HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1973 Meeting
Council Chamber
Eugene, Or~gon
June 25, 1973
. Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the
meeting held June 11, 1973 - was called,to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at
7:30 p.m. on June 25, 1973 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present:
Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald (arrived later), Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, and Messrs.
Murray and Wood. Councilman Keller was absent.
I - Public Hearings
A. 1973-74 Budget
Manager explained that adoption of a budget is required before July 1 in order to proceed
with City operations, recognizing that the July 19 election on tax levy outside the 6%
limitation may change the total figure.
Public hearing was opened. :
Al Urquhart, 1960 Agate Street, opposed funding a Crime Team, questioning its need and
whether it would be effective if funded at half the requested amount. He also questioned
funding of new programs in view of the overall effort to reduce the total budget.
Mr. Urquhart spoke in favor of the housing program although he felt the entire project as
originally submitted should be funded, this being the type program for which revenue
sharing funds should be used. He added that Federal funds should not be used to reim-
. burse the City's general fund. He also asked for a better explanation of the entire
budgeting procedure, saying it seemed extremely confusing and impossible for anyone to
determine which items were added or, rejected.
" , ,
Public hearing was closed, no further testimony being presented.
Mayor Anderson explained that the budgeting procedure was prescribed by State law with
certain limitations placed on the Budget Committee. However, this procedure does allow
for public input and the Committee received a great deal of testimony. He added that hE}
felt Eugene was far ahead of other communities in devoting a considerable share of re-
sources to human needs and that development of programs to meet human needs WQul~
continue.
Councilwoman Campbell said the Budget Committee decided it had to compromise in order to
keep the budget within the revenues available. The housing program funded hopefully will
be put to good'use by low-income elderly people. And she was convinced by the Police
Chie'f that f:t,mding. a Crime Team was an important item..., . -,
Council Bill No. 340 - Adopting 1973-v.4 Budget in the amount of $26,923,183
was submitted and read by council bill number and title
only, there being no councilman ,present requesting that it be read in full.
. I '
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second tl~e -by council
bill'number only, with 'unanimous consent of the Council, and that en~ctm~nt,be.c~n-
sidered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time
by council bill number only. -, ,
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and g~ven ,final
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 16872.
B. Vacating West 13th Avenue between existing Amazon Channel and City View ,(~cKay) .
Planning Commission recommended approval April 23, 1973. The street to be vacated lS an
unimproved dedicated right-of-way which will not be needed for a road. P~ope~ty ~n both
sides is in McKay ownership. Utilities easements have been granted the Clty In lleu of
monetary remuneration.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Councilman McDonald arrived at the meeting.
Council Bill No. 336 - Vacating West 13th Avenue between existing Amazon Channel
'I and City View Street was submitted and read by council bill
number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read
in full.
-.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared
passed and numbered 16873. '2-0 I 6/25/73 - 1
r
C. Withdrawing from Oakway Water District
1. Area annexed by Final Order 166 (Res.2l43-2/l2/73) - North side of Crescent between
Coburg Road and Chuckanut Street .
2. Area annexed by Final Order 181 (Res.2l59-3/27/73) - East side of Calvin north of
Harlow Road
3. Area annexed by Final Order 182 (Res.2l65-4/9/73) -' Adjacent to north bank of
Willamette River, a,t south end, of Goodpasture Island Road (Valley River Center)'
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Council Bill No. 337 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District that, area annexed to
the City on north side of Crescent Avenue between Coburg
Road and Chuckanut Street was submitted and read by council bill number and title
I only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council
bill number only, with unanimous consent 9f the Council, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carrIed unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final I
passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed
and numbered 16874.
Council Bill No. 338 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District that area annexed to eo
the City on east side of Calvin Street north of Harlow Road
""".,
was submitted and read by council bill number and title only, there being ho council-
man present requesting that it be read in full.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council
bi~l number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered I
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 16875.
Council Bill No. 339 - Withdrawing from Oak way Water District that area annexed to
the City adjacent to north bank of Willamette River at south
end of Goodpasture Island Road (Valley River Center) was submitted and read the first
time by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present re-
questing that it be read in full.
Mrs.Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the second time by council ,
bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Cotlncil, and that enactment be considered
at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council
bill number only.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final passage.
Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and
numbered 16876.
D. Bid Openings - Public Works Department (June 5, 12, and 19, 1973)
Public Works Director reviewed the bids received and explained costs involved on each
of.Cthe following projects:
,- . .. - ,
, .. , .'
.. FA\' 1 s\.~. .~~;.~~ .,/;~t: ~:~~:~~~:~:....._._..._____________...____...________.._..._..._._..._~..______~___..._.._______-:_~__________
I. Kimb~rly Drive vi thin First Addition
to Firl~nd ll~l&htgl SdnHary Sevor and
St,rm Scw~r to ~arve nren lyln~ ulthtn
)00 ft. of tdot e~ctlon of Kimberly Dr.'
Loc3tcd in Firnt Addlctorl tu Firlnnd Ilcn. (975)
AI.TERNATE ~ ,,"
~
1. I;Udl,l1 C01l3cruccion Con:pally..........$:Jl,293.55....~30,614.00....;........32' P";8.~.$ 13.28 ft/ft:..,...'./~~..!..;.O
2, Ocv"ra.'\Ix & rrntt.....................No Dtll........$3?GIO.10. !.dit..~,..~_!~~_<.()~.~" ,oq.'.ft. . '" 0,
3. Eugene Sand & Cravel Con:pany..........No Did........$S7,972.70, :,'..'"',S"rv.,~....;';'$18,7.00,,ea,ch'" ','
_ <:..,',~', ":\",-" '-"L:!ivy...'.',.$' 0,005 aQ. ft. " ',', '.
_, , h - Storm... ..$233.00 ench '
- '. COMl'LETlON DATE I ,September, 1. 1973
- ,
-
100% petition. Recommended award on low alternate bid price.
6/25/73 '~ 2
"l..O'L
-- ...
- ...._~------------- - - -- - --- _ ~lL
PAvu:!:: I\NO S;'Nt'r^RV SEtJr:n~,): .~. . (~.
27~~vo fn;;C;;-,~eord Stuot ' '
to t'''irfleld Street (817) ~ ALTERNATE ,_,
. I. l. ~Udhh Con~tructl on c.on,pony... .......$43.137.65....$40.227.87.............36' Pvg...$ 15.14 ft/ft.,................O !
, .. ~une~c Snnd & Crovol Co~pun'..........No 01<1........$42.665.66 Lot.......$ 0.064 nq. ft.
~. Deverenux & Protc.....................No 81d........$45.795.35 Levy......$ 0.005 sq. ft.
'I.
..'~..-.......,.... ".._..._...,__:..,:..L~, ",_",,~_C"~:':""'''''_TC......,~, ..... ,,,.. ....,'''-'..-......-.. ""-. ,....,' ...., .." .. ,.._.... .. ,,,__ ,. h '" ':m'r:~,:T~.oN_~~'1:n,I..,.. .october 1. 1973
100% petition. Recommended award on low alternate bid price, subject to the subdivider's
aSreeing to pay for paving through the Bonneville Power easement under separate contract.
r^"iiNG M-l:' "..\;-J!T.'W.'f ~:cwu\:;
.,... -................~.a.'tto.....~".....11l..1.r-
3. ;;"tth 91da of 5th ^v'~1\ua frtlll
i "".telaen Rood to IJOO ft. ~'e9t (866)
~ m~ .,' I
! 1. Eugc:no Sand & CrAvel COD_pllny..........No Bld..........$16,19S.00...........44' PVg......$ . .17.32 ft/ft...............O
l. Devcre~ux & Pratt............~.......No 81d..........$17.676.80 Storm;.......$ 743,00 .0
1, Wi1dl1b Coootructlon ConpGn~......~..$18.758.65......$16.041~50 Sonltory.....~1.366.00 0
I ...... .
i - -... -" ''__.,_____~_h~_.'_..... ,..-'....,. .."'-..-~,~...-."-..... '......_____..____.....,__... .._.._...... ,_.. " ....__......._........ COMP~~~N ~^~~,~T~~~:.:~,:~~~~-~~~.
100% petition. Recommended award on low alternate bid price. .,.'.,
.;;-' : ',,:-- !,-~
I ~;1'f)I{H 5l.Weft! ,..,......--~ I. ........",
I ,- -'--,--
: ". \J,l (,h,1CMlt'ln Street Cram 11th Avenua
lu 12th Avenue. and on 12th Avenuo 1/2 block
I ~""t sncl lIeot (961)
-=
.', ~. Shur-Vay Contractors......................... .$22,298.08.......................... ..0..:........................ .$22.2ry8.08.......... .$22.514'.00
2. W1J.dtuh Corwt.ructlon Cc..mpllny..................$2J.665.(JO .. . '.,,' . .
). L. D. VtJ.:I Over Conatruct1.on..~.'...............$2J,8aO.QO. '. ... . .
COMPLETION DATEl September 1. 197'
.. -,~..... ....-.....-----.......--..--..-------------...----....----..---------------- -
:";ANI(,\I<'1 ~I':\lf:" rq.:r.on:;TltI1CT 1011 I ',-- ------ ------------------------__.
T ...i;,-th.i""'a~'c_;..~~'lC;;;;-n-Vll!4rcl Street I
t
.".<1 Wdnut Street from 17tt. Avenue 'I
fa Fatrmount Blvd. (962)
1. Kenneth R. Do~tick Conntructton COlnpnny.......$53.950.90............................0...............~............$53.9~6.90...........$71.100.00:
2. Shur-Hoy Contrnotora........................,.$66.266.70
), \lUcUuh COOlotcuct1on C01:pnny..................$66.1.79.00
'-...______"'__..__u..........,._..._"_ -_ ","C"- :V'","'"'-''' '... ,_CO~U'LETlON DA'rEI N~V.;~.l~.::_.:..,~~~,_
\
Both Items 4 and 5, entire cost to be borne by City. Recommended award on low)?~d pric~.
