Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/1983 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 28, 1983 7 : 30 p. m . COUNCILORS PRESENT: John Ball, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Mark Lindberg, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Betty Smith, Cynthia Wooten. ABSENT: Mayor Gus Keller. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Emily Schue, presiding officer. I. ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING GIRL SCOUT ~EEK City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced Carrie Payne of the Girl Scouts. Ms. Payne said that March 6 through 12 is Girl Scout Week. She presented background information on the history of the Girl Scouts and described the organization's activities in the Eugene area. Several representatives of local Gi rl Scout and Browni e troops presented boxes of cooki es to council ors. ~ II. PETITION RELATING TO SAM R STREET, 12TH AVENUE, AND WALLIS STREET Ms. Schue said that the council had received petitions from several citizens regarding street maintenance. She said that Ray Janisse would present testimony 'on the matter. e Ray Janisse, 84700 Arbie Lane, said that five years ago he had developed a subdivision at the end of Wallis Street and had been required by the City to develop two streets within that subdivision, at a cost of $80,000, and then to donate the streets to the City. He said he had done thi s with the expectation that access streets to the subdivision would soon be paved. Mr. Janisse said that 16 businesses, 4 dwellings, and a 40-member church were located in the subdivision, but that the access streets had never been paved. He said that the gravel access streets had deteriorated so badly that they were barely usable. Mr. Janisse said that Eugene Sand and Gravel had estimated it would cost $3,196 to bri ng the access streets up to Ci ty standards. He noted that he had di scussed the matter with Bob Hammitt of Public Works Maintenance and that he understood that the streets had been scheduled for maintenance but that the proposed ripping, graveling, and grading would probably last only three to four weeks before the streets deteriorated again. He said petitioners asked 1) that the streets be graded to City standards, not just patched; 2) that the streets be maintained on a regular schedule and that they be oiled as soon as possible; and 3) that paving of the streets be done as soon as possible. Mr. Janisse asked the City to demonstrate its new pro-business attitude by moving as quickly as possible to grant these three requests. He said it would be difficult or lmpossible to rent or sell property until the streets are improved. He said that dust from the unpaved streets was a major contributor to area air pollution. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 1 e e - Councilor Obie said that this subdivision was located in his ward and that he felt the council should consider City-initiated improvements. City Engineer Bert Teitzel said that the City had previously received petitions for improvements from about 50 percent of the affected property owners. Mr. Gleason said that staff would report back to the council on this matter at a future meeting and that the council would then consider whether to schedule a public hearing to initiate the improvements. Mr. Janisse said that volunteers from the area'were willing to help with whatever work is needed to get the project moving. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Works Contract Awards (memo, tabulation attached) 1. Paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewalk in Spring Boulevard from 30th Avenue to Dogwood Street (Job #2019) Mr. Gleason introduced City Engineer Bert Teitzel. Mr. Teitzel said staff recommended awarding the the contract. He noted that there was a remonstrance from the property owner who represented 100 percent of the property involved. Mr. Teitzel said that an improvement petition was previously filed by the property owner as a requirement of a planned unit development in the area. He said that the proposed improvement project was needed to connect the residential area south of the 30th Avenue with the overpass being constructed by Lane County at 30th Avenue and Spring Boulevard. Mr. Teitzel said that notification of the Hearings Panel hearing had been made, as required by City Code, and that the Hearings Panel had recommended that the assessment be made. Councilor Obie referred to materials submitted by the property owner, John Matott, regarding the project, in which Mr. Matott said that he had not received the required notice of the Hearings Panel hearing. Mr. Teitzel responded that according to his records the notice had been mailed on February 8 for a hearing on February 21 and that this satisfied the legal requirement for 10 days' notice. Mr. Obie stated that Mr. Matott had said the letter was mailed on February 14, not February 8. Councilor Smith asked if Mr. Teitzel had talked with Mr. Matott about this discrepancy in interpretation of the dates. Mr. Teitzel said that he had not talked with Mr. Matott regarding the dates or the deferral of assessment, but that they had discussed all