Search

§ 66.41

(ii) Requesting advances or reim-
bursements when letters of credit are
not used.

(2) Grantees need not apply the forms
prescribed in this section in dealing
with their subgrantees. However,
grantees shall not impose more burden-
some requirements on subgrantees.

(3) Grantees shall follow all applica-
ble standard and supplemental Federal
agency instructions approved by OMB
to the extend required under the Paper-
work Reduction Act of 1980 for use in
connection with forms specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this sec-
tion. Federal agencies may issue sub-
stantive supplementary instructions
only with the approval of OMB. Federal
agencies may shade out or instruct the
grantee to disregard any line item that
the Federal agency finds unnecessary
for its decisionmaking purposes.

(4) Grantees will not be required to
submit more than the original and two
copies of forms required under this
part.

(5) Federal agencies may provide
computer outputs to grantees to expe-
dite or contribute to the accuracy of
reporting. Federal agencies may accept
the required information from grantees
in machine usable format or computer
printouts instead of prescribed forms.

(6) Federal agencies may waive any
report required by this section if not
needed.

(7) Federal agencies may extend the
due date of any financial report upon
receiving. a justified request from a
grantee.

(b) Financial Status Report—(1) Form.
Grantees will use Standard Form 269 or
969A, Financial Status Report, to re-
port the status of funds for all non-
construction grants and for construc-
tion grants when required in accord-
ance with §66.41(e)(2)Gii).

(2) Accounting basis, Each grantee will
report program outlays and program
income on a cash or accrual basis as
prescribed by the awarding agency. if
the Federal agency requires accrual in-
formation and the grantee’s accounting
records are not normally kept on the
accrual basis, the grantee shall not be
required to convert its accounting sys-
tem but shall develop such accrual in-
formation through and analysis of the
documentation on hand.

28 CFR Ch. | (7-1-10 Edition)

(3) Frequency. The Federal agency
may prescribe the frequency of the re-
port for each project or program. How-
ever, the report will not be required
more frequently than quarterly. If the
Federal agency does not specify the
frequency of the report, it will be sub-
mitted annually. A final report will be
required upon expiration or termi-
nation of grant support.

(4) Due date. When reports are re-
quired on a quarterly or semiannual
hasis, they will be due 30 days after the
reporting period. When required on an
annual basis, they will be due 90 days
after the grant year. Final reports will
be due 90 days after the expiration or
termination of grant support.

(c) Federal Cash Transactions Report—
(1) Form. (i) For grants paid by letter or
credit, Treasury check advances or
electronic transfer of funds, the grant-
ee will submit the Standard Form 272,
Federal Cash Transactions Report, and
when necessary, its continuation sheet,
Standard Form 272a, unless the terms
of the award exempt the grantee from
this requirement.

(ii) These reports will be used by the
Federal agency to monitor cash ad-
vanced to grantees and to obtain dis-
bursement or outlay information for
each grant from grantees. The format
of the report may be adapted as appro-
priate when reporting is to be accom-
plished with the assistance of auto-
matic data processing equipment pro-
vided that the information to be sub-
mitted is not changed in substance.

(2) Forecasts of Federal cash require-
ments. Forecasts of Federal cash re-
quirements may be required in the
“Remarks” section of the report.

(3) Cash in hands of subgrantees. When
considered necessary and feasible by
the Federal agency, grantees may be
required to report the amount of cash
advances in excess of three days’ needs
in the hands of their subgrantees or
contractors and to provide short nar-
rative explanations of actions taken by
the grantee to reduce the excess bal-
ances.

(4) Frequency and due date. Grantees
must submit the report no later than 15
working days following the end of each
quarter. However, where an advance ei-
ther by letter of credit or electronic
transfer of funds is authorized at an

214

Department of Justice

annualized rate of one million dollars
or more, the Federal agency may re-
quire the report to be submitted within
15 working days following the end of
each month.

(d) Request for advance or reimburse-
ment—(1) Advance payments. Requests
for Treasury check advance payments
will be submitted on Standard Form
270, Request for Advance or Reimburse-
ment. (This form will not be used for
drawdowns under a letter of credit,
electronic funds transfer or when
Treasury check advance payments are
made to the grantee automatically on
a predetermined basis.)

(2) Reimbursements. Requests for reim-
bursement under ‘nonconstruction
grants will also be submitted on Stand-
ard Form 270. (For reimbursement re-
quests under construction grants, see
paragraph (e)(1) of this section.)

(3) The frequency for submitting pay-
ment requests is treated in § 66.41(b)(3).

