HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1977 Meeting
.'
,
M I NUT E S
. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
September 12, 1977
Regular meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by
His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on September 12, 1977, in the Council
Chambers, with the following Council members present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel,
Tom Williams, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith.
Ray Bradley was absent.
1. Public Hearings
A. Westside Neighborhood Plan--Recommended adoption of goals and
policies.
Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission, August 8, 1977.
Manager said the proposed resolution adopts the Neighborhood-
City Plan as a refinement plan for the area located between 7th and
13th Avenues, and Washington to Chambers. This refinement plan would
be a guide to City policy development, not official City policy.
e Substance of the Plan deals with land use, traffic and transportation,
housing and social, cultural and recreational concerns. He sai d the
debated issues on land use relate to changing R-3 zoning west of
Jefferson to R-2, or attaching SR suffixes. The other issue was how
to convert Washington and Jefferson to two-way traffic streets.
Planning Commission President James Bernhard said one of the Planning
Commission1s duties was to look for and encourage the bettennent of
the 1990 Plan. He reviewed the procedure of the Westside Neighborhood
Plan, saying there had been considerable public hearing on the issue.
He referred Council to some of the concerns as noted in the Staff
Notes, and recommended Council adopt the policies and goals.
Randy Bjornstad, noted the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project
had begun the study in 1972, and work with the neighborhood organiza-
tion and staff had been continuing since that time. She said it was
different from other refinement plans, in that it's more a policy plan
than a development plan. The area is already developed and the
emphasis is on the good qualities of the neighborhood, reuse and
conservation of the existing neighborhood. She reviewed the location
of the Plan, and noted the area was very solidly residential.
Ms. Bjornstad continued by reviewing for Council the four elements
contained in the Plan: 1) Land use; 2) Traffic and transportations;
3) Housing; and 4) Social, cultural, and recreational concerns.
.
9/12/77--1
~8K
~
She said the main purpose of a land-use element would be to maintain
the good quality of housing as it exists and to improve where it is .
necessary. Another purpose would be to make sure the commercial
services actually serve the neighborhood and not encroach on the
residential area. The desire was to preserve the inner character
of the neighborhood. Recommendations for carrying out the land-use
element in the Plan were:
1. Limit the size of multiple-family structures to four units
per structure;
2. Rezone the strip of R-3 land bordering the west side of
Jefferson Street between 8th and 12th avenues to R-2;
3. Adopt Site Review for any new structure which exceeds two units
per structure for compatibility with the neighborhood; and
4. Allow small walk-in neighborhood groceries as conditional uses
in the residential zones.
For the traffic and transportation element, Ms. Bjornstad said the
Westside Neighborhood should be protected from the negative effects
of traffic which neither originates nor terminates in the neighborhood.
Also, facilities should be provided to enhance bicycle and pedestrian
access. It was also felt that Washington and Jefferson streets should
be returned from one-way to two-way streets and prohibit extension of
the Washington-Jefferson viaduct further into the neighborhood. The
/ goal of the housing element would be to conserve as a valuable and e
needed resource the supply of older home units in the Westside Neighbor-
hood. Also, a wide range of housing types and prices should be main-
tained in the neighborhood. She said the Plan would provide for the
possibility of housing rehabilitation, with the emphasis on renter-
occupied structures. The goal of the social and recreational concerns
would be to maintain the existing feeling and spirit of the neighborhood.
To promote this feeling, the continued use of the Lincoln Community
School, the Kaufman Center, and Monroe Park were emphasized. She said
the main policy dealt with continuing efforts which have begun in
cooperation with 4-J School District and the Parks and Recreation
Department to rehabilitate and further the Lincoln Community School
Program. Also, it was hoped to establish information services as
contact points for the various social services available in the
community.
Public hearing was opened.
