HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 02-06-76Februz
10:00
Presic
1.
SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
ry 6, 1976
A. M.
ing Officer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz,
President
L CALL
1200 County -City Building
227 W. Jefferson Boulevard
South Bend, Indiana 46601
missioners Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President
sent: Mr. Donald A. Wiggins, Vice President
Mr. Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Member
missioners Mr. A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary
ent: Mr. Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary
Le al Counsel: Mr. Kevin J. Butler
Mr. George T. Patton
N
Media: Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Others Present:
unity
to ment
f:
LPA Staff:
Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter
Lou Tutino, WNDU -TV Reporter
James L. Marchelewicz, WNDU -TV Photographer
Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter
Frank Vellner, WSBT -TV Photographer
Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter
Les Howard, WSJV -TV Photographer
Mr. Frank J. Alford, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity
Mr. Allan C. Bloomquist, First Bank & Trust Company
Mr. Ronald Bock, Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Assn.
Mr. Hubert Getzinger, Chairman, Downtown South Bend
Council
Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown
South Bend Council
Mr. Harrison Miller, Interested Citizen
Mr. Doug Simpson, Director, River Bend Plaza Office
Mr. Keith P. Crighton
Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr.
Mr. C. Wayne Brownell
Ms. Helen S. King
- 1 -
Mr. Edwin R. Bauer
Mr. William J. Parrish
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson and MINUTES
ca ried, for the approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting APPROVED
of January 16, 1976, as mailed and /or distributed.
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS
Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson and CLAIMS
carried, that the claims be approved, as submitted, and they be APPROVED
allowed and ordered to be paid -- totalling $56,305.42. The author-
ized claims are:
PRbJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT R -57
Abstract & Title Corporation $ 52.50
South Bend Exterminating Company 30.00
Total 82.50
PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT R -66
Abstract Company of St. Joseph County $ 85.50
Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 7.23
Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 149.12
Nautilus Construction Company, (Colfax /Pier Park Dredging
Contract No. 1) 2,050.40
Nautilus Construction Company, (Plaza Park Contract No. 1) 13,507.26
Real Estate Research Corporation 2,610.95
Edward J. White, Inc. 30.00
Total 18,440.46
REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND
Payroll: January 10 through January 23, 1976 $ 6,131.58
C.
Wayne Brownell 10.27
Bobbs
Merrill Co., Inc. 25.50
Business
Systems, Inc. 17.36
City
Controller of South Bend 859.45
Credit
Bureau of South Bend 5.00
Fisher
Bros. Paper Co. 275.00
International
Business Machines Corp. 922.51
Jack's
Conoco Service 6.00
Makielski
Art Shop 18.36
Office
Engineers, Inc. 23.12
Postmaster
- 500 stamps @ $.13 65.00
Postmaster
- January mailing 15.65
Singer
General Tire, Inc. 83.68
Total 8,458.48
SOUTHEAST
BUREAU OF HOUSING E -7
Area
Services, Inc. - Rehabilitation Contract No. 25 $ 4,775.98
Barany
Sheet Metal & Heating Co. - Rehabilitation Contract No. 27 5,373.00
Madison
Builders, Inc. & Western State Bank - Rehabilitation
Contract No. 66 3,316.00
I'AE
3. APIPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd
Madison
Builders,
Inc. & Western
State Bank
- Rehab.
Contract 66
$ 1,716.00
Madison
Builders,
Inc. & Western
State Bank
- Rehab.
Contract 65
3,931.00
Madison
Builders,
Inc. & Western 'State
Bank
- Rehab.
Contract 62
4,682.00
Slatile
Roofing &
Sheet Metal Co.
- Rehab.
Contract
64
1,775.00
Slatile
Roofing &
Sheet Metal Co.
- Rehab.
Contract
56
3,482.00
Total
29,050.98
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL FUND
A stract Company of St. Joseph County, (Model Neighborhood to City) $ 125.00
E Ciesiolka (rental of appliances), 230 E. Paris 112.00
Total 237.00
OPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL BONDS OF 1972
Edgard J. White -Plaza Office
Office Engineers- Repair heat line
4. CO
a.
1
Total
GRAND TOTAL
ICATIONS
$ 20.00
16.00
36.00
$ 56,305.42
HUD Area Office letter dated January 20, 1976: This letter, INDIANA &
over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Com- MICHIGAN
munity Planning and Development Division, acknowledges re- ELECTRIC CO.
ceipt of the relocation claim we submitted to the Area Office RELOCATION
from Indiana & Michigan Electric Company. CLAIM, R -66
Mr. Havens advised their relocation specialist was ill and
they did not know when she would return to work, but that
we can anticipate a response to our inquiry within thirty
(30) days.
Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, Executive Director, Dept. of Redevelop-
ment, stated the relocation specialist has returned to work
half days and we expect to hear from her.
HUD Area Office letter dated January 22, 1976: This letter,
over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Com-
munity Planning and Development Division, advises the Area
Office concurs in the amended proposal for audit services with
Goodson -Tyler and Associates, IPA. The cost of the audit is
an eligible project cost and shall be reflected in the admin-
istrative staff expense budget. Until such time as the budget
is adjusted to accommodate this expense, payment for the IPA
services may be made from project contingency funds. However,
the audit fee should not be paid until you have been authorized
by this office.
Copies of the executed contract were returned for our records.
- 3 -
AUDIT SERVICES,
GOODSON -TYLER
AND ASSOCIATES,
NDP PROJECT
A -10
4.
c.
M
ICATIONS (Cont'd
Mr. Dan Caesar, WSBT -TV Reporter, asked various questions:
What was the original.. cost? Reason for the amendment? Was
this a routine audit? A routine audit required by HUD? Mr.
Brownell advised the reason for the amendment is that the firm
audited our records through November 30, 1975, and HUD requested
the audit be through the balance of the year, which was the
month of December, 1975, and that was the amendment. The original
audit contract was $1,810 and the amended total was $1,928.00.
Commissioner Wiggins added this was a routine and required audit
by HUD. It was strictly on a unit cost basis on which they were
the low bidders. This firm was composed of people who formerly
worked for the Government and did Government auditing. They
learned the procedure that way and went into business for them-
selves. Because they know this type of auditing and the books
so well, they were able to underbid many of the others and they
do a very good job.
HUD Area Office letter dated January 23, 1976: This letter, PROCLAIMER
over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Com- CERTIFICATE
munity Planning and Development, advises receipt of our Pro- NO. 9, DIS-
claimer Certificate No. 9, reuse value on Disposition Parcel POSITION
No. 6 -2, Project Indiana R -66, and this information was re- PARCEL 6 -2,
corded in their files. R -66
HUD Area Office letter dated January 28, 1976:. This letter, CHANGE
over the signature of Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Com- ORDER NO. 1
munity Planning and Development, advises the Area Office TO PHASE II -E
concurs in Change Order No. l to Harry H. Verkler, Contractor, R -66
Incorporated for a net increase of $228.76 in contract cost.
The original contract was for $14,500.00. With the $228.76
increase, this brings the total contract to $14,728.76. This
Change Order No. 1 is to Phase II -E Contract, Project Indiana
R-66.
Mo ion was made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried,
th t the above letters be received and placed on file.
5. 0
a.
BUSINESS
Lou -Ann Country Mart Litigation, Cause No. F -6489, Project
Indiana R -66: Mr. Brownell advised that normally any litiga-
tion is discussed in private before Commission action is taken
in public.
Mr. Dan Caesar asked what that involves -- litigation of land or
what? Mr. Brownell advised this involves a lawsuit in which
we are being sued for damages in connection with the Columbia
Warehouse fire.
- 4 -
LOU -ANN
COUNTRY
MART
LITIGATION,
R -66
5. 04D BUSINESS (Cont'd
Mr. Wiggins made the motion to defer this legal business that
must be done in private to the end of the meeting, just prior
to adjournment, so that we won't have to excuse our guests at
this point. Motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried.
b.
Contract with Legal Counsel for Professional Services: The CONTRACTS
Chair advised, under HUD regulations, we need to have a con- WITH LEGAL
tract with the Legal Counsel employed. In our Annual Organiza- COUNSEL:
tional Meeting of January 2, 1976, the motion was made that
Mr. Kevin J. Butler be retained on a temporary basis as Legal 1) KEVIN J.
Counsel, and that has been the status to date. The Chair ad- BUTLER
vised that he would now like to suggest to the Commission that
we enter into a contract with Mr. Butler to be our Legal Counsel 2) GEORGE
for negotiations and to attend Commission meetings, and do the PATTON
day -to -day and the negotiations and the work such as that; and
that the courtroom work, condemnations and anything involving
court procedures, be handled by Mr. George Patton. This would
be the recommendation of the Chair to the Commission.
Mr. Wiggins moved for the above motion, as stated, seconded by
Mr. Robinson and carried.
Mr. Kevin J. Butler's contract is dated the 6th day of February,
1976, with an effective date of January 1, 1976, and the limita-
tion of fees are as noted in the contract, unless amended by
mutual agreement of the parties hereto.
