Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/1981 Meeting , . " M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council City Council Chamber August 10, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, and Emily Schue. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Eric Haws. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor, Mayor Gus Keller. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Works Bid Awards (memo distributed, tabulations attached) Micheal Gleason, City Manager, introduced Bert leitzel, Public Works. Mr. Teitzel stated that there are 15 projects. The first project is the recon- sideration of paving and sidewalks on Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to Coburg Road. This is a rehearing since it was discovered after the council meeting on . July 13, 1981, when the contract was awarded, that the affected property owners were not notified of the hearing. Staff recommends that council reopen the hearing and reconsider the project. This project was authorized by the council on May 26, 1981. Considerable testimony was received concerning elimination of parking, possible increase in truck traffic, increase in car traffic and speed, cost to property owners, and "double-frontage" assessments. At the council hearing and at a meeting with adjacent property owners on June 11, 1981, it was agreed to allow additional street parking and to eliminate the left turn lane except at the intersection at both ends of the project, to monitor the truck traffic, and to develop through-truck restrictions if necessary. The final design is the minimum necessary to accommodate the projected volumes of traffic. The project as authorized provides for the safety of bicyclists, joggers, and pedestrians, and accommodates the increasing traffic volumes. The counc i 1 has reviewed the assessment policy regarding double-frontage lots and this project will be assessed by the current policy. The costs to abutting properties will be $23.40 per front foot for 20-foot-wide streets, $35.60 per front foot for 36-foot-wide streets, and $9.15 for five-foot sidewalks. A petition in opposi- tion to this project has been submitted by owners of 53 percent of the front footage, and that petition should be con~idered as a formal remonstrance against the project. This means that the council must reconsider the necessity of the improvement, and a two-thirds vote of the council is required to award the contract. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 1 . Ms. Wooten asked if management of Eugene Swim and Tennis Club have offered any comments on this project. Mr. Teitzel responded that there ~ill be no parking . in front of the Eugene Swim and Tennis Club and they have signed the remonstrance. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the project (Job No. 1835) be awarded to the low bidder. Role call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Wooten voting no. Mr. Teitzel stated that the next project to be considered is paving on Gas Lamp Drive from Surrey Lane to approximately 350 feet east and south; and pedestrian way, bike path, and storm sewer, 1,150 feet. north of Royal Avenue between Surrey Lane and Williams Street (Job No. 1723). This is the result of a minor sub- division. This project was initiated by petition of 82 percent of the owners. Ms. Schue asked if the majority of the people who signed the petition are not being assessed. Mr. Teitzel indicated that was correct. Ms. Miller asked if tax lot 13600 is under one ownership. Mr. Teitzel said yes. Public hearing was opened on Job No. 1723. Speaking against: Kathryn Hoy, 1129 Surrey Lane, stated that she is opposed to this project because it will cause more traffic to pass by their house. They are also objecting to the assessment. The schools are full now in their area. She has a letter from Jim Kitterman, a Williams Street resident, who also objects and states that the roads cannot handle more traffic. Judith Dubray, 1037 Surrey Lane, stated this project backs up to her lot. She. . doesn't want to face someone else's backyard. There are not enough schools. They have to use trailers to provide more classrooms. It is too expensive. This area has a high crime rate. Janet Kirtley, 1085 Surrey Lane, stated that people on Welcome, Surrey, and Williams streets are against the project. More people are opposed than in favor. There would be more traffic which would cause more problems for the schools. A school will be built west of Royal Avenue in about ten years; in the meantime, Danebo School has already added trailer classrooms. The assessment notice stated that this project was initiated by petition. She never signed a petition, even though she is a property owner. She talked with Jack Guthrie, who told her there was nothing to worry about. Then Pat Langan called her and told her Mr. Guthrie was wrong and she would be assessed for $1,300. She began a petition drive against the project. There are four people in favor of this job with 75 to 80 people against. This does not seem to be a project for the people. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel stated there is a petition from the individual who did the sub- division that represents 82 percent of the frontage being assessed. The Hoys and Kirtleys will have assessments for about 32 feet each. Ms. Smith asked how many people will be involved in the assessments. Mr. Teitzel stated that the . MINUTES--Eugene City Council AuglJst 10, 1981 Page 2 -- -~ ---fo-.------- ------- . ~ssessments will involve mainly the subdivider. Ms. Smith asked how that . petition by the subdivider balanced with the petition submitted against the project. Mr. Teitzel responded that only two of the owners who signed the petition against the project will be assessed. Ms. Miller asked if each of the sections are large enough to divide into three lots. Mr. Teitzel stated that most of them could be at least three lots. Mr. Lindberg asked how many people are involved in the petition which has 82 percent. Mr. Teitzel responded that only one who will be assessed is involved. Ms. Wooten asked what the development would ultimately mean in regard to traffic and schools. Mr. Teitzel stated that 20 to 30 homes could be built on that street. They are projecting eight trips per day per household, which would equal 160 to 240 trips per day. He could not make a comment from the school's point of view. Staff does not feel the street improvements are being questioned as much as the subdivision itself is. Ms. Wooten asked if the subdivision will still occur if the improvements do not. Mr. Teitzel stated they could still get a permit to build houses and the road would be gravel. Mr. Obie asked if this area is designated low-density residential in the Metro Plan. Mr. Teitzel responded that it is. Mr. Obie stated that council has the option of seeing that houses are either built on farmlands or within the city limits. Th i s i s part of a compact urban area. He does not think the council has any choice but to approve this project. That is the City policy. Ms. Schue stated that the council is interested in people's opinions but the council must act in relationship to City goals and policies on urban growth. Traffic should not be a major concern with only three lots involved. Denial of . the right to develop when the developer will pay the costs is unsubstantiated. It is the obligation of the City to allow development to occur. There is a City program for those who are retired and cannot pay the assessments. Ms. Wooten said that these issues are frustrating. The expenses of growth must be shared by all, and as long as there is some growth people cannot expect it to occur everywhere except in limy neighborhood." There is no real option. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the contract (Job No. 1723) to the low bidder. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimous ly. Mr. Teitzel stated the next item under consideration is paving and storm sewer on Dove Lane from North Ruskin Street to 460 feet east (Job No. 1963). This was initiated by School District 52 for access to their bus yard and to control dust. Public hearing was opened: Robert O'Donnell, 1915 Ruskin, stated that he was surprised this project is being considered since all the taxpayers voted against it previously. Since Bethel School District is a public institution, they feel that if this project is so important perhaps it should be voted on by all of the people in the school district. He will have no use for this street, since the'City put up a barricade . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 3 u in front of his house. He could not drive his car onto the street if he wanted to. However, he will have to pay part of the assessments and a share in the school district taxes as well. . There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel stated that the street has been a dust problem and LRAPA has been concerned. All other projects for council consideration are enumerated in the memo to the council and staff would recommend awarding the projects to the low bidders. Ms. Wooten asked if the school district is excluded from assessments. Mr. Teitzel said no. Mr. Teitzel said the school district would pay 56 percent. Mr. Gleason asked what portion the City is paying. Mr. Teitzel said the City will pay miscellaneous storm sewer costs. Ms. Wooten asked if it is correct to say that, although buses are generating the'problem, the property owners will have to pay to solve it. Mr. Teitzel said that is the situation. One cost of those who have the privilege of a cdrner lot is the double-frontage assessment. North Ruskin was blocked by a diverter. Dove Lane will also end in a cul-de-sac. The project will provide access for future development for the two property owners but not for the man who testified. Mr. Lindberg asked if this is part of the Dusty Roads project. Mr. Teitzel said it is on the list prepared by LRAPA. Mr. Hamel asked if the diverter will be torn down if the street is paved. Mr. Teitzel responded it would not. Mr. Hamel indicated that the neighborhood could do something about the diverter at any time if they chose to. Mr. Gleason added that removal of a diverter is a complicated process. The council could direct staff to change it. Ms. Miller stated that it is City policy that eventually everyone in town will have a paved . street in front of their house. Everyone pays for the sewer of front of one's house. Everyone will have to pay for this one way or another. No one likes to pay for improvements. Mr. Obie asked if a street intersection is being built that will be blocked off. Mr. Teitzel stated that a temporary barrier exists there now and will become a permanent diverter with this project. It is on a side street. Ms. Wooten asked about the possibility of subdividing the area in the future. Mr. Teitzel clarified that except for the corner lot, the other lots could be subdivided. He stated that that was the intent of the property owners as stated several years ago. Ms. Wooten asked about the impact of waiting on this pro- ject. Mr. Teitzel stated that there would still be a dust problem. Ms. Wooten asked if the dust problem could be dealt with by applying oil or some other mechanism. Mr. Teitzel said they could put an oil treatment on the street or a temporary asphalt mat. Ms. Wooten asked if the dust occurs mostly in the summer. Mr. Teitzel stated the majority of the dust occurs in the spring and the fall. Mr. Hamel indicated that he does not feel it is right to have someone pay for a street which they cannot use. Mr. Teitzel stated the owner can use access on both sides but cannot travel between the two streets. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the project (Job No. 1963) to the low bidder. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 4 T~ Mayor Keller asked if the council would like to look at the diverter situation in that area again. Ms. Miller stated that the council had already looked at . it. It is located next to Willamette High School. She did not wish to discuss that diverter again. Ms. Wooten asked whether Mr. O'Donnell believes that this particular street will eventually be paved as are all streets in the city. Mr. O'Donnell said he does not think that is the case unless it is City policy for all steets to be paved. Role call vote; motion carried unanimously. Public hearing was opened on the balance of the projects. There being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the remaining projects to the low bidders. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Cheshire Street Entrance-Only Diverter--Staff Report (memo and addi- tional information distributed Mr. Gle~son introduced Jim Hanks, Public Works. Mr. Hanks stated that the issue is whether or not to remove a temporary diverter placed on Cheshire Street in Skinner Butte Park east of North Lincoln Street. A number of alternatives were considered in deciding whether to recommend further . testing: realigning Cheshire Street, installing a diverter east of High Street on 3rd Avenue. providing an alternative route for through traffic that currently uses Cheshire Street, as well as some other options such as the establishment of toll booths. The results of the study were much as staff had projected them to be. The west-bound traffic has decreased substantially. East-bound traffic has also decreased, although less so. Traffic on 3rd Avenue between High and Pearl streets has increased more than 40 percent. This total increase can be attrib- uted to the diverted west-bound traffic. Traffic volumes on High Street have also decreased slightly. The results of a survey show that 27 people are in favor of retaining the diverter and making it permanent; 93 are opposed to making the diverter permanent, and three people had no opinion. The majority of the people in the West Butte area are in favor of retention. In the East Butte area, 51 residents of Park View Terrace were against the diverter. He showed the results of the survey on the map. Due to the frequent delays caused by trains, 5th, 6th, and 7th avenues are unacceptable alternatives since they require at least one crossing of the railroad tracks. Area businesses are generally opposed to the diverter. Similar objections would be raised to any diverter in the area. In addition, staff has contacted the Police Department, Parks Design, and School District 4-J, all of whom were against making the diverter permanent. The Eugene Fire Department was neutral. Ms. Wooten asked how much of a reduction there was east of Lawrence Street. Mr. Hanks stated that 3,700 trips per day were reduced to about 860. Ms. Wooten stated that with the reduction of 3,000 trips per day then the balance of the cars must be using alternatives. Mr. Hanks agreed but there are other possi- . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 5 bilities as well. Ms. Wooten asked if aside from minor inconveniences, the effect of the diverter was to reduce the amount of traffic in the West Butte. Mr. Hanks said yes. . Ms. Schue asked what the total traffic problem is in the area. She also asked if there was a traffic problem perceived by the Police Department. Mr. Hanks stated that John Etter, Parks Design, stated that the diverter should be removed and that it is an inconvenience for personnel as well as a new hazard created by those driving around the diverter. Mr. Lindberg asked what the risk manager1s concern was regarding driving through the parking lot. Mr. Hanks stated that it is unsafe and the feeling was that the parking lot was for parking and streets are for driving. People change routes because of a time savings. There is no way to change this street to make enough difference in the time it takes to travel down it. Mr. Lindberg asked if it is part of the proposal to eliminate the parking lot. Mr. Hanks stated that the primary purpose of the diverter was to slow the traffic down. The staff recommendation is to remove the diverter and have traffic flow the way it was prior to the installation of the diverter. Mr. Lindberg asked if it is traffic volume or speed that is the problem. Mr. Hanks replied that they are both problems. Mr. Lindberg asked if construction of a new street was a serious consideration and, if so, where it would be. Mr. Hanks stated that has been considered several times. However, it would cost several hundred thousand dollars to build a street on the south side of the butte. Also, the visual effect has not been assessed. Mr. Gleason added that Cheshire Street was the compromise and it was constructed . in 1959. There are no real alternatives. Mr. Lindberg stated that the council is about ready to deal with the TIP and the widening of 6th and 7th avenues and asked if this would induce people coming from the Ferry Street area to use that route. Mr. Hanks stated that the railroad tracks will remain a deterrent. When the Chambers Connector is built, it will help some. Ms. Wooten stated that the majority of those opposed east of Pearl Street were residents of Park View Terrace. She asked if the survey questions included reasons why people were objecting to the diverter. Joe Hessler, Public Works, stated that most people did not give a reason. They just said they were against the project. Public hearing was opened. In favor of retention of the diverter: Drew Johnson, 409 Clark Street, stated that he lives on the main route of traffic. The Whiteaker Refinement Plan indicated action should be taken to reduce the traffic. Council adopted the Diverter Policy in 1975, which set forth criteria for making diverter determination. The staff report now only addresses the traffic criteria. A survey was taken and opposition by Park View Terrace is only to this method of traffic control. Many residents feel 5th and 6th avenues will not be viable alternatives. In 1980 council noted there was a problem. He would request that, the diverter remain until alternatives are proposed and put into place. . MINU!ES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 6 ~ Carol Brewster, 137 North Lawrence Street, said that the neighborhood group had . asked for help with an unsafe situation for children and senior citizens, with preserving the integrity of Skinner Butte Park, and with having the council follow through on policy statements. Now, staff is recommending no diverter and no further analysis. This has not been a popular project. There should be one overall traffic plan to get from the Ferry Street Bridge to River Road. People opposed to the diverter are not necessarily opposed to traffic cpntrol, just this solution. John Schumaker, 41 North Lawrence Street, talked about preserving the quality of life in that inner-city neighborhood. There are green spaces to recreate and to walk free with recreation opportunities. The park is healthy and the community - should safeguard it. The Police Departm~nt says this is no longer a drive-through, and now it has many uses. Safety has improved. It has restored East and West Skinner Butte neighborhood. This is the first step in reconnecting those two neighborhoods, and they are now more livable. This was a move to revitalize an inner-city neighborhood. Julie Schumaker, 41 North Lawrence Street, No.1, said that people-oriented concerns are the most cost-effective because they are for the people. Repaving or changing the road has never worked but the diverter has. As a taxpayer, she abhors any further misuse of sites like Skinner Butte for such traffic uses. She read a letter from a senior citizen, Violet Marstellar, who stated that since the diverter has been placed in the west end of the park, there has been obvious improvement with the park area more enjoyable and safer. Ms. Marsteller feels it also has cut down on smog and fumes. The letter went on to say that there are some advantages in unrestricted traffic through the park and . adjoining streets, but they are outweighed by the many disadvantages they caused the neighborhood. Margaret Cormier, 90 North Lawrence Street, stated that the diverter has worked. The neighborhood is on the edge there with lots of vacant houses and rentals and the diverter has created less traffic with more room for people to walk around and ride their bikes. Wes Cleveland, 90 North Lawrence Street, stated that they want to keep the diverter because kids like to play in the street a lot. Mar arita Vielma, 90 North Lawrence Street, agreed with the previous speakers and sald thlS has cut own on pol ution and traffic. James Chaudoir, 91 North Lawrence Street, said that he would like the Traffic Engineering Division to take a more highly motivated approach to solving this problem. Dennis Urso, 445 Clark Street, said he is more pro-traffic control than pro- diverter, but until a better solution can be reached he would like to see the diverter remain in place. He quoted Ms. Miller as having stated at the December 8 meeting that this could be a start to the solution. There were other sug- gestions mentioned at the meeting that were not in the report, such as stop . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 7 signs, the new Federal Highway Administration speedbumps, walkways, and improving the 3rd-4th connector. The problems with the diverter were no surprise, and . they have been discussed before. The diverter is an inconvenience, but he believes it is worth it. The barrier would be much less capital-intensive than other solutions. He feels the traffic pattern has been changed and people do not now drive through the park. Initial resistance to the barrier has been overcome. A positive solution can be reached. Speaking in favor of removal of the diverter: Wen Evans, 1031 Leigh Street, stated that he has been a businessman in the Whiteaker area for about 20 years. It is difficult to get from the Ferry Street bridge area into the River Road or Whiteaker areas because of the traffic volume and the trains. Now, he is using the 4th Avenue "trail" and it works well until one has to get off onto Lincoln Street where it becomes dangerous. Unfortunately, the City has chosen for the main road to connect these areas to go through the park. He objects personally