Laserfiche WebLink
South Send Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Me ting - October 17, 1980 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS <br />d. Mrj McMahon continues... <br />that were previously missed, and these improvements <br />ar based on Bureau of Housing re- .inspections of <br />these properties. In all cases, I am informed, <br />the low bid is represented by these figures. Is <br />it necessary to read two pages of these into the <br />re ord, Kevin? <br />Mr Butler: No, Pat. I think that the motion <br />mi ht include reference to the items as listed <br />on the agenda. <br />Mr McMahon: What would your pleasure be, Mr. <br />Ni tz? <br />Mr. Nimtz: HUD has asked us to do this to clear <br />up problems remaining from the audit. <br />Mr.1 Cira: I have one question. Kathy, were these <br />it ms in the original bids? <br />Mrs.. Baumgartner: No, they were not. These are <br />grant contracts and loan contracts, but there <br />were still code items remaining in the homes when <br />we re- inspected them. Any items that were ori- <br />gi ally on contract and were not taken care of <br />pr perly, for whatever reason, the contractor is <br />being called back. Items that have fallen into <br />disrepair through no fault of the contractor and <br />arE not of a code violation, are not being cor- <br />re ted by us. <br />Mr. Cira: All <br />is this then <br />Mrs. Baumgartni <br />thE HUD audit. <br />Mr. Donaldson: <br />am unt that it <br />co e. <br />right. No fault of the contractor <br />any fault of the inspector? <br />ar: Yes. That was the findings of <br />Then these figures reflect the <br />is going to cost to bring it up to <br />Mrs. Baumgartner; Right. <br />19 <br />