Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1977 Meeting . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL - October 10, 1977 Regular meeting 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. October 10, 1977, in the Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Jack Delay, Scott Lieua11en, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. Council ors Tom Williams and Ray Bradley were absent. I-A-l 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Amending Section 4.745 of City Code re: Prostitution Manager said this item had been discussed at length at previous Wednesday meetings and had been held for action at this time to allow further discussion and public input. The ordinance had come about because of increasing problems of prostitution on the streets and particularly because of a younger and younger group of females under the age of 18 being involved. He noted the passage of a similar ordinance in Portland about two years ago, with the resulting enforce- ment of that ordinance perhaps encouraging the prostitutes to move to Eugene. The ordinance sets up standards for police arrest of all persons engaged in soliciting activity. It allows in effect for e arrest, after observation of repeated action~ and it will no longer be necessary for the use of police officers as ecoys to arrest the , johns. Other reasons for the presentation of this ordinance were the increased activity being disruptive to patrons in the downtown area, and substantial savings in police resources by enforcement under the new ordinance. However, he noted opponents to the ordinance contend possible discrimination against prostitutes as against johns and pimps; fear of police harrassment to hitchhikers and loiterers; and possible infringement of civil rights of minorities and nonestablish- ment groups. Public hearing was opened. Navarre Davis, 1800 Cal Young, Chairman of the Downtown Development Board, said his group favored passage of the ordinance as presented. As a business owner in the downtown area and as a citizen of the community, he felt the City Council needed to recognize that there is a problem. He cited it as being offensive to customers, to those who work in the area, and a general blight on the entire community. He felt there was no legislation which would completely eliminate the problem, but this ordinance was a step in the right direction. He complimented the Eugene Police Department and Chief Brooks for the recent action taken in cleaning up the mall area. He felt the ordi- nance was reasonable. fair, and adequate in that it will help eli- minate the prostitution problem. e 10/10/77--1 15'1 ; I . Vince Farina, 1407 East 21st, noted Eugene was growing, and as the city grows, prostitution would increase, citing how rapidly the problem had grown over the past year or so. He felt the present ordinance . would present a first step toward solving the problem of prostitution. He felt those opposing the ordinance should at least give it a chance, noting Council could make changes in the future if the ordinance did not work out. He urged City Council to consider favor- able passage of the ordinance. Ray McIver, 1710 Elanco, Mall Manager, noted the Eugene Downtown Association had been supporters of such an ordinance since before the writing of this present Eugene ordinance, saying they were aware of such an ordinance in Seattle and Portland. The EDA felt the ordinance had gone through a constitutional test and addressed the prostitution problem. ' He said, to date, he had no negative input from EDA, after mailing to the entire membership the substance of the ordinance. Thus the EDA is a strong supporter and asked Council to adopt. Dr. Mary Crumbaker, Eugene Business College, 383 East 11th Avenue, spoke in the capacity of an educator, member of the Eugene Business & Professional Women's Association, Women's Christian Temperance Union, and as a private citizen. She said many students to her college came from outside the Eugene area and had to use the bus terminal at 10th and Overpark. There had been several unfortunate incidents before the recent action in August to clean up prostitutes on the mall. She noted also several older adults wanted to attend college but were afraid to go through that area on the bus terminals. She also expressed e concern for the young people involved in this activity and felt if there were some restraints, then perhaps those young people would find better ways of living. Terese Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, Vice President of the Women's Commission, said the Commission supported Section 3 of the present ordinance but was very opposed to Section 2. The main reason for opposition was the fear that it gave too much discretion to the police and the Police Department for selective enforcement., She noted the problem of hitchhikers, students passing out literature or attempt- ing to talk to friends, and women laughing or looking at men as possible areas for indiscriminate use of the loitering section of the prostitution ordinance. She pointed out being accused of prostitution is a very damaging thing in our society. One real fear was people who might be picked up will be people who do not have the appearance or behavior to conform to the downtown merchant's standards. She noted it was just a cosmetic cleaner, driving the women off the streets, but those women would still be forced to combine with pimps to work even harder. She felt the ordinance would not get to the heart of the problem, but would simply clear the streets and not necessarily clear up prostitution. She also questioned whether it was possible to stop prostitution, noting perhaps it can be curbed but cannot be stopped. e 10/10/77--2 1(;,0 Valarie S~ker, 860 East 23rd, opposed the ordinance. She often felt harrassed by the police on the mall and felt the ordinance e was drawn up to favor just the businessmen. She felt very far from the Eugene businessmen, noting if she were loitering, reading, or hitchhiking, she should be able to be on the mall as much as anyone else without being questioned for her motives for being there. