RM 07-18-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd operation, would like to see that sort of thing elaborated, as long as it does not violate any of the other regulations." Mr. Brownell said he thought that Mr. Wilcox should be working on this problem in getting these moved. President Nimtz emphasized the point 1s the licensing of these stands and their placements is the Board of Public Works' responsi- bility. d. Notice to Proceed on recent contracts awarded: Mr. Bill Slabaugh brought up the subject of the contracts signed by the Commission for Nautilus Contruction Corporation on the dredging contract and their contract on Plaza Park, Contract No. 1; also, the contract on the sidewalk ramps for Phase II -E with Harry H. Verkler Contrac- tor, Inc., and if these contracts are ready they would like to issue a Notice to Proceed for those three contracts. Mr. Brownell advised Mr. Butler has reviewed these contracts and that this afternoon he will be working on putting these together -- everything except one item and that is with Nautilus Construction Corporation, we will have to have a change order on Plaza Park Contract No. 1-- and he plans to work on these this afternoon and will go through each contract to make sure we have all the documentation, and if everything is in order he will issue the Notice to Proceed on the contracts. Commis- sioner Wiggins requested Mr. Brownell to advise Bill Slabaugh when this is done as Bill Slabaugh said he would like to get the contractors started on this work. e. Block 6 Bid Status: Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, reporter for The South Bend Tribune, inquired as to when we could expect to have a firm acceptance or rejection of the bid on Block 6, and Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commis- sion Legal Counsel, advised he believed we had said last week that we intend to handle this matter as expeditiously as possible, but, at the same time, we want to make sure that we cover all bases. We don't want to act precipitously. At that time, Ms. Derbeck added, it was said that there are a couple of conditions that the developer had placed on their bid that were not acceptable as conditions, and it seems as though that should be a matter that they either remove the conditions or they don't. Mr. Butler advised he thought he had indi- cated last week that those two problems that were mentioned the first week prior to that- -the last regular meeting- -had been resolved with the bidder. Question asked by Ms. Derbeck, "Since apparently some changes have been made in the bid -- conditions removed, etc. - -is it still the same bid legally ?" Mr. Butler advised, "No. Actually, again we indicated we are dealing now, we are negotiating with the two entities who have expressed interest in the property. Because the bid, as initially submitted, had those two problems, since there was only one actual bidder - -of course, the Medlock group (Interna- tional Constructors Corporation),wh.ich admittedly had expressed interest but couldn't bid because of the land -use restrictions- - we are at this point proceeding then with negotiations with these two bidders to see, in effect, if we can negotiate a redevelopment contract." - 16 -