...01 r~'RY SF.H,"R Mm ~"ORH s,"w,"" R,"cm:~T"UCTrOlll
~. .- it;th7;Qr;;;-L(;t~~-;~-Li;~in'hSt-:-or;~lo11;-~
>treet ,frolll 14th Avenuo to .l9th Avo. (965.966.974) .
~. ~iU1dr-l\1h~"Ccontroctolr6'c'" ~'. ........... ... .... ..$49.0~4.60. ....,.. ..... .... ... .... ....O...~ ...'... .t. '" I........~. .$49,0/.4.60.... t..... .$27,605 '00'
. n onntruc.t on onpl1ny..................~55.1J5.79 ' . ,
""'"'",'...'.. ..' CO~wl,r.rrON DAHl O~tober 15. 1973
-.;..' '..-. ..,,~.,.\"I_.. .~,...___._._J
Entire cost to be borne by. City. Recommended'award, on, low bid ,price.
Public Works Director explained that the estimated cost/of $27,,9,05 was made at th~ time, of
prellm'inary plan layout. In actual design of the proj ect it was found more laterals'would
." be necessary to elimin. ate existing catch basins draining into the sanitary syst~m~;';,/ There
is no storm sewer in this area'at the present fime. The additional laterals account for
the bid price of $49,044.60.
,.,1 I i.lkV SEWEIt:
7,...';,.o';t",,-;;;;,..';;n Drlvo from Dillard Rood to Snell
'; tract (9H) . .
l. W11dloh Construction Conpnny................. .$40,850.00..... ..... .'.... ..... ... .,.. .O............t............. t' .$40,850.00.......... .$42,000.00
1, Wick nr06.....................................$41.509.10
J, Shur-Way Contrl1ctQC6..........................$42.6J3.90
I,. Kenneth R. DODt lck ConDtructlon Company..... ..$44.941.00
".. COMPLETION DATEI Oc,tllb..c~_15._1!!,3_, ..J
.... '_.e. .."'__ ._.._". __. ......
Entire cost to be borne by City. Recommended award on low bid price.
.w - I ~,)
,_,...r:\\ll.~i~ A:,1' :";TU~~~\ ~;l;~l:!\;; ...._......___ _____--,.-- ___________~~--_..~
i II """do., .Lano hom Mnp10 Strout to "
,luto Strcat (973) IlASIC AL1'F.RNA'TP;
- ---- ',' 'I
I. Wlldhh Construction Conpony.......$ 38.890.75....$ 33.291.80..............44' PVS..$ 18.93.....;.............8to"' $ 7,107.00............0 I
' Eugcno Sand &. Crovel Co..pony.......; No nid.......$ 40.934.73 San.Serv. Ellt...$ 780.00 (4) I
J. Dovere,'u" &. rrntt.....,............$ 45.966.27....$ 41.177.40 . COMPLI!TlOll DATEI September 1.1973:
,--,- . ._.~. ...~ --- --... ~:~;,::~:.:..,::~:.~J!~;;~,,, \ -.~' -- - -~_......~_._Un~u_~ -. ~. -.-.. ,-..-.- _,T_,_____
Petitioned by ownep.s of 58% of " property to be assessed.' ,Recommended award on 'low
....r-~, alternate bid price"_,m
~,' ?"';:~:, SANlT,\RY SE:IER MID STORH Sf,urm:
j. H~Il-~-;k~t.,~-frct;l l1"rlow~;;tt.o
~Ju Ct. DQuth; S~n. Sewer in arca btn
laa ft. We.t nnd 1&0 ft. Enot of Uoncynueklo
- ',,"'e trolll lI.1rlow Road to 400 ft. south (270)
.
, I nASIC Al.TF.RNA'TE
I l. Illldt.h COnHrl1etL~n COmPMy....:..:.~)5.40....$ 9.901.60...........~.....20' l'ov....$14.14 fr/ft......ctty 8tlll. $2.755.00
L Dense, Poving. 1no.........,.......;...$11.102.63....$11.064.26 Lot.......,$ 0,07 sq.ft. DoCerred ,
,"1. Dcv.orcnulC & rrntt....................S13.200.05....$12.027.68 Levy.......$ 0.005 oq.Ct. Snn. not tn:
,;, ,. 1 C 'N nid $13 046 63 dty 11..lto$I.126.00
1 ;~_' '-..-~ :~P,~~,rt~. San~ ' G5.o~~. on\j)~llY ~ ~ ~ .. . ... 0 . ... . . . .. , .
'~--."~..~,......:~~---,.....: . " -~' COm'LETION DhTI!\ Scptc",bl'r 1. 'ln3 --I
Council initiated. Recommended award on low alternate bid price.
.2.Q~ .. 6/25/73 - 3
p:\y}~r:. ~~:\';rT:\.RY ~;r:\""'l:R :i"';;)--;;Tl'lR~f -~~r:;;rR I
10, ,1l1d"ood St. from Inr,lcwood St. t~- . - ~--- ~ --..- -- . _..~. _'..~_.... .L..
\iJ It. north; Rldseway Drtve Irom _. .'..
illntrldc~ Avo. to ~50 ft. north;
l"i1c'Io<ld St. from ..cot bo\""lnry I
~i 2nd Addltian to Fllntrldlo to .
:..iJ ft. wc~.t:: lrlHlt",'oJ St. It"om
JIJ&ew~y Or. to 650 ft. north: . '.'.' ,'.': ," :,1,...
l:d Cddr Rldge froCl Ironwood Street ' , "
to Wildwood St.: Snnltnry nnd otorm
J._dro In orcn btu 320 ft. ~n"t and
.JJ ft. ue't of Wildwood from 100 teat
u~rth to 1000 ft. north oC Fllntrldlla Ava. (956)
.
~ ALTERNATE ' ,
"
.
l. Wlllltoh ..Con9trur.tton CO:1rnny..,.....$ 85,950.75..$ 83,'.67.05..................28. Pov.....$ 12.78 fr/ft............Stor. $4.153.00......81 .094.00
I l- EUBene Sand & Grovel Coupony........ No Dld......$ 91.003.70 36' Pav.....$ 15.54 fr/ft
1 ). Dovor.auK , rrdtl...................$10].]U9.59..$103~]70.60 Storm.......$413.00 per lot (35)
Lat........,$ 0.06 oq.lt.
Levy....... .$ 0.005 oq.ft.
Serv..... ... $ 217.00 each (30)
'.'(\r-\l'Ll.lluJi })(\'I'1.:: :}t:JJlc/lILfJJ' l~, J'J'J'J'
100% petition. Recommended award on low alternate bid price.
pA'J 1 ~.:._r~rAIl !,/A'(5L 5TDE\lM..(5,j SAtttTAR, SEWER Alln STORM SEWERI - -,
11. ;' ,;JI.;!I t r lUll ~liJ'f3 ~irl'lli;;' O:~k.w:~-J- :;~i,J.iv~.i;i~-;;~;--~J.d;~Tk8----
~f\ Sdnt' Andrc"" Dr. Crom O"kwny Rd. nOllth to Oflkwny
~lJ"; 3an. Sewer and storm s~Jcrn in area between I
.. ,:'Jay R"3J ollll 2000 Ct. "cne oC Onkwny Rei. from
IU~ ft. Douth ot Lnw Lnue to lOO It. oouth ot
~ruunvtew St. (It extvndcd eunt and west); Paving
." "et5 IIi thin Oakwny Subdl Saint Andrcwo Dr. trolll .i
~J~Jay Rd. south to Oakway Rrll and Crccnvicw St. trolll .
'vuth boundary ot Oakway 6ub~. to 10 ft. south (497)
~ At,TF.RIlATE
I., Wlldhh Construction COIllJ"'ny...;...~.$250.972.75....$245.066.60.................28' Pn'l.........$ 11.93 fr/Ct......Storlll $73.075.00.. .$86.~68.00
1. Devereaux' Prntt....................$269.163.30....$264.373.56, 36' Pav.........$ 14.13 Cr/ft
I. Eu&cno Sand' Cravel Company.........No Did.........$330.604.53 4" Cone. ~ 0 73 oq ft .
), . 5" Cone.::::::: 0:06oq:ft:
Levy........... ,$ O.OOS oq.Ct.
rav............$1.379.00 pc. lot (44)
Lat............$1.203.00 per lot (4~) !
Scrv...........$ 155.00 per lot (44),
Ped, Way.......$ 14.00 pcr lot (44t
Stru........... .$ 994.00 per lot (44)
, COHPLETION OATEI October 15. 1973
100% petition. Recommended,awardon low alternate bid price.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented on each of the Items 1 through 11 above.
Councilwoman Campbell asked how paving width is determined. Public Works Director explained
that the width is determined at time of plat filing. Standard residential streets are
usually 36 feet; shorter streets are usually paved to 27-foot width. Streets in commercial
areas are paved 44 feet, with minor variation occurring when,laning, traffic yolumes, etc. ,
call for it. The right-of-way width platted also has a bearing on the, paving width.,
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contracts on each of the projects, I
Items 1 through 11 above, as recommended, Item 2 subject to subdivider's agreeing
to pay for that portion of pavement through the Bonneville'Power easement. Rollcall
vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
?A~~'''~:-siIJf.~IAi.KS, AltO stORli' SEII,~: '''--.
17, N..kcnzla Rond frolll Cal loVnS to Belt
l,l'le Road (17) PROPOSAL NO. 1 PROPOSAL NO. :l i
: 40' Pav. 44' Pay.
