Laserfiche WebLink
175 <br /> May 1,1985 <br /> usefulness. They x t designed E f the o traffic that i <br /> traveling o them e eB disputed that B n had not <br /> reap n <br /> responded i connection with any problem thefranchise. They <br /> have always responded to any notice from the city that there is a <br /> problem with t ridge Bsaid <br /> they a willing t eapond to eel, <br /> reasonable r taking c f a bridges a e felt the <br /> city should get 9the federal money so they could proceed. Balso <br /> said the revocation of this ordinance would not be upheld by the <br /> president Stephenson said he felt the city has atrack <br /> record o <br /> O <br /> sitting down with a any When t n <br /> roblem,o o <br /> soting <br /> until a solution isr hew and a months a thequestion stion had <br /> been asked if t council should not get into these negotiations and <br /> at r <br /> that t things w a going well ea it was felt it should be <br /> continued by t inistation. a felt it was important to the <br /> City of a eanddt Burlington Northern t any action o <br /> ordinance Everett <br /> s tabled for a period o less than 90 days and„he <br /> t kedrk Counciwith lman <br /> Pope and <br /> sid hn and thewould <br /> i lalike s to be involved himself, <br /> iate <br /> ettlement first and foremost [ replace ay tthe t bridges thto athave <br /> deteriorated t a point where they to <br /> sable at full strength <br /> and said he would make a motion to that effect. Councilman tMorrow <br /> seconded the motion,ak <br /> Mayo[ Moore asked that the balance of the testimoney from the <br /> railway company be heard before taking any such action. <br /> President Stephenson Said he felt it wasroper to ask the council <br /> to adopt a ordinance e[this importance rwithout having the council <br /> get into the negotiations end called for the roll on the motion. <br /> Roll was called with all councilmen voting yea except Councilmen <br /> Gipson,Overstreet and Michelson who voted no. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> COUncilman Overstreet eueationed what was tabled inasmuch a there <br /> had been no motion o he ordinance and Councilman Gipson asked that <br /> the railway company be allowed to testify before taking any action. <br /> Maya[Moore asked the question of mr.Eubanks as to <br /> ownership E <br /> o the <br /> bridges and he replied the railway o hand <br /> the Mayo[ then <br /> red as to why they had n maintained theminstead of waiting <br /> Ds <br /> ora request to repair from the city. <br /> Glen aaridge Engineer for Burlington N said they have <br /> always responded t make repairs w the city Northern, <br /> requested this <br /> d in answering a question o council <br /> il a when this started,he <br /> s e <br /> said his r show 1983. said they were not disputing there <br /> is deterioration on the bridges. <br /> Councilman Overstreetthen asked about inspections and Mr. Maud <br /> replied Burlington Northern makes an annual inspection o <br /> bridge that ca nes railroad or vehicular traffic railroads wand <br /> condition rts prior to 1983 indicated the bridge x sufficient <br /> tcarry the design load for which 1t x In other <br /> words the bridge was capable of carrying traffic that would have <br /> used it in 1900. <br />