06/23/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Assistant Manager said that Item 10 (storm sewer on Barger Drive) was not involved with other improvements on Barger Drive covered by Item 7. - Public hearing was opened. Thorn Chambliss, 1510 Mill Street, speaking for the West University Neighbors, said that group had no objection to the paving of the alley between Oak and Pearl, 14th and 15th, but did have concerns that traffic and speeds would increase. They asked consideration of using speed bumps to slow traffic in alleys in that neighborhood. Assistant Manager answered that speed bumps generally were determined a hazard and the city would be liable for maintaining hazards in a public right-of-way. The problem could be dealt with through enforcement and neighborhood persuasion. l-B-2 Earl Eggers, 2015 West 29th Avenue, spoke with regard to Item 5 (paving and sewers in Woodhaven Subdivision). He asked if both the developer and the property owner would have to sign for Bancrofting assessments for the improvement. Mr. Allen replied that both would have to sign in order to pay the assessment through a Bancroft loan. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Murry moved second by Mr. Williams that contracts be awarded to the low bidder on each of the projects reviewed (Items I through 6, Items 8 and 10, and bike path overlay adjacent to Valley River), con- tract award on Item 5 to be made subject to concurrence of the sub- divider; and that bids on Item 9 (Delta Highway sewer) be rejected. In response to Councilman Bradley who asked why the Delta Highway sewer project was re- jected, Mr. Allen said the primary reason was because the bid came in so much higher e than the estimate. Also, the low bidder had entered a letter of error, asking to adjust the bid by some $32,OOO,and staff felt it would be better to rebid the item. Councilwoman Beal asked why the estimated cost of alley paving was so high compared to street paving. She wondered why concrete was used when that was given as the primary reason for the higher cost. Mr. Allen said one reason was that better drainage was provided. Also, there was not enough room in alleys to accommodate the type of machinery necessary to apply asphaltic pavement. In further response to Mrs. Beal, he said that before alleys were paved with concrete, sewers were reconstructed to avoid tearing up newly placed paving. Rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all council members present voting aye. II-A-l Mr. Allen then reviewed bids on Item 7 (Barger Drive paving, sewers, and sidewalk). Award of contract was recommended to the low bidder. Assistant Manager noted petition previously distributed to Council members representing property owners in the area, 10.62% of which property abuts Barger Drive itself. Also, two letters from Mrs. W. G. Coleman indicating preference for a straight alignment and saying an unreasonable amount of property was being taken on the south side of the street. Another letter was that received from Active Bethel Citizens stating support of provision for on-street parking referred to in the petition presented. Public hearing was opened. e Douglas Melevin, 933 Pearl Street, attorney representing a group of property owners on the south side of Barger Drive, asked that design of the improvement be reconsidered or contract award postponed until further study of the design was made. He said his clients were not opposed to the project itself, only to the design because people 6/23/75 - 9 ~~