HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/1979 Meeting
. M I NUT E S
. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
July 23, 1979
Adjourned meeting from July 18, 1979, of the City Council of the City of Eugene,
Oregon, was called to order by Council President Jack Delay at 7:40 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott
Lieuallen, Gretchen Miller, and Brian Obie. Mayor Gus Keller and Councilors
D.W. Hamel, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue were absent.
I. AGENDA CHANGE
Council President Delay announced that Agenda Item B under public hearings,
regarding a street direction change at 12th Avenue, would not have a
public hearing tonight because of a technical error in providing the
public adequate notice for public hearing on this issue. The public
hearing'will be rescheduled for August 13, 1979.
II. SPECIAL PRESENTATION AND INFORMATION
Manager introduced 30 students and friends representing the International
Youth Association of Japan. This group included two students from
Eugene's Sister City of Kakegawa. The two leaders accompanying them
- are Dr. Sasaki, from Nihan University in Tokyo, and Mr. Kusuyama, who
is director of the Office Administration for the International Youth
Association of Japan.
Mr. Kusuyama read a letter to the City Council from the President of
the Association. It read as follows:
Dear Mr. Keller:
On behalf of our association, I have a great honor to express my
appreciation for your hearty acceptance of our youth in Eugene.
Progress of our friendship with Eugene is growing year by year,
evidenced by your Sister City relation with Kakegawa. It is my
hope that our goodwill should be everlasting with you and the people
of Eugene.
Mr. Kusuyama presented the Council with some Japanese flags. Councilor
Delay thanked the representatives and expressed the Council's good wishes
for continued involvement with Eugene's Sister City.
Manager announced that the reception for the official delegation from
Kakegawa will be Friday, August 3. More details will follow.
e
7/23/79--1
3"
Mr. Stan Long, City Attorney, informed the Council of the happenings in .
Salem regarding the field burning issue. First, as to the enforcement of
the present federal limitation of 50,000, the Attorney General's office .
assured the Court that they had no intention of violating the law in the
future and would comply with the law until it was changed. The judge
lifted the writ and advised them and the City of Eugene that if burning
exceeded 50,000 without a change in the law, he would reissue the writ
preemptorily. Mr. Long said this was the first time anyone has formally
given their assurance that they will indeed comply with the law until the
law is changed.
The second development was in regard to the State's request to change
the federal limitation by changing the State's Implementation Plan.
The State applied this year for an increase to 180,000 acres with
burning conditions and techniques that were not satisfactory to the
City of Eugene. Mr. Long said they have received word from the
Environmental Protection Agency that the State's request would be
denied. The EPA also advised they were going to implement their own
plan and would give notice of intention to approve 180,000 acres
provided certain technical. justifications could be made. This matter
will come back to the State for additional hearings on burning tech-
niques and justifications. If these techniques are made part of the
SIP, it would go through the process of approval and be publication
in the Federal Registry and would ultimately become federal law,
assuming all the conditions are met. Final approval of a change,
if justified, would come in December.
Councilor Smith asked Mr. Long what might be happening in terms of e
meetings or rulings. Mr. Long responded that the EQC would be having
a meeting soon, and there were several minor points the City has
questions about. The big item is the 250,000 acre limitation
authorized by the legislature, which will set off the whole revision
process again next year. He believes the more responsible course
for the City to follow 1s to develop a level which represents a
reasonable compromise and stay with that.
Councilor Delay asked Mr. Long if he expected that this new review
process would give the City adequate room to ensure that some important
items, like improved acreage release systems and some of the incentives
are included in any such burn program. Mr. Long said he hoped that
was what was involved.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning
1- Property located south of Ayers and west of Gilham from
County AGT,RA to City R-1/PD (Marvin Knutson)(AZ 79-2)
(Map and information distributed)
Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on June 5, 1979.
I
7/23/79--2 e
3't 'l.
2. Property located south of Ayers and east of Delta from County
AGT,RA to City R-l/PD (Dessler/Allen)(AZ 79-5)(Maps and
information distributed)
. Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission on June 5, 1979.
Manager suggested that to save time and since they are actually
substantial parcels immediately adjacent to each other, and that
the reasons for and against annexation and for and against rezoning
are very similar, that the Council could consider the hearings
jointly. The materials and background information could be intro-
duced for both.
