Laserfiche WebLink
115 <br /> Harsh ld,1919 <br /> ra <br /> p; <br /> aid the city a he PUDd previously d thatcity would fay <br /> {heap o for the c f ac d necessary f construction o <br /> 75th Street omo18th9t . This d be the c of the <br /> ec ded in the notice f cost <br /> LID <br /> traffic light at nt is nnof 75.Street -district sh <br /> primary <br /> mtwas another <br /> gthat had nt be r <br /> The <br /> PUD U <br /> oeq et light aist intersection tobeih <br /> bdtea and its proposed does nclude <br /> thiitraffic liut the ght. They repeating their set for the not <br /> He felt it would benefit of 75th a on egn <br /> Graham <br /> concerns the <br /> d in view of the <br /> fact that <br /> nossiladditionalcostforprocuring -of way had e <br /> luavth project use n h acquisition has <br /> inc <br /> discussed with the appropriate property ownthea ieeuee <br /> needed a beforeProPerSe owner eeeld£deter... <br /> d t ed as land. Therefore, <br /> mat it was their recommendation h council postpones any a i <br /> proposed ..f wHe ould did assure the council hs thatev the 1.. <br /> event the L proceeds the PUDekwot closely with tcity a their 'I4�, <br /> constructionprojectscoincide. <br /> Councilman Gipson felt this had be 1 range plan for the southeat 1�} <br /> us and that these p i v had discussednumerous times. JJ1 <br /> felt t employees of e P would ng these l P f <br /> fail h e as any of a other businesses a which a ' <br /> dy had of theimprovements on their property. i <br /> question£om it me Michelson, <br /> sad. I f j <br /> meeLloting.had g n held with the,in answer to a propertymantimes over period <br /> of me months. The beginning of this D wseveralvyears back nd ' <br /> many mn stings had been held discussing atheppros and con of t I I <br /> iimprovementse t increase cameaboutduet inflation a actually <br /> the final figures hadn't come aboutuntil just late last fall. He ex- <br /> plained <br /> x plained h talkabouteach o the commentsamade by the PUD and <br /> probably m refute most of the objections but because o time he felt <br /> phe should not do this. He objected o their request far ftwo weeks x <br /> delay becausetheeitsplaning on begindesign <br /> ing construction ummer <br /> d y delay a all would hold back he g ofthis project. <br /> Councilman awed about protestinthe LL and a Cattle, <br /> City Attorneys,said e if t ordinance w adopted,in the <br /> thirtdays <br /> followrng,Prperty owners i the f 80 of a cos of theNG <br /> improvement could protest and terminate the . <br /> President aldcroft aelted if.some h ph mens could be deleted II <br /> from the Proposed LID it the cow r tH Henning 1.�1' <br /> Possible.1 he time t hwas cityit was es able heavy r <br /> that this w o be an industrialp could. <br /> changes the council wished to.mak possible. l <br /> •Coud ally agreed to Pay h if of t.!� <br /> then signal licilman ghtna.Mr.iHe sing d Boeing does seem !!1555; <br /> agreeable to f of the coat. <br /> Moved by Cuncilman Gipson, <br /> ,a n <br /> seconded y Councilman Overstreet thathis ;1Ai1 <br /> s declared to be the final reading of C Bill 111 792-95 and the rty <br /> Clerk is directed to call the roll for the final disposition of <br /> ordi <br /> Roll ncall: Michelson,Gip n,Rldcroft,Pope,Overstreet <br /> No: None <br /> Excused: Langus Baker <br /> Ordinance No.588-79 adopted. <br /> 4. e <br />