1988-02-18 SPM60
A Special Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger was held
on February 18, 1988, at the Town Hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Town of
Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York.
Supervisor Paino opened the meeting at 9:05 P.M.
Present:
Irene Paino, Supervisor
Vincent Farina, Councilman
David Reis, Councilman
Constance Smith, Councilwoman
Robert Valdati, Councilman
Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk
The Supervisor requested all present to join in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
Supervisor Paino called a Special Meeting for Thursday, February 18,
1988 at 8:30 P.M. for the purpose of consideration of adoption of a
positive declaration on the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan,'
pursuant to SEQR regulations; direction to Saratoga Associates regarding
Tri -Municipal and consideration of awarding bids for Highway Material.
These items would be the only matters before the Town Board at this
meeting. Notice was sent to all Board Members on February 11, 1988,
calling said meeting on the day and time so specified, also sent to the
news media and posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board on the same day.
Referring to the positive declaration, Mrs. Paino stated that this was
a normal procedure for all actions under SEQR.
MRS. PAINO moved to accept the positive declaration on the Wastewater
Treatment Facility Plan and notify the Attorney to the Town to circulate
this document to all involved and interested agencies.
Seconded by Mr. Reis
Motion Unanimously Carried
Correspondence was received from Saratoga Associates dated February 5,
1988 seeking direction from the Board relative to preparing the
Environmental Impact Statement on the three alternates presented in
the Plan. For the benefit of those present not familiar with the Plan,
Mrs. Paino outlined the three alternates the Town would be considering
to comply with a mandate from the Department of Environmental Conservation
to upgrade the Oakwood Knolls Sewer Treatment Plant. They included:
building a new plant at the existing site at Oakwood Knolls which would
service Wappinger Sewer Improvement Area #1; the placement of a wastewater
facility plant on the lower regions of the Wappinger Creek, and the third
61
would be for the Town to tie into Tri -Municipal. There will be no
decison on these alternates made at this meeting; the intent is to
respond to Saratoga Associates' request for direction, particularly
regarding the third alternate on tying into Tri -Municipal. The first
item for their consideration was a request for information on ownership
of trunk lines and pumping facilities.
MRS. PAINO moved to establish a Town Policy, that in the event the
Town chooses the alternate to tie into Tri -Municipal, all trunk lines
and pumping facilities that are put into place be under the ownership
of the Town of Wappinger.
Seconded by: Mr. Reis
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Aye
Mr. Reis Aye
Mrs. Smith Abstain
Mr. Valdati Aye
Mrs. Paino Aye
Motion Carried
Mrs. Paino explained, prior to the vote, that her reason for this motion
was that the residents who would be expending money for this project,
if the Town decides to go with Tri -Municipal, retain ownership of the
lines (through the Town as their representatives).
Mrs. Smith stated that she could not vote as she had no knowledge of
the matter. Although Mrs. Paino had copied the Board on the letter from
Saratoga Associates regarding their requests for direction in certain
matters, neither Mrs. Smith nor Mr. Valdati had received the communication.
Mr. Valdati was familiar with the subject, having discussed it previously
with the Engineer, and therefore voted for it.
The second item referred to the design, construction and operation of
the trunk lines and the pumping facility.
MRS. PAINO moved that the design, construction and operation of the
trunk lines and pumping facility be under the purview of the Town of
Wappinger for the same reason stated above.
Seconded by: Mr. Reis
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Aye
Mr. Reis Aye
Mrs. Smith Abstain
Mr. Valdati Abstain
Mrs. Paino Aye
Motion Carried
62
Again, neither Mrs. Smith nor Mr. Valdati had received this corres-
pondence and they were not familiar with it. Mr. Valdati preferred
that they put off this vote to a future time to allow them to peruse
the material and be able to vote intelligently. Mrs. Paino felt it
was very important to move along with this matter as time was of the
essence and Saratoga Associates needed this direction from the Board
in order to move along with the E.I.S. Actually there was no actual
information forwarded to the Board, but rather the itemized questions
posed by Saratoga Associates which they needed answers to. Mrs. Paino
pointed out that this firm was hired over a year ago to prepare the
E.I.S. on the three alternates included in the Wastewater Treatment
Facilities Plan and many discussions have been held on the matter,
so the Board should all be familiar with these questions that have
been presented. Mr. Valdati still felt that information should have
been provided to all Board Members since it was such an important
matter.
