My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 12-17-76
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1976
>
RM 12-17-76
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 9:03:49 AM
Creation date
9/24/2012 12:10:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
7.(c) NE! BUSINESS, Continued: <br />Wayna Brownell: Slatile is aware of the fact and the contract has <br />been held up and they have not been given a notice to proceed, is <br />that right? <br />Ken Schaller: That is correct. <br />Mr. Brownell: The people just moved out of the house and in the South- <br />east Committee meeting I attended, the house is no longer eligible <br />beca se it is no longer owner- occupied. We have to tell Slatile that <br />we are sorry but we do not have an eligible house under HUD guidelines. <br />Kevin Butler: Ken, you ought to prepare a brief letter to be signed by <br />the ommission or by Wayne if the Commission wants to authorize it, <br />indi ating that the contract is to be rescinded with Slatile to sign <br />at tie bottom. <br />On call by the Chair :..: motion to rescind this contract and notification <br />be given to Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal Co. that the structure is <br />no 1 nger eligible under the law for rehabilitation was made by Mr. <br />Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried. <br />(d)-In accordance with recommendation of the Southeast Advisory Board CONTRACT <br />re u st is being made that the following contract bid be rejected: CS -7/56 <br />REJECTED <br />CS-7t56 630 East Haney Ave. $9,095.00 Slatile Roofing & Sheet <br />Metal Co., Inc. <br />Mr. 3rownell explained that the top amount we are allowed under HUD guide <br />line is $9,000 so we have to reject this bid on the basis that it <br />is a ove the amount we are allowed to award. There was only one bid on <br />this contract. <br />Mr. iggins moved with second by Mr. Cira to reject this contract bid <br />as s t forth above. Motion carried. <br />(e) <br />Ar. Brownell read this item from the agenda regarding the Barton- <br />BARTON- <br />Asch <br />an Associates Inc. contract for the preparation of a ParkinStudy <br />ASCHMAN <br />for Indiana <br />R -66. Commission approval requested, with contract fee <br />ASSOCIATES <br />of $12,160.00 <br />with completion of contract ninety days from date of the <br />CONTRACT <br />contract. <br />Mr. Brownell stated that actually if you will recall, we <br />AUTHORIZED <br />appr <br />ved this work back in June at an earlier meeting, and the work has <br />IND R -66 <br />been <br />performed, now we are asking you to approve a formal contract in <br />accordance <br />with the HUD form. You may recall that we had a bid from <br />them <br />in June for $14,120 and an alternate bid of $12,620, depending <br />upon <br />who did the field work. We had the people here in the city do <br />the <br />field work and approved the bid of $12,620. The work is now completed <br />and <br />a have received reports from the firm. <br />Mr. iggins moved for approval of the formal contract as set forth above, <br />sec by Mr. Cira and discussion followed. <br />d" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.