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith asked Chief Brooks to respond to the question of women hitchhiking and how the Police Department would handle that problem. Chief Brooks said procedures would be established for police officers to follow, and the police officer would know a young women was engaged in prostitution before she was stopped on the street. In regard to the concern about hitchhiking, he felt those concerns were valid. He noted since the recent action by the Police Department on August 29, before that time and since that time, the Police Department has not accosted hitchhikers on the mall. He said it was not how a person looked that identified her as a prostitute, it is what that person is doing. There would be procedural guidelines to be used by the police officers in following this ordinance, the police officer would have to see repeated actions and observe those things that prostitutes do. Ms. Smith had asked for ages of the young women involved in prosti- tution and understood the average was around 20, noting there could be many females 14, 15, and 16 years of age involved. Chief Brooks e replied that since August 29, that there had been no arrests for prostitution. From January to August 29, 41 arrests had been made involving 22 girls, with the average age 20-1/2. He said over 90 percent of those young women were local residents. Mr. lieuallen said, as he recalled, there had been several objectives in mind in writing this ordinance: 1) cosmetic action to make the mall more attractive; and 2) to rid the city of the associated crimi- nal activity. He asked Chief Brooks to review for Council what some of those criminal activities were and how the ordinance would affect them; and also to address the concern that if the prosititutes were not on the streets, but go elsewhere such as expensive motels and hotels around the area, whether criminal activity involved would be more expensive. Chief Brooks responded that when prostitution was left uncontrolled, it brings in narcotics, an increase in robberies and assaults, extortion, corruption of public officials, and murder. As far as where the prostitution would go, he said he was not so naive as to say all prostitution problems in Eugene would be totally elimi- nated. He said the younger females might find some other employment activity, but those who have chosen a life of prostitution would have to find another place to go. He felt they would probably go to another town. e 10/10/77--3 1(;,1 --. - Mr. Lieuallen wondered, assuming that a certain amount of prostitution goes on that is not visible on the streets, whether the same kind of crimi nal acti vi ty W*iS associated wi th that. Chief Brooks repli ed e yes, but in considerably less amounts. He said where prostitution is controlled, it reduces the prostitution problem by 75 percent or more, getting to a size more easily controlled. Mr. Delay said the prostitution ordinance had been discussed several times, with the potential for abuse seeming to be the main con- cern. Chief Brooks had indicated he would establish proper pro- cedures to eliminate possible harassment and selective abuse. Mr. Delay wondered if, in fact, such procedural guidelines are good police practices, whether those guidelines could be accommodated by tightening the language and adding procedural guidelines to the ordinance. Chief Brooks said he would prefer to set up procedures immediately and wondered about writing procedures into the law. He said the established procedures would be reviewed by the Prosecutors Office, the City Manager, and the Council. He noted also that all information coming to the Police Department from citizens or other groups would go to a unit that would monitor the prostitution problem. Mr. Delay said his real concern was a question of whether or not Chief Brooks could be comfortable with tighter procedural wording in the ordinance, if that were possible. Chief Brooks said he would have to see the language and then discuss it with the prosecuter before he could give a concrete answer. Mr. Delay then asked the City Attorney if it were possible to accommodate in the ordinance the areas in which there might definitely be a problem, i.e~, the poten- e tial for abuse. He wondered if it might be possible to do a better job of more accurately defining what would be meant by "repeated" or engaging in soliciting. Mr. Long replied there was evidently an assumption that the present ordinance is in some respects not effec- tive. He reiterated the previously made statements of claims of a ordinance being arbitrarily enforced as being old claims. He noted, again, the Portland prostitution ordinance had been dealt with in courts and upheld as being legal, constitutional, and not unduly susceptible to being arbitrarily enforced. He also noted if it were abused, there were consequences within the Police Department to deal with police officers. Mr. Delay said he understood the language as meeting the