MRS. PAINO moved to adjourn the meeting for ten minutes for a discussion
with Mr. Bristol, representative from Saratago Associates, to familiarize
the Board Members who requested further information on the matter at
hand.
Seconded by Mr. Reis
Motion Unanimously Carried
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
The meeting resumed at 9:35 P.M. and all five Board Members were present.
Mrs. Snowden reviewed the vote that transpired prior to the adjournment
of the meeting, noting that Mrs. Smith and Mr. Valdati abstained; Mr.
Valdati interrupted at this point to state that there was no abstention
from him on that vote ---he moved to table it. He continued his comments
and pointed out that he just received this information five minutes ago
and still preferred to table the vote. He was not an engineer, he
stated but did have one at his disposal and he would not want to commit
the Town to a direction which could involve million of dollars. He
wanted a day or two to do the proper research and Mr. Bristol indicated
to them, during the adjournment, that two days would not impede the
process, so why not take the time to let him digest the information,
contact the proper sources for further opinion. Some of this material
has never been discussed at meetings or at any work shops held on
Tri -Municipal.
63
Mr. Valdati moved to table action on this item.
Mrs. Paino referred to the motion already on the floor and asked for
a repeat of the vote. She agreed that two days would not impede the
process, but as Mr. Bristol indicated, a week or two delay would impede
the process, and went on to point out that the Town of Wappinger, as of
two administrations ago, in July of 1985, has been under court order
from the D.E.C. to proceed with a schedule to update the Oakwood Knolls
Sewer Treatment Plant. If such schedule is not adhered to, they will
resort to costly fines to the Town for non compliance. She then
referred to the two questions addressed which, she pointed outj were not
a matter for an opinion from an attorney or an engineer, but merely a
matter of common sense. If the Town should decide on the Tri -Municipal
alternate, it would seem appropriate that the Town should own the
trunk lines and pumping facilities, not the Tri -Municipal Commission,
and the same is true for the second question, the design, construction
and operation of the trunk lines and pumping facility should be under
the purview of the Town of Wappinger. She reiterated that it is a
matter of logic and common sense. Mr. Valdati's reply to that was that
you need an engineering background to determine if it is to the Town's
advantage to design or to own or to operate or install the lines.
There should be no problem to put the vote off for a day or two and da
the proper review and then vote. Her common sense might have been
working on this for quite awhile but he just received it in the conference
room a few minutes ago and he has a problem with it. Mr. Farina joined
the discussion and understood Mr. Valdati's concerns, however, on the
matter of these questions put to the Board by Saratoga Associates, he,
as Co-chairman of Water and Sewer Committee may have a slight advantage
of having dealt with this subject for the last three years. He has
followed the situation very closely and as previously pointed out by
Mrs. Paino, back in 1985 we were under court order to remedy the sewer
treatment plants and he was present at public hearings at the previous
Town Hall. These very issues have been surfacing during the three years;
he has met with the Tri -Municipal Commission for various discussions
on the subject matter. The Town Clerk informed him when asked that they
could meet as a Board at a Special Meeting as early as tomorrow as long
as she had the information to telephone to the news media. In all
fairness to Mr. Valdati, he did not think he could digest all the
information that he has stored during the last three years, in one day.
64
As far as the two items they have addressed he agrees with the
Supervisor that ownership of the construction and operation of lines
and pumping stations within the Town of Wappinger would be in the best
interest of the Town for them to own them. Mrs. Smith, on the other
hand, did not agree that it took only only common sense to determine
the ownership of the trunk lines and she resented a previous statement
made by Mrs. Paino that she should do her homework ---she does do the
homework if she gets the material to study. Mr. Reis added that one
cannot attend a Town Board meeting without being prepared and, it is a
subject that has been foremost for the duration of this administration
and therefore should be studied and questions should be asked if a
Board Member knew it would be on the Agenda and had no knowledge of it.