Mr. Long advised the Council that he had learned that at the Planning
Commission hearing considering these matters, an individual who
object to the proceedings filed some documents that apparently have
been mislaid. They were intended to be part of the record and are not
part of the record. An effort was made to obtain some duplicates so
that they might present their evidence to the Council as it relates to
this request. Those efforts have failed. Under the circumstances, Mr.
Long said the Council had two alternatives. First, the Council could
postpone the hearing for two weeks and give everyone the opportunity
to be prepared. By doing so, the Council preserved the public notice.
The second alternative is to take the testimony of the people who are
in attendance at this meeting and hold it over to the next meeting.
Mr. Long said if the Council did that, it would need to provide some
kind of rebuttal after that material is received, whether it be
written or another opportunity for testimony to be given.
e Councilor Smith asked if the Council does begin testimony at this
meeting and then holds it over for two weeks, was she correct in
assuming that testimony heard at this meeting would not be repeated
in two weeks. Mr. Long said that would be the prerogative of the
Chair, and would be difficult to administer, but could be done. Ms.
Smith asked what Mr. Long's recommendation would be. Mr. Long said
he didn't have a definite recommendation and it was a matter of
what the Council would be most comfor'-able with.
Councilor Obie asked if this matter were to wind up in court and be
contested, would one of Mr. Long's alternative be more favorable than
the other two. Mr. Long responded that the most conservative course
of action was to recognize that some evidence that may be material is
not available, and the reason is it is not available is a good one.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Long said a postponement is in order.
Ms. Smith moved, Mr. Obie seconded, that the Council postpone
until August 13 items A-I and A-2 on annexation and rezoning.
Motion carried unanimously.
- 7/23/79--3
313
1
!
B. Mooting of East Skinner Butte Litigation I
Manager noted that this matter had been held over from the meeting e
of July 9, 1979, at the request of Council so that interested
parties would have the opportunity to present additional testimony.
At the July 9 meeting, the Council did give first reading to CB 1933,
which is a policy ordinance. This bill states that application of
changes in land use generally will not apply to existing valid
permit applications. It has an exception within its text which
allows the Council the option to apply that action to a specific
application or applications that have been made prior to the
effective date of the bill.
CB 1934 specifies that the East Skinner Butte Historic Zoning
Ordinance will not apply to valid permit applications filed prior
to its effective date. This bill has not been given a first
reading. The purpose of this bill is to clear up any ambiguity
with respect to current litigation on this matter. The staff
has taken the position that it would be appropriate to pass these
two ordinances.
Public hearing was opened.
David Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, spoke in opposition to the ordinances.
He asked if the Council intended the East Skinner Butte Historic Landmark
Ordinance to affect all of the properties within the area boundaries,
including the vacant lots north of 2nd Avenue. The minutes of the Historic
Review Board meeting, in which the language of the ordinance was finalized
and recommended to the Council, make it very clear that the ordinance, as ~
recommended, did intend that the design standards apply to these lots. This
area was included in the boundaries because of its historical importance,
specifically because any development on it would affect the character of
the existing property to the south. He said the Board allowed this area
to go to high density because, according to the minutes, "Densities higher
than 20 units per acre would not necessarily negatively impact the historic
character of this core area to the south if design controls were instituted."
That was the intent of the ordinance as presented to Council, according to
Mr. Wyler. He said the minutes of the April 11 Council meeting at which
the ordinance was adopted did not indicate the Council had a different
intention. According to Mr. Filer, the minutes revealed that the Council
was assured that the design review process would make the high-density
designation acceptable.
Mr. Filer said the Council would have to decide for itself what it intended,
but it had to reckon with the public record, and what a reasonable observer
of the process would conclude. He also asked if the ordinance was intended
to apply the review process to the vacant lots north of 2nd Avenue and did
the Council want the ordinance to work as it was intended to work. In
this issue, Mr. Filer said the Council must decide whether the intention
-
3q~ 7/23/79--4
. of an ordinance it has enacted or the protection of an historically
important part of the City should be realized. The only effect on the
e private interest is that the development plans would be subject to design
review process.
