HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1975 Meeting
M I NUT E S
. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
July 2,1975
- Special meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called for the
purpose of awarding contract for improvement of Barger Drive, previously considered at
June 23, 1975 Council meeting and June 25, 1975 committee-of-the-whole meeting.
The meeting was called to order by Council President Neil Murray in the absence of
Mayor Anderson at 11:00 a.m. on July 2, 1975 in the Council Chamber with other Council
members present: Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel,
Eric Haws, and Edna Shirey.
I - Barger Drive Contract Award (Bids opened June 17, 1975)
Cos t to Amaunt
~~~~ vf Bidccr ;.nu Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budge ted
PAVH;G. SA~ITARY SE\,ER. STOR~.l SEHER & SIDHIALK:
7. Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200' W. of Ohio
Street; Sanitary Sewer on Barger Drive from W,
in'tin ;';ay l'lcst to the OI,'S section line of
Sections 16 & 17 and 20 & 21 (605)
1. Wildish Construct';on COlr.pany................No B~d...........$71l.949.88......28: Pav.......$ 17.95/FF.....Extra Width..$ 48.600,00l $131.100.00
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc.................. .No B1d..,..,.... .$730.650.63 36 Pav.......$ 2l.00/FF Depth..$ 82.500.00
3, Fred St~bbert...............................$734.l02.46"....No Bid 44' Pav.......$ 24.10/FF 8ike Path....$137.500.00 $106.000.00
4" Sidewalk...$ 0.72/SF Storm Swr....$ 98.500,00 -0-
5" Sidewalk...$ 0.85/SF San. Swr..... $ 600.00 -0-
7" Sidewalk...$ 1.40/SF Lane County..$ 32.600.00
5" Drives.....$ 1.10/SF
San. Swr .Lat... $ 0.031/sq.ft.
San. Serv.....$335.00/Each
COMPLETION DATE: September 1. 1976
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------._----.~~----------------------------------------------------
.- Paving, sanitary and storm sewer, and sidewalk on Barger Drive - Assis-
tant Manager said staff had met with the contractor and the following
alternatives were offp.red (in line with action at June 23 Council meet-
ing): First, award contract to the low 'bidder and complete the project
as designed. Second, award contract to the low bidder and complete
the project as designed but take into consideration the problems of the
two property owners whose homes would then be 15 feet from the new
right-of-way. Staff feels both of those properties could be acquired
at less public expense than realignment of the road and acquisition of
properties on the other side of the street. Also, something less than
acquisition might be acceptable to the property owners - perhaps relo-
cation of the houses on their lots or the opportunity to sell their
properties after the improvements were completed.
Councilman Bradley entered the meeting.
Assistant Manager said the contractor is asserting the project can be
finished this year. Any effort to change the time schedule - construct-
ing the east end first to allow possible redesign of the alignment -
would result in an increase in contract cost. Assistant Manager said
it was debatable whether the contract language would allow a Change in
the work schedule since it clearly provides for construction of the
west end first. Also, there would be added costs, more tree removal,
if the alignment was changed.
The other alternative is to cancel the contract and rebid the project.
Staff estimated a 10% to 15% increase in contract cost including
. assessed cost if that alternative was pursued.
Assistant Manager added that it should be recognized a change in align-
ment would not do away with the complaints, it would only change the
group from whom the complaints would come.
7/2/75 - 1
3<.03
-.
Staff recommended the second option if the main concern w"as about those
people whose homes would be closer to the road as a result of the --
improvements. Negotiations could be carried on giving the owners of
the two properties as many options as could be provided.
Don Allen, public works director, noted one important factor to be con-
sidered if the realignment was changed again. The resolution author-
izing.negotiation and condemnation for acquisition of properties on the
south side would have to be repealed and a new resolution adopted giving
that authorization for properties on the other side. This would mean a
60-to 90-day period from the date the resolution was adopted until the
properties could be acquired, That could go beyond the time limit for
the contract now under consideration and would probably mean the project
would have to be rebid next year.