'l!AU.Q AI.TEIUIATE ,!!,ASIC t\L TF.RNATF. SAIIIT,\RV SEI.'f:R STORH SEWER'
1. IlUdish Conotrue tion Compnny..... ~ $136.307.03. . . .. .$135.607.31 $145.514.00.....$144.250.65.........$ 3.7~5.00..............$78.585.25 i
2. Devereaux" Pratt................ .$lM..654 .55..... .$1117.622.65 $153.447.36.....$156;673.29 $ 3.361. 00 $76.468.93 '
J. EUllene Sand' Crovel CO!llllUny.,.....$1IiO.902.55......$149.511.74 $156.061.60.....$157.007.60 $ 3.136.00 $7 3. 9S2 .~O
Coat to
~ttln~. ~~ I Alnotlnt nudF.ot~d
~1'ulIJcntlal........."....,.O 15.34 ft/ft....:......!..Pn~ln8...(40.) $25,141.00....('4') $lO,170.00,..............~....~.$~9,S14.00
I." Cone. Sldewalk............O 0.76 oq. ft. D1ka Lnnco..... ~o~ , ..$19.135.00 $14.560.00
)1' &;onc:. S1de..,lllk...........~ 0.85 oq. ft. Stor~ Scwe~....$69.518.00..., .$69.516.00 , $71.440.00
~IIJl. Serv. Linea (2),..,....$956.09 cnch Son. Sewor.....$ 2.065.00. ' 1,065.00 -0-
':,,"'. St'rv. \'Jnes (1)........$1011.00 encl: rnHI'I.F.TlON nATR, O"tnhl'r 1. 1 'I7,S
Recommended award to Wildish Construction Company on low alternate bid price for Proposal
No. 2 (44".foot paving), plus " their bid. on sanitary. and storm sewers. Public.Works Director
said technical hearings were., held in. the area, and poll taken of mmersof, property to be .'
assessed indicated majority of those responding favored center turn lane rather than on-
street parking. He added that staff and Bicycle Committee favor the 44-foot paving to allow
for either a four-foot bike lane between parked autos and travel lanes or center turn lane
rather than on-street parking. Sketches of alternate paving widths were shown and discussed.
Council consensus was that bike paths should be provided as recommended.
Public hearing was opened after review of bids on 44-foot paving.
'l..04 6/25/73 --4
,
Nelson Page, 1815 NopkenzieRoad, .askedrejection.of,the poll indicating preference for
center turn lane. ~e said the only major interseqting arterial requiring a. turn lane was
Goodpasture Island Road. . He recommended constructiono6f sidewalk adjacent to the curb
. thereby eliminating two-foot grass strip.
/, Al Cassidy, owner of propert ies on Linnea, asked whether sewer costs .woul,d be assessed to
those properties if the sewer is connected to Linnea. He said aslon~ as. Norke.:rzie and
Oakway are considered arterials the curb and gutter costs should not be; asses;o;e.d to abut-
ting properties, especially in R-l zones. He felt the City should assume those costs.
Public Works Directo~ answered that sanitary sewer connections to thre~ vacant properties
on Linnea will be assessed; storm sewer cost will be paid by the City.' He explained that
the cost for paving in excess of the 36-foot width and for the bike lanes would be paid by
the City.
Public hearing was closed.
,. \ --', . ~. It. I . . (' " ~: ..: ,.l~'~ . '.
~ublic Works Director said the plan originally pro~ided.fo~ .parking on each siqe of the
street except at, the .intersection of Goodpasture Island Road, where a .turn lane would be
installed. He did not know the validity of the poll indicating preference for:center turn
lane, so suggested approval of the 44-foot paving with authorizatlon~.for staff to work with
owners of abutting properties to determine where parking or turn lanes would be provided.
Councilmen Williams and Murray favored proceedipg with the 44-foot paving which would allow
room for the bike lanes and parking with restrictions at major intersections. This would
ailow'width for. center turn lane in the future should it become necessary.
.' . Mrs. Beal moved. seconded. by Mr. .Willi~~s to award contract for 44-foot paving
on the low alternate bid price with staff to hav:e authorization to work out
variation's fo'r center turn land and/or biJ<e path.. . __. . . . .. '"
Councilman Hershner wondered whether xhe 42~foot. paving could be used if it..is decided to ,9
install the turn lane for the entire length of the project. He asked how property owners
would be contact!=d to determine the design wanted. Public Works Director answered that
since' the bids were.called.on both 40-. and 4.4-foot paving, unit bid.pric.es.,\iould.be.such.
that' the contract cofrld be reduced to. 42-foot width.. He said .each proper.tyowner would
be contacted to determine choice between parking and turn lane ,with a deadline. for r.eturn
of that information, then staff would assume. they have the option .of bringing to .Council for
a decision unless ther:'e.. is a great maj.orityin favor .of either .one or the o:ther. ".
~, .. . .. .
Manager noted Mr. Page's request for elimination of the grass pa~king strip and said curb
sidewalk is planned.
Rollcall.vote was taken on the motion as stated. M.otion carried, all councilmen
present v.oting. aye. " . . .
"^; i ~;c: ^~O 5TO!UI 5r.I.'V,R I I
:iJ:-i):;-kway RO:1-.:1iro;;;oa!tmont WilY to Cnl Youns . . ...::i ' ". .
. i,,,oJ (170). , ..
" t.2' IlASIC 40' AT.TEn/lATe STOrof Sr.WER 'SANl'l'AnY SJ:l/F.~
. j. 1. 1/1 1diah COM truction C"/lIpnny.... ..$119,326.7:I".! .;.. :.$113,541. 63................. j.. ~$91, 719 .80... .;.. ~ ..$2,657'.00 :
2. EU3cna Sand & CravQl.C(JmpanY......$121.B22.60....~.$122.425.35 .' . $89.460.80 $2,615.00 " I
), Davcrcau~ & Pratt..............._.$129,52J.96......$126,574.l3 $95,050,14 $2,799.50 .
I
Coot to. COBt t.J City .. /lm<'lunt 1I11"ltf!t.,..!
~~!..~.~~.
ltculd~ntlo1..................$ 15.40 h/It Pnvlng...(40') $ 9.4/.7.00....(42') $ 6,106.00, $10.407.00
Uduw"y ^rr""0 " Dike 1.an"0.....$10.712.00..........$21.960.00 $12.180.00
5" t:onc..................$ O.OJ oq. Ct. Storm Scwcr....$Ol,070.00..........$1I1,070.00 $7It,000.00
1't CO"c..................$ 1.,10 Dq. ft.
I OO"W.1Y ruo
S' Cone. Stdcwn1k........$ J.65 It/It . i
San. Sevcr.............. .$1,469.00 1
,olli tary Sew,,,r 0 tree~. .. .. .. ~1, 303. CO. I COHl'LtTIOl1 OATlll October,l, 1973
. . ....,- . - .- .~~'_.-." . '
'.' ..'-.---. l'::/-'I::;;.' '. (I . -. 'i~": ':'1'd3:1;i."'7:t- . .:._.~-~ .' . <+'.-'. ---'..,--, __~F--.---.~
Public Works. Direct.o:rl r~vieV:led.,bids on 42-f00t (basie),r.af!.d<!+{).,;.,f00t (alternate) paving..
Designs were previ.ously. presented.,t.o pr0perty 0wners iflc-techr-lical hearing.. Staff and Bi-
cycle C.ommittee .recommend inc;lifs~on of bike.lane.withih..the~ci1rb section.; , Alternate
49-foot paving was discussed,~, n.oting - that, that. width -W0Ul.<i:'a,dq.;about $18,000 :.tq. the bid
price. Council agreed bike .lanes sh0uld be included wi:th~n.the-curb section..
,-.;,..
Publicihearing was opened.
'.~ Harr~ Wright, .~190 Law.Lane, expresse~ c.oncern over. inadequacy of 10-foot turn lane prov. ided
. for ln the varlOUS deslgns. He felt lt w.ould. be better to'removetrees along the street to
provide more~width for the center' lane. He also wanted. the bike lanes installed'behind the
curb. He felt 9pinions of. property owners with pegard to bike~ lanes behind th~'curb were
~ not. considered, and wondered in vi~w of..the poll taken why the design 'presented provided
only a 10-f.oot turning lane and bike lanes in the'street.- Mr. Wright also expressed the
.opini.on that the City should pay more .of. the cost for improvement of arterial type streets.
Jim Rodman, 2190 Oakmont Way, thought cost of the improvement ~ould place a burden upon s.ome
of the elderly owners of abutting properties which would be assessed. He felt the project
.i"
2.0 S 6/25/73 - 5
would n.ot be an improvement since it w.o~ld provide no more traveL lanes than are now in
existence. Also, that if it is considered an arterial then those peopleusil1g it t.o cross'C,.~'::-.-
from one area to another should bear'the expense of the pr.oject rather than abuttIng prop-
erties. .
Everett Hall, 1175 Oakway R.o~d, and Al Cassidy, owner of property abutting the street,
objected to assessment ~gainst abutting propertiesf.or the cost of even 36 feet of the
paving in view of the street's being a major traffic carrying facJLity and in a residential
z.one. - Mr. ~all asked for reconsideration of placing bike lanes in the 'str'e.et, saying it
would constitute a safety hazard because of conflict between the bicycles 'and heavy, fast-
moving traffic.
P'lblic hearing was closed.
Traffic Engineer said in comparison t.o national standards the 10-foot turn lane was deemed
adequate and there was no justificati.on for a wider one. Manager said the proposed design
provides for sidewalk behind the curb for use of small children or 'slower bikes. But the
bike lane in the street allows c.ommuter-type bike riders traveling at higher ~peeds to move
with traffic without int.erference of curb cuts. With :regard to assessment for 36-foot
width, he said that" poli~y has been followed formany.years without v~riat~on 'and seemed
fair since that' is the accepted width which it is felt could be absorbed by ~.ingle-. or two-
family properties. Multiple-family or commercial properties can absorb the cost of'40- or I
44-fo.ot paving. Manager said there seemed to be no real justification for reconsideration
of that policy other than for those living on arterials and th.ose with corner lots. Corner
lot assessment has been discussed many times and it is felt generally that they have the .~
right to be devel.oped in a manner to have the benefit of paving on both sides. He rec.og-
nized that-any policy cannot provide for assessment on an equally justifiable basis to all, ~
but the present meth.od seems the best overall.