Mr. Patton will submit his contract for professional services.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Nautilus Construction Company Contract No. 1, Colfax /Pier Park
Dredging Project, Indiana R -66, approval requests for:
1) Contract Change Order No. 1, dated January 22, 1976, for
an increase in contract amount of $1,910.00, or total
amended contract of: $49,286.00, and
2) Thirty (30) day time extension request per letter dated
February 2, 1976, with new completion date to: March 3,
1976.
Mr. Brownell read the letters and change order in their en-
tirety: One from Mr. Bill Slabaugh, Project Engineer, to
Mr. Brownell, dated January 22, 1976, in which Commission ap-
proval was recommended, subject to HUD concurrence. He stated
the work was discussed during August, 1975, and agreed to by Mr.
Dan Lawson, the designer. Attached to the change order is a
copy of a segment of plan sheet showing size and location of
changes. None of the extras were called for on the plans.
76.25 cu. yds., foundations, in river, @ $15.74
per cu. yd., removal .......................... $1,200.00
Remove clump eight trees and roots ............. 500.00
Remove piling ................................. 210.00
- 5 - $1110.6
CHANGE
ORDER NO. 1
TO CONTRACT
NO. 1,
COLFAX /PIER
PARK DREDGING
CONTRACT,
NAUTILUS
CONSTRUCTION
CO., APPROVED
R -66
6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd
Also, there is a request from Mr. George W. Batchelder,
President, Nautilus Construction Company, to Mr. McMahon,
dated February 2, 1976, for an extension of time on the
Colfax /Pier Park Contract to complete the items of work
enumerated in the punch -list of the pre - final inspection.
The persistant ice and snow has not permitted them to work
on the gabions and made it almost impossible to finish the
grading.
Completion and final inspection should be within 30 days
and extension is requested to: March 3, 1976. Mr. McMahon's
letter dated February 3, 1976, to Mr. Brownell concurs in the
time extension.
Motion for the approval of Change Order No. l to the Colfax/
Pier Park Dredging Project Contract No. 1, for an increase
in contract amount of $1,910.00, or total amended contract
of $49,286.00, and a 30- daytime extension approved, with
a new completion date of March 3, 1976, was made by Mr.
Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried. Approval
is subject to HUD concurrence.
b. Proclaimer No. 6, Acquisition Parcel No. 22 -5A, Project PROCLAIMER
Indiana R -66: Authorization was requested for the Executive NO. 6,
Director, Mr. C. Wayne Brownell, to execute Proclaimer No. 6, ACQUISITION
per the Schedule A that was attached, for Acquisition Parcel PARCEL 22 -5A,
No. 22 -5A, Project Indiana R -66. R -66
Acquisition Parcel 22 -5A has an approximate area square footage
of 3,432 feet, with appraisals made by Ralph D. Lauver and
Jerome E. Michaels, the avera e of which is: $4.66. The ap-
proximate reuse valuation is 16,000.00.
Mr. Dan Caesar asked the address of the above parcel. Mr. Bill
Parrish, Real Estate Officer, advised it is 26 feet off of In-
wood's Parking lot- -the easiest way to describe it - -26 x 132.
It is west of Inwood's. Mr. Brownell advised the 26 feet is
off the east end of the lot.
Commissioner Wiggins advised the purpose of this is to extend
that alley or area way to 40 feet - -to widen it and create an
access way 40 feet wide. This has been a part of the project
everywhere that we could without having to remove buildings to
do it, in order to accommodate rear deliveries. Ms. Derbeck
asked if that is being done across the whole block, and Mr.
Brownell advised the rest is being purchased or negotiated.
Mr. Wiggins moved to authorize the Executive Director to exe-
cute Proclaimer No. 6, Acquisition Parcel No. 22 -5A, Project
Indiana R -66. Motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried.
6. N8W BUSINESS (Cont'd
c. Ford Trucks: Authorization was requested to convey title to TWO (2)
City of South Bend, Board of Public Works, on two (2) Ford FORD TRUCKS
trucks: TITLE CON-
VEYED TO
1) Model U15, 1974, Title No. 74135174027, CITY OF SOUTH
ID No. U15GLU61962. BEND
2) Model F37, 1974, Title No. 74135174028,
ID No. F37BLU69271.
Mr. Brownell advised that these are the two (2) Ford trucks that
we purchased in connection with the building of the Pedestrian
Way, and the title has never been turned over to the City. The
Chair added that at one time we had a fleet of automobiles and
approximately a year or so ago, we transferred all but three
to the City, and asked if we had ever been paid for those and
Mr. Brownell said that we have been. There will not be any
payment for the above two Ford trucks, Mr. Brownell added, as
these were purchased with bond funds, and we purchased these to
turn over to the City for the maintenance of the Mall.
Tear out and replace the living and dining
room ceilings and paint two coats. These
ceilings have been damaged by the leaking
of the second floor bathroom water closet .... $ 625.00
Replace second floor bathroom water closet,
which has deteriorated since initial inspec-
tion......................................... 125.00
Replace nine (9) squares of asphalt shingles. 550.00
Total ........ $1,300.00
Motion was made by Mr. Robinson for the approval of Change
Order No. l to Rehabilitation Contract No. 28, with Area
Service, Inc., for an increase in contract amount of $1,300.00,
or an amended contract total of $7,443.32, with contract time
unchanged, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried.
- 7 -
Mr. Wiggins moved for the authorization to convey title to
the City of South Bend, Board of Public Works, on the above
two Ford trucks, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried.
d.
Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 28, Project CHANGE ORDER
E -7: Approval was requested for this Change Order, with NO. 1 TO
Area Service, Inc., for an increase in contract amount of REHABILITATION
$1,300.00, (Contract: $6,143.32), or an amended contract CONTRACT NO.
total of: $7,443.32, for rehabilitation work at: 708 East 28 APPROVED,
Broadway Street, in the Southeast Bureau of Housing Project E -7
E -7, per explanation in memorandum dated February 4, 1976,
from Chief Inspector, Mr. James L. Johnson.
The change order covers the following items which were not
included in the original specifications for the referenced
contract:
Tear out and replace the living and dining
room ceilings and paint two coats. These
ceilings have been damaged by the leaking
of the second floor bathroom water closet .... $ 625.00
Replace second floor bathroom water closet,
which has deteriorated since initial inspec-
tion......................................... 125.00
Replace nine (9) squares of asphalt shingles. 550.00
Total ........ $1,300.00
Motion was made by Mr. Robinson for the approval of Change
Order No. l to Rehabilitation Contract No. 28, with Area
Service, Inc., for an increase in contract amount of $1,300.00,
or an amended contract total of $7,443.32, with contract time
unchanged, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried.
- 7 -
6. NE4 BUSINESS (Cont'd)
e. Change Order No 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 44, Project CHANGE ORDER
E -7: Approval was requested for this Change Order, with NO. 1 TO
Barany Heating & Sheet Metal, for an increase in contract REHABILITATION
amount of $1,233.00, (Contract: $6,450.00), or an amended CONTRACT NO.
contract total of: $7,683.00, for rehabilitation work at: 44 APPROVED,
236 East Paris Street, in the Southeast Bureau of Housing E -7
Project E -7, per explanation in memorandum dated February 4,
1976, from Chief Inspector, Mr. James L. Johnson.
Mr. Brownell read the memorandum and change order items in
its entirety.
The contractor has submitted a request for the following
items which were not included in the specifications for the
referenced contract:
Replace roof over southwest and southeast
rear sections ............................... $ 145.00
Counter flash 30' x 4' ..................... 120.00
First floor bathroom lavatory - Open lava-
tory drain, and install P -trap 78.00
Install 160,000 BTU forced air furnace and
replace 8' of flue pipe and elbow on water
heater ..................................... 945.00
Sub Total 1,288.00
Less credit for duct work repair for furnace 55.00
Total ............... $1,233.00
Commissioner Robinson raised the question on these furnaces,
such as the new furnace above, when this has been determined
by the inspector and /or the contractor -- whoever it might be --
since the contractor didn't have the opportunity to bid for
the item, is he checked before he gives this price for a
change order, and the Chair requested Keith Crighton to re-
spond to the question. Mr. Crighton advised the cost estima-
tor we have on the staff checks all the prices we have on
our change order before they are incorporated.
The Chair referred to discussions several weeks ago, on
companies requesting change orders, and that on today's
agenda we have two change orders from Barany Heating and one
from Area Service, Inc., and they seem to run in streaks as
to the firm asking for the additional work. Commissioner
Wiggins agreed and said about everyone runs into problems
and that's really to be expected in these old houses.
Discussion followed on the size of the furnaces and Mr. Caesar
asked if these houses are insulated; if they were they could
possibly use smaller furnaces? Mr. Crighton advised that many
of these homes are not properly insulated, and that generally
if the home is not insulated very well, or insulated at all,
6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd
insulation is placed in the attic. It fs not blown into the
walls as that is rather costly. Most of the heat loss is
through the roof, so we would insulate the attic. As to it
being cheaper over the long run, Commissioner Wiggins responded
that all we can really do is bring the house up to code and the
code, at present, does not include insulating the home.
