Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/09/1982 Meeting e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Council Chamber, City Hall August 9, 1982 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT:, John Ball, D.W. Hamel, Mark Lindberg, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mayor Keller announced that the Council had agreed to remove Item V, Discussion of Community Development Block Grant-Funded Economic Development Projects, from this evening's agenda and to reschedule the item for a future council meeting. 1. PUBLI C HEAR I NGS A. Code Amendment Concerning Public Lands (CA 82-2) (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Gary Chenkin, Planning. Mr. Chenkin e said that the Planning Commission had recently considered phasing out the Public Lands (PL) zone in the City, but that Eugene School District 4-J had requested that the zone be amended, since the district wished to reuse surplus school properties currently zoned PL. Mr. Chenkin said that the amendments before the council were designed to meet the needs of the school district, as well as overall City needs. He said that the amendments listed both outright permitted interim conditional uses, some permanent and others temporary. He said that on June 8, 1982, copies of the proposed amendments had been sent to Eugene neighbor- hood groups, a number of public agencies, and other interested groups. Mr. Chenkin said that the Planning Commission had discussed the amendments at its August 3, 1982, meeting and had voted to recommend the amendments to the council . He noted that the commission had proceeded with some urgency in this matter, since the school district has a number of leases awaiting the outcome of the City's action. Mr. Chenkin noted that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting were not yet available but that a summary of the discussion at the meeting had been distributed to councilors. He said that at the Planning Commission hearing a number of people had testified regarding the proposed use of a portion of the Laurel Hill School building as a vocational training center. He noted that under Section 9.402 (d)(8), the proposed use would be allowed as an outright use as a "private educational institution offering an academic or state licensed vocational curriculum." Mr. Chenkin said that the Planning Commission had discussed the possibility of e changing all outright uses in Section 9.402 (d) to conditional but had finally decided, instead, to recommend to the council addition of language to Section MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 1 e 9.402 (d), requiring that before temporary outright uses are established, the public agency involved must provide opportunity for review and comment by neighborhood residents and property owners. Mr. Chenkin noted that 8 percent of the land in the City is zoned PL. He said that the proposed ordinance would apply to all such land that is declared surplus by the agency controlling it. Mr. Chenkin noted that, in addition to materials distributed to councilors prior to the meeting, a letter from Community Services of Lane County and a list of the current State-licensed private vocational schools had been distributed this evening. Mayor Keller noted for the record that the council had received and reviewed copies of all the written testimony submitted at the Planning Commission meeting and a summary of the testimony and discussion at that meeting. Councilor Wooten referred to Section 9.402 (b) of the proposed ordinance, which states that community resource centers must correspond to designations in adopted refinement plans. She asked if this item was included with specific reference to the Laurel Hill area. Mr. Chenkin responded that this section applied particularly to the Willow Creek area. Mayor Keller asked councilors to declare any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Councilor Miller said that she had been contacted by several people regarding this item and that she had urged them to speak at the council hearing. She did not feel that these contacts would affect her ability to make her decision on the basis of testimony given at the public hearing. Councilors e Wooten and Lindberg both said that they also had been contacted by members of the public but did not believe that the contacts would affect their ability to make a decision on the basis of testimony at the hearing. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the ordinance: Mary Alice Brown, 1966 Garden Avenue, represented Community Services of Lane County (CSLC). She said that the Laurel Hill Elementary School had been closed since June 1982, and that CSLC had applied to lease a portion of the building. She said that the area they wished to lease was that furthest from the playground and that the commercial kitchen and the office space in the Laurel Hill building were ideally suited to the vocational training offered by CSLC. Ms. Brown said that CSLC had spent five months searching for ,a suitable building and had looked at 40 possible sites before selecting the Laurel Hill building. Ms. Brown said that in mid-June CSLC had contacted the Laurel Hill Neighborhood Association and had met with the group's executive board to discuss the proposed use of the building. She said that the neighborhood group seemed pleased with CSLC.s offer of neighborhood meeting space and community use of the building. Ms. Brown said that some residents of the area were concerned with possible