My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/08/82 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1982
>
11/08/82 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2024 2:38:19 PM
Creation date
10/31/2016 12:46:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
11/8/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
33 <br />REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1982 <br />APPROVE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS - COLE ASSOCIATES (ETHANOL PLANT) <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that Cole Associates has submitted for <br />Board approval two contracts for consulting services for the <br />design of public improvements for the Ethanol Plant Project, <br />including all site improvements, and access roads and <br />utilities at a cost of6o.67% of the total construction cost. <br />Upon a motion made by Mr. Kernan, seconded by Mr. Leszczynski <br />and carried, the contracts were approved. <br />RELEASE OF INDIANA & MICHIGAN ELECTRIC COMPANY EASEMENT - <br />SALT STORAGE FACILITY <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that it had been necessary to relocate <br />the existing Indiana & Michigan Electric Company power line <br />from over the Municipal Services Facility property because <br />of construction of the new salt storage building on the site. <br />Therefore, I & M Electric was releasing its easement rights <br />previously given to it by the Studebaker -Packard Corporation <br />which was the owner or the property at the time the easement <br />was given. Upon a motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded <br />by Mr. Kernan and carried, the release was accepted. <br />APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 (FINAL) AND PROJECT COMPLETION <br />AFFIDAVIT - RIETH-RILEY CONSTRUCTION (CENTRAL BUSINESS <br />DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS. PHASE II) <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that Rieth-Riley Construction was <br />submitting Change Order No. 2 (final) in the amount of an <br />increase of $1,544.05 on the Central Business District <br />Improvements Project, Phase II, which involved landscaping <br />and paving. The revised contract total, including the <br />above change order, was $94,599.27. Also submitted was the <br />Project Completion Affidavit for the project indicating a <br />maintenance period until November 8, 1985. Upon a motion <br />made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Kernan and carried, <br />the above Change Order No. 2 and the Project Completion <br />Affidavit were approved, and the three-year Maintenance.Bond <br />was filed. <br />APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT - PROJECT FUTURE <br />Mr. Leszczynski stated that a contract between the Community <br />Development Department and Project Future was being submitted <br />for Board approval in the total amount of $30,000.00. Under <br />the terms of the contract, Project Future would provide <br />technical assistance to the city regarding economic development <br />strategy, labor supply, developable sites and buildings, <br />business prospects, local business expansion and potential <br />local plant closings or reductions. Upon a motion made by <br />Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Kernan and carried, the <br />contract was approved. <br />REJECT BIDS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PROFESSIONAL <br />TESTING OF POLICE RECRUITS <br />In a letter to the Board, Police Chief Dan Thompson requested <br />the Board to reject all the bids received by it on October <br />25, 1982, for psychological testing and professional testing <br />of police recruits because of. the apparent confusion caused <br />to the bidders in utilizing the formalized bidding process. <br />It was noted that the bids, once rejected, would be treated <br />as proposals or quotations and a decision would then be made <br />in-house on the proposal deemed most acceptable. Upon a <br />motion made by Mr. Kernan, seconded by 11r. Leszczynski and <br />carried, the bids received by the Board on October 25, 1982, <br />were rejected. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.