Motion was made by Mr. Robinson for the approval of Change
Order No. l to Rehabilitation Contract No. 44, with Barany
Heating & Sheet Metal, for an increase in contract amount of
$1,233.00, or an amended contract total of $7,683.00, with
no change °in contract time. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wiggins
and carried.
f. Change Order No. l to Rehabilitation Contract No. 54, Project
E -7: Approval was requested for this Change Order, with
Barany Heating & Sheet Metal, for an increase in contract
amount of $550.00, (Contract: $5,362.00), or an amended
contract total of: $5,912.00, for rehabilitation work at:
628 East Indiana Street, in the Southeast Bureau of Housing
Project E -7, per explanation in memorandum dated February 4,
1976, from Chief Inspector, Mr. James L. Johnson.
Mr. Brownell read the memorandum and change order items in its
entirety.
The specifications had called for the installation of a
120,000 BTU gas conversion unit. The contractor suggests
that a new furnace would be more adequate for this structure,
because of the enormous size of old duct work and the lack of a
forced air system. Staff recommends the change order approval.
Installation of 160,000 BTU Forced Air Gas
Furnance according to South Bend Code....... $ 885.00
Original specifications called for in-
stalling 120,000 BTU Gas Conversion unit,
deletion..................................... .... 335.00
Total ................ T 550.00
Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins for the approval of Change
Order No. l to Rehabilitation Contract No. 54, with Barany
Heating & Sheet Metal, for an increase in contract amount
of $550.00, or an amended contract total of $5,912.00, with
no change in contract time. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Robinson and carried.
g. Rehabilitation Contracts 1 through 17, Bureau of Housing,
HAO Referral Program: The recommendation from Mr. Keith P.
Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, is that the Redevelop-
ment Commission reject the original bid of Slatile Roofing
& Sheet Metal, Inc. received totalling $40,166.00, for Re-
habilitation Contracts l through 17, for Contract Set l,for
the Bureau of Housing, HAO Referral Program, and approve the
CHANGE ORDER
NO. 1 TO
REHABILITATION
CONTRACT NO.
54 APPROVED,
E -7
REHABILITA-
TION CONTRACTS
1 THRU 17,
HAO REFERRAL
PROGRAM
6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd
negotiated bid of $38,841.00, subject to Commission Legal Counsel
and Common Council approval, as per his memorandum dated February
4, 1976.
The Chair asked Mr. Crighton to respond to this item. Mr. Crighton
advised we only had one bidder -- Slatile Roofing & Sheet Metal,
Inc., for Contract Set 1, Bureau of Housing, HAO Referral Program,
even though the contract was properly advertised and copies of the
invitation for bids were mailed out to contractors according to stan-
dard procedures. - This relates to the HAO elderly and handicapped
referral program we have in force under Community Development. We
contacted Mr. Butler, and rather than rejecting the bid and going
through the re- advertising procedure, we thought we could do a
negotiated bid on this and reduce some of the prices that we felt
were high. We have followed Mr. Butler's adviee on this and it
is now up to the Commissioners whether they want to accept the
negotiated bid or not.
The Chair asked how many potential bidders were contacted, and
Mr. Crighton advised he believed all 53 bidders that we have on
our contractors list were contacted and that Slatile Roofing &
Sheet Metal was the only contractor who submitted ,a bonafide bid.
Four (4) contractors picked up bid documents but only the one (1)
submitted a bid. Whether they felt it was outside their bonding
limitations, or they didn't have enough manpower to cover the
work, they did not state. These houses also are all over the
city, so there is a lot of travel time involved with the con-
tractor, and it is more costly in that respect also.
Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, advised that basi-
cally the staff thought that it would not be to any avail to re-
bid this work and it was felt that they could negotiate certain
items within the bid down to reasonable levels or levels they
thought they could live with, and it is permitted by law- -the
Commission has the right to reject any and all bids. Once the
Commission has taken that action, they are in position to negoti-
ate for an amount lesser than the lowest bid received.
The bids received from Slatile Roofing are shown and the negotiated
bid amount:
- 10 -
Negotiated
Bid
Contract No.
Address
Bid
Received
01
1246 South Bend Ave.
$2,115.00
$ 2,165.00
02
150 N. Birdsell St.
11900.00
.2,130.00
03
229 N. Huey Street
2,565.00
2,450.00
04
1317 W. Indiana Ave.
3,090.00
3,360.00
05
1532 Durham Street
2,756.00
2,906.00
06
1803 E. Calvert St.
2,725.00
2,890.00
07
502 Sherman Ave.
3,966.00
4,016.00
08
1043 Portage Ave.
1,235.00
1,350.00
09
421 S. Wellington St.
3,063.00
3,178.00
10
444 S. Wellington St.
170.00
400.00
- 10 -
6. N5W BUSINESS (Cont'd
Total..... $38,841.00 $40,166.00
Mr. Wiggins moved for the approval of the recommendation made
by Mr. Crighton to reject the original bid of Slatile Roofing
& Sheet Metal, Inc. received totalling $40,166.00, for Rehabi:-
lation Contracts 1 through 17, for Contract Set l,for the Bureau
of Housing, HAO Referral Program, and approve the negotiated bid
of $38,841.00 (as noted above), subject to Commission Legal Counsel
and Common Council approval. "It is important this get underway
and I don't see where anything would be gained by running it through
the wringer again; if you didn't get any results the first time, you
probably wouldn't the second." Motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson
and carried.
Ms. Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, questioned if the above
is such an important reduction - -if you objected to $40,166.00, why
would you not object to nearly $39,000.00? Commissioner Wiggins
responded that the objection that was raised was only on specific
items which were negotiated down and which makes up the total final
package. Ms. Derbeck then asked, "But this is in order to make homes
reach the standards to be on the Housing Allowance Program? Is there
any reason that anybody who can qualify for the Housing Allowance can't
get this? What is the criteria for picking out certain people to get
this ?" Mr. Cri.ghton responded, "Under our Housing Assistance and
Community Development, the program was developed and designed to
assist the persons that the Council felt needed the assistance most,
or at least the person had priority, and these were the elderly
persons who have limited income and limited resources to make the
repairs to their homes. As you remember, at the Commission meeting
before the last one, we presented an amendment to the HAO Program to
handicapped and disabled persons of all ages -- provided they are home -
owners--to be included in this program, so it has been expanded."
Ms. Derbeck's next question was, "It has been for the handicapped and
disabled, and the elderly, no other ?" to which Mr. Crighton's reply
was, "That is correct." Mr. Dan Caesar asked how many are handicapped
on the above contract and Mr. Crighton advised, "None, on this first
contract. The amendment was not in force when this contract was
drawn."
The Chair asked if there are any further questions; there being none,
the vote was requested by the Chair, and the "Ayes" were unanimous
by all Commissioners present. Motion was carried.
- 11 -
E
Negotiated
Bid
Contract No.
Address
Bid
Received
11
1115
E. Donald St.
$1,440.00
$1,440.00
12
1234
N. Meade St.
335.00
450.00
13
2420
W. Lawton St.
1,235.00
1,400.00
14
1525
Swygart Ave.
4,116.00
3,991.00
15
1228
Elliott St.
170.00
400.00
16
1129
N. Duey St.
2,550.00
2,150.00
17
2818
Horne St.
51,410.00
55490.00
Total..... $38,841.00 $40,166.00
Mr. Wiggins moved for the approval of the recommendation made
by Mr. Crighton to reject the original bid of Slatile Roofing
& Sheet Metal, Inc. received totalling $40,166.00, for Rehabi:-
lation Contracts 1 through 17, for Contract Set l,for the Bureau
of Housing, HAO Referral Program, and approve the negotiated bid
of $38,841.00 (as noted above), subject to Commission Legal Counsel
and Common Council approval. "It is important this get underway
and I don't see where anything would be gained by running it through
the wringer again; if you didn't get any results the first time, you
probably wouldn't the second." Motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson
and carried.
Ms. Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, questioned if the above
is such an important reduction - -if you objected to $40,166.00, why
would you not object to nearly $39,000.00? Commissioner Wiggins
responded that the objection that was raised was only on specific
items which were negotiated down and which makes up the total final
package. Ms. Derbeck then asked, "But this is in order to make homes
reach the standards to be on the Housing Allowance Program? Is there
any reason that anybody who can qualify for the Housing Allowance can't
get this? What is the criteria for picking out certain people to get
this ?" Mr. Cri.ghton responded, "Under our Housing Assistance and
Community Development, the program was developed and designed to
assist the persons that the Council felt needed the assistance most,
or at least the person had priority, and these were the elderly
persons who have limited income and limited resources to make the
repairs to their homes. As you remember, at the Commission meeting
before the last one, we presented an amendment to the HAO Program to
handicapped and disabled persons of all ages -- provided they are home -
owners--to be included in this program, so it has been expanded."
