Laserfiche WebLink
<br />increase. Ms. Watson stated the City is allowed to gain the same amount of <br />revenue as it received last year. She said that to each individual it should be the <br />same amount of money as they paid last year, even though the rate is higher. <br /> <br />Mr. Price stated in answer to Mr. Suarez, that after tonight he hopes we can put <br />everything in total context so people can have a clear understanding of what is <br />getting ready to happen. <br /> <br />The public hearing was closed at 7:00 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />H. CONSENT AGENDA <br />1. <br />Sidewalk and sewer easements for Barbara Jordan was approved by the Public <br />Works Department <br />2. <br />319 Water Quality Project-storm water pond @ Ruth Park Golf Course <br />3. <br />Wide area rotary mower award was recommended for Birkey’s for $35,487 <br />4. <br />Annual fuel order award was recommended for Petroleum Traders in the amount <br />of $550,294. <br />5. <br />Pershing pedestrian traffic signal at Midvale was recommended with a grant fund <br />of $57,440 and the remainder of $14,400 coming from the General fund. <br /> <br />Mr. Ricci asked for the 319 Water Quality project-storm water pond at Ruth Park <br />Golf Course be removed for farther discussion and was seconded by Mr. <br />Glickert. <br /> <br />The consent calendar was moved for approval by Mr. Sharpe, seconded by Mr. <br />Price and was unanimously approved. <br /> <br />CITIZEN COMMENTS <br />William Field, 7152 Kingsbury <br />Mr. Field understood that they are proposing a pond between holes number two <br />and eight in order to correct a drainage problem. He feels it is not a good <br />solution because the increased water run-off and erosion in that area is the result <br />of the infusion of rain from the driving range onto the golf course. Ponds present <br />their own problems as breeding algae, mosquitoes and other insects, varying <br />water levels, landscaping, etc. These added problems will require continuing <br />maintenance and on-going expenses. He feels that it does not blend with <br />topography, with two earth dams to confine the water and has an adverse affect <br />in the play of the holes. He recommended receiving other opinions free of Parks <br />Department influence. His second concern was why the cost of $23,500 for the <br />project was being directed to the Public Works Department and he felt it should <br />be paid by the revenue made at the golf course. <br /> <br />Mr. Glickert also stated that another reason he did not want to vote on this <br />consent item was that the Parks’ Commission did not vote on the project. That is <br />the purpose of the Commission, is to look at it, vote on it and then bring it to the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked if their previous vote could be revoked on this consent item in <br />order to revisit it to be sure that it will be advantageous to the golf course. <br /> <br /> <br />