Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1978 Meeting ,..-, , M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL e October 23, 1978 Adjourned meeting from October 11, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller October 23, 1978, 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: D.W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. Public Hearings A. Transportation Improvement Program Manager said adoption of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a step in the implementation of the T-2000 Plan which was adopted in June. The TIP is a series of improvements proposed by the various jurisdictions. The material has been distributed to Council, and the item was carried over from the October 9 meeting. Jim Farah; Planner, said Council would be pleased to hear the Federal Highway Administration and Early Mass Transit Administration had -- indicated the City would be receiving, in the next few days, uncon- ditional certification for the T-2000 Plan. The TIP is required by Federal regulations as a step to receiving Federal funds for trans- portation projects. It was developed by staff and the Transportation Planning Committee. It is a series of short-range projects, a three- year element plan. The first element (annual element) is the most critical. Outlined in the element are the projects which staff feels most confident can proceed on a timely schedule. The other two elements are dependent upon a variety of conditions, the most impor- tant of which may be Federal funding for those projects. He noted any Council action on the TIP this evening would not preclude other public hearings on projects which are in the TIP but may not have been discussed in the T-2000 Plan. He noted distribution to Council of modifications of the original draft. The modifications are related primarily to transit projects. He said the transit projects had been shown in the years the Lane Transit District (LTD) intended to implement them. They should be shown in the year in which they intend to apply for Federal funds. He reviewed some of the Transit funding and said, in essence, the amend- ments moved some 'of the funding ahead, showing those allocations in the first fiscal year. Other changes reviewed were a project from Sentry's of Lane County maxi-taxi program, a door-to-door shopping service for senior citizens. He also noted the TIP, as adopted, should show a footnote at the bottom of page 7, keyed to the 30th e 10/23/78--1 (,,83 and Spring project. It says that this project should not go through the Fairmount neighborhood and the only access should be to 30th e Avenue. A typographical error on page 7 was noted, a footnote keyed to Roosevelt Boulevard, should be Railroad Boulevard. Mr. Delay asked for clarification in cross-referencing a couple of projects back to the T-2000 Plan. He wondered where the Royal- Beltline overcrossing came from, and the phasing of Delta Highway, Beltline Road, and ramp construction noted on page 7. He asked for information on the metro-carpool program. Mr. Farah said the metro-carpool program was an idea that came from the Eugeneparatransit report. It is indended to make this an action program to attempt carpool matching programs with governmental offices in the civic center area. If that were successful, the program would be expanded to other private areas, such as the University~ Sacred Heart Hospital, and downtown Eugene. The use of van pooling as a supplement to existing transit service to outlying services would also be investigated. In regard to the Delta Highway-Goodpasture Highway interchange, Mr. Farah said that was not in the T-2000 Plan. It was a project submitted by the County as a safety project involving a ramp off Green Acres Road onto Beltline. He noted the problem there is now fairly serious and as that area develops, staff feels it will become more serious. The Royal-Beltline overcrossing is a project which is envisioned as a safety project. He said some of the projects are fairly major in cost, - but concern safety factors. They weren't in the T-2000 Plan, but had surfaced under the TIP. He noted the value of the TIP as a mechanism to keep track of what is happening in transportation improvements. Public hearing was opened. Pat Hocken, 3135 West 14th Avenue, endorsed the completion of the bike path from City View to Hayes. She noted the difficulty of getting downtown from the west side on a bike, and felt if the bike path were completed that would be one safe way to approach the downtown. She made some comments against the proposed replacement bridge across the Amazon Slough at Acorn Park Street. She felt a new bridge across Amazon in the area was essential because the existing one was struc- turally unsound. She noted the difficulty for firefighting equipment to get to homes in that area as they cannot use the bridge. Her objection is the specific location chosen for the bridge. The draft of the T-2000 Plan included a new bridge at Buck Street which is one block to the west. She said