1982-08-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1314, Minutes Page 4 August 23, 1982 Mr. Levy concurred with Mrs. Metcalfe's concern, and asked what would preclude the Council from attempting to get an updated legal opinion to see if this can be done and how it can be done. He said an effort should be made to make the commitment as binding as possible, so the City will be less vulnerable. Mr. Ollendorff suggested that the Council give its approval, subject to a binding contract which included the commitment requested. Mrs. Thompson agreed that this should be done to ensure that no Section 8 subsidy would be used in addition to tax abatement. Mrs. Metcalfe moved that the Council approve the tax abatement, contingent upon a binding contract which precluded the use of other subsidy programs. Mr. Levy sec- onded the motion, which carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR MELROSE AVENUE IMPROVEMENT - PROJECT NO. 730 The City Manager said bids were received for the improvement of Melrose Avenue, as follows: Jim Noonan Construction Company $49,744.50 Thoma Paving Company 54,433.30 Maplewood Construction Company 56,884.22 B & K Construction Company 67,218.75 Maryland Heights Construction Company 81,279.90 ll Engineer's estimate $57,211.75 Mr. Ollendorff said this was another project to be funded with Community Development money, which was initiated prior to the most recent policy adjustment on street improvement. He said there were no abutting front yards. He recommended that the award be made to Jim Noonan Construction Company, 5939 Loblolly Court, St. Louis, for their lowest and best bid of $49,744.50. Mr. Adams moved approval, with Mr. Levy seconding the motion. Mr. Al Dieckgraefe, Director of Public Works, was asked to describe this project. He said Melrose was a similar project to Harrison, in that it was a side lot street with concrete curb, asphaltic concrete surface improvement; in other words, a stan- dard residential street improvement, in the 7100 and 7200 blocks of Melrose (be- tween Partridge and George). Mrs. Metcalfe said she was not clear about the street improvement policy; that is, when residents pay a portion of the street improvement, and when they do not. She pointed out that residents abutting Kingdel alley and Gay Avenue all shared or will share in the cost of improvements; however, that was not being done in the case of Harrison and Melrose Avenues. She did not want inconsistency from one area of the City to another. Mr. Ollendorff said the old street improvement policy had a num- ber of inconsistencies, inequities and exceptions built into it; however, a new pol- icy was put into effect (after research and recommendations from a Council subcom- mittee) which addressed the inequities. There was discussion about the old policy and how charges were assessed for either front, side or rear yards. Mr. Ollendorff said the new policy would be quite consistent, and all will pay their fair share of street improvements. Mrs. Metcalfe asked that she be provided with a copy of the old policy, since she did not recall its having some of the provisions attributed