Neil Murray, 653 West Broadway, as Chairman of the Westside Neighbor-
hood Quality Projects, spoke in favor of the Plan. He reviewed a
summary for Council of the activity which ultimately resulted in the
Westside Neighborhood Plan. He said the group had been founded in
1971 and met on a monthly basis. He noted for Council the neighbor-
hood was close to the downtown area and that most of the structures
..
9/12/77--2
. ~&9
were older homes with single-family occupancy. The demographic
e makeup included many people who were elderly and many who were
young, with a growing minority of people in between. He said there
was a large proportionate number of low-income families. In charac-
terizing the neighborhood, he noted the many older homes which gave it
a unique character, the many street trees, Lincoln School, Monroe
Park, and Kaufman Center. He said one negative distinctive feature of
the neighborhood was the major traffic arterial. Discussion for this
Plan had begun in 1971, with many compromises, changes, and differences
of opinion occurring before the Plan was unanimously adopted by the
neighborhood this summer. He expressed appreciation for the unanimous
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Steve Wood, 971 West 10th, Chairman of the Neighborhood Advisory
Group, spoke in favor of the Plan. He said the primary thrust
of the program was in the area of housing conservation. Through
the Community Development Program, funding was available for improve-
ment of renter and owner occupied property, land banking, ceiling
insulation, house painting, street tree planting, and historic preser-
vation. He cited that public services included programs such as the
Latch-key; and noted the importance of the Lincoln Community School
and the renovation of Monroe Park. He said about one million dollars
had been spent in the area and felt the recommended goals and policies
supported the refinement plan.
Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison, addressed the land-use element. He
said the present land use was mostly residential with little land
e left for new development. The goal for land use was to conserve.
restore, and preserve existing uses. He reviewed the policies which
had been covered by Ms. Bjornstad noted on page 6 of the Westside
Neighborhood Plan. He said the Westside neighborhood is a resource,
and the existing housing is a resource, noting it should be wisely
used and preserved. He felt adoption of the Plan would provide con-
tinued emphasis for growth of the Westside Neighborhood area.
Sandra Bishop, 591 West 10th, reviewed the traffic, transportation,
and housing elements of the Plan. Regarding the traffic, she said
the most important consideration was a dissection of the neighborhood
by major arterials. The basic policies would correct the circulation
patterns and would try to encourage non-auto forms of transportation,
i.e., LTD, bicycles, and pedestrian. The Plan also stressed the
attempt to return Washington and Jefferson to two-way residential
streets. The basic premise for the housing goal was that the area was
already developed and the desire to conserve the existing housing and
to preserve through rehabilitation, with any new construction to have
site review to assure compatibility with the neighborhood. She said
since this was one of the closest areas to the Central Business
District, it offered opportunities for low-income housing. She noted
e
9/12/77--3
\
~~O
~
~ -
that 30 percent of the people in the neighborhood were under 18 years .
of age and 30 percent were over 62, with the median income being
$2s000 less than the City average. Fifty percent of the housing was
single family and 50 percent multiple. She then read the policies of
~he housing element from page 15 of the Westside Plan.
Edith Chase, 1144 Polk, said she had lived in the neighborhood all
her life and felt it was a very nice neighborhood. She cited Lincoln
School, the Kaufman Center, and Monroe Park as very beneficial ele-
ments to the neighborhood for social and recreational uses. In regard
to group-care homes, Ms. Chase said any additions should be carefully
screened, although there were some in existence in the neighborhood.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
Res. No. 2747--Concerning the Westside Neighborhood Plan was read by
number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the ,resolution.
Mayor Keller noted in the minutes of the Planning Commission there
had been discussion on on the rezoning of the strip (on page 7). He
questioned whether staff was comfortable with the recommendation.
Ms. Bjornstad reported yes staff was, noting there had been some
question on the part of the Planning Commission in not knowing e
how the area related to the adjoining zoning. She said staff showed
it was a logical recommendation.
Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously.