that rather than having it go across Acorn Park (a residential street), the advantage of using the Buck Street route is that if Buck were extended to 11th, it would inter- sect at Seneca Road where there is a stop light. Another advantage of this location is the possibility of reaching Highway 99 without traveling on West 11th. She questioned the use of tax dollars for a new bridge when, in fact, it would do nothing to relieve the access problem from Acorn Park to West 11th. She requested improvements e 10/23/78--2 ~* on Acorn Park if it is to be used as an arterial. If Acorn Park were - to be used as an arterial, she felt it needed substantial improvements. It is narrow, with no shoulders, and deep drainage ditches on both sides. She urged Council not to fund the bridge at Acorn Park, but delay for consideration of better alternatives, specifically a new bridge on Buck Street. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, explained why the bridge was placed at Acorn Park rather than Buck Street. At the time funding was being developed for a bridge across the Amazon Channel, Buck Street was on the master plan as an arterial street, while Acorn Park was an off- system road. The funding for Acorn Park Bridge could only be used for off-system streets. This would make Buck Street ineligible for the particular funding source. However, through subsequent public hearings and action on the T-2000 Plan, Buck was deleted from the on-system map, so it's now an off-system street. He felt the bridge could be placed at either Buck or Acorn Park; but a change in plans now would delay funding as an amendment to the original grant application would have to be made. In response to a question from Ms. Smith, Don Allen, Public Works Director, said Acorn Park is presently a substandard road which was inherited from the County. He noted another problem with Buck Street in that it is non-existent from 11th to Amazon Channel. It would be necessary to build a new street on a portion of that proposed e dedication. Jon Sutton, 4466 Fox Hollow Road, arrived late and was allowed to testify. He represented the neighbors from Fox Hollow Road, 43rd to 46th. Their concern was speeding and problems with the narrow road in regard to pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclers. He introduced a series of photographs to portray the situation. The group would like to reduce the speed from 35 to 25 mph and have a pushbutton stop signal placed at 46th and Fox Hollow to be used by school children. They also requested a sidewalk from 43rd to 46th. Mr. Farah said there will be an investigation regarding a signal at 46th and Fox Hollow, and further city-wide investigation of priori- ties for signaling intersections. A speed limit survey will be made to assess possibilities for reducing the limit, and whether it would fit in with the State Speed Control Board's criteria. There is a project for FY 1979-80 to widen Fox Hollow from 43rd to Donald and a bikeway will be included. The paving will be 28 feet wide with a bike lane on one side and a sidewalk on the other. Resolution 3018--Adopting a Transportation Improvement Program, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. e 10/23/78--3 ,~ Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to segregate discussion of the bridge relative to Amazon Slough e at Acorn Park. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no and Mr. Lieuallen abstaining. In response to Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Obie said he wanted Council to discuss the possibility of moving the bridge to Buck Street and what action is necessary to do that. Staff responded that one of the problems that would face the City in the future is maintenance of the bridge now in existence. Council would have to close that bridge and reconstruct it. At that time, it would be legitimate to decide whether or not to move the bridge to Buck Street. Staff could assess the situation and have a series of public hearings in the neighborhood as to whether the bridge should be relocated. It was pointed out that Mr. Hanks indicated there was on application pending for Federal funding of that bridge. If the plans were changed, it would mean amending that process and reapplying for funds for the final site of the bridge. It was noted that a decision would not be made until staff reports back to Council after conducting research. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to amend the main motion on the floor that no decision be made on the Acorn/Buck Street bridge until after the report made by staff. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. Vote was taken on the main motion to adopt the resolution e which carried unanimously. It was noted that Mr. Obie voted for all of those items in the TIP in which he did not have a conflict of interest. B. Appeal of Condition Imposed on Horizon West First Addition Subdivision Located east side of Hawkins Lane, south of 25th Avenue (S 78-12) Denied by Planning Commission August 28, 1978, with a 5:1 vote. Jim Saul, Planner, said the total subdivision is approximately five acres and is known as the First Addition to Horizon Homes. The appeal is of a particular condition imposed by the Planning Department as one of the conditions of tentative approval. He noted there was some confu- sion as to the exact dimensions of the particular parcel. He felt the most accurate description of the parcel is, "A strip of land' 50 feet in width, measuring some 311 to 316 feet in length." It was a stri p of land created some years ago to provide access to the property from Hawkins Heights and up to approximately one year ago, was an integral part of the parcel of land. About one year ago, that piece of the property was severed by a bargain and sale deed and apparently sold. That severance of land did not undergo review, either through the minor partition or subdivision process, and hence was a violation e 10/23/78--4 "1(, of both State statute and city ordinances. Further, the parcel of e land so created fails to meet the minimum requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinances. Nevertheless, when the owners submitted their application for subdivision, they did not include that parcel on the premise that it had been sold and they no longer had control of it. Upon submission of the application, staff indicated it would not act upon the subdivision until provision was made for inclusion of that strip in the total development plan. The condition imposed was, in part, to ensure provision of access not only to the property, but to adjoining land. Jim Bernhard, President of the Planning Commission, was available to answer questions. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Walt Mortenson, 1890 Tigertail Road, partner in Horizons Homes, spoke in favor of the appeal and distributed maps for Council. His position is that a property valued at approximately $15,000 should be dedicated with a possible consideration that it might be one person's loss and another person's gain. He felt withholding approval of the subdivi- sion was unfair, unclear, and unnecessary. He reviewed the maps for e Council. He felt this particular parcel had complete access. He said the Planning Department was requesting dedicating 220 feet and felt that would leave a 50 by 92 foot piece going into a no-man's land. He said it was a valuable strip of land that was being requested to be turned over for development that is yet unknown. He felt the strip of land could very well be brought together at some future point. He felt the first addition of the subdivision should be allowed to con- tinue because this particular street has nothing to do with access to any parcel of vacant land in the subdivision; that Park Forest Drive would stand on its own. However, the strip of land referred to in his testimony as A and B, should not be a dedication or a donation to adjacent property owners. He referred to another map which showed a suggested development. He also questioned who would maintain the parcel of land if the road were dedicated~ He summarized his testimony by saying he felt there were options and ways the problem could be worked out, but felt it unfair to withhold approval of the subdivision for one little strip of land that goes nowhere. Thelma Seufert, 1770 West 24th, spoke against the appeal, for herself and Pat Kerr, adjoining property owners. She said it was not known what would happen to the 50-foot strip as it cannot be built upon. She wondered who would maintain it. She said access would be diffi- cult if the property were panhandled. She said each of them wanted e 10/23/78--5 foB1 to develop their own property but not in a big subdivision and they were not in a hurry to do so. She said the Planning Department had e indicated this would be an access as a designated street. If not, there is no feasible way for access to the back part of their property. Mr. Saul referred Council to the maps that were enclosed in staff materials and pointed out that dedication of the strip of land is necessary to allow a reasonable development pattern on Tax Lots 4701 and 4600. He felt the suggestion that this condition be deleted and the problem will rectify itself' is misleading. If the situation is not addressed at this point, there wouldn't be much of an opportunity for rectifying it. In rebuttal, Mr. Mortenson questioned why his development should be authorized to donate a $15,000 piece of property. He said if a plan were submitted and that was the only way to go, there could conceivably be a way. However, he noted there is no plan. He said the strip had been sold in January 1976. He had been advised by his legal counsel that that the person who bought it was negotiating with the two owners of strips A and B to put that together as a potential subdivision. At that point, it was found that the land would be dedicated so all negotiations stopped. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to deny the appeal and - adopt findings_ of fact. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley voting no. C. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Partition Located East of Willamette Street between Oak and 46th Avenue (Paculdo) (M 78-127) Planning Commission voted approval September 11, 1978, 3:2 vote. Jim Saul, Planner, referred Council to staff materials. He revi ewed the chronological history of development of the parcels. The minor partition application essentially seeks to take an easterly portion of the original Tax Lot 100 and easterly portion of Tax Lot 200, combine those into a separate development site that would be suitable for a single-family residence having access onto Willamette Street. In its evaluation of the application, the Planning Department denied the minor partition request. The primary basis for denial was the Willamette Street frontage, taking into account the grade, center turn lane, speeds on Willamette, etc. The other reason was the configuration of the property being created as a future development site. The Planning Commission felt the traffic concerns were not serious enough to warrant denial and the parcel was large and should be approved under city policy, hence reversing the Planning Depart- ment's decision and approving the minor partition. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. e 10/23/78--6 ~II Staff notes and minutes were entererl into the record. - Public hearing was opened. Huibert Paul, 4390 Pearl, spoke against the partition. He felt it was a traffic hazard and gave supporting information. He said the proposed development would bring a garage to within three and one-half feet of his property line, and felt it should be five feet. He said if the new dwelling occupants had children, it would be dangerous for them to cross Willamette. He said the dwelling would also have visual access to his back yard. Fred Reica, 4295 Oak Street, owns the adjoining property to the north. He said the lot was small and can only be used as a rental. He felt the access to Willamette was unsafe. He also objected to having his view lot blocked. D.J. Paculdo, 4410 Pearl, applicant, was in favor of the minor parti- tion. He reviewed what he felt to be important points in the mate- rials presented by staff; that the proposal would not in any way impede the future use of the property or adversely affect the safe or healthful development of land. It said both proposed parcels met or exceeded all requirements in terms of lot area, etc. He introduced some pictures of the lot and reviewed his intentions for Council. He said after the partition he would still have 11,000 square feet on each remaining lot. The house would be approximately 11 feet from Mr. Paul's fence. The distance from Mr. Reica's property would be 37 e feet. He felt the street access was safe enough. He also noted there was ample parking space available. He noted when his family was grow- ing up, there were four cars being used and access to the street was no problem. He noted a count of over 40 houses in the area whose only access was Willamette. He said this would not be so with his proposed development. He felt there would be no more traffic congestion added with this development, that it was a safe street, wide, with a bike lane and wide sidewalks, and well-posted speed limits. He felt the proposal was in line with the plan of the city, the county, and the state. In'response to a question from Mr. Delay, Mr. Saul said that building a residence will increase the frequency of access. It was noted that there were several people who are using access to the back yard presently. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to deny the appeal and adopt findings of fact. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Williams and Smith voting no. A short recess was taken. e 10/23/78--7 'h O. Appeal of Planning Diector's Tentative Aproval of Kiska, Okita, Kukui Hill Subdivision (S 77-78) located near the southeast corner e of East 43rd Avenue and Dillard Road Item deleted from Agenda as appeal was withdrawn. E. New Liquor License Outlet: Ivorena Care Center, 687 Cheshire Avenue (HCF) Applicant: Roderick Enterprises, Inc., 1820 SW Vermont, Portland, Oregon Local Administrator: Larry Olson Manager noted the application was for a health-care facility license, and dispensation would be in a recreation area under very close supervision. Malt beverage, not over eight-percent alcohol content, and wine not over 14-percent alcohol content would be allowed with this license. Staff finds all papers in order and recommends for- warding approval to OlCC. Public hearing was opened. Larry Olson, 1466 Lake Drive, noted most nursing homes do serve wine and beer illegally. He said it could be served with doctors' orders as a medication. They hoped to use dispensation in social situati~ns, and it is not anticipated that any profit will be made. He noted this is the home of the patients and it was hoped these beverages could be made available to them. There being no further testimony presented, public hearing was e closed. Mr. Hamel