HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-28-1982 /?
•
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, JANUARY 28, 1982
1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met
2 in regular session January 28, 1982 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in .the Municipal
3 Building in said City. Mr. Meredith presided with Mr: Cordell present. Mr.
4 Webb was ill. The following business was had, to-wit:
5
6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 1982
111 7
8 Mr. Cordell moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as prepared,
9 seconded by Mr. Meredith and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
10
11 REQUEST FOR BLANKET BLASTING APPROVAL - Barry Holden, .Peirce Construction
12
13 Mr. Barry Holden, Peirce Construction, requested -the Board consider a proposal
14 that approval be granted for blasting in the City of Richmond subject to ap-
15 proval of the Sanitary District and the Fire Marshall on a one time basis to
16 alleviate the weekly appearances at the Board. The Sanitary Board did not act
17 on this request due to a quorum not being .present. . There is presently a re-
18 quest before the Sanitary Board requesting blasting on South 5th and there are
19 other areas they have to remove -rock and will -probably request :to blast; how-
20 ever, they have no other specific requests now. Peirce will subcontract the •
21 blasting with Prater. -
22
23 The Board previously gave permission for a test-,blast and blasting on Garden
24 Avenue and Fire Chief .Paul Mullin. reported- his Department monitored the pro-
25 cedure all last week from -the magazine until they were finished. They met
26 all the codes and everything was--done professionally.
27 _
28' Mr. Robert Hudson, Attorney, working for the Sanitary .District, called the
29 Board's attention to the way Mr. -Holden's- reques.t was worded as being subject
30 to the .approval of the Richmond Sanitary District. - The Board should,. if they
31 choose to approve the request of Mr. .Holden, be sure that no blasting in any
32 - way related to the Sanitary District is permitted without the specific written
33 authorization of- the Board of Sanitary Commissioners. He referred to a letter
34 dated January 30, 1981 to Mr. Holden. in which, because of the varying condi-
35 tions from block to block, the Sanitary District told Peirce Construction that
36 all requests for blasting would have .to be on a block to block basis. Mr.
37 Holden.stated that is why they are :requesting blanket approval to get away
38 from the daily approval necessary as per that letter _on a block by block basis.
39
40 Mr. John O'Day., Richmond Water .Works, stated they are- against blasting anywhere
41 in.. the. vicinity of their facilities. He noted that in one of the areas in
42 question (South 5th Street) they have an old main installed in 1885. There may
43 not be any damage when they blast, -but they are confident there will be some-
44 time in the future as a result of settling. :Blasting disturbs the -subsoil. In
45 response to a question concerning what "in the vicinity" would be, Mr. O'Day
46 stated within the same block.
47
48 Mr. William.Meisner, Richmond Gas Corporation, stated he agrees with Mr. O'Day.
49 They have the same problems and expect the same problems and have always been
50 against blasting.
51 -
52 Mr. Dan Ahlersmeyer, General Telephone Company, stated he agrees with- the Water
53 & Gas- Companies for no blasting within- the,vicinity of- their facilities. He
54 stated he could not say that within the block is acceptable; however, he does
55 feel the test-blast was conducted too close to .their facilities. He asked, if
56 the blanket agreement is passed, how the utilities are going to be notified to
57 - interject their thoughts. Mr. Hudson stated the Sanitary- District would, through
58 Clark Deitz-,• notify- each utility each time there Is a proposal for blasting. It
59 has been done that way in the past and, he- is sure, will be-done that way -in the .
60 future. Mr. Meredith noted-- the telephone companyindicated they were going to
61 "rod" the--line- near the- test blast site. Mr. Ahlersmeyer stated this was not done
62 due to their feeling they should not incur that cost. The only way to know of
63 any damage is to "rod" the cable before and after the blast. He noted their
64 ducts were placed in 1934.
/1
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd.
January 28, 1982
Page 2
1 Mr. Cordell asked if anyone knew the terms of damage caused by blasting compared
2 to a jack hammer. Mr. Holden stated he didn't know of any study showing this;
3 however, the subcontractor is confident he can perform as he has done so in
4 other cities in Indiana. Mr. O'Day noted that with a jack hammer you are work-
5 ing in one specified location on one piece of rock while with blasting, drilling
6 is done prior to the excavation and the ground is shot. The rock in the ditch
7 line is disturbed as well as the outlying rock from the ditch line. He feels
8 this is what will cause them damage; maybe not when the shot is done, but at
9 a .-future time when that goes back down it will cause disturbance of the sub-
10 soil which will cause movement of the main. It was noted vibration can also
11 be caused by traffic and weather conditions.
12
13 Mr. Dean Van Wie, Clark Dietz, stated their position is that, if there is a
14 request before the Sanitary District Board, they evaluate it and make a re_"
15 commendation to the Board of Directors of the Sanitary District on each case
16 by case basis as they have been doing in the past and they would like to see
17 the Sanitary District Board, if they approve blasting in any area, make it
18 subject to the cooperation and working with the utilities companies.