Dustin Pozner, 1891 Harris Street, said he did not believe the Council
should make this particular valid permit application, undergo the historic
review process, in East Skinner Butte area. He feels that to do otherwise
would be contrary to current City practices and would amount to changing
the rules in the middle of the game. He said it would be a dangerous
precedent to set if the Council selectively enforced the City's past
informal policy of approving applications under the Code that was existing
at the time of application. Furthermore, he strongly encouraged the
Council to formalize that policy into the Code. Mr. Pozner said he was in
favor of design review for all new projects in the area, but he felt that
to be consistent with past City policy, there was a need in this issue to
make an exception.
Karen Holt, 341 Adams Street, said she was a lawyer representing David
and Martha Filer and Robert Gray in a lawsuit that has necessitated this
hearing. She said she was here not only as a lawyer for these people, but
also as a private citizen interested in the issues raised by this case.
Because the laws enacted are presumed to be in the public interest, Ms.
Holt said the law is also presumed to apply to all citizens when they go
into effect. The historic landmark ordinance was enacted on April 11 with
an emergency clause. She believes this is a land-use legislation and a
kind of zoning ordinance. The only way a citizen can escape the new
- legislation is by establishing that they had a prior non-conforming use in
the area and they shouldn't be subject to the new law. The Oregon courts
set very strict standards for non-conforming users and the standards are,
according to Ms. Holt, that the parties need to have valid permits at the
time the new laws are enacted and they need to have a substantial interest
in proceeding under the old laws. She said usually this interest is
evidenced by substantial construction. She said that, in this issue the
architects Unthank, Seder, Poticha, who wish to develop this property, did
not have valid permits at the time the law was passed and the only expendi-
tures that they had made at the time the law was passed were in having
their plans approved by the Building Department. She didn't think the
Oregon courts would protect their use, given the fact they had not met the
criteria for non-conforming use. With regard to the first ordinance
before the Council, Ms. Holt said she felt that if the ordinance were
enacted, the Council would be surrendering in part the power to enact
laws for the public welfare.
She also said that by enacting this ordinance, it would enable anyone
who has the forethought to submit an application far in advance of some
pending land use legislation to avoid the Council's legislation. She felt
the language of the second ordinance was unclear. She also believes the
Council might have to contend with other land owners in the area if the
e
7/23/79--5
3~
ordinance is passed. In addition, the historic ordinance is already three J
months old and she questioned whether the Council could amend legislation
in which the public may have an established, vested right to have the e
legislation enforced as it reads. She suggested an alternative in that
the Council could direct the Building Official to revoke the permits.
Terry Hammons, 1417 Mesa, attorney for Unthank, Seder, Poticha, spoke for
the ordinances. He said he did not agree with Ms. Holt's view of the law.
With regard to legal requirements for prior non-conforming use, Mr. Hammon
said Ms. Holt was referring to state statutes which apply only to counties
and do not apply to home rule cities. He said it had been suggested that
if the Council adopted the ordinances, it would permit someone to thwart
that legislation by making an early application just to get around it.
The difficulty with that position, as he sees it, is that filing an appli-
cation for a building permit isn't simply going down and filling out a
half-page form. You have to submit a full copy of your drawings, which
is a large undertaking. He said he had heard no evidence of this happening
. in the past.
Mr. Hammons also stated that Ms. Holt's worry that other land owners in
the area would complain that the Unthank firm had received favored treatment
was unfounded. He said the Council would simply be applying the City's
policy as it has always existed. Mr. Hammons said it was very important
for the Council to adopt the ordinances before it. He said the opponents
are asking the Council to adopt a policy that is unique among the cities
in Oregon and one that goes contrary to what the policy of this city has
always been. Mr. Hammons said the resolution that Ms. Holt proposed would
be asking the City to aodpt a discriminatory policy. He didn't feel the e
City had any place doing that. He further stated that the architects
would suffer a loss of $600,000 if they were forced to go through the
design review process.
He didn't feel the City's policy should be changed to accommodate a couple
of people. Mr. Hammons said the opponents were asking the City to get out
of a lawsuit that it has virtually no chance of losing, and get into a
lawsuit that the City might very well lose. He didn't feel the City
should take that risk.
