|
<br />SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
<br />CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, DECEMBER 5, 1966
<br />
<br />Present:
<br />
<br />Mayor
<br />
<br />Ell is Serur
<br />
<br />Aldermen:
<br />
<br />Caesar A. Daman
<br />JoeC. Froh
<br />Herman Korff
<br />Wi II i am C. Poo I
<br />Mark ~. Whittenberg
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />City Manager
<br />City Secretary
<br />
<br />W.E. Wolff
<br />Dorothy O. Worrell
<br />
<br />Visitors:
<br />
<br />Mrs, Joe Zimmerman, Mrs. Jerri Veidt,
<br />Bob Barton, Mrs. Frank Duncan, Mrs. Buford
<br />Wil Iiams, Jack Hughes, David Conrad,
<br />Howard Bengston, David Gill, Jean Foster,
<br />Nancy AI linson, Jane Dona1d, Barbara Borchers,
<br />Elizabeth Stillwell, Willard Cox, Harley
<br />laechl in, Handler Smith, John Stokes,
<br />Jim T. Brown, Mary Coronado; and Members of
<br />the Urban Renewal Board Dr. Robert Walts,
<br />Mrs. laura l. Ramsay, Dr. Sidney Edwards,
<br />Jerry l. Moore and Eleazar Salinas.
<br />
<br />The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Jack Hughes, of Jack Hughes Ford, Inc., appeared before the
<br />Council to protest rejection of his bid on two police cars,
<br />November 28. He said that since his bid was the only one that
<br />met specifications, he felt Jack Hughes Ford, Inc. should have
<br />been awarded the bid. He stated he did not think it fair, now
<br />that his firm had "shown its hand" by making a bid, to cal I for
<br />new bids: Alderman Froh asked if the Cal I far Bid had carried
<br />the provi~ion, "The City reserVeS the right to reject any or
<br />all bids". The City Manager said it had.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />The Mayor said the meeting had been called to discuss the City's
<br />financi~1 obi igations to the ,Urban Renewal Agency, for work
<br />done in Chautauqua Hi I I Project. He said City Manager Wolff
<br />would give the report. Urban Renewal Agency Executive Director
<br />JimT. Brown was present to give any information needed from
<br />the Agency. The City Manager said research had been done to
<br />develop all available items of information on the background
<br />of the City's participation in ~he Urban Renewal Project.
<br />He rev i ewed, the Counc i I Minutes ofApr j I 12, 1965, when the
<br />Engineer's estimate of $32,750 as the City's share was presented.
<br />A Resol ut i on was passed at, that meet i ng, accept'; ng the
<br />estimate, an~ reaffirMing the City's prior commitment to partici-
<br />pate in the Project. Mr. Wolff explained that, at. that date,
<br />none of the work had been done, and the City had not, therefore,
<br />heen bil led for any part of the $32,750. The City~s share of
<br />the cost of the work completed now is $17,174.58 (see Proposal II
<br />in attached report). Amount City owes at this time, he said, IS
<br />$5,812.12."
<br />
<br />A corrected statement In the amount of $5,688.97 was later
<br />submitted to the City by the Urban Renewal Agency.
<br />
|