My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2011
>
03-28-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2011 9:47:40 AM
Creation date
4/14/2011 9:47:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2011 <br /> percentage assessed for the entire job and not just at the end. He stated that if it is <br /> assessed at the end then the local worker loses out on the work. <br /> Mr. James Harris, 1125 South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to <br /> this bill. Mr. Harris stated that he knows nothing about the plan at the triangle, to change <br /> the direction of the streets and close some off at S.R. 23. He stated all that was said to <br /> him was that the City was not going to take his property. He stated that he has not seen <br /> the map that was discussed at this afternoon's committee meeting. He asked for a <br /> continuance on this bill until he has an opportunity to look over the plans. <br /> Ms. Carol Davis, 1631 Lincolnway East, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this <br /> bill. She stated that the two homes in question should be used as anchors for the <br /> proposed subdivision. Ms. Davis stated that 100% of the jobs should be offered to local <br /> resident workers in South Bend. Local money, local jobs, the money stays here. <br /> In Rebuttal, Gary Gilot advised that with the concern from Mr. Miller and computing the <br /> percent at each payroll that isn't the standard that they use, it is over the course of the <br /> whole job; aggregate hours in dollars in have to be 20% of the jobs local minimum. <br /> There maybe times due to the nature of the trades or subcontractors on the job where it is <br /> 40% and other times where it is 10%, but over the whole job it has to come out to a <br /> weighted number of 20%total jobs. So it's not like they take a snapshot at the end of the <br /> job and be at 2%for the whole job but on the last day you make sure that you have 20% <br /> local at that would pass, that would not pass. Mr. Gilot stated that you have to meet the <br /> aggregate over the whole job. Mr. Gilot then noted the issue about the map. He stated <br /> that Mr. Harris has been a member of the neighborhood organizations that have had <br /> numerous discussions on this plan. Mr. Gilot noted that this plan has not changed since <br /> 2009. Mr. Gilot advised that this plan has been discussed at numerous NNRO; NENC <br /> meetings, so the map is not a shocking new layout that they just came up with. Mr. Gilot <br /> stated that the issue of 100% local resident worker is nice and we all feel that way in our <br /> hearts, however, the State of Indiana Statutes say differently. He stated that they are <br /> trying to do something that stretches public policy without ending up in court. So it was <br /> a serious judgment with involvement with legal counsel to set it at the 20% not at 100%. <br /> He stated that they put wording in there that their goals are as high as possible, and keeps <br /> them on the right side of the law. <br /> Mr. Henry Davis asked what the State Statute says. He stated that when a bill comes <br /> before the Council their information is limited because it is presented as how the <br /> administration would like it to appear. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the public bidding statutes call for open specifications to promote <br /> opening competition and that they award to the lowest responsive bidder. He stated that <br /> many people refer to it as lowest and best, but that is not exactly what the statute says. <br /> He stated that it is lowest and responsible, responsible meaning that if they were the only <br /> bidder and it was thought that they were incompetent they would be rejected. So they <br /> make a decision as to whether they were a competent bidder. Responsiveness has to do <br /> with whether they had a bid bond, whether they signed their non-collusion affidavit. <br /> Whether they acknowledge their addendum, filled out the bidding forms properly, if they <br /> had a goal for resident local worker and the specification that required a check list <br /> acknowledgment and that they are aware of that and are going to comply and they don't <br /> acknowledge that, then it would be a non-responsive bid. Mr. Gilot stated that the <br /> statutes in Indiana intend to have wide open competition, no restrictive trade, kind of a <br /> free trade and they can have a long philosophical discussion of free trade, fair trade but <br /> the intent behind those statutes is not to have a wall go up and parochialism, they would <br /> like for you to reach out within your region and go out and open it to all bidders union, <br /> non union, anyone who is competent and responsible and responsive bidder to the extent <br /> that you craft your specifications to be very exclusionary or even proprietary, say for <br /> example that only one firm could win this bid you are violating the statutes. Mr. Gilot <br /> noted that when the Council appropriates money, the Board of Public Works is <br /> knowledgeable and experienced in that public bidding law and there are gray areas that <br /> are questioned they seek counsel for the Legal Department staff who are at every Board <br /> of Public Works meeting and everyone is welcome to attend those Board of Public Works <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.