B. Joint Housing Committee Recommendations on Palace Hotel
Manager referred Council to the various memorandums received from the
Joint Housing Committee with background material and various recommenda-
tions and alternatives. He noted there had been quite an investment on
the part of the City and the Palace Hotel had been operating at a loss.
He said the question for the Council was whether to continue to operate
the hotel through Sorgenfris or adopt some of the other alternatives.
The recommendations of the Joint Housing Committee were:
1. The City immediately divest itself of all responsibility for
the Palace Hotel.
2. The City solicit proposals for other uses of the Hotel.
a. Preference be given to proposals that would provide a
public service; and
b. Preference be given to proposals which would allow present
tenants to remain.
3. City should imediately contract for a professional appraisal .
of the Hotel.
~l 9/12/77--4
4. City should request Sorgenfri to maintain Hotel for four
months.
. 5. If no viable proposals are received, Sorgenfri be allowed to
sell the Hotel.
Mr. Williams noted he would abstain from discussion and voting.
Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, said the Joint Housing Committee has had
a number of projects undertaken with Revenue Sharing Funds. However,
those funds are clearly limited resources, and she said the Palace
Hotel had not worked out well, even though it was very popular.
She said it seem reasonable to close down the Palace Hotel and try to
do so on the best possible terms that would allow present tenants
to remain and allow the Joint Housing Committee to solicit public
proposals for some other use of the hotel. She referred Council to
the memo which outlined the costs to the City if it were to maintain
the Palace Hotel. She felt the City could not justify spending that
muc h money. She also distributed to Council a copy of "invitation
for proposals". She noted the proposals should be made only by those
public or private agencies or persons who are willing to assume fin-
ancial and management responsibility for implementing their proposal.
She felt the City should not subsidize any other use, that the monies
available should be used for housing and not social services. She
said Mr. Sorgenfri had agreed to continue managing the Palace Hotel for
four months, two months to allow for receiving proposals and two months
to allow for transition. She also noted for Council in the amendment
e to the agreement with Mr. Sorgenfri that if he did default, there were
various options open. If a proper proposal is not received, then Mr.
Sorgenfri would have the right to sell the Palace Hotel. Distribution
of sale proceeds would be made as follows: 1) to Citizens Bank; 2) to
Frank Dayton, holder of land-sale contract; 3) to the City in the
amount not more than the sum which represents the City.s total grant
to Sorgenfri under the this agreement; and 4) the excess to Sorgenfri.
She also noted an independent appraisal had been initiated to retain a
market value price. She referred Council to the evaluation of the
Palace Hotel made by David L. Friedman.
Ms. Smith wondered who would be responsible for reviewing, accepting,
or rejecting the submitted proposals. She also questioned Ms. Niven
if she had any indication as to the possible outcome of the project.
Ms. Niven replied that Mr. Sorgenfri and the City would have to
agree on any proposal. As far as the prospect for the future of the
Palace Hotel, she said there was a group of people involved in social
services who thought there was a need for something like the Palace
Hotel. She felt the only way that group could be successful could be
through non-profit organization or monies from some other government,
i.e., the County or State. Ms. Smith wondered if it were a non-profit
group if that would require additional City funding. Ms. Niven said
if so, it would not be from the Joint Housing Committee. She felt the
group would have to depend on other social service sources. Ms. Smith
then wondered if a proper proposal were received, would that recommen-
e
9/12/77 --5
b't2
!
dation come before City Council. Ms. Niven replied absolutely,
that a recommendation would be presented at the November 14 meeting. .
Manager noted Council would not be meeting that Monday because of the
League of Oregon Cities, so perhaps the presentation could be made
Wednesday, November 16.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
Mayor Keller thanked the Mayor1s Senior Citizen Committee for its
response in regard to the Palace Hotel, and entered the letter into
the record.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the recommenda-
tion of the Joint Housing Committee for the Palace Hotel. Motion
carried unanimously, with Mr. Williams abstaining.
