Laserfiche WebLink
3O <br /> <br />easy detection of any problems that may develop. However, the major advantage will <br />be a larger main across the river allowing for increased flow between the Churchland <br />system and the system serving the Glensheallah elevated tank. <br /> <br /> In order to have the main installed as part of the Churchland Bridge construction, <br />the City must agree to pay the cost of this bid item plus 10%. It will be to the advan~,-, <br />rage of the City to have this accomplished during'construction~ <br /> <br /> The State-Highway Department is anxious to proceed and has requested the City <br />to advise them immediately if they desire this water line to be included in the bid. <br />I recommend I be authorized to request the State Highway Department to include this <br />in the bid for the construction of the bridge. <br /> <br /> Motion of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, to concur in the recommendation <br />of the City Manager, was adopted by the following vote: <br /> <br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS - <br /> <br /> 73-143 - The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read: <br /> <br /> "AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $21,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND <br /> FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO TOWNE POINT ROAD BETWEEN MAGNOLIA DRIVE AND TWIN PINES <br /> ROAD." <br /> <br /> On motion of Mr. Johnson,~and seconded by Mr. Smith, the ordinance was adopted, <br />and by the following vote: <br /> <br />Ayes: Eazly, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />73-149 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read: <br /> <br />"AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE NAME OF MIDDLE STREET BETWEEN ITS INTERSECTIONS <br />WITH COLUMBIA AND SOUTH STREETS TO WAVY STREET." <br /> <br /> On motmon of Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Smith, <br />by the following vote: ~ <br /> <br />the ordinance was adopted, and <br /> <br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />73-151 The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read: <br /> <br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $5,000 FROM THE GENEKA1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT <br />FUND FOR REPAIRS TO THE WALL AT OAK GROVE CEMETERY." <br /> <br /> On motion of Mr. King and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted, and <br />by the following vote: <br /> <br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />73-151A - The following ordinance, approved at last meeting, was taken up and read: <br /> <br />"AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE $173,000 FROM THE GENERAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT <br />FUND FOR CITY'S SHARE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A FORCE MAIN, GRAVITY <br />INTERCEPTOR SEWERS, AND A PUMP STATION AT OR NEAR BRANDON SQUARE." <br /> <br /> On motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, the ordinance was adopted, and <br />by the following vote: <br /> <br />Ayes: Early, Holley, Johnson, King, Smith, Wentz, Barnes <br />Nays: None <br /> <br /> 73-158 the following letter from City Attorney was~read: 'Re: B&Je-A-Wee Golf Course Lease <br /> At your regular meeting of April 24, 1973 you passed a resolution directing me to <br />meet with Mr. J. Chandler Harper in regard to the above-referenced subject and to redraft <br />said lease in a manner agreeable to Mr. Harper which would "put in effect the original <br />intent of council". In accordance with said resolution, I met with Mr. Harper and his <br />attorney, Charles W. Best, at the offices of Kaufman, Oberndor~er 5 Spainhour on-May 1, <br />1973. At such meeting various amendments to said lease were exhaustively explored, but <br />no conclusions were reached. Mr. Harper consented to consult further with his attorney <br />and communicate his desires for said lease at a later date. On May 3, 1973, my assistant <br />was informed by Mr. Best that Mr. Harner felt that an amendment of his present lease and <br />the consequent acceptance of leasehold tax liability was not desirable, because the amount <br />of said liability could not be guaranteed. Such being the case, further efforts in this <br />direction would appear to be fruitless. <br /> <br /> <br />