Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/1977 Meeting . e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL June 27, 1977 Adjourned meeting from June 22, 1977, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on June 27, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, D.W. Hamel, Tom Williams, Ray Bra~ley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. Awards Ceremony Mayor Keller, in a short introductory speech, acknowledged all persons who have served on the various boards and commissions. He thanked them for their hard work and long hours spent, saying these citizens provided the balance between the City Council and the public in protection against apathy. Each contribution was essential. He extended to all, on behalf of the City Council and other citizens in the community, thanks and good wishes. Those present to receive awards were the following: Edna Shirey, Councilor, 1/15/75 to 1/3/77; Frank Riggs, Boxing Commission, 1/1/68 to 1/1/77; - Ruth Miller, Eugene Renewal Agency, 7/10/67 to 8/11/76; Robert Deverell, Garbage Board, 1/13/69 to 1/1/77; Scott Lieuallen, Budget Committee, 4/26/76 to 12/31/76; Beth Campbell, Budget Committee, 1/12/75 to 8/12/76; Gus Keller, Downtown Development Board, 1/1/75 to 1/1/77; Housing and Community Development Commission--Tom Williams, 6/11/75 to 1/12/76 and David E. Munz, 6/11/75 to 12/31/76; Marlene Moore, Commission on Aging, 2/5/76 to 12/31/76; Commission on Handicapped--Chris Casady, 2/10/76 to 12/31/76 and Martin Weideman, 2/10/76 to 5/10/77; Michael Philips, Minor- ities Commission, 2/12/76 to 8/13/76. Those receiving awards but not present were the following: Les Anderson, Mayor, 1/6/69 to 1/3/77; Councilors Wickes Beal, 1/6/69 to 1/3/77; and Neil Murray, 1/2/73 to 1/3/77; Lee Penney, Budget Committee, 1/1/71 to 12/31/76; Kenneth Reeder, Planning Commission, 10/15/71 to 4/1/77; Louis Bonson, Building-Housing Code Board of Appeals, 5/7/65 to 1/1/77; Bob Rubenstein, Downtown Development Board, 8/8/72 to 1/1/76; Mike McCall, Electrical Board, 1/1/74 to 1/1/77; Cecil Saxon, Masonry Board, 10/9/69 to 1/1/77; Ray Bradshaw, Budget Committee, 1/1/75 to 12/15/76; Susan Franklin, Housing and Community Development Commission, 6/11/75 to 6/24/76; Handicapped Commission--Carol Hammons, 2/10/76 to 12/31/76 and Mike Helm, 8/2/76 to 3/31/77; Minorities Commission--Whitty Bass, 10/11/76 to 5/25/77 and Glenette Olvera, 2/12/76 to 5/25/77; Melinda Grier, Women's Commission, 2/2/76 to 12/31/76; Youth Commission--Judith Andrew, 11/9/76 to 1/31/77 and Julie Rutledge, 11/22/76 to 5/25/77; Dr. Charles Williams, Library Board, 1/29/75 to 11/29/76; Mike Feig, Sign - Board of Appeals, 3/25/74 to 2/28/76; and Eleanor Mulder, Zoning Board of Appeals, 1/1/73 to 10/1/76. 5o~ 6/27/77--1 . Martin Weideman, fanner member of the Handicapped Commission, presented . the City of Eugene an article he had written dealing with how Eugene recognizes the problem of handicapped persons in the community. The article was distributed to Council. I II. Public Hearings A. Withdrawals from Oakway Water District 1. CEU 77-19, north of Beltline Road east of Coburg Road (Cone/Breeden) 2. CEU 77-21, (Smith) (A 76-17) Manager said the properties had recently been annexed to the city and it was ,necessary to withdraw from the water district to avoid paying bonding to two water districts. Jim Saul, Planning Department, said normally the withdrawal from water districts would be considered at the same time as annexation, but these two properties had been overlooked. He was available to answer questions. Public hearing was opened, with no testimony being presented. C.B. 1501--Authorizing withdrawal from Oakway Water District CEU 77-19, north of Beltline Road east of Coburg Road (Cone/Breeden) was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that C.B 1501 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous - consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18009. C.B. 1502--Authorizing withdrawal form Oakway Water District CEU 77-21, (Smith) (Z 76-17) was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that C.B 1502 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at thi s ti me. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll ca 11 vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18010. B. Reorganization of Housing and Community Development Commission into . Community Development Committee and Joint Housing Committee Manager reviewed for Council discussion regarding this matter. The changes had been recommended by both committees and the HCDC. 510 6/27/77 --2 - The most recent wording for the ordinance had been distributed to Council. Paula Ross, HCC, was available to answer questions. Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented. C.B. 1503--Concerning Community Development Committee, the Joint Housing Committee, and disbanding the Housing and Community Development Commission; amending the City Code and declaring and emergency was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that C.B 1503 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18011. C. Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of zone change; located between 9th Place and 10th Avenue West, west of Hayes Street (Updegrave) (Z 77-16) from RA to C-2. e Denial recommended by Planning Commission April 12, 1977. Mr. Saul reported the property totaled 31,800 square feet and reviewed location for Council. There are several residences on the property, and less than half of the property is presently zoned C-2, with that C-2 property vacant. He referred Council to staff notes and minutes submitted by the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff. If the request were approved, the purpose would be to develop the property with varying commercial uses and the subject property would be developed as a parking area to serve these uses. When the Planning Commission considered the matter, it determined the proposed request was not consistent with the General Plan for the area, and there was no adequate public need shown. Council had received materials and an appeals statement from Mr. Gleaves. James Bernhard, Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. Vernon D. Gleaves, attorney, 975 Oak Street, represented the applicant. The property for the requested zone change consisted of the east half of the block bounded on the west by Garfield Street, and on the east by Hayes Street, between 9th Place and 10th Avenue. Mr. Updegrave's business is located south across 10th Avenue from the subject property and his need to expand that business was,the primary reason for the zone change request. The proposed expansion would provide additional parts storage space. Due to City Code requirements, the addition of 5,000+ square feet also necessitates provision for more parking spaces. Mr. Updegrave would seek to utilize the rezoned property e for that additional parking. t)/J 6/27/77--3 Mr. Bradley arrived. Mr. Gleaves said there were a number of residences on part of the - property which could not be rehabilitated. The City had reviewed the houses' exteriors, and indicated none were presently fit for human inhabitation and were not economically convertable as residences and would have to be removed. Mr. Gleaves presented to Council a number of pictures showing the deteriorated condition of the houses. He said the property was presently zoned RA, and reviewed for Council the City's description of RA zoning. He said it was obviously apparent the area was not semi-rural, as required in the RA zoning, and the existing zoning was thus obviously wrong. It was felt that C-2 zoning would be more appropriate for this piece of property. As for compliance to the General Plan, Mr. Gleaves said that issue was not clear cut. He said there was high density in the area, and the Plan had not been refined for that area. The Plan did not show neighborhood commercial or strip commercial, nor did it accurately reflect industrial or commercial growth in the area. He said the trend in the area had been to include commercial develop- ment, and he submitted it would be inappropriate land use to have a residential development running through the mid-block against C-2 zoning without an alley or a buffer zone. He said his client was presently faced with spending close to $200,000 to improve and expand the facilities, and he did not have sufficient parking to meet the city building code. There was no property nearby avail- e able for Mr. Updegrave to use. He said the question to be faced was placing parking on prime commercially-zoned land. He sub- mitted that the rezoning would allow a better land use, and felt the situation was one of facing whether or not this property would be developed with some type of new development. He said it was not a suitable location for some type of high density development. He noted the business was an asset to the City's business community, and a public need for continuation of the business could be very clearly established. . He believed the City Council had supported zone changes to permit existing businesses to expand and said this zone change request would be consistent with past policy. Protection for the neighbors in the area could be accomplished with site review attached to the zoning. He reiterated he believed RA zoning was inappropriate and believed commercial zoning would be more appropriate. He re- viewed the public need aspect to continue the business and the unavailability of other land in the area for that purpose. Other zone changes in the area had been opposed by neighboring residences, but none opposed this zone change. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul referred Council to the staff notes and minutes, saying the basic issues the Planning Commission and staff had felt important . were addressed there. In regard to the question of public need, he said the City Council was being asked to rezone one-half block 51~ 6/27/77--4 e of property residential so the applicant did not have to use another half-block for parking. He said the parking could be accommodated on one-half of that half-block without any form of zone change. The issue remained whether there was a public need for a zone change and whether the change would be compatible with the General Plan. Ms. Smith questioned Mr. Gleaves as to how many residences still existed on the property. Mr. Gleaves responded there were five residences remaining, one of which had been condemned; the four remaining buildings had been inspected and considered to be fire traps and should not be inhabited. Mr. Haws understood the parking'was needed for expansion of the business. He said Council was being asked to rezone more property than was needed, and wondered whether that could be used for any commercial purpose. He also wondered whether there was land avail- able for parking. Mr. Saul replied yes, the land could be used for any commercial purpose. He said the packet received by Council included a map showing the property available, noting it was the northeast corner of 10th and Garfield. Mr. Hamel questioned whether the business would be expanded within the building itself. Mr. Gleaves replied the building expansion would take place to the east of the existing building. There e would not be space available for parking with the expansion to the east. He said to comply with City Code, the business would need a total of 28 spaces with a warehouse addition. Mr. Obie wondered whether it would be possible to get a conditional use permit for parking in an RA zone, and whether there was a transi- tory use in an RA zone. Mr. Saul replied no to both