minimum standards of testability for vagueness. He wondered, however, if the City Attorney felt more restrictive language could be accommodated without much difficulty. Mr. Long replied with a qualified yes, noting more restrictive language would possibly mean that the ordinance would be less effective. C. B. 1548--Concerning prostitution; amending Section 4.745 of City Code 1971, and declaring an emergency, was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. e 10/10/77--4 -,,,1.., Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read e the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mr. Lieuallen expressed having concern with the present ordinance, yet wanting to see action taken to deal with the growing problem. He noted the side effects were going to affect his part of town, yet if burglaries and robberies were associated with prostitution, then those would be city-wide problems. He felt a better ordinance could be written. He noted recent action by the Police Department was extremely effective and there had been no arrests since that time. He felt it would be possible to rely on that kind of action until Council could consider a better ordinance. He also wanted more statistics regarding what kind of activity accompanies the prostitution problem, and questioned if eliminating prostitution would solve these related problems. He also questioned the statement that if the ordinance were enacted and if it were abused, it could later be repealed. He felt it would be better to take more time to write a better ordinance now. In regard to Mr. Long's comment that if the ordinance were written more restrictively it would render it less effective, and if Council were talking about an ordinance that would decrease in effectiveness, he felt there was not a strong argument for going ahead as there was already police action which could effectively resolve the problem. He also was not sure he wanted to enact an ordinance that was barely constitutional. He requested Council to consider delaying action, saying there was obviously a mechanism within the Police Depart- e ment to deal with the problem effectively in the interim. Mr. Delay understood the Council was basically dealing with two aspects of the problem: 1) lack of necessity for use of police officers for solicitation and entrapment; and 2) the increase savings in time and resources. However, on the negative side, he cited the potential for selective enforcement and harrassment, with accidental arrest and embarrassing situations; and putting more pressure on the prostitute but not being creative enough to deal with the problem of the johns. He felt the problematic situation on the mall had been eliminated and he saw the question now being one of savings of re- sources and time versus possible violation of civil rights. He felt continued work should be done on the amendment to make the ordinance more effective, and did not see Council was under any time pressure, noting he felt a better ordinance could be written. Mr. Obie said he did not see keeping the Eugene Downtown area aesthe- tic as. the main argument for the prostitution ordinance. He noted that Chief Brooks had been talking of 41 arrests, noting that 90 percent of those young women resided in Eugene. He felt Council had the opportunity and obligation to cut off that career path or at least hamper those young women following that particular career. In regard e 10/10/77--5 1b3 to giving discretion of arrests to the Police Department, he asked if Councilors would prefer to have that discretion given to the pimps and prostitutes. He felt it was time Council concerned itself with the . right of the majority of the people who live in Eugene and those rights were being offended. Mr. Haws said he was not convinced that Eugene should become like Portland or Seattle. He felt the recent action by the Police Depart- ment had been an excellent job in controlling the situation and he encouraged the department to continue that work. However, he was not about to trade in rights of women on the mall for economics. Mr. Delay responded to Mr. Obie, saying keeping the mall aesthetically pleasing was not the basis, 'but that he felt a better ordinance should be written in terms of a more adequate definition in terms of enforcement. Ms. Smith noted her support of the ordinance. She did acknowledge her concern in tenms of proceeding too quickly, noting the last effort of the Police Department had relieved the pressures somewhat. As she recalled, Chief Brooks had said this was an approach the Police Department would rather not use again in terms of its cost and time to the department. She expressed concern about the number of young people involved in the arrests and expressed a feeling of trust in the Police Department setting up procedures and guidelines to follow this ordinance. She noted Council had the option to make changes in the ordinance later. She said this is a potential problem that might grow and increase and she was going to vote for the ordinance. - Mr. Lieuallen mentioned a number of people were concerned about the loitering and harassment potential. He noted those concerns were not directed at anyone person or the current police force, but more at the process. He felt the problem had been dealt with on a temporary basis and Council was not under any time pressure to act immediately. Mr. Delay said that while Council might have opportunity to make changes in the ordinance later, he felt it best for Council to make I its best and final decision at this time, as members have had the opportunity to read, research, and discuss the various questions. Mr. Lieuallen said he did not want the citizens in the community to think Councilors were in opposition to dealing with the problem if they did not act immediately on the ordinance. Vote was taken on the motion, which passed with Councilors Hamel, Obie, and Smith, voting aye; Councilors Delay, Haws, and Lieuallen voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mayor Keller said he felt questions that were raised were important, but it was also important to realize that the Council could be creative and also should be very careful to represent both sides. He felt this ordinance could do so. He noted the last action of the Police Department . 