HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-05-1981 G/
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, FEBRUARY 5, 1981
1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in
2 regular session February 5, 1981 at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in the Municipal
3 Building in said City. Mr. Meredith presided with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Webb
4 present. The following business was had, to-wit:
5
6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7
8 Mr. Webb moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as prepared,
9 seconded by Mr. Anderson and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
10
11 POSTAL RESOLUTION - Jack Gauker
12
13 Mr. Jack Gauker, representing the U. S. Postal Service, stated the postal
14 service is facing rising costs. In the past they have tried to provide service
15 to each and every home wherever located; however, the costs have risen to such
16 a degree they can no longer do this. To reduce costs the new postal policy
17 will be centralization of mail by clustering deliveries in groups of two (2)
18 or more for curb side delivery. This would effect boxes installed after
19 January 28 and existing delivery practices will be continued as of present.
20
21 Mr. Anderson moved to adopt the following resolution:
22
23 RESOLUTION NO. 1-1981
24
25 WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has reported to us the increased
26 costs in providing mail delivery to each and every home; and
27
28 WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service, as a result of continuously
29 rising costs, has been forced to adopt a less costly method of serving curb-
30 side mail boxes; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has described this method as
33 "Centralization of Mail Delivery" which is the grouping or clustering of
34 mail boxes to seek the maximum grouping of boxes possible; and
35
36 WHEREAS, the United States Postal Service has demonstrated this grouping
37 of mail boxes is cost saving and beneficial to the public; and
38
39 WHEREAS, this Board has been asked to endorse this delivery criteria as
40 concerns all future curbside mail delivery; and
41
42 WHEREAS, this Board now endorses and supports such policy and encourages
43 and urges the citizens of this community to cooperate with and support
44 this program of "Centralization of Mail Delivery" in all future subdivision
45 developments it...the City of Richmond, Indiana; and
46
47 WHEREAS, this Board has determined such a policy is in the best interests
48 of the general welfare of the citizens of this community.
49
50 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY that:
51
52 (1) All curbside mail boxes will be placed in groups of two or more
53 so as to be serviced from the postal vehicle with one vehicle
54 stop; and
55 -
56 (2) In cul-de-sacs, all mail boxes for the cul-de-sacs will be placed
57 in one location so as to be serviced from the postal vehicle with
58 one vehicle stop.
59
60 Mr. Webb seconded the motion and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
61
62 MUNICIPAL CODES FOR SALE
63
64 Mr. Anderson stated he would like for the Board to set a price on the remaining
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd.
February 5, 1981
Page 2
1 Municipal Codes. Fifty (50) were ordered and thirty-five (35) have been
2 distributed, so there are fifteen (15) remaining which could be sold. He
3 suggested the price be placed at fifty dollars ($50.00) per copy. The annual
4 up-date will be five dollars ($5.00) plus fifty cents (500 per page. The
5 up-date will be in May of this year.
6
7 Mr. Anderson moved to set the price of the sale of the codes to the public at
8 $50.00 a copy plus $5.00 for an annual up-date plus 50c per page of the
9 supplement, seconded by Mr. Webb and on unanimous voice vote the motion was
10 carried.
11
12 MONTHLY REPORT OF BUILDING COMMISSIONER
13
14 Mr. Webb moved the report of the Building Commissioner be accepted, seconded
15 by Mr. Anderson and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
16
17 REPORT OF RADIO TECHNICIAN FOR OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, 1980 AND JANUARY 1981
18
19 Mr. Anderson moved to accept the City Radio Technician's radio maintenance
20 report for October, November, December and January, seconded by Mr. Webb
21 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
22
23 DRAFT AGREEMENT - SIECO, Inc. - Industries Road
24
25 Mr. Roger DeVore,- SIECO, Inc. , stated the prelimiary engineering phase for the
26 project for the fiscal year 1982 program has to be programmed. The State
27 fiscal year runs from June 30 to July 1. Submitting the draft agreement for
28- the engineering design for the project means we might not be approved to where
29 we could start the work prior to the June 30 date. There is one submitted
30 for this fiscal year and to be safe we are going to submit one for the next
31 fiscal year. He presented three (3) copies of the FA2 form in duplicate as
32 the previous one. This is a prerequisite to receiving federal aid authorization.
33 The draft agreement and fee schedule have been revised to make things current
34 with the engineer's salary schedule and the soil situation. The overall
35 effect on the not to exceed figure in the agreement is a reduced fee of about
36 $350. The engineering firm has contacted a minority soils firm, which is
37 required under federal aid. The agreement is not to be signed until there
38 is Federal and State approval, which will probably be in three (3) or four
39 (4) months.