Councilman Murray asked why the locati.on of bike lanes WqS not where the property .owners
wanted them. Manag~r said staff people and Bicycl!= ~ommittee advised ~.ocati~n of the lanes I
in the street. Their advice was taken frbm a technical standpoint because of a great deal
.of study and research of alternatives to accommodate bikes and autos.9n the same right-of-
way. The question of whether their rec.ommendation or desires of the .property owners would
be accepted would be a Council decision. Traffic Engipeer c.ommented.on the need f.or provid-
ing for the commuter-type bike rider wh.o would probably ride in the street" even with. a side-
walk available. And the sidewalk, although satisfactory for tots and young children, would
not be desirable for fast bikes because of c.onflict with pedestrian traffic, site distance at
intersections, and speeds.
Councilman Hershner inquired about rem~val .of existing trees, provision for existing power
poles, etc., if a 49-foot paving wereauth.orized.He recognized the safety factor in locat-
ing bike lanes in the street right2-of;;::way and did not question the need f.or a center turn
lane. Neither did he think assessment on a 36-foot basis improper after consideration of
the c.onditions for narrower paving widths in residential areas in relati.on to the length
, of the street. , .
C.ouncilman McD.onald felt the widening project was to improve conditi.ons for traffic traveling I
from one area t.o another and th.ought owners of abutting pr.operties sh.ould n.ot bear the entire
cost for that accomm.odation. He wondered whether some relief could be extended .on something
less than a 36-foot ~quiv.alent assessment basis.
Mayor Anderson commented bn the impo~tance of certain pr.ojects to future deveiliopment of the
City and said these impr.ovements will have to continue regardless of the effect on people
in all income brackets. He said every effort has been made to accommodate pe.ople where
undue financial hardship has been encountered because of improvements.
C.ouncilman Murray called attenti.on to $100,000 of revenue sharing funds tentatively set
aside for the benefit of genuine hardship cases, allowing deferment of assessments. Dis-
cussi.on continued .on the alternative designs, allowance of 4-foot pedestrian walk on each
side, offset. of paving to all.ow for as many existing.trees as possible ih the. right-of-way,
grade factor in location of the sidewalk, very few sections for on-street parking because of
the number of. intersecti.ons f.or which turhlanes. should be provided ,eta.:: ~ . ,. '.,-
Mr. Hershner m.oved sec.onded by Mr. Williams to approve alternate f.or 49-foot
paving design as presented for Oakway Road.
."- "
Councilw.oman Beal thought a review of .assessment pr.ocedure was in .order where res~dential
areas carry the costs for thr.ough traffic facilities. Councilman McDonald supported her
stand, saying the widening of Oakway was to accomm.odate .only through traffic, that the pre-
sent blacktop 'adequately serves the abutting properties. Councilman Williams" called at-
tenti.on to the'many-proj~cts"in residential'areas"which have carried a higher assessment than
this, and noted" the fact that the CitY is still bearing the cost for the width. in excess of
36 feet. Councilman Hershner thought this improvement was similar to that on Echo Hollow
and Norkenzie and thought perhaps the" policy should be examined.
. ;,-
2.0" 6/25/73 - 6
In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Public Works Director said the projects un~er considera-
ti.on were not listed in .order .of priority. The arterial projects presented have pri.ority
in that they are the first year's projects undertaken in a four-year pr.ogram covered by
. the recently approved bond issue. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager said the.
contract award was not in ordinance form, theref.ore a "no" v.ote would;not .delay,a favorable
majority. ; -I
Manager commented on, the importance of answering c.oncerns ab.out the value of the project to
abutting pr.operties. He said this street, as well as Echo Hollow, Norkenzie, and others
.on which future impr.ovement is anticipated, were built as County roads to much less than
City standards. Regardless of whether they were considered arterials, safety considerations
would require impr.ovement to City standards with assessment to abutting properties. It
should be rec.ognized that owners of property abutting this street use other improved streets
in the City where they have n.ot participated in the c.ost. Experience has shown c.onsiderably
reduced maintenance costs after improvement in addition to improved storm drainage and
sweeping .operations. -
Councilwoman Beal reiterated her belief that the widening project, would not benefit those
properties .on which homes were established before the r.oad became an arterial type facility.
Councilman Wood felt the improvement would prom.ote safety of the people in the immediate
area as well as those in the entire City. He suggested that if there was to be discu~sion of
the method .of assessment f.or this type street, it sh.ould be pursued as an issue rathe~ than.
.on c.onsideration of each project.
.. Rollcall vote was taken:".on the motion t.o appr.ove 49-f.oot paving section. Motion
carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye;
Councilmen Beal and McDonald voting no.
Public Works Director reviewed unit bid prices for 42-foot basic bid, contract to be adjusted
to provide for 49-fo.ot design, and rec.ommended award on that basis.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract as recommended. Rollcall
vote. Moti.on carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wo.od
voting aye; Councilmen Beal and McDonald voting no.
Manager said if it is found possible when running lines on-~the project to move the curb
without grade problems, it would be d.one to gain m.ore width f.or the center turn lane.
: ~ :.h,: ..2.~!.!..T~~1ir.\U!I'L.~~Jli'.u.!'.!!.!::~ I ,-----.
1". 11.lrUn Street from Wen A:nJ~on Dr. to'
C,nter War: Sanitary Scwer in orca botvccn
150 It. North and 200 It. South of Martin
St. from W09t MOr.O" Drlvc. to 160 ft. Eoae .
~f Center Wny (DOli) .'
.!!M.!9. ALTERNATE
'. . .
'I " .
I to F.U~CIIO ~oncl & crovcl C"l\lrony...........llo nid........$76,l1G.OS......~.....,36' Pys...$ 15.57 Ct/ft...,.l'ark rrop.....$ O,sco.oo..;...$ 7,150.0'0
2. IHldioh Conatruction C"mrony..........$OO.241.00....$77,700.20 .. Lat........$. 0.076 . Ex. Dl,pth AC..$ 2,062.60 . .0-"
I ). DovoI'cnuI< & Frocc.....................lIll nJ.J........SO~,3J.O.!lO Scrv......$127.00 each SDnl.lory......O 5,736.00 02,540.nO
. I- . Lcvy...,..$ 0.005 aq. ft. Stor~......".$JI,015.00 $34,~40~nn
. '-.~ . - . t;O~.!'lOT~.ON!J.^!1! i __~.c: ~tl,b.!t:..!~...!97 3 I
I .. "
PA'IIW:
. '" ....----..-----...----------...------------- ------------- -- ------- --------- ------ ..
L U. \/<:ot Mn,,"n Drivo from 5no11 Stroet ----------------------------------------------------.
tv Hartin Strect (952)
! ~5IC ALTlmNATll
1- ~~f~~:hS~:~s~r~~~~~~ ~~:~:~~.........~~7U~t8.80......:~~,~~~.~~...........J6~ PvS.........$13.6!1 (t/[t........Pork rror..~27.~OO.OO....$26.000.00
L
), 'r! . ,......... , . ...... , . S Conc........$ 1.82 oq. ft. 'I~x. D,,"pth $ 6 192.00 ..0-
DevcLGux' PCGtt.....~..............NO BLd..........$74,236.80 St"rrn......$lO:5~9.00 $ 6.650.00
SonLtary...$ 3,053.00 -0-
t, .<___~ .___._ _...~~~.n:.L.~:.~~~_D~:!E~__.~~.~~~'. :.9~__ ~
.. ," ,,_,,"'H .-'- ...- "'.-,-' ~... -." -.. '-"--'-~-'-"-""'-.- . ....., ..,.. - - . -- '.--;-.-_._____...,.- ._.__ ..H.,_.....
Pol~ revealed on Martin Street 84% opposed, and 16% n.o response. On West Amazon Drive,
9% favored the project, 31% were against it, and there was no response from 60%. Rec.om-
mended award .on the l.ow alternate bid on West Amaz.on Drive, and .on Martin Street if award
is made on West Amazon Drive.
Public hearing was opened. . <,
Margaret Anderson~ 830 Martin Street, said ~ssess~e~t for the proj'ect at this'time would
create a pers.onal hardship. . She saw no ne~dfor the improvement. . Councilwoman Campbell
continued that property owned by Mrs. Anders.on is in litigation and she would have no way
. to meet the Obligation. Mrs. Campbell asked if the proj,ect c.ould be postponed. She also
questioned whether 36-foot wide paving was necessary.
- Manager described the project as a connecting link between East and West Amazon Drives and
said the staff's prop.osal for Martin Street was based upon c.ompletion of the lo.op between
the tw.o drives. There seemed to be no emergency from the standpoiD-t ..:6f,.:;..tnaffic volumes".
Public Works Direct.or recognized the amount of assessment which would apply to the large
property in Mrs. Anderson's ownerShip. He said there was no high pri.ority, the Council
sh.ouid feel free t.o.d~cide whether to. award,.or delay.
. ~ . . . . ," .. . .... '" ..... , .. '.. ~ ~ . - -
2.0; 6/25/73 - 7
Nancy Erickson, 965 Martin Street, tho~ght a rougher s;treet would promote slower traffic.
She liked the present conditiori with the exception of the dust.
. . .
Manager read letters received from Mr. and Mrs. Abraham Lutze, 895 Sprague Street, objecting
to the paving of West Amaz.on Drive; and from Elisabeth Waechter, director .of Pearl Buck
Center, in favor of the improvement.
Mrs. Campbell moved sec.onded by Mrs. Beal t.o p.ostpone paving Martin Str~et
for one year.
Councilman McDonald asked about maintenance of graveled streets such as Martin. Public
Works Director answered that n.ormally unimproved streets are graded once a year. The City
d.oes nothing about dust.
Vote was taken .on motion to postpone. Motion carried unanimously.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams t9 award contract on,l.ow.~lternate ~id
price f.or paving West Amazon Drive from Snell to_Martin. Motion carried .on roll-
call v.ote, all'c.ouncilmen present voting aye~ except Mrs. Beal voting no.
