My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 02 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1985 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 02 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:54 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:45:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
2/5/1985
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1985 02 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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
would be through the procedure which we have set <br /> up with Bosart as far as deciding when taps need <br /> to be prepaid and how many. In the event that a <br /> developer is required to prepay the water tape <br /> through that procedure, these agreements speak to <br /> their rights to obtain building permits. And they <br /> would have a right than in the same vein as the <br /> overall Hoasrt agreement to obtain building <br /> permits for taps that wire prepaid, no others. As <br /> far as water service itself, these residents, who <br /> if taps were prepaid and then permits obtained, <br /> would clearly be treated as any other City <br /> resident with respect to water restrictions if <br /> there were any." • <br /> Rautenstraus related that the intent of these <br /> agreements is to fight the malady of any water <br /> restrictions by knowing for certain the City can <br /> require a certain number of prepaid taps. It is <br /> then easier to go out end get the new water plant <br /> built so the City won't have a probity". <br /> Mayor Meier moved that the prepaid water tap <br /> agreements be approved. Cuasen seconded , and the <br /> motion was carried by a 5-1 vote with Morris <br /> voting no. <br /> AWARD BID FOR <br /> PHASE II - WATER <br /> TREATMENT PLANT Bill Schuler of Rocky Mountain Consultants (RMC) <br /> was present to detail the opening of bids for the <br /> Water Treatment Plant - Phase II. A letter from <br /> RMC was given to Council assessing those bids, <br /> providing RMC' s recommendation and detailing the <br /> subsequent negotiations with Williams Construction <br /> who was the low bidder at $1 ,427 ,000. <br /> Hundley pointed out the sizeable reduction from <br /> the initial bid by Williams Construction and that <br /> the rabid figure would put the City below the <br /> original estimate of what was budgeted by the City <br /> by about $24,000. <br /> The base bid of $1 ,427,000 did not include a <br /> proposed building to the vest of the plant. If <br /> the building were built, the cost would be an <br /> additional $40,000. <br /> RMC negotiated with Williams Construction after <br /> the bid opening and there were $40,000 in <br /> additional item* that could be taken out of the <br /> project and were itemized in the litter to Council <br /> from RMC. The $40,000 in additional cuts would <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.