questions. Mr. Willams wondered whether any work had been done to establish whether the 28 parking spaces were needed for conducting the business and whether any thought had been given to applying for a variance. Mr. Gleaves said ther~ was no real connected need for 28 parking spaces for this business, as the front-end sales would be conducted as they were at present. However, there would be only six parking spaces left, and the business would still be faced with the City Code regulations. Ken Nagao, architect, said the determination for 28 parking spaces came from a ratio between commercial space, office space, and storage area. He said 18 parking spaces were needed without the expansion, and the business was presently using a field across the street. He said the property had storage and retail sales on the eastern portion of the building, and that portion could be converted to parking to allow vacation of parking across the street, this being the reason for the requested zone change. In using the western portion of the e block for parking, prime commercial space would be used. He said the plans were to put the parking at the rear of the lot and land- scape the front, noting this as the reason for requesting C-2 zoning with site review. $13 6/27/77--5 Mr. Gleaves noted there had been only three Planning Commission -- members who voted on this denial and felt it was not a proper representation of the full Planning Commission. He also pointed out the presentation made before the Planning Commission had been by a real estate person who was more concerned with trying to show what he was going to do with the commercial land that showiong the needs and priorities of Mr. Updegrave. Mr. Gleaves reminded Council' that the business had been in its present location for over 15 years and offered a service which was the only one of its kind in Eugene. The need to expand the existing facility was re- quired by both government regulation and business economics. He said the public need to provide for the continuation of the business was intensified by the fact that OSHA regulations will require the installation and operation of very expensive dust-collecting equip- men t. He said Mr. Updegrave was trying to upgrade his business and not be forced to u~e prime land for parking. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams noted a great deal of sympathy for a person who was trying to expand his business. In trying to read through the notes and application, he said he had a great deal of difficulty in separating that which was a necessary request for expanding e business from that which was an attempt for commercial expansion. He would prefer to view those two issues separately. Mr. De 1 ay concurred with Mr. Williams regarding the question of expansion of a locally-owned business. However, the question was not whether the applicant was aSking for adequate parking, but whether rezoning would be used for some other purpose. Ms. Smith asked whether the applicant would be able to come back to the Planning Commission with another proposal. Mr. Sa u 1 sa i d the Code had a one-year limi tation, but if it were a different application, it could be considered earlier; and the one year could be waivered for a good cause. Ms. Smith noted sympathy for the expansion of the business, but felt apprehensive about the uncertain- ties expressed. Mayor Keller said Council was being faced with a question of de- fining public need. He said the tragedy that could result would be the business would exit from the community. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Budget for 1977-78 Manager said this was a pro forma hearing for overall City budget and revenue sharing components required by law. He sa i d there had been at least six budget hearings, and the process this evening was to ask for more public testimony. The actual budget ordinance e would be adopted at Council meeting June 29. He made one general observation in that the document submitted April 19, after going 51Y 6/27/77 --6 e through many budget hearings and many changes, had come out only $79 less. He said one pertinent point for Council was to note the tax estimate and revenue estimate were approximately the same as originally presented. Loren Stubbert, Finance Department, said the Budget Committee hearing June 21 had reviewed Room Tax Subcommittee proposals. One hundred thousand ~ollars ($100,000) had been committed to a convention center, $10,000 would be used for Historic Review Board, $50 000 for cultural activities, and $50,000 for convention-promotion. Eight thousand dollars from revenue sharing reserves was marked for a Mall manager. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. E. Public Works -- Valley River Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge (tabulation attached) Don Allen told Council the project was beIng hanJTedby.the Oregon State Department of Transportation, and the City has to expend 20% of the project costs in cash. Staff was requesting action by Council for authorization to participate in the project. He said the initial cost e estimate had been $326,000, of which the City's 20% portion would have been $72,000. However, when bids were received by the State, the low bid was $277.496, with an estimated total for the entire project to be $336,138. The City's 20% portion would then be $62,100, of which the City had prepaid $4,000. Mr. Allen explained the second lowest bid may have to be accepted by the State, as the low bidder had not been made aware of some conditions of the hidding, conditions regarding construction of the bridge in the river bed. Therefore, the City's amount might be about $64,900. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. I-laws moved , seconded by Mr. /lame I , to authorize City staff to enter into agreement with the State Highway Department of Transportation for construction of the Valley River Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge in an amount not to exceed $64,900. Motion carried unanimously. . 5/5 r-./77/77 ~ 7 1 - III. Ordinances Held for Second Reading The following council bills, read the first time June 13, 1977 and held, lacking unanimous consent for second reading, were brought back for second reading for council bill number and title only, with no Council member present requesting they be read in full. C.B. 1489--Rezoning area located on the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Garfield Street (Short) (Z 77-15) from R-1 to RP-SR was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. C.B. 1486--Rezoning area located along the west side of Oak Street between 26th and 27th Avenues East from R-l to RG (Belisle) (Z 77-17) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Mr. Obie requested the bills be separated and a vote taken on each. Mayor Keller asked if a majority of Council wanted the bills segre- gated. Mr. Delay asked for a point of order, noting when a request is made to segregate, the chair has to allow the segregation if there .- are two different questions involved. Stan Long, City Attorney, said Mr. Delay was correct. Mayor Keller then segregated the items. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that C.B. 1489 be approved and given final passage. Roll ca 11 vote. Motion carried, with all Council members present voting aye, except Obie and Bradley voting no. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that C.B. 1486 be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, with all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. The following council bills, read the first time June 13, 1977, and referred to Assessment Panel for hearing June 20, 1977 were brought back for second reading with Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: . 51b 6/27/77 - 8 e Manager reminded Council if it wished to discuss any further evidence, it would require two-thirds vote of Council to do so. C.B. 1495--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer on Hawkins Lane from 18th Avenue to Highland Oaks Drive was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to segregate the Widmer portion of C.B. 1495, based on information supplied to Council which had not come up at the Panel hearing. Mr. Lieuallen said he would be interested in pursuing the matter, but wanted clarification to identify the issues which were essential to the Widmers, who had requested a reduction in assessments levied. He felt the discussion should be whether the Widmers should have to pay for repaving of a driveway that the City had removed for widening the street. Mr. Haws felt there was no new information to be con- sidered and the assessment should be levied as proposed. He said if the hearing were opened, then everyone who had been assessed should be allowed to present testimony, noting nothing had been brought out to suggest reconsideration. Mr. Obie said the portion he was most concerned with related to the driveway approach. A letter received from the Widmers indicated e the City has a policy which allows property owners to build their own approach. and Questioned whether the property owners were notified to allow them to do so. He asked staff if the City has such policy and were the property owners notified. Mr. Lieuallen said Bert Teitzel had explained at the Assessment Panel Hearing that a builder or contractor may build a temporary driveway approach, but if City removes at a future time, the City would pay for it, upon notification by the contractor. In this instance, the noti- fication was not received, the City took out Widmer.s driveway, and Widmer replaced it at his own expense. The contractor had not ful- filled his requirement. Mr. Lieuallen asked when the City deals with a contractor in such a situation, what the City.s obligation was to notify the persons who would have to pay the bills. Don Allen, Public Works, said the staff agreed with the letter from the Widmers that they should have had the choice to put in their driveway. He said the City.s policy was to make an attempt to secure written permission from a property owner before doing any work on a project. He said in this particular instance, City had written per- mission slips for the first year of the job, but not for the second year. He said also there was some question whether City staff had talked to the property owners to secure permission. He said there was no question the City had the right to do the work, but the policy does call for written permission. He could not answer whether verbal per- - mission had been given for this project. He said the City policies require a builder of new houses in a development to take out a sidewalk permit to establish the grade for the driveway. In this development, 6/27/77 -- 9 511 ------ - I the City had ten permits out on the street, but only four on record of e us i ng those. He said it was the option of a property owner to call for grade when they were ready for it, but not the City's obligation to see it is used once it has been taken out. Mr. Obie said the reason he felt the assessment should be segregated for more discussionwas that new evidence had been presented, whether or not city procedures were used in building the apron. Vote was taken on the motion whi ch fai 1 ed two-thi rds vote, wi th Delay, Williams, Haws, and Hamel voting no; Obie, Smith, Bradley, and Lieuallen voting aye. Mr. Lieuallen expressed uncomfortableness with C.B. 1495, and would be voting no on the bill. Mr. Obie asked Council members if they had read minutes of the Assessment Panel hearing. He said Mr. Allen was saying on C.B. 1495 the City did not follow procedures. The Widmers were asked