40
41 The Clerk read the following:
42
43 5 February 1981
44
45 Mr. Virgil A. Bell, Chief
46 Division of State Aid
47 Indiana State Highway.Commission
48 State Office Building
49 Indianapolis IN 46204
50
51 RE: Draft Agreement, City - Consultant
52 Richmond - SIECO, Inc.
53 Industries Road
54
55 Dear Mr. Bell:
56
57 The City of Richmond has recently caused to be completed a Corridor-
58 Location Study Report for Industries Road, between Salisbury Road
59 and Chester Boulevard. That study has been prepared by SIECO, Inc.
60 with the use of Local Funds, and Location approval has been obtained
61 on June 18, 1980. The City now intends to complete the rest of the
62 preliminary engineering for a portion of the total project, however-,
63 it is desired to utilized Federal Aid Urban Funds for this first
64 phase plan development.
(�3
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd.
February 5, 1981
Page 3
1 The City is not staffed at this time to undertake such a project,
2 and it will be necessary to retain a consulting engineer to provide
3 those services. SIECO, Inc. has been developing the total project
4 since 1976, and the Board believes that firm to be well qualified
5 to provide the needed servies, and therefore, desires to enter into
6 - an agreement to advance the project into the plan development phase.
7
II/ 8 The City, infact, since initiation of the Location Study in 1976,
9 has planned to use the services of SIECO, Inc. in developing all
10 phases of this major project.
11
12 Submitted herewith is a draft agreement providing for those services
13 at a fee which the Board considers reasonable for the work required.
14 Also, included is a fee report and an estimate of construction costs
15 for the first phase of the referenced project.
16
17 Please review these materials and inform the Board when the Agreement
18 is satisfactory for execution. Thank you for your help in these matters.
19
20 Sincerely,
21
22 Board of Public Works and Safety
23 City of Richmond
24
25 /s/ Donald E. Meredith
26 /s/ George Webb
27 /s/ Edward N. Anderson
28
29 Mr. Webb moved the Board endorse such a letter, seconded by Mr. Anderson
30 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. -
31
32 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING ENGINEERING SERVICE FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT
33
34 Mr. DeVore noted this project is 100% federally funded.
35
36 The Clerk read the following:
37
38 Mr. Virgil A. Bell, P.E.
39 Chief, Division of State Aid
40 Indiana State Highway Commission
41 State Office Building, Room 1203
42 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
43
44 Re: Project No. MG-000C (87)
45 Traffic Signal Project
46 City of Richmond
47
48 Dear Mr. Bell:
49
50 Transmitted herewith please find a Supplemental Agreement for
51 Construction Engineering Services for the above referenced project.
52 This is to request that the contract be approved for FHWA funding.
53
54 The City finds it necessary to employ a consultant to provide the
55 construction engineering services because this expertise is not
56 available on the City staff. The .City has evaluated the qualifi-
57 cations of the consultant and finds that he is adequately qualified
58 to perform the work as outlined in the contract. Furthermore, the
59 City is of the opinion that the proposed payment for the work as
60 - outlined in the contract is acceptable and reasonable.
61
62 Thank you for your consideration and prompt attention to this matter.
63
64 Very truly yours,
65 Board of Public Works
Board of Public Works Minutes Cont'd.
February 5, 1981
Page 4
1 /s/ Donald E. Meredith
2 Date: Feb. 5, 1981
3
4 Mr. Anderson moved we endorse the transmittal letter, seconded by Mr. Webb and
5 on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
6
7 UNSAFE BUILDING HEARING - 95-97 Ft. Wayne Avenue - Elizabeth Barrett
8
9 City Attorney Ed Anderson conducted the hearing, noting this hearing is held
10 pursuant to Ordinance No. 100-1979, which adopted the Unsafe Building Law
11/
11 as provided in I.C. 18-5-5.5-1. Mr. Roberts has issued the order pursuant to
12 Section 4. Service of the order was in accordance with Section 8 by certified
13 mail and the return receipt was entered in the record. This hearing is held
14 pursuant to Section 9 of the Ordinance. The defendant, Elizabeth Barrett was
15 present. She was not represented by an attorney at this time.
16
17 The Clerk read the following order:
18
19 Order Issued Pursuant to
20 City of Richmond
21 Ordinance No. 100-1979
22
23 January 9, 1981
24
25 Order Issued to: Elizabeth Jean Barrett
26 7777 Wildcat Drive
27 Dayton, Ohio 45424
28
29 RE: 95-97 Fort Wayne Avenue
30 Tri Pc 12 ft. Ft. Wayne Avenue
31 SW Cor Lot 41, J. Cox; 94.20 ft Ft. Wayne Ave. Lot 40 J. Cox
32
33 The building or structure, or part thereof, located on the real estate
34 described above .has, as a result of inspection and investigation by the
35 Building Commissioner of the City of Richmond, been found to be in an
36 impaired structural condition or state which renders it unsafe or dan-
37 gerous to persons and property. Said findings are according to the
38 specifications of an unsafe building as set forth in Section 2(b) (4)
39 (11; 1 & 2) (15) (16) (17) ..
