|
<br />Public Works Director explained that the. paving ,is :s.cheduled for completion .October 1 unless
<br />delayed by weather or other unforeseen adversities.
<br />
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract on low alternate bid for t'
<br />
<br />Proposal No. 1 as recommended~ Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen '
<br />
<br />present voting aye.
<br />
<br />f^'iI!,e MID ~TOitH !lr.',Jr.n~ a '.
<br />iris7i;--.\-;;C;Uc- troalijiik ratch Road
<br />to HO feet wut (9S7) 'DM1C AI.TERNATI!
<br />
<br />L l/11dloh Conotructlon Company.......$ 7,664.00....$ 6,796.65............ ..28' Pvg..$ 14.26 trift..
<br />I Oenao PAvlnG. 1no...................$ .9.158.81....$ 9,037.15 COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1913
<br />). OovGreau~ & Pratt...,.....,.....".$ 9,728.86..,.$ 9,167.10
<br />,. I!uc:onc Sand 'Gravol..............~, 11081d......$ 9,232.55 / ' ,
<br />
<br />
<br />Poll indicated 68.5% for, 22.3%:against, and 9.2% no response. Those in fav.or qualified
<br />their approval .of' 15th only if Oak Patch Road is improved. Award recommended on low
<br />alternate bid price. ".
<br />
<br />Public hearing 'was held with no testimony presented.
<br />
<br />In answer to Councilman Murray, Planning Director said zoning in the area was primarily
<br />multiple-family.
<br />
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal m.oved;seconded by Mr. Williams to award contract on the low alternate I
<br />
<br />bid price. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye..~
<br />
<br />
<br />. P""/I!/l:' :JIi) SAJIlTARY stliER: .-. .,..,.....--" ...~.... --;. ....... .
<br />n. ;,; :.:u w1t101n lot Mcl1t1on to EVCfgreen Pllrk, .
<br />an<1l paving Rutledge Street ~rom Dell Avenuo to ~
<br />jOO toat oouth; Sanitary Sew~r llnd atorm ocuor
<br />in .rea betlleen Ball Avenue and Wood Avo. from
<br />B1C'ldaen Road to 500 ft. wear (942) ..
<br />
<br />DASIC !'.TF.RNATII ' I
<br />
<br />t. WlldiDh Con!!. tructlon Coml',my.........$ 9,128.00.....$ 8,316.00.........".......28' PllV.........$ 13.77 fr/ft I
<br />I. 1("11000 Sond & Craval CO..I'"ny.........llo 81d.........$10,465.00 , . Slln. Sorv. (4)..$507.00 eneh
<br />i, ~onga P4v1ns. Inc..~..............t..$lO,385.31.....$lO.S23.S8 . .
<br />Oaverc~ux , PrQtt....................$11.908.20.....$lO.894.10 .
<br />COMPLETION DAIR. Septembor 1, 1973
<br />,. ,
<br />:,..;
<br />
<br />Petitioned by .owners of 83% of property to be assessed, Award recommended on low alterraIe
<br />bid price.
<br />
<br />Public hearing was 'opened.
<br />
<br />. \', ~ ;~ ':
<br />Leslie Judd, 4040 Bell Avenue, opposed the proposed proje9t on the basis that it wouid :not
<br />benefit his property. His residence faces on another street with no access to Rutledge
<br />Street at the present time. He felt the owners of properties for which the improvement
<br />is requested should pay the entire cost. Manager n.oted letter received from Mr. and Mrs.
<br />Judd stating their objecti.ons. .
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Campbell was inclined t.o hold award .on the pr.oject unless developers petition-
<br />ing the improvement would pay the full cost. Public Works Director explained that there ~
<br />is n.o legal way to force the petitioner's paying the entire cost. He said the Council does
<br />have the option to approve or reject the bid, however he felt rejection, if it is considered,
<br />should have been at time of plat filing. .
<br />
<br />Discussion foll.owed with regard to Judd's legal access to Rutledge Street and 83% petition
<br />submitted at time of platting the subdivisi.on.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to postpone the project indefinitely.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal. said it was a case .of a developer's forcing through a projec"t where' an.other prop-
<br />erty owner without'access has t.o share in the cost. Councilman Williams'could see n.o
<br />difference between this corner lot and 'any-other in the City~ and 'called attenti.on to the
<br />philosophy of accepting petitions signed by owners of'51% or more' of property to be assessed
<br />for a pnoj ect, regardless of the number '.ofownerships. . To rej ect this bid on' the argument
<br />presented would leave future decisions open when two frontages are involved.
<br />
<br />Discussion continued with regard t.o creation .of the lot owned by Judds and desirability of
<br />developers' paying for improvement costs when initiated primarily for the benefit of sub- .'=
<br />divisions. It 'was felt by several that the issue'of assessments for corner lots should be
<br />c.onsidered by itself." .
<br />
<br />. -. - .
<br />
<br />Vote was taken on the motion to postpone award. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal,
<br />McD.onald, and Campbell voting aye; Councilmen Williams, Hershner,- Murray, and Wood
<br />voting no.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to award contract on' the l.owalternate'
<br />bid price. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, Councilmen Williams, Hershner, Murray,
<br />and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Beal, McDonald, and Campbell voting no.
<br />
<br />~'O 6/25/73 - 10
<br />
|