(e) Outlay report and request for reim-
bursement for construction programs—(1)
Grants that support construction activi-
ties paid by reimbursement method. (1)
Requests for reimbursement under con-
struction grants will be submitted on
Standard Form 271, Outlay Report and
Request for Reimbursement for Con-
struction Programs. Federal agencies
may, however, prescribe the Request
for Advance or Reimbursement form,
specified in §66.41(d), instead of this
form.

(ii) The frequency for submitting re-
imbursement requests is treated in
§66.41(b)(3).

(2) Grants that support construction ac-
tivities paid by letter of credit, electronic
funds transfer or Treasury check ad-
vance. (i) When a construction grant is
paid by letter of credit, electronic
funds transfer or Treasury check ad-
vances, the grantee will report its out-
lays to the Federal agency using
Standard Form 271, Outlay Report and
Request for Reimbursement for Con-
struction Programs. The Federal agen-
cy will provide any necessary special
instruction. However, frequency and
due date shall be governed by §66.41(b)
(3) and (4).

(ii) When a construction grant is paid
by Treasury check advances based on
periodic requests from the grantee, the

§ 66.42

advances will be requested on the form
specified in §66.41(d).

(iii) The Federal agency may sub-
stitute the Financial Status Report
specified in §66.41(b) for the Outlay Re-
port and Request for Reimbursement
for Construction Programs.

(8) Accounting basis. The accounting
basis for the Outlay Report and Re-
quest for Reimbursement for Construc-
tion Programs shall be governed by
§ 66.41(b)(2).

866.42 Retention and access require-
ments for records.

(a) Applicability. (1) This section ap-
plies to all financial and programmatic
records, supporting documents, statis-
tical records, and other records of
grantees or subgrantees which are:

(i) Required to be maintained by the
terms of this part, program regulations
or the grant agreement, or

(ii) Otherwise reasonably considered
as pertinent to program regulations or
the grant agreement.

(2) This section does not apply to
records maintained by contractors or
subcontractors. For a requirement to
place a provision concerning records in
certain kinds of contracts, see
§ 66.36(1)(10).

(b) Length of retention period. (1) Ex-
cept as otherwise provided, records
must be retained for three years from
the starting date specified in paragraph
(c) of this section.

(2) If any litigation, claim, negotia-
tion, audit or other action involving
the records has been started before the
expiration of the 3-year period, the
records must be retained until comple-
tion of the action and resolution of all
issues which arise from it, or until the
end of the regular 3-year period, which-
ever is later.

(3) To avoid duplicate recordkeeping,
awarding agencies may make special
arrangements with grantees and sub-
grantees to retain any records which
are continuously needed for joint use.
The awarding agency will request
transfer of records to its custody when
it determines that the records possess
long-term retention value. When the
records are transferred to or main-
tained by the Federal agency, the 3-
year retention requirement is not ap-
plicable to the grantee or subgrantee.

215

§ 66.43

(c) Starting date of retention period—{1)
General. When grant support is contin-
ued or renewed at annual or other in-
tervals, the retention period for the
records of each funding period starts on
the day the grantee or subgrantee sub-
mits to the awarding agency its single
or last expenditure report for that pe-
riod. However, if grant support is con-
tinued or renewed quarterly, the reten-
tion period for each year’s records
starts on the day the grantee submits
its expenditure report for the last quar-
ter of the Federal fiscal year. In all
other cases, the retention period starts
on the day the grantee submits its
final expenditure report. If an expendi-
ture report has been walved, the reten-
tion period starts on the day the report
would have been due.

(2) Real property and equipment
records. The retention period for real
property and equipment records starts
from the date of the disposition or re-
placement or transfer at the direction
of the awarding agency.

- (8) Records for income transactions
after grant or subgrant support. In some
cases grantees must report income
after the period of grant support.
Where there is such a requirement, the
retention period for the records per-
taining to the earning of the income
starts from the end of the grantee’s fis~
cal year in which the income is earned.

(4) Indirect cost rate proposals, cost al-
locations plans, etc. This paragraph ap-
plies to the following types of docu-
ments, and their supporting records:
indirect cost rate computations or pro-
posals, cost allocation plans, and any
similar accounting computations of
the rate at which a particular group of
costs is chargeable (such as computer
usage chargeback rates or composite
fringe benefit rates).

(i) If submitted for negotiation. If the
proposal, plan, or other computation is
required to be submitted to the Federal
Government (or to the grantee) to form
the basis for negotiation of the rate,
then the 3-year retention period for its
supporting records starts from the date
of such submission.