Joan Rich, 2050 Madison, read a letter from Glenn Mason, Director of the
Lane County Museum. The letter read in part, "I feel it is important
to remind the City Council again of the Historic Review Board's stated
intent concerning the question before you with regard to the new develop-
ment within the East Skinner Butte Historic Landmark Area. In their
meeting of January 11, 1979, the minutes clearly reflect the intent of the
HRB with regard to new development and, in particular, to new development
on the vacant land north of 2nd Avenue. It was felt that the impact of
development on this vacant land would affect the character of development
of the core area to the south. Therefore, although a higher density would
be allowed, the HRB's intent, and that of the subsequent landmark area
e
3qb 7/23/79--6
. ordinance, was that any new development of that land north of 2nd Avenue
e would have to undergo the design review process as outlined in the ordinance.
Please bear the HRB's intent in the language of the adopted landmark area
ordinance in mind while deliberating on this issue before you. Thank you
for your continued support and leadership in retaining and preserving
Eugene's rich heritage."
Phil Gall, 2765 Emerald Street, an architect in Eugene, said he shared Mr.
Hammons' concerns. The fact that a permit application requires a complete
set of plans and specifications is an expensive process. It requires
hiring and paying consultants to review plans, paying employees and firms
to prepare those plans, and other costs. To require someone to change
those plans after a permit has been applied for could be a process that
would go on forever. This to him was a totally unacceptable procedure.
Thomas Martin, 3620 Emerald, addressed the Council and described himself
as a builder and one who deals with blueprints, specifications, and costs.
He deals with the Building Department a great deal and complimented
this department on the good job that they do. He said that if the Council
added another layer of enforcement so that builders have to keep going
back and forth because of new ordinances, it would seriously affect the
building industry. He supported the ordinances proposed.
Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented.
Mr. Long stated that there was no question in his mind that the City's
policy had been for a long, long time to not apply law changes to in-
- progress permits. The reason why that policy has existed is simply
because if you do otherwise, you end up with a pyramiding situation that
never ends. According to Mr. Long, the policy of the Building Code, which
in some ways is more important than some of the historic preservation
issues, in terms of affect on the administration, is written and is part
of the state manual which the City is given to follow in interpreting the
State Building Code. What the City administration has done is follow
that, not only with respect to the State-mandated specialty codes, but
also according to its own ordinances. In his view, this is a perfectly
sensible way to administer both sets of laws. The Building Department
checks planning considerations as well as building consideration when
it deals with an application. That has been the policy and there should
be no question about that.
The question posed by the lawsuit is what did the historic ordinance
apply to. Because' of the long-standing policy, the Council did not
expressly decide whether it applied to in-progress permits. Up to this
point, the administration of this city has taken the position that it did
not apply because of the practice he described.
Arguments that the law somehow precludes the Councilor requires it to do
one thing or another are, in his judgment, just plain wrong. Arguments
about cases with vested rights apply to the converse of the situation up
e
3~7 7/23/79--7
I
to this point. There are cases that talk about what happens when the City
tries to revoke a building permit or tries to apply a law to an existing
structure. Then the question becomes one of vested rights. Mr. Long said e
that was not what was happening here. The City is trying not to apply it,
because that's been the City's practice.
Mr. Long said he wanted to alert the Council to the fact that it may be
deciding which lawsuit it wants to litigate. Mr. Long said if he heard
Mr. Hammons correctly, he is going to contend on behalf of his clients,
that they have some vested rights. Whether the City could prevail in that
litigation is jUdgmental. What was clear to Mr. Long was that, upon being
asked by this particular land owner, if the Council intended to apply this
new law to his in-progress permit, the City administration said no. Not
only did he ask at public meetings, Mr. Long was told, he sent at least
one letter raising the question about the Building Code, because that
would be the greatest expense. He was assured that the version of the
Building Code that was in effect at the time he applied was what was going
to be applied to his application.
