10/20/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20..1980 South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News which were found to be sufficient. Mr. Gary Walter, Executive Officer for the South Bend - Mishawaka Board of Realtors, explained that his company owned a lot at 1229 Oakland Avenue, and he felt that, due to a lack of communication, the assessment for the repair to that property was too high in the amount of $786.67. He explained that he had',contracted with someone to do the necessary repair work but had experienced problems in actually getting the work done. Then he had been forced to hire another contractor to do the work in an amount of $370.00. He stated that, on or about September 11, 1980, before his contractor had a chance to make the needed. repairs, the city through Rieth -Riley Construction removed the stump and repaired the sidewalk without notice given to him that this was being done. Mr. McMahon advised Mr. Walter that the property owners had been required by the Board to have the storm damage repair work completed within a 30 -day period. That decision had been made by the Board at its meeting on August 4, 1980, and had been clearly covered by the local news media. After that 30 -day period, the contractor for the city was ordered to accomplish the necessary',repairs and the work at 1229 Oakland Avenue had been done since the repairs had not been taken care of by the owner within the required 30 -day period. Mr. Walter stated that he had never received any noticelof that. Mr. McMahon pointed out that a notice had been hand carried to those property owners who had not completed the repair world, within the 30 -day period; however, the notice was given for convenience and information purposes for the property owner and was not needed orlrequired to be done. He stated that it was very possible that the notice had just been left in the mailbox at that address, but that the city was not obligated in any way to give notice since the 30 -day period to accomplish the repairs had expired. He further stated that he did not feel there was any need for the city to make a personal contact withlthe property owners regarding the commencement of the work by Rieth -Riley since it had been very clearly stated previously at the public',hearing and covered by the news media that, if the work was not done in! a 30 -day period, the city would have the work done by its contractor. IHe felt it was unfortunate that Mr. Walter had not been able to have the work done within that period of time allowed by the Board. Upon a,motion made by Mr. McMahon, seconded by Mr. Hill and carried, the public',hearing was closed and the Assessment Roll approved. PUBLIC HEARING - IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 3499, 1980 (FELLOWS STREET, CURB AND STREET CONSTRUCTION) This was the date set for holding a public hearing on the construction of street and curb improvements on South Fellows Street, authorized under Improvement Resolution No. 3499, 198O,',adopted by the Board on October 6, 1980. The Clerk tendered proofs of publication of notice in the South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County',News which were found to be sufficient. It was noted that the property owners affected by the Improvement Resolution had been sent notice of the hearing and the preliminary assessment for the repair work. Mr. McMahon noted that the project called for street work, curbing and miscellaneous improve - ments related thereto in the amount of $43,947.75 for the east and west sides of South Fellows Street, beginning at Walter Street and continuing north 647 feet. Mr. Dennis Miller, President of Miller Builders, had submitted the petition to have the work completed under the Barrett Law procedure. He stated that he had obtained a copy of the cost of the construction work from a private contractor and his figures were somewhat lower than the city's estimate. Mr',. McMahon explained to Mr. Miller that the city's estimate includes a 10% contingency amount. He further stated that the city must estimate the work and then hold a public hearing on that maximum figure. If the bids which are received for construction of the improvements are higher than the engineer's estimate, the city must absorb that cost, or'the difference between the estimate and the bid received. He assured Mr. Miller that his assessment would not be increased but probably would be lowered somewhat. He stated that the city will proceed to advertise for bids on the project and the final assessment roll would reflect the amount of the low bid and actual work done. He stated that; since'',only one petitioner was 1