09/09/1920 Board of Public Works Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

_ems J irzadm-�r '.�''wrt,�mi�sm Ot.i� 'l�7t1 , i 7W f Board met in, special session at 9: 00 A.M. All members present. This being the special meeting ad'jcurned from -September Ist. ,'1920 to consider the awarding of the contract on Walnut Street pavement from Sample Street to -Indiana Avenue, wider Improvement Resolution No. '803 ° Attorney A.. Wolfe ,represent ing Sanders' & Egbertt, property owners, en ,Walnut Street appeared with 'Harry Sanders of Sanders Egbert Cd. and Attorney Wolfe filed with the: Board a written petition for. proposed sput tracks a cross Walnut Street and that paving of Walnut Street be postponed uhtit;propss°ed spur track across Walnut Street and, the making of the connection t'here'ef with: said Ind: Tana Northern *a ilway Company. John F. ,De' Haven stated his pos ition, is as follows: That pavement should not be built until all rdilroad sidetacks or _.swititches contemplated to cross said st eet should be designated and if possible be installed before work of paving street is, begun. Pet it ion f il-ed 1py Att or racy A. Wolfe for Sanders. & Egbert Co. this 9th. flay of. September 1920 was,,then ever -ruled by.H. F.-_Res-tiser .axed G. A. Elliott John F.. De Haven., deal inixg to vete to ever -rule said, petition. Contract for pavement of Walnut Street from Sample Street to North line of Indiana Avenue was then awarded to the Williston Construction ud ing Trinidad Y' turaal Lake. Asphalt at a ontr a,et price of $45, I23. O0 award made at 9: 55, A.M. U. A. Elliott, and. H. ". Rostiser voting for said improvement and John. 'F. De Haven voting no: and obje eting to letting said. contract for reasona stated heretofore. The following objections stated to the Board orally by Attorney A. Wolfe for Sanders and Egbert. ° lt That said improvement is not required by the public heed, or 2. That the cost of theproposed improvement would be excessive considering the character and nature of the real estate to be assessed. 3. That the cost of the same will exceed thebenef its to the real estate to be assessed. 4. That the Board of Public Works has no legal authority to award' the contract as the time for signing same has expired. 5. Objections that contract has not been executed. 6. Atty. Wolfe stated I make these objections on Sept. 9th. ,1920 at 10:07 A.M. 6. That at the time of the final award of the contract all the pro- perty owners on Walnut Street present at the session/of the Board protested against the letting of said contract. for tharea on. given above 1, 2,3, 4,5 and that no property owners were present asking for it. H. F. Rostiser of the Board stated he would be willing to make an order that if the contract was not completed in time specified that the Board should not grant any extensions of time. Same agrad _ on verbally by the Board. r i.