Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/1982 Meeting " , - "i . M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session Treehouse Restaurant June 14, 1982 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor, Gus Keller; Cynthia Wooten, Gretchen Miller, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, John Ball, D. W. Hamel, Brian Obie, City Manager Micheal Gleason, Assistant City Manager David Whitlow, Public Works Director Don Allen, Assistant Public Works Director Donald Gilman, City Engineer Bert Teitzel, Director of Aviation Bob Shelby, Airport Operations Manager Larry Schoelerman, Airport Commissioner Dick Williams. 1. WEST EUGENE TRUNK SYSTEM (Background information distributed) Mr. Allen gave an update of the joint sewer prograr.l being planned in cooperation with Metro Wastewater Management Commission. He alerted the Councilors to a public hearing June 24 for alternate routes for the West Side Sewer Trunk System. One alternative is to piggy-back on a proposed new pressure line to West Irwin Pumping Station. Because the headworks of the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Wastewater treatment plant will be 15 feet higher than the existing headworks, the West Irwin Pump Station capacity will be decreased 25 percent when e the treatment plant goes into operation. There are problems currently with infil- tration and inflow. The West Irwin station is operating above its capacity. Growth is expected to add more sewage. During peak wet weather flows, this sta- tion is overloaded 30 to 50 percent. In the new proposed system, they are provi- ding for future capacity to serve River Road and Santa Clara. A new pumping station is being proposed for construction, possibly at Terry and Barger. This sewer project is eligible for Federal funding. Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) is in charge of the local Environmental Protection Agency Grant program, the contracting agency for Federal money. The City will contribute funding for the City's share of the growth areas in the Urban Reserve. The Department of Environmental Quality will determine eligibility for various portions of the project and the funding priorities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds the programs, approves grant eligibility, and approves the environmental impact statement. On June 24, 1982, there will be a public hearing on the four alternative routings of the pressure line. On July 8, 1982, MWMC will select an alternative route. On August 3, 1982, the Planning Commission will be asked to request the Boundary Commission for the extra territorial extensions involved. On August 23, 1982, the City Council will act on the Planning Commission's request. On October 7, 1982, the Boundary Commission will act. The recommendation is to include the capacity for River Road/Santa Clara (Federally funded). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1982 Page 1 ~~ ~ . . Mr. Gleason explained the DEQ has signed an agreement with the County to resolve this sewer issue in the River Road/Santa Clara area. Two al ternat ives are available to the residents: 1) To form a city, build a sewer, and pay for the rights to hook into the trunk or, 2) to annex. Eugene's position is the sewer plant has the capacity for River Road/Santa Clara. Eugene wants to annex those people who want City services consistent with the general plan and on a voluntary bas is. The Public Works Department is currently working on a financial report and a design study. Mr. Allen reviewed the tentative cost figures. The first phase (1983) would be $10.8 million. Eugene would pay $3.7 million (Federal, $7.1 mill ion). The second phase (1984) was $2.7 million yet unfunded. The third phase (1994) would be $12.8 million. No bond issue was anticipated for the first phase (the figures are inflated to allow for inflation of 8 percent per year) . The Council discussed funding phose two with an increase in sewer user tax or a bond issue. The existing sources of income (working capital, user fees, and trunk levy) and new sources (bond issue, serial tax levy, connection charge fees and future grant) are currently being studied. A consultant will also be giving a report. Mr. Keller asked about the sewers for the airport. Mr. Gleason replied that they would connect across Airport Road to Santa Clara. The entire area drains to the northwest. It is less expensive to go through Santa Clara, but the system must be established in Santa Clara. The total system has to be determined - by DEQ based on the general plan. An existing agreement between DEQ and the County requires that the County will develop a plan to service the River Road/ Santa Clara area. The Metro Plan provides for Eugene and Lane County, working through an active citizen involvement program, to develop a plan to service the areas. The area will probably be served by a major sewer system that will be developed incrementally and will initially cost over $12 million. Mr. Gleason complimented the excellent engineering work of the Public Works Department which did the engineering design work while continuing with their regular duties. Coordination of the State, Federal, and local agencies has been difficult. This is the basis for Eugene's growth into the year 2000. It wou 1 d be needed even \'/ithout growth because the system is now deficient. It is a well thought out plan; it will put Eugene in a good position for industrial siting. II. AIRPORT FACILITIES PLANNING Mr. Shelby reviewed the background of terminal expansion planning up to the decision to delay the program temporarily. The dire straits of the airline industry have led to lower passenger boarding and operation counts. Under present financial circumstances, our carriers hilve declined supporting the program. The original trend line indicated an increase in passenger boardings so that space requirements for the terminal by 1990 would increase from 24,000 square feet to 61,000 square feet. Several architectural drawings were displayed for Counc il ors. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1982 Page 2 " -'- .. . Mr. Shelby explained the selection process for the design consultant as well as formation of the ad hoc Citizens Advisory Committee and the Airline Technical Committee. He also explained the process involving user questionnaires by which the space needs were forecast. He discussed the steps taken by the design team, and the Airport Commission is evaluating the multiplicity of design options leading up to adoption of a concept by the Airport Commission. Both a one-story and two-story terminal plan have been developed. A separate cargo building, mechanized baggage claim, expanded concession facilities, and a new exit road were some of the new terminal features. Passenger loading bridges were a high priority of the Citizens Committee, but probably.will not occur in the first phase. The passenger loading bridges usually are an expense of the airline carriers. The air carriers did not want to pay for these loading bridges for a market that boarded the number of passengers that Eugene does, so the commission considered acquiring them and renting them to the carriers. Loading bridges cost $250,000 each. To buy five would be a major cost ($1.6 million). A second level to the concourse would be required ($1.6 mill ion) as well as some second-level construct ion on the terminal. The decision to put in loading bridges added another $4.6 million to the total package. Councilors and the City Manager questioned whether loading ramps could not be built for less money. It was noted that they are almost a sole source item with only three suppliers. Some financing alternatives considered by the Commission for the terminal expansion were: Defer the third runway, increase user fees, balloon financing, staging the improvements, assuming airport existing debts/new debts by the City e of Eugene, or a combination. Mr. Shelby explained the process by which the Airport Commission selected portions from the "laundry list" of a total package of $17.8 million. The Commission was looking at a project of from $11 to $13 million to be totally supported by airport revenues within five years after project completion and occupancy. The recommend at ion to construct a major portion at one time was based on the Commisson's desire not to have the terminal continuously under construction. Financial conditions of the air carriers would suggest now that the project be phased. The Budget Committee will recommend $200,000 for reevaluation of passenger boardings, revenue potential, and for schematic drawings for a phased project. Problems needing immediate attention are bag claim; heating, ventilating and air conditioning; flight kitchen; expanded lobby and rest rooms; ticket lobby; administrative space; paving for more aircraft parking; an exit road; and taxiway relocation. Airport development bills are in both Houses of Congress to assist this project. Eugene could qualify for 90 percent Federal funding for paving and 50 percent for some of the construction. The Federal Government has $3 billion in Federal Airport Trust Fund paid for by users. Mr. Shelby anticipated Federal funding of up to $4 million for the terminal project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1982 Page 3 .. .' .. \- ,"f ,....;;0. Mr. Obie questioned why the airport expansion would be delayed. He said the . airport is part of making Eugene attractive to industry. It is Eugene's front door. Mr. Williams said with the airlines looking at red ink on their profit and loss statements they are unwilling to commit to expansion plans. Without airline financial support, it is difficult to move ahead with those plans. The baggage claim problem was discussed. Mr. Schoelerman described a study made at the airport which timed baggage arrivals for one week. The average for bags to arrive at baggage claim was 9.36 minutes. It seems to be longer because it takes a minute and a half for a passenger to walk from the plane to baggage c 1 aim. Ms. Smith noted that bay delivery was her second most frequent constituent call and urged the Commission to work with the airlines to see what the City could do to expedite the proceess. In conclusion, Mr. Shelby said the Commission would be returning to the Council with revised cost figures for a phased terminal project. Mayor Keller thanked staff. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Micheal D. Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Beth Conant) BC:bm/CM27b1 e ~~. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 1982 Page 4 " e ENGINEERING DIVISION BID NO.: 4 Opened: June 8, 1982 l. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER on Maple Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to Cross Street (Job No. 2013) Contract'Cost Bidders Basic Alternate AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $ 64,867~75 $ -0- -' 2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. -------- $ 65,534.40 $ -0- 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. ------------- $ 67,631.75 $ -0- 4. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. ---------------- $ 69,975.53 $ -0- 5. Staton Construction Inc. -------------- $ 76,600.85 $ -0- 6. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $ 77,162.60 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 44-Foot Paving $ 58.80/FF $ 21,500.00 $ 18,200.00 (332) 7 -Inch A.C. Drive $ lo70/Sq. Ft. 7 -Inch Conc. Drive $ 3.25/Sq. Ft. San. Lat. $ .09/ Sq. Ft. e San. Servo $ 740.00/Each COMJLETION DATE: September 17, 1982 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER on Willagil1espie Road from Country Club Road to 300 feet south of Clinton Avenue (Job No. 1997) Contract Cost Bidders BASIC AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $562,237.80 2. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $619,938.65 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. ------------- $631,978.41 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount-Budgeted 20-Foot Paving $ 28.15/FF $ 57,000.00 $5 1 , 100 .00 (331) 28-Foot Paving $ 35. lO/FF 36-Foot Paving $ 43.50/FF Deferred Assessments 4 -Inch Conc Walk $ l.75/Sq. Ft. 5 -Inch Conc Drive $ 2.00/Sq. Ft. $ 42,700.00 San. Lat. $ o .ll/Sq. Ft. e San. Servo $365.00/Each County-Agreement $418,500.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1982 Page 1 of 5 ...-"::. ,. . e BID NO.: 4 Opened: June 8, 1982 3. PAVING AND STORM SEWER on McKendrick Street from Graham Drive to Karyl Avenue (Job No. 2006) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate AWARD l. Benge Paving Inc. $42,626.14 $ -0- 2. Staton Construction, Inc. $44,439.15 $ -0- 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $ 45,872 .45 $ -0- 4. Egge Sand & Gravel -------------------- $46,199.30 $ -O- S. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $ 47,931.60 $ -0- 6. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $ -0- $ 49,826.65 Cost Abutting Property Cost to City Amount' Budgeted 28-Foot Paving $ 43.50/FF $ 5,200.00 $ 3, 100 .00 (531 ) 4 -Inch Cone. Walk $ 1.90/Sq. Ft. 5 -Inch Conc. Drive $ lo95/Sq. Ft. 2 -Inch A.C. Drive $ O.55/Sq. Ft. e COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1982 ------------------------------------------_._----------~------------------------------------------- 2. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION area between 20th Avenue and 25th Avenue from Charnelton Street to Willamette Street (Job No. 2038) Contract-Cost Basic Bidders A~JARD l. Dannemiller Construction --------------- $ 39,999.50 2 . Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. -------------- $ 68,732.00 3. Clifford A. Bush -----------------------_ $ 68,763.00 4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. --------- $114,076.50 Cost to City Amount budgeted $ 46,000.00 $ 65,500. 00 (531) e COMPLETION DATE: August 20, 1982 Page 2 of 5 .- . - ~. . - BID NO.: 4 Opened: June 8, 1982 5. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION area between Wilson Street and McKinley Court from 14th to 18th Avenues (Job No. 2040) Contract'Cost Bidders Basic AWARD lo Dannemiller Construction --------------- $ 20,599.66 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. -------------- $ 29,565.75 3. Clifford A. Bush ----------------------- $ 35,140.00 4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. --------- $ 68,074.00 Cost to City Amount' Budgeted $ 23,700.00 $ 33,800.00 (531 ) COMPLETION DATE: August 20, 1982 -~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION 2039 Area between 12th and 13th Avenues, from Lawrence to Lincoln Streets 2041 Area between Jefferson and Washington Streets from 24th to 25th Avenues 2042 Area between Onyx Street and Invale Street north of 28th Avenue Contract Cost Bidders Bas i c AWARD 1. Dannemiller Construction ---------------- $ 16,754.44 2 . Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. --------------- $ 29,754.25 3. Clifford A. Bush ------------------------ $ 30,075.00 4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------- $ 43,573.25 Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 19,300.00 $ 27,500.00 (531 ) e COMPLETION DATE: August 5, 1982 Page 3 of 5 ,. ......' . BID NO.: 4 e Opened: June 8, 1982 7 . SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION 2043 Area between Crest Drive and 34th Avenue from McMillan Street to East 2044 Area between 35th and 36th Avenues from McMillan to Willamette Streets 2045 Area between Cheshire and Washington Streets to Lawrence Street Contract Cost Bidders Basic AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. --------------- $ 22,595~25 2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ----- $31,477.40 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractors, Inc. --------- $ 35,951.75 Cost to City Amount' Budgeted $ 26,000.00 $ 37,100.00 (531 ) COMPLETION DATE: July 30, 1982 _tIl____________________________________________________----------------------------------------- 8. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION are between Patterson to Hilyard Streets, Broadway Avenue and the Millrace, Columbia and Moss Street from 17th Avenue to 19th Avenue (JOb No. 2046) Contract Cost Bidders Basic A~JARD 1. Eugene Sand & GravelIne ---------------- $ 15,915.35 2. Emerald Excavating Inc. ----------------- $ 17,018.25 3. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. ------------------ $ 17,664.23 4. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ----- $ 19,805.60 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------- $ 32,211.85 Cost to City Amount Budgeted $ 18,300.00 $ 26, 100 .00 (531 ) e COMPLETION DATE: Ju ly 30, 1982 Page 4 of 5 , ,- If . : . BID NO.: 4 Opened: June 8, 1982 9. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION area between 3rd Avenue & Broadway from Adams Street to Olive Street (Job No. 1268) Contract Cost Bidders Basic A\~ARD 1. Kenneth R.-Bostick Construction Co~ ----- $ 37,807~00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc. --------------- $ 45,210.00 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------- $ 56,699.00 Cost to City Amount-Budgeted $ 43,500~00 $ 62,000.00 (531 ) COMPLET ION DATE: August 5, 1982 e " Page 5 of 5