(ii) If not submitted for negotiation. If
the proposal, plan, or other computa-
tion is not required to be submitted to
the Federal Government (or to the
grantee) for negotiation purposes, then

28 CFR Ch, | (7-1-10 Edition)

the 3-year retention period for the pro-
posal plan, or computation and its sup-
porting records starts from end of the
fiscal year (or other accounting period)
covered by the proposal, plan, or other
computation.

(d) Substitution of microfilm. Copies
made by microfilming, photocopying,
or similar methods may be substituted
for the original records.

(e) Access to records—(1) Records of
grantees and subgrantees. The awarding
agency and the Comptroller General of
the United States, or any of their au-
thorized representatives, shall have the
right of access to any pertinent books,
documents, papers, or other records of
grantees and subgrantees which are
pertinent to the grant, in order to
make audits, examinations, excerpts,
and transcripts.

(2) Expiration of right of access. The
rights of access in this section must
not be limited to the required reten-
tion period but shall last as long as the
records are retained.

(f) Restrictions on public access. The
Federal Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552) does not apply to records
Unless required by Federal, State, or
local law, grantees and subgrantees are
not required to permit public access to
their records.

§66.43 Enforcement.

(a) Remedies for noncompliance. If a
grantee or subgrantee materially fails
to comply with any term of an award,
whether stated in a Federal statute or
regulation, an assurance, in a State
plan or application, a notice of award.
or elsewhere, the awarding agency may
take one or more of the following ac-
tions, as appropriate in the cir-
cumstances:

(1) Temporarily withhold cash pay-
ments pending correction of the defi-
ciency by the grantee or subgrantee or
more severe enforcement action by the
awarding agency,

(2) Disallow (that is, deny both use of
funds and matching credit for) all or
part of the cost of the activity or ac-
tion not in compliance,

(3) Wholly or partly suspend or ter-
minate the current award for the
grantee's or subgrantee’s program,

(4) Withhold further awards for the
program, or

216

Department of Justice

(5) Take other remedies that may be
legally available.

(b) Hearings, appeals. In taking an en-
forcement action, the awarding agency
will provide the grantee or subgrantee
an opportunity for such hearing, ap-
peal, or other administrative pro-
ceeding to which the grantee or sub-
grantee is entitled under any statute
or regulation applicable to the action
involved.

(c) Effects of suspension and termi-
nation. Costs of grantee or subgrantee
resulting from obligations incurred by
the grantee or subgrantee during a sus-
pension or after termination of an
award are not allowable unless the
awarding agency expressly authorizes
them in the notice of suspension or ter-
mination or subsequently. Other grant-
ee or subgrantee costs during suspen-
sion or after termination which are
necessary and not reasonably avoidable
are allowable if:

(1) The costs result from obligations
which were properly incurred by the
grantee or subgrantee before the effec-
tive date of suspension or termination,
are not in anticipation of it, and, in the
case of a termination, are
noncancellable, and,

(2) The costs would be allowable if
the award were not suspended or ex-
pired normally at the end of the fund-
ing period in which the termination
takes effect.

(d) Relationship to debarment and sus-
pension. The enforcement remedies
identified in this section, including
suspension and termination, do not
preclude grantee or subgrantee from
being subject to ‘‘Debarment and Sus-
pension" under E.O. 12549 (see § 66.35).

$66.44 Termination for convenience.

Except as provided in §66.43 awards
may be terminated in whole or in part
only as follows:

(a) By the awarding agency with the
consent of the grantee or subgrantee in
which case the two parties shall agree
upon the termination conditions, in-
cluding the effective date and in the
case of partial termination, the portion
to be terminated, or

(b) By the grantee or subgrantee
upon written notification to the award-
ing agency, setting forth the reasons
for such termination, the effective

§ 66.50

date, and in the case of partial termi-
nation, the portion to be terminated.
However, if, in the case of a partial ter-
mination, the awarding agency deter-
mines that the remaining portion of
the award will not accomplish the pur-
poses for which the award was made,
the awarding agency may terminate
the award in its entirety under either
§66.43 or paragraph (a) of this section.

Subpart D—After-The-Grant
Requirements

$66.50 Closeout.

(a) General. The Federal agency will
close out the award when it determines
that all applicable administrative ac-
tions and all required work of the
grant has been completed.