C. HearingsPanel Report August 29, 1977
Manager noted this would not a public hearing unless two-thirds
of the Council so wished. He reviewed for Council a request by
Fred Lajewski to waive requirement of off-street parking for a single-
family dwelling at 3675 University Street. The Zoning Board of
Appeals had denied the waiver, but the Hearings Panel August 29 had
recommended the variance be approved and that the decision of the
Zoning Board of Appeals be overturned based on the opinion that in
this specific location, off-street parking might prove to be more
hazardous than on-street parking. The recommendation was also made
with the caution that the elimination of off-street parking was a
serious matter requiring close scrutiny, and that approval should be e
rarely granted and then only in response to most extreme circumstances.
Bernard Gilkison, Zoning Administrator, was available to answer
questions.
Mr. Lieuallen asked for a clarification of the situation. Mr.
Gilkison replied this particular lot has extreme slope conditions.
He said Mr. Lajewski would be faced with extremely high excavation
costs, and the excavation would remove considerable portions of
the property.
Mr. Delay noted the Assessment Panel minutes stated waiver of this
variance should be "used only rarely". He wondered if this particular
site was typical of a large class of sites in the city or if this
were a rare situation. Mr. Gilkison replied it was not typical of
a large class in the city but was typical of many lots in that
particular neighborhood. Mr. Delay wondered then if it was safe to
assume there were similar circumstances which would create problems
for other builders in that area and variances might have to be granted.
Mr. Gilkison replied there had been some variances granted in the area
already, that some lots are on a down-slope with a field problem and
some are on a up-slope with an excavation problem. He said it was a
difficult situation with no simple answer.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the Hearings Panel
report and recommendation be accepted and approved based on the e
findings and recommedations as set forth in the Hearings Panel
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
9/12/77--6
lo~3
D. Rezoning property located between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue, west
e of Chambers Street from R-1 to RP-SR (Tax Lot 9400) and from R-1 to
R-2 SR (Tax Lots 9200 and 9300) (Janisse)(Z 77-27)
Recommended by the Planning Commission August 1, 1977, with a 5-2 vote.
Manager reviewed the location and the request for rezoning for Council,
noting it was a difficult decision and this was the second time the
matter had come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Saul said Tax
Lot 9400 contained 8800 square feet and was presently developed with
an office structure, which had been there since the early 1960's.
He said in 1962 a variance was allowed for a dental office structure
and since 1968 the structure had been used for a variety of office
functions. He said the owner did seek the rezoning and the Planning
Commission did recommend approval. However, it did modify the request
for rezoning on Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 to apply R-2 zoning. He said
if this were approved, six units would be developed and the land is
presently vacant.
Mr. Delay questioned staff as to the reasons why Mr. Bernhard and
Ms. Lannom had voted against the zoning request. Mr. Saul said, as he
recalled, Mr. Bernhard did not give any indication for his reason
and Ms. Lannom took the staff's position of recommending denial for
the rezoning.
Ms. Smith requested staff clarify its position of recommending denial,
and wondered if it were based on the fact it was not in conformance
with the objectives of the General Plan. Mr. Saul said staff had
e recommended denial, but the Planning Commission had recommended
approval. He said the sole basis for the applicant's rezoning request
for RP zoning was there was an existing office structure located on
Tax Lot 9400. He said the City does not follow the practice of legiti-
mizing non-conforming uses, noting that Tax Lots 9200 and 9300 were
vacant. The Planning Commission felt, however, in this instance,
since the City record had been somewhat less than clean, there were
exceptional circumstances in this case. He said originally the staff
recommendation for denial was made at the time the applicant was seek-
ing RP zoning on the entire land. Staff did not see how it could
recommend zoning the two vacant lots for office development. The
Planning Commission, however, did recommend R-2 on those two vacant
lots.
No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared
by Council members.
Staff notes and minutes of August 1, 1977, were entered as part of
the record by reference thereto.
