Laserfiche WebLink
MID]tJTES <br />City Counci.l <br />Peb. 13, 7.9£35 <br />Awarcl ~3i.c1 <br />Por Imp. <br />Plo. 83-27 <br />Agenda <br />Item No. 5 <br />The City received the followi.ng bids for Improvement No. 83-27: <br />Shafer Construction $200,858.70 <br />klardrives, Inc. ?277,651.63 <br />Frattalone I:xcavar_i.ng $21£3, 136.45 <br />Ashbach Constr.uction ~24H,71.4.60 <br />i~ury A Carison ~263,911.14 <br />t3ar.ber. Construction $271,71?..f3£3 <br />Alexander Constructi.on $249,91£3.24 <br />ilidwest Pavi.np, & Recyciing $?_3A,210.97. <br />7'o~oer Asphal.t ~225,027.30 <br />Total Asphal.t ~230,595.80 <br />Arndt Construction $724,115.44 <br />The Engineer recommended that the lo~v bi.d of: ShaEer Construction be <br />awarded. <br />~r. ColJ.ova introduced the £ollowi.np, resoluti.on and moved i.ts adoption: <br />Rr50I,UTION N0. 85-2-54 - ACCFPTING TIIF RIDS <br />POR IMP. N0. 83-27, COUN'LRY DRIV13 STATT AID <br />IMP. S. A. P. 1_00-101-03, ANp AWAI2DING TIIE <br />33ID TO SHAFER CONSTRUCTION <br />The f.oregoi.ng re>oluttion was dul.y seconded by Mr. 131esener. <br />Ayes (4) ColJ.ova, Ellesener, Tahey, Scalze. <br />A]ayes (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />Thi.s resoluti.on appear.s i.n Resol.ution I3ook No. 1?_, Page 53. <br />Woodl.yn Ave. Mr. Pahey reported that the rai.lr.oad would be ~oill.i.ng tc se11 some <br />tJpda[e of i.ts ri.ght-of-way to the City Eor additi.onal. access into the <br /> Woodlyn Avenue area, but they want fair market value f.or the <br />Agenda property. Also, they do not want to be assessed for any improvement. <br />Item No. 6 P4r. Pahey aslced iL :i.C woul<1 be possi.ble to trade-off. the property <br /> needed in return f.or not assessi.np, the rai.lroad. <br />The Pngineer replied that in his experience any time a rai.lroad i.s <br />assessed for an i.mprovement, they appeal the assessment:. The P:np.,i.neer <br />also stated that fr.om a practical standpoi.nt, the railroad would not <br />be benefited f:rom tk~e improvement. The Engineer also stated that <br />rai.lroads do not gi.ve up land cvi.thout expecti.ng somethi.ng i.n re.turn. <br />Mr. Pahey sCated that then the cost of: the easement purchase would <br />be assessed baclc against the benefited property owners. <br />The Enp,ine.er stated that the road can be put i.n wi.thout gettl.ng any <br />property f.rom the rai.lroad anct without hurti.ng A. C. I31ack. The <br />roaci wi11 be in the same ].ocati.on that it i.s today. The paving <br />Page -5- <br />