That was the reason Mrs. Smith was abstaining on the issue. Mr. Reis
felt they should come down hard on Tri -Municipal; the Supervisor has
been sending letters to them for the last year requesting information
and meetings and they have refused. The items on the list are very
important to him as he has spent a lot of time during the last 2i years
addressing the situation. His suggestion was to approve the items
as presented in the motions. Mr. Valdati repeated his concerns and
persisted in his efforts to table action for a day or so since, as
previously stated by Mr. Bristol, it would not impede the process.
There's money involved and taxpayers to consider and this material
should not have been promulgated during a recess in a conference room
and it should be given the gravity it is due. He repeated his motion
to table, which was seconded by Mrs. Smith and asked for a vote.
Although Mr. Reis suggested that while the professionals were present,
Mr. Paggi and Mr. Bristol, they should take each item separately and
have it explained, Mr. Valdati again moved to table action. This was
his due as Councilman representing thousands of people and he considered
such action the only logical way to go. Mrs. Paino reiterated the
history of this matter, noting that Mr. Valdati has been on the Board
for over a year and has attended a Public Hearing on the matter and
listened to a presentation from the Engineer. A motion is on the floor
and as the Supervisor of this Town and representing over 28,000 people
she wished to have her say and itemized the three alternates included
in the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Plan noting that the correspondence
in the back of the report between Tri -Municipal and the Town refers to
the specific question of who should own the lines, the Town's position
65
and Tri -Municipal's position regarding their stand; this is not the
first time these matters have come up, they have been discussed many
times and the Board Members have had a copy of this report for their
perusal at the time of its submission by the Engineer. Going back to
the time schedule, Mrs. Paino said it was imperative that they did not
onkey around" with this. She reiterated that they were not new
questions and called for a roll call vote on the motion on the floor
relating to the design, construction and operation of the trunk lines
and pumping facility being under the purview of the Town of Wappinger.
The vote was as stated previously and the motion was carried.
Mrs. Snowden reiterated the vote on Item B, which she assumed was
abstention by Mrs. Smith and Mr. Valdati and the other members voting
"Aye". Mr. Valdati had earlier objected to the record showing an
abstention, therefore Mrs. Snowden assumed he wished to vote "Nay".
Mr. Valdati said if he could not have the action tabled then he would
abstain on the motion in front of them. The record, therefore, shows
that he abstained on Item B.
Mrs. Paino went on to Item D which reads: "If Commission membership
is not feasible, what would be the desired length of time on an agree-
ment between the Town and the Tri -Municipal Sewer Commission in becoming
a customer of the Tri -Municipal facility". It was Mrs. Paino's opinion
that this should be discussed during negotiations between the Town and
Tri -Municipal.
Item C had been overlooked and pertained to level of interest or
necessity (if any) of joining (i.e., becoming a voting member) of
the Tri -Municipal Sewer Commission and any problems foreseen in
obtaining this status. Mrs. Paino did not feel that any problems
existed on attaining this status and it therefore would not have to
be tabled. The Attorney has made them aware that if the Town is
interested in rejoining Tri -Municipal, there will have to be a
referendum and he will handle this with Saratoga Associates if and
when this decision is reached. Mrs. Paino referred the first portion
of this item regarding the level of interest or necessity of joining
the Tri -Municipal Commission to Mr. Bristol for explanation.
Mr. Bristol noted that the interest in asking this question is that
when they addressed the three options, they were aware and he was
sure all involved parties were aware that this is not a situation
where you can decide to do nothing. They really must handle the
66
the problems that have been cited by the D.E.C. or face substantial
penalties for not dealing with them. Tri -Municipal is certainly one
of the valid options that's being considered and they have made their
position very clear as stated in Mr. Paggi's report and other corres-
pondence in Town files. It could be that the Board feels this, too,
will be handled during negotiations and this will be an acceptable
response. Saratoga Associates can then say these are the positions
that have been stated; they will analyze the replacement of the
impo Oakwood Knolls facility directly on the site and on the Reese facility.
