UIHistories Project: A History of the University of Illinois by Kalev Leetaru
N A V I G A T I O N D I G I T A L L I B R A R Y
Bookmark and Share



Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1964 [PAGE 1158]

Caption: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1964
This is a reduced-resolution page image for fast online browsing.


Jump to Page:
< Previous Page [Displaying Page 1158 of 1633] Next Page >
[VIEW ALL PAGE THUMBNAILS]




EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:



1964]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

1113

that he is entitled to additional compensation under the contract on the ground that actions taken by the University required him to do work that was different from or not specified in the contract documents, and thereafter he filed suit in the Circuit Court of Champaign County claiming damages in the amount of $31,443.93. Negotiations have proceeded with respect to the work in question, and the contractor has now agreed to accept the sum of $5,950 in full payment and satisfaction of all of his claims against the University under the contract. The Vice-President and Comptroller, the Director of the Physical Plant, and the Legal Counsel are of the opinion that said amount is reasonable in view of the work performed and recommend that a final settlement between the University and the contractor be approved and authorized on the basis stated. Funds are available in the state capital appropriations to the University from the Universities Building Fund. I concur. O n m o t i o n of M r . P a g e , t h i s s e t t l e m e n t w a s a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e following v o t e : A y e , M r . Clement, M r . Dilliard, M r . H u g h e s , M r . Johnston, M r . Jones, Mr. Page, Mr. Pogue, Mr. Swain, M r s . W a t k i n s ; no, n o n e ; absent, M r . K e r n e r , M r . W i l l i a m s o n . CONTRACT FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING BUILDING STORM SEWER DIVERSION (17) The Director of the Physical Plant and the Vice-President and Comptroller recommend award of a contract for $16,459.25 to Clancy Construction Company, Urbana, the lowest bidder, for construction of a storm sewer diversion around the Civil Engineering Building site, a necessary improvement incidental to construction of the new building. Funds are available in the state capital appropriations to the University for 1963-65 and have been released. I concur. O n m o t i o n of M r . S w a i n , t h i s c o n t r a c t w a s a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e following vote: Aye, M r . Clement, M r . Dilliard, M r . H u g h e s , M r . J o h n ston, M r . J o n e s , M r . P a g e , M r . P o g u e , M r . S w a i n , M r s . W a t k i n s ; n o , none; absent, M r . K e r n e r , M r . Williamson. ADDITION TO CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION (18) The Director of the Physical Plant and the Vice-President and Comptroller recommend an increase of $15,412.50 in the contract with Kuhne-Simmons Company, Inc., for construction of the Administration Building Addition to include installation of condensate piping between the mechanical equipment room in the east basement of the addition and the proposed location of the cooling towers on the roof of the Administration Building West. Funds are available in the construction budget for this project. I concur.

On motion of Mr. Johnston, this change in contract was authorized.

ESTATE OF ANNA M. GULICK. DECEASED (19) On February 19, 1964, the Board approved joining with Northwestern University in instituting a suit to contest the documents admitted to probate as the Last Will and Testament of Anna M. Gulick. Subsequent negotiations involving the University, Northwestern University, the decedent's heirs, the executor of the estate appointed by the Probate Court, and legatees and beneficiaries under the various documents have resulted in a proposal that the University accept $8,750 in full settlement of all rights it may have in the estate. T h e Legal Counsel states that in his opinion the settlement proposal is reasonable in view of the nature of the legal questions involved, the size of the estate, and the expenses that would necessarily be incurred if the University proceeded with the litigation. H e recommends that acceptance of the settlement proposal be authorized. I concur. O n m o t i o n of M r . H u g h e s , t h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w a s a p p r o v e d .