In summary, Mr. Long said that this was the policy. He believed the
Council had choices. There was no question in his mind about what had
occurred between the City and the applicant, if that was of concern to the
Council. He said the suggestion that the general policy was cumbersome
was one with which he just plain disagreed. The general policy ordinance
before the Council is the policy which the City has followed for many
years. The suggestion that the ordinance that would clear up the situation
is unclear because it does not answer the question whether there are valid
building permits, is not one Mr. Long agrees with. He believes it is not -
vague in any respect. It says that the ordinance does not apply to
building permits determined by the Superintendent of Building Inspection
to be valid.
Councilor Delay said he was assessing Mr. Long's advice to be that the two
issues are: 1) Is the Council going to adopt an ordinance for a general
policy; and 2) Is it going to adopt a second ordinance which is a legis-
lative matter to clear up any ambiguity about the other Council bill.1I
Mr. Long said that was his view.
Councilor Lieuallen asked Ms. Rich if any members of the Historic Review
Board had looked at the plans for the proposed development, and whether
they would fit the standards the Board would apply. Ms. Rich said no
one had, as far as she knew. Mr. Lieuallen asked Mr. Long whether, in
the case the Council would take an action to revoke the permits, was Mr.
Long assuming the architects would sue the City for any loss? Mr. Long
replied that what he was assuming was that, if the permits were revoked,
that action would be challenged because of what occurred before this
dispute arose. The manner in which it would be challenged would be
speculation on his part.
e
~g 7/23/79--8
.
, CB 1933--App1ications of changes in land use laws to existing valid
e permit applications; adding a new section to the Code and
declaring an emergency.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved
and given final passage.
Councilor Miller said it seemed clear to her that some cut-off date is
needed at which applications become certain, so that people who are
building can decide what rules are going to apply and what plans they are
going to use. Once you make that decision, it just becomes a matter of
deciding what date to use, and she felt the current policy was as good as
anything else.
Vote on the motion was taken. All Councilors present voting aye,
the bill was declared passed and numbered 18443.
Manager said it was only possible to introduce Council Bill 1934 which
amends Ordinance 18371, mak'ing it not applicable to valid permit appli-
cations filed prior to effective date.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be given a first
readi~g and be brought back to a subsequent Council meeting for a final
reading.
Councilor Miller said the decision on this bill shouldn't be made on the
basis of the City's liability exposure. It seemed to her that what
e really happened was that the issue was not an issue in the eyes of the
staff. The staff knew the policy and understood it. The main issue,
according to Ms. Miller, was the intent of the Council when it passed the
original historic area ordinance. That seemed to be, for her, the density
issue and that was the issue she struggled with. She didn't recall the
design review issue coming up at that Council meeting. As near as she
can remember, she did not believe that design review would apply to that
development because it was already well along. If the ordinance would
have applied to that development, it would have been retroactive appli-
cation of an ordinance, and that would seem unfair to her. That was never
her intent.
Councilor Delay believed that, at the time of passage of the historic
ordinance, his intent was that the issues of density and design review
would apply to that development.
Vote on the motion was taken. The motion carried, with Mr. Delay
voting no.
D. Public Works Bid Awards
(Information distributed)
Don Allen, Public Works Director, explained all of the projects.
With the exception of Project 4, all have been petitioned by adjacent
property owners or a certain percent of those property owners.
e'
7/23/79--9
3~~
!
Project 4 is a paving project being initiated by City Council action ,
under the program to pave those streets that contribute excessive dust
to the airshed. It is staff's recommendation that the low bid be -
accepted in all cases.
Public hearing was held, with no testimony presented.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to accept the low bids
as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. RESOLUTIONS
Res. No. 3197--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period of
July 1, 1979, through July 23, 1979.
Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned to July 25, 1979.
Respectfully submitted,
~nr(~
City Manager -
(Recorded by Joyce Edwards)
JE:pm/CM8a10
e'
7/23/79--10
. tjaD
.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
. Engineering Division
. Bid No. 7
Opened: July 17, 1979
1- PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND, STORM SEWER within
Sagewood Subdivision. Job No. 1557
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Alternate
AWARD l. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.----------$ 38,860.95 $ -0-
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------$ 40,130.34 $ -0-
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------$ -0- $ 40,169.50
4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.------$ -0- $ 47,865.50
5. H & J Construction------------------$ -0- $ 49,364.65
6. Wildish Construction Co.------------$ 52,317.36 $ 51,693.45
Cost to Abutting Propert~: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Paving $ 38.60/FF
San.Lat. $ SOO.OO/Lot
San.Serv. $ 400.00/Lot
StormSewer $1,100.00/Lot $ 11.300.00 $ 6,500.00
COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1979
._-~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PAVING AND SANITARY SEWER to s~rve 1st Addition
to Oxbow Subdivision; sanitary sewer to serve
area within 160 feet of the North Boundary of 1st
Addition to Oxbow, and storm sewer in Bonnie View
Drive from 900 feet west of Sarah Street to existing
drainage ditch approximately 100 feet east of Sarah.