and professionally to this diverter. Whenever business traffic goes down, it is a concern. He would like to know what the volume of traffic is during different periods of the day and not just during rush hour. He would like to see the diverter removed, as well as other diverters because he thinks diverters are negative. He does not like to be told he is not welcome in neighborhoods he supports with his personal and business taxes. Leslie Smith, 2553 Terrace View, stated that he owns a business at 3rd Avenue and Mill Street and lived in the Willakenzie area for about 28 years. This used to be the only way to get to River Road, and he has traveled it for more than 30 years. This is closing down access and moving problems from one neigh- . borhood into another neighborhood. He can understand improving neighborhoods, but he thought that was done with bridges, not barriers. How can neighborhoods say they only want to have traffic in other neighborhoods, but not in theirs? Accidents have increased at 3rd Avenue and Mill Street, though no records have been kept. Two thousand people have been diverted from one place to another, 'and it is just moving the problem from one place to another for someone else to dea 1 with. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. A break was called. Mr. Hanks stated that Mr. Urso had asked what had happened to various other options. Stop signs would have to be addressed as separate issues. The Federal Highway Administration is conducting studies on speed bumps to see if they can overcome the liabilties and there is an experiment under way in Sacramento. Improving the 3rd-4th connector would be a difficult project and is dangerous now because the streets do not align. Traffic counts are done during peak times and 20 percent of the traffic goes through during those times. The number of accidents has increased from four to five (January 22, 1980, to June 30, 1980, and January 22, 1981, to June 30, 1981). . MINUTES--Eugene City Counci1 August 10, 1981 Page 8 i Mr. Lindberg stated that in other cities, one-way streets are used during rush hour and at other times the streets are two-way. He asked what would happen if . this street were left open except during rush hour. Mr. Hanks responded that this could be tried but it does not seem feasible with their low amount of manpower. It would take a physi~al barrier of some sort. Mr. Lindberg stated that Mr. Hanks had indicated that accident data would not help. He asked about the possibility of a head-on collision with the diverter as noted by the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Hanks responded that some people are passing the diverter as though it were another car. Visibility is very good, generally, except for the Parks Department driveway, which is very close to the diverter. Mr. Hamel stated that he has been against diverters ever since he has been on the council. This is a traffic problem, and if everyone worked together they could do something. Everyone is entitled to drive through that area and he feels it is unfair when diverters are put up. Ms. Miller stated that she has concerns about the disruptions in parks caused by cars going through them. With the 29th Avenue and Hilyard Street project, Amazon Park will have a street removed. Another example upcoming will probably be Hendricks Park, which may have additional problems in the future. Heavy, high-speed traffic and neighborhood needs are not compatible. The predominant use of Cheshire is as a short-cut from the Ferry Street Bridge to River Road. She would suggest the diverter be left in place temporarily. If there are not further solutions presented, perhaps the diverter should be maintained until the connector is completed. Staff must determine where the traffic is going. Some of this traffic is going across Beltline or Washington-Jefferson Street Bridge, and some is going across 4th Avenue, but most goes to 5th, 6th, and 7th avenues. . This shifts it from the park into a commercial area. Mr. Obie stated he has difficulty keeping 2,000 people per day out of a park they have paid for. He feels it is positive to be able to drive through a park. Central Park has streets through it with pleasant drives. When he hears inner- city neighborhoods complaining about 3,000 cars per day, that is a small amount in comparison with amounts that are in other areas of this city. He feels it is a shame to deny people the opportunity to enjoy the park by closing the street that goes through it. Ms. Wooten noted agreement with Ms. Miller. Diverters are to try to shift traffic onto arterials which are wider, improved, and maintained for cross-city traffic. She would support maintaining the diverter until there is an acceptable solution to deal with the problem. Mr. Lindberg agreed that the diverter should be retained, at least temporarily. Other parkways in other cities are different and they are designed for different purposes. It is the neighborhood streets that are'the concern. He thinks it is unfortunate that there is a railroad track there. Ms. Schue stated this is not an easy situation. She would like to keep the through traffic on the arterials and out of the neighborhoods. This has been done in other areas, such as on Potter Street. She agrees with Ms. Miller that something better can be done. She would support retention. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 9 Mayor Keller stated that all people have the right to access to the parks. The council thought that this diverter would be temporary. The neighborhood feels . that it is permanent ,but that was not the intent. It appears that the desired results are not being met and the diverter should be removed, but that does not mean additional studies of the problems will not occur. The access question is realistic. Amazon Parkway cuts through parts of Amazon Park. He is not sure why Potter Street was closed. He does not think people want the park to be isolated. His preference would be for the council to support removal of the barricade with a report back on other options. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Wooten, to direct staff to leave the temporary barrier in place until there is another option for resolution which might include, but not be limited to, the Chambers Street Connector, and direct staff to continue to study this problem. Roll call vote; motion carried 4:3 with councjlors Miller, Wooten, Lindberg, and Schue voting yes; and councilors Smith, Hamel, and Obie voting no. C. Art in Public Places/Percent for Arts Ordinance (memo, ordinance, and rules distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Dick Reynolds, Eugene Performing Arts Center. Mr. Reynolds stated that since the materials were mailed out, there have been some additions. Under "Use of Funds," the amount established for the art fund may be zero, but shall not exceed more than 1-1/2 percent of the project construc- tion costs. The ordinance recognizes that some projects may not be appropriate for one project but could be appropriate over a period of time. The ordinance . defines the various terms as well as the selection committee and authorizes the City Manager to carryover between fiscal years. The ordinance outlines the selection process and designs the role of committee members. The Rules of Procedure and Internal Organization establishes criteria for selection of art which will be in