Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-19city council minutesBook 15 Page 103 SPECIAL MEETING August 19, 1974 4-00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pasley. The roll of the Council was called with the following Council members present: Dakan, Carter, McCloskey, Williams and Banks. Absent: Gamboa. (MINUTES) It was MVED BY Carter, SEOONDFD BY Banks, to dispense with the reading of the minutes. MOTION CARRIED (BID OPENING - FDA PROJECT WELL) The Mayor called upon Mel Lewis to open the bids on the well. Mr. Lewis then opened the one bid which was received from Kenneth Witt. In the bid Mr. Witt stipulated that, due to his work load, he would be unable to start work until approximately October 15, 1974, with 120 days for completion without penalty. The total bid was $34,892.26. 325 lineal feet of 18" casing to be furnished and installed at 32.90 unit price - total 10,692.50, and subject to change depending on stock available if not awarded immediately. Mr. Witt advised he had checked the availability of 18" pipe and the dealer said it was a slow item, however, if he had a chance to sell it he would call Mr. Witt first. Mr. Lewis recommended that the Council take the bid under advisement and refer it to Alpha Engineers for a report. It was MOVED BY Carter, SECONDED BY Dakan, that this bid be taken under advisement and referred to the City Engineer and Alpha Engineers. MOTION CARRIED ' Mr. Lewis will see if the report could be ready for the regular Council meeting Tuesday night. (PROPOSED PROPERTY TRADE, BILL No. 25) The following letter to the Mayor from the Superintendent of Schools was passed around for the Council to read: "I am writing with reference to our phone conversation this morning and the two additional items you would like for the board to consider with the proposed property exchange. I will write what I think and what I would anticipate to be the boards position. However, they have not had any opportunity to meet, discuss and vote (nor will they have until September 9th) on the School Boards official stand. Your first request was for the city to retain the use of the ten acre site for five years, the same as originally requested for the Luby Park property. Your initial offer of Liby had an estimated value of $85,000. This was withdrawn and you offered another property whose estimated value was at most $50,000. Our thought was that our rental or lease of this new property beginning with next year could partially make up for the difference in value. Now the city apparently wants to change their offer and further decrease the possibility of an "even" trade. ' Your second request was for some assurance that property would be for a school site. I can assure you that this is the "only" intention and I'm sure a declaration stating the same could be secured from the board. But I believe it would be unwise to "dedicate forever" this property for this use. Tying it up in this manner could be a difficult problem for people who may wrestle with school and city problems hundreds of years into the future. I'm just not sure that we are wise enough to know that the beat and only use forever is as we see it today. Your request is difficult to respond to since the two boards met and agreed to the proposal without these two items. I would hope that these two items could be withdrawn so we can get on with the proposal that the two boards discussed and the School Board already approved." 4 f I . .. I M U L1