HOLBROOK — During the Aug. 14 meeting of the Holbrook City Council, the matter of a contract with Apache Railway was addressed. The city utilizes a timber crossing of the railroad that is located north of the levee gate and just north of the Little Colorado River to reach portions of the levee. According to documents provided by Shirley Cornett, superintendent of the Apache Railway, the crossing has degraded and must be repaired or replaced.
Cornett stated that knowing the city uses the crossing the railway is willing to accommodate the city by providing an agreement for repair or replacement costs for the crossing as the railroad itself has no use for it. The costs listed include estimates of $6,545 for repairs and $14,245 for replacement. City Attorney Marlene Pontrelli attended the meeting telephonically and informed the council that she had legal concerns regarding the contract. “There is exposure for unlimited costs to the city and potential liability imposed on the city for acts of negligence by Apache Railway,” she stated.
Pontrelli stated that she reached out to Steve Brophy, president of the Apache Railway, to see if some of those issues could be resolved. “He was adamant that they are really not in a position to negotiate the agreement. He noted that if the City of Holbrook wanted the crossing that’s fine but that for them it’s really more trouble than it’s worth.”
She elaborated that there was no upward cap listed on the agreement. “For example, if it stated that the amount was not to exceed $5,000 a year or some other amount that would be reasonable but there is no cap. So if they get in there and look at it and find they can’t repair it, they have to replace the crossing and although they’ve given an estimate of $14,000, if the replacement should now be $30,000, the city would have exposure for that.”
She said it also puts the responsibility on the city even if Apache Railway damages the crossing and that damage in turn causes loss of life or property.
Councilman Adam Marsh expressed his concern over the matter stating that unless the council and staff felt otherwise, the city should “cut the tie” and let Apache Railroad remove the crossing.
City Clerk Cher Reyes contacted levee supervisor Tim Kelley via phone to ask if there would be other options to reaching the levee other than crossing the railroad at that location. According to Kelley, there is no other option as the BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) railroad would have to be crossed otherwise and if they did not deal with Apache Railroad, they would have to deal with BNSF railroad, which could be even more challenging.
The council as a whole agreed it was far too costly to be involved in. The contract required that the city sign the agreement by the following day, which concerned the council. Reyes explained that the contract had been placed on the agenda previously but that Randy Sullivan, in his capacity as city manager at the time, tabled it in order to obtain input from legal council. Pontrelli had gone on vacation after that and those matters delayed the contract being brought before the council until this meeting.
Councilman Tim Dixon suggested building a pre-fabricated bridge that would extend over the train to the other side of the levee. But was informed that wouldn’t be a viable option as trucks and graders need to access that area.
After a lengthy discussion, the council determined to table a decision on the contract until a special meeting that was held on Monday, Aug. 20. It was requested that Kelley be at the meeting and a determination be made as to if there are any other options to accessing the levee. Pontrelli was asked to inform Brophy that the item will be addressed at that meeting and a decision made on the contract at that time.
The council also heard a request from Clifton Lewis to either lease or purchase the easement behind the Wigwam Motel on Hopi Drive, which he owns, in order to provide landscaping. The easement is along Joy Nevin Avenue and includes utilities access. No agreement was prepared for the meeting, as Reyes wanted the council’s decision on whether they would prefer a purchase or lease.
Dixon expressed concerns that a plan for what type of landscaping was not included, citing that he did not want to see it filled with junk vehicles. Reyes stated that she didn’t think he would want to do that to the historic Wigwam Motel.
Regardless, Dixon said he wanted to see a landscape proposal at the next meeting. Councilman Adam Marsh stated, “My preference would be to just enter into an agreement with him with the understanding that we need to keep these easements available for utilities and that he might submit a plan. I’d rather do that then sell it with stipulations. I think we should have faith in our new code enforcement officer that he doesn’t fill it with trash and garbage.”
Councilwoman Francie Payne agreed, “If someone wants to improve it, I think we should be behind them. Councilman CJ Wischmann felt that the council should let Lewis just go ahead and landscape the area rather than delay it as one more item for the council to address at a later date. “What harm could it be to just enter into an agreement? I know Mr. Lewis and I know he’s never done anything bad. He’s obviously willing to improve the area.”
Marsh agreed with Wischmann. “This is one of the things we addressed in my interview (for city council) is to encourage people to do the right thing and to provide good examples and this is a good opportunity.”
Dixon stood firm on his position, citing that at one time the city sold a piece of property on Seventh Street to Northland Pioneer College expecting development and nothing has been developed.
Peterson disagreed, “We’re not selling or giving away or anything, we’re just saying go ahead and landscape, it’s not going to hurt us. If he doesn’t do a good job it’s still our easement.”
Following that discussion, Peterson made a motion to allow Lewis to begin landscaping and work out whatever contract the council preferred. It was also requested that Lewis provide a landscape plan for the council to review. The item was approved unanimously.
The council also approved the consent agenda with the exception of the minutes of the meeting held on July 10, which will be reviewed for a clarification of content as to what transpired in that meeting and that item will be included on the next agenda.