to spend money which the City had no right to ask them to spend, and he was going to vote no on C.B. 1495 and asked Council for reconsideration of the issue. Mr. Allen replied the City did spend a portion of that assessed amount which it had the legal right to spend. Ms. Smith questioned whether the City had any way to made an adustment. Mr. Allen said it was possible staff could correct the assessments on that portion of the right-of-way on the driveway. Mr. Haws moved to amend C.B. 1495, seconded by Mr. Obie, to e direct staff to correct any assessments which were wrong, bring back to Council if there is any further dispute, and delay second reading of the bill at this time. Motion carried unanimously. C.B. 1496--levying assessments for paving and sidewalk on Willamette street from 40th Avenue to 600 feet south of the south end of Coachman Drive was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. A request from Joy Goolsby, 18 East 47th Avenue, to segregate C.B. 1496 was received. Mr. Bradley moved to segregate C.B. 1496 for further discussion. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bradley thought a member of the public should be given the . courtesy of Council's taking vote for two-thirds t~ segregate thlS item. Mr. Delay said it was the same process, notlng a 7:1 vote against segregation. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be . approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Councll members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18014. C.B. 1497--Levying assessments for paving Warren Avenue from ~50 feet - south of Kevington Drive to 1500 feet south of Kevlngton Drive was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. 518 6/27/77 -- 10 . e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18015. C.B. 1498--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Dakota Subdivision was read by number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18016. IV. Ordinances for First Reading--None V. Resolutions Res. No. 2695--Calling public hearing July 11, 1977 re: withdrawal from Glenwood Water District (Booth/Fisher) (Z 77-1) was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried with all Council members present e voting aye, and Mr. Hamel abstaining. Res. No. 2696--Calling public hearing July 11, 1977 re: withdrawal from Oakway Water District (Breeden) (A 77-2) south of Beltline Road east of Coburg Road was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Approval of Minutes--June 13, 1977 Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve minutes of Council meeting June 13, 1977. Rollcall vote. Motion carried unanimously. VII. Other Items A. Third National Conference on Alternative State and Local Policy-- Manager said City policy was for Council members to attend meetings in which the City is officially a member. He suggested Council treat such requests as they come before it. He said this was a policy deviation and would like some authorization by Council. Mr. Delay passed the agenda of the meeting to Council members and noted he had read the proceedings of the last two conferences. He - said the conference was relatively inexpensive and much work was pro- duced in a work session atmosphere. 9~ 6/27/77-- 11 ~ Mr. Haws felt it was a good idea to seek alternatives to issues e Council would be discussing. Mr. Delay-expanded on the information exchange, noting the group would be considering issues which used to be national issues and now were considered local issues. Mr. Williams questioned legal counsel whether this would be a legal expenditure of budget funds. Mr. Long replied the issue was a judgmental question. He said the most appropriate question in- volved whether money had been appropriated. The only other test was whether or not the meeting was for a public purpose, which was another judgmental issue. Mr. Lieuallen said if these were issues, the City Council was going to be dealing with in the future, and alternatives might be offered, he felt it was worth Mr. Delay attending. Manager said if City Council felt such a conference were worthwhile, then Council members should be allowed to attend if it is within the budget, which this was. He said Council members should be allowed to attend conferences which would benefit them in performing thei r jobs. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Mr. Delay's attendance. Motion carried, with all Council members present voting aye, except Williams and Obie voting no. B. Liquor License Renewal--Union Oyster Bar, 870 Pearl--Liquor License -- Renewal for 1977-78 Mr.Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to June 29, 1977. ~d~)~ C ar es T. Henr City Manager CTH:DT:ml/CM12b9 -e S,^-O 6/27/77-_12 ~ e DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bicycle Bridge - Willamette River from North Polk Street to Valley River Center Job No. 1376 Bidders Contract Cost Garland Pacific Construction............................................$ 2 "- Holst Construction..............................~....................... 284,294.50' ) A. K. Lundmark & Son.................................................... .-/ 28, . 0 Wilbur Peterson & Sons.................................................. 290,304.48 Hannam Bros. Construction............................................... 316,675.00 Hamilton Construction................................................... 327,275.00 Ross Bros. Construction................................................. 338,917.00 Columbia Pacific Construction........................................... 416,695.00 Cost to Federal Highway Administration National Bikeway Demonstration Program Cost to City Amount Budgeted e $ 252,538.96 $ 63,100.00 $ 90,500 (80% of Contract plus engineering) (20% of Contract plus engineering) COMPLETION DATE: November 30, 1977 e 521 11-