11/03/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1980 to be corrected by either Tri -State or some other contractor. He emphasized that the Building Department had never approved the work because it had never had a chance to get on the inside to make an inspection. He stated that the contractor had also stated that he was willing to make the repairs but Mrs. Davis would not let him come onto the premises to do so. Mr. Hill tried to explain to Mrs. Davis that, if the contractor had not fulfilled his part of the agreement with Mrs. Davis concerning the work to be done, it became a matter that Mrs. Davis would have to resolve with Tri - State and her attorney. He stressed that the city's only obligation and authority in the matter was to see that the code violations were corrected which the contractor was willing to do and Mrs. Davis was not. He stated that, after the code violations were corrected, Mrs. Davis may still not be satisfied with the work but the code require- ments would be met and there would be nothing more the city could do. Mrs. Davis stated that the contractor had come back six times to make the repairs and had succeeded in doing nothing but make the situation worse. She stated that she wanted another contractor to, make the repairs. She could not understand why the city would not help her. Mr. Hill again tried to explain. He stated that, in this case, Mrs. Davis was not taking advantage of a federal program such as the Bureau of Housing offered to property owners in order for them to make needed repairs on their homes using federal money. He stated that, when federal money is used, the city has some control over the work being done; however, in Mrs. Davis' case, she had contracted with the builder and would be paying for the repairs with her own money, and the only thing the city could do would be to make sure all code requirements were met. ,,Any dissatisfaction Mrs. Davis had with the contractor beyond that would be her problem and she would have no alternative but to seek legal advice to resolve the matter. Mr. Markle stated that the contractor had tried only once, after receiving his July 21st letter concerning the need to make the repairs, to go onto the property and had been run off by Mrs. Davis. He stated that she would not let the contractor back on the property to do the required work. He stated that the water problems are developing as a result of the new roof and the existing roof. He was certain this could be corrected. He stated that the siding Mrs. Davis had complained about was a cosmetic matter and was not a code violation since the city did not require a permit for siding. He stated further that the foundation work would be corrected by the contractor also. Mr. McMahon advised Mrs. Davis that all the city could do would be to force the contractor to make the repairs and comply with the code. He stated that she would have to resolve the other problems with the contractor herself. Mr. Hill stated that he felt Mr. Markle had stretched the city's authority as far as possible and that there was nothing more the city could do. He stated that that was why he had suggested to Mrs. Davis previously that she retain an attorney to help her. Mrs. Davis stated that she had contacted three other contractors who had told her the work which was done was poor. Mr. Hill again stated that Mrs. Davis would need to work these matters out with an attorney and Tri - State. When she complained that she could not afford an attorney, Mr. Hill stated that that was why he had recommended she contact Legal Aid. She then stated that, on past occasions, she had contacted Legal Aid for advice but they had not been able to help her to her satisfaction. Mr. Markle stated that he felt the city had provided every service it could to Mrs. Davis and if she was not willing to let the contractor back on the property to make the required repairs, there was nothing more that could be done for her. Mr. Hill asked Mr. Markle to contact the contractor one more time to determine when he would be able to make the repairs., He concluded that, if Mrs. Davis then refused to let the contractor do the work, there would be nothing more the city would be able to do for her.