Public hearing was held with no testimony presented.
C.B. 1536--Rezoning from R-1 to RP-SR Tax Lot 9400, located between
13th Avenue and 14th Avenue, west of Chambers Street was
read by council bill number and title only, there being no
. Council member present requesting that it be read in full.
9/12/77--7
~~
I
0
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and .
minutes of August 1, 1977, 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.
C.B. 1537--Rezoning from R-1 to R-2 SR Tax Lots 9200 and 9300
located between 13th Avenue and 14th Avenue, west of
Chambers Street was read by council bill number and
title only, there being no Council member requesting
it be read in full.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and
minutes of August 1, 1977, 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.
Mr. Lieuallen wondered what the present zoning was to the west of
this request. Mr. Saul replied the zoning west of Chambers Street
was mainly R-1 to the Westmoreland student housing project. He
said the only commercial existed at Garfield and 11th. Mr. Lieuallen
then wondered if the General Plan did not suggest residential zoning
be carried to Garfield. Mr. Saul said it included residential past
Garfield in medium density. Mr. Lieuallen said he was inclined to
agree with the Planning Department staff recommendation. He said the e
Code requires that certain rationale be met to change the zoning. He
said in a portion of this request he did not see that happening. He
felt this was a convenient method of rezoning land that does not
follow under certain use and would vote no on the motion.
Mr. Obie agreed with Mr. Lieuallen, saying he had empathy for the
request for RP zoning on Tax Lot 9400 as the structure already
existed there. However, he was concerned for the R-2 zoning on
the vacant pieces of property. He was also concerned with the
traffic problem in that area.
Mr. Delay wondered if the primary rationale for the R-2 zoning
request was because the RP zoning was immediately adjacent, or if
changing all of the R-1 to R-2 zoning was something the Planning
Commission would be considering. He wondered if they were related
to each other or independent judgements. Mr. Saul said the Planning
Commission has in the past and will continue to face a difficult
problem in this area. He noted the General Plan calls for medium
density, yet the area is mostly developed in single family use.
He said in this particular instance, and in the past, the Planning
Commission has recommended R-2 zoning when property is vacant.
Mr. Delay noted he would vote against the motion also as he was
not satisfied with the R-2 zoning portion and was worried about
the rationale of rezoning on the basis of existing conflicting
uses. .
9/12/77--8
~5
Vote was taken on motion, which failed, with Mr. Williams
. voting aye, and all other Council members voting no. The
matter will be referred back to the Planning Commission.
E. Public Works Bid Openings and Contract Awards--opened
September 8, 1977 (tabulation attached)
Don Allen, Director of Public Works, reviewed for Council the various
bids. On Bid No.9, Job No. 1387, he felt the bid was excessively
high. He recommended that the Council award the bid to the low
bidder, Shur-way Contractor, subject to the condition that Public
Works inform the bidder it will not assess the $36 paving assessment
to two property owners not located in the subdivision, but will
bring a reduced figure back at time of assessment for those two
properties. He recommended awarding to low bidders on all bids.
Public hearing was opened.
Geraldine Lamb, 980 Martha Court, regarding Bid No.9, Job No. 872,
asked when residents could expect the project to be completed. Mr. Allen
said completion date was October 30, weather permitting. Ms. Lamb then
noted her property was on the east side of Calvin and had already been
assessed for sewers, asking if she would be assessed again. Mr. Allen
said no, the City did not assess twice for sewers.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony
presented.
e Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the low bid
on all contracts, subject to the conditions set forth on
Bid No.9, Job No. 1387. Motion carried unanimously.
II. Ordinances held for Second Reading
The following council bill, read the first time August 22, 1977 and
held lacking unanimous consent for second reading, was brought back
for a second reading by council bill number and title only, if no Council
member present requests it be read in full:
Manager reviewed for Council the discussion held August 22, noting this
amendment to the Human Rights Ordinance would raise the penalty for
discrimination from $100 up to a maximum of $1,000, subject to the
judgment of the judge who levies the fine. Andy Clement, Human Rights
Specialist, was available to answer questions.