Councilman Haws inquired about the procedure to be followed at this point
in making a decision. He noted a special Council meeting would have to
be held for award of the contract and he wanted those people whose pro-
perties would be affected by the alignment to be present so they would
know what was happening. Assistant Manager said it would take an
official Council meeting, declaration of a meeting at this time would
constitute sufficient public notice. He suggested scheduling such a meet-
ing for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 2, 1975, prior to the usual committee- 6. Comm
of-the-whole meeting. /2475
Approve
Murray-Williams to endorse the concept of the second option (award con-
tract on project as designed, negotiate with two property owners as pro-
posed) and schedule a Council meeting at 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 2,
1975. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye, except -~.
Councilman Bradley voting no.
Assistant Manager reviewed action taken in committee and explained that redesign of the
project would mean canceling these bids and calling new bids next year with attendant
inflationary cost increases resulting in increased assessments. He added that problems
had been resolved during the past week that would permit realignment of the project
five feet farther to the north thereby placing the right-of-way 20 feet rather than
15 feet away from the two houses on the south side. However, staff was still willing
to work with those property owners to minimize the impact of the road if the Council
wished.
Don Allen, public works director, e~plained that title search had revealed that a I-A-l
50-foot legal right-of-way existed rather than 40 feet as debated in negotiations,
this assured legal ground on which to move the alignment five feet to the north.
Councilman Williams asked what the five-foot move would do to the properties on the
north side. Mr. Allen responded that the sidewalk would be about two feet from the
store building to the west. The gas pumps for the store to the east would be about **
two feet into the right-of-way and would have to be moved to allow the sidewalk there
to be within the legal right-of-way. No structures would have to be moved,he said.
In response to Mr. Williams question whether staff was absolutely sure the pumps were
in the right-of-way,Mr. Allen said they were according to survey. **Later in the dis-
cussion, Mr. Allen corrected his statement, saying that under the original alignment
on the centerline of the right-of-way, the gas pumps would have been in the right-of-
way. With the proposed new alignment, the gas pumps will be on private property .
3.3 feet back from the right-of-way.**
Councilman Haws said it was his understanding the first line of trees and landscaping
on the sou~h would have to be removed even with the five-foot move to the north.
Assistant Manager said that vegetation would have to be removed even without that
7/2/75 - 2 "5>fo~
- --
.
. realignment. Negotiations are continuing with property owners concerning trees on the
north side to determine location of sidewalk installation. Mr. Allen added that three
. trees on the south side would be saved because of the proposed realignment to the north.
Councilman Bradley wondered if it would be appropriate for the attorney representing
one of the affected property owners to respond with regard to the proposed new alignment.
Assistant Manager said it was his understanding the attorney had been aware the five-
foot right-of-way was in public ownership and had discussed that fact with the property
owners. Whether its actual use was discussed he didn't know, but the property owner
did know it was there and would be used.
Councilman Haws commented that there would be only one lane access to the gas pumps,
the two existing lanes could not be used. To which Mr. Allen responded that parking
on the sidewalk would in no way be authorized.
Councilwoman Shirey asked what would be entailed in "staff working with the property
owners. " Assistant Manager answered that alternatives were not as demanding with the
right-of-way 20 feet away from homes on the south under the proposed shift to the north.
However, he had some concern about precedent if on another arterial project there
should be 50 property owners with situations similar to the two houses under discussion.
Since there were only two in this case, if the Council wished, something might be worked
out with regard to minimizing the impact of the road. He suggested some time limit be
set - a year or six months - within which public involvement must be resolved.
Councilman Williams thought that there should be opportunity for public input in view
of the new change in alignment.
I-A-2 Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Hamel to reopen public hearing not to
e exceed 15 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Public hearing was reopened.
Douglas Melevin, 1355 Oak Street, attorney representing property owners on the south
side of the street, said he had not had the opportunity to speak to his clients since
this most recent change in the alignment and suggested they give their own individual
views. He pointed out that properties on the south would still be losing much more
land than if the road was built on a straight line. He gained confirmation from
Mr. Allen that the new alignment would take only four feet more from those properties
than it would have had the road been constructed on a straight line. He suggested
that one year be given in which to work out landscaping problems in minimizing impact
of the road if the suggestion ~as followed to work with the property owners in that
regard. This, he said, would give time for proper planning and construction in view
of the completion of the improvement just prior to the winter months.