10/10/77--6 1~ ~ was an interim solution, but the problem still exists and Council has to deal with it. He also noted that it was important to realize that this was not just a downtown problem, but a problem of all 9f ~ Eugene and, therefore, action taken by the Mayor was appropriate. Lacking unanimous consent by Council, the council bill will be held for second reading on October 24, 1977. 1-B-1 B. Rezoning from M-2 to RG-SR property located east of Lincoln Street, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, south of Skinner's Butte Park (Eugene Planning Commission)(Z 77-34) Recommended by Planning Commission September 6, 1977, with unanimous vote. Manager reviewed that Council had discussed the development of the RG zoned property directly to the east. At that time, Council had discussed land use in the area and specifically requested the Planning Commission study the appropriateness of M-2 zoning. Based on that Council directive, the Planning Commission initiated the proposed zone change. Mr. Saul reviewed the location and noted the owner had been notified on several occasions of the recommended rezoning, and at no point had staff or the Planning Commission had any response to the proposed rezoning. There had been no testimony in opposition, and the Planning Commission thus voted unanimously to rezone from M-2 to RG-SR. He said the concerns which the Site Review Procedures were to address were in both the minutes and the ordinance. e No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Staff Notes and minutes were entered as part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B. 1554--Rezoning from M-2 to RG-SR property located east of Lincoln Street, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, south of Skinner's Butte Park 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 findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission's staff notes and minutes of September 6, 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. The 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 call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18061. .- 10/10/77--7 1(,5 1-8-2 C. Public Works Bids--opened October 4, 1977 (tabulation attached) Don Allen, Director of Public Works, reviewed the various bids: .- Job No. 1426, petitioned by 33 percent of the property owners to be assessed, with suggestion to award contract to Norm Green and Sons; Job No. 1439, petitioned by 78 percent of the property owners to be assessed, with contract to be awarded to James A. Hill; Job No. 1492, petitioned by 30 percent of the property owners to be assessed with contract to be awarded to L. D. Van Over Construction. Public hearing was held with no testimony being presented. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept low bid and award contracts as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. 1-8-3 II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Rezoning from C-2 and R-3 to MU Mixed Use properties located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending from Washington Street to Lincoln Street (Eugene Planning Commission)(Z 76-38) Recommended by Eugene Planning Commission August 15, 1977. Heard previously by Council September 26, 1977. C.B. 1543--Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th Avenues, extending from Washington Street to Lincoln Street from C-2 e and R-3 to MU Mixed Use was read by council bill number 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. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the motion to remove from consideration of zone change the property occupied by the Lawrence Street Market and Wyatt's Tire Company on the north side of West 11th at Lawrence Street. Mayor Keller wondered if it were appropriate to accept such an amendment. City Attorney replied that if the amendment were to pass, it would result in referral back to the Planning Commission as the action would be contrary to that recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Obie felt there had not been enough consideration given to these two pieces of property by the Planning Commission. He felt the use on the property was appropriate for the area and a zone change would divest the individuals of their rights to use the property as others in the area are able to do. Ms. Smith asked Jim Bernhard, President of the Planning Commission, to comment. City Attorney replied that Council would have to reopen the hearing to take specific testimony and would have to give other . persons the same opportunity to testify. Ms. Smith redirected 10/10/77--8 1~{P ~-, her question to staff. Jim Saul replied the Planning Commission e had received both oral and written testimony on both properties from the time the mixed use rezoning application had been received and had voted to retain those properties