Laserfiche WebLink
4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd <br />Presid nt Wiggins moved for a motion to withdraw the <br />bid ani defer consideration on the refunding.of the <br />deposi , and motion was so made:by Mr. Helmen, se- <br />conded by Mr. Chenney. <br />c. <br />Cites. Planning Associates=; Inc.. Dated May,-28, <br />REMONSTRANCE, <br />1969: <br />This eT-tter is from Mr.. T. Brooks Bra emas, <br />.CENTRAL DOWNTOWN <br />lsresid <br />nt of City Planning Associates, Inc., relating <br />URBAN RENEWAL <br />his position <br />in Rev. Lawrence E. Crockett's testi- <br />PROJECT; R46 <br />monial <br />in the May 28, 1969 hearing thathe, Rev. <br />Crockett, <br />had dictated a remonstrance against the <br />downtown <br />project to the secretary of.T. Brooks :Brade - <br />mas, <br />n his letter, Mr. T. Brooks Brademas states <br />he and <br />his office could not .recall any knowledge of <br />the al <br />egation made in Superior. Court, withtthe.Honor- <br />able N <br />man Kopec presiding, that his firm, in fact,:. <br />had helped <br />draft the remonstrance against the Central- <br />Downtown <br />Urban Renewal Project, R -66. President Wiggins <br />requested <br />a motion to have the record show this = letter <br />from City <br />Planning Associates, Inc., dated May 28,: <br />1969, has <br />been received and .is. to be placed on.file, <br />and motion <br />was so moved by -Rev. Williams,.s.econded by <br />Mr Helmen <br />d. HUD Letter Dated May 14, 1969: This letter <br />identifies minor points that HUD feels had not been <br />resoled in the Part II Application., The staff re- <br />solved all these points immediately upon bei.ng noti- <br />fied b HUD. These minor findings are not unusual, <br />but ca not be answered until the-Department is so <br />advise . <br />5. NEWI BUSINESS <br />a.. <br />Change Order No. 3A: :Contract Div. II: This <br />CHANGE ORDER NO. 3A, <br />is a co <br />tract from Rieth -Ri ey Construction Co., Inc..;..: <br />CONTRACT DIV. II, <br />for add'tional.work <br />required. i -n the channeltzation -. <br />CHAPIN STREET URBAN <br />of the <br />4orth half of the Chapin - Western intersection, <br />RENEWAL PROJECT, R -29 <br />Chapin <br />treet Urban Renewal Project, R -29, in the <br />amount <br />f $705.08 -- inceease•in contract price. <br />Rev. Wi <br />liams asked if it has been investigated <br />that $7 <br />5.08 more is involved:. Mr. Bellinger ap- <br />prised <br />hat this has been worked out with.the City: <br />Engineer, <br />Lloyd Taylor, and the work A nvol;ved is out- <br />side of <br />the framework of the original contract. The <br />change <br />rder price is based on =the contract.unit.price. <br />Preside <br />it Wiggins stated that, in this particular in- <br />stance, <br />it is additional work that is required, but <br />not at <br />igher unit cost prices. The Chair entertained <br />-5- <br />