ShareThis Page

Bids for First Street intersection work come in higher than Apollo can pay

Brian C. Rittmeyer
| Wednesday, July 10, 2013, 12:36 a.m.

Apollo needs more money for planned improvements to the First Street intersection at the Leonard C. Miller Memorial Bridge.

The lowest bids for handicapped ramps and pedestrian crossing signals would cost the borough nearly $18,000 more than it has, borough engineer Rich Craft said.

The borough will ask Armstrong County and PennDOT for more money for the project, intended to improve safety at the busy intersection, which is also a crossing of the Roaring Run Trail.

The county provided the borough with $20,000 from federal Community Development Block Grant funding. The lowest of four bids was almost $10,000 more, from Santamaria Landscape and Cement Contractors in Washington Township.

For the pedestrian crossing signals, the borough has about $12,000 from PennDOT for construction, Craft said.

The lowest of three bids, from Bronder Co. of Pittsburgh, was almost $8,000 more.

Borough officials will ask for more money even though they recognize getting it may be a long shot.

Craft said Armstrong County officials have said no additional money is available as all of the grant dollars are committed elsewhere.

PennDOT may have an incentive to provide more money for work it will have to do anyway, Craft said. But it was not known if the agency will have any more money to give.

PennDOT could tell the borough to wait for a new round of funding, Craft said.

While some changes to the work could be made to lower costs, Craft said it's unlikely it could be scaled back enough to lower costs to fit within the money the borough has on-hand.

County officials plan to award funding on July 18, Craft said.

Apollo Council scheduled a meeting for 6 p.m. July 17. If funding is given, contracts could be approved then, Craft said.

The borough originally planned for construction to start in August or September, and be finished in October.

Eminent domain back

Council is putting eminent domain back in its tool box, if needed, to acquire two parcels along the Kiski River.

Council voted 3-2 to rescind its June decision to not use the legal process to seize ownership of the parcels near the Leonard C. Miller Memorial Bridge.

Council President David Heffernan, Mark Greenawalt and Darhl Goldinger voted in favor. Council Vice President Cindee Virostek and Dennis Gabrielli voted against.

Council members Amy Poydence and Pat Zelonka were absent.

The vote to not use eminent domain was also 3-2, with the same council members voting. This time, Greenawalt changed his position.

Greenawalt said reversing the decision doesn't change anything, as council would still have to vote to pursue eminent domain.

“I don't want to eminent domain stuff, either,” he said. “All it is is a negotiating tool.”

Heffernan had argued against taking eminent domain off the table.

“It gives us leverage,” he said.

The vote did not affect a related action, which dropped the borough's attempts to renegotiate a lease with Roaring Run for a parking lot adjacent to the parcels.

Heffernan has said the borough wants the two parcels between the parking lot and the river for uses including a canoe launch, gazebo and a permanent live Christmas tree. The borough wants to install parking meters in the parking lot.

Heffernan has said the parking lot was mistakenly included in the borough's lease agreement with Roaring Run.

Brian C. Rittmeyer is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-226-4701 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.