Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-19 Regular Meeting� ! ! � I � I CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA i REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING � TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1975, AT 7:30 P.M. I COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET � � I E f � � I. CALL TO ORDER i II. INVOCATION - MAYOR TATE i i I III. CITIZENS REQUESTS AND/OR MISC. REPORTS AND DISCUSSION � R K n d a la ue � A. City Council to present Mrs. ene en e y p q � commending her for her many years of faithful � service in the Police Department. i � � B. Mr pon Ault to appear before the Council to make a �p request to tie onto the City' s sewer line. I � IV. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES (July 22 and August 5) � V. PUBLIC HEARINGS : � � r A. A representative of Lone Star Gas Co. to appear I ! before the Council to request a rate increase. � � VI. OLD BUSINESS � A. City Council to consider the recommendation of the park planner concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages in the Oak Grove Park area and also ( consider zoning application Z-75-13, Mr. LaFontaine ; requesting a "SP" Specific Use Permit for the sale ` of beer off-premise only. Mr. LaFontaine operates the Yum-Yum Grocery Store located near the lake on � Dove Road. f � � B. City Council to discuss financing and assessment ! policies and authorize the taking of bids for the � street construction to be done on Dove Road and � Dove Loop. i C. City Council to approve the Plan of Development for � Phase II of the Oak Grove Park Project. i i D. City Council to consider the Title 2I, Section 8 � Housing Program. i VII. NEW BUSINESS A. City Council to charge the Public Relations Committee with conducting a study of the Park and Recreation Department and its relationship with the Little League Association. B. City Council to consider the tabulation of bids and award the contract for the 12 inch water line to be installed along SH 114. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1975, AT 2:30 P.M. � CI Y SECRETARY i I � � � { t C 'i CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS i ' EMERGENCY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM � ; REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING j TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1975, AT 7:30 P.M. � COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET THIS EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ORDER TO INSURE THE � HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF 'i'HE CITIZENS OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS. I i � . i � C. City Council to recess to the Conference Room to hold � ; a closed meeting for a consultation with the City j Attorney. This closed meeting will be on this topic � only persuant to Article 6252-17, Section (e) , Texas � Civil Statutes. This section allows the City Council ; to go into a closed meeting to discuss possible ; litigation with the City Attorney. � i � � IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, 1969, THE CITY COUNCIL EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEM WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1975, AT 10:30 A.M. // � ` 17J�l�� i C TY SECRETARY :� . e. �:,.� __ STATE OF TEXAS X � COUNTY OF TARRANT X � I CITY OF GRAPEVINE X �' t � The City Council of the City of Grapevine, Texas convened in � regular session at 7:45 P.M. on this the 19th day of August, � 1975 with the following members present, to-wit: � ; � William D. Tate Mayor � 1 j Thelma Conine Councilwoman � ' Bob Murphy Councilman � ; � � C. L. Oliver Councilman �, Doil Dalton Councilman � ' Willis Pirkle Councilman � Charles Dunn Councilman �' f' g r constituting a quorum, with � Floy Ezell City Manager �, Jim Hancock Assistant City Manager � r i . > Kenneth Pritt City Secretary ; � John Boyle City Attorney � ; � i � Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Mayor Tate. �` � , ; The first order of business was to present a plaque to � � Mrs. Rene Kennedy, commending her for her many years of � faithful service in the Police Department. Mrs. Kennedy � was not present to accept the award and the City Manager � i stated that the item would appear again on the next agenda. � � The next order of business was for Mr. Don Ault to appear � before the Council to make a request to tie onto the City' s � sewer line. Mr. Ault stated that he was wishing to tie on- � to the city sewer line tb service an apartment complex of ` 100 units that would be constructed on his property which � is located just inside the City of Southlake. He further � stated that he was 500 feet from the Grapevine City Limits � and he indicated his location on a map. Mr. Ault then t read a letter that he had received from the City' s con- � sulting engineers, Freese & Nichols, which read as follows: � June 16, 1975 � � Mr. Floy Ezell, City Manager � City of