Howard Warner, 1510 Olive Street, representing the Barger Drive Market, wanted assurance
that there would be "speedy assistant" from the city with regard to approval of plans
for construction of a new market. He also questioned the legality of the five-foot
right-of-way, saying he had checked ownership back to 1951 and had found that previous
owners had not signed anything with regard to the five feet. Mr. Warner also thought
there should be more effort to give public notice of meetings on these types of im-
provements.
Irving Linquist, 3890 Barger Drive, said he owned property on the other side of Belt
Line to the east. He said he knew nothing of the project and wondered if plans were
,_ available to see whether his property was affected.
John Munn, 5100 Barger Drive, wondered if the July 1 deadline for negotiations would be
changed. He also asked who did the negotiating and where one could get an estimate of
the estimate of the assessment for the project.
7/2/75 - 3
~foS
~
Property owner at 1995 Regina Street read the notice received from the city with ..
regard to the public hearing on bid award. She said if that letter was true - that
the cost of the project would be paid by assessment to the property benefitted - then
no property abutting Barger could be assessed because there were none benefitted. .
She questioned the need for sidewalk on each side of the road and the bike paths and
making property owners pay for them.
Denise Wozniak, 4855 Barger Drive, felt sidewalks were needed as safety factor for
children in the area.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
Mr. Allen, in response to questions raised, said that negotiations were carried on by
staff members, assisted by Mr. Brunton, an outside negotiator. He said there was no
way of knowing how many title policies were in effect, however. the city was assured
by title company, and it is of record, that Barger Drive does have a 50-foot right-of-
way. The four-foot offset was designed, he said, to avoid having to remove structures
on the north. Also, that design would cause less damages than the original alignment
on the centerline. With regard to the deadline, Mr. Allen said the present one if
July 7 for completing negotiations. However, another two weeks would have to be allowed,
considering proposed changes in the alignment. If negotiations were not completed by
that time, he said, the city would have to go to condemnation in order to be able to
schedule the work this year.
Councilman Bradley asked how many structures would have to be removed if the road was
built in a straight line. Mr. Allen said one store building would have to be removed
and there would be damages to the second one. The cost would amount to about $60,000
to $70,000 based on appraisals.
Councilwoman Bea1 asked if staff's working with property owners on landscaping would .
mean the parks department would be involved, giving plant materials, or helping with
installation. Assistant Manager was not sure until there were discussions with the
property owners to determine just what was needed. Also, it would be necessary to
await completion of the project to determine the impact. Should spending city funds
be necessary, he said, the matter would be brought back for Council consideration.
Mrs. Bea1 thought it was the sense of the Council that the city would be both generous
and considerate in dealing with the two property owners on the south with regard to
landscaping.
Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Hamel to award the contract to the low
bidder (Wi1dish Construction) with realignment of the project five feet I-A-3
to the north. .
Councilman Bradley urged a 'no' vote because he thought a straight alignment would
best suit the residential character of the area even though it meant more cost to
the city.
Councilman Haws asked whether the street wotl1d be paved this summer and whether all
the trees on the north side would have to be removed if the alignment was straight.
Mr. Allen said condemnation procedures would have to be started over again on proper-
ties on the north side, a gO-day process, preventing completion this year. He reminded
the Council that the contractor had not been willing to construct the east end first.
He said there would be no question that the trees on the north side would have to be re-
moved with a straight alignment. That decision came about because excavation would
cause problems unless they were removed. 4'
Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried - Council members
Murray, Bea1, Hamel,. Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council member Bradley
voting no; Council members Keller and Williams abstaining.
7/2/75 - 4 ,"3'~<o
..
Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr. Hamel that in awarding the contract and in
. negotiating with the two property owners on the south side about replace-
ment or rearrangement of the landscaping, the city be both considerate
. and generous, and that a time limit of one year be set for completing
negotiations on the landscaping. Motion carried - Council members ~1urray,
Beal, Bradley, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller
and Williams abstaining.
Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned.
/I;f://lW-ii:-
A. K. Martin
Asst. City Manager
e
.
--
7/2/75 - 5
5\07