_.".._ __.-/1 '~_
. . ,
PNlr'I~; ~.~ ' . I
,'i'f;-::r.J1k Strellt frOIll Il.<IUrond lloulovarJ
tu north of Polk Court (54~) .. .
l!lliQ ALTERNATE
,
.' .. ,
l- EUllcn. Sand & Crave! Comp.any.........Uo Bid..........$40,761.10........;..36' Pvg. .ltca.~..$14.32 ft/ft.....:..Ex. Depth, $3,046.00.......,0' .
l. WUdhh Conotructlon C""'pany.........$41.,207.55......$41,422.40 . 36' pvg. 'ColIllll...$15.90 ftlft .
J. DeverclluK' Pratt.....................Uo 01d...........$46.289.57 Sit Conc...\.....$ 0.91 aq. ft. .
CONl'LETION' DATil I Cct.:>bcr 1, 1973
Poll indicated 36% for, 26% against, and 38% no response. Award .on low alternate bid was
recommended. I
Public hearjng was opened. . I
Jessie Waldstein, 1270 East 22nd Avenue, requested consideration of 28-foot paving rather
than 36 feet. She said it was a short residential deadend street with structures cl.ose to
the curbline which w.ould create a safety hazard. Also, the narrower width would result in
lower assessment for l.ow-inc.ome property owners. She thought 70% of the property represented
w.ould opp.ose the improvement if they were familiar with the procedure f.or objecting.
Public hearing was cl.osed, no further testim.ony being presented.
Public Works Director called the Council's attenti.on to industrial and commercial zoning
at the south end .of the street which more properly sh.ould be paved t.o 44-foot width. He
stressed the desirability of 36-fo.ot wide paving because .of traffic volumes.
Counci~mqn_Murray questioned the need for 36-foot paving because .of the m.odest residential .
character .of-the short, deadehd.street. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Public W.orks Direct.or
estimated .$2.'00 difference between 28:" and 36'-fo.ot paving .on a fr.ont foot basis. Manager
,.' noted many 50-foot lots in the area and transition to multiple-family h.ousing.
,.,,"
~
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award c.ontract .on the low alternate
bid. Rollcall v.ote. M.otion carried, Councilmen Williams, McDonald, Hershner,
Campbell, and Wo.od voting aye; C.ouncilmen Beal and Murray v.oting no.
~. - ~,..'. '. ...
'.. !!.~">::...,.~'\I'.!!, ~ ... "'-. ... ;
", 11. I..ouur:;-itoad from 4th Avenuo to', :
~ln. Stroet (982) .
! \ :
1. Wl1dlsh Con:Jttuction Com~.3nr...............#..;$ e,188.2S'...,~........~.~.....~~$ 8,000.00 ,;..~...............$ 8,~8B~OO..........,
1.. Dovere-nux & '?ratt..............................$16.0A9.S0 -, . . (Engr. r.!'Jr..) ,.
.'.( , COMl'l.tTION DATI! I St'I'It'llbcr 1, 1973
.~---~~~7~~-.~~~~----
Recommended award on l.ow bid. Public hearing was held with no testimony.presented.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Willi~ms to.a~~rd .contracton l?w bid price.
R.ollcail vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
. - '- ._-, _..- '"._-.. -"." .._".u.___ '.. ~
alY~ ,~IE'l ..-.--_._...._....._._~_..--~-- -~. --'-. ' . .n ,_ .. ___. ~:__ . ~- .. - --.
---~----~..._. '''-'--''_'__''~_______''___~\'' ..__~.. ~ ......_40.__.. __ _. ....___... ..... .. . ~ ..- . ... ..-.' ...-----.... .
,1i.P~'luroon Street from 20th Av~. to' , ,
2~dl .'vo. and IUlyord I:t, fro" 24th
A,.. IU 36th hvo, (96J.) 'i.
1'1\01'05<\1. 1 PROI'OSA1. 2. l .
~~c.!!!. West Only
. . I ..
I. Ulidlnh Con~truct1on Comf'ony.......$ 1..O?O.05..... .$J.004.lJO...... "'~' ,....0. .':...,. .........,... ...........$ 3.004.80...........$ 2,SOO.00
, l:Jcvcrcoux & l'rott..................$10.812.?O......S6.1S6.45 .!; ,: ;.: '.. : . . (Enst'. Eat.)
. : . . COUl'LET10N OAT&I SCl't~~bcr I, 1973
Recommended award on low bid on Proposal 1 - installation on east and west sides of Hilyard
and west side only .of Patterson. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
'2- 0.6 6/25/73 - 8
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. "Williams to award contract on low bid for Pro-
posal N.o. 1 as recommended. Rollcall vote. M.otion carried, all councilmen
._ present voting aye7
f.ii
::Tr)~:1 ';i'.I,,;1\1
lq.lc~..cn Sally Way nnd Mnrlow Lone
from tlorwuo<l St. to CUhom R<l. (812)
nA~IC ALTERIIA'l'E
(WUhln Enncmcnt) 10n Snlly Wny)
\, Wll<ltnh Conatructlon Compally.......110 81d.........$46,122.00.......................$ 14.89 fr/ft..................$3S,147.00...........$30,66S.0Q
I. ~Iour-W,'y Co'nracturo.............. .110 l\J.d........ .$52,303.80
J. ~~nnotb R. DeGtic~ Conat. ~ompnnj..No D1d.........$51,057.80
. 'h . _ . ...- _ . _. .._.,. . . .. COllPU:TlON DATllr Octobt.~. 15, 1973 .~~
..-.-_......_"-~-- ,'- -~--_._--
Public Works Director explained that City Attorney's .opinion was sought with regard t.o
legality of awarqing contract .on low alternate bid (construction on Sally Way) when n.o
bids were received on the basic proposal -(construct/ion within the easement). Public
hearing was heid with no testimony presented.
I ~~ '~as:"~nderst.ood the c.ontract award w.ould be held until the July 9 Council meeting to
give opportunity to receive the Attorney's opinion.
_..,...:._ _,' .,_____f,.~f3;'tV.:~~..~l..~iI"W"-...,.-. :"':s,.",~,.'",,,:..l.............~ _...._
: p,wr~. .~~Hr~l~ !iF.Qr;R I. STORM :'il,'1F.~1
: ~TLloIn IIdoon Plot, and ~an1tary Sewer .' '>.'
i la Mea htn 450 ft. went and 1000 Ct.., . I
.."t ot Bertelo,,>> ltolld from 11th Avcnuo.1 ,
,) iOOO ft. South (920) . '; . i
r.::i ~ ALTERNATE i I
. i l. Eugene Sand & cravel Comp'my.......No Bid..........$127,189.85...~........44' Pvg..$.. 18.55 fr/ft.............5totlll ~27,203;00.......$70,640.00:
. I. Wlldhh (:onnnuctlon Comp'tny.......$lJl,608.20....$127,629.60 Lat......$ O.OOoq.ft.
,;>", J. Devereaux & Prott..................$1l.3,083.00....$139,570.00 Lovy.....$. 0.005 aq.ft. '
Dcrv.....$. .644.0u cn. (J)
5torm....$l,972.00 per lot (20)
...- .. . _. _ h,,' "h.__ COMP.~.:TION DATIlI O~.t..obe:.!.5, 1973 ~
) , '~....~, ',.:'
... t :~.:.,:;'
100% petition on paving, 50% on sewers. Public Works Director said only verbal prot~~ts
had been received. Recommended award on l.ow alternate bid.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
In answ~r to ~?uncilma? McDonald, Public ~~rks.Direptpr said City's poptiqn, .of the c.ost
would come' from the newly auth.orized bond issue. .~....
Mrs. Beal m.oved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract on the low
alternate bid. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present
voting aye.
~~!S.?;.~!."~I.:!.g:::.I(,R. ST~ .!'!L~I~,~_,y_I~-!!!':.!!>!&.1
n.",.k I'~tch 1104<1 trulII 11th Av". tOl lUth Avol
5anltaty S~wcr wIthin arco bct~ccn 160 ft.
~~.t . 160 It. oust ot Oak 'utch Rd. fraM
11th Avo. to lAth Avo. (946)
. " )
, 1':tOPOSAL NO.1. Pl\ofOSAi.. 110. 2 BRIDGE .. . ')
. BAS!!: Al.n:HIlATP. !\ASIC Al.TEHlIATE Pftal'. 1 PROP. 2. SANITARY SE1mR STOfJ{ SEI.'r:R \
1. .dldish Canst. CO....:S57;-{1.9.90...$5J,51.1.65 $63.407,6S..~$60.6i5.35 $6Q.349;SO.....'f64:76ii.60 $3-;-O'26.UO ~2",3UO..50 "
2. "..Vdr""UJ(' Putt......~70.2J1.06...0G4,306.97 075,942.60...$72,333.64 $63,3"9.69....$67,969.43 $4,567.75 $33,765.95 .
~. ~u~eno 50tld...........No 111d.......$60,198.59 110 B1d.....:.$69,697.35. $60,31.9.80....$64.768.60 $4,496.00 . $33.881.~O;:~
I Coat to Coat to Cit.!. \.
^b"ttln!~~. 1 2 ./
~. !~., ~~.l_nt: nll.~.A1~~ '
:1.:'::Jlclcni;1nl $ lJ~4] tr/Ct.............Extro Width....$ 2.970.00 -0- .......................$HJ.IJ:).OO
:.J.,lUcrcl01 $ 1/0.56 trllt Dlkn........... - $13,700.00 $ 4.000.00 1
'""ltMY SClJer Lot.$ 0.05 "'l.ft. Snnitnry.......$ 252.00 $ 252.00 -0- \
;..;cr Serv. (2) $201.00oor.h Dridgu.........$GO.350.00 $64,7G1l.00 $6/,.260.00 ,
Otorm..........$23,990.00 $23,990.00 $ 9,450.00
COMPLETION DATEI October 15,.1973
Poll indicated 37% in favor, 57% against, and 6% no resp.onse. Public W.orks Di~ector
explained that Proposal 1 did not provide for bike lanes within the street, Proposal 2 ,
does provide f.or...bike lanes within the curb secti9I:!. The Bicycle Committee.,has r.ecoin~.
mended that tQis street ~ot be included in the arterial bike'system,and.for*hat reason
award was recommended on the low bid price on Proposal N.o. 1.,.,
, , .
