My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/5/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
10/5/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:20 AM
Creation date
6/3/2015 10:18:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HIS FIGURES SHOW THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT <br />$414,621.00 - $163,000.00 PLUS $251,621.00. THESE FIGURES WERE ARRIVED AT <br />BY ADDING ITEMS 4 AND 5 UNDER ELECTICAL UTILITIES AND THE COST OF RELOCATION <br />OF WATER AND SEWER LINES. <br />MR. LITTLE AGREED. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED AG _ -'T E R IS OM. _. _....ION <br />DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS SOME QUESTION <br />EVEN IF YOU WENT TO CONDEMNATION THAT THE RELOCATION OF THE 36" WATER <br />DISCHARGE LINES AND THE 12" SEWER LINES AND THE RELOCATION OF THE TWO <br />CONDUIT LEFT BANKS WOULD PROBABLY BE COSTS CHARGED AGAINST THE CITY. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE WOULD NOT AGREE. WE HAVE SAID TO THE <br />D.O.T. THAT IF THEY WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY IN WRITING AND HAVE THEIR <br />CONTRACTOR ASSUME IT ALSO, IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT, THEY WOULD THEN PROVIDE <br />THE CITY FOR ANY DAMAGES INCURRED TO THOSE FACILITIES IF LEFT IN THEIR <br />PRESENT LOCATION, WE WOULD LEAVE THEM THERE, BUT WE FEEL THEY SHOULD BE <br />RELOCATED. THE D.O.T. HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO DO THIS AND ABSENT OF THAT <br />AGREEMENT FROM THE D.O.T. WE WANT THEM RELOCATED. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THIS IS ANOTHER LEGAL POINT THAT THE <br />D.O.T. AND THE CITY DO NOT AGREE UPON. THIS WAS DISCUSSED FURTHER, <br />MAYOR SMITH THEN ASKED IF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WOULD <br />GO TO $414,000.00. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT HE FEELS THERE WERE COSTS PRESENTED <br />THAT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED. THE $354000.00 AND $11,020 FOR SALVAGE. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT THE $35,000 COST IS AN ACCOUNTING TRANSACTION. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER QUESTIONED IF EVERYTHING IN THE CORRIDOR <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PART OF THE BRIDGE CONTRACT. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, THE FIGURES <br />GIVEN TODAY BY THE CITY OF $414,621.00 WILL ALL BE ALLOCATED TO THE SITE <br />LOCATION OF THE.BRIDGE. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE SUBJECT OF <br />REDUCTION OF COSTS OF SALVAGE MATERIAL AND SUGGESTED SUBTRACTING THAT AMOUNT <br />FROM THE TOTAL, WHICH WOULD THEN BE $403,621.00. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM RECOMMENDING <br />TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT $11,020.00 DEDUCTION. <br />COUNCILMAN LYONS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT SEEMS TO HIM THAT THE <br />COUNTY IS GETTING ONE WHALE OF A BARGAIN. THE COUNTY HAS ALREADY BOUGHT <br />RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE TWIN PAIRS AT A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY AND IT SADDENS HIM <br />-6- <br />T 51976 <br />6�'Gr 26 ?Agt 4 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.