11-26-85 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P1INUTFS City Council Nov. 2G, 1985 Little Canada The City Attorney pointed out that Proposal #~3 will come as a surpris~ ftoad Bridge to the people on the north. The City is assuming that they kno}d the Project location of the existing right-of-way. Mr. Blesener stated that this (Cont.) is ~~hat worried. him. The Attorney stated that it is a drastic change in the project, but it ~vi17 save the City money. i4r. [iill Quirin suggested that P4P1 DOT give this project high priority. Van Qerkom stated that it is already a high priority project, but there ar2 a lot of other high priority projects as well. P~r. Fahe,y asked for t'ne City Attorney's recommendation. Mr. S~veeney recommended that the City go with Proposa1 #3 as it ~~as more economical for the City. Fahey felt that it was a no-~vin situation betaieen trying to make t'ne people on the south happy and the people on the north happy. Fahey felt that the City Council will tose either way ancl suqgested that the Council go with the least expensive alternative. Mr. Blesener felt that Proposa1 #2 G~ias more centered between the houses on the north and south. Nardini asked for a rough estimate of hosa much the City could save by going aiith °roposal ~3. The ~lttorney felt that it would be $100,000 less than Alternative ~1. Fahe.y pointed out that Plan #3 is almost exclusivel.y ~aithin the existing right-of-4aay and commented on the delay that would be caused if the City had to go to condemnation. P9r. Van Qerkom suggested that the ~ity show Plan #3 to the property owners. Quirin suggested tnat the ~roperty o~,vners might be in favor of the second proposal than have the extr<a disburbance. Fahey did not feel that the Council ~vas legally required to get the input of the property owners before acting. Fahey pointed out that the Ci'ty can have the project c!one a~ithin existing right-of-wa.y and save the City money. Collova pointeci out that under Proposal 1~3 the City s~ould have to buy three pieces of right-of-way versus 7 under Proposal #?. Scalze asked what condemnation eaould cos't the City. The Attorney rep1ied that it vvould cost attorney's fees and appraisal costs. The City Attorney st.~ggested that the Engineer stake out the existing right-of-svay so that the people can see where it is. Van f~erkom suggested that the curb be staked out as ti•re11. Page -15-