Public hearing was opened.
Jack Adkins, 2816 Ion~ Street, asked that the project be delayed a year because of in-
~. convenience in attempting t.o rent apartments. Letter,from,George Wi~gard, 2323 Fairmount
Boulevard, was read requesting postponement because of creation of hardship for apartments
under constructi.on in that area.
Public Works Director calculated fr.ontage. in Mr. Wingard's ownership as about 13% of the
pr.oject. Anticipated increase in costs for the project were 10 to 15% if it is delayed a
year and concern was expressed about the effect of that increase on the assessment against
other properties inv.olved. Also of concern was rebuilding .of the bridge north of the apart-
ment comp~exes which cannot be delayed another year. .In answer to Councilman McD.onald,
6/25/73 - 9
2..09
Public Works Director explained that the. paving ,is :s.cheduled for completion .October 1 unless
delayed by weather or other unforeseen adversities.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract on low alternate bid for t'
Proposal No. 1 as recommended~ Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen '
present voting aye.
f^'iI!,e MID ~TOitH !lr.',Jr.n~ a '.
iris7i;--.\-;;C;Uc- troalijiik ratch Road
to HO feet wut (9S7) 'DM1C AI.TERNATI!
L l/11dloh Conotructlon Company.......$ 7,664.00....$ 6,796.65............ ..28' Pvg..$ 14.26 trift..
I Oenao PAvlnG. 1no...................$ .9.158.81....$ 9,037.15 COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1913
). OovGreau~ & Pratt...,.....,.....".$ 9,728.86..,.$ 9,167.10
,. I!uc:onc Sand 'Gravol..............~, 11081d......$ 9,232.55 / ' ,
Poll indicated 68.5% for, 22.3%:against, and 9.2% no response. Those in fav.or qualified
their approval .of' 15th only if Oak Patch Road is improved. Award recommended on low
alternate bid price. ".
Public hearing 'was held with no testimony presented.
In answer to Councilman Murray, Planning Director said zoning in the area was primarily
multiple-family.
Mrs. Beal m.oved;seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract on the low alternate I
bid price. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye..~
. P""/I!/l:' :JIi) SAJIlTARY stliER: .-. .,..,.....--" ...~.... --;. ....... .
n. ;,; :.:u w1t101n lot Mcl1t1on to EVCfgreen Pllrk, .
an<1l paving Rutledge Street ~rom Dell Avenuo to ~
jOO toat oouth; Sanitary Sew~r llnd atorm ocuor
in .rea betlleen Ball Avenue and Wood Avo. from
B1C'ldaen Road to 500 ft. wear (942) ..
DASIC !'.TF.RNATII ' I
t. WlldiDh Con!!. tructlon Coml',my.........$ 9,128.00.....$ 8,316.00.........".......28' PllV.........$ 13.77 fr/ft I
I. 1("11000 Sond & Craval CO..I'"ny.........llo 81d.........$10,465.00 , . Slln. Sorv. (4)..$507.00 eneh
i, ~onga P4v1ns. Inc..~..............t..$lO,385.31.....$lO.S23.S8 . .
Oaverc~ux , PrQtt....................$11.908.20.....$lO.894.10 .
COMPLETION DAIR. Septembor 1, 1973
,. ,
:,..;
Petitioned by .owners of 83% of property to be assessed, Award recommended on low alterraIe
bid price.
Public hearing was 'opened.
. \', ~ ;~ ':
Leslie Judd, 4040 Bell Avenue, opposed the proposed proje9t on the basis that it wouid :not
benefit his property. His residence faces on another street with no access to Rutledge
Street at the present time. He felt the owners of properties for which the improvement
is requested should pay the entire cost. Manager n.oted letter received from Mr. and Mrs.
Judd stating their objecti.ons. .
Councilwoman Campbell was inclined t.o hold award .on the pr.oject unless developers petition-
ing the improvement would pay the full cost. Public Works Director explained that there ~
is n.o legal way to force the petitioner's paying the entire cost. He said the Council does
have the option to approve or reject the bid, however he felt rejection, if it is considered,
should have been at time of plat filing. .
Discussion foll.owed with regard to Judd's legal access to Rutledge Street and 83% petition
submitted at time of platting the subdivisi.on.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to postpone the project indefinitely.
Mrs. Beal. said it was a case .of a developer's forcing through a projec"t where' an.other prop-
erty owner without'access has t.o share in the cost. Councilman Williams'could see n.o
difference between this corner lot and 'any-other in the City~ and 'called attenti.on to the
philosophy of accepting petitions signed by owners of'51% or more' of property to be assessed
for a pnoj ect, regardless of the number '.ofownerships. . To rej ect this bid on' the argument
presented would leave future decisions open when two frontages are involved.
Discussion continued with regard t.o creation .of the lot owned by Judds and desirability of
developers' paying for improvement costs when initiated primarily for the benefit of sub- .'=
divisions. It 'was felt by several that the issue'of assessments for corner lots should be
c.onsidered by itself." .
. -. - .
Vote was taken on the motion to postpone award. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal,
McD.onald, and Campbell voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Hershner,- Murray, and Wood
voting no.
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contract on' the l.owalternate'
bid price. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Murray,
and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Beal, McDonald, and Campbell voting no.
~'O 6/25/73 - 10
p^'n:~';r.;'CDr~T.!,~lMl W'\~~,-r...MI.I!.^n{ r.1~H.~:n At!~' SToB!:,__:~I':!!'~Il-, . ,
2". .," .,t l'aul ~ l'ark ~uLdlvlulall; :;atrc :;tr~ct teuw Wcotern '",'F,.:
;d, u to 150 ft. Gouth of BoUey Lone, and W~atctn Drive ~ :.1;:,y .
b~ 2.;'0 It. "~at of Satre St. to 250 ft. coot of lIaverly: .^J:' ';..
St., San. SC"'9' an,1 otolla DOliceD in area Lel"'",," 160 ft. '.:.
. ,')u,h oC l,cuto~'n Dr.1vu alld 1:;0 ft..aouth 01 Dailey Lune. ",'
, !r.o,.j 160 ft. went af Satre St. to 160 ft. ooot of I/ovorly ::. :;'
I ~l..,:ct (tf extended) (85J,6lJJ) '. . . .: '
\ . , '"
PROPOSAL NO.1 .';<"-"1'J';,'
.!!.~ AI,TERNATE '\:':~;.,:.Y' ,;.
--- ,"'r./.I',f"l
l.. \/lldluh Construction Comf'ony.........$ 87,J18 55. $ 82 674 65 .: . .... . :;':y , ;,".~1' (
, :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
3 . ........... J, . tm. cr Lot.. 977.27 'v'''' , "., ,~
Deveroaux' Pratt....................$1l1,707.00....$106 298.15 . 1 S "d I....,... ,. ".
f n Uu. " so.. '.
I l'Il01'0SAL /10. 2 ~, K"r~. t '. '.:)
. . BASIC AI.TERMAn: i';:~>'" ! "
1. \/lldlnh ConDtructton Coml'any...... $23 '52 95 '''T2-0l920 .;: :.... ':'.
2. r;ugcno Sand & Crovol Corny.4ny....'..::\,o n:d' .....$~26.19'J.80............11....,S20' ruv...."'.$ 12.80 fr/ft........Stolta $ 3.194.00 \',.'~....'<~:,' ~P:."
, .... "" ......... · t ttu. Per Lot..$499.06 "":'J'k:~"" '
J. lH..vcrr.Aux' Prott.........~..........$29.32/..SS.....$27.87G.3.5 in Subc1. ',:';"','" "
~,.,;!~~. :..
PROPOSAL NO. 3 ~ '.' :.;~
~g, . AI.TERt/ATE . .~ ",' '
, ,- ~~.
1. ,lUdhh Construction Comp~,"Y".......072,/'57.4S. 069 137 15'. , ." '; (,7"
. 2, tuson~ Sand' Crave1 Company No Bid -' ...$68.S'4.90..'....~.,........28, [av.......O 12.09 lr/tt....,...Storm $ 8,458.00
i I .,......., .......:.. .. . 36 cav.......$ 15.41 fr/ft , __'_
. tlavOUlIUX' Prntt.....................$84.0S2.61.....$79.851.6S Lat $325 07 ,~.;.." 0',
' .. ... . .. . . . . "\ .
. Sorv......... .$170.18 1,,;)(:,:'. '. . 1) .~l
Pod. Way,.....$ 1/..40 ' "'t
Stm. Por Lot..$541.24
. . . . .. . in Subd.' .C'" .
. " ~. "~' ',' '~';": _ "i' .-. j
. ,; :~.;.. ..,. - 0.__ . _ _',__ CO.U'LET!EN DATE I O~tobcr ,1, ~92J .- , '..
Rec.ommended award on low alternate bid price on Proposal N.o. 1 (paving Satre Street only,
100% petition), low alternate bid price on Proposal 'No. 2 (paving Western Drive only, 50%
::,. petition), and to Wildish Construction on sec.ond low alternate bid price .on Proposal No.3
".";'" (paving streets within the subdivision, 100% petition). ,.i_
,,' '.'
'.' I ~ ,~'
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. ".. ,':; '".
Councilman Hershner asked about award on Proposal No.3 and it was verified that therecom-
mendation f.or award to Wildish was to allow the entire project to be accomplished by the
one contractor. Councilwoman Campbell asked why Wildish Construction was the low bidder on
so many of the projects. Manager said their method .of calculation was not known, specifica-
tions issued to contractors were identical.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams t.o award contract to Wildish Constructi.on
.on all three proposals. Rollcall vote. M.otion carried, all c.ouncilmen present
voting aye.
II - Consent Calendar
Items previously discussed at Committee meeting on June 20, 1973. Minutes of that meet- '.\
ing appear below printed in italics.