Ms. Derbeck's next question was, "It has been for the handicapped and
disabled, and the elderly, no other ?" to which Mr. Crighton's reply
was, "That is correct." Mr. Dan Caesar asked how many are handicapped
on the above contract and Mr. Crighton advised, "None, on this first
contract. The amendment was not in force when this contract was
drawn."
The Chair asked if there are any further questions; there being none,
the vote was requested by the Chair, and the "Ayes" were unanimous
by all Commissioners present. Motion was carried.
- 11 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS
a. Report from Mr. Keith Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing: REHABILI-
TATION
The Chair advised we had quite a discussion here at the last REPORT,
Commission meeting about bidders on the rehabilitation con- BUREAU OF
tracts and on various change orders. Mr. Crighton was not HOUSING
present at that meeting as he was tied up in another meeting,
and the Chair advised he asked Mr. Crighton to be here at this
meeting and report to us so that everybody would know what the
procedure is on trying to get contractors to do this type of
work.
Mr. Crighton apologized to the Commission for not being present
at the last Commission meeting, as it would have made things a
lot simpler. The six -page typed report, plus two -page contrac-
tors' list, was distributed by Mr. Frank J. Alford, as the copies
were run a few minutes ago.
Mr. Crighton advised because of the importance of several areas in
this report, he requested permission to read most of his comments
concerning the questions that were raised at the last Commission
meeting concerning the nature and quality of the rehabilitation
contracts processed by the Bureau of Housing as part of the City's
"Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Program."
Following are excerpts of the report made by Mr. Crighton:
1. CommiAzionet L.2oyd Robinson a6ked seve aP- quetsfiio" concerning
the e44otuts o4 the Housing Bureau sta4j to obtain more eont ac-
totus to wo&k in our ptogtams and te.2ated to noti 4 y ing contra.c-
totus o4 the avaitabitity o4 wot k thtough our ptwgtcam. Many
attempts have been made to s ecune additi,onat eontAaetotus, and
the jottow,ing three (3) - -I would tie to think- -are eneompa6z ing
attempts o6 doting this:
a. We pubticty adveAti�se 4or bids on FAiday eveni,ngA, when we
ave eonttac is av e, to both The South Bend Txk une
and the T ki- County News, as tequTt_e y State Law.
b. In January o� 1975, when I �i ust Atatrted as Bureau o4 Hous-
ing Diteetot, we contacted evetcy contAactotc tinted in the
yellow pages o4 the South Bend tetephone diAeetoty, and,
at that time, we mailed tettetus out to att the eontraetotus,
tso t i�sted, noti4ying them of our progtam and the type o4
wo&k we are .invotved ,in, and we were asking them to become
invotved. We mailed apptoximatety 143 tettetus. The con -
traetotus' response to the tettter generated the preparation
o4 the "Conttaetot'ls List" attached to this tepotrt. At
that time, the tist eons.usted o4 45 eontnactoks, and we do
have a continuous update pro ceduAe whekeb y we add eo ntAactoAz
who ate .interested and have exhibited an abi tity to pa4orm
in th e/s e pro gAamis . At the ptce/s ent time,, we have 53 eo ntrae-
tou who are on the ti.st and to whom we mail the "Invitation
4or B,iA." Any conttractotus who ate .iwtetcested in woAking on
- 12 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd
these eonttacts, aU they have to do ,us contact ups and we add
their names to the &6t, and they automaticaUy get a copy vJ
the "Invitation Jot Bids" in the mait-- geneAaP,ey the same
day that it .cis adve&ti6 ed in the pape&.
e. Atzo, in Deeembett of 1973, both the Modet Cities Rehab,itita-
tion Ptojeet and the E -7 Southeast Revenue Shax.ing Pxogttam
weAe expet.iencing exttceme di46ieuety in obtaining eontAac-
totus On many eontAact /sets only one (1) bid w" submitted,
and, in some instaneets, no bids were submitted. To xemedy
this situation.. we set up a zetri.es o4 con�eAenca with the
Home Bui edetr s Azz o cca do n o4 St. Joseph Vatt ey in attempts
to inteAe/st member eontAactotus to bid on tehab>i 2itation wo&k.
This Association tepxesents apptwximateZy, 147 contnactotus,
/suppt i,ejus, and teeated bus.ineszes who have 6tequeney o6
contact with anybody .involved in cowstxuetion ox the te-
modett i.ng bws-ine/ss, in attempts to .intehe/st member conttac-
mod to bid on AehabZUtati.on wotck. Pte i,man iey, the A•s soei-
ation objected to out multi- agency .involvement between HUD,
DepaAtment of Labor, Equal Employment Oppotrtunity OJJiee,
State o6 Indiana, Common Councit, and the Redevetopment Com-
miz,sion. They �ett that this work could be better �aaiti-
tated t4 it eoutd be handeed by one agency without ma�s/s,ive
co nttAaet documentation that we xequvice in o uA pro gram. The
A.S/soeiation beUeved that an "open-end/time and matetta z"
contract would most cetr to int y bene6it outs ptogtam. Thxough
this type oA eonttaet, unjoxe6een costs eoutd be eazity added
without the unneees/sa&y delay caused by submitting change
otcdetus requesting apptovat by the Commis6ion. The conttactotus
would s.impZy do the wo&k and biU the City, and the City would,
in turn, pxoeess the ct im Jot payment. The kssoci.ation abo
6ett that the dottax ti.m,itation shoutd be eliminated because
the seveAe condition o6 many o6 these homes wantcanted wotFz that
would 6atc exceed the t mica Lion. We were unable to make the
changes because a22 our pxo eedutes , at the ptes ent time, arse
mandated, and they were at that time a?so, by mute vatrious con -
tract agencies. Even though the recommended changes eoutd not
take ptaee, sevehat membeA eontttacto,, s did isubmit bids, and
they are Asti t on out ma.i Zing tist, but they were quickey dis-
eoutaged because theit bids wexe too high, and they weAe not,
theAe6oxe, awarded any contracts.
omment: Bxie4ty, on this one paint: The majox pnobtem in getting mate
contJtactotus " o- G
1) Rehab,c2itation wo&k is vety d A�icu.Pt because it ,us not major
temodet2ing. The eontractox must be able to work with and
around the occupants.
2) AU contractors object to the m",s,iv e amounts o � documenta-
tion .incotpotated in out contracts.
- 13 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd
In oxdetr to ,intexest moxe contAactotu .. we aim ist att con -
ttractotus in the ptepatat i,o n o4 thew, non -z peei. ie contAact
documents. This is the only manner in which we ate allowed
to hetp a eontAactox oveteome the "xed- tape." Un�oktunatety,
we cute not attowed to use the "open -end time and matetuiaez"
conttract 4oxm with public 4unds .
It obviousty makes oux fob much tesz dii4.icatt to have move
conttractotus woxking in the pxo j ect in that we ate able to
get the wank done quickeA. we have made and we w,i 2t continue
to make s,inceAe and .intews,ive e4jotuts to intexest mane contxac-
totus in wonki.ng on then e contracts.
2. AnotheA question raised was concerned with the quat.ity o4 the/se
contracts. The xetativeey new b,id /pe 4vwance bond tequiaement
was .incoxpoxated into out con Aact conditionz at Mn. But2eA',s
and Comm,i�ssion',s request, I betieve, apptox imatety a yect and a
hat4 ago. The bene6 t o J this nequvrement is that it "weeded
out" the untret.iabte eontractotus who were 4.inaneia t y unabte to
obtain bonding ox submit a bond check. The only drawback was
that thtis xequ ument dxasticaZZy tceduced the number o4 biddeus
Jot the rehabii ation work.
3. Commizzionet Robinson asked a numbetc o4 impoxtant questiov.6 re-
t Ling to qua2i.ty o4 the Buteau',s .inspections and spec 4ications.
It is an obviousty di44icu2t situation cons.ideAing the numerous
change oxdexs that tune presented 4ox action by the Commission.
Many o4 the .inspections were done wet over a year ago by a
di44etent sta44 undeA di44erent management. when the ptco j eet
came undeA my 1uki6dicti,on, I did not order a totat pro j ect xe-
in,speetion because o4 out seAiou3 zhatrtage o4 manpower and time.
At that time, we had onty tce- apptoptiation 4otr six months and
our money had to be a toeated within that six-month pelui.od, and
we only had two .inspeetoxs, Aso it was impozs.ibte 4ox us to xe-
,ins peet evexyth.ing . As 4ax as the ,inspections that we ate
doing at the ptce�sent time undeA the Community Devetopment Pxo-
gxam, we ate attempting to maintain quality and quantity .6 imut-
taneou,sty. Ideatty, the pa4eet ,inspecti.on /,spec 4icati.on .us
pnepcted by an eng.i.neet and an architect. Atso, a good deaf o6
time shoutd be attotted 4otc the ptepaxation of each speei4.iea-
tion to insure its accuracy. Un�otrtunatety , we ate undetusta� ed
by appxoximate2y 40% and we are expected to accomptis h in 12
months what pxev,i.ous pxogxams were expected to comptete in three
years. Out inspectou axe geneAaUy petusons with construction
baekgtround who cure 4ami2tiar with the BOCA "One and Two - Family
awett.ing" Code.