They will note on each and every one the options of the various issues
that the Board will have to decide on in a very few months.
Mr. Valdati had previously moved to table both Item C and D, and
asked that the motion be considered. Mrs. Paino reiterated the motion
which was to table a decision on whether or not the Town would be
interested in becoming a member of the Tri -Municipal Commission, if
the Town goes that way. This matter has been discussed previously and
is included in Mr. Paggi's report along with other correspondence in
the back of the report. If the Town is not on the Commission they have
no say, no voting power, so in view of this fact, she felt it would
behoove the Town to be in a position to voice their opinions and be a
voting member.
MR. VALDATI moved to table action on Item C regarding the Town becoming
a voting member of the Tri -Municipal Sewer Commission.
Seconded by: Mrs. Smith
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Nay
Mr. Reis Nay
Mrs. Smith Aye
Mr. Valdati Aye
Mrs. Paino Nay
Motion Defeated
MRS. PAINO moved that the Town of Wappinger become a voting member of
the Tri -Municipal Sewer Commission, if they decide to choose that
alternate.
Seconded by: Mr. Reis
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Aye
Mr. Reis Aye
Mrs. Smith Abstain
Mr. Valdati Abstain
Mrs. Paino Aye
Motion Carried
Going back to Item D "If commission membership is not feasible,
what would be the desired length of time of an agreement between the
Town and the Tri -Municipal Sewer Commission in becoming a "customer"
of the Tri -Municipal facility"?
MRS. PAINO moved that this is not the proper time to agree on a time
frame for such contract; it will be part of the negotiations in the
event we enter into them.
Seconded by: Mr. Reis
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Aye
Mr. Reis Aye
Mrs. Smith Abstain
Mr. Valdati Abstain
Mrs. Paino Aye
Motion Carried
67
Item E --- "Relating to D, above, what other conditions are presently
considered critical toward negotiating an agreement between the Town
and Tri -Municipal"?
MRS. PAINO moved that this item be handled at the time of negotiations,
if we enter into them.
Seconded by: Mr. Reis
Roll Call Vote:
Mr. Farina Aye
Mr. Reis Aye
Mrs. Smith Abstain
Mr. Valdati Abstain
Mrs. Paino ye
Motion Carried
Mrs. Goldberg was recognized by the Chair and asked if the Town does
own the lines, then they are obviously responsible, however, if the
Town does not own the lines and there are problems on maintenance or
whatever, is the Town still responsible or is Tri -Municipal responsible.
Her question was directed to Mr. Bristol, however, he referred it to
Mr. Paggi who responded that whichever agency owned the lines, be it
Town of Wappinger or Tri -Municipal, they would be responsible for the
operation and maintenance of that facility, whether it be the lines
or the pumping facility or the treatment facility. Her next question
was if the Town owned them and Tri -Municipal was putting them in,
could that be part of the contract. Mr. Paggi responded that his
opinion on that is public record in his report and that is that the
Town should design, construct, operate and maintain the lines within
the legal boundaries of the Town of Wappinger.
68
Mr. Reis added that Tri -Municipal wants the Town to pay for the lines
to be put in and then turn them over to the Commission.
Mr. Farina's concern is that in the event the marriage between the
Town of Wappinger and the Tri -Municipal Commission (if this were to
come about) were to end up in a divorce, we own nothing in the Town,
no laterals. The Commission would force us to buy back what we have
already paid for and that is a situation he would not want to see the
Town in.
Mr. Hirkala joined in the discussion and he, too, had the concerns
expressed by Mrs. Goldberg and Mr. Farina; actually we wouldn't own
anything as residents of the Town; the Commission is really in control,
it would be worse if we were tenants. To him that would be the worst
possible situation. Another concern is that it sounds to him from the
questions posed tonight that it seems to be a foregone conclusion that
the right way to go would be Tri -Municipal.
