SM 04-20-78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South B Special Redevelopment Commission ting - April 20 1978 6. NEW OUSINESS (Cont'd . Nimtz: The question is whether the prevailing wage is being id and if they are following it. . Brownell: I believe Mr. Harcus would like to answer that question. r. Harcus: I believe it will be fair for everyone to understand he predicament I am in. The predicament I am in is that HUD is elling me that I am in non - compliance by having the prevailing age requirement in our specifications, so I am caught on both ides. If I may read to the Redevelopment Commission Sir; the hrase that is used in their regulations and it reads..... Prevailing Wages ". This section shall apply to the rehabilitation f residential property only if such property is designed for esidential use of eight or more families. My posture has been hat we have interpreted that to be that "this section shall" means... it will be done "; but as long as the phrase "only "is included in his phrase, that as a local city package that gives us only the ,etermination to have a selected power..that we can select whether ,r not we use it because the word "only" is in there. So I have .aken the position that we want prevailing wages because the word only" gives us latitude to determine what is preferable for our A ty and that is how I have represented the Redevelopment Commission. r. Butler: If the residential facility is for fewer than eight amilies. ....... r. Harcus: Then, they say you are not allowed to specify. r. Butler: You are saying that your interpretation has been that e may do it if we so desire? Ir. Harcus: Correct. Ir. Butler: It is a matter of local option. Ir. Wiggins: They are saying we don't have to. Ir. Butler: No, they are saying we can't. Our interpretation is that �e don't have to, but we may. Ir. Nimtz: I believe HUD is saying we can't include that in there. 1r. Butler: Have they submitted anything to you in writing at this )oi nt? -5-