The main pxobtem with conttraet spec 4icat%on6 in the past was that
no two contAactotus woutd have the same ,intenptretation o4 the te-
commended work. Pxesentty, we attempt uni4oxmity o4 .5pec%4.ieation
tetm.inotogy in oxdex that each conttactot w.it2 have the same .in-
texptetation as the otheu. Because the speci4ications o�4er tie
of no. 4reedom 4ox the conttractor to account box the ,indiv,idua2
.idio s ynenac e,s o4 each house, he must now z ubm.it requests 4or change
- 14 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd
ordeu to coven un4oreseen of changing situations in each unit.
Becau/se o4 the Butceau',s desire to document each expenditutce and
account 4otc evexy contract dottoA, change oxdex6 have become
an .ine/seapabte aspect o4 tehab-i P,itation work. Because aceounta-
bit t y o6 each pubt.ic dottat is necess an y, we wiU continue to
,submit change ordeu as the need art ics e/s .
In gene -ewtt, tehab.ittitation pxog.awm ate stow, ptodd.ing pnojeeta
wholse eg�eet ,us not immed.iatety 4ett. 14 we ate to do a good,
accurate job- -they must tcemain so. We axe gtossty undetustaAjed
and working on tl m.ited time. We as o ate &ezttr ieted by dottatc
.imitations 4oA each project. The pto1ects ate phit- osophica.tty
unpoputat and aetstheticaUy uncertain. Ins the Pubtie getting
the i)L dotto lls wotrth? I do not know - -i j you'tce tatk.i.ng about
each home',s ma&ket vatue - -I Aeatty can't say, but my answer
woutd be an emphatic "yes" i6 you were tatk ing about .imptov.ing
tiv.ing Bond t ionz and the .s aJety o4 the un it'/s occupants. In
oute C-ity',s deteA oAated neighborhoods, we ate b,%inging homes
up to minimum code with the hopes o4 making t i v ing a ti ttt e te/s s
digs ieutt, impAov.ing the geneAat condition of the neighbotchood,
gene&ati,ng neighborhood .intehest and cohesion, and po�ss,ibty
,saving Lives. The mat(iet vatue o4 the home does not enter the
is sue at this stage.
In my Jive ptuz yeatcs working with Aehab.i 2itation pxograrm, I
can estate that it has neveA been an easy task with immediate
Aeatization o4 goats. I do fleet that these progxaw accomptush
,some good. We ate making ti6e somewhat more beakabte and suAv.i-
vat (somewhat terns di44icutt Jot petvsons who have to Live in
deter.ioxated aneas and who have no means to .improve theitc pro -
pert y. We aAe o 4 j etc ing a s otutl o n 6 oA a pro btem to which no
atteAnative exists. At the ptes ent time, rehab.i ?.itat.i.on "
the best and tea6t expensive way of dealing with uAban bright.
The Chair thanked Mr. Crighton and stated that it is a good report.
Commissioner Wiggins also complimented Mr. Crighton, and added,
I think he has done an excellent job here of presenting the situa-
tion and the response to it, and "let's keep this on hand. As
memory dims and questions arise, we can bring it out again."
Commissioner Robinson directed the following question to Mr. Crighton:
"At the last meeting, it was explained to us that through this inspec-
tion thing, as an example, one contractor had approximately six
projects, that it took thirty days for each project for the inspec-
tion, so that it was within a realm of possibility that it could be
six months or later from the time of inspection until the time that the
actual work was started. Is this going to be improved to cut down this
period of time, so that, what the complaint was last month was because
of the time lapse between the inspection and the actual work was when
all these added costs arose ?" Response by Mr. Crighton, "Right. Under
the Community Development Project, we completely changed the Notice to
Proceed procedure. Now if the contractor had six homes, we would issue
three notices to proceed immediately. At the time Mr. Alford here has
- 15 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd
a preconstruction conference, one week later we will issue another
notice to proceed; another week another one; and then on the third
week, a final one, so we are talking about four (4) weeks in which
he would get all six (6) notices to proceed.
Commissioner Robinson said that is a vast improvement over what
was told us in the last Commission meeting. Mr. Crighton said,
"We have had a lot of organizational problems on this and this is
why we are constantly trying to change it, and the input from the
Commission is very important on this, because we really need to
make changes on these programs if we are going to get them going
the way they should be going, so any information and any suggestions
you make are always very seriously considered."
b.l Emergency Repair Program Report:
This monthly report for January was submitted as a written report EMERGENCY
by Mrs. Nyoka King, in which she advised: REPAIR
PROGRAM
Emergency repairs are proceeding throughout the City of South Bend. REPORT
Contracts 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 were awarded this month.
Work will begin immediately. The total awarded contracts to date
is 37. A total of 13 final inspections were made and passed, giving
a total of 28 final inspections to date.
The Project is progressing well.
c.1 Relocation Progress Report:
This written report for the month of January was presented by the RELOCATION
two relocation staff members: PROGRESS
REPORT
Southeast NDP A -10: The workload is one (1) individual who has
moved into substandard housing and is waiting
for a vacancy in LaSalle Park Homes.
Model Cities Extended Services: The workload is one (1) individual,
who is in the process of securing replacement
housing.
City -Wide: One (1) second year Rental Assistance Payment
remains to be paid.
d. I Center City News:
This flyer was submitted to our office for distribution by Mr. Doug CENTER
Simpson, Director, River Bend Plaza Office. CITY NEWS
The flyer was prepared through the auspices of the Downtown South Bend
Council giving center city news by Mr. Simpson, upcoming events and
conventions; results of holiday shopping package; a report by Dr.
George A. Wing, Chairman, Mayor's Committee on Downtown Development,
outlining its enunciated goals and effective utilization of a viable
downtown; and other informational material.
- 16 -
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Cont'd)
Our "Thanks" to the Chamber of Commerce and others for an
exceptional report.
8. GUEST INTRODUCED
Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council, GUEST,
introduced his guest - -a co- worker at the South Bend- Mishawaka Area MR. RON
Chamber of Commerce, Inc., who is a replacement for Mrs. Campbell BOCK
wh has been working in Washington, D.C. - -Mr. Ron Bock. Mr. Bock
is a graduate of Indiana University at Bloomington and very talented
in his area of expertise. Mr. Kagel said he brought Mr. Bock to the
Co mission meeting today so that he may better understand the "wheels
of government in motion, as this Commission, because his work is
basically pounding on the doors of business firms throughout the
downtown area and we would like for him to get a little idea of how
this works. Mr. Bock will not be attending the meetings after this,
unless it would be for a special reason. Mr. Bock's one assignment
is the Center City News flyer mentioned above.
Mr. Bock advised South Bend did have their first winter carnival
anJ the various festivities were advertised in The South Bend
Tribune and it was very well covered -- treasure hunts, snow "slopes,
ski demonstrations, ice skating demonstrations, dogs -- including some
St Bernards. Most of the people who attended the festivities enjoyed
it very much, and it was, "I think" an added thing for the downtown
ar a. It was festive and very well received by the people there.
9. QT COMMISSION MEETING:
Th next Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Commission will be NEXT
at 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 20, 1976, in the Office of the Depart- COMMISSION
me t of Redevelopment. MEETING:
2 -20 -76
10. TEMPORARY RECESS:
As there were no further comments or questions by the public or the RECESS FOR
Pr ss, the Chair requested a recess, to discuss Item 5a, privately, LITIGATION
Lo -Ann Country Mart Litigation, Cause No. F -6489, Project Indiana DISCUSSION
R-56. By unanimous consent, the meeting recessed at 11:00 a.m. for
private litigation discussion.
Tha meeting reconvened at 11:45 a.m., for the public session.
11. LITTIGATION
In
ti
mo
an
An
Ro
reference to Item 5a, "OLD BUSINESS," Lou -Ann Country Mart Litiga LOU -ANN
)n, Cause No. F -6489, Project Indiana R -66, Mr. Wiggins made the COUNTRY
:ion for the adoption of the recommendation of the Legal Counsel, MART LITI-
J that is to authorize Attorney Kevin J. Butler to settle the Lou- GATION,
i Country Mart lawsuit for $1,000.00. Motion was seconded by Mr. R -66
Hinson and carried by all Commissioners present.
- 17 -
12. ADJOURNMENT
Motion was duly made by Mr. Wiggins for adjournment, at 11:47 a.m.,
seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried.
(SEAL)
Executive r � w F. Jay N14ntz, President
ADJOURNMENT
r'• �^yLteT CA
a * * o DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
i INDIANAPOLIS AREA OFFICE
WILLOWBROOK 5 BUILDING, 4720 KINGSWAY.DRIVE
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46205
REGION V ern.