C.B. 1526--Concerning penalties; amending Section 4.990(2)
of the Eugene Code 1971; and declaring an emergency was
read by council bill 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. Roll call vote. Motion carried with
Councilors Haws, Lieuallen, Smith, and Delay, voting aye;
Councilors Williams, Hamel, and Obie, voting no. The bill
- was declared passed and numbered 18049.
---------------
, 9/12/77--9
~~b
I
Mr. Williams questioned whether the emergency clause had been eliminated. .
Mr. Long said the bill would not become effective for 30 days as it
did not receive unanimous vote. Mr. Williams was intrigued with the
legal significance in that the charter provides a bill containing an
emergency clause has to be passed by a two-thirds vote of Council, yet
City Attorney was saying the bill passed, but the emergency clause
failed, lacking the two-thirds vote. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office,
said that interpretation had been made in 1971 and had been adhered to
consistently since that time. He said, in any event, under the present
Charter he was not sure Mr. Williams~statement was accurate. He reiterated
a bill containing an emergency clause that does not receive the required
number of votes would not go into effect immediately, but was nevertheless
effective with the passage of 30 days.
III. Findings of Fact Re: Gi 1 bert Appeal
Manager reviewed for Council the denial by the Planning Commission and
Zoning Board of Appeals for a minor partition and panhandle lot for
property located at 3970 Marshall Avenue. Council had uphel d the. deni al s
and had instructed staff to submit findings of fact.
Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the findings
of fact. Motion carried, with all Council members present
voting aye, except Mr. Haws abstaining.
IV. Ordinances for First Reading
C.B. 1538--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer e
and sidewalk on Barger Drive from Highway 99 to 200 feet west
of Ohio Street; sanitary sewer on Barger Drive from West
Irwin Way west to the N/S section line of Sections 16 and 17,
and 20 and 21 was read by council bill 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 read for
the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hearing
October 3, 1977, and panel recommendation be brought back for
Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977.
Motion carried unanimously.
C.B. 1539--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer: between 43rd Avenue
and 500 feet south of 43rd Avenue and Dillard Road and 700
feet east of Dillard Road was read by council bill number
and title only, there being no Council member present request-
ing it be read in full.
. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read
for the first time and be referred to Hearings Panel for hear-
ing October 3, 1977, and panel recommendation be brought back
for Council consideration for final reading on October 10, 1977.
Motion carried unanimously.
e
9/12/77--10
~<\l
V. Resolutions
e Res. No. 2748--Authorizing execution of an addendum to the Tri-Agency
Dog Control Authority Agreement was read by number and
ti tl e.
~'t Mr. Haws moved, seconded)by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously.
Res. No. 2749--Authorizing adoption of Alternative No.2 for Bethel-
Danebo Refinement Plan Phase II re: drainage and access
was read by nlillber and ti tle.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously.
Res. no. 2750--Authorizing payment of bills, claims and progress payments
for period August 22 through September 12, 1977, was read .~
by number and title.
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously.
VI. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve Council Minutes
of August 22, 1977. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously.
e Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to
September 14, 1977.
Ch~Y)~
Ci ty Manager
,
r
CTH:DT:jm/CM4b15
41
e
9/12/77--11
lo~8
. .