Grapevine � P. O. Box 307 � Grapevine, Texas 76051 � � � Dear Mr. Ezell: � �: Mr. Don Ault has requested that we review the capacity of � the existing sewage collection facilities in the area on � Dove Road Loop. It is our understanding that Mr. Ault is � considering the construction of apartments just ��st of the � Grapevine City Limits. He has advised that he has discussed � this matter with officials of Grapevine, and that an interest, � or willingness, to serve his apartments has been expressed. a Attached please find a xeroxed topographic map of the area. �' We estimate the carrying capacity of the existing facilities �: ;, to be approximately as shown in the tabulation below. We � would note that we have omitted the capacity between the � school and Dove Road. This line apparently was designed � by the City and we do not have any records for it. � � i � € r � � ! � { � , Projected Grapevine � Section Existina Capacity* - MGD Requirements - MGD 1982 1994 � A 0.445 0.20 0.57 � B 1.16 0.90 2.4 8" Force Main 1.06 0.9 2.6 C 1.0 2.7 D 0.614 1.2 3.0 6" Force Main 0.6± 1.2 3.7 12" Force Main 3.7± 1. 2 3.7 *Capacity based on the minimum slope of the existing pipe in this section. : Lift Station No. 3 has a firm pumping capacity of about 1 MGD. Lift Station No. 0 has an existing firm capacity of about 0.5 MGD. You will note that the existing facilities in Section A, B, and the force main are adequate to meet the 1982 re- quirements. If the growth meets the City plan projections for 1994, all segments will be exceeded and extensions and i.m- provements will be required. It is conceivable that with new infiltration restrictions the flows projected might not actually occur, and therefore the whole subject will � need to be reviewed, sa� in about 1982. Section D has a capacity of 0.614 MGD. You will recall that the City desired to build larger facilities at the time, but did not have sufficient funds to do so. This existing capacity could be exceeded prior to 1982 as a result of growth totally within Grapevine. Mr. Ault is considering an initial construction program t . of 100 apartment units and a second program of another � 100 units. Our preli.minary projection of waste from these facilities are as follows: Initial Construction: 100 apartment units - 2.8 persons per unit � 100 gallons per person per day - average flow Total persons served - 280 Average daily flow - 28,000 gallons per day Peak flow - 112, 000 per day � Ultimaqe Construction: 200 apartment units - 2.8 persons per unit 100 gallons per person per day - average flow Total persans served - 560 � Average daily flow - 56,000 gallons per day � Peak flow - 224, 000 gallons per day � We trust that the above supplies both the City and Mr. � Ault sufficient information on which to base their ne- I gotiations. � If additional data is desired, please contact Mr. Jimmy � Sells of our staff. Yours very truly, FREESE AND NICHOLS /s/ Robert L. Nichols RLN:mg Enclosure cc: Mr. Don Ault - � , �,r° � � , ,. �: The City Manager then inquired if Mr. Ault would be using water " supplied by the City of Southlake. Mr. Ault explained that he k � was more concerned about getting sewage now and that he would � try to determine the problem of water supply at a later date. # The City Manager then inquired if Mr. Ault would be willing to � � pay to tie onto the City line. Mr. Ault explained that he would pay all costs that could be incurred by the City of � z Grapevine because of his initial tying onto the line; this � � would include construction of the line and any pump or lift stations that may be needed as a result of him tying onto the line. The City Manager then inquired when Mr. Ault would � start construction of the apartments. Mr. Ault explained that � this was a government project and that he was unsure when he � could start construction; he also stated that he had received z ' verbal agreement on the financing of the 100 units. Mayor Tate i � then inquired how these apartments would effect financing for `� other apartments in Grapevine. Mr. Ault explained that he was ; a required to prove that he would have 98% occupancy when the � a apartments were opened for lease; and that 200 letters of � i intent from possible tenants were required. The City Attorney k '� stated that he felt two things were necessary for the Council E a to take action on this item: (1) for Mr. Ault to get Council � � � action or agreement from the City of Southlake approving his j request to tie onto the City of Grapevine sewer line. (2) get ; � approval and set it up on a contractual basis so as not to hold t ! the City of Grapevine responsible for any of the initial cost ' incurred by adding Mr. Ault to the sewer line. Mayor Tate � then inquired if the Council could show their intent. The :; - City Attorney explained that the Council could pass a resolu- ; tion instructing the City Administration to notify the City � � of Southlake that we have received this request and that the � initial consideration of the Grapevine Council would be in � ' favor of it provided that (1) official notification of authari- � � zation to proceed from the City of Southlake (2) a proposed �; ; contract be brought back before the City Council that the City # i Staff would recommend. Councilman Pirkle then made a motion � � to authorize the City Staff to take two fold action to get � ' authorization from the City of Southlake and also prepare a � � contract. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion and the motion ,' prevailed by the following vote: � s Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle and Dunn ; Noes: None � � � The next order of business was for the City Council to con- � sider the minutes of the July 22 and August 5 meetings. s! Councilman Dunn made a motion to waive the reading of the � minutes and approve them as published. Councilman Pirkle i' seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following � vote: � Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle and Dunn �: Noes: None � � � The next order of business was for the City Council to hold � � a public hearing on a rate increase request made by Lone Star � Gas Company. Mayor Tate declared open the public hearing. Mr. � Verne Henderson, representing Lone Star Gas Company appeared �? ? before the Council to make his presentation. Mr. Henderson � stated that on January 20, 1975, Lone Star Gas Company filed � with the Railroad Commission of Texas, in Gas Utilities Docket � No. 588, an application seeking an increase in its intracompany i �� city gate charge tor gas delivered by its Transmission Division � � to the Distributive Systems of the cities receiving gas service � ; from Lone Star. On P�pril 28, 1975, an interim gate rate of � 94.19 cents per Mcf was set by the Railroad Commission. On June � 30, 1975, the Railroad Commission did issue its final Opinion � and Order in Gas Utilities Docket (GUD) No. 588, setting for the � � � � � i ` City of Grapevine, a permanent intracompany city gate charge of $1.0399 per Mcf for gas delivered at the City gates. Mr. Henderson further stated that the cost of purchasing gas has substantially increased over the prior four years --- from 18� per Mcf in 1971 to 73� per Mcf in February 1975 as a result of a Railroad Commission order requiring Lone Star to pay an increased rate for the gas it purchased from Lo- Voca Gathering Company. Mr. Henderson further stated that the rate rate of return (4.06/) would not increase and that the only increase would be in the gate rate as indicated; this increase is only an offset to allow Lone Star to retain their current rate of return. Mayor Tate inquired about the re- quirements of the recent franchise ordinance in relation to taking any action on the request. The City Attorney stated that the franchise provided for additional information from the franchise. Mr. Henderson stated that since this increase � would only be in the gate rate and not the rate of return that ! the portion of the ordinance requiring additional information be i i waived. The City Attorney then stated that the Council has i the authority to request the information or waive it in the � event the Council feels the additional information is not ; necessary to determine if the request should be approved. � Mayor Tate then inquired if there were any persons present � in the assembly to speak for or against the rate increase re- ( quest. There being none, Councilman Murphy made a motion to i waive the requirement for Lone Star Gas to submit any addi- � ; tional information. Mayor Tate stated that the public hear- C ing should be closed before any action could be taken and i Councilman Murphy withdrew his motion. Councilman Murphy ! then made a motion to close the public hearing. Councilman Dunn seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the follow- G ing vote: ��� Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn � � Noes : None E { ! Mayor Tate then declared the public hearing on the Lone Star � j Gas Company' s request for a rate increase closed. Councilman { Murphy then made a motion to waive the requirement for Lone Star Gas to submit any additional information. Councilman � Oliver seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the � following vote: ; Ayes : Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn � Noes : None I � � Councilman Dalton then made a motion to instruct the City � Attorney to draft an ordinance approving the rate increase ' as requested by Lone Star Gas. Councilman Pirkle seconded � the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn ' Noes: None i ! The next order of business was for the City Council to con- ' sider the recommendation of the park planner concerning the � sale of alcoholic beverages in the Oak Grove Park area and � also consider zoning application Z-75-13, Mr. LaFontaine re- � questing a "SP" Specific Use Permit for