300 South Recker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 6060 IN REPLY R[F[R TOS
FEB 4 1976 5.4DS : JM ,1 '
P
Mr. C. Wayne Brownell
Executive Director f
Department of Redevelopment _, F«
1200 County-City Building I` `' r I�76
r•
South Bend, Indiana 46601 `i r i
Dear 14r. Brownell:
Subject: Project Ind. A -10, R -66 and R -57
The purpose of this letter is to document the conclusions reached in
your anuary 20th meeting with Jeanne Meggs and Peggy Hudgens of my
staff.
Our u derstanding of the status of all activities in projects A -12,
R -57 nd R -66 are as follows:
oject Ind. A -10
Acquisition: 100% Complete
Demolition: 100% Complete
Relocation: All completed or paid into escrow.
oiect Improvements: None in this project.
n -Cash: The financing plan calls for $410,866.00. The
ouired amount has been certified.
udit: The audit is presently being updated to December 31, 1975.
he LPA will receive the audit report by February 9, 1976. This
eport will be sent to the Regional Inspector General for audit
n Chicago the week of February 16th. The audit report will be
ransmitted to the Area Office no later than March 1, 1976. The
PA will be requested to respond to the audit findings the week of
arch 8, 1976. The audit will be cleared the week of March 15, 1976.
�` bhl,'1.` .�,r'µ'J' X'^` aM` 1�N �•1�4'7.�y1
..�`a+�,'�dAy,.ifm ^Y +^.+T-C� :.'!r°•�t t.. - I�.. �'`T ""''�- !.`.1 �..�`
3
Please
to clo
The es
The
out
�34.
keep in mind that the above figure does not include interest
,e-out and is subject to change.
:ablished close -out date for project A -10 is March 31, 1976.
Project Ind R -11:
Acquisition: Parcel 22 -5A is the only parcel remaining to be
acquired. It is estimated that this parcel will be acquired by
February 19, 1976.
R location: There is one claim remaining to be paid. This is
tie claim from the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company. This
c aim is presently in our office for review.
Site Improvements: All presently under contract.
Demolition: There are two buildings remaining to be demolished.
It is anticipated that these buildings will be under contract
by June 30, 1976.
Dn -Cash: The financing plan requires $11,816,387.00 in non -cash.
a-date $11,816,387.00 has been certified.
isposition: The financing plan calls for $7,684,173.00 in land
roceeds. To date $2,036,163.00 has been received
udit: The contract for an IPA audit will be approved by the
ommission and sent to H.U.D. by March 19th. The award of the
ontract will be approved by H.U.D. by April 16th. The audit
ill begin May 1st and will be completed by June lst. The audit
eport will be transmitted to our office for clearance no later
han June 15th. The audit should be cleared by June 30th.
ticipated financial status of your project at the time of close -
as follows:
0
Progr<
Financing Plan
tures 24,332,016
Estimated Receipts ( +)Overage
and (- )Shortage
Requirements
23,882,017 +449,999
Item 11 11,816,387 11,816,387 -0-
GrosslProgram
Cost 1 36,148,403
Dispo
ition
Proce
ds 7,684,173 2,036,163
- 5,184,173
Net P
ogram Cost 28,464,230
Local
Share
Non-Cash
11,816,387 11,816,387
-0-
Cash
1,416,552 834,906
- 581,646
Total
Local
Share
13,232,939
Capital
Grant 15,231,291
w
Relocation
Grant 2,146,844 1,344,572
+80,227
Rehab
Grant -0- -0-
-0-
Total
Excess
or Shortage
- 5,235,593
Pleas
keep in mind that the above figure does not include interest to
close
out and is subject to change.
Becau
a of the large shortage of funds in this project, we find it
neces
ary to request that you submit a plan for
financial settlement.
This
plan can take into consideration the estimated proceeds to be
received
from the sale of land through Fiscal Year 1979, grants avail-
able imder
the H. U.D. contract for the project,
Community Development
funds
available, and funds from local sources.
It is not necessary
that
the shortage be provided in one year. The
plan may provide for
the settlement
of the outstanding indebtedness in increments through
fiscal
year 1979. This plan should be submitted to our office no
later
than February 20, 1976.
p b it t .•:M (y �YYI '� t M �t .� } L i l u. J �y, ,M, 1J �y:y, w �f ,.µ l �1 .,5
v ��.. '�� �.-�., j�X�c�..4y'•! xr.+�r"LFn��.��,������ "b� r kOt"
�`t
R
The .
This
paid
the
reti
tablished close -out date for project R -66 is August 10, 1976.
ate represents the date on which all grants available will be
o the project. Any resources available will be used to reduce
tstanding indebtedness. Any remaining indebtedness will be
d in accordance with the plan which we have 'requested above.
The c ose -out papers for this project should be submitted to our
offic no later than July 26, 1976. Please refer to Chapter II
page -4, in the Draft copy of CPD 7388.1 for instructions on com-
pleti n of the close -out papers. We are enclosing the required forms
with his letter.
oject Ind. R -57:
he LPA will submit a status report on the activities in this
roject by May 1, 1976. Upon receipt of this report, we will
chedule a meeting to discuss the settlement of this project..
If yo have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, or
the r quirements for financial settlement, feel free to contact
Jeann Meggs at (317) 269 -7194 or Peggy Hudgens at (317) 269 -7011 for
assis ance.
Since$ely,
Sf Eph tf J. Havees
Direc or, Community Planning
and D velopment Division
Ow.R?rj wq� '�i,,t,(� *'l�v+`W`,.`�,`'�,�p�
CITY OF SO TH BEND
South Bend, Indiana 46601
IIM :iA h Peter J. Nemeth
r
TO:
DATEI:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
DEPT. OF REDEVELOPMENT
1200 County -City Bldg., Phone 284 -9371
Redevelopment Commission
F. Jay Nimtz
President
John E. Chenney
Vice President
Donald A. Wiggins
Secretary
B. L. Wade
Assistant Secretary
A. Peter Donaldson
Member
C. Wayne Brownell
Executive Director
Sweeney, Butler & Simeri
Legal Counsel
South Bend Redevelopment Commission
C. Wayne Brownell
February 20, 1976
DearlCommissioners:
Attached, hereto, is the plan for financial settlement which was pre-
pared pursuant to the request from HUD in their letter of February'4,
1976.
This plan was presented to the Mayor and the City Council in caucus,
and as been sent to Mr. Stephen J.- Havens, Director, Community Plan-
ning and Development Division, at the Indianapolis Area Office of
HUD, as requested.
CWB : I
Enc.
Yours respectfully,
C. Wayne Brownell
Executive Director
r
$6,745,.000
+ 240,000
$6,985,000
- 240,000
$6,745,000
- 39,060
$6,705,940
- 1,050,000
$5,655,940
- 360,000
$5,295,940
- 5,295,000
$ 940
940
$5,295,000
+ 211,800
$5,506,800
- 211,800
$5,295,000
- 338,941
$4,956,059
-2,500,000
$2,456,059
- 2,455,000
$ 1,059
$ 1,059
$2,455,000
+ 98,200
$2,553,200
98,200
$2,455,000
- 108,900
$2,346,100
- 500,000
$1,846,100
- 1,845,000
$ 1 '10
1 ,100
FINANCIAL PLAN IND. - R -66
Project Notes due June 11, 1976.
Interest due June 11, 1976
Total due June 11, 1976
Payments to be made June 11, 1976
Interest from C.D. Funds budgeted`
Sale of land $39,060 May 7, 1976 (from Parcel 6 -1
contract of Sale) Progress payment - ask HUD to
request Central office approval for June 1976 payment
PAGE 1
Relocation balance - ask HUD to request Central office
approval for June 1976 payment (approximately)
Proceeds from sale of Project Notes
Balance due June 1977
To be paid from Project funds June 11, 1976
Project Notes due June 1977 .
Interest due June 1977 (estimated)
Total due June 1977
Payments to be made June 1977
Interest from C.D. Funds Budgeted.
$ 84,100
Sale
of Land -
Block 6
$254,841
Sale
of Land -
Block 6
338,941
Total
from Sale
of Land
Urgent Needs Funds Requested from HUD
Proceeds from Sale of Notes due June 1978
Balance
To be paid from Project Funds
Project Notes due June 1978
Interest due June 1978 (estimated)
Total due June 1978
P`y.ments ' to be made June 1978
Interest from C.D. Funds
Sale of land Block 6
Estimated,Sale of Land by June 1978
Proceeds from Sale of Notes June 1978
Balance
To be paid from Project Funds
PAGE 2
FINANCIAL PLAN - IND. - R -66
$1,845,000
Project
Notes
due June 1979 '
+ 73,800
Interest
due
June 1979 (estimated)
$1,918,800
Total due
June
1979
- 73,800
Interest
from
C.D. Funds
$1,845,00
- 11000100
Sale of
Land
by June 1979
$ 845,00
- 845,000
Proceeds
from
Sale of Notes June 1980
$ 845,000
Project
Notes
due June 1980
+ 33,800
Interest
due
June 1980.
$ 878,800
Total due
June
1980
- 33,800
Interest
from
C.D. Funds
$ 845,00
$ 845,000
Sale of
Land
by June 1980
S�
�otert 17100511v
,'Can4cape. Asign aid Contracting, 1 nc.
