Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -' <br /> n::VCt': ?.. :!l <br /> ~. Cob\:rS lto.d h<rn Fe.rry Street Brldse to Be 1 t 1 ine <br /> load (1165) <br /> tit 1. Eu,.ne Send Era Crovel, rnc........ ................. ,$18,201.05. ..... ..0...0...... .0....... .... ....... ............. ..$28.201.05...... .517,500.00..... <br /> 2. t:tldi.h Conatrllction Co............................$33.462.00 <br /> ). S~ur.w.)' Contractors. Inc..........................$J7,6t8.45 <br /> C(Y,iPu:rlO~1 DATE: Nove~or 15, 1976 , <br /> At.LEY p....:r'.7, <br /> - <br /> 6. ~t~en 5th AVl!cuo 6. 6th Avenue trOGl HiSh StreU , <br /> ~o ~.arl Street (1261) '""' <br /> 1. S~ur-Va)' Contraetors, Ine..........................$13,214.50.......~.....U 1/2 - $ 0.943/,"P ...e 1/1 - $O.94J.n:P7.....StOnl .2..'0.0::J....0....... <br /> 2. "'11dl.h Construction Co......................~... ..$15,995.50 ~ O.OOl/''SW $O.OO6/VSW , :~ <br /> 3. !(ell ~o,t1ck Conetruction Co........................$16,261.00 <br /> 4. J31:.eS A. Hill.... ..0........ .0... ..0...0.... ..... ..$17,680.65 <br /> CctiFInIO.'l DATE: October 22, 1976 <br /> Don G i 1 man, assistant public works director, reviewed the bids as tabulated. <br /> Contract award was recommended to the low bidder on each of tha projects. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak, appearing on behalf of Valley River Inn, said that <br /> the Inn is opposed to the paving of Country Club Road from Valley River Way <br /> to Delta Highway. He questioned staff's contention that 55 percent of the <br /> property owners were in favor of the improvement. He also mentioned that the <br /> street in front of one of the property owners will not be improved to <br /> speci fi cat ions. Additionally, curb cuts being proposed would deprive the Inn <br /> of valuable parking facilities. <br /> e A representative of the property owners on the north side of the street <br /> spoke in support of the repaving. <br /> Public hearing was closed. <br /> Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, explained that the curb cuts have been discussed <br /> with the Valley River Inn manager who indicated he had also had a discussion <br /> with the Inn owner on the matter. If the project is approved, it is assumed <br /> that staff will discuss the curb cuts with the owners as well. Mr. Teitzel <br /> added too that the property which is not being improved to specification is <br /> outside the city limits. Regarding the percentage of property owners in <br /> favor of the improvement, he explained that the percentage was considered on <br /> a straight-line basis and not around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Teitzel finally <br /> commented that there is a right-of-way problen with the Valley River property. <br /> Staff can design around that property if the Inn is not willing to dedicate <br /> it. <br /> Mr. Hamel moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to send the project <br /> back to the engineering staff for the purpose of working <br /> out details with Valley River Inn. Motion failed, Council <br /> members Harne I , Beal and Keller voting aye and Council <br /> members Haws, Murray, Bradley and Shirey voting no. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to award the contract <br /> to the low bidder as proposed. Motion carried, all counci 1 <br /> members present voting aye except Mr. Hamel and Mr. Keller voting <br /> e no. <br /> Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Haws to award contracts to the <br /> low bidder on Projects 2 through 6. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 'f'-fLf Minutes 9/13/76 -- 9 <br />