Job No. 1648.
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Alternate
AWARD 1- Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------$ 110,204.48 $ -0-
2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------$ -0- $ 114,559.85
3. Wildish Construction Co.------------$ 127,283.63 $ -0-
4. H &J Construction------------------$ -0- $ 152,043.75
5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.------$ -0- $ 174,066.59
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Paving $ 24.50/FF
San.Lat. $1,550.00/Lot
San.Ser. $ 250.00/Lot None None
StormSewer $ 260.00/Lot
- COMPLETION DATE:. October 1, 1979
/fOI
Page 1 of 3
,
3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER to .
serve Flatbush 1st Addition. Job No. 1700.
Contract Cost .
Bidders: Basic A 1 terna te
AWARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------$ -0- $ 153,107.64 -
2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------$ -0- $ 154,353.70
3. Wildish Construction Co.-------------$ -0- $ 163,479.50
4. H & J Construction-------------------$ -0- $ 172,518.90
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Paving, $ 22.90/FF Paving ----$ 25,350.00 $ 16,500.00
San.Lat. $ 835.00/Lot
San.Serv. $ 260.00/Lot Storm Sewer $ 6,750.00 None
StormSewer $ 750.00/Lot
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. PAVING AND SANITARY SEWER on Lassen Street from
Haig Street to Roosevelt Boulevard. Job No. 1739.
Bidders: Contract Cost
AWARD 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------$ 57,663.50
2. H & J Construction--------------------$ 64,351.60
3. Wildish Construction Co.--------------$ 66,459.63
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.---------$ 67,017.05 e
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28' Paving "$ 26.00/FF
361 Paving $ 31.50/FF Storm Sewer $17,000.00 $ 7,000.00
San.Lat. $ 0.09/SF
San.Serv. $ 400.00/Each
Cone. Drive $ 2.35/SF
A.C. Drive $ 0.70/SF
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. PAVING Berntzen Street from Pattison Street
to Concord Street. Job No. 1 772 .
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic Alternate
AWARD 1- Eugene Sand & Gravel, Ine.-----------$ -0- $ 35,505.93
$ 35,876.45
2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------$ -0-
3. H & J Construction-------------------$ -0- $ 37,150.90
4. Wildish Construction Co.-------------$ 41,489.11 $ 39,614.67
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Paving $ 30.30/FF Storm Sewer $8,300.00 None e
Cone. Drive $ 2.40/SF
COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1979
tf02.
Page 2 of 3
'" 0
. 6. SANITARY SEWER within Hollycrest Subdivision and
within 160 feet of the Southwest boundary of
e Ho11ycrest Subdivision. Job No. 1640.
Bidders: Contract Cost
AWARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-------------$ 9,998.50
2. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-------------$ 11,861.20
3. H & J Construction---------------------$ 16,506.40
4. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.~--------$ 16,832.84
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
San.Lat. $ 0.17/SF None None
San.Serv. $ 200.00/Each
COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. PAVING AND STORM SEWER in 25th Avenue from
450 feet east of Cleveland Street to 800 feet
east of Cleveland Street. Job No. 1173.
Contract Cost
Bidders: Basic A 1 terna te
AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------$ -0- $ 22,565.05
- 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.-----------$ 24,053.43 $ -0-
3. H & J Construction-------------------$ -0- $ 24,670.20
4. Wildish Construction Co.-------------$ 27,106.53 $ 25,978.42
Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted
281 Paving $ 32.65/FF None None
2\1 A.C. Drive $ 0.37/SF
5\1 Conc.Drive $ 2.00/SF
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1979
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e
tf03
Page 3 of 3