60648 -Cl.c `Koad
So,r(l, f encl, 9ndrawa 46614
gelepl one 219) 291 -6253
Mr. C. Wayne Brownell
Department of Redevelopment
1200 County City Building
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Dear Mr. Brownell:
P r our phone conversation of Feb. 18, 1976, we agree to
t e extention of the bid award for the Pedestrian way,
P ase #3 (project Ind R. -66) Through June, 15, 1976.
3 I is also understood that the beginning of construction
a d the completion dates will also be delayed.
Yours very truly
Robert 0 Foegley
E i.
E 33 1,976
e
CITY OF SO(ATH BEND
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Peter J. Nemeth
Mayor
William C. Gilkey
Direct r, Human Resources and .
Economic Development
Rede elopment Commission
City of South Bend
February 18, 1976
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Room 1200, County -City Building
219 284 -9371
Bureau of Housing
Bureau of Planning and Management
VG' �`
LL
kail
1200 County -City Bldg. �.
227 Jefferson Blvd. ;.
Soutf Bend, Indiana 46601
Dear
Newb:
15 &
Perfc
Cond=
obta
Sirs:
4
In accordance with the Commission's conditional contract award to
11 Construction Company on January 2, 1976 of Contract Nos. 11,12,
18 in the Southeast Project, this firm has failed to provide the
rmance Bonding on Contracts 11, 12 $ 18 as required by General
tions for the Rehabilitation of Real Property, Stc 121A (a). This
ny was also granted a ten day extension (see Attachment A.) to
n bonding on 1/23/76. This extension expired on 2/6/76.
Due to this contractor's inability to provide bonding, he must
forf't 10% of each bid amount totaling $1,022.40 (see Attachment B.) in
acco dance with Section 6, Bid Guaranty Instructions to Bidders, and
Document E, Bid Bond:' Newbill Construction would therefore be eligible
to receive a refund in the amount of $456.10 as 10% of Contract # 15 for
whic performance bond is provided.
If you have any questions or have need of further information please
contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
Si cere y p,
eith P. Cri ton
Director \1
Bureau of Housing
KPC /k c
Attac . =2
CITY OF SOUTH BEND
Sou h Bend, Indiana 46601
%,x xxAKox Peter J. Nemeth
May r
will am )X yqa; aM G i 1 k ey
Dire tor, Human Resources and
Economic Development
Newbill Construction Co., Inc.
1219 W. Jefferson Street
South Bend, Indiana 46625
ear Sir:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Room 1200, County -City Building
219 284 -9371
Bureau of Housing
Bureau of Planning and Management
January 23, 1976
In response to your January 22 letter requesting a time
extension in securing your required Performance Bonds,
you are hereby granted a 10 working day extension for
Contracts #11, #12 #15 and #18 in the Southeast Community
Development project.
I will contact Golden Key Insurance Company regarding
receipt of this Bond. If you are not able .to provide
this Bond by February 6, 1976 at 4:45 P.M. we will be
forced to rescind your contracts and award to the next
lowest bidder.
If you have any.questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Keith P. Crighton
Director,
Bureau of Housing
KPC:ef
WTvh n
CITY OF SOIJJH BEND
South Bend, Indiana 46601
Peter J. Nemeth
Mayor
William C. Gilkey -
Director Human Resources and
Economic Development
Newb 11 Construction Co.
1231 W. Washington Avenue
Sout Bend, Indiana 46628
Dears Si rs :
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Room 1200, County -City Building
219 264 -9371
Bureau of Housing
Bureau of Planning and Management
February 10, 1976
Havi g received your Singul.ar Performance Bond for Contract
15 /S CD, 721 East Broadway, it is.my duty to inform you that
your Treasurer's check in the amount of $1,478:50, #34148,
is h reby being deposited with the Department of Redevelopment
for disbursement. Due to your inability to provide performance
bond3 for Contracts 11, 12 and 18 you must forfeit 10% of each
bid amount for these contracts totaling $1,022.40, in accord-
ance with Section 6 Bid Guaranty of the Instructions to Bidders
and Document E Bid Bond.
10% of Contract 15 is therefore refunded to you in the amount
of $456.10. Please affix your signature to both copies of the
attached claim so that this money may be refunded to you as
soon as possible. Please return these claims before Wednesday,
Febr ary 18, 1976 for action by the Commission at their next
regu ar meeting.
If y�u have any questions or have -need of further information,
plea e contact me at your earliest convenience.
KPC:
sf
Iq -t -+Iqa h n .
Sin erely,
.O�Q.CG
Keith P. 'Cri ghto
Director ,
Bureau of Housing
6. NSW BUSINESS (Cont'd
Other questions followed which Mr. Crighton answered, and the
answers are summarized for the record: Two contractors bid on
the house in question. One of the stipulations for this rehabi-
lation program is that the tenant of the house must be the owner;
he must have insurance before he can be helped. As to whether
a land contract can be considered ownership; it is only when they
have added an amendment to the contract. The amendment is an
aspect to be used under the LaSalle Park Program, the Redevelop-
ment Code Enforcement Programs, and in essence becomes the fore-
closure period in the form of 30 days to 90 days, and it also
states that the seller has the title to that property. In other
words, we are not dealing with someone who is buying the house
on land contract, or someone who is also buying other houses on
land contracts. We cannot help tenants under this Program- -that
would come under the Substandard Building Department. Under the
Southeast Community Development Program, the owner must be living
in the house. Mr. Caesar asked if the house can be rented after
it is rehabilitated, and Mr. Criahton answered in the affirmative.
Brownell advised Newbill Construction Company was the low
bidder on each of the above four contracts. The bid tabula-
tion was included in the packets.
Motion aras made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and
carried, to award the above contracts as noted.
Mr. Crighton requested the motion to contain additional wording
to show that it is a "conditional award." The Newbill Construc-
tion Company is a new contractor bidding on this type of work,
and the motion should contain that if the Newbill Construction
Company cannot comply with the contract regulations that the
contract award should go to the next lowest bidder on the
contract. We have Newbill's bid bond. When the contract is
awarded, then the contractor files for a performance bond. The
- 12 -
Mr. Wiggins
again made the motion that we accept the recommenda-
tions of the
Advisory Committee. Mr. Donaldson seconded the mo-
tion and it
was carried.
e.'
Rehabilitation
Contract Nos. ll /SECD, 12 /SECD, 15 /SECD and
REHABILI-
18 /SECD, in
the Southeast Community Development Program: Per
TATION
recommendations
of the Southeast Advisory Committee, Commission
CONTRACT
approval was
requested to conditionally award the following con-
NOS.
tracts to Newbill Construction Company, subject to Commission..
ll /SECD,
Legal Counsel
approval:
12 /SECD,
15 /SECD, &
Contract No.
Address Amount
18 /SECD
A14ARDED CON -
ll /SECD
213 E. Calvert St. $1,993.00
TIONALLY,
12 /SECD
1816 S. Carroll St. 3,347.00
E -7
15 /SECD
721 E. Broadway St. 4,561.00
18 /SECD
506 E. Broadway St. 4,88.4.00
Brownell advised Newbill Construction Company was the low
bidder on each of the above four contracts. The bid tabula-
tion was included in the packets.
Motion aras made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and
carried, to award the above contracts as noted.
Mr. Crighton requested the motion to contain additional wording
to show that it is a "conditional award." The Newbill Construc-
tion Company is a new contractor bidding on this type of work,
and the motion should contain that if the Newbill Construction
Company cannot comply with the contract regulations that the
contract award should go to the next lowest bidder on the
contract. We have Newbill's bid bond. When the contract is
awarded, then the contractor files for a performance bond. The
- 12 -
6. NSW BUSINESS (Cont'd
performance bond is hard to secure and small contractors have
this problem to hassle. If we do not have the "conditional
award" then we would have to come back to the Commission and
ask for a rejection to the previous award, go back to the
Common Council, and then have to go through the whole process
for approval again, which would be a delay cif at least six (6)
weeks.
The "conditional award" request is as noted in the letter
dated December 31, 1975, to Mr. Brownell from Mr. Crighton,
and included in the packet, which states:
Since Newbill Construction Co. is a new contractor
under the Community Development Program, we are
requesting a conditional award subject to that
company fulfilling all contract requirements. In
the event that this firm is unable to comply with
these requirements, we are requesting that these
contracts be awarded to the following contractors
listed as the next lowest bidders:
#11 /SECD*
$2,271.38
Combs Decorating
#12 /SECD*
3,366.20
Combs Decorating
#15 /SECD*
4,727.28
Combs Decorating
#18 /SECD **
5,500.00
Madison Builders,
Y, Construction
& Construction
& Construction
Inc.
( *) Subject to approval by Legal Counsel only.
( * *) Subject to Common Council and Legal Counsel approval.
At the consent of the Commissioners, the prior motion was rescinded,
and the motion is amended to read, that the above contracts, (Nos.
