electric for the taxiway lighting on their bid of $60,634.00,subject to FAA approval. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Councilmen Anderson, Lauris, Hayward, and McDonald voting aye; Councilmen Purdy, Lassen, and Teague voting no. It was understood this item would be brought to the Council for formal action on December 19, 1968 because of the 60-day time limit on awarding of contract. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to approve Item 2 of the Committee report. . Councilwoman-elect Wickes Beal said the City Manager and Public Works Director had made a strong recommendation to award the contract to the second-low bidder and suggested the Council rely on the staff's recommendation. Mr. James Harrang, speaking for Montag, asked the Council to fllow through with awarding the contract . to Montag. He said they felt they could complete this project to the City's satisfaction and desired to prove they could carry out the contract satisfactorily. I _ . Councilman Anderson said he had an opportunity to review the file concerning the present project at the airport on which Montag is working, and as a result he is concerned because (1) there is' evidence of lack of responsibility on Montag's part, (2) there is no question the present contract is incom- plete, and (3) although there is no formal litigation is appears from correspondence in the file and certain claims made by the contractor that litigation is possible Mr. Anderson said in view of this and the obvious dispute which has taken place that the best interests of the City would not be served by awarding another contract to Montag, and he strongly recommended not passing themotion. Mr. Harrang said his client's position was that the problem with 'compaction on the present project was the result of the engineering, and until it is determined whether that is correct, he failed to see how it could be concluded the contractor could not accomplish the new project satisfactorily. . Mayor Cone said the Public Works Department has a record of getting the most for the taxpayer's dollar, very rarely recommending taking other than a low bid, and he urged the second-low bid be accepted. Councilman Purdy reviewed the problems encountered in the present project and compared it with other airport projects in the Northwest which must meet the same FAA specifications but which have not had the problems which occurred at Mahlon Sweet Field. In answer to a question from Councilman Lassen, the City Manager said the difference betw een the two low bids was about $6,000.00. The Public Works Director, on questioning from Councilman Wingard, said work has been accomplished for the CitYlby Montag working jointly with Salem Sand & Gravel as M&S Construction Company and using Salem Sand & Gravel Company superivision. On other projects, al- e though prequalified under the name "Montag" they operate as Bethel Sand & Gravel and use Montag supervision. A vote was taken on the motion as stated to approve the Committee action, and motion was defeated, all councilmen present voting no. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to award the contract for apron and runway overlay and taxiway renovation to Wildish Construction Company on their alternate bid price of $325,125.10, and it to Steeck Electric on their bid price of $60,634.00 for taxiway lighting, subject to FAA approval. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, motion carried. 1 3. Small Scale Train, Park Location - Mr. Marion Nixon requested the Council's ?uthorization to operate a small train on a lease basis in one of the City's parks. No action was taken. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to receive and file. Motron carried. 2 4. RMBB Liquor License, Webfoot Lanes - Application was submitted by Robert and Delores Nell for Webfoot Lanes, 2486 Willamette Street, formerly the New U-Bowl, as approved by the Police Department. Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to recommend ap- proval of the application. Motion carried. . Mr. Anderson moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to approve Item 4 of theCommittee report. Motion carried. 3 5. Co-operation Agreement, Eugene Renewal Agency - Copies of the Agreement were distributed f to Council members for study prior to consideration at the December 19 Council meeting" No action was taken on Item 5 of the Committee report - see action earlier in meeting. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, December 23, 1968. ~;[C:71~ ~l'" . ugh McKiuley ~ City Manager . 12/19/68 - 4 ....