the other items mentioned in Mr. Matott's letter to the council. Public hearing was opened. Mr. Gleason said that the council would need a two-thirds vote to reopen the hearing on the assessment and that, otherwise, this hearing would be solely on the award of the contract. John Matott, 2226 Columbia Street, said that he owns all the property on both sides of the proposed project. He said that he had signed a petition regarding street improvements at the time that the developed a planned unit development in 1981. He said he had not requested that the improvements be constructed. He felt that construction would not have been initiated if the 30th Avenue overpass had not been constructed and that he was thus being asked to bear the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 2 e e e burden of an access road to that overpass that would serve hundreds of residents who live south of 30th. He said that he had not received adequate notice of the Hearings Panel hearing on February 21 and noted that the notification letter from the City had been postmarked February 14. He said that on February 13 a friend had informed him of the hearing and that he had therefore written to the council regarding the matter on February 14--before he had received the notice from the City. He said that the notification letter from the City was not sent by certified mail, as required by City Code. He therefore requested that the council hold a hearing on the matter or return the matter to the Hearings Panel. He said he had consulted an appraiser to determine the benefit that would be provided to his property by the proposed improvements. He noted the appraiser had stated that, aside from the benefit for the sewer portion of the assessment, there would be no special benefit from the improvements. Mr. Matott acknowledged that the sewer work would benefit his property and said he was willing to pay this portion of the assessment. He felt that Lane County should be required to construct the access to the overpass as a part of the total overpass project. He said there was no curb or street access to the proposed project from his property. He said that if this was not possible, he requested that the council refer the matter back to the Hearings Panel so that he could go through the legally required assessment process. Mr. Matott said that if the council did not take this action, he would urge the council to have the City send its own appraiser to the site to assess special benefit to his property from the improve- ments. He said he would abide by that appraisal. He said that if the council did not grant these requests, he would request the council to instruct the Finance Department to allow the assessment to be deferred until the property is developed. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel said that improvement of this street was required by the planned unit development that Mr. Matott had constructed in 1981 and that this was documented in the records of the Hearings Official, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Mr. Teitzel stated that the timing of the improvements was an issue and agreed that if the overpass had not been constructed the improvements probably would not have been initiated until the property was developed. He said that improvements to Spring Boulevard had been included in the Master Road Plan for a number of years. Mr. Teitzel said he would need to verify with the Finance Department whether the required ten-day notification was provided for the Hearings Panel hearing. Mr. Teitzel said staff recommended awarding the contract. Councilor Obie suggested that the council's decision on the matter be postponed until staff can verify that the required public notice was provided. He asked Councilors Lindberg and Ball, who had served on the Hearings Panel for this item, if they believed there was a need for more testimony on the matter. Councilor Ball said he believed there was a need for more discussion, including addressing the question of whether the original purpose of the dedication of that portion of Spring Boulevard was to serve Mr. Matott's property or to connect Spring to 30th Avenue. He noted that Hearings Official Jim Spickerman had discussed the appropriateness of assessing improvements on all the property served. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 3 e Councilor Smith agreed that it was appropriate to refer the matter back to the Hearings Panel for further discussion and information from staff. She said more information on the question of deferred assessments was also needed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the matter be referred back to the Hearings Panel, with staff to respond to the questions raised by Mr. Matott, including the question of adequate legal notice. e Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, noted that the council was presently considering only the bid award, not the assessment itself. Mr. Gleason said that a two-thirds vote of the council was needed to open discussion of the assessment. He said that the council must decide on the bid issue independent of what the Hearings Panel decides regarding the assessment. Responding