11 /SECD, 12 /SECD, 15 /SECD and 18 /SECD)be awarded to Nevibill Construc-
tion Co.,in the bid amounts as noted above by Newbill, as a "condi-
tional award" subject to that Company fulfilling all contract re-
quirements; in the event the firm is unable to comply with these
requirements, the contracts are to be awarded to the next lowest
bidders, as are noted above in the indented quote, [Contract #18
in this case would require Common Council approval also.] All
are subject to Legal Counsel approval, and the President.and Secre-
authorized to execute said Contracts. The amended motion was made
by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried.
f. Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No 65, Southeast
Project E -7: Commission approval was requested of Change Order
No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 65, with Madison Builder's,
Inc., for an increase in contract amount of $209.00, (Contract:
$3,912.00), or an amended contract total of: $4,121.00, for re-
habilitation work at: 605 E. Indiana Avenue, Southeast Project
E-7.
The letter by Mr. James L. Johnson, Jr., Chief Inspector, to
Mr. Crighton, advises the specifications called for replacing
the front porch tongue and groove floor 330 square feet. When
- 13 -
CHANGE
ORDER
NO. 1
TO REHAB.
CONTRACT
NO. 65
APPROVED,
E-7
�t1
F. RICHARD HI
R. KENT ROWE
CHARLES A. S`
JOSEPH V. SIN
KEVIN J. BUTL
LEWIS C. LADE
Janu
ZER, ROWE, SWEENEY, BUTLER, SIMERI & LADERER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 900
ST. JOSEPH BANK BUILDING
RJR. TELEPHONE 233-3303
SOUTii BEND, INDIANA 46601 AREA CODE 219
JR.
23, 1976
Mr. C. Wayne Brownell
Executive Director
Department of Redevelopment
1200 County -City Building
Sout4 Bend, IN 46601
Re:
Dear
Lou -Ann Country Mart vs.
St. Joseph Superior Court
Cause No. F -6489
Wayne:
Columbia Storage Warehouse
This is a companion case to the Stanz Cheese case.
We had an opportunity to settle this case for the payment
of $1,000 and I thought it was well worth it considering
the fact that we would spend far in excess of this in attor-
ney's fees defending the matter. I have indicated to Attor-
ney imothy Walsh of Edward Kalamaros' office, counsel for
the laintiff herein, that I would recommend $1,000 in full
sett ement of the case.
I am passing this along to you so that you might ob-
tain authorization for said payment. The settlement pay-
ment should be made payable to Lou -Ann Country Mart and
their attorneys Edward N. Kalamaros & Associates. If there
is anything further that need be done on this I'd ask that
you nquire.
j
Sincerely yours,
Charles A. Sweeney, Jr.
CITY OF SOOTH BEND
South
Bend, Indiana 46601
Peter
J. Nemeth
Mayo
William
C. Gilkey
Direc
or, Human Resources and
Economic Development
Redevelopment Commission
City of South Bend
1200 County-City Bldg.
227 W. Jefferson Blvd.
South Bend, I
Dear Sir$:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Room 1200, County -City Building
219 284 -9371
Bureau of Housing
Bureau of Planning and Management
February 3, 1976
At the January 16 Commission meeting several questions were asked concerning
the nature and quality of the rehabilitation contracts processed by the Bureau
of Housi g as part of the City's "Housing Rehabilitation Assistance Program
I would 'like to respond to these questions by the following remarks:
1 Commissioner Lloyd Robinson asked several questions concerning the
efforts of the Housing Bureau staff related to notifying contractors
of the availability of work through our program. Many attempts have
been made to secure additional contractors and are listed as follows:
a. We publicly advertise for bids on Friday evenings in both the
South Bend Tribune and the Tri- County News, as required by State
Law. This advertisement consists of the "Invitation For Bids"
which specifies where contract documents may be obtained, the
work to be awarded and at which time the bids must be returned
for opening. If a contractor is interested in working on these
contracts, it is his responsibility to read the legal notices
every Friday evening.
b. In January of 1975 every contractor listed in the Yellow pages
of the South Bend telephone directory was mailed a letter no-
tifying him of our program and the type of work we are involved
in. We mailed about 143 letters. The contractor's response to
the letter generated the preparation of the "Contractor's List"
attached hereto. At that time the list consisted of 45 contract-
ors. Through continuous updating of the list we now have 53
MEA
contractors to whom we mail the "Invitation For Bids ".
Needless to say, the response to these individual mailings
has not been great. Any contractors interested in working
on these contracts have the name of their firm added to the
list and they receive copies of the Invitations via regular,
mail.
c.- In December of 1974 both the Model Cities Rehabilitation Project
and the E -7 Southeast Revenue Sharing Program were experiencing
extreme difficulty in obtaining contractors. On many contract
sets only one bid was submitted and, in some instances, no bids
were submitted. To remedy this situation, I was asked by Mayor
Jerry Miller to set up a series of conferences with the Home
Builders Association of St. Joseph Valley. This Association
represents approximately 147 contractors, suppliers, etc. I met
with the Association's Executive Committee throughout December
of 1974 and January /February of 1975 in attempts to interest
member contractors to bid on rehabilitation work. I found the
executive committee to.be truly concerned with the success of
the program and they suggested several changes that they felt
would generate more interest in government contracts. Primari-
ly, the Association objected to the multi- agency involvement
between D /HUD, Dept. of Labor, Equal Employment Opportunity
Office, State of Indiana, Common Council and the Redevelopment
Commission. Understandably, they felt that this work could be
better facilitated Tf it could be handled by-one agency without
massive contract documents that are required by the program agen-
cies. Essentially, the Association believed that an "open -end/
time & materials" contract would most certainly benefit our
program. Through this type of contract unforeseen costs could
be easily added without the unnecessary delay caused by submission
to the Commission for approval. The contractor would simply do
the work and bill the City after completion. The Association
also felt that the dollar limitation should be eliminated because
the severe condition of many of these homes warranted work that
would far exceed the limitation. All of the Association's re-
commendations were seriously considered but we were unable to
make any changes because all procedures are mandated by the
various contract agencies. Even though the recommended changes
could not take place, several member contractors did submit bids
but were quickly discouraged because their bids were extremely
high.
Comment: The major problem in getting more contractors is two -fold: One,
rehabilitation work is very difficult because it is not major
.remodeling. That is, the interior is not gutted and the work
started from scratch. These homes are all occupied and the
contractor must be able to work with and around the occupants.
Many contractors are unwilling or unable to do this. They feel
that occupied structures complicates the work flow. Also, many
contractors feel restricted by the contract specifications. They
prefer to have the freedom that an open -end, time & materia.ls
2.
p -3
contract offers. Many contractors feel they should not have to
bid on the work. They would rather be hired outright to do the
job with no dollar limitation and thus enabling them to do better
work. .Second, all contractors object to the massive amounts of
documentation incorporated into our contracts. Because these
are public funds making us responsible to many agencies and de-
partments, every piece of documentation is a necessary and integral
part of each contract - no matter how burdensome that contract ap-
pears. Contractors also object to being told how much they have
to pay their workers and reporting this payroll in the form of
Weekly Wage Reports and Monthly Utilization Reports to the EEO
Contract Compliance Officer, Mr. Frank Alford. Mr. Alford moni-
tors each contract to insure compliance with EEO and Department
of.Labor standards. These reports are mandatory. Finally and
quite simply, many contractors do not have the staff to keep up
with all the required documentation.
In order to interest, more contractors, we assist all con-
tractors in the preparation of their non - specific contract
documents. Mr. Alford also assists them in completing their
report forms. This is- the only manner in which we are allowed
to help.a contractor overcome the "red- tape ". Unfortunately,
we are not allowed to use the "open -end time and materials"
contract form.with public funds. All contracts must be publicly
offered for bids and awarded in a specific dollar amount. All
change orders and requests for additional.funds must be approved
by the Local Public Agency.
It obviously makes our job much less difficult to have more
contractors working in: .the project in that we are able to get
the work done quicker rather than spreading it out among 8 or 9
contractors. We have made and we will continue to make sincere
and intensive efforts to interest more contractors in working on
these contracts.
Another question raised was concerned with the quality of these con-
tracts. In the past programs monitored by the Commission, you had to
deal with sometimes unreliable contractors who were more interested in
earning a quick dollar rather than performing well and building a good
reputation. To overcome this problem, the relatively new bid /perform-
ance bond requirement was incorporated into our contract conditions.
The benefit of this requirement is that it "weeded out" the unreliable
contractors who were financially unable to obtain bonding or submit a
bond check. The only drawback was that this requirement drastically
reduced the number of bidders for the rehabilitation work. An example
of this can be best illustrated through the bid opening that took
place on January 20, 1975 for the Southeast Project. Two weeks pre-
vious to the bid opening, a question was raised concerning the bid
bond requirement and the possibility of its being discriminatory.
This was widely publicized by the media and the following bid opening
consisted of bids submitted by 16 contractors of which only seven had
submitted bid bonds or bond checks. The remaining contractors thought
p -4
that the bond requirement would be eliminated. After very