07/12/10 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REG[JLAI~ M1/TING JULY 12, 2010 192 property for pulalic use. Mr. Masters questioned who will be receiving the deed for the property, whose name it will be in. Mr. Gilot stated. it v,~ould be in the City's name. Attorney Meteiver stated one paa'ce1 will get re-platted and become part of a buildable property for a house and the residual of the property would be anon-buildable parcel. IVIr. Masters questioned who the residual owner would be. Mr. Gilot stated again the City would be. Mr. Master stated liis map showed part of one and most of the other parcel being buildable. He noted there appears to be different drawings; it`s difTicult to ascertain how the division is being requestod. Mr. Gilot stated the Redevelopment C'ornr~lission set out to redevelop the land and uses the Board as it's agent for bidding. AC}G laid out the: conceptual design, and Qanch i-Tamer did the platting inap. The intent is to develop, but the Board of Work"s goal is to build streets, sewers, and all public right-of-way needs. In order to achieve the goal, these parcels must be obtained. Ma-. Gilot noted the intent is to offer two appraisals and assistance in relocating, with no Iinancial loss to the property owners. Board Attorney Cheryl. Greene noted this is not the intent of this I-Tearing; the Board is in rho preliminary stages of the taking via I.C`. ~2-24-2. Mr. Masters stated. the Board is in violation of ]ndiana Code for condemnation by using. the right-of-way statute and skirting the law entitling the owners to 150~'/~, of the value for condemnation. Mr. Meteiver stated the taking; is far dcvc.lopment of the right-of--way, the residual is non--buildable. Even though the street will not cover l Ofl% of the property, it is still an appropriate procedure. Mx-. Inks questioned whether the law requires the City to buy the residual property. Mr. Meteiver stated we also need to acquire the residual at fair' market value. The appraisals we have requested cover the entire area. I-Ie r-oted the damages are not for re~~iew today. Board Attorney Cheryl Greene stated what is treaded today is a motion to confirm or modify Resolution No. 3$-2010.. `T'he next phase is to adapt a resolution for daanages. She noted the pro vision does exist for epninent domain and allows for appeal. Mr. Meteiver started actually the appeal of the award of damages can be done ones they are determined, after the property owner has a chance to remonstrate. Mr. Inks questioned whether the appeal would be through the Courts.. Attorney Meteiver stated it could determine if the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. There being no one else present wishing to address the Board concerning this matter, flee Public 7-gearing was closed.. Therefore, upon a motion ~nadu by Mr. L.itti-ell, seconded by Mr, Inks and carried, the Board voted to confirm Resolution No. 3~3- 2010. APPR+C~~+JE MINUTES QF PREVIOUS MEETING Upon a motion made by Mr. Littrell, seconded by Mr. Inks and cax-ried, the minutes of the Agenda Session, Regular Meeting and' Claims Meeting of the Board held on Juno 21, 2010, June 24, 2,010, June 28, ?010, and July b, 2010 were, approved. GPEI'~ING QF I3I1~S -SALE C7F AB,ANI7[7I~EI] VET-IICLES This was the date set for receiving and opening of sealed bids for the above referred to vehicles. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of Notice in the South Bond Tribune and the Tri- County News, which were fflund to be sufficient. Tl~e following bids were opened aid publicly read: Stove l-Iubler Tcrrv"s Auto Salvage lion Walte~- No. l~cscription. Year Bid Bid Bid 1. Tan Qldsmobile Royale 19$4 ~455.OI1 $1 b5.00 2. ,Blue Ford Taurus 2000 :~:iU5.00 ~28[).ti~0 3. Green Lexus 4-l~r. 1990 $Ii~30,{}0 4. Black Pontiac Bonneville 1995 ~i71).00 S. Brown Ford Pickup - 19$5 $80.00 $I~[).(TO C. Blue Ford F-150 199I $80.U0 S 1$5.00 ~~7$.0%i 7, Gray Pontiac Transpo~'t 1998 $248,U0