|
<br />further legal interpretation from the Attorn~y Gener.al's office. In the meantime,
<br />City Attorney will review the decision for the Council at ifs next committee meeting.
<br />Manager continued that method of presenting findings has not been worked out, although
<br />the~' are now included in the Planning Commission minutes they have not been transmitted ~
<br />to they Council as part of their recommendations. It was understood that woraing in the ,..,,-
<br />ordinance would be changed to "... wherein it is claimed. there-.!was error..." - ..'
<br />
<br />Councilman McDonald said he would rather delay adoption of the amendment for two weeks
<br />to give the opportunity to receive the~< City Attorney's report. It was understood there
<br />was no emergency and no problems are anticipated in such delay.
<br />
<br />Council Bill No. 348-- Amending Sections 9.676-9.6~2 of City Code re: Procedures and Bases
<br />for Zone Changes was submitted and read the first time by council bill number and title only,
<br />there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council
<br />bill number only, with unanimo~ consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered
<br />~t this (ime. All' C9'4nei.imen present voting - aye, except Mr-. :M.qDonald voting no theceuncii:.
<br />- ----. - " - - - - . ~ - ~ ~......-'--"- :-- - ~- ,. -. -- .
<br />bill was l1E?ld for second- reading at Jirly 23, -1973 Council meeting.
<br />
<br />- '
<br />.c -, ~ . -- .
<br />
<br />- G-,'~~d~ar~ou~~ ~~~;o~:.m.~~t ,proj_~_;;S --Opened JUlY-~3a~-(C6~~-~7S E~~Ubiic~' Work~+----~ .-.- - - I
<br />
<br />DE:?AR~"! OF P:1lLIC wens Bid No. 8
<br />Engineering ;ivlsl~
<br />_. July 3. 1973 .
<br />
<br />
<br />Cost to ;.oo~t
<br />: :.. . v~ Biddi!r and Project Contrac: C01t Ab,ttlng Prop. (.'Ost to City !udgttcd
<br />
<br />P"',,'U;, SASlTM., S;:',,'ER !~:D STO;l'l SE\o;:R:
<br />I. ~::hin O,sc:o Lake Subdivision and paving
<br />:v:y Avenue frc~ Golden Gardens Street to
<br />)50 feet W.st (227)
<br />
<br />1. W11dish Co:stru:tion Company............... .$57.2(:.85................:3. ?vg. in Sub.. .$1,145.00 per lot (24).. .S:1II. $12,360.00..... .$:1,550.00 : I
<br />' Eugene Sand 60 Gravel Coml'any................$5;.87~.05 :3' ?vg...........$ 13.72 frlft ,
<br />3. Devereaux and rratt........................ .$6'-,OH.8. Lat...............$ 568.00 per lot (17)
<br />:erv..............$ 270.00 per lot (19)
<br />
<br />COMPLETlO:; DATE: October 15. 1913
<br />.-- --------------------------------------------------------- -
<br />P",,,,,,,f;.. PEDESTtIAN ',,'AYo. , SAlUTARY SE'oJER A.>;D 5101<.'1 SEWE1:
<br />i'--';"'1..thin 2:1d Additio:: to ~hast:a Gardens. and
<br />o,~itary Se~er in the area within 160 feet east
<br />~: the eas: boundary of 2nd Addition to Shasta
<br />~ardens (134) BASIC .U,TEllNAIE
<br />
<br />1. \;11dis:, Construction Company...............$ 95,6S0.4:..$ 95.602.15...'vg...............$1.381.00 per lot (35)...Stm. $24.298.00.......$23.331.(0
<br />., Eugene Sar.~ 60 Gravel Coc?sny................No Bio......$ 96.654.05 Lat...............S 556.00 per lot (8)
<br />J. Deveteaux ~ Pratt..........................$103.4f5.~..$101,836.31 :erv..............S 290.00 per lot (33)
<br />::m...............5 682.CO.per lot (35)
<br />I :ed. Way..........$ 23.00 per lot (35)
<br />
<br />COMPLETIOS DA!Z: October 15. 1913
<br />---...----------- ----------- ----------------------
<br />~~ALK:
<br />j. ;;uth side of 15th Avenue from Washington .~
<br />':re~t to Jeffetsou Street (917) . ." " ~ _
<br />
<br />1. W11d1s:, Construction Com;>any...............$ 1.1,0.&5................. Conc...........$ 1.42 sq. ft....l Co_c...$ 286.00 --
<br />2. Devereaux ~ Pratt..........................$ 2.2;8.27 5" Cono...........$ 1.41 sq. ft.
<br />
<br />COMPLETIO~ DATE: October 15. 1913
<br />------------- - -- ---- --
<br />
<br />--&;."c:-P:\Tll: -.-.- '-- - -, -
<br />~.~ !tabbon Schco1 to Wllhi Street (990)
<br />
<br />i. Senge Paving, Inc....... ............. .......$ 2.186.82.. .... ........... .... ..........0............ .... ...... .... .$2.156.82......... ..$2.50J.OO
<br />2. ,wsc"e .sand .i.Cravel. CO::p4:lY. ... ... ... .."..... $ 2.860.100
<br />3. Wi1dish Cons:ructlon Cocpany................$ 3.198.80
<br />COMI'L.."'TIO~ UTE: Septe::lber 1. 1913
<br />----- -
<br />----------
<br />5. from Meadow Lark School to North of
<br />;heldoQ High Sch~l (99QA)
<br />
<br />1. Benge Paving. Inc.................... .......$ 6,262.61....... ..................... ...0............ .... ....... ... .$6,262.61......... .$1.000.00
<br />2. Eugene Sand ~ Gravel Cocpany................$ 1.858.00
<br />J. Wi1disb Construction Cocpany................$ 8,345.90
<br />OOMPLETIOS C\TE: Septe:ber 1. 1973
<br />---~------------------------ ----- ---------------------------------------------------------
<br />~'l SE"'ER:
<br />6. un 25tb Av~nue if extended West from
<br />.50 feet West of lii1yard Street to 100 ft. .'
<br />:lest (366)
<br />
<br />1. Wildish Construction Co:pany................$12.495.00 $5,241.50 $6.241.50 $5.750.00
<br />2. Shut-~sy Contractors. 1nc...................$13.716.00 (SC3001 Dist. 04J)
<br />3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Cocpany... ...$11.040.00
<br />
<br />---.---------------- ------------------~~:~-~:~-~:::~:~:~~~~---------- .- . .
<br />
<br />=-~
<br />
<br />P~blic Works Director reviewed the bids. Contract award was recommended to the low bidder on
<br />eachproj,ect, except Item 3 on which the recommendation was to reject because of the excessively
<br />high bids received, and with the award on Item 2 to'be subject .to ~e~iew of financial condition
<br />of the developer.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />4L~~ 7/9/73 - 6
<br />
|