impacts of CSLC on the neighborhood. She stressed that CSLC is neither a - hospital nor a psychiatric clinic and does not administer medication. She said that alcohol and drug abusers and people with a tendency toward violence are MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 2 e not admitted to the program and that those who are admitted are required to meet defined performance standards. Ms. Brown urged the council to adopt the ordinance as well as the amendment recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilor Obie noted that the particular use of one portion of one parcel of PL-zoned land by Community Services of Lane County was not the issue before the council. He said that the council needed to consider the citywide implications of the ordinance and urged those testifying to address this issue. Richard Zeller, 5283 West Amazon, represented Lane County Direction Service, Incorporated, an agency working with the families of handicapped children to locate needed services. He said that his organization had applied for use of space in the Lincoln School building. He stressed the need programs such as Direction Service have for space that can be leased economically. He urged the council to support the ordinance. H. Marshall Peter, 29127 Gimpl Hill Road, represented the Eugene Commission on the Rights of the Handicapped/Disabled. He said that one of the purposes of that organization was to counter misinformation and discrimination directed at the handicapped. He said that the Handicapped Commission supported the recommendation of the Planning Commission, particularly that portion making certain uses of PL land outright rather than conditional uses. He felt that Community Services of Lane County fell within four of the defined outright uses listed in the proposed ordinance. He felt that City code should not prevent organizations such as CSLC from locating in a natural setting, such as that e offered in a residential neighborhood. He urged the council not to force these financially-strapped agencies to go through the costly conditional use process. Rose Wallace, 200 North Monroe Street, represented School District 4-J. She distributed copies of her testimony and referred to additional written testimony that the district had made at the Planning Commission hearing. She said that allowing uses such as those proposed under the ordinance before the council was an alternative to boarding up or selling surplus school properties. She said that the uses allowed in the ordinance would operate in the public interest. She said that under the terms of the proposed ordinance, some school buildings could continue to be used for educational purposes, such as vocational programs. Ms. Wallace said that some members of the public who testified to the Planning Commission said that the school district had not provided opportunities for effective public involvement in the decisions regarding use of closed schools. She said that the district disagreed and felt that the process had been a good one. She said that a Building Site Review Committee had been formed to review proposed leases in the school buildings and that information packets had been sent to City neighborhood organizations. She noted that the committee had agreed to postpone its decision on use of the Laurel Hill building to allow additional citizen testimony. Susan Neevel, 2680 Augusta Street, said that she represented the Laurel Hill Valley Neighborhood Association on the Building Site Review Committee. She said that the information provided by the school district to the members of that committee, as well as that provided to interested members of the public, was inadequate. She noted that she had learned of Community Services of Lane e County's proposed use of the Laurel Hill School not from the school district but from the neighborhood group. She said that the role of the Building Site Review MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 3 e Committee was unclear and that she was uncertain whether the committee's recommendations were merely advisory or were meant to be binding. She said that 4-J still has not notified Eugene neighborhood associations of proposed uses in the schools. She urged the council to take measures to assure adequate public involvement and information in the future. She said if this cannot be done through other means, then the conditional use permit process should be applied to the properties in question. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson Street, supported the ordinance, since it would maximize the school district's investment and would allow organizations using the properties to locate in town. He felt that a wide range of tenants should be allowed in surplus school buildings, including commercial uses. Those speaking in opposition to the ordinance: Michael Wells, 777 High Street, Suite 200, said he was an attorney representing more than 20 residents of the Laurel Hill area. He submitted a partial list of the names and addresses of people whom he represented. He referred to Section 9.402 (d) (8) of the proposed ordinance and said that, if passed, it would allow psychiatric outpatient facilities to locate in residential neighborhoods without opportunity for citizen review or for the setting of operational standards. He said that under the ordinance, the setting of standards for making decisions on use of school properties was left entirely to the school district. He recognized that the August 3 Planning