the sale of beer off- premise only. Mr. LaFontaine operates the Yum-Yum Grocery Store located near the lake on Dove Road. The City Manager gave a summary of the letter received from the park planner and stated the planner had enclosed a survey in the letter and that the survey was of little help in determining if beer should be sold in the park area. Councilman Dunn stated that he gathered several interpretations from the survey and that he felt there was no increased economic advantages by selling beer in the park. He also stated that the survey indicated that vandalism increased when the sale of beer was allowed within � � � � � the parks; he then stated that he could see no gain by approving � a "SP" zoning for off-premise sale of beer in this area. Council- �' man Murphy stated that he agreed with the point that the beer � � should not be allowed in the park. Councilman Oliver stated that � � he was concerned about the fact that this was private land and �' not located within the boundaries of the park. Mayor Tate stated � that he felt the same way as Councilman Oliver but that he felt � it would be very tragic if the City allowed beer in the park. He � further stated that he did not feel that people would go to the ' _ Marina just to purchase beer. Mr. LaFontaine a eared before the � PI� �, Council and stated that he felt this was a classis example of � � discrimination. He stated that the Marina was just as close to �' the park boundaries as his store and that to have one zoned to ` sale beer and reject his was discriminatory. Councilman Dalton � stated that he had mixed emotions about the application and that =' the Council would have to decide once and for all about selling � beer in or around the park area. Mr. LaFontaine then inquired � if any vote made on this date could be amended at a later date. s The City Attorney stated that the City Council had the most au- � thority in the area of zoning concerning the sale of alcoholic � beverages. He further stated that the City Council could approve � the zoning for a certain length of time and stipulate much like �. a contract would state that the zoning become invalid or revert back to its prior zoning at that time. Mayor Tate then stated ; that the Council may have to come back at a later date and re- � zone all of the property in this area that sells beer. Council- � man Dunn then questioned the position of Mr. LaFontaine that he � was not being allowed to be competitive. Councilman Dunn further �' stated that Mr. LaFontaine originally made a request for C-2 $` zoning and that at that time he placed himself in the position of � ; not being able to sell beer; resulting in his own decision not � � ; to become competitive. Councilman Dunn further stated that the �: ; Council should not look at the individual but at what was best � � for the City. He then made a motion to disapprove the applica- ; � tion as requested. Councilwoman Conine seconded the motion and g' the motion failed by the following vote: � ; Ayes: Dunn, Conine � ' Noes : Tate, Dalton, Pirkle, Oliver, Murphy � t ; � ' Councilman Pirkle then made a motion to approve the zoning � � application as requested but only for a two year period, at � ; which time the property would revert to its prior zoning; and �: ' that the City Attorney be authorized to draft the proper ordinance � ' and contract. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion and the motion � � prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn � Noes : None � � � � Mayor Tate then called for a recess at 9:15 P.M. ° � � ; � � Mayor Tate then called the meeting to order with all members ; '; present at 9:40 P.M. � � � �� The next order of business was for the City Council to approve � i the Plan of Development for Phase II of the Oak Grove Park Project. ` The City Manager introduced Mr. Jose Gil, park planner, to the � City Council. The City Manager then stated that the Park Board � " had made some recommendations of priorities for this $681,000.00 � i 50/50 cost sharing project and he introduced a letter fram the �: ' Park Board to the City Council which read as follows: } � �' � � ; ; � k �' �@ S G E � 3 � � ��� R � 3 I i C August 8, 1975 Mr. Floy Ezell City of Grapevine P. O. Drawer 307 Grapevine, Texas 76051 Dear Mr. Ezell: When I was presenting the master plan for Oak Grove ; Park to the City Council, I stressed that I would i not recommend that alcoholic beverages be permitted in the park. This is my personal feeling on the subject and I developed the opinion during my years �; as a park superintendent. � In order that you may review what others think on ' the subject, I have enclosed a survey conducted by the i National Recreation and Park Associati on. I think ; that you may be interested in reading the material j and you will probably have a better feel for the � subject after reading it. ISincerely, i ; /s/ K. Dale Robinson, President � PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING i ASSOCIATES, INC. i i � The City Manager then stated that this would be at a payback � i of over fifty years at an interest rate of 4.6%. He further � � stated that in 1976 the City would be leasing 73 additional ' � acres from the Corps for phase II of the Oak Grove Park Pro- � ject. Mr. Gil then appeared before the Council and presented � the Phase II program. Mr. Gil stated that the construction ! costs would be limited to the following areas and estimated costs: � Exhibit "A" is made a part hereof and attached hereto. i ! Mr. Gil then explained that the maintenance and operation ; personnel that would be needed would be one additional full- ! time employee and five part time employees between the months ' of April 1 and October l. He further stated that an estimated � revenue of $6,480.00 was projected and that all the figures i quoted were very conservative figures. Mayor Tate then stated i that a discussion was in order from the Cauncil. Councilman � Dunn questioned the expenditure of $25,000.00 for a sprinkler system for the baseball complex. He stated that he felt the city could get by cheaper without the system. He then questioned why there was only one play aparatus area and felt that there should be more. He then stated that he had serious reservations about approving the $25, 000.00 expenditure for the sprinkler system. Mr. Gil explained that there were certain advantages � to having a play aparatus of this nature and he cautioned against c having swings, slides, and see-saws scattered throughout the park. He further stated that he was very receptive to locating two of these play aparatus areas within this area. Councilman Murphy inquired about the possibility of having a first aid station and a nurse on duty. Mr. Gil stated that the city would run a liability risk if they provided this service. Mayor Tate � .� � �" � j � < S then inquired about the time schedule for approving a plan of ; development. The City Manager explained that the City Council i had until June of 1976 to obligate the cities funds. Mayor Tate then stated that he felt the major item was the Civic Center. � He further stated that he felt this item needed more study and because of the length of the agenda, it should be tabled. Council- man Pirkle made a motion to table any action until a later date. � j Councilman Oliver seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: `� F ; Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn } � Noes: None �� a i � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider ,� the tabulation of bids and award the contract for the 12 inch water line to be installed along SH 114. The City Manager gave � a brief history and stated that this construction is, at this time, subject to the attainment of one easement. The City � Manager then recommended that the bid be awarded to Leonard " k: Hazel, Inc. , in the amount of $30, 943.00 to be done in thirty k days subject to acquiring one easement. Councilman Dalton made a motion to accept the recommendation of the City Manager and ` ! award the bid to Leonard Hazel, Inc. , in the amount of $30,943.00. r Councilman Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed � by the following vote: ; r Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn ±' Noes: None ' i Y. Exhibit "B" is made a part hereof and attached hereto. $ The next order of business was for the City Council to charge '' the Public Relations Committee with conducting a study of the � Park and Recreation Department and its relationship with the Little League Association. Mayor Tate stated that he would ; like to see the study made because the members of the Council � i and Park Board had received a number of calls from citizens ` ` complaining about the poor relationship between the Recreation ; Department and the local Little League Association. Mayor Tate L � then stated that he felt the study should be centered around � this subject and should not be an investigation of the Parks � ; and �Recreation Department. He further stated that an oral re- � ' port would be sufficierit .whenever the committee was satisfied � �� that they had al]�..of the facts. Councilman Murphy then made `" a motio�i to charge the Public Relations Committee with con- r ducting a study of the relationship between the loc al Little �; League Association and the Parks and Recreation Department. Councilman Pirkle seconded the motion and the motion prevailed � by the following vote: " � � � Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn g. ; Noes: None '' � The next item of business was for the City Council to discuss � a financing and assessment policies and authorize the taking of � ; bids for the street construction to be done on Dove Road and �;. ? Dove Loop. There was no discussion and Councilman Pirkle � jmade a motion to table this item because of the length of the � j agenda and the late hour. Councilman Dunn seconded