My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07/17/1979 Board of Public Works Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Public Works
>
Minutes
>
1979
>
07/17/1979 Board of Public Works Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2011 4:25:01 PM
Creation date
11/23/2010 1:12:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board of Public Works
Document Type
Minutes
Document Date
7/17/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
124 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />JULY 17, 1979 <br />NO BIDS RECEIVED - SALE OF RESIDUAL PROPERTY RE: MICHIGAN /MAIN CONNECTOR <br />This was the date set for receiving bids for the sale of residual <br />portions of lots acquired for construction of the Michigan /Main <br />Connector. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice <br />in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were found <br />to be sufficient. There were no bids received. <br />OPENING OF BIDS - SALE OF CITY - O[W]NED PROPERTY <br />This was the date set for receiving bids for the sale of city -owned <br />lots at 2005 W. Indiana Avenue and 230 Embell Court. In each case, <br />more than one individual had expressed an interest in purchasing <br />the lots and for that reason the Board advertised for sealed bids <br />for the sale. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice <br />in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were found <br />to be sufficient. The following bids were opened and publicly read: <br />230 Embell Court - Offering Price $429.00 <br />Berean Seventh Day Adventist Church submitted a letter bid in the <br />amount of $429.00 for the lot. This was the only bid received. <br />Upon motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Mullen and carried, <br />the bid was accepted and the Board referred the bid to the Legal <br />Department for preparation of a purchase contract. <br />2005 W. Indiana No bids received. The Board directed that the <br />Clerk contact the individuals who had expressed an interest in <br />purchasing the lot to ask if they would like to submit an offer <br />for the property. <br />VACATION RESOLUTION NO. 3472 RESCINDED - PETITION DENIED <br />Vacation Resolution No. 3472, for the vacation of the east - west <br />alley between LaSalle and Colfax, from Notre Dame Avenue west, <br />was tabled on May 21. At the request of John Peddycord, Attorney <br />for the Dental Arts Building Partnership who petitioned for the <br />vacation, the matter was placed on the agenda today for further <br />consideration. Notification was sent to Donald Hartke and <br />Bernard Bailey, who remonstrated against the vacation at the May 21 <br />meeting, that the matter would be on the agenda. Terry Lehr, <br />Attorney, was present and advised the Board that he was representing <br />John Peddycord in this matter. Mr. Lehr reviewed the status of the <br />petition, noting that a public hearing was held on May 21 with two <br />people remonstrating. A meeting was held with one of the remonstrators <br />in an attempt to reach a settlement of the problem but it was not <br />resolved. Mr. Lehr noted that A. Hartke and Son at 218 N. St. Peter <br />has a business with a small warehouse at the back of the lot on <br />both the north /south and the east /west alleys. Mr. Hartke says <br />that semis who come to unload would not be able to make deliveries <br />through the alley, even with the additional right -of -way to be <br />dedicated to the City by the petitioners for this purpose. Mr. <br />Lehr said it was their position that the north /south alley could be <br />used by the semi - trucks. The other remonstrator, Bernard Bailey <br />of 224 N. St. Peter Street, uses the north half of the alley as an <br />exit and that was his only statement. Mr, Lehr pointed out that <br />the City ordinance which covers vacations of streets or alleys does <br />not give the criteria for a valid remonstrance. The only authority <br />that was found comes from the State Statutes, which envisions going <br />to the Circuit Court for a vacation and it lists three grounds for <br />a remonstrance: <br />1. When the ground is necessary to the growth of the town or <br />city. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.