Mrs. Paino clarified this statement, as she had stated earlier in the
meeting that they were just answering questions that Saratoga Associates
asked in order to help them with the preparation of the Environmental
Impact Statement. The Town contracted with them to do the E.I.S. on
the three alternates and the information is required to do the job
properly. Mr. Bristol added that the other two options are entirely
within the Town and they have good access and extremely satisfactory
response to their questions from the Engineer and the Attorney on the
issues relating to the Town. They have just begun to have meetings
with Tri -Municipal and they are not really sure just what discussion
points they are coming to and for the first time they are outside of
the area of the Town's consultants and officials. They felt they
should have some parameters when commencing their talks with the
Tri -Municipal people.
Mr. Reis added his input that he would like to have these questions
answered and included in the E.I.S. and the Town's position clearly
stated so the knowledge is available if we deal with Tri -Municipal.
The more information we can obtain on the three alternates is beneficial
to the Town Board and to the residents of the Town.
69
The next item for the Board's consideration was awarding the bids for
highway materials which were opened on the 12th of February, 1988.
The Highway Superintendent had forwarded a Bid Report to the Board
Members which is attached hereto and made part thereof of the Minutes
of this meeting.
Mrs. Snowden noted that in most cases the Highway Superintendent has
recommended the low bid; in others he has recommended accepting all
the bids for the convenience of having the material available when
he needs it. He recommended that the one bid for Salt be rejected
and the County bid be accepted.
Mrs. Smith noted that there was some confusion in the bids for Gasoline
and Diesel Fuel. The bid from Bottini in both instances quotes an
amount plus taxes, the bid from Agway is higher but does not indicate
whether the taxes are included are not. Municipalities, she pointed
out, are no longer exempt from gross receipt tax. The Highway
Superintendent recommended the bid for Gasoline and Diesel Fuel be
awarded to Agway Petroleum although it did not appear that they were
the low bidder; further clarification was needed on these two bids.
MRS. SMITH moved to table awarding the bids on Gasoline and Diesel
Fuel for further information from the Highway Superintendent.
Seconded by Mr. Farina
Motion Unanimously Carried
MR. VALDATI moved to award the remainder of the Highway Material Bids
as recommended by the Highway Superintendent.
Seconded by Mrs. Smith
Motion Unanimously Carried
MRS. PAINO moved to close the Special Meeting, seconded by Mr. Reis
and unanimously carried.
The meeting closed at 10:15 P.M.
Spl. Mtg. 2/18/88
Elaine H. Snowden
Town Clerk
L
GASOLINE
Per
Per
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
1988 BID REPORT
AGWAY PETROLEUM
gallon, regular .5675
gallon, unleaded .5575
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Regular
be awarded to Agway Petroleum Corporation.
FUEL OIL
VINCE'S
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7. 88
SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
BOTn11Ii OF WAPPINGER
.5496 + taxes
.5496 + taxes
and Unleaded Gasoline
Per gallon #2 .5490
Burner Contract 60.00 + parts
The Superintendent recommends the bid for #2 Fuel Oil
Vince's Fuel Oil Service.
DIESEL FUEL
BOTTINI
.5650
95.00
be awarded to
AGWAY PETROLEUM BOTTINI
Per Gallon :: _.6367 .5750 + taxes
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Diesel Fuel be awarded to
Agway Petroleum Corporation.
BITUMINOUS CONCRETE
1A Top
LAC Top
1A Binder
2A Binder
lA Base
cold Mix
DUTCHESS
QUARRY
$ 26.40
26.40
26.40
26.40
26.40
34.00
SPOOR-
LASHER
$ 26.65
26.65
26.65
26.65
26.65
N.B.
PACKAGE
PAVEMENT
$ 28.50
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
34.00
AMENIA
S & G
$ 26.00
26.25
26.00
25.75
26.00
33.00
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Bituminous Concrete, Hot Mix,
be awarded to Spoor-Lasher, Dutchess Quarry and Amenia S & G.