the motion � ' and the motion prevailed by the following votee � � �'� Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle, and Dunn � � Noes: None � , ; � � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider ; the Title II, Section 8 Housing Program. There was no discussion � fi and Councilman Dunn made a motion to table this item because of ; i a £ � � � ? �: � � � � � f J. ����l the length of the agenda and the late hour. Councilman Dalton � seconded the motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: Ayes: Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle and Dunn Noes : None The next item of business was for the City Council to recess to the Conference Room to hold a closed meeting for a consultation with the City Attorney. This closed meeting was on this topic only persuant to Article 6252-17, Section (e) , Texas Civil ; Statutes. This section allows the City Council to go into a � closed meeting ta discuss possible litigation with the City I Attorney. Mayor Tate announced 'that the City Council would return to the Council Chambers to adjourn the meeting; he then announced that the Council would recess to the Conference Room. ; i ; Mayor Tate called the meeting to order after meeting with the � City Attorney in a closed meeting. Councilman Dalton made a � motion to pass a resolution authorizing the Mayor to appoint � � a two-person committee to meet with Colleyville officials to I discuss the common boundary between the two cities and to make ' a written agreement on same. Councilman Murphy seconded the � motion and the motion prevailed by the following vote: ; Ayes : Tate, Conine, Murphy, Oliver, Dalton, Pirkle and Dunn i Noes: None � � � RESOLUTION NO. 75-29 � i � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ; OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS THAT MAYOR TATE BE AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT A ; TWO-PERSON COMMITTEE REPRESENTING THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE TO MEET I WITH OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE TO OBTAIN A WRITTEN � � AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO CITIES CONCERNING THEIR COMMON BOUNDARY � LINES. i ! There being no further business, Councilman Oliver made a f motion to adjourn. Councilman Dalton seconded the motion; � Al1 present voted aye and the meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.M. � � � � PASSED AND APPROVED, this the n�� day S'Cp��,�,.BE2. , 1975 i r-_ � I � MAYOR ; � � � � ATTEST: ! i 4 � � I � � i CIT SECRETARY i � , I i �; i , 1 , � � F E�i� �Yj 1 a 73XHIB IT "A" { i Facility �uantity Unit Cost Estimated Cost i � l. Group Pavillion 1 $40./sq. ft. $260,000.00 , 6500 sq. ft. i a � 2. Restroom 1 $40./sq/ ft. 25, OOO.IJO 625 sq. ft. s � 3. Group Picnic Shelters 3 $21, 500.00/ea. 37, 500.00 4. Picnic Units ; Table, Grill, Pad, and Trash Container 37 $350./ea. 12, 950.00 ; " 5. Group Pavillion Parking 1Q0 cars $200./ea. 20,000.00 6. Boat Ramp 4 lanes $5000./ea. 20,000.00 < # 7. Picnic Area Road 3200 ft. $9.37/ft. 30,000.00 � a. Traffic Barriers 5, 200.00 ki. ? 8. Boat Ramp Parking j a. Single Car Parking 25 $200./�a. 5,000.00 � b. Trailer and Car Parking 50 $400./ea. 20,000.00 c. Approach Ramp 10,000 sq.ft. $1.00/sq/ft. 10,000.00 d. Security Fencing 1,000 ft. $7.50/ft. 7, 500.00 e. T-Shaped Fishing � Pier 20,000.00 � 9. Ball Diamond Complex = a. Fencing 1 field $3500./ea 3, 500.00 b. Lighting 1 field $10,000./ea 10,000.00 x 4 c. Sprinkler } Irrigation 9 acres $2500./ac 22, 500.00 a` d. Grading 1 field $1000./ea. 1,000.00 e. Bleachers 3 $700./ea. 2,100.00 f. Bleacher Aprons 1 $2100./ea. 2, 100.00 G. Security Fencing 1200 ft. $7.50/ft. 9,000.00 10. Utilities a. Sewage Lift Station 1 $40, 000./ea. $ 40,000.00 b. Tight Line 4000 ft.PVC $3.00/ft. 12,000.00 i $ ; c. Electrical Service 1600 ft. $6.00/ft. 9,600.00 � 11. Play Apparatus 1 $5,050./ea. 5,050.00 , i TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $590.000.00 Contingencies 10,000.00 Engineering and Design 60,000.00 City Administration 14,190.00 Corps Cost 6,810.00 ;' ' TOTAL $681,000.00 �. EXHIBIT "B" � BID TABULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 12" WATER LINE FROM NW HIGHWAY TO WEST COLLEGE STREET ' � � BIDDER * ITEMS 1-8 * ITEMS lA-8 i � H. M. Huffman & Son $37,840.00 $44, 195.00 � i ; A & H Contractors, Inc. $36, 206.50 $42.232.50 � Cowart Const. Co. $32, 123.75 $40, 999.00 � 4 James Main, Inc. $35, 172.00 $44, 177.75 i i i � Leonard Hazel, Inc. $30, 943. 20 $39, 294.45 i I � , � L. Grimes & Co. , Inc. $48,694. 75 $56, 816. 75 ' I ' i � Texsun Const. , Inc. $47, 289.00 $55, 804.00 � � I � L. D. Canaster $37, 578.75 $45, 766.25 � s � Steed Const. Co. $33, 147.25 No Bid � � i i Engineer' s Estimate $39,698. 75 $41, 336.25 � � ; * Items 1-8 - 12" Asbestos-Cement pipe plus appurtenances � � I � Items lA-8 - 12" Cash Iron pipe plus appurtenances � i i i i j � � � ' I f � i � � I � i � � I I � � j f