03-28-11 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2011 percentage assessed for the entire job and not just at the end. He stated that if it is assessed at the end then the local worker loses out on the work. Mr. James Harris, 1125 South Bend Avenue, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. Mr. Harris stated that he knows nothing about the plan at the triangle, to change the direction of the streets and close some off at S.R. 23. He stated all that was said to him was that the City was not going to take his property. He stated that he has not seen the map that was discussed at this afternoon's committee meeting. He asked for a continuance on this bill until he has an opportunity to look over the plans. Ms. Carol Davis, 1631 Lincolnway East, South Bend, Indiana, spoke in opposition to this bill. She stated that the two homes in question should be used as anchors for the proposed subdivision. Ms. Davis stated that 100% of the jobs should be offered to local resident workers in South Bend. Local money, local jobs, the money stays here. In Rebuttal, Gary Gilot advised that with the concern from Mr. Miller and computing the percent at each payroll that isn't the standard that they use, it is over the course of the whole job; aggregate hours in dollars in have to be 20% of the jobs local minimum. There maybe times due to the nature of the trades or subcontractors on the job where it is 40% and other times where it is 10%, but over the whole job it has to come out to a weighted number of 20%total jobs. So it's not like they take a snapshot at the end of the job and be at 2%for the whole job but on the last day you make sure that you have 20% local at that would pass, that would not pass. Mr. Gilot stated that you have to meet the aggregate over the whole job. Mr. Gilot then noted the issue about the map. He stated that Mr. Harris has been a member of the neighborhood organizations that have had numerous discussions on this plan. Mr. Gilot noted that this plan has not changed since 2009. Mr. Gilot advised that this plan has been discussed at numerous NNRO; NENC meetings, so the map is not a shocking new layout that they just came up with. Mr. Gilot stated that the issue of 100% local resident worker is nice and we all feel that way in our hearts, however, the State of Indiana Statutes say differently. He stated that they are trying to do something that stretches public policy without ending up in court. So it was a serious judgment with involvement with legal counsel to set it at the 20% not at 100%. He stated that they put wording in there that their goals are as high as possible, and keeps them on the right side of the law. Mr. Henry Davis asked what the State Statute says. He stated that when a bill comes before the Council their information is limited because it is presented as how the administration would like it to appear. Mr. Gilot stated that the public bidding statutes call for open specifications to promote opening competition and that they award to the lowest responsive bidder. He stated that many people refer to it as lowest and best, but that is not exactly what the statute says. He stated that it is lowest and responsible, responsible meaning that if they were the only bidder and it was thought that they were incompetent they would be rejected. So they make a decision as to whether they were a competent bidder. Responsiveness has to do with whether they had a bid bond, whether they signed their non-collusion affidavit. Whether they acknowledge their addendum, filled out the bidding forms properly, if they had a goal for resident local worker and the specification that required a check list acknowledgment and that they are aware of that and are going to comply and they don't acknowledge that, then it would be a non-responsive bid. Mr. Gilot stated that the statutes in Indiana intend to have wide open competition, no restrictive trade, kind of a free trade and they can have a long philosophical discussion of free trade, fair trade but the intent behind those statutes is not to have a wall go up and parochialism, they would like for you to reach out within your region and go out and open it to all bidders union, non union, anyone who is competent and responsible and responsive bidder to the extent that you craft your specifications to be very exclusionary or even proprietary, say for example that only one firm could win this bid you are violating the statutes. Mr. Gilot noted that when the Council appropriates money, the Board of Public Works is knowledgeable and experienced in that public bidding law and there are gray areas that are questioned they seek counsel for the Legal Department staff who are at every Board of Public Works meeting and everyone is welcome to attend those Board of Public Works 6