indicated he wished Council to discuss the item. He had some convictions that beer and wine should not be sold at a care center of this type. Mr. lieuallen noted this was the home of the people and it was per- fectly reasonable to have access to beer and wine. He did not feel it was Council's responsibility to decide whether or not it should be available as that was taking on the responsibility for determining how these people should live their lives. Mr. Bradley suggested Council not take any position. Mr. Williams took issue with Mr. Bradley, saying the Council should address the approval or disapproval of the request of liquor license based on such considerations as whether or not there would be damage to the neighborhood or whether the persons dispensing the liquor would be derelict in their responsibility. He felt the Council was flirting with making itself the moral judge of what people who live in nursing homes should or should not do. He felt that was not Council's repon- sibility. He said there was evidence indicating that some alcoholic consumption in nursing homes may make life a little more pleasant. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward recommendation for approval to OLCC. Motion carried - unanimously. 10/23/78--8 ~O F. Supplemental Budget~-Memo distributed e Manager said there were three items involved. One was the Civic Center for $18,500,000 which must be incorporated officially into the budget. The other two items are appropriations which should have been carried over from the previous year's budget. One is $45,220 for the Tri-Agency Animal Control facility which was previously appropriated monies which have not been spent. The other is $188,847 for land acquisition and the funding is secured from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the form of a grant and the acquisition has not been completed. A fourth item, $320 in the Service and Equipment fund are monies which come to the City for services provided to the school district and will be used for minor equipment acquisition. The matter has been discussed and approved by the Budget Committee at a meeting earlier this evening. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. CB 1778--Adopting supplemental budget; making appropriations for City of Eugene for fiscal year starting July 1, 1978, and ending June 30, 1979, and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unani- e mous 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye"the bill was declared passed and numbered 18283. G. Public Works Bid Awards--attached. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to award contracts to low bidders as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Cable TV Franchise Manager noted the first reading on the council bill granting Teleprompter Corporation a non-exclusive franchise system was October 9 with public hearing at that time. Because of Charter requirements, the second reading was held to this meeting. - 10/23/78--9 ",, Mr. Williams noted that a charge had been made at .the public hearing that the City's advisor, Harold Horn, was funded in part by cable -- television companies. That charge has been relayed to Mr. Horn who categorically denies that to be true. A letter to that effect has been received and entered into the City's files. CB 1774--Granting to Teleprompter Corporation a non-exclusive system and declaring an emergency was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to delete the emergency clause from the council bill. Mr. Delay said there were people in the community who wanted to have a vote on this particular issue. He thought that was a basic right under the Oregon Constitution and Council should not ~eny that right. Mr. Williams disagreed with Mr. Delay, saying he did not feel it would serve the community. He said Springfield and Lane County have already adopted the franchise. He said even if a referendum drive were success- ful and the franchise was adopted by the metropolitan area with the exception of Eugene, he felt that would lead to chaos. The chances of having a better system would be poor and the chance of ending up with a mess were great. He said if the urban area were in a position to e vote on a franchise, which it is not, he,might feel differently. He said this would affect only the city of Eugene and he felt it unwise to go in that direction. It was noted there had been an unsuccessful referendum drive in Springfield. Mr. Delay reiterited there was some feeling in the community that the people should have the opportunity to vote on the issue. He fe 1t that allowing that kind of democratic participation would be a responsible action. He said just because it might result in a less than perfect situation is not a reason to deny that opportunity. Joyce Benjamin, City Attorney's Office, said if the emergency clause is attached to the ordinance it goes into effect immediately. The franchise would be signed at this point. However, the community could initiate a separate resolution repealing the