The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - March 10, 1982 (33)• Continued March 10, 1982 A RES. AWARDING Following recommendation of the City Manager, CONTRACT FOR Council adopted the following resolution: PORTABLE BASKET- BALL FLOOR AND RESOLUTION NO. 82-20 STANDARDS RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE PORTABLE RES. NO. 82-20 BASKETBALL FLOOR TO ROBBINS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,457.00 AND OUTDOOR PRODUCTS CO., FOR THE STANDARDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,646.00. RES. APPROVING The Modification Agreement of Hutchins and Kettle - CAL TRANS man Traffic Signal with California Department of AGREEMENT FOR Transportation was presented for Council's HUTCHINS AND approval. The proposed work at this intersection KETTLEMAN LANE mainly involves the addition of left turn phases TRAFFIC SIGNAL in order to reduce the high number of left turn accidents; however, doing this will require major RES. NO. 82-21 changes to the signals - new poles, mast arms and detectors. The costs are being split 50-50 be - nn tween the City and the State and funds ($64,000) V' for the City's share were bu:geted in the 1982-82 Capital Improvement Program. Following discussion, on motion of Councilman Pinkerton, Hughes second, Council adopted Resolution No. 82-21 approving Cooperative Agree- ment between the City of Lodi and the California Department of Transportation and directing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. / Staff asked Council for a clarification of J �1 Council's February 24, 1982 direction to construct Turner Road (at Cluff -Avenue) to its ultimate width. The exact motion, moved by Pinkerton and seconded CONFIRMATION OF by Murphy, is as follows: = MCIL'S DI'MCTICH ON TDA Roan "That we try to acquire the property so we can R� continue the streets and tie it into the existing contract and get it done at a reasonableprice so it's done, out of the way, and so we have a development with an access to the industrial area of the City of Lodi." Because of the exact wording. of the motion, the Staff, feels that clarification is needed on the following items: 1. Is it the Council's intention to acquire the required rights-of-way from Snell, Jerome, and AnacZnos? For Council's information, it has been past practice of the City Council to use their eionatiori,.powe'r where portions of future street alignments wereneeded as part of a proposed development for installation of utilities, additional street width, drainage, etc. However, it has been in the past, the developer's responsibility to pay for the appraisal, condemnation, and any litigation costs, the right-of-way needs and to make the necessary installations required for his development. " For Council information, the appraisal work I4,� will cost $3,000 and the rights-of-way costs :?> and preliminary construction estimates as follows: -7- 123 Continued March 10, 1982 Right-of-way Costs* Construction Costs Total Jerome $ 700 $ 81000 $ 81700 Snell 51500 11,000 16,500 Anagnos 10,800 34,0.00 44,800 Total $ 17,000 $53,000 $70,000 *Based on $0.50 per square foot. No value given to severence. 2. Is it the intent that the City pay all of the above costs? This is questioned based on the memo that was in the last Council packet from City Attorney Stein. From this memo it appears the developer has indicated to the City Attorney that they would be willing to pay for the improvements in front of Snell and Jerome properties if the City purchased the rights-of-way. 3. Is it the City Council's intent to construct all of the street improvements, including parking lane, curb, gutter and sidewalk, or only those improvements necessary to provide the ultimate four (4) travel lanes? 4. It was clear that the Council wanted this work done in conjunction and together with the work under the Assessment District. Since the Assessment District contract has been let and it is the contractor's intent to install the underground utilities and do the roadway construction on Turner Road first, it.doesn't appear that we will to able to do the additional work on Turner Road in conjunction with the Assessment District contract. It is assumed that the Council doesn't want to delay the District work. 5. If it is the Council's intent for the City to be responsible for the construction costs, does the Council want to consider reimbursement at the time the properties develop and convert to a higher use? 6. If it is the Council's intent for the City to pay for the right-of-way and the additional street construction, does the Council have any preference on what City funds should be used? 7. If Cal: -Cushion does not develop (the City has no guarantee) is it still the Council's intent to widen Turner Road? CONFIRMATION OF Following discussion, Staff was informed by the COUNCIL DIRECTION Council that it was Council's iritention to acquire ON TURNER ROAD the required rights-of-way from Snell, Jerome, and RIGHT-OF-WAY Anagnos. Council further directed Staff to proceed with the appraisal work at an estimated cost of $3,000.00 which cost will be paid by the City of Lodi. FIRE INSURANCE City Manager Glaves apprised the Council that a RATING report had been received from Insurance Services IMPROVED Office of California indicating that the City of Lodi's fire insurance protection class has been n� improved to Class 3. -8- June 17, 1982 111 NR1 A t .1 AVI 1 it ( ItN Manages Al K 1 h1 KI IMC tit RO)NAii) h1 SII IN ( #4 Altoona•% Mr. and Mrs. Carl Snell 1011 North Muff- -Avenue Lodi—aTifornia 95240 Ri/ Appraisal of Property at 1011 North Cluff Avenue-.,De%a 4z- nd-4tr The City Council at its regular meeting held June 16, 1982 authorized the City Attorney to obtain a San Joaquin County Superior Court Order Permitting Entry on Property [CCP Section 1245..030(a)] in order- that we may have an appraisal made of your property to deter- mine the value thereof as required for the Turner Road widening project. I will be preparing the papers this week to submit to the Court; however, I would hope that the filing of same is not necessary and would ask you to reconsider your position of not allowing an appraiser on your property. If I have not heard from you by Friday, June 25, 1982, it is my intention to file the legal documents as authorized by the Council. I wish to thank you for your past cooperation and would hope that we can continue in this spirit of cooperation in the future. Thank you. Sincerely yours, RONALD M. s,m I N CITY ATTORNEY RMS: VC E CITY COUNCII FRED M RE ID. Maytr CITY OFL O D I CITY ROBERT G MURKIY. i Mayor Pro Tempore CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE SIRE E E EVELYN M O(SON POSI OFEICT BOX M) IAMES W PINAIRI()N Ie LORI, CALHORNIA 95241 IOHN R (Randy) SN101 R (209) 1.14.5614 June 17, 1982 111 NR1 A t .1 AVI 1 it ( ItN Manages Al K 1 h1 KI IMC tit RO)NAii) h1 SII IN ( #4 Altoona•% Mr. and Mrs. Carl Snell 1011 North Muff- -Avenue Lodi—aTifornia 95240 Ri/ Appraisal of Property at 1011 North Cluff Avenue-.,De%a 4z- nd-4tr The City Council at its regular meeting held June 16, 1982 authorized the City Attorney to obtain a San Joaquin County Superior Court Order Permitting Entry on Property [CCP Section 1245..030(a)] in order- that we may have an appraisal made of your property to deter- mine the value thereof as required for the Turner Road widening project. I will be preparing the papers this week to submit to the Court; however, I would hope that the filing of same is not necessary and would ask you to reconsider your position of not allowing an appraiser on your property. If I have not heard from you by Friday, June 25, 1982, it is my intention to file the legal documents as authorized by the Council. I wish to thank you for your past cooperation and would hope that we can continue in this spirit of cooperation in the future. Thank you. Sincerely yours, RONALD M. s,m I N CITY ATTORNEY RMS: VC E