My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 02-07-75
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1975
>
RM 02-07-75
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 9:51:52 AM
Creation date
9/20/2012 2:31:07 PM
Metadata
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
4. COMMUNICATIONS (Cont'd) <br />Mr. Brownell advised that the report he has received is <br />that we had a contract wi -th the general contractor- -Goins <br />Construction Company and he had listed Howell Electric <br />Company as his electrical subcontractor, under Permit <br />No. 70945. We have no arrangements with any of these <br />unauthorized people doing electrical work. <br />President Nimtz said, as he understands this situation, <br />this contract is not with this Body; it was with Model <br />Cities. It was not a Redevelopment contract and Ms. Swan <br />was requested to redirect her letter to the Model Cities <br />Agency, as this is a Model Cities contract. <br />Ms. Swan said that the same conditions probably occur <br />under the Redevelopment contracts as the same people <br />are involved in many of the contracts. Mr. Brownell <br />advised he didn't feel that we would as we require <br />performance bonds and are getting substantial contrac- <br />tors in the E -7, Bureau of Housing Program. <br />President Nimtz advised this is the situation we are <br />getting into. In the first letter discussed, from Ms. <br />Conchita M. Washington, the complaint was that we are <br />requiring bid bonds in these contracts, and the reason <br />for this in talking to the present members of this Com- <br />mission- -who are long -time members--is'.that we are try- <br />ing to protect the public in this activity. On the one <br />hand, we get a complaint because we are asking for bonds <br />in these matters to protect the public and to insure that <br />once they bid they are going to enter into the contract, <br />and, secondly, when they enter into a contract, they have <br />a bond to complete it. Since having completion bonds, we <br />have not had any incidents with any Redevelopment contract <br />come to light that we know of. The Chair requested Com- <br />missioner Wiggins to comment on the subject. <br />Commissioner Wiggins advised that we are not in a position <br />that we can require the contractors to hire union help neces- <br />sarily, but we can, and do, require they pay the prevailing <br />wage rates, and this is a part of the. understanding and the <br />knowledge and the forms that the contractor files when he <br />bids on the jobs that we are involved with. There would be <br />no advantage to the contractor to hire substandard help when <br />he has to pay the price that it costs for top -grade help; e.g., <br />when you have to pay for it, you may as well have it, and this <br />is probably the rationale that most of the contractors would <br />make that are working on jobs we are involved in. This does <br />mean that the jobs will probably cost more money, and we are <br />having problems getting contractors to bid on the contracts <br />under these terms to bring them within our price for the <br />amount of work that needs to be done just to bring it up to <br />code - -not anything fancy - -the remodeling just to bring it up <br />to the city building code. These repairs are running beyond <br />- 5 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.