19 -
20 City Attorney Ed Anderson noted the insurance presented expires today and he
21 has not received a binder. Mr. Hudson stated the binder came in the mail yes-
22 terday and the original is sent to the Sanitary District and a copy is coming
23 to Mr. Anderson today. Mr. Anderson noted the concern of the Board of Works
24 is for the safety of the streets. Blasting is wanted because it is going to
25 be of benefit to someone, what is the position of the Sanitary, does this save
26 you money and are there contract obligations that you must have blasting? The
27 Board has the concern of what is going to happen to our streets and the res-
28 ponsibility to the City if the utilities and everyone who utilizes these streets
29 are faced with law suits. Mr. Hudson concurred that the Board of Works carries
30 the sole protection of the City streets. The Sanitary District in its contract .
31 with the contractor offers where it is feasible in the minds of the Board of
32 Sanitary Commissioners the right to remove rock by blasting means so long' as it
33 does not in the eyes of the Sanitary Commissioners endanger life, property or
34 to do any damage to anything of the City. Inasmuch as the Sanitary District
35 would be the entity that is responsible financially for any' damage or injury 11/
36 that is caused by this, although the prime contractor and subcontractor have
37 the responsibility also, it is encumbent on them to examine very carefully
38 each request and they are obligated to examine them more than the Board of
39 Works. Mr. Anderson stated he would not recommend to this Board that they
40 give blanket approval. Mr. Anderson stated he does not feel the Fire Department
41 can give a blanket permit and Mr. Holden stated this is correct.
42
43 Mr. Byron Ford, Sanitary District, noted nobody intended to ask the Fire Depart-
44 men.t for blanket approval. The intent was to save the Board from dealing with
45 this every week. There is no intent to get blanket approval from anyone except
46 the Board of Works. Blasting is $30.00 a cubic yard and pneumatic removal is
47 $65.00 a cubic yard. These were line items in the contract.
48 .
49 Mr. Cordell clarified that before any blasting, if the blanket approval is
50 given here at the Board of Works, utility companies will be informed ahead
51 so they can make the proper acknowledgements to the Sanitary Board if they
52 don't want it in that location. They will have time to go before the Sanitary
53 Board.
54
55 Mr. Meredith moved that the blanket blasting be approved for Peirce Construction
56 as subcontracted to Prater under the current contract with the Sanitary District
57 and under the direction of the Engineer, Clark Dietz; that notification be given
58 to the utilities and to the'Board of Works. in 'a timely manner and in writing of
59 each Sanitary District hearing concerning blasting; I also make this subject to
60 the approval of the Sanitary District Board on a block by block basis and the .
61 proper permits issued by the Fire Department for the same or lesser area than
62 was approved by the Sanitary District; also subject to all terms and conditions
63 attached to the test blast and Garden Avenue project as put on by the Board of
64 Works, seconded by Mr. Cordell and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
/..
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd.
January 28, 1982
Page 3
1 Mr. Meredith noted if any of the terms or conditions are voided, it voids
2 the whole motion.
3
4 Mr. Anderson requested the Board receive a copy of the letter of January 30,
5 1981 of the Board of Sanitary Commissioners, which was earlier referred to.
6
7 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT POLICY - Barbara Barnhizer
8
11/ 9 EEO Director Barbara Barnhizer recommended the Board formally adopt a policy
10 regarding the Bacon-Davis Act in federal contracts for federal dollars in-
11 volved .in excess of $2,000 or nine or more rehabilitated units.
12
13 She read the following:
14
15 As of January 28, 1982, it shall be the policy of Richmond's
16 Board of Public Works and Safety and all departments of the City
17 of Richmond, unless otherwise exempted by statute or federal re-
18 gulation, to adopt the following policy -
19
20 In compliance to provisions of-the Davis-Bacon Act of 1935,
21 the prevailing wage determination as established by the Secretary
22 . of Labor in accordance to. the Act, shall be incorporated in all
23 construction project specifications of $2,000 or more and re- .
24 habilitation projects of nine or more units, which are funded in
25 whole or in part by federal funds.
26
27 Such projects shall include - projects of construction,
28 alteration, and/or repair, including painting and decoration of
29 public buildings or public works which involve the employment of
30 mechanics and laborers.
31
32 In accordance to the Act, the City of Richmond and the de-
33 partments of the City shall include notice of the Davis-Bacon
11/
34 provisions in all advertisements for bid and in all notice to
35 bidders.
36
37 Mr. Meredith noted this deals only with contracts federally funded.
38 -
39 Mr. ,-Cordell moved this be accepted in compliance with the provisions of the:
40 Davis-Bacon Act, seconded by Mr. Meredith and on unanimous voice vote the
41 motion was carried.
42
43 Ms. Barnhizer recommended each department get a copy of this. The Clerk
44 noted each department gets a copy of Board minutes.
45
46 AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR KENT KLINGE
47
48 City Attorney Ed Anderson has reviewed the contract and finds it in order.
49
50 Mr. Meredith moved the agreement be approved as presented and be made retro-
51 active back to December 31, 1981, seconded by Mr. Cordell and on unanimous
52 voice vote the motion was carried.
53
54 ADJOURNMENT
55
56 There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
57
58 Donald E. Meredith
59 President
60
61 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
62 Clerk of the Board