|
City Council met in regular session.
<br />~Meeting called to order by the Clerk.
<br />
<br />Pre sent: Councilmen
<br />.Absent: Councilmen
<br />
<br />coUncil Chamber
<br />Santa Aha City Hall
<br />March 16, 1959. 7:30 P.M.
<br />
<br />Royal E. Hubbard, St~ley C. Gould, Jr.,
<br />A.A.~W~I 1
<br />J. Ogden Markel, Dale H. Neialy
<br />
<br />The Mayor and Vice-Mayor being absent, the Clerk stated nominations are in order for
<br />Mayor Pro-Tern. It was mowed by CoUnci~maln Hubbard and seconded by Co~lncllman N~I 1,
<br />that Stanley C. Gould, Jr., be nomtr~ted Mayor Pro-Tern; and upon call for a vote Stanley
<br />C. Gould, Jr., was u~ elected Mayor Pro-Tern.
<br />
<br />~iMayor Pro-Tern Gould stated this is De~olay Civic D~y and that Richard Bates represented
<br />Counc~!m~n Gould, Richard ~n represented City Manager Carl Thornton, D~ve Murry represented
<br />Counc~!m~ H_~!!, and Ron Carey represented Councilman Hubbard.
<br />
<br />.The Pier, of Allegiance was given.
<br />
<br />Invocation was given by ~everend Garland G. Lacey of the Wilshire Presbyterian Church.
<br />
<br />Each member of the City Council having received copies of the Minutes of March 2, 1959, reading
<br />of the Minutes w~s dispensed with and approved on motion of Counc~]m~n Hubbard, seconded by Hall
<br />and carried.
<br />
<br />Bids
<br />Construct Mayor's Office
<br />and Planning Department
<br />on third floor City Hall
<br />
<br />Hearing
<br />Amend. Appl. No. 266
<br />Louis St ruikman
<br />Ordinance
<br />
<br />A tabulation of bid~ was presented for the construction of the Mayor's Office and
<br />
<br />Planning Department to be built on the third floor of the City Hall, as follows:
<br /> Total
<br />Gilbert A. McKinzie $9,'~.00 10~ bid bond
<br />J.E.Barrington lO, 970.00 $1100.00 check
<br />
<br />On recomEaendation of the ~n~ger and on motion of COUncilman Wall, seconded by Hubbard
<br />
<br />and carried, action on the bids was continued until April 6, 1959.
<br />
<br />This being the date set for continued hearing and no protests having been received,
<br />Amendment Application No. 266 filed by Louis Struikm~n~ was considered to reclassify
<br />from R-1 District to C-1-PK District, property located on the south side of Edinger
<br />
<br />Street west of Sullivan Street. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded by Hall
<br />
<br />and carried, the following Ordinance entitled:
<br />
<br />"Ordinence amending Article IX of the Sauta AnaMu~icipal Code to che~ge
<br />district classification on Application No. 266 and to ~nd Sectional
<br />District Map 22-5-10, Exhibit 'B'"
<br />
<br />Hearing - A.D. 201
<br />Improve Main St. btn
<br />Edinger St. and Delhi
<br />Road
<br />
<br />was introduced, considered and placed ~ file for second reading.
<br />
<br />The Mayor Pro-Tern announced this is the time and place for hearing protests or object-
<br />
<br />lens against the assessment for the improvement of Main Street, in Assessment District
<br />
<br />No. 201, and asked the Clerk if she was in possession of the affidavit of publication,
<br />
<br />affidavit of posting and affidavit of mailing. The Clerk stated she had the affidavits
<br />
<br />and on motion of C(~lctlmau Hubbard, seconded by Hall and carried, the affidavits were
<br />
<br />received and filed. The Mayor Pro-Tern asked the Clerk if she had received any written
<br />
<br />protests or objections against the assessment, the improvement as constructed, or the
<br />
<br />proceedings, and the Clerk stated she received a written protest from Attorney Clifford
<br />
<br />J. Baxter on behalf of Mark B. Lindsey et al. On motion of Councilman Hubbard, seconded
<br />
<br />by Hall and carried, the ~retest was received and filed. Attorney Baxter stated that
<br />
<br />the property owners involved received a letter similar to the photostatic copy of the
<br />
<br />letter which is attached to his letter, and he has set forth the nature of the protest
<br />
<br />in that at the time of the original letter of the Manager, dated November 29, 1956, the
<br />
<br />estfm~te on this improvement was to be from $2.30 to $2.80 per front foot. The pro-
<br />
<br />testants would like an explanation as to the disparity between the estimated cost of the
<br />
<br />street lighting improvement and the difference between the Manager's estfm~te and the
<br />
<br />$5.16 per front foot which it actu-lly cost, and the proportionate cost the City pays.
<br />
<br />The M~nager explained that the letter from which Mr. Baxter quoted was mailed about
<br />
<br />eight months after the beginning of the development of the project. The~was an error
<br />
<br />in the figures. The original cost was l~ased on the cost of another lighting system
<br />Assessment District, but did not take into consideration the development of the cost
<br />
<br />figure; the difference between the laying of the conduit in an open trench and the
<br />
<br />ultfmate cost which increased the costs of boring,which was in error. From the period
<br />
<br />
<br />
|