within the mixed-use zone. In regard to the Lawrence Street Market, he said it was at the present time developed exactly in line with the mixed-use permit, noting a commercial establishment on one floor and residential establishment on the second floor. In regard to Wyatt's Tire Company, he noted it was not different than essentially other vacant property in the Westside area. Ms. Smith recalled in previous discussion of the Wyatt's Tire Company, there was concern that it was now currently not in accordance with C-2 zoning. She wondered if it were pulled out as an exception, could it then retain its present business. Mr. Saul replied that the present usage is not going to be affected whether it retains C-2 or MU zoning because the primary use is not permitted in either. Mr. Delay said after the last discussion at Council meeting, he had visited the area and looked at the property. He noted his famil- iarity both with the area and with the mixed use zoning being proposed. He was convinced more than ever that this mixed-use zone was the right way to proceed. Mr. Obie said he felt that the proposed zone change had been put on the map with a broad brush and then consideration was given to each regarding the ultimate development of the area. He said even if e the Lawrence Street Market was an exact example of good mixed use zoning, he wondered if it would not be necessary to ask if that was the exact use the owners of the Lawrence Street Market wanted. Mr. Obie said if the owner should want to expand his business, he would not be able to do so. In regard to Wyatt's Tire Company, he said long- range plans indicated the major operation would be moved and the remaining building would be made into a retail outlet. Based on the present uses of those two parcels and the surrounding uses, he felt this was a good argument for leaving them as they are zoned. Mr. Delay felt Mr. Obie did a great disservice to the staff and Planning Commission by stating "made with a broad brush". He said this mixed-use zone change had been in study, research, and consider- ation in great detail for a long time. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which passed with Obie, Hamel, and Smith voting aye; Haws, Delay, and Lieuallen voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. Mayor Keller said that it appeared the majority of the people who had concerns would receive the opportunity to express those concerns and perhaps be treated more fairly. . 10/10/77--9 ifol The council bill will be referred back to a joint session of the e Planning Commission-City Council for further review. Mr. Haws said there were several parcels that he was concerned about and wondered if this was the time to consider those. Mayor Keller said those concerns could be brought before the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Saul told Council that everyone who testified at previous hearings would be notified of the joint meeting. Mr. Obie called for a point of order, saying his motion was to delete two parcels from the main motion. He thought if the main motion passed, then only that amended, portion would go back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney said that would be a reasonable interpreta- tion, but it was not the interpretation historically utilized by Council. He said Council had consistently followed the procedure that any action taken contrary to the Planning Commission's recommendation would result in the matter being sent back for joint session with the Planning Commission and Council. He noted if Council was uncomfort- able with that interpretation, then it should consider a change, noting City Attorney's office had recommended in the past that this procedure might possibly be considered for change by Council. Mr. Lieuallen expressed disappointment in the whole process. He felt Council had made this part of town a football, noting that property owners can never do exactly as they please as there are many restrictions on behavior. e 1-B-7 B. Hearings Panel Report October 3, 1977 for Levying Assessments-- Minutes distributed Manager said council bills 1538, 1546, and 1547 had been recommended by Hearings Panel to levy assessments as proposed. However, council bill 1537 was subject to discussion because of a right-of-way question which could affect the amount of assessment. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, said with respect to council bill 1537, Council was dealing with an assessme~t on Barger Drive which amounted to a small amount of money, but involved a significant principal for the City. He said the minutes of the Panel Hearing suggest that the City is mixing right-of- way with assessments for special benefits upon a public construction. The point to be made, \Jhethcr right or wrof1q" is Barger is [! SO-foot wide ~treet 3nd ~houlJ be assessed on that basis. There ar~ two cases pending now, and there has hCC'fl 'some su~~estion that the City might nczotiate or seck to acquire right-of-way in~he future. It is the City's position now that the City owns the right-of-way, that 50 feet, and it would be consistent and appropriate for the Council to take the position that Barger Drive is 50 feet wide and not 40 feet wide. He said Council could send the report back to the Assessment Panel or it simply could accept the report and with respect to the Barger Drive assessment, levy the assessments as originally recommended by staff. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept Hearings Panel ,. report of October 3, 1977, with respect to council bills 1538, 1546, and 1547; and with respect to council bill 1537 to levy assessments as originally recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. lloS 10/10/77--10 -- . . The following council bills, heard the first time on September 12 e and 26, 1977, and referred to Hearings Panel October 3, 1977, were brought back for second reading with panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: C.B. 1537--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer 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 & 17 and 20 & 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 approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18062. C.B. 1538--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 requesting it be rea~ in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared e passed and numbered 18063. C.B. 1546--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within Oakway 1st Addition, sanitary sewer to serve Oakway 1st Addition bounded by Cal Young Road, west boundary of Oakway Addition, north boundary of Fair Oaks Addition, and Norkenzie Road extended southerly 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. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18064. C.B. 1547--Levying assessments for sanitary sewer, Skyline Loop Annexation area generally bounded by 43rd Avenue on the north, Dillard Road' on the south and west, and east of Skyline Loop on the east 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. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared e passed and numbered 18065. 10/10/77--11 7b'f . . III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING A. Rezoning from M-2 to RG-SR property located west of Pearl Street e and north of 4th Avenue East (Evergreen Union Retirement Association) (Z 77-6) (previously heard by Council April 25, 1977) Recommended unanimously by Planning Commission September 12, 1977. C.B. 1460--Rezoning from M-2 to RG-SR property located west of Pearl Street and north'of 4th Avenue East 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 findings supporting the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission's staff notes and minutes of September 12, 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. The 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 call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18066. - IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 2772--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments e for period of September 26 through October 10, 1977, was read by number and title only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to October 12, 1977. ~~3 ~"> City Manager CTH :DT: jm/CM8b4 . 10/10/77--12 "110 " ; ~ . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division Bid No. 11 Opened: October 4, 1977 l. SANITARY SEWER; South Shasta loop from the east boundary of Deer Park Subdivision (Job No. 1426) Bidders Contract Cost l. Norm Green & Sons----------_____~___________________________$ 10,440.75 2. James A. Hil1----------____________________________~________$ 11,373.05 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----~-----_______________________$ 13,792.50 4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------_____________________$ 15,466.25 5. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company--------_____________$ 16,084.40 6. l~ D. Van Over Construction, Inc.----------_________________$ 16,711.00 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Buc!geted San. lat. $0.055/Sq.Ft~ $4,250.00 (deferred assessment) -0- San.Serv. $470.00/Each levy $0. 005/Sq. Ft. COMPLETION DATE: December 30. 1977 -lIIr-------------------------------------------------------------------------:--------"------ 2. SANITARY SEWER; Foch Street from Roosevelt Boulevard to 400 feet south (Job No. 1439) Bidders Contract Cost l. James A. Hi11-------------_________________________________$ 7.764.30 2. Norm Green & Sons-----------_______________________________$ 9,509.50 3. Shur-Way Contractors. Inc.---------________________________$ 10.879.70 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc.-----------______________________$ 12,232.50 5. l. O. Van Over Construction, Inc.-----------_______________$ 13,240.00 6. Emerald Excavating, Inc.-----------________________________$ 13,820.00 7. Dan o. Allsup Contractor, Inc.----------___________________$ 14,119.00 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted San. lat. $0.110/Sq.Ft. -0- -0- San.Serv. $226.00/Each San. levy $0.005/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: December 30. 1977 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e , 17/ \2 I " Page 2 "- . . . Bid No. 11 3. SANITARY SEWER; Norkenzie Road from Green Acres . Road to Holly Avenue (Job No. 1492) Bidders Contract Cost l. l. D. Van Over Construction, Inc.---------------____________$ 3,983.00 2. Norm Green & Sons-------~-----------------~--------------___$ 5,475.50 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------------_______________$ 6,268.40 4. Eugene Sand & Grave1,Inc.----------------____~------_----_-$ 6,667.50 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.~----------------_____________$ 6,835.50 6. James A. Hill------~----------------------------------------$ 6,865.80 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted San. lat. $0.105/Sq.Ft. $3,100.00 (deferred assessment) -0- San.Serv. $408.00/Each levy $O.005/Sq.Ft. COMPLETION DATE: December 30, 1977 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------_._-------~----- . e, 11'2- )~