A. ~nclusion of Historical Criterion in Land Use and Planning Processes - Copies of
a paper entitled Historical Judgment As A Planning Tool, prepared by Council
1:-. :members Murray and Campbelj..,.were distributed. Mr. Murray read the paper which
, ' ! recorrunended appointment of a special commi ttee - three Council members, and .
; three. lay people with special knowledge and expertise in the fields of architecture, \
'local;' history, and real estate - to bring a recorrunendation to the Council for in-
,cluslon of historical criterion in land use and planning processes. The special
'co~ittee should consider (1) use of historical judgment by other cities; (2) defini-
,tion 'of the term "historical" for use in land use and planning processes; (3) ex-
ploration of ways of exercising historical judgment including but not. limited to
'the addition of historical criterion.to the zoning ordinance, establishment of a
.lis,t<of historical buildings and landniarks recorrunended for preservation, and
designation of one or more historical neighborhoods in which only badly deteriorated :
buildings could be destroyed and in which new building or remodeling must be com- !
,pat'ible with prevailing architecture of the area; and (4) exploration of possi- ;
;bf'i,ity for State and Federal assistance. :
;';,- <- ~,
iMr'.;~urray 'moved seconded by Mrs. Beal tha t the corruni ttee be appointed as recorrunended.
i '.' ,
\,\, .
:Councilwoman Campbell noted past presentations with regard tO'preservation of
i'historical buildings with no follow through. She felt some present day con-
. str'uction, although of irrunediate commercial. value, would not be of lasting ,
,significance. She mentioned a list of historical buildings prepared by the
.~ ; Lane County Historical Society and thought it should be in the hands of the Re-
newal Agency, Planning Commission, and the Council to give a basis for decisions
when new deveLopment is being considered.
I
- ;CoEncilman Williams had no objection to appointment of a committee but e~pressed I
Iconcern~about the recommended third charge. .He thought the committee should ad- k
idress' itself to the issu~ of whether historical" criterion should be a part of "
;land use and planning processes and to the mechiiU]ism to be used in determining!",;>
iwh,ich buildings, areas, landmarks were to be designated of historical value.,.(
(~~!felt that would be better than having one report from the corrunittee stating i
specif~c buildings, sites, areas.
~I' 6/25/73 - 11
. I' _
Councilwoman Beal thought consideration should be given also to buildings of
fine architectural quality regardless of age. She asked that that considera-
tion be added to charges given the committee.
iMaYOr Anderson suggested deferring discussion to give opportunity for further ~
I consideration of intent and purpose of the proposal. Also, to review a previous
~ . recommendation in this regard from the Southwest Chapter of the American Insti-
, ' tute of Architects. Councilman Hershner recognized the difficulty in differenti-
'. ,. ating between commercial reality and preservation of old buildings.
.. ~ . .
Comm
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to defer discussion to committee meeting 6/20/73
of June 27. Motion carried unanimously. Approve
It was understood staff would make copies of the AIA recommendation available
',!o Council members prior to the nex.t discussion.
B. Scheduling Consideration of Proposed Amendment to Human Rights Ordinance in Matters
of Sexual Preference - Human Rights Commission referred to the Council a recommenda-
tion that sexual preference be added to the list of rights protected against dis-
. crimination. Postponement of consideration was suggested by some because of absence
Y' from the City of some of the interested proponents. Also, proponents felt postpone.- I
ment would give an opportunity for an educational program in the community. Normally"
recommendations are considered in the regular order of business unless action is
taken to postpone. Council is requested at this time to consjder the issue of timing ..
of the discussion.
"
Councilman McDonald noted the matter was first brought up in January and thought it
should be discussed and settled immediately. Councilman Williams thought the matter
should be taken in the regular course of business unless postponement is requested.
by the Human Rights Commission. I
David Jordan, chairman of the Commission, said it is divided on timing of discussion. I
The Gay Alliance people do want to conduct an educational program in the City, he
said, and he personally would rather have the campaign conducted prior to discussion.
Ann Woeste, chairman of the Commission subcommittee charged with reviewing the issue,
reviewed the background of the recommendation and said it had been postponed several
'times. She said membership of the Commission has changed considerably since the
matter was discussed at that level. She didn't think it would be right to ask the
Commission to consider the issue because the new membership would have to be taken
through the entire educational process and discussion of the philosophy covered by
previous Commission- members. Mrs. Woeste thought the people interested in the
matter should have an opportunity to be heard.
~
Councilwoman Beal noted other recommendations coming to the Council had been post- .
poned when it was found inconvenient for people to be present. In answer to Mayor
:Anderson as to whether formal request for postponement had been received, Manager
said delay was verbally requested by Mrs. Woeste.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to postpone discussion of the recommenda-
tion until September or October. G I
Discussion continued on whether request for postponement should come from the Human
Rights Commission, whether the matter should be postponed, and possibility of dis-
cussion of the philosophy, etc., in the Commission should it be requested to recom-
mend timing of Council discussion.
At the request of Mayor Anderson, commission Chairman Jordan said a telephone poll
of Commission members could be conducted to determine their position on whether to
delay consideration.
Jerry Harris, member of Gay Alliance, asked delay until fall because students and
others who would speak in favor of the recommendation are out of town. He thought
too an educational program would be necessary to overcome any philosophical block
which would prevent voting in favor of the recommendation~
Councilman Wood had no objection to postponement al though he didn't agree wi th argu- .~-
ments put forth for delay. He felt it was a matter of political maneuvering. And
he felt newly-appointed Commission members could deal with the issue of timing I pomm
objectively. 6(~O/7~
_ 'Approve-
- j -
Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to hold the issue of timing until resultS!--
of telephone poll of Human Rights Commission are known. Motion carried, all council-
,men present voting aye, except Mr. McDJnald voting no. /
'l.. \ 2. -'
6/25/73 - 12
David Jordan, chairman of the Human Rights Commission, reported that poll of the Commission
members indicated the majority felt discussion .of the recommendation would be ,better left
until fall. They felt this would give an opportunity for an educati.onal pr.ogram and a
. broader base upon which to base a decisi.on. In making'cthe recommendation for postponement,
, he said the Commission in no way was asking referral of the issue back to them; they felt
it had been adequately dealt with at that level and that any decision now was the sole
resp.onsibility of the Council.
I
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to postpone action on the proposed
amendment as requested by the Human Rights Commission.
C.ouncilman McD.onald could see no reason for further delay. ' He felt a decision should be
made now u:n:le~s a new recommendation was forthcoming' from the C.ommission.
V.ote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal,
Williams, Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen McDonald and
Hershner voting .n.o.
C. ;Zoning from County AGT to C-2 PD a~ea south of Kingsley Road bet~een. Goodpasture
Island Road and Willamette River (Hosey-Planning Commission) - Planning Commission
on May 21, 1973 reaffirmed its previous recommendation to zone this property C-2 PD.'
,Final reading of the ordinance will be held pending approval of planned uni t develop-
'ment plans. Mr. Hosey had requested delay. However, Gerald Attig was present to i
represent the property owner.
.~ Councilwoman Campbell expressed dissatisfaction with the joint Council/Planning
. . Commission discussion of this issue. She felt Garden Apartment zoning would provide
better use of the riverfront land. Councilman Hershner said he didn't follow the
Commission's reasoning for the urgency in giving this property commercial zoning
because it is in ,one ownership and better control oou1d therefore be exercised over
,its development. He felt that even if the property is split it oou1d be developed
properly on a sequential basis~ He added that he was not oonvinced multiple-family
housing along the riverbank would be occupied only by the wealthy; he was concerned
! about development of a commercial strip along the north bank of the River.
, Councilman Murray said questions raised had not been answered, such as how cri tical
; are needs for commercial uses for areas equivalent in size to the downtown ~ea,
, and implications of this type zoning possibly triggering chain of events resu~ting
; in rezoning an even larger area to commercial use. Mrs. Bea1 felt there was suffi-
:~ cient commercially-zoned property in the Ci ty which has not been developed.
. IMr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to table the request pending completion of a
. frefinement study of this opportuni ty area for the purpose of -'establishing cri teria
~'to determine large scale regional uses and to establish sequential development of'
similar property in this area, and that this study include consideration of the Comm
.' amount of property available in the area to meet commercial needs of the City and 6. /20/73
'. desirability of residential development along the riverfront in ,this.~'area. ,Approve,
..~.,.--'-'''-'' ----
--.;;~..-..-..", -,. ~...
Councilman Williams was not too comfortable with a tabling motion. feel~ng there
was some obligation to make a decision. Councilman Hershner noted some previous
discussion with regard to staff time available for studies and wondered when it
oou1d start.
Planning Director reviewed the projects now underway and deadlines established for
other work. Unless additional staff is made available or outs:i,de consultants
brought in it would be some time before such a study could be completed.
,Councilwoman Campbell was concerned about adjacent properties, whether similar
re~oning would be requested for those once commercial zoning is applied to this
iproperty. She noted the 1990 Plan shows an excess of commercial areas inside
;the City now.
I ,
lIn answer to Manager with regard to statutory time limitation on zoning the area,
!P1anning Director said there was no pressure, the County AGT zone would remain in
;effect until a City zone is applied. "
.~~ ;~rther-discussion centered on desirability for temporary delay, need for factua1_~
, linformation on which to base a decision, permanency of zoning when considering i
! val ue of the riverbank to the communi ty, etc. Mayor Anderson fe1 t decisions I
; could be bogged down in "overstudy." He i said the Council wi th the information )
- j now available to it should decide whether the area is to be developed for commer..,..,;
. ;cial or for residential purposes. Councilman Murray reiterated his belief that i
'basic information was not available - how extensive are the commercial needs, t
I ,
iwhat are large scale commercial uses.
)
---- -------~ - -----.--.-------;:-. -t:'[-----.....
.:,'! 6/25/73 - 13
"
- --- .--. -.- .- . . -- ~---~ . . ..
,In, .answer to Councilman MdDonald's question with regard to further consideration
. of;'the matter in view of the tabling motion, Mayor Anderson said the motion would
merely authorize a study before a decision is reached. ~.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all councilmen present ~
voting aye, except Councilmen Williams and Hershner votin~ no.
