My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/12/76 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1976
>
01/12/76 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2024 2:48:44 PM
Creation date
11/23/2016 10:11:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
1/12/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
177 <br />REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1976 <br />RIVER BEND PLAZA APPLICATIONS <br />Douglas Sinpson, Director of River Bend Plaza, was present and <br />submitted the following applications to the Board. <br />Winter Carnival - January 31 and February 1, 1976. Events <br />planned inc ude a snow sculpture contest, ski and sled demonstrations, <br />a snowmobile demonstration, rescue operation, display of winter <br />sports equipment, a treasure hunt, a winter art contest andwinter <br />sports movies. Hot cider and donuts will be sold. There was a <br />discussion regarding the liability requirements for these events. <br />Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Cekanski recommended that the application <br />be reviewed by the Legal Department. Upon motion madebyMr. Farrand, <br />seconded by Mr. Brunner and carried, the application was referred <br />to the Legal Department for a review of the liability insurance <br />requirements, with a recommendation to be made to the Board. <br />Right to Life Committee - Display Booth on January 22, 1976, including <br />display materials, music, speeches and hand-out brochures. There <br />was a discussion about whether the use of a loud speaker system_ <br />is in violation of the Municipal Code. Upon motion made, seconded <br />and carried, the Board approved the application, subject to <br />clarification by the Legal Department of the fact that there will <br />be no violation of the Code in regard to use of loud speakers. <br />�—+ BONDS APPROVED <br />Ray S. Andrysiak, Bureau of Engineering, reported to the Board <br />that the following bonds were properly executed and could be <br />approved. <br />Contractor's Bond for Batteast Construction,Co, to 12/31/76 <br />Contractor's Bond for Nunemaker Construction Co. to 12/31/76 <br />Excavation Bond for Selge Construction Co. 60 12/31/76 <br />Upon motion made.by Mr, Farrand,seconded by Mr. Brunner and carried, <br />the bonds were approved to the dates listed. <br />STREET LIGHT OUTAGE REPORT FILED <br />The Street Light Outage Report for the period of January 2 through <br />8 was received. Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the <br />report was ordered filed. <br />CHANGE ORDER APPROVED - WALNUT STREET RETAINING WALLS AND SIDEWALKS <br />Change Order No. 1 for the Walnut Street Retaining Walls and Sidewalk <br />Project was submitted to the Board. The Change Order increased the <br />contract by $7,426.80 and was recommended favorably to the Board <br />by Rollin E. Farrand, City Engineer, and Patrick M. McMahon, <br />Manager, Bureau of Public Construction. Mr. Farrand noted that this <br />change order was to adjust the contract to aS-built quantities and <br />said that the project was still under the.engineering estimate. <br />He said the Change Order was required.because there were no original <br />plans for the project available and some additional work was required <br />after construction got.underway. Mr. Farrand made a motion that <br />the Change Order be approved. Mr. Brunner seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Brunner then asked Mr. McMahon if the change order involved items <br />that were not anticipated at the time of the original contract. <br />Mr. McMahon said that an allowance of five to ten per cent is usually <br />provided in the contract to allow for such items. In this case, <br />the increase was twelve per cent because they were not aware they <br />would have to replace footings and as much of the east wall as was <br />necessary. There was no further discussion and the motion was carried. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.