franchise. At this point, if Council deleted the emergency clause, the people who were opposed to the franchise would be allowed time to circulate an initiative petition, placing the question of the franchise on the ballot. If an emergency clause were included and the franchise signed, an initiative petition could still be circulated. Assistant Manager noted distinction between referendum and initiative. The absence of an emergency clause would allow the ordinance to be referred to the voters by a petition. If the emergency clause exists, - 10/23/78--10 (,'\1. then the only avenue available to the citizens would be an initiative petition which would seek to repeal an ordinance or propose an alter- nate franchise. Both of those would get into questions of impairment of the contractual right that would then have existed because the e Manager would have signed the contract with Teleprompter. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion, which failed, with Williams, Obie, Hamel, and Smith voting no; Delay, Lieuallen, Haws, and Bradley voting aye; and Mayor Keller voting no to break the tie. Mayor Keller felt the majority of the citizens in the area would be happy with the franchise and, therefore, he voted against deleting the emergency clause. Mr. Delay said he would support the franchise even though some ques- tions have been raised previously about public access. He said Les Swanson had indicated the franchise is termed in broad enough language to include the question of production facilities and access. In addition, the franchise gives the Cable Commission the responsibility to look at reasonable charges, overview the rules governing the use of the studios and facilities, and gives the final right of appeal to the Commission regarding other issues having to do with public access. He believed the mechanisms were available to ensure public access programming would not be inhibited. However, he said he was going to vote against the council bill this evening in order to deny it the six votes it needs to get an emergency clause. Mr. Lieuallen agreed with Mr. Delay in that he felt the franchise e probably would work out but that the Cable Commission would have a fair amount of responsibility to respond to concerns of the citizens in regard to public access. Also, he wanted the emergency clause eliminated. Vote was taken on the motion which passed with Williams, Obie, Hamel, and Smith voting aye; Delay, Lieuallen, Haws, and Bradley voting no; and Mayor Keller voting aye to break the tie. The bill was declared passed a"~ Ilw"Jcr~ 18284. .-- - --<-- - Mayor Keller said he felt this was a good franchise and it will serve the interests of the community. He felt there was a burden on Teleprompter to perform at a significant level and he felt they would carry through. B. Levying Assessments The folowing council bills read the first time October 9, 1978, and referred to Hearings Panel for hearing October 16, 1978, were brought back for second and final reading, with Panel recommendation to levy assessments as proposed: e 10/23/78--11 toq3 CB 1776--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer 11th Avenue from Bailey Hill Road to Belt Line Road was read . by council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18285. CB 1771--Levying assessments for storm sewer to serve Delta Highway (west side) from. Valley River Way to Willamette River was read by council. bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18286. III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING--None IV. RESOLUTIONS Res. No. 3025--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period October 9 through October 23, 1978, was read by number and title. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3026--Authorizing transfer of non-contingency appropriations within a given fund between programs and/or object groups was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3027--Authorizing transfer of General Fund and Equipment Intra- governmental Sevice Fund contingency monies was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Res. No. 3028--Authorizing transfer of appropriations from General Fund Contingency and a like amount of resources from the General Fund to the General Capital Projects Fund was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e 10/23/78-- 12 ~q't . . V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council minutes October 9, 1978. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to OC~9Jh Charles T. He~y City Manager DT:er/CM25b20 e - 10/23/78--13 ~'5 - .. . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS e Engineering Division Bid No. 15 Opened: October 17, 1978 l. SANITARY SEWER in Fox Hollow Street from 300 feet south of Princess Street to 100 feet north of Saratoga Street. (Job No. 1659 & 1560) Bidders: Contract Cost 1. H &. J Construction ---------------------------- $ 40,688.