My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/22/82 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1982
>
11/22/82 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2024 2:38:40 PM
Creation date
10/31/2016 2:22:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
11/22/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 22, 1982 <br />The regular meeting of the Board of Public Works was convened <br />at 9:30 a.m., on Monday, November 22, 1982, by President John <br />E. Leszczynski, with Mr. Leszczynski, Mr. Richard L. Hill and <br />Mr. Joseph E. Kernan present. Also present was Assistant <br />City Attorney Carolyn Pfotenhauer. <br />MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING APPROVED <br />. Upon a motion made by Mr. Hill, seconded by Mr. Kernan and <br />carried, the minutes of the November 15, 1982, regular meeting <br />of the Board were approved as submitted. <br />PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUDIT REFERRED <br />Mr. Leszczynski stated that the Department of Redevelopment had <br />solicited proposals for its annual Community Development audit, <br />said proposals to be submitted to and receipted in by the <br />(}� Board of Public Works. Mr. Kernan stated that the proposals <br />covered the annual audit for Community Development and, <br />�. because of the amount of money involved in the audit and <br />jurisdiction, the proposals should be referred directly to <br />the Redevelopment Department for review. Upon a motion made <br />by Mr. Kernan, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, the following <br />sealed proposals were referred to the Redevelopment Department <br />for review and appropriate action: <br />Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company <br />202 South Michigan Street <br />South Bend, Indiana 46601 <br />Crowe, Chizek & Company <br />330 East Jefferson Boulevard <br />P. 0. Box 7 <br />South Bend, Indiana 46624 <br />Ernst & Whinney <br />825 JMS Building <br />South Bend, Indiana 46601 <br />Coopers & Lybrand <br />P. 0. Box 4157 <br />South Bend, Indiana 46634 <br />McGladrey Hendrickson & Co. <br />340 South Columbia <br />South Bend, Indiana 46601 <br />PUBLIC HEARING - APPROVE VACATION OF PORTION OF SANCOME STREET <br />Mr. Leszczynski advised that Mr. Ronald Schmanke, 1421 California <br />Street, was petitioning for the vacation of that portion of <br />Sancome Street that lies North of the North right-of-way line <br />of California Avenue extended West to the Southerly right-of-way <br />of the Chicago, Indiana and Southern Railroad and West of and <br />adjacent to Lot 12 in S.B. Apt. Bldg. Corp. 1st Addition to <br />the City of South Bend. Ile stated that, as in the past, in <br />order for the Board to submit a recommendation to the Common <br />Council, a public hearing had been scheduled at this time and <br />all property owners within 200 feet of the alley had been duly <br />notified. He further advised that favorable comments in <br />support of the vacation had been received from the Engineering <br />Department, Area Plan Commission and Community Development. <br />There was no one present to speak against the alley vacation; <br />however, a letter of objection had been received by the Clerk <br />from Mr. Robert Jessup whose mother owned property on Sancome <br />Street. Upon a motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by <br />Mr. Kernan and carried, the public hearing was closed. Upon <br />a motion made by Mr. Leszczynski, seconded by Mr. Hill and <br />carried, a favorable recommendation for the vacation of the <br />above portion of Sancome Street was forwarded to the Common <br />Council, subject to the maintenance of all utility easements. <br />Mr. Schmanke asked the Board if, once the right-of-way was vacated, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.