(b) Reports. Within 90 days after the
expiration or termination of the grant,
the grantee must submit all financial,
performance, and other reports re-
quired as a condition of the grant.
Upon request by the grantee, Federal
agencies may extend this timeframe.
These may include but are not limited
to:

(1) Final performance or progress re-
port.

(2) Financial Status Report (SF 269)
or Outlay Report and Request for Re-
imbursement for Construction Pro-
grams (SF-271) (as applicable.)

(3) Final request for payment (SF-
270) (if applicable).

(4) Invention disclosure (if applica-
ble).

(5) Federally-owned property report. In
accordance with §66.32(f), a grantee
must submit an inventory of all feder-
ally owned property (as distinct from
property acquired with grant funds) for
which it is accountable and request dis-
position instructions from the Federal
agency of property no longer needed.

(c) Cost adjustment. The Federal agen-
cy will, within 90 days after receipt of
reports in paragraph (b) of this section,
make upward or downward adjust-
ments to the allowable costs.

(d) Cash adjustments. (1) The Federal
agency will make prompt payment to
the grantee for allowable reimbursable
costs.

(2) The grantee must immediately re-
fund to the Federal agency any balance
of unobligated (unencumbered) cash

217

§ 66.51

advanced that is not authorized to be
retained for use on other grants.

§66.51 Later disallowances and adjust-
ments.

The closeout of a grant does not af-
fect:

(a) The Federal agency’s right to dis-
allow costs and recover funds on the
basis of a later audit or other review;

(b) The grantee’s obligation to return
any funds due as a result of later re-

funds, corrections, or other trans-
actions;

(c) Records retention as required in
§ 66.42;

(ad) Property management require-
ments in §§ 66.81 and 66.32; and
(e) Audit requirements in § 66.26.

866.52 Collection of amounts due.

(a) Any funds paid to a grantee in ex-
cess of the amount to which the grant-
ee is finally determined to be entitled
under the terms of the award con-
stitute a debt to the Federal Govern-
ment. If not paid within a reasonable
period after demand, the Federal agen-
ey may reduce the debt by:

(1) Making an administrative offset
against other requests for reimburse-
ments,

(2) Withholding advance payments
otherwise due to the grantee, or

(3) Other action permitted by law.

(bo) Except where otherwise provided
by statutes or regulations, the Federal
agency will charge interest on an over-
due debt in accordance with the Fed-
eral Claims Collection Standards (4
CFR Ch. I). The date from which inter-
est is computed is not extended by liti-
gation or the filing of any form of ap-
peal.

Subpart E—Entitlement [Reserved]

28 CFR Ch. | (7-1-10 Edition)

PART 68—-RULES OF PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRA-
TIVE HEARINGS BEFORE ADMIN-
ISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN CASES
INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF
ALIENS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-
RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRAC-
TICES, AND DOCUMENT FRAUD

Sec.

68.1 Scope of rules.

68.2 Definitions.

68.3 Service of complaint, notice of hearing,
written orders, and decisions.

68.4 Complaints regarding unfair immigra-
tion-related employment practices.

68.5 Notice of date, time, and place of hear-
ing.

68.6 Service and filing of documents.

68.7 Form of pleadings.

68.8 Time computations.

68.9 Responsive pleadings—answer.

68.10 Motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted,

68.11 Motions and requests.

68.12 Prehearing statements.

68.13 Conferences.

68.14 Consent findings or dismissal.

68.15 Intervenor in unfair immigration-re-
lated employment cases.

68.16 Consolidation of hearings.

68.17 Amicus curiae.

68.18 Discovery—general provisions.

68.19 Written interrogatories to parties.

68.20 Production of documents, things, and
inspection of land.

68.21 Admissions,

68.22 Depositions.

68.23 Motion to compel response to dis-
covery; sanctions.

68.24 Use of depositions at hearings.

68.25 Subpoenas.

68.26 Designation of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.27 Continuances.

68.28 Authority of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.29 Unavailability of Administrative Law
Judge.

68.30 Disqualification.

68.31 Separation of functions.

68.82 Expedition.

68,33 Participation of parties and represen-
tation.

68,34 Legal assistance.

68.35 Standards of conduct.

68.36 Ex parte communications.

68.37 Waiver of right to appear and failure
to participate or to appear.

68.38 Motion for summary decision.

68.39 Formal hearings.

68.40 Hvidence.

68.41 Official notice.

218

REPORT OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
APRIL 6, 2016

A meeting of the Finance Committee was held on Wednesday, April 6, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic
Chamber.

Mayor Jim Donchess, Chair, presided.

