Laserfiche WebLink
MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE COULD NOT SPEAK FOR THE CITY COUNCIL <br />BUT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE TWO ATTORNEYS GET TOGETHER AND WORD THE <br />RESOLUTION IN ANY WAY THAT IS ACCEPTABLE, AND IF THE BOARD WISHES TO <br />HAVE IT CALLED UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS INSTEAD OF SHOWN AS A PURCHASE <br />OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, HE BELIEVED IT COULD BE HANDLED AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL, <br />ATTORNEY CORDISCO SUGGESTED THAT HE AND ATTORNEY COLLINS <br />PREPARE AN AGREEMENT TOGETHER THAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO EACH -SIDE, <br />PRESENT IT TO THE RESPECTIVE BOARDS FOR APPROVAL, AND THEN ADOPT A <br />RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT SAID HE THOUGHT THIS HAD BEEN THE PURPOSE <br />OF THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE BOARD HE HAD <br />REQUESTED. <br />CITY MANAGER LITTLE SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS JUST THE AMOUNT <br />THAT HAD BEEN AGREED UPON AND NOT THE WORDING. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE STATED THAT IT WAS HIS IMPRESSION THAT <br />WHEN THE COUNTY AGREED UPON THE AMOUNT OF $403,600, MAYOR SMITH SAID THE <br />MATTER IS RESOLVED; THE CITY WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL UTILITY RELOCATIONS <br />AND TITLE TO THE BRIDGE RIGHT-OF-WAY.WILL BE GIVEN TO THE COUNTY. HE <br />NOTED THAT HE LIKED THE SUGGESTION OF HAVING THE ATTORNEYS GET TOGETHER <br />AND DRAW UP A RESOLUTION AND HAVE BOTH BODIES SIGN THE SAME RESOLUTION. <br />MR. LITTLE AGREED THERE SHOULD BE AN AGREEMENT THAT SPELLS OUT <br />WHAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND THEN IF A RESOLUTION IS NEEDED, IT CAN <br />BE WRITTEN TO AGREE WITH THE TERMS OF THE iCONTRACT. HE EMPHASIZED <br />AGAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COUNTY SIGNING A NON -REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT <br />AND GIVING THE CITY A CHECK IN ADVANCE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HE FEELS THIS IS A RADICAL <br />DEPARTURE FROM WHAT HAS BEEN MUTUALLY AGREED TO OVER THE LAST FOUR MONTHS. <br />HE NOTED THAT THE COUNTY'S POSITION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THEY WOULD PAY <br />REOLOCATION COSTS NOT TO EXCEED A SET AMOUNT FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES <br />WITHIN A SPECIFIC AREA, AND HE FELT IT WOULD BE VERY IMPRACTICAL FOR THE <br />COUNTY TO GIVE A LUMP SUM PAYMENT WHEN THE ACTUAL RELOCATION COSTS HAVE <br />NOT BEEN DETERMINED AND THE COUNTY COULD NOT VERIFY THAT THE SUMS WERE, <br />IN FACT, SPENT ON THE SITE. <br />MR. LITTLE SUGGESTED AN AGREEMENT COULD BE WORKED OUT SO THAT IT <br />IS AUDITED AFTER THE FACT AS IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE ALL BILLS, <br />ETC., SENT TO THE COUNTY TO BE PAID AND HE WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE US GET <br />32 <br />��M <br />�ti 127 : �3 <br />