12/16/2002 Meeting Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 12-16-02 Page 2 really as much for people in the audience as well as Council, for all of this. We are working on a long-term basis with O.D.O.T., and all editorial comments aside, the fact of the matter is there are certain things that we just cannot dictate and one of them is this part of the timetable that O.D.O.T. is dictating to us. The practical effect is that if we do not have either signed contracts for the respective properties up and down along the S.O.M. corridor for this project, if we don't have contracts signed, then we have to have petitions filed in the Probate Court before the end of the calendar year. That's the deadline that O.D.O.T. has given us in order to be able, then, to proceed to the next step. I think by this point we can appreciate some of the bureaucracy, the red tape, the procedures with O.D.O.T. are cumbersome to say the least. But in order to do what we want them to do, it takes about a few months from that date at the end of this year for bids to go out, for the bid process to be undertaken in the Spring. If the bids are successful at that point, then construction can commence. As it is, we are at least 2 years behind what our original projections were for when actual construction would begin starting at the north end. If we do not meet the deadline, then what O.D.O.T. is telling us is that based on their timetable it would be then until the Fall, probably October (I think, Doug and Doug said yes) that O.D.O.T. would then go out to bid. So we would lose the 6-month period there and then you can pretty well count from that point forward even if bids are successful in the Fall, actual work would not commence until the Spring of 2004. Is that the end of the world? No, it's not the end of the world but at this stage of the game it just seems that there is very little reason for us to look that kind of delay for what we have accomplished this year. Now we have worked very, very diligently. Gerard is here tonight to answer any questions that you all may have. And he can already point to at least two more people who have signed on (one of whom is sitting in the audience in the row in front of him; Wanda Hejcl.) This is a serious process. We have really treated it as personally as we can but we've gotten down to a point where there are now some 14 properties still left to be-to conclude the negotiations. That's a pretty low number when you look at the overall list and especially the progress we've made in the last several weeks. And consistent with what we've done, we want to carry this theme, if you will, through to the end of the year. So what I am asking is that Council put this ordinance on first read tonight. If you have questions that are of a more general nature, fire away. Either Joe can answer them, Gerard can answer certain antidotal information. I would caution, however, and I would request that because we have several of these properties still that are under negotiation (I mean as we are sitting here there are offers out there; there are people who are considering them; we are at various stages there) we want to have a fair opportunity to close as many of these properties as we can before the end of the year. And I had mentioned this at the last meeting but what I am asking for is, leave it on first read for tonight. This way it's out there; it's published; the fact is that the legislation is pending and then I would ask that there be a motion tonight from Council to set up a special meeting 2 weeks from tonight, the 30th of December; at which time we will have the lowest number of properties needed, we believe, that would have to be included as petitions that would be fled the very next day by Joe, by Joe's office, on Tuesday the 315 of December. So, we are literally taking this down to the 1 lth hour. But, again, I feel that it is appropriate. I don't think there's any risk of that because of the way we have been proceeding. I