Members of the Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Mark S. Cookson, Vice Chair
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien
Alderman Benjamin M. Clemons
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Ken Siegel

Also in Attendance: Mr. David G. Fredette, Treasurer
Mr. Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Attorney Steven Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Mr. David Simmons, Superintendent of Wastewater

PUBLIC COMMENT - None
COMMUNICATIONS

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Contract Award for Auditing Services — FY2017 (Value: $116,500)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND CONTINGENT UPON BOARD OF
ALDERMEN APPROVAL, EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $116,500. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT 126, FINANCIAL SERVICES;
GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($87,375);
DEPARTMENT 168, SOLID WASTE; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($11,650); AND,
DEPARTMENT 169, WASTE WATER; 53, PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES ($17,050)

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Wilshire

| don’t have any questions for tonight because | read what you put in here. It makes sense that we continue to
employee Melanson Heath & Company given that they have familiarity with the old admin system and of
course the new Lawson system and it makes sense to me to keep them on until we get through all of this. | am
going to support this.

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Contract Award for Aquatic Herbicide Treatment for Mine Falls Park Mill Pond and Canal
(Value: $21,345)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
SOLITUDE LAKE MANAGEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,345. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS
DEPARTMENT 177, PARKS AND RECREATION; MINE FALLS PARK EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND, 55,
OTHER SERVICES

Report of the Finance Committee Page 2
April 6, 2016

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Clemons

| am very familiar with the milfoiling and all of the exotic weeds that plague our state but | am wondering is this,
how long is this effective for because it looks like we did this a couple of years ago and the infestation is back
and from what | understand it really is never going to go away and | am wondering if we have looked into, or if
the state allows, there are different ways to treat this and one of them is by importing a bug called a milfoil
weevil and it actually eats all of the milfoil completely out of the lake or pond. In some cases it’s moderately
effective, in other cases it’s too effective and what it does is it will eat out all of the aquatic vegetation but in my
view | almost look at that as a better alternative because you can always restore a pond once it’s been
eliminated of its vegetation. | am wondering if this is just putting a band aid on a bigger problem and maybe
there are other solutions out there that we have not looked at.

Alderman Siegel

Just to address the question of is this effective, it’s not every two years and it has been recently effective. As
far as the milfoil bug, | am not so sure about that because we haven't discussed that before the Board of Public
Works. Typically the restrictions with the state won’t allow that. I'll try to bring that up before the Board of
Public Works next time but this has been effective and the one thing that’s not listed in here is water chestnut
mitigation and that’s been done by hand pulling and apparently is not only very effective but is free because it’s
been done by volunteers so that’s good news there.

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Purchase of Playground Structures for Labine Park (Value: $62,485)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE
FROM M.E. O’BRIEN & SONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,485. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS
DEPARTMENT 184, URBAN PROGRAMS; CDBG FISCAL YEARS 2015 AND 2016 ($50,952); AND,
DEPARTMENT 177, PARKS AND RECREATION; PRIOR YEAR ESCROWS-LABINE PARK; 71,
STRUCTURES ($11,533)

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Wilshire

The M.E. O’Brien & Sons quote says that they are doing the installation of this equipment, is that correct?

Mr. Kooken

They are installing a portion of it; the more technical items are going to be installed and then there is going to
be a public day where they are going to install some of the remainder of the equipment.

Alderman Wilshire

The reason that | ask is because on their quote it says that the prices are not using prevailing wage rates
unless otherwise specified. If they are using CDBG funds then they have to use the Davis-Bacon Wage Act.

Mr. Kooken

| will have to follow-up on that as it has not been brought up and discussed previously.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 3
April 6, 2016

Alderman Siegel

| know that Davis-Bacon has limitations and certain thresholds that you have to pass before you are exposed
to Davis-Bacon restrictions. I’m not sure if they are going passed those and it may be that the majority of the
work is the kind of work that they won't be doing.

Mr. Kooken

I'll take a look at that.

Mayor Donchess

Alderman Wilshire, are you suggesting that we hold this at this point?

Alderman Wilshire

Well, its playground equipment and | think the lead time on getting this stuff in will really hold them up. |
brought it up because | don’t usually see that in a contract like this. | don’t really suggest holding it up. |
would just like clarification with the use of the CDBG funds if it’s following the Davis-Bacon Wage Act.
Alderman Clemons

| would imagine that if we pass this contract and it is in fact not following those wage guidelines then there

would be a re-evaluation and | would assume a new contract would come before us for the remainder of the
dollars?

