Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-14-1918 Friday, October . 11, 1915 . 237 His Honor the Mayor reommended to the Board the removal of the fountain et North 18th & C street to some other location in the same vicinity. No action taken. The Board did then adjourn. Attest : - 1r' Presider er of the Board .11/71,1,„e4/14-7,t7 I/ Clerk of the Board . --00000000ao00000000coo-- Office of the Board of Public r.orks City of nichmond , Indiana Monday ,October 14, 1910 The Board of Public Vrorks of the City of itichmond., Indiana met in regular session a.t the office of said Board , Mohda.y, October 11 , 1918 , at 9 :00 A.M. All members of said Board being -aresent , Messrs, , Johnson, Taylor , and Peitz , the following proceedings were had to-wit : - The minutes of the previous meeting read and were arrroved . The Board ar.,-.roved the 0ontrz_e t & Bond of the nichmond. Oil Co. as principal , and the United :Mates r. fidelity & Guaranty Co . as surety in the matter of installing Gasoline and Oil and Air Dis- - penser infront o,f No. 6 north 6th Street . (See Contract and Bond ) - Mr. Dillon reported to the Board that the M.E.L. & P.D. furnish - the Home Telephone Company light and rower without charge , for the privilege of making contact on their poles . Mr. Dillon stated that it cost the city about 4500.00 a year to furnish this current. The Board decided to take this matter up with the City Atty. The Board instructed Mr. Dillon, Supt . of the Light Plant to place an Arc Light at the corner of North 9th & A streets. Mr. Pinnick, Bldg. Inspector , and Lir. Davis , City ;neineer , made a report in regard to the K. of P . Temple as follows : To the Board of Public 'aorks , Gentlemen: Pursuant to your instructions we have made an inspection of I/ - the K. of P . Bldg. , to ascertain whether the recommendations made by the experts , to guarantee the safty of certain portions of the floor s'•istem , has been complied with. We found that no additional reinforced concrete work has been done since the inspection of the experts , as the contractor is waiting for the reinforcement to arrive. The finish coat of cement mortar has been applied -to the en- tire area Of the second floor , excent a portion in the front part: of the building. The finish coat has not been applied to the first or third floors as vet . V,e could not determine by any appearances in the building whether they intended to comely with the recommendations made or not , according to :your instructions e,e !?ia not interview any of 238 Monday , October 14 , 1919. the Illen in charge to ascertain their Intentions in regard to complying with the recommendations that were made . Yours very truly , John P innicl Bldg. Inspector. D. B . Davis City Civil Engineer. Er. Pelts moved the report be accepted and placed on file as a matter of record. Seconded by Irr. Taylor so ordered. IMr. Taylor moved that the City appoint a competent engineer , and for Mr. Starr to appoint a competent engineer, and these two eng- ineers to ar,point a third engineer to •inspect the : . of P. Bldg . , and for the City Attorney to instruct Er. Starr that the City would abide by the decision of these engineers . Seconded by Mr. Johnson so ordered . The Board instructed the City hngineer and Street Commissioner to build a manhole in .sever running from the Training Carp to the , river. The City Attorney reported that as heretofore formerly reported, the :Richmond homeTelephone Company had filed a schedule of -rates on the 31st day of August 1918 , with the Public Service Commission. Purporting to increase its rates under the terms of its franchise with the City. The City Attorney reported that after carefully examining the law that it is his opinion that the . franchise or contract eyecuted between the City and the Company dated February 13 , 1908 , and. ratified by Council on March r, 1908 and which was never surrendered by the Company, is a binding con- tract and governs the question of the telephone rates in the City. The City Attorney further reported however that although the, con- tract was binding by its terms on the question cf rates , the Com- pany infact does not now have and did .not have when it recently • filed its said schedule of rates with the Commission , a sufficient number of telephones , as he interprets the contract , to justify or permit , under the terms of the contract , the increase of rates claimed by the Company, as shown by its said schedule recently filed with the Commission. The City Attorney stated that the Company doe: not have enough telephones , in service to permit said increase in rates under the terms of the. contract , unless the extention telephones , telephones in intercommunicating systems, including systems in hotels , and. ,telephones outside the City :Limits , are counted , and that in his opinion the contract does not permit the counting of telephones outside of the City Limits nor the extention telephones and telephones .comprising intercom- municating systems in the City. City Attorney filed written opinion on both point; with the CityI/ Clerk. The Board did then adjourn. Attest : (pfrejaik.. 44j 4/01440 President Jiff the Board . Clerk of the Board.