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. -------------------- $ 51,361.70 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------------- $ 53,334.80 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. -------------------- $ 63,780.82 5. Wi1dish Construction Co. ---------------------- $ 68,862.36 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted Sanitary Lateral $ 0.186/Sq.Ft. None None Sanitary Service $ 600.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: January 1, 1979 - - --- --- ----- -- ---- - ---- - - -- -- - - -- -- --- -~, - - -- - ---- -- - ---- - ---- -- -- -- - - ------ -- ---------e 2. SANITARY SEWER to serve Bransom Subdivision. (Job No. 1615) Bi dder~_: Contract Cost 1. Emerald Excavating, Inc. ---------------------- $ 2,696.75 2. H & J Construction ---------------------------- $ 3,275.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. -------------------- $ 3,828.00 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. -------------------- $ 5,750.00 5. Wildish Contractors, Inc. --------------------- $ 6,940.00 6. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ---------------- $ 11,076.00 COJt to Abutting Property Co s t to J..ili. Amount Budgeted Sa.nitary Lateral $ 0.32/Sq.Ft. None None or $ 642.00/Lot Sanitary Service $ 295.00/Each Cor~PLETI ON DATE: November 15, 1978 -.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It (,Gt~ Page 1 of 3 )~ . , 3. SANITARY SEWER in Gilham Road from Kidder e Subdivision south to existing sanitary sewer. (Job No. 1681 & 1534) Bidders: Contract Cost l. H & J Construction -------..--------------------- $ 57,740.00 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------------------- $ 72,177.20 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor. Inc. ----------------- $ 83,682.60 4. Wildish Construction Co. ----------------------- $ 86,135.56 5. Shur-\~ay Contractors. Inc. --'------------------- $ 99,914.20 Cost to Abytti~~-9~erty ~ost to City. Amount Budgeted San ita ry La tera 1 .$ 0.09/Sq.Ft. Trunk Sewer $ 39,000.00 $ 27,900.00 Sanitary Serv'ice $ 770.00/ Each Deferred $ 20,000.00 $ 10,000.00 COMPLETI ON DATE: February 1. 1979 ------------------------------,---------------------------------------.------------------- 4. SANITARY SEWER in 13th Avenue from Bertelsen . Road to approximately 700 feet East. (Job No. 1686) Bidders: Contract Cos t e l. H & J Construction --------------------------___ $ 12,790.00 2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ----------------- $ 15,377.10 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel. Inc. --------------------- $ 18.919.30 4. Wi1dish Construction Co. ----------------------- $ 19.010.50 5. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. -----------.---------- $ 23,482.50 f_~ t to_ Ab~tt; ng Propert1. Cost to City Amount Budgeted Sanitary Lateral $ O. 11 / Sq . Ft. None None Sanitary Service $ 485.00/ Each COf~PLETION DATE: December 15. 1978 --------------------------------------------------------------------,-------------_._----- e f~lll Page 2 of 3 (') - 5. PAVING AND SANITARY SEWER to serve Anne First Addition. (Job No'. 1558) Contract Cost e Bidders: Basic Alternate 1. Wildish Construction Co. ------------- $ 21,485.00 0 2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. ----------- $ 21,616.35 0 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ----------- $ 23,272.45 0 4. H & J Construction ------------------- $ 23,792.75 0 5. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. -------- $ 25,194.50 $ 26,812.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount B.~dgeted 28' Paving $ 24.00/ F. F. San. Lateral $ 0.21/Sq.Ft. San. Servi ce $ 320.00/ Each Storm Sewer $1,420.00/Lot $ 1,070.00 None COMPLETION DATE: STORM SEWER - November 10, 1978 PAVING & SANITARY SEWER - July 15, 1979 -.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. BIKE PATH Amazon Bike Path from Hayes Street to City View Street. (Job No. 1235) Bidders: Contract Cost l. Wildish Construction Co. ----------------------- $ 43,478.00 e 2. Benge Paving, Inc. ----------------------------- $ 46,441.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------------------- $ 52,492.42 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------------------ $ 63,857.50 . Co? t to Abutti 1J.9 Pro"p_erty Cost to City Amount Bl!Idgeted None $ 43,478.00 $ 42,800.00 COHPLETION DATE: June 1, 1979 ---------------------------.-------------------------------------------------------------- 7. SIDEWALK, Lindley Lane adjacent to Tax Lots 804, 851 and 839, Map No. 17-03-33-12. (Job No. 1521) Bidders: Contract Cost l. H & J Construction ----------------------------- $ 3,760.90 2. Wildish Construction Co. ----------------------- $ 4,176.60 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------------------- $ 5,906.55 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc. --------------------- $ 7,273.00 yost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 4" Sidewalk $1. 95/Sq. Ft. None None e I COMPLETION DATE: December 1, 1978 ----------------------~.------------------------------------------------------------------ tJt8 Page 3 of 3 )~