My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 03 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 03 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 4:34:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/1/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 03 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3/1/83 <br /> <br />Page -4- <br /> <br />City Office. Shallock is to report back <br />on their reply. To date they have not <br />received this and were asking since they <br />are under bond to the City to complete <br />the road improvements by June 15, 1983, <br />could an extension of time be granted <br />Neodata. <br /> <br />Ben LaTorra, Facilities <br />Manager - Neodata <br /> <br />Mr. LaTorra reiterated what Director Rupp <br />had stated regarding an extension of time <br />on the road improvements or let them pro- <br />ceed with the originally proposed plan. <br />Will be running out of time on dates pro- <br />vided by the Contractor. Advised there <br />was an indication from the LDS Church <br />that they were not interested in the <br />shared access concept. <br /> <br />Councilman Cummings <br /> <br />Referred to section 8.5 of the agreement <br />and commented it was his feeling that <br />the Neodata people didn't need an extension <br />of time to begin construction; felt that <br />they had met their commitment and should <br />be able to proceed. <br />LaTorra stated this is essentially the <br />commitment from the entire council that <br />they need. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Morris <br /> <br />Inquired what kind of mitigations had Public <br />Service stated that seems to be a problem <br />with the LDS Church. <br />Mr. LaTorra stated he did not feel there <br />should be a problem. Public Service had <br />provided the LDS Church with a letter re-, <br />garding the sequence of events that had to <br />take place; but none were difficult, time <br />consuming, or costly to his recollection. <br />In answer to Councilwoman Morris' question <br />as to Public Service restrictions, LaTorra <br />advised there viTere some deed changes re- <br />garding their easement. <br />Morris felt that every effort be made to <br />accomplish the shared access; perhaps the <br />City could deal with them more agressively. <br />Commented that the construction of the LDS <br />Church is progressing more expedient than <br />the Neodata project; was willing to grant <br />an extension to Neodata on the road improve- <br />ments but did not wish to abandon the shared <br />access concept.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.