the best interests of the City of Eugene as well as written criteria for submitting grants. Ms. Smith asked if the visual arts coordinator named in the ordinance will be someone from existing staff. Mr. Reynolds stated that the person has not yet been assigned, but it will be someone from within the present budget. Ms. Wooten asked if thought was given to a weighted priority for local artists and noted that she hoped that this would occur. Mr. Reynolds stated that it does not specifically weight projects for local artists but it does state that this will occur when possible. One goal is to obtain quality, respectable collections of art on behalf of the people through the City. Ms. Wooten said she did not intend for her remarks to be taken for local art exclusively, but she would hope efforts would be concentrated in the local area. Mr. Reynolds stated that any professional visual artist or craftsperson, regardless of place of residence, is eligible to apply, except when the selection committee has determined it is not feasible to conduct an open competition. When quality and appropriateness of the proposed works are of equal merit, prefe~ence may be given to Eugene artists. Ms. Wooten indicated that she is pleased this is happening, but "equal merit" . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 10 f;' will vary greatly. This could cause graphic disputes such as occurred with the . Eugene Performing Arts Center. Mr. Gleason noted that the attempt was to delegate responsibility to the selection group. If the council wants to make that more specific, the language should be changed. Policy directions could be made. Mayor Keller asked for clarification of "Eugene artist." Ms. Wooten responded that she would prefer to say "Lane County artist," but she does not see the Eugene Performing Arts Center as the primary focus. Mr. Gleason suggested changing the language from "may be" to "should be." Ms. Smith concurred that was an appropriate suggestion, and feels that will give staff better direction. Mr. Obie indicated agreement. There are many questions if the focus becomes too narrow. He feels the language change would be good. Ms. Wooten indicated that she would prefer "shall be." ' Public hearing was opened. Kathleen McClaren, 2295 East 29th Avenue, said that this has been reviewed by many groups and the Oregon Arts Committee will be using it as a basis for selection of art. All those who reviewed the ordinance and rules think it is one of the best examples they have seen. She agrees that the language should state "will" or "shall." There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2348--An ordinance concerning art in public places; adding Sections 2.638, 2.640, 2.642, 2.644, 2.646 to the Eugene Code, 1971; . amending Sections 2.013 and 2.859 of that code, and declaring an emergency. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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, including changes in the Rules of Procedure and Internal Organi- zation, Article 7--Artist Eligibility. . . "preference shall be given to Lane County artists. . . " Ms. Schue thanked Mr. Reynolds and staff, as well as Katy McClaren. This has been discussed and reviewed with a strong attempt to avoid the pitfalls that the Eugene Performing Arts Center had. She hopes it works well. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obte, that the bill be approved and given final passage and that rules of procedure and internal organization for the arts fund selection committee be approved. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18849. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 11 I D. Transportation Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1981-82 to 1985-86 (memo and additional information distributed) . \ Mr. Gleason introduced Irv Berman, Public Works. Mr. Berman stated this is a joint presentation of Public Works and Planning. The Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program occurs every year. It is a five-year planning document with no commitment for implementation by the council, but it is used for compliance with FHWA,and UMTA. It is a requirement by those agencies for the jurisdicationsto be eligible to receive Federal funding. It is also used as a planning tool for the local jurisdictions and utility com- panies to coordinate planned project budgeting to mesh with City projects. On July 20, 1981, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the draft TIP to the council, with two modifications or changes for this year's TIP. In Eugene's fiscal years 1983-84 and 1984-85 the Chambers Connector will be added for right-of-way and portion of construction, which will be funded by Lane County. The Chambers Connector is a joint City-County project with Lane County as lead agency and the funding for Eugene's portion of the project will come from Lane County through the Arterial Aid to Cities program. Although Highway 99 (6th-7th avenues) from High Street to Blair Boulevard will be indicated in this year1s TIP, ODOT has said it will be postponing construction of Washington to High section to 1986. Widening of 6th-7th from Blair to Washington has been deleted for now, reflecting funding problems at the State level, although this is being appealed by staff. They would recommend that the council notify the State Department of Transportation that the widening of 6th-7th avenues to four lanes from High to Blair is one of Eugene's highest priority items. The Planning Commission also recommends insertion of a footnote on the Lorane Highway project . similar to the one found on page 77 of the T-2000 Plan so that ultimate design will be sensitive to minimizing area effects. Public hearing was opened. Ms. Smith noted that this is discussion on whether or not to recommend approval of the report to another committee (MATe), not to implement work on the projects. Freeman Holmer, 996 Lariat Drive, stated that the Chamber of Commerce Roads and Highways Commlttee has glven their endorsement to the Planning Commission recommendations regarding the 6th-7th widening. He noted that written testimony had been given to the council from this committee. Also, the Chamber of Commerce appreciates the City and County invitation to nominate members for the Chambers Connector Steering Committee. They will be submitting six or more nominations from which the City and County can select their appointments. Bruce Anderson, 777 Hi~h Street, stated that he had submitted a letter last week and is tonight submittlng copies of a petition regarding changes in the TIP as they apply to the Lorane Highway between Washington and Chambers streets. He represents approximately 94 percent of the citizens who are property owners on the Lorane Highway between Washington and Chambers streets, as well as the Crest . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 12 Orive Citizens. They support transportation planning, but have concerns over . that project being footnoted. They are opposed to a piecemeal submission and want it to be integrated and positive. ,If the portion of Chambers to Emray were included as has been recommended, they would like to have a design review hearing process. They would like to review, with Public Works and Planning, the whole project, not just that one segment. When the council adopted this foot- note, it was implied that something more than the normal review would be given. Otherwise, there would not have been specific emphasis on this footnote. They are suggesting that the whole area between Chambers Street and 29th Avenue should be studied by January 1, 1982, with a report coming back from this joint group (Public Works, Planning, and eight representatives from the citizen group and residents) with recommendations. There are some areas with no controversy, and there are some with disagreement. They are not saying to not do this project, but rather, the question is "how.1I Attention should focus on the whole project, not just one .2-mile section dealing with Emray to Chambers streets. That is what people are requesting. There is a statement from School Oistrict 4-J in the staff notes of July 20, 1981, requesting establishment of sidewalks to serve the children in the area. Many people did not believe that was accurate and they asked for a response from 4-J which he distributed. Mr. Hamby could not be present this evening, so the letter was distributed. This should not be a basis for specific design construction. They would ask that the project be deleted and have staff work with citizens to develop a report outlining alter- natives for improvements in that area. They believe an in-depth study is necessary. Charlotte Schellman, 780 Lorane Highway, stated that she agreed with what Mr. Anderson had stated and waived her right to testimony. . There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Berman clarified that this is a planning document. The first five years of the project were taken from the ten-year CIP. The T-2000 Plan called for a list of projects that should be done prior to 1990 and others that should be accom- plished prior to the year 2000. The Lorane Highway section was one project listed to be done prior to 1990 and staff felt it was more important to do the Emray to Chambers section first. Mr. Hanks talked with one of Mr. Hamby's staff. Bert Teitzel has sent out letters requesting a list of areas where it was important for 4-J schoolchildren to have walkways and this was on the list. There will be a staff hearing and public hearing prior to the final design. Projects are not begun until individual budgets are approved. A representative of the neighborhood group has filed a request for sidewalks with the City for IFA funding for Crest Drive, Friendly Street, and Lorane. The City's assessment process was explained to them. City funding participation for individual projects is limited and frontage assessments will be made when projects are done. It is up to the council to determine whether projects will be given the go-ahead at Annual Capital Improvement budget time. The council could indicate funding approval for the total design if they wish in 1982-83. He thinks it would be good to develop the design from 29th Avenue to Chambers Street and then present it to the neighborhood groups and finally go back to the council for approval. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 13 I Mr. Obie asked if Mr. Berman is in favor of Mr. Anderson's request to design for the entire area. Mr. Berman indicated that he is in favor of that. Mr. Obie . asked if the design phase could be completed by 1982. Mr. Teitzel stated that the design for the whole area was to be done in 1982, but they have one section slated for construction then also. Mr. Gleason said there seemed to be no major problems from staff's point of view. Mr. Obie asked about a vehicle for citizen input. Mr. Gleason noted that in the normal design process, hearings are held to allow for citizen input. He questioned setting up an entirely separate design process as that being suggested. Mr..Obie noted that these people are asking for a citizen input committee for this project and if the neighborhood is involved, there c6uld be fewer problems later on. Mr. Gleason stated that this would be an appointed citizen committee. He said that there is no need to design the entire area as some of this has already been done in the T-2000. There could be duplication for design where the couplets, etc., would be placed. Ms. Smith asked if the design aspect of Chambers will be in the TIP. Mr. Gleason stated the Planning Commission recommendation is that the project go through the design phase and then into the construction phase by next year. The citizens would like design only to be developed for the entire couplet in 1982. Mr. Berman stated this recommendation could be amended to show fiscal year 1982-83 as only the design of the total project with no implementation at that time. Mr. Gleason stated that construction could occur later. It cou 1 d be done faster that way. Mr. Lindberg stated he could go with the recommendation from the citizens but his concern is that the citizen group wants to stop the project. It is a City policy that the City will provide services to everyone within the boundaries of the City. It is highly unlikely that this proposed process would prevent any improvements from taking place in the Lorane area. Ms. Schue stated that citizen input is desirable but there are some parameters . which the council will set. The street will be improved and assessments will be made. Also, there may be some desion parameters that the City will impose. Some compromise will have to come from the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson stated that the people in the area believe major differences lie in the treatments that are needed. The bike study of the council will say they must have sidewalks, paved streets, bike paths, etc. These may not all be necessary in some parts of the area. Ms. Wooten stated that it has been made clear that citizens are willing to work on this project. The reasons for constructing bike lanes no longer exist. She thinks the council should remain open. The people in the area may be aware of a better way. Mr. Berman stated that one of the policies in the T-2000 plan is to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Council has adopted a sidewalk policy and staff will request them. Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Anderson's comments and intent are clear. Some areas are lIimproved to death.1I Staff is after provision of an adequate level of services through an area with provisions for alternative modes of transportation. Some trees may have to be removed, the street may have to be wider, and some grades may have to change. There are many other options. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 14 , Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to recommend to the . Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee adoption of the Eugene Element of the Transportation Improvement Program Draft for Fiscal Year 1981-82 to 1985-86; that Fiscal Year 1982-83 also will include preliminary design of Lorane Highway, 29th Avenue to Chambers Street, inclusion of the T-2000 footnote on Lorane Highway; and the Planning Commission's recommendations to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Obie stated that Lorane Highway will be developed although there is flexibi- lity as to how it will happen. Citizens will have to compromise, but it must be treated as a unique area. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Wooten voting no. Ms. Wooten noted that she supports the Ch,amber of Commerce position on certain elements of the TIP, but cannnot support proceeding as the motion was made because of its commitment to a process that may ultimately have greater ramifi- cations than are intended at this time. E. Rezonings 1. Property located on the west side of Oak Street between East 19th Avenue and 20th Avenue from R-1 Low-Density Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (Renee Brecto) (Z 81-6) (map and background informat~on distributed). . Mr. Gleason indicated that the original request for zoning was to R-3 and it has been changed. CB 2349--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from R-1 Low-Density Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District for property located on the west side of Oak Street between 19th Avenue and 20th Avenue. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 7, 1981, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2349 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present . voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18850. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 15 2. Property located between 6th and 7th avenues, east of Garfield Street from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review Procedures (S. McGhehey) . (Z 81-7) (map and background information distributed). No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted; staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2350--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review Procedures for property located betwen 6th and 7th avenues, east of Garfield Street. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 7, 1981, 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. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2350 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18851. II. FINANCE RESOLUTIONS (memo, exhibits distributed) . A. Tier II Budget Adjustment Res. No. 3564--A resolution acknowledging adjustment to estimated revenues and authorizing the adjustments to appropriations and expenditures related to those revenues. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Lane County Boundary Commission Res. No 3565--A resolution authorizing the transfer of contingency nppropriations within a given fund to official budget r.ategories. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 16 ~ ~ I I 1. PAYMENTS OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) - Res. No. 3566--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period July 27, 1981, through Auqust 10, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to August 12, 1981. Respectfully submitted, ~~,- Mhm a Hr. Glea :- - - City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:ky/CM23b1 e. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 17 , e BID NO.: 4 Opened: July 7, 1981 PAVING AND SIDEWALK on Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to Coburg Road (Job No. 1835) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate 1. Wildish Construction Co.-------------------- $349,643.65 $ 359,224.13 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------- $360,253.20 $ 0 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------ $371,100.18 $ 0 4. H & J Construction Co.---------------------- $375,378.20 $ 0 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 20-foot Paving $23.40/FF $ 17,000 $ 17,000 (331) 26-foot Paving $28.50/FF $ 189,800 (County) 36-foot Paving $35.60/FF Cost to County 4-inch Sidewalk $9.15/FF 5-inch Conca Drive $ 1. 95/SF $168,000 2-inch A.C. Orive $ 0.80/SF - COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1981 - ." DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division BID NO: 5 . OPENED : August 4, 1981 l. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Sterling Estates Sub- division; and sanitary sewer on Gilham Road from Kidder cul-de-sac to ~Jalton Lane (Job No. 1932) . Bidders Contract Cost AWARD l. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $440,944.91 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ------------ $513,817. 18 3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co~ ~-- $520,044.95 4. Egge Sand & Gravel -----------------~-- $530,814.65 5. , $550,806.40 Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------~-- 6. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $605,264.65 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Paving $23.60/FF $132,500.00 $140,000.00 (531) 36' Paving $32.40/FF 411 Sidewalk $ 1.66/SF , $ 6,000.00 - Park , Bike/Pedway $32.00/Lot San Lat $ 0.08/SF San Serv $252.00/Each Stm Swr $ O.26jSF COMPLETION DATE: November 30, 1981 ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Jessen Park Subdivision (Job No. 1792) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate A\~ARD l. Wildish Construction Co. -------- $20,588.52 -0- 2. Morse. Bros. Contractors, Inc. -- -0- $21,104.20 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ------ $22,103.90 -0- 4. Benge Paving -------------------- $32,394.00 $31,682.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted Paving $34.20jFF $500.00 -0- San Serv $1,100.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 . Page 1 of 6 I . BID NO.: 5 OPENED: August 4, 1981 3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within Horizon West 1st Addition and paving Park Forest Drive from Hawkins Lane to 65 feet east (Job No. 1595) . Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate AvJARD l. Wildish Construction Co. ----------- $83,129.04 $ -0- 2. Morse Bros. Constractors, Inc. ----- $86,508.90 $ -0- 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------- $87,932.72 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Paving $29.10jFF $ -0- $1,000.00 (332) San Lat $ 0.14jFF San Serv $425.00jEach Stm Swr $ 0.10jSF COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1981 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. PAVING, PEDESTRIAN WAY, BIKE PATH AND STORM SEWER - Paving on Gas Lamp Drive from Surrey Lane to approximately 350 feet east and south; and pedestrial way, bike path, and storm sewer 1,150 feet north of Royal Avenue between Surrey Lane and Williams Street (Job No. 1723) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Al ternate . AWARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------- $44,686.39 $ -0- 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------ $ -0- $45,584.70 3. Wildish Construction Co. ----------- $47,437.42 $ -0- 4. Egge Sand & Gravel ----------------- $55,768.53 $ -0- 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ----- $ -0- $60,670.90 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Pavi ng $36.20jFF $16,750.00 $7,000.00 (332) Stm SWr $ 0.26jSF COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. PAVING Luella Street from Bailey Lane to 175 feet north of Van Avenue (Job No. 1976) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate AWARD l. Wildish Construction Co. --------- $41,747.31 $ -0- 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ---- $ -0- $44,306.35 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ------- $45,058.39 $ -0- 4. Egge Sand & Gravel --------------- $49,555.25 $ -0- . 5. Benge Paving Inc. ---------------- $54,577.00 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Paving $3l.50/FF $13,400.00 $7,600.00 (332) San Serv $350;00/Each COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1981 Page 2 of 6 ~ " BID NO.: 5 OPENED : August 4, 1981 .6. PAVING AND STORM SEWER on Dove Lane .from North Ruskin Street to 460 feet east (Job No. 1963) . Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate A~JARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------ $ -0- $50,938.13 2. Wildish Construction Co. ----------- $ -0- $54,567.51 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------- $55,531. 05 $ -0- 4. H & J Construction Co. ------------- $59,278.53 $ -0- 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ----- $ -0- $62,536.05 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Paving $34.90/ FF $19,500.00 $30,100.00 (332) 5" Conca Dr. $ 2.00/SF 2" A.C. Dr. $ 1.40/SF San Serv $1,025.00/Each Stm Swr $15,500.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1981 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. PAVING south half of Roosevelt Boulevard from Danebo Street to Terry Street (Job No. 1745) Contract Cost Bidders Basic Alternate eARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------ $ -0- $58,297.05 2. Wildish Construction Co. ----------- $ -0- $59,053.99 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. --------- $ -0- $62,046.50 4. Egge Sand & Gravel ----------------- $63,074.45 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted None $64,200.00 $70,900.00 (332) COMPLETION DATE: October 31, 1981 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. STORM SEWER to serve Capitol Manor Subdivision (500 ft. north of Cal Young Rd. from 300 ft. east to 100 ft. west of Willakenzie Rd., thence north approx. 60 ft. to the drainage ditch) (Job No. 1975) Bidders Bid AWARD 1. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. --..--------------- 22 867.60 2. Greenson's Inc. --------------~------------------------- 25,299.40 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ----------------------------- $25,677.60 4. Bowers Excavating & Fencing Inc. ----------------------- $26,912.85 5. Wildish Construction Co. ------------------------------- $28,032.25 6. L. D. Van Over Construction ---------------------------- $28,037.00 7. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. -------------------------- $28,895.20 8. Emerald Excavating ------------------------------------- $29,691. 75 . 9. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ------------------------- $32,719.75 10. Egge Sand & Gravel ------------------------------------- $41,408.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted Stm Swr - $0.04/SF $11,000.00 $14,000.00 (332) COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1981 Page 3 of 6 - . , BID NO.: 5 OPENED : Au~ust 4? 1981 9. STORM SEWER between Dellwood Drive and 38th Avenue to serve Lot 10, Block 2, Clayton Hills Subdivision, and Lots 53 and 54 of Treehouse Subdivision (Job No. 1944) . , Bidders Bid .\ AWARD 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ---------------------- $15,080.60 2. Bowers Excavating --------------------------------- $18,976.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ------------------------- $19,144.40 4. Wildish Construction Co. --------------------------- $20,796.00 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. --------------------- $21,980.20 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted Stm Swr - $0.49jSF $4,550.00 $6,300.00 (332) COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1981 ---------------------------'------------------------------------------------------------ 10. CONCRETE RECONSTRUCTION on Olive Street from 11th Avenue to 13th Avenue (Job No. 1844) Bidders Bid AWARD l. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ------------------------- $24,794.28 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ---------------------- $28,730.00 3. Walt's Concrete Co. -------------------------------- $31,398.10 4. Egge's Sand & Gravel ------------------------------- $34,147.00 5. Wildish Construction ------------------------------- $35,192.50 6. Tom's Concrete Inc. -------------------------------- $47,117.00 . Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted None $27,500.00 $45,500.00 (311) COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1l. SLURRY SEALS - 12 locations (Job No. 1844) Bidders Bid A~JARD l. Interstate Slurry Seal, Inc. ----------------------- $15,200.25 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted None $15,900,00 $14,300.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 . Page 4 of 6 ",-,.- " BID NO.: 5 OPENED: August 4, 1981 .12. STREET OVERLAYS ~ 8 various locations (Job No. 1943) Morse Bros. Wi1dish Eugene Sand & Proposal No. Contractors, Inc. Construction Co. Gravel, Inc. 1 - LAWRENCE STREET, from 11th $ 9,184.85 * $ 9,222.50 $ 9,734.21 Ave. to 13th Ave. 2 - 18TH AVENUE, bet. Charnel ton $11,988.00 * $13,425.00 $12,970.00 & Washington Sts. 3 - 1ST AVENUE, from Seneca to $35,460.00 $31,420.00 * $32,258.00 the west 1,100 feet 4 - AGATE, bet. Franklin Blvd. $21,123.00 * $23,025.50 $22,445.00 & 15th Ave. . 5 - DONALD STREET, bet. 37th $14,295.00 * $14,532.50 $14,402.50 & 40th 6 - MONROE STREET, bet. 11th $ 8,060.75 * $ 8,062.50 $ 8,771.30 & 13th Ave. 7 - 8TH AVENUE, bet. Van Buren $10,955.70 $10,870.00 * $11,095.20 & Polk Sts. 8 - 8TH AVENUE, bet. Chambers $26,693.00 $25,512.00 * $25,656.40 ~ & Garfield Sts. TOTAL LOW BIDS: (Low Bids *) $64,651.60 * $67,802.00 * $ -0- AWARD Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ~ $64,651.60 * Proposal Nos.: 1,2,4, 5, 6 Wi1dish Construction Co. ------ $68,268.00 Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---- $68,323.01 Cost to City Amount Budgeted $68,000.00 $71,500.00 AWARD Wi1dish Construction Co. ------ $67,802.00 * Proposal Nos.: 3, 7, 8 Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---- .$69,009.50 Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. - $73,108.70 Cost to City Amount Budgeted $71,200.00 $78,900.00 Cost to Abutting Property COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 None . , , Page 5 of 6 , BID NO.: 5 OPENED: August 4, 1981 13. SANITARY SEWER - reconstruction in area between Willamette Street and Olive Street from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue (Job No. 1955) . Bi dders Bid AHARD 1. Wildish Construction ---------------------- $ 3,875.00 2. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ------- $ 4,950.00 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---------------- $ 6,700.00 4. L. D. Van Over Construction, Inc. --------- $16,700.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost To City Amount Budgeted None . $4,250.00 $3,500.00 (531) COMPLETION DATE: September 15, 1981 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. SANITARY SEWER - 1,153 feet north of Royal Avenue between Surrey Lane and Williams Street (Job No. 1723) Bidders Bid A\'JARD 1. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. ------- $2,486.75 2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. ------------- $3,202.40 3. Emerald Excavating ------------------------ $3,496.79 4. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc. ---------------- $3,933.75 5. Wi1dish Construction Co. ------------------ $4,303.44 . 6. L. D. Van Over Construction, Inc. --------- $4,587.00 7. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. ------------ $5,841.15 8. Egge Sand & Gravel ------------------------ $5,993.00 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted San Lat $0.21/SF $ -0- $ -0- San Serv $127.00/Each COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1981 . Page 6 of 6