|
<br />"...
<br />
<br />'1
<br />
<br />501
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />3/8/71
<br />
<br />,f
<br />,:
<br />11
<br />I:
<br />I,
<br />'I
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that. the ,bill be approved,.-and.given finaL,passage. All
<br />Councilmentpresent voting aye, the bill was declared, passed"and 'numhered'.16169. '
<br />
<br />,I
<br />Ii
<br />'I
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />COUNCIL BILL NO. 9355 - Levying assessments for paving 26th Avenue from Madison Street
<br />to Jefferson Street was submitted and read in full the first time on February 8, 1971, held
<br />over to this meeting to allow proper notice of assessment to be given.owners of affected pro-
<br />perties, and is brought for consideration with one written protest on file.
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bill be reaEl the second time Thy; council bill
<br />number only, with unanimous consent of the Council. Motion carried unanimously and the bill
<br />was read the second time by council bill number only.
<br />
<br />A letter was received from Mrs Gladys Haley, 610 West 26th, in which she objected to the cost
<br />of the project. She had been quoted a much smaller figure at.the beginning of the project.
<br />
<br />The Public Works Director .explained this project was initiated in 1968, and in that year costs
<br />were approximately $8.50 per front foot. When the bids were let in 1969 the staff reported
<br />to the Council that there had been an increase of approximately 30% and the estimated cost
<br />per front foot would be $11.14. A public hearing of property owners was held July 14, 1969.
<br />They were advised at that time that the bid on the project would be $11.77 per front foot.
<br />The final cost assessment is $11.17, which was well under the estimate. 58% of the property
<br />owners petitioned the project.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />IV.
<br />
<br />Bids, opened by Public Works Department March 3, 1971 and February 2, 1971.
<br />
<br />February 2, 1971:
<br />1. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER & STORM SEWER
<br />Within Sleepy Hollow Addition; & San
<br />within 160' N & S of Sleepy Hollow
<br />
<br />Basic
<br />Sewer
<br />
<br />Cost to'Owner
<br />
<br />Cost to Ci:t;y
<br />
<br />Budg.;:
<br />):
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />On this project, Public Works Director recommended that bid be rejected.
<br />does not wish to proceed at these prices. (This bid was previously read
<br />of February 8, 1971. Bidders and prices may be seen in those minutes)
<br />
<br />Property owner
<br />at the meeting
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bids on the project outlined above be
<br />rejected at the property owners request. Motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />March 2 " .971.
<br />1. SEWER:
<br />Coburg Road from Willakenzie to
<br />Cal Y \mg
<br />b & D Backhoe Service
<br />Wildish Const. Co.
<br />Salem Sand & Gravel Co.
<br />Devereaux & Pratt
<br />
<br />$20,630.65
<br />17,991.75
<br />20 , 815 . 80
<br />26,700.50
<br />
<br />14,382.55
<br />16,469.20
<br />17,826.90
<br />23,291. 00
<br />
<br />-~-"",_._--.=-
<br />" 5 , QO 0 '. (;) 0 ': ,
<br />(-agree~eu't )
<br />
<br />" ~;.......,.-~. -
<br />9,382.55- '25:;50.0'.00
<br />(71-12' Budj ) i
<br />
<br />COMPLETION DATE: July 15, 1971
<br />
<br />2. SEWER:
<br />Seneca Road from 600' south of
<br />1st, Avenue to SP RR tracks
<br />DgB Backhoe Service
<br />Wildish Const. Co.
<br />Ken Bostick Const. Co.
<br />
<br />21,283.96
<br />26,072.00
<br />30,539.20
<br />
<br />Lat. 0007611,686.48 1,700.00
<br />Levy 0.005
<br />Serv777.50/3a(3)COMPLETION DATE: June 1, 1971:
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />3. Alley east of High Street from
<br />9th Ave. to 10th Ave (reconst)
<br />Shur-Way Contractors
<br />D & D Backhoe Servo
<br />Wildish Const. Co.
<br />
<br />6,053.32
<br />7,197,.80
<br />7,234.30
<br />
<br />6,053.32 0
<br />
<br />"e
<br />
<br />COMPLETION DATE: May 1, 1971
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the bids opened March 2 be awarded to the low
<br />bidder in all cases. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the motion carried. I:
<br />
<br />V. Report re: Litigation, Charter Amendment, Collective Bargaining
<br />At ~he last committee meeting the Council was informed the City Charter Amendment regarding
<br />Collective Bargaining had been ruled constitutional and that the City had four days under writ
<br />of mandamus after the Judge signed the order to appoint an arbitrator in the event there were
<br />still items of disagreement. During the period this was before the court the Firefighters
<br />Union and city bargaining team worked quite diligently attempting to find agreement. Since
<br />the Judge's ruling, a real effort has been made to resolve the problems. The Fire~ighters
<br />bargaining team worked co?perati vely with the management ]:)c~l:'g9Jning team and reached agree-
<br />~m~nt .,on a contEilct ~~~.a..~QP"S;~:~~~~.~g_~~~~~~~~.:.~~~:.rpe==e~u!5ligii~~~:~~~~GoI?Te~.have been ' . ..:
<br />, iiis~rlDu.:te'sl'j'to,the, CQ,u1ieEC'pp~jfo:us:J;Yh-':;;..."';stafr're~2bmm~d'~hat ,the City CounCil approVe-"'both'
<br />. th'e-contract a1iCl':';fi1~'~gePackage. .", , '.. ' .,~' .
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />The City Manager outlined the contract and its provisions and said that a 6% salary increase
<br />was provided which, added to fringe benefits and other costs, would result in a 7~% total
<br />package. If the Council can accept this contract and the wage package, the Union and the City
<br />would be in a position to present to the Judge evidence that it is not necessary to go to
<br />binding arbitration.
<br />
<br />The City Manager expressed his thanks to the Firefighters and to Mr. Mills for their excellent
<br />work in coming to this agreement.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />3/8/71 - 6
<br />
|