Commission hearing and tonight's council hearing were not intended to deal with the specific issue of use of the Laurel Hill School building by Community Services of Lane County but noted that these hearings were e the only opportunities residents had to comment on the issue. Mr. Wells argued that a decision on this ordinance was a quasi-judicial rather than a legislative decision, since passage of the ordinance would have the effect of rezoning the Laurel Hill School property for use by CSLC, whose lease of the property was ready to go into effect when the ordinance was passed. He said that the ordinance had the effect of delegating the City's responsibility for land use decisions to School District 4-J. He said that the district's record of failing to provide for adequate public input into such decisions did not warrant delegation of such responsibility. Mr. Wells urged that the uses identified in Section 9.402 (d) (8) be made conditional uses. Durward Boyles, 3415 Baldy View Lane, said that he did not live in the Laurel Hill Valley and, therefore, spoke as a disinterested party. He said that, in the past, he had rented property he owned to Lane County Youth Care Centers for use as a group home. He said he was assured by the agency that residents of the home would not cause problems in the neighborhood. He said that Lane County had approved the conditional use permit needed as a matter of expediency, despite opposition and expressions of anger from neighbors of the property, similar to that expressed by residents of the Laurel Hill Valley. He said that during the time the agency leased his property, neighbors had only minor problems with residents of the center, but he said that one resident of the center later committed a murder. He said that his neighbors still felt anger about his agreeing to lease to the center and that he regretted ever making that decision. He urged the council to oppose any ordinance that would force residents to accept a radical change of use of land in their neighborhood and to avoid giving - 4-J responsibility for making land use decisions in which it has a vested interest. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 4 e Those speaking with other comment: H. Thomas Andersen, 790 West Broadway, spoke as a private citizen. He was concerned with the process to be used in considering uses for surplus public lands. He felt that closed schools should be used in a way that would benefit the public. He said that District 4-J had a record of providing inadequate opportunity for public input and therefore urged the council to make uses of surplus school property conditional, even though this would raise th,e cost of reuse, to ensure opportunity for citizen participation. He suggested that the agency owning surplus public land be responsible for applying for and obtaining the conditional use permit rather than the potential lessee. He urged the council to take time in making its decision and not to make a hasty decision. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Councilor Schue asked the composition and status of the ~-J Building Site Review Committee. Ms. Wallace responded that decisions on leases of surplus buildings for periods over three years would be made by the School Board, after public hearings, and would include referrals to other public agencies and adoption of findings of fact. She said that decisions on leases for shorter periods would be made by the superintendent. She said that the Building Site Review Committee had six voting members, two of whom served in rotating positions, representing the neighborhoods affected by particular siting decisions. Ms. Schue asked whether there had been adequate information in advance of committee meetings to provide for informed citizen input. Ms. Wallace said she believed that this was the case, but she acknowledged that the process had been confusing. Responding e further, Ms. Wallace said that tentative agreements had been reached with potential lessees, but that leases would not be signed until the process was complete. She said that this would include providing notification to neighborhood groups of proposed uses. Responding to a question from Councilor Miller, Mr. Chenkin said he believed that the 3:1 vote of the Planning Commission on this issue had included votes in favor by Commissioners Lannom, Mulder, and Anderson, and ~ vote in opposition by Commissioner Bauske. Councilor Lindberg referred to material on use of the Laurel Hill School building contained in the recently adopted Laurel Hill Refinement Plan and asked, in the event of a conflict between the two, whether that plan or PL zoning regulations would take precedence. Mr. Chenkin said that the drafting of the ordinance before the council had been done to avoid conflict between the two documents. He said it was a matter of judgment whether the proposed use of the property presented a conflict. Responding to a question from Mr. Lindberg, Ms. Wallace said that it was the policy of the school district to comply with adopted refinement plans. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Ms. Wallace said that to date there had been no request for the school board to hold a hearing on the lease application of Community Services of Lane County. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 5 e Councilor Obie asked whether, under the terms of the proposed ordinance, a treatment center such as Raleigh Hills could locate on PL-zoned land. Mr. Chenkin responded that no residential uses were permitted under the ordinance. Councilor Ball asked for staff reaction to the suggestion that by enacting the proposed ordinance the City was abdicating its responsibility for land use decisions. Mr. Chenkin responded that it was up to the council to decide if this argument was valid and if the review processes outlined in the ordinance were adequate. Ms. Wallace added that the City would still be required to issue an occupancy permit to any building lessee and could withhold this if it did not approve of the lessee. Mr. Chenkin and Mr. Gleason said that the City's review for an occupancy permit was strictly administrative and that the City was obligated to grant a permit if the standard requirements were met. Councilor Obie said he did not see adoption of this ordinance as abdication of the City's authority for land use decisions. He gave the example of commercial or industrial zones, where the City, in applying the zone, outlines a general category of use for the land but does not act on a particular use. He felt that the PL zone, as amended by the proposed ordinance, would work in a similar manner. He supported adoption of the ordinance with the amendment proposed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindberg said he felt that the question raised by the public testimony was whether vocational curriculums belong in the PL setting. He said he believed e this was the case and would therefore support the ordinance. Councilor Miller said that since the impacts of some of the uses proposed in the ordinance for surplus school land would be very different than the impact of a school, there was a very real need for adequate community input into each decision, including opportunity to discuss the terms of the lease and such things as hours of operation and noise levels. She said that there was also a need to establish an on-going mechanism for communication between the neighbors and the lessee. She felt that the abundance of testimony to the council on the Laurel Hill siting issue was an indication that the school district was not providing adequate opportunity for public input and community problem-solving. She did not feel that the adopted land use policies of the school board provided much reassurance, especially since leases for periods under three years were not viewed as land use decisions. She felt that a number of the uses that could be proposed under the categories listed in the draft ordinance could be difficult to accommodate in a residential neighborhood. She suggested that the council make all uses conditional or at least shift some of the more controversial uses to the conditional category. She urged the council not to rush into this decision. Councilor Obie suggested that a decision on this item be postponed until September. Mr. Gleason said that the district had a number of leases awaiting council approval of the ordinance and that if the council did not act tonight, those leases could not go into effect until late September. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 6 e The council took a brief recess. CB 2508--An ordinance concerning the PL Public Lands district; amending sections 9.268, 9.534, 9.540, 9.542 and 9.582 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing section 9.282 of that code; adding sections 9.400, 9.402, and 9.404 to that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, 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. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion by moving items (8), (9), and (10) of Section 9.402 (d) into Section 9.404, thereby making them conditional uses. Ms. Wooten said that she would support the amendment because she was concerned with establishing a process for adequate public involvement. Ms. Schue concurred and said that the conditional use process was a logical way of providing for such involvement within the structure of City ordinances. She suggested that a review period be set up for the council to consider how the ordinance was working. Mayor Keller said that the council recognized that the school district has long been in the business of running schools and that providing for use of surplus e buildings was a new venture for the district. He felt that as the district proceeded in this new venture, it would become more sensitive to the concerns of the public. He believed that the proposed amendment provided a good moderate ground for the use of public land. Mayor Keller emphasized to those who had testified that the amendment proposed by Ms. Miller would provide for a public hearing but that it did not guarantee that the wishes of those testifying would be granted. Councilor Ball said that he felt a more thourough review of this issue was needed before the council took action and that he would therefore oppose the motion on the second reading. Mr. Hamel concurred. Mr. Lindberg said that he would support the amendment as a compromise measure. He encouraged City and 4-J staffs to work together. Mr. Gleason suggested that the council call for a review of the ordinance in one year. He referred to the wording of Section 9.402 (d) (8) and noted that adoption of Ms. Miller's amendment would require private educational institutions to go through the conditional use process and would therefore prevent such institutions from opening in surplus 4-J buildings at the commencement of the school year in September 1982. He suggested deletion of private educational institutions from Ms. Miller's proposed amendment. Ms. Miller, with the consent of her second, Ms. Smith, amended her motion by adding provision for a one-year review of the ordinance and by deleting private educational institutions from the uses to e be made conditional. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 7 e Councilor Wooten said she felt that separating private educational institutions from vocational institutions, as proposed by Ms. Miller, was discriminatory toward vocational programs. She said she would therefore oppose the amendment. A roll call vote was taken on Ms. Miller's amended motion to amend the main motion. The amendment carried 5:3, with Councilors Lindberg, Miller, Obie, Schue, and Smith voting in favor; and Councilors Ball, Hamel, and Wooten voting in opposition. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend Section 9.404 (c) of the ordinance by terminating the section with the word "housing" and deleting the remainder of the text of (c). Mr. Chenkin said that the intent of this section had been to provide that an institution such as the University of Oregon would not have to obtain a conditional use permit to build dormitories on PL-zoned land owned by the University. Ms. Miller said that this would still be the case, since Section 9.404 deals only with surplus public land, and land owned by the University and needed for dormitories would not be surplus land. A roll call vote was taken on Ms. Miller's motion to amend the main motion. The amendment carried 7:1, with Councilors Ball, Lindberg, Miller, Obie, Schue, Smith, and Wooten voting in favor; and Councilor Hamel opposed. e A roll call vote was taken on the main motion, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2508 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote, motion carried 5:3, with Councilors Lindberg, Miller, Obie, Schue, and Smith voting in favor; and Councilors Ball, Hamel, and Wooten voting in opposition. The bill was declared passed and numbered 19009. B. Extra-Territorial Extension Request for West Eugene Sewage Project (memo, resolution, background information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said that the proposed project contained two parts: construction of a pressure line for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) and construction of a gravity-fed system to serve the Willow Creek area. He said that because the routes of these projects extended outside the corporate limits of the City of Eugene, the approval of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission was needed. Mr. Teitzel referred to a letter from John C. Neely, Jr., on this matter, which had been distributed to the councilors in their packets. He said that the MWMC had approved the request on July 8 and that the Eugene Planning Commission had voted on July 9 to recommend approval to the council. Mr. Teitzel noted that Bill pye of MWMC was present to respond to questions from - councilors. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 8 e Ms. Wooten asked whether businesses and residences would be disrupted by construc- tion of these projects. ~ Public hearing was opened. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson Street, said he believed in the free enterprise system and therefore felt that public investment in such things as sewers should not be used to reduce the ability of lands outside the City to compete with lands within the City in attracting industry. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel responded to Ms. Wooten's question and said that the route for these projects had been chosen to disturb as few businesses as possible. He said that four possible routes had been considered, that owners of all properties affected by those routes had been notified, and that public hearings had been held. Councilor Smith said, as a member of the MWMC, that good notification efforts were made and that MWMC recommended approval of the proposed route. Mr. Gleason said that the project would serve the West Eugene area, including approximately one-third of the City, not just the Willow Creek area. Councilor Ball added that overloaded sewer systems in the Bethel area would also be served by the project. Res. No. 3705--A resolution initiating proceedings before the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission e for approval for extra-territorial extension of sanitary sewers. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. C. Public Works Contract Awards (memo, tabulations attached) 1. Sanitary sewer reconstruction on Spring Boulevard to 23rd Avenue (2025) 2. Sanitary sewer between Fox Hollow Road and West Drive from Fox Hollow Road to Martin Street (2021) Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer. Mr. Teitzel said staff recommended that the council not award a contract for the Spring Boulevard project, since the bid received was out of line with the engineer's estimate of the cost. He said staff recommended awarding the contract for the Fox Hollow Road project to Eugene Sand and Gravel, Incorporated, on the condition that necessary easements be acquired by the City. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 9 . e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to award the contract on item I-C-2, as directed by staff. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. II. CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT AWARD re: PROPOSED PAVING OF FIR ACRES ROAD (memo, tabulation attached) Mr. Gleason said that the council had previously held a public hearing on this item and had directed staff to meet with property owners involved and report back to the council. Mr. Teitzel said that staff had met with interested citizens on August 3, 1982. He said that owners of 46.2 percent of the footage involved in the project had signed petitions in favor of the project, and that another 19.3 percent had previously signed petitions in favor, at the time of property subdivision. He said that this resulted in a petition in favor of 65.5 percent. Responding to a question from Councilor Obie, Mr. Teitzel said that over 50% of the footage was owned by people who favored the project or who were required by earlier commitments to support it. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the staff recommenda- tion and award the contract. Mr. Hamel said that this project is a high priority with the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority. e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. I I I. CONSIDERATION OF HEARING PANEL MINUTES/FINDINGS OF FACT OF JULY 19, 1982, and July 26, 1982, re: LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE SIDEPOCKET TAVERN (memo, findings, minutes distributed) Ms. Miller said the Hearing Panel recommended that the license be extended for one year, with the understanding that the panel recommended that no further extension be given if past and current problems with the business persist. Mr. Lindberg asked that the second paragraph of the minutes of the Hearing Panel meeting of July 26, 1982, be corrected to indicate that while he agreed with the findings of fact, he felt that the council should (rather than will) issue an unfavorable recommendation if problems with the business persis~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve the Hearing Panel minutes and findings of fact of July 19, 1982, and July 26, 1982, regarding the Sidepocket Tavern. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. IV. RESOLUTION CONCERNING METRO PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENT (memo, resolution distributed) Mr. Gleason said that it was necessary for the acknowledgment of the Metropolitan Area General Plan that the council take formal action to declare its intent to proceed with implementation of policies contained in the plan regarding Bertelsen - Slough and Gillespie Butte. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 10 . e Res. No. 3706--A resolution adopting intent to proceed with planning efforts in accord with direction estab- lished by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Councilor Wooten asked why this was omitted during previous council consideration of the Metro Plan. Jim Farah, Assistant Planning Director, responded that this was an oversight. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mayor Keller referred to a letter he had received from 1,000 Friends of Oregon, commending the City of Eugene for its work in the metro planning effort. He said such support was gratifying. V. CDBG-FUNDED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (memo, background distributed) Item was held over. Meeting was adjourned to August 11, 1982. e Respectfully submitted, ~~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:dcm/CM27b5 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 11 . ENGINEERING DIVISION e BID NO.: 7 Opened: August 3, 1982 1. SANITARY SEWER RECONSTRUCTION Spring Boulevard to 23rd Avenue (Job No. 2025) Contract Cost Bidders AWARD 1. Gelco Grouting Service ------------- $ 22,709.50 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Engineer's Est. -0- $ 26,100.00 $ 14,000.00 (531) COMPLETION DATE: September 30, 1982 - -- ~~.-~.~~ ~.~,~.~.~.~~,....~ ~ 0:- -~.~-~.- ~.~.-.~_"!",.o:-_"!",,,,!,,, ~."!'" --:-'~"!'" ""'.- - ~"'- "!,,.- - -.- -- - --.- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- - -. e 2. SANITARY SEWER between Fox Hollow Road and West Drive from Fox Hollow to Martin St (Job No. 2021) Contract Cost Bidders AHARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel Inc -------------- $ 56,011.55 2. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. ---------------- $ 75,592.25 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractors, Inc. ------- $ 76,195.75 4. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $ 77,065.50 5. SCCI Inc. --------------------------___ $ 77,082.00 6. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $ 79,851.00 7 . H & J Construction -----------------___ $ 91,128.00 8. Clifford Bush ----------------------___ $ 99,303.00 9. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company $101 , 111 .00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City San. Lat. $ 0.092/SF -0- San. Service $ 90.00/Each e COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1982 . . ENGINEERING DIVISION BID NO. 6 Opened: July 20, 1982 e l. PAVING on Fir,Ac~es Road from Bond Lane to Wi11ag;11esp;e Road (Job'No.1864) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Bid Alternate Bid AWARD 1. Eugege Sand & Gravel Inc.-------------- $ -0- $ 79,943.70 2. Mars e Bros. Contractors, I.nc. ----------- $ -0- $ 81,991.60 3. Egge Sand & Gravel Co. -----------_____ $ 83,496.52 $' -0- 4. Wildish Construction Co.--------------- $ -O- S 84,066.53 5. Benge Paving Inc. ---------______________ $ 88,294. 13 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28-Foot Paving. $ 31.25/FF -0- . -O- S-Inch Cone. Dr. $ 2 .20/ SF San. Service $1,400.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: October 30, 1982 e e ~