|
<br />-- ...- -
<br /> [;. 'i1. V', /0 ...... - "-- -'. -~---
<br />.G. A~; T.~,y. S:~..:::;t & S70Cl'-t,; S~.,;!3.: ." ....-
<br /> -
<br />I. Yith:n !ng~= ?a:~ Subdivision; and e' I
<br /> sanitary se~=~ e~~ stor~ se~er ~ithin
<br /> 160 feet 0: t~e eoc: bou~cary o~ Inger I
<br /> Park 5uodi>eseo~. ( USO) ... I
<br /> liAS!:, '1'0> ALTERNATE nID I
<br /> l. Shu:-...."J" Cont::-ae:or, be............... ~43,"L7."'O .:........ ~43,567.90 .......... .28' ~av ...... ,$ 22 90/FF 0 0
<br /> 2. \:ildis,' COfi.:coetio!'l Co............... ~45,659.~C .......... $45,719.70 San. Lat.....:.::::.$ O:07/SF.......... ................... .
<br /> 3. H &:! .".0-5:r';0:,o" Co................. $48,S3~.r,o .......... $48,588.19 San. So:;v. '....... .$21Q.O\l/EA
<br /> 4. E\;,ge~e. _'~-c !r C:-.3.'Jel. Ir.e............. No Bit. .,........ $45,664.10 Storm :.~~';'e"....... .$B25.CO/Lot
<br /> S. nao~ C:co:c~::eon Co. eoa............. No Bee .......... $47,365.50
<br /> Del:::. .~ .~.:: :..:--..:cti'o""
<br /> 6. Ka~ 3('":'.- ~ ,:,'. ,- .'~~tr:.l~~lon Co........... N" ~~~ .. ..... $47,827.50
<br /> .-
<br /> COHn:.,,;):; DATE: October I, 1976
<br /> -', '--- -.. ---- - . -.-";-:"f-:..:..;._-. .
<br /> Don ...\1 len, public works director, :r:eviewed the bids. Contrr,ct: u\vaTds \.;ere recommended l.la
<br /> the lo~ alternate bid on Item I (Bar H Ranch), on the 10~'l bid on .Item 2 (Burnside SuhJ.ivi-
<br /> sion) . :;;j on the 10\'; bade hid on Item 3 (Inger Park).
<br /> :'uhl ie heaTin~ \'iaS opened.
<br /> Will iaM IIi te, 1360 Bond ~3ne, Objected to extension of the sewer as proposed in Item 3 _
<br /> Inger ParT: Suhdivis:O]1 - sayin;! it would be an expensive dupl ication, that it would n'.'t
<br /> serve his pro,erty. Mr. AI1.:..'.~ s:lowed Clluncil r:1emJ:~rsadr~wing of the proposed pToject
<br /> and explained that it was the logical place for the extension. Al ternatives were .fo--
<br /> eliminate a portion of the sewer that would reach the east boundary of the subdivison
<br /> (\vest boundary of ~Ir. Hite's property) or deferring payment on the 60 feet until the I-A-3
<br /> property did use it. He added that eliminating it at this time would involve digging
<br /> up pavement to install the line at some future time when the property was developed. e
<br /> His recommendation was to install the line now and defer payment of the assessment.
<br /> In response to Councilman Keller, f'.lr. Allen said that assessment would be made only
<br /> once for sewer service.
<br /> Mr. Hite said he had just been assessed for a sewer and even though it might be appropriate
<br /> for the city to install this line, he didn't feel it appropriate that he should pay for
<br /> it. He objected too to haveing to tear out trees to install the line. t<1r. Allen said
<br /> there was no intent to get onto ~fr. Hite's property or the parcel immediately to the south.
<br /> The installation would take place within the subdivision itself and on existing dedicated
<br /> streets.
<br /> In respone to Councilwoman Shirey, Mr. Allen said the assessment could be deferred. How-
<br /> ever, it would become a lien upon the property. He said there were three options open
<br /> to the Council: Omit that section of the sewer and go back later, tear up the street to
<br /> install it with added expense to the subject property; install the line under this con-
<br /> tract and levy assessment but defer payment; or install the line without a connection to
<br /> this property until it was wanted, then collect the cost of the stub at that time plus
<br /> accrued interest.
<br /> Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to award contract to the low bidder on
<br /> each of the projects as recommended, with the stipulation on Item 3 that
<br /> installation would made, assessment levied, and payment deferred on Mr. Hite's
<br /> property until connection to the line was made.
<br /> Councilman Hurray aske d the advantage of the proposed action as opposed to putting the
<br /> line in and charging for the connection later. Mr. Allen said the main advantage was .
<br /> that there would be no accrued interest, that there is no interest when the payment is
<br /> deferred. He said it was a gamble, from the city's point of view, just how long it would
<br /> be before the connection was needed as it related to postponement of charges.
<br />\
<br />! 6/28/76 - 4 315
<br />
|