Mayor Donchess
Correct.
Alderman Caron

| have a question about that CDBG money because the money that they requested for 2016-2017 is for this
same piece of equipment so I’m a little bit confused.

Mayor Donchess

| think that the cost of the project is requiring that more CDBG money be assigned to it so | don’t think this is a
duplication of what the money that’s being requested in 2017. The donor is giving about $150,000 and this
would take it to $212,000 but | think then more money is required.

Alderman Caron

How much are we getting from that funding source that we have been dealing with for the last four years? |
think this is great and | agree that | don’t want to hold it up. The other thing is that the picture that was in the
paper this morning was not the facility that they are doing this repair. | think this piece of equipment is
wonderful and I'll support it.

Alderman Cookson

If somebody could catch me up because the last time | was in this Chamber | thought Legacy Playground was
paying for everything.

Report of the Finance Committee Page 4
April 6, 2016

Mayor Donchess

The Board of Aldermen approved the location on the east side of Concord Street, then a plan was developed
by Jennifer Brook and working with her were Eric Brand and Tom Papas. They developed a very nice plan but
the trouble was that the estimate was around $500,000. That was kind of pending for a while and then the
Legacy Playground Group decided to switch the location to Labine Field which, | don’t even know if it was
approved by the Board of Public Works but the Board of Aldermen was not involved because it wasn’t Greeley
Park. Yes, it is going to require additional funds to construct the park beyond those available to the Legacy
Playground fundraising effort. Since we all consider it to be a very worthwhile project we are asking that we go
forward with it even though all of the money was not privately raised.

Alderman Cookson

In addition, how much is being contributed by Legacy Playground?

Mayor Donchess

It seems like it’s in the range of $150,000 to $165,000.

Alderman Cookson

| think it’s outside of the scope of this because this is just about the equipment but | know that this playground
is going to abut a ball field and | know that there are several homeruns that are hit over that left field fence so |

just want to make sure that there is protection for the patrons of this new park that might be visiting, especially
the children.

Mayor Donchess

| think that’s going to be taking care of with a net. The request that was approved by the Human Affairs
Committee is for the construction of the upgrade of the restrooms at the facility. As | recall it’s a $20,000
inclusion in the CDBG resolution, which again is restrooms and not this equipment. The request was reduced
by the committee.

Alderman Caron

The $20,000 that’s in the resolution is for the restrooms only and not for this piece of equipment.

Alderman Siegel

Should there be a requirement to adhere to the Davis-Bacon Wage rates, that’s really up to the contractor to
pay that money, it doesn’t come back to the city. If they have to pay a higher rate because that’s a
requirement then that’s the way it goes, that’s why we contracts.

Alderman O’Brien

| would like to point out that the contractor is M.E. O’Brien and it’s just a common name and there is no conflict.

MOTION CARRIED

Report of the Finance Committee Page 5
April 6, 2016

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Amherst Street Improvements — Charron Avenue to Diesel Road (Value: $1,537,096)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND, CONTINGENT UPON BOARD OF
ALDERMEN APPROVAL, AWARD THE CONTRACT TO CONTINENTAL PAVING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,537,096. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT 160, ADMIN/ENGINEERING; BOND &
CONTRIBUTIONS AMHERST STREET ROAD & TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS ($1,392,477) AND TRUST
FUND, 61 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS ($69,619); AND DEPARTMENT 161, STREET; GENERAL FUND,
PAVING ($75,000)

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: Construction Phase Engineering Services for Amherst Street Improvements (Value: $77,865)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
GREENMAN - PEDERSEN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,865. SOURCE OF FUNDING IS DEPARTMENT
160, ADMIN/ENGINEERING; BOND & CONTRIBUTIONS, AMHERST STREET ROAD & TRAFFIC
IMPROVEMENTS

MOTION CARRIED

From: Dan Kooken, Purchasing Manager
Re: FY16 Asphalt Testing (Value: $23,600)

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO
JOHN TURNER CONSULTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,600. FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN DEPARTMENT
161, STREET; GENERAL FUND, PAVING; AND, TRUST FUND; 54, PROPERTY SERVICES

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Clemons

| would like to know what the purpose of this is.

Mayor Donchess

The purpose is to try to ensure that the quality of the asphalt that is being laid down meets the specifications.
If it doesn’t then the road deteriorates more quickly.

Alderman Clemons

The asphalt from who?

Mayor Donchess

From Continental Paving who has been awarded the paving bid.
Alderman Clemons

We are paying for the testing?

Mayor Donchess

Yes, if this contract is approved.