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS --
Engineering Division
Bid No. 9
Opened: September 8, 1977
1- PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within
Ironwood Subdivision (Job. No. 1368)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------------_________$ 48,469.30 Not Bid
2. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.----------------------_________$ 56,009.60
3. Wi1dish Construction Company-------------------___~-----$ 56,313.00
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------_____________$ 56,619.95
5. James A. Hi11-------------------------__________________$ 68,090.95
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' & 36' Pav. $2750.00/Lot None None
San. Lat. $ 660.00/Lot
San.Service $ 200.00/Lot
Stor/Tl Swr. $ 280.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 31,1977 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within
Panorama View III Subdivision, paving Shields
Ave rue from east boundary of Panorama View
III to 60 feet east; and sanitary sewer within
160 feet west of Panorama View III (Job No. 1387)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.--------------------___________$ 80,161.20 Not Bid
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------------_________$ 80,442.60
3. James A. Hill-------------------________________________$ 82,975.74
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------______________$ 83,831.50
5. Wildish Construction Company-----------------___________$ 96,798.35
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Pav. $ 36.80/FF...$2960.00/Lot None None
San.Lat. $ 0.12/SF...$1250.00/Lot
San.Serv. $250.00/Each
Storm Swr. :......:......$ 440.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1977
.
to'\9
'1.--
.
3. PAVINGs SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within
~Will0W Tree Subdivision (Job No. 1341) Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------___________________$ 20s037.00 Not Bid
2. Wildish Construction Company------------________________$ 20,904.10
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------~------------________$ 21,053.00
4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------________________$ 22s892.50
5. James A. Hi11-~---------------__________________________$ 24,517.31
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Pav. $ 28.70/FF...$2000.00/Lot None None
San.Lat. $ 0.28/SF...$1400.00/Lot
San.Serv. .............$ 340.00/Lot
StormSwr. .............$ 320.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 24, 1977
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. PAVING & SANITARY SEWER: Calvin Street from
Harlow Road to 200 feet north of Du11es
(Job No. 872)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
_. Eugene Sand & Gravels Inc.------------------_____________$ $ 87s265.65
2. Shur-Way Contractor, Inc.----------------________________$ 96s292.85 $ 95,815.60
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------------____________$ 98,879.25
4. Wildish Construction Compnay-----------------------------$105,227.90 $ 103,120.75
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amounted Budgeted
28' Pav. $ 23.20/FF
5" Cone. $ 1. 46/ SF
San.Lat. $ 0.08/SF
San.Serv. $480.00/Each
Storm ........... $ 40,000.00 None
COMPLETION DATE: October 30, 1977
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e
100
\)
,
5. AIRPORT PAVING: Extension of. Taxiway D-2 and paving e
auto parking lot (Job No. 1414)
Bidders Contract Cost
1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------------__________ $ 39,259.70
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------------_~_________ $ 42,184.07
3. Wildish Construction Company-------------------____________ $ 52,995.80
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City. Amount Budgeted
None $ 39,259.70 $ 38,300.00
COMPLETION DATE: October 24, 1977
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
e
lOl
It
.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
e Engineering Division
Bid No. 10
Opened: September 8, 1977
1- PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within
Candlelight Park 3rd Addition (Job No. 1353)
Bidders Contract Cost
1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------____________________$ 137,711.74
2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction CO.----------__~___________$ 161,990.14
3. Wildish Construction CO.-------------______________________$ 163,546.86
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.----------____________________$ 177,437.85
5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------______________________$ 180,631.40
'.
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Pav. $2050.00/Lot
San. lat. $1070.00/Lot
San.Serv. $ 210.00/Lot
Stm.Sewer $ 570.00/Lot $ 10,800.00 $ 8,800.00
COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1977 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2~PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER within
Shiloh Subdivision. paving within Brewer Park
Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet
of the south boundary of Shiloh Subdivision
(Job No. 1345) .
Bidders Contract Cost
l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------______________________$ 40,978.48
2. Wildish Construction CO.--_-------------------_____________$ 45,800.57
3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.------------_____________________$ 48,910.96
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-----------___________________$ 49,115.60
5. James A. Hill--------------________________________________$ 58,509.48
Cost to Abutting Propert~ Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Pav. $ 25.50/FF None None
San.Lat. $ 0.066/SF
San.Serv. $ 200.00/Each
Stm.Sewer $8900.00/.... $635.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1977
e
102- /
\~