to a question from Mr. Gleason, Mr. Teitzel said that there would not be a problem with holding the bid award for 30 days. Mr. Lindberg said that the questions of special benefit and of council-initiated versus owner-initiated projects needed to be dealt with. He noted that at the Hearings Panel level he had personally treated this as if it were a City-initiated project. Councilor Hansen said he believed that the Hearings Panel would face the same problems it had addressed in dealing with the Goodpasture Island Road assessments. He felt that the decision on the question of special benefits would ultimately be the same. Mr. Obie said he was concerned that Mr. Matott be given an opportunity to develop a record regarding the assessment. Roll call vote; motion carred 7:1, with Councilors Ball, Hansen, Holmer, Lindberg, Obie, Schue, and Smith voting in favor and Councilor Wooten voting in opposition. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to table the matter of the contract award until the council has received the report of the Hearings Panel. Mr. Gleason said the City Code would require the contract award to be brought from the table for a decision within 45 days. Ms. Schue noted that motions to table are non-debatable. Roll call vote; motion carred 5:3, with Councilors Holmer, Lindberg, Obie, Schue, and Smith voting in favor and Councilors Ball, Hansen, and Wooten voting in opposition. 2. Sanitary Sewer from East Bank Trunk north To Centennial Boulevard to serve Tax Lots 17-03-29-30-02600, 17-03-29-40-301, 700, BOO, 900 and 1000, and in Centennial Boulevard from 350 feet east of Centenn i al Loop to 4500 feet east of Centenni al Loop (Job #2048) - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 4 e e e ~lr. Gl eason introduced City Engineer Bert Teitzel. Mr. Teitzel said that the project had been initiated by the property owners and that he knew of no oppo- sition to the project. He noted that Line-Tek, Inc., was the low bidder. Public hearing was opened. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award the bid to the low bidder as recommended. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gleason noted that this project would be able to serve Autzen Stadium. C. Rezoning Requests 1. Property located east of Coburg Road, between the extensions of Chad Street and Crescent Avenue from C-2/SR Community Commercial Oi strict with Si te Revi ew suffi x to I-1 Spec i al Industri al Di strict; and a change of zone from I-1 Speci al Industri al Oi strict to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review suffix; and a corresponding Sign District Boundary Change to Industrial Sign District and Integrated Commercial Sign District, respectively (Edwin Cone) (Z 82-23) (ma , back round information distributed) Recommen e Approva y P annlng Commlsslon anuary 0 Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department. Mr. Jacobson said that the request involved reconfiguration of zoning on 40 acres of commercial and industrial property in the Coburg-Crescent area. He said that the existing elongated zoning pattern of the property is limiting and that the new configuration would place commercial property along Coburg Road with the 1-1 Special industrial property located behind the commercial property with access from Chad Street. Mr. Jacobson said that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Ms. Schue noted that the applicant's representative, Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, was available to respond to questions from councilors. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2600--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review suffix to I-1 Special Industrial District, and a change of Sign District from Integrated Commercial Sign District to Industrial Sign District for property located east of Coburg Road between the extensions of Chad Street and Crescent Avenue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 5 - Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2600 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19097. CB 2601--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from 1-1 Special Industrial ~istrict to C-2/SR Community Commercial ~istrict with Site Review procedures, and a change in Sign ~istrict from Industrial Sign District to Integrated Commercial Sign ~istrict for property located east of Coburg Road between the extensions of Chad Street and Crescent Avenue. e Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2601 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19908. 2. Property located on the northeast corner of Garfield Street and West 6th Avenue from I-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to C-2 Commercial District for Tax Lot 1900 and 2200 and from I-2 Light-Medium Industrial District to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures for Tax Lots 2100 and 2400 (Corydon Jensen, Jr.) (Z 82-25) (map, background information distributed) Recommended Approval by Planning Commission January 18, 1983 Vote--5:0 Mr. Gleason introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning. Mr. Jacobson said that the request involved 70,000 square feet of property located at the northeast corner of Garfield Street and West 6th Avenue. He said that the property was presen~y developed with commercial uses. He stated that staff recommended application of the site review suffix to the two vacant lots at the corner of the property to address ingress and egress onto Garfield and 6th. Mr. Jacobson said that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 6 e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Ms. Schue noted that the applicant's representative, Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, was available to respond to questions from councilors. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2602--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from 1-2 Light-Medium property located on the northeast corner of Garfield Street and West 6th Avenue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Council Bill 2602 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19099. CB 2603--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from I-2 Light-Medium Industrial ~istrict to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures for property located on the northeast corner of Garfield Street and West 6th Avenue. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 18, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2603 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19100. C. Ordinance Implementing the Regional Industrial Pretreatment Program (memo, ordinance distributed) e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 7 e e . Mr. Gleason introduced Doug Cook, Public Works Department. Mr. Cook used visual materials to explain the purposes of the pretreatment program: 1) to protect the City's sewage system and sewage treatment system; 2) to prevent the pass- through of pollutants into the Willamette River; and 3) to assure that sludge can be reused. Mr. Cook said that local industries had been involved in develop- ment of the program. He said that the City was required to have such a program in order to receive Federal grant funds and also to obtain a discharge permit. Mr. Cook discussed the effects of the program on local industries. He said that specific industries would be required to have discharge permits at a cost of $200 for a three-year permit. He said that the program would be self-monitoring and that this could cost firms from $100 to $800 per year. He said that there could also be pretreatment costs. Mr. Cook said that there are approximately 200 industries in the City and about 50 would need permits, and that about 5 of those would need to make major changes. He said that once the council adopts the program, industries would be given 90 days to apply for permits, which would enable the City to meet the July 1, 1983, compliance deadline. Mr. Cook said a number of industries had asked about the confidentiality of the information they provided to the City. He said that the City stresses protection of such infor- mation and will continue to do so. Councilor Wooten said that she had been contacted by two industries in her ward, Eugene Linen Service and Steiner Corporation, which were very concerned about the program. She asked if the costs of this pretreatment program would be greater than those of others in Oregon. She asked how the proposed program was related to the recent sewer user fee increases. Mr. Gleason responded that less than one-tenth of one percent of the increase in user fees was related to pretreatment. Mr. Hansen asked how the City could claim that information furnished by industries would be confidential when the ordinance says that all the information is public. Mr. Cook acknowledged that the information was public but said the City would not disseminate the information without a written request and demonstration of a need to know. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney.s Office, said that there are exceptions in the law regarding public records which protect trade secrets, including production data. He said that, therefore, some of the information provided to the City relative to the pretreatment program would not be discoverable by means of the public records law. Councilor Wooten said she believed it was important to make discharge information available in the public interest. She asked if the information was readily available to the public. Mr. Cook said that information on the content of sludge was available upon request for farmers who use the sludge. Mr. Gleason said that information on the City's overall process and system was readily available but that information relative to a particular industry's processes would probably not be discoverable. Councilor Wooten said that on behalf of the industries in her ward she was interested in keeping the costs of the program as low as possible. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 8 e e . Councilor Hansen said he felt the council should have been provided with informa- tion on how the proposed $200 fee was derived. He expressed concern that the proposed ordinance gave the City Manager the discretionary powers to set discharge standards greater than State or Federal standards and noted for the record that he would not want to see this done. Councilor Holmer questioned Section 6.460 (4) on page 13 of the proposed ordi- nance, which required the City to publiSh a list of significant violators in the local newspaper with the largest circulation and asked whether there might be more efficient means to make the information public. Mr. Cook said that this was a Federal requirement. Public hearing was opened. James tvlorris, 564 Mary Lane, represented Monsanto Company. He said the firm supported the program but would like to comment and suggest changes to portions of the ordinance. He asked that Section 6.440 (h) on page 8 be deleted, since his firm did not feel that proprietary information was needed to protect either the treatment plant or the environment. He suggested that the 30-day period for notification of permit change in Section 6.440 (3) on page 9 was too short and suggested that the period be changed to 90 days. Referring to Section 6.440 (m) on page 5, Mr. Morris said the section was redundant, since its provisions were covered in Section 6.525, and should therefore be deleted. James L. Conner, 3390 Balsam Drive South, Salem, represented Agripac, 799 Ferry Street, Eugene. He submitted his testimony in writing. He said Agripac supported the ordinance and its intentions but objected to some of the wording, much of which was taken from language suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency and which reflected more a "police" attitude than one of industry cooperating with the City. He said that he had worked on a similar ordinance adopted by the City of Salem and that the resulting ordinance was a good one. He suggested several changes: 1) Section 6.440 (g)--delete requirement for a schematic diagram of the industry process and substitute requirement for site, floor, and plumbing plans; 2) Section 6.440 (h)--to protect industry confidentiality, substitute for proposed language a requirement for a description of activities and materials on the firm's premises as related to wastewater discharges; 3) Section 6.440 (9) delete requirement for providing access to all parts of premi ses at all reasonabl e times and substi tute requi rement for access wi thout unreasonable delay to points of wastewater discharge, sampling stations, etc.; 4) Section 6.440--Mr. Conner agreed that it was appropriate for the user to maintain pretreatment facilities but felt that the manner in which the user achieved the result should be left to the user's descretion; 5) Section 6.465-- Mr. Conner suggested deletion of the $50 fee for appeals to the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, which he felt was in the nature of harassment; and 6) Section 6.990 (5)(b)--Mr.Conner felt that the right to cut off the sewers to a non-complying firm was punishment enough and that addition of punishment by fine or incarceration should therefore be deleted. He urged the council to consider the proposed changes. Mr. Conner asked whether if a firm's discharge is severed due to a disagreement with the City Manager regarding pretreatment the firm's ensuing losses could be recovered from the City in the event that the firm's appeal is upheld. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 9 e e e Melba Barnes, 29943 Awbrey Lane, expressed concerns regarding toxic chemicals and heavy metal s in sl udge from the treatment pl ant, which she fel t coul d damage farm land and pollute wells. She said that a citizen committee had studied this issue but had never been given access to the informati on it needed to assess the problem. She said that Agripac's waste was not tested for toxics, heavy metals, or pesticides. She said that farmers have no recourse if their land is destroyed by sludge pollution. She discussed a map that had been submitted to the County Commissioners at the time that they considered the seasonal industrial wastewater facility for Agripac and said the public was not given adequate opportunity to examine or testify on the map. Scott Forrest, 5220 West Amazon Drive, said he was president of Forrest Paint Company. He said City staff had been very helpful and informative regarding the proposed program. He referred to Section 6.440 (1) on page 7 of the ordinance and said he did not feel that all industries "having potential to discharge" should be included in the ordinance. He said that his firm did not discharge. He suggested that 1 anguage be substituted to the effect that only fi rms "which the Ci ty Manager has determi ned are 1 i kel y to di scharge" shoul d be covered by the ordinance. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. ~Ir. Gl eason suggested that staff meet with those who had testifi ed and return to a future council meeting at which discussion of the program could be continued. Councilor Obie suggested that public notification of these meetings be provided and that councilors be informed of the time and pl ace of meeti ngs in case they want to sit in. Councilor Wooten asked that the Steiner Corporation be contacted and informed of the meetings. Councilor Obie asked that the response to the matters raised at tonight's hearing be made in writing and that the problem mentioned by Ms. Barnes be explained and her questions answered. Mr. Gleason said that the purpose of pretreatment is to eliminate the substances Ms. Barnes had talked about but said more detailed response would be made in writing. Councilor Ball asked if it was clear to staff and the public that the council was not di recti n9 staff to make changes, just to present in formati on for further council discussion. III. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND REAOING--LEVYING ASSESSMENTS A. Approval of Hearing Panel Minutes of February 21, 1983, and Adoption of the Findings of Fact (findings, minutes distributed) Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms.Smith, to approve the Hearing Panel minutes of February 21, 1983, and adopt the findings of fact, with the exception noted earlier in the meeting regarding Job #2019. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Amendment to CB 2553 Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend CB 2553 to correct account no. 810022-0260. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 10 e e . C. Levying Assessments Mr. Gleason noted that these bills had already been read for the first time and would therefore be read the second time by council bill number only. CB 2534--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Dove Lane from North Ruskin Street to 460 feet east (#81-29). Council Bill 2534 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19101. CB 2553--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Todd Street from West 18th Avenue to 500 feet south of Ellen Street; and on Ellen Street from 85 feet west of Buck Street to 100 feet east of Coventry way as amended (#81-22). Council Bill 2553 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19102. CB 2554--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer on Country Club Road from 1-105 to Willagillespie Road, and on Willagillespie Road from Country Club to 300 feet south of Clinton Avenue; and storm sewer in area between Country Club Road and I-105 (#81-23). Council Bill 2554 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19103. CB 2571--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalk on Oanebo Avenue from Royal Avenue to 11th Avenue (#82-0503). Council Bill 2571 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors ~esent voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19104. M1NUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 11 e e - CB 2598--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer from East Bank Trunk north to Centennial Boulevard to serve Tax Lots 17-03-29-3 0-02600, 17-03-29-4 0-301, 700, 800, 900, and 1000, and in Centennial Boulevard from 350 feet east of Centennial Loop to 4500 feet east of Centennial Loop (#83-03). Council Bill 2598 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 19105. Consideration of Council Bill 2599, levying assessments in Spring Boulevard, was not considered for second reading as, earlier in the meeting, this matter had been referred back to the Hearings Panel. The meeting was adjourned to March 2, 1983. Micheal O. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Darcy Marentette) MDG:DCM:pv/CM23b12 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 1983 Page 12 ENGINEERING DIVISION e Bid No: 2 Opened: January 18, 1983 1. Sanitary sewer from East Bank Trunk north to Centennial Boulevard to serve Tax Lots 17-03-29-30-02600, 17-03-29-40-301, 700,800,900 and 1000, and in Centennial Boulevard from 350 feet east of Centennial Loop to 4500 feet east of Centennial Loop (Job #2048) Contract Cost Bidders 1. Line - Tek, Inc. ------------------------- $156,448.96 2. Egge Sand & Gravel Co.-------------------- ~187,534.98 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel --------------------- ~204,027.10 4. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ------ $214,411.50 5. Dan o. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------- $233,327.90 6. Wildish Corvallis Construction Co. ------- $235,837.00 7. SCCI Inc. -------------------------------- $255,785.88 8. Kurt Kimsey Construction Co. ------------- $324,722.45 9. H & J Construction ----------------------- $359,296.80 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City San. Lat. San. Service e Completion Date: July $ .09/ SF $ 275.00/Ea $ 95,000.00 1, 1983 Amount Budgeted $ 100,000.00 (531) 2. Paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewalk in Spring Boulevard from 30th Avenue to Dogwood Street (Jab #2019) Contract Cost Bidders BASIC $ 27,723.90 '$ 28,824.90 $ -0- $ -0- $ 34,350.00 $ 43,095.99 1. E~1e Sand & Gravel ---------------------- 2. W, dish Corvallls Construction Co. ------ 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ----------- 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel --------------______ 5. A.E. Associates -------------------______ 6. Staton Construction, Inc. --------------- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City 36-Paving 5-Foot Sidewalk San. Lat. Stm. Sewer Service ~Jmp7etion Date: $ 57.00/FF $ l6.50/FF $ . 19/ SF $ .03/SF $ 52.80/Each September 8, 7983 -0- ALTERNATE $ -0- $ -0- $ 30,604.70 $ 32,239.72 $ 38,260.00 $ 42,821.50 Amount Budgeted -0- \'