40
41 Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the following action be accomplished
42 in regard to this property:
43
44 Remove unsafe building (According to Section 3, Paragraph 6,
45 City of Richmond Ordinance No. 100-1979) .
46
47 The above stated action shall be accomplished no later than February 19,
48 1981.
49
50 A hearing regarding this order will be held in the Board of Works Room
51 at the Municipal Building, 50 North 5th Street, Richmond, Indiana, at
52 10:00 a.m. on February 5, 1981. You may appear at the above said hearing
53 to show cause why this order should not be complied with; you may be
54 represented by an attorney, present evidence, call witnesses and make
55 arguments at the hearing. If you fail to appear, the hearing will be
56 held in your absence. If the order is affirmed, the Building Commissioner
57 will cause said action to be taken pursuant: to this order. The costs
58 thereof will be assessed against you on the real estate tax duplicate.
59 Further, failure to comply with this order will subject you to litigation.
60
61 You have an obligation according to Section 12 of Ordinance No. 100-1979
62 to supply full information regarding this order to any person who may
63 take or agree to take a substantial property interest in the unsafe
64 premises, prior to such transfer or agreement to transfer; also to
6-5-
Board of Works Minutes Cont'd.
February 5, 1981
Page 5
1 supply to the Building Commissioner, within five (5) calendar days of
2 the transfer or agreement to transfer, (a) the full name, address and
3 telephone number of the person acquiring substantial property interest,
4 and (b) a true and accurate copy of the legal instrument under which
5 the transfer or agreement to transfer is accomplished.
6 .
7 Charles E. Roberts
II/ 8 Building Commissioner
9
10 Mrs. Barrett acknowledged she received the order, understands the order and
11 owns the premises at 95-97 Ft. Wayne Avenue.
12 -
13 Mr. Roberts presented evidence and two (2) pictures to support his findings.
14 He noted the interior has extensive damage and the structure has been in
15 damaged condition for several years. The structure would require complete
16 heating, plumbing and wiring.
17
18 Mrs. Barrett stated in 1978 she requested demolition of the structure from
19 the City. The request was granted but was rescinded in 1979 vocally, not in
20 writing. She stated the structure could not be destroyed because it was
21 considered an historical monument. Her attorney contacted Tim Ryder to
22 make contact who would board up the windows and doors so it would not be
23 accessible to vandals at a cost of $250. She assumed this had been done
24 until she visited the city some time last year.
25
26 Mr. Ryder stated he had the structure scheduled for demolition under Community
27 Development program. In review of the structure, if the property could be
28 eligible for the historical register, he-was not allowed to tear it down
29 under the same guidelines as Community Development without going through a
30 long drawn out procedure. Local people interested in saving the building
31 brought this to Mr. Ryder's attention and had he proceeded he would have been
32 in violation of the regulations. He referred prospective purchasers to Mrs.
33 Barrett's attorney. He did not board up the building as the attorney told
34 him to proceed and he would be reimbursed at the time the property was sold.
35
36 Mrs. Barrett stated she is in the process of selling the property to Mr.
37 Richard Lykins, 355 N. W. "E", who was present. Mr. Lykins stated he will
38 be doing the rehab work on the structure. Mrs. Barrett's attorney is drawing
39 up the contract for the sale.
40
41 Mr. Ryder stated the structure is rehabible and he would estimate a cost of
42 $15,000 which would include labor to do the ne.cessary work plus cosmetic work.
43 He noted in his estimation the structure is sound. Mr. Roberts stated- the
44 heating, electric and plumbing would have to be done by licensed contractors
45 to meet the building code and estimated $4,000 to get this done. He estimated
46 another $2,000 for a roof.
47
48 Mr. Meredith moved that there is an unsafe building existing at 95-97 Ft.
49 Wayne Avenue, the current owner being Elizabeth Barrett, and that this Board
50 request that within a thirty (30) day period which would be March 5, 1981,
51 that they be informed of any transfer of ownership; if the property is sold
52 to a Mr. Richard Lykins that the order to demolish the building within a
53 certain time period be extended until August 6, 1981 at which time Mr. Lykins
54 would be requested to either appear or notify the Board of the progress that
55 is being made and at that time attempt to give a final completion date that
56 he thinks the project will be completed, seconded by Mr. Webb and on unanimous
57 voice vote the motion was carried.
I58
59 ADJOURNMENT
60
61 There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
62
63 Donald E. Meredith
64 President
65
66 ATTEST: JoEll:en Trimble
67 Clerk of the Board