Gerald Attig, speaking'f.or the petitioners., reviewed' history of the rezoning request. He
referred to recommendations for the C-2 PD zoning from Planning Commission, and the reas.ons
given f.or discouraging residential zoning in that area. He cited the scarcity .of large
parcels remaining in the City for use of large scale c.ommercial developments, and the w.ork
with the Greenway Association in retaining river frontage. He said delay for another study
w.ould mean more time and money f.or his clients, and in view of the length of time this matter
has been before the various agencies a decision. should be made at this time.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to reaffirm the action 'to tabie 'tne
request pending study. Motion carried, Councilmen Beal, Campbell, Murray, and
W.ood voting aye; C.ouncilmen Williams, McDonald, and Hershner voting no.
Councilman Wo.od commented that his "no" vote was not with the intention that the matter be
held an indefinite period of time, rather to give an .opp.ortunity to look into the matter for
more information up.on which to base a decision.
D. ' 'Norkenzie Road Right-of-way options.. - Authorization was requested to exerCise .
options for purchase of Norkenzie Road right-of-way from:
Comm" ",
Donnie and Janice Teague, 1437 Norkenzie Road $ 400 " 6/20/73
John and Eva Willener, 2086 Norkenzie Road 1 ,146 ' ..
Approve
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to(approve the purchases. Motion carried ';
unanimousl y. \ I
! I
r
E. EWEB Easement to City for SCS A-3 Channel - 'EWEB requested authorization for ease- ~ Comm
ment grant to City for A-3 Channel in the Danebo area. 6/20/73
Approve
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to authorize the easement. Motion carried
unanimously.
- -...-
F. MoblIe ~olile for Watchman ( 3762 West 11th Avenue, - Requested by Wesley W. Zumwalt
for auto repair shop because of vandalism. Staff recommended approval. Comm
6/20/73
..,IMrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the permit. Motion carried Approve
unanimously.
G. Speed Limit, Dillard and Fox Hollow Road - State Speed Control Board recommended "
reduction from 40 to 35 mph on Dillard and Fox Hollow Road from Hilyard Street to
the south City limit. Staff recommended accepting the limit.
Comm
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the recommendation. 6/20/73
Approve
,In answer to Councilman Murray, Manager explained exceptions to the 35 mph limit
;would be in school zones which would be posted for reduced speeds during school
hours. He also explained the bases on which the Speed Control Board makes it
recommendations.
Mr. Murray suggested .z:ev,iew of Cal Young Road. Assistant Manager reported it is
now under review. Councilman Wood wondered whether Bailey Hill Road could be con-
cs~e~e~~sistant Public Wq.z:ks Director reported improvement of that road, chang-
,ing its character, would make a different situation. Councilman McDonald suggested
that motorcycle noise should be a matter of consideration when recommending traffic
speeds.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanj,mously.
H. Appointments, Eugene Renewal Agency - Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to
, ,reappoint Mrs. Richard (Ruth) Miller, 195 West 35th Place, and Irving Henning, Comm :.'
: '2250 Lawrence Street, as members of the Eugene Renewal Agency for terms ending 6/20/73
July 10, 1977. Motion carried unanimosuly. Approve
Comment was made on excellent servi ce of these two members and importance of
having experienced members on the Agency in view of the downtown project underway.
1.14 6/25/73 - 14 j
I.
Liquor Licenses and Renewals \
Package Store Class B - Change Partnership to Corporation'
'I'.
."" DariMart Store #3, 1735 West 18th Avenue i ,:
f' , " "#6, 800 Highway 99N f
, , " "#7, 2429 Hilyard Street ~ '
" "#9, 835 West 28th Avenue '
New Location - German Smoked Meats, 2805 Oak Street "
Change of OWnership - George's 19th and Agate Market, I':
1490 East 19th Avenue - Carl Williams \
Renewals ~,
Class B Dispensers - Toshio, 92 Centennial Loop , C.omm
Retail Malt Beverage -Class C - Keg Tavern, 4711 West 11th Avenue ;6/20/73
.Approve
:Approva1 was recommended and release prior to the Jupe 25 Council meeting because I
of OLCC meeting date.
-,",
Mrs. B~q.1 moved seconded by Mr. Williams to recommend apPr.ovaJ subject to non-
-....... -. Co ,'.
discrimination affidavit requirement. '
~
Councilman Williams wondered whether there were legal restrictions to giving staff
blanket authorization for issuance of liquor 1ioense renewals, unless there are
changes in ownership or staff reasons for Council consideration. Consensus was to
continue the present procedure since very little time is taken in Council considera-'
. tion of liquor 1ioense applications and it serves as a matter of record.
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously.
Manager n.oted additi.on of" two applications:
7-11 Store, 2777 Friendly (PB) - Renewal ..
Hafa Minit Market, 1697 Orchard - Change of Ownership'and Name
(formerly Orchard St 'Market) - DeEtte and R<;1mon Fountain (PB)
. ,,'t.:1fo, ~ _
J. Council Minutes - April 30, May 3, 14, and 29, 1973 - As Circulated Approve
K. Mayors' Conference, San Francisco - Mayor Anderson reported topics of major con-
cern'at the Conference were General Revenue Sharing and Community Development
funds. He felt that Eugene's approach in use of revenue sharing funds in compari-,
! son to other ci ties was very good. Most of the other ci ties have used about 80% i
of their funds-for capital improvements. Eugene's allotment for social services
is considerably more than most, bearing in mind tha't many other cities already
bear considerable responsibility in the area of social concerns. One major con- ,
: cern is criticism in Congress because of poor. judgment on use of funds by some I
'cities - example, tennis courts and bridle paths. There is still a sizeable Con-
gressional bloc which will take every opportunity to depreciate the value of Comm
I' ,Sharing. Mayor Anderson also reported learning from a conversation with Mayor 6/20/73
,Kenneth Gibson of Newark, New Jersey, that that city's property tax rate is $9.67 File
per $100, compared to Eugene's $8.98 per $1000" wi th the major portion of Newark's
. reve-;;;;;; going for fire and police protection and education.
L. Weed Mowing Program - Councilman McDonald said he had received many favorable com- Comm
~ments on the weed mowing program and commended the Public Works Department fo~ 6/20/73
their work. "", File
M.Recording Devices - Councilman Hershner commented on-th~;xce11ent electronic
'facilities for recording meetings used at the recent City/County budget meeting.
He wondered if a similar system could be used for Council meetings. . Manager said j Comm
,
it is planned to include recording facilities in the remodeling of the Council ! 6/20/73
Chamber which is scheduled as soon as a budget is adopted. ! File
I
N. Alley Assessment Policy - Councilwoman Bea1 noted that report has not been re- i C.omm
ceived from City Attorney's office with regard to revised alley assessment policy. I 6/20/73
She wondered if it could be brought to the Council as soon as possible. ,File
I
O. i Report, Fasano Decision - Councilman Murray said he hoped a report from the Ci ty '1' Comm
Attorney's office would soon be ready with regard to the Council's position on I 6/20/73
'. zone chal1g~,f!.9c~c:!'::r:.~~..:.in light of the Fasano decis~ </"""""_ '__, __.... File
P. Correspondence -
-:f: From Scmo1 Distri ct 4J re: Jefferson Pool and more swim time a t Echo Hollow Pool.
Copies were previously distributed to Council members. Staff has been working
with School District staff in this regard for some time. Although this request
has come to the Council through the School Superintendent's office effort will :
be made to work it out at the staff level. School District feels City should
prooe~d with plans for a per~eE'L!aci1ity. in the Churchill High area, even
--~ ~.-._-~._"-" . ~
~I~ 6/25/73 - 15
with installation of a cover at Jefferson Pool. .--. ... . .
.-Y Staff has no objection to de~- .
velopnent of a long-range funding program for another covered pool in the Ci ty ,
but would not accept that responsibility for the Churchill School area other .
than to study it. Comm
'6/20/73
Councilman Wood noted the School District's statement that the Churchill swim File
team would have to schedule competitive meets at Echo Hollow. His information
was 'that lanes at Jefferson will accozmnodate meets. >. ,'.-;"
," ......\ - .__.~'. . - . .. ---. --.-,' ..'
,2'; From Glen Stadler re: Speeds on Fairway Loop. Staff is working on this matter.
";;~,;/
Q. National League of Cities Meeting was noted. It is scheduled December 2-6, 1973 Comm
in San Juan, Puerto Rico. 6/20/73
File
R. Introduction, Greg Leo - Manager introduced new intern in his office, Greg Leor Comm
who is also student body president at the University of Oregon. ',6/20/73
File
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that Items A through R be approved aDd,filedas
noted, except separate action .on Items Band C above. . Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all
councilmen present voting aye.
III - Ordinances I
Non e. .
IV - Resolutions
Resolution N.o. 2197 - Authorizing easement to City for SCS A-3 Channel in Daneboarea
(EWEB) was submitted.
I
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams, to apopt the re~olution. Rollcall v.ote. Moti.on I
carried, all councilmen present voting aye.
\ Resolution No. 2198 - Calling hearing July 9, 1973 re: Watchman Trailer at 3762 West 11th
f.or Curley's Aut.o Repair (Zumwalt) was submitted.
Mrs. Beal moved sec.onded by Mr. Williams to ad.opt the resolution. R.ollcall v.ote. M.oti.on car-
ried, all c.ouncilmen present voting aye.
/Resolution N.o. 2199 - Authorizing payment of bills and claims f.or period June 11 through
25, 1973 was submitted.
Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams t.oadopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Moti.on car-
ried, all councilmen present voting aye.
.
"
It was underst.ood that the regular Wednesday committee meeting would be held July 3 if it
is found necessary to h.old one, the majority of the Council preferring that date.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carrie<;l<.to adj.ourn the meeting.
~
~ ~.
~ ,.<- ~.(
~gh.McKinley
City Manager
.'
"2.\- 6/25/73 - 16