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Bituminous Concrete, Cold Mix,
be awarded to Package Pavement, Dutchess Quarry and Amenia S & G.
SALT..
Per ton
The Superintendent
bid be accepted.
INTERNATIONAL SALT
$ 34.00 (FOB Newburgh, 5 ton minimum)
36.01 (Delivered, 22 ton minimum)
recommends the Salt bid be rejected and the County
GUARD RAIL
Per Section $
Per Terminal
Per Post
BRIGHTON
39.80
15.00
22.75
The Superintendent recommends
Chemung Supply Corporation.
TIRES & TUBES (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends that the bid from Queen City
be rejected and the State Bid be accepted.
CULVERT PIPE (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends the bid for
be awarded to Brighton Steel Company; the
to Leonard Concrete Pipe Company.
CRUSHED STONE (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends_the bid. for_ Crushed
Blacktop Maintenance Company.- _
1988 Town of WaDninger Bid Report (cont,)
ESP
$ 42.00
23.50
23.75
the bid for
CHEMUNG
$ 34.97
14.44
20.24
Guard Rail be
CAPITOL
$ 35.00
15.25
20.25
awarded to
Tire Center
Corrugated Metal Coated Pipe
bid for Concrete Pipe be awarded
Stone be awarded to
RUN OF BANK GRAVEL (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Run of Bank Gravel be awarded
to Red Wing Properties.
WASHED GRAVEL (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Washed Gravel by awarded to
Dutchess Quarry and Red Wing Properties.
SAND (see attached analysis)
The Superintendent recommends the bid for Sand be awarded to Red Wing
Properties.
TIRES (NYLON) _..
5-4 ply_ tubeless _ -
B X 15-4 ply tubeless traction
TIRES AND TUBES
TRE CENTrR
34►.
or
0 X 16-6 ply .tube -type 34.5
o X 16-6 ply.tube-type traction 34._85
0 X 16-6 ply `tube -type traction /1.8.
p0 X 16-6 ply » tube -type `4 3. !a
50 X 16-8 ply:tube-type traction 99,96
lb
50 X 20_% ply:tube-type
25.X 20-10 ply tube -type
25 X 20-10 ply.tube-type traction
25 X 20-12 •ply tube -type
•
' 20-12 ply tube -type traction
20-10 ply tube -type /c3,y9
300 X 20-10 ply tube -type traction
900 X 20-12 ply tube -type
900 X 20-12 ply tube -type traction
000 X 20-12 ply truck type
000 X 20-14 ply truck type
000 X 20-12 ply truck type ,.taction
000 X 20-14 ply truck type traction
_100 ?: 20-12 ply truck type
1100 X 20-12 ply truck type traction
iY
't X -) F=Y 7 ab ..t�S
f Db. ES
/az .t9
f 110,7.,
1441.36
/4O,9l
153,78
! 39.92.
f$.i3
!416. Ss
19'81 BID RZPORI
UCr TUBES
16 Truck and Bus Tubes --
0 X 16 Truck and Bus Tubes
0 X 16 Truck and Bus Tubes
5 X 20 Truck and Bus Tubes
D X 20 Truck and Bus.Tubes
D X 20 Truck and Bus Tubes
D X 20 Truck and Bus Tubes
•
ACTOR TIRES •
4'" cm:
TIRE csweR
L X 16-14 ply 128,30
. 9 X 24-6 ply rear 246,70
. 9 X 24-8 ply - 30b, S+l
►R TUBES
24 Par Service Tubes
. 9 1.24 :arm Service Tubes
THE ROAD TIDES
. 5 X 25-12 ply Nylon Tubeless Loader
. 5 X 25-12 ply Nylon Tubeless Loader
JO X 24-12 ply Nylon Grader Tube -type
JO X 24-12 ply Nylon Grader Tubeless
JO X 24 Tractor Grader Tube
:D SERVICE
35 pea NouK.
aa.Ss'
BO, 5S*
330,20
6%$,4 3
2570.97
a3v,s ,
PEI BID REPoRT
CULVERT PIPE
PER FOOT
IU GATED ESP BR EikER `AP eNc
TAL 1
.2" - 16 ca. 44.3Q
13" - 16 aa. 5.244
L8" - 16 ca. 6.1b
?4" - 14 aa. 4.75
0" - 14 aa. /..38
/4 q0.. ..-
36"
.36" - 12 ca.
I_ 1.27,20
15.01 15,44 10.15 .?0fo
=8" - 12 as APS. u3 07.78 242.75
12. 94 y
30" - 10 aa.( 3S37 37.20 43.E 415.7o
6"- peri. -2.49 1.8(. 1.45. 1.8o
8" Der f. 3.a' 0.39 ?.95 1.cS
PeAc. 3,90 .2.911 3,85 13.38
its,
Cs ,54yr F,,. MA4E 311,NE 1 S Oils
4.13 4,3o 45E '4.17
S,al 5.40 5.75 5.t;.
C..03 b. 4a 6,85 b.l!
1.51. 9,i10 10.(.5 q.s
47.05' l 13.10 /1,93
TONCRETE
PI -PE
12" 2."
5"
8"
71"
'4,,
30"
36"
48"
60"
7.!1
18.97
25.24
31.41
149
2.79
3.vb
19 S8 ETD REPORT
1
BIDDER
Vvicitus3 Cu. Yd. FOB
c ,un any cu.Yd.Dl
Toni FOB!
Tont Del l
CRUSTED STONE WASHED GRAVEL BID REPORT
•i I 1918 I
1" 3" 1" 5" 3" 'Gail Run of Was led 1" 3" 1" 5" - 3" Tall
4 8 2 8 4 1!?' 21/2" ing. Bank Sand 4 8 2 8 4 1!i" 2'i" Inv_
(?!sl) J)iN , Cu. (d. FOB
�
Pn�F�=Rt163 c ff u.Yd.De..
Ton' FOB I
aonI Del
ROUJt: ?) Cu.Yd.FOB I
5+3ND 6RgVtt, Cu.Yd.Del —.
Ton IFOB I
Toni Del ffI
C I.oVE Cu. yd . Fc)B
CAC/WA/bitt Cu.Yd.DJl
Ion I FOB !
run'Dell
O1/ crTOp _ G_'u.Yd. FOB
MI'lrrynL-_7VfNCc Cu.Yd.De1
Ton I FOB
Ton !Del d ?a II.5b /LSD /1.51) //,5b /a 3Y Jc,35 //.00
Cu.Yd.FOB
I
Cu. Yd
:rnii;_Eull
Cu.Yd.FUB
495_ ,•65 845
7,3, 7,30 7,57, 7,.0 /0-(5 _gap IO R.15 AM 1.�S' N.9, N.S. 7,75NVQ IV.Q 7. ,xr
CoPuN
E',tC`av111 N(e
I _
•5.o 8,5o 1,15 a,35 N.6, 4,7s 1.7s gas may, etas
q. #0 I2,.3'0 /has 1,.75 N.B. 13.15 13as I,,7f n.8. I3, is
6.13 14o 7.25 7,00 4.0o 9•'o 9. as 9.o' 9.m Thcv
I I
S1_ 6,.e3 649 5,U 7,33 7. s& 7.51 7..a 75i 6.7J
Moo
430 30 . i3: ,a0, q.9v 119. bz,90 Liao h.Io N, 9. ( /.06 12.73 (.2.45- Ng, N.B, 13.99 II 99 1. 1.4
! 1
lobo /3, Iv l9.IY IV.I" i4•►s Ir.'s r9,ts I(.Ir Stir W,Ir
.Cu .Yd.Del
jonIFOB
Jon IDel
10,'5b
ro.9s II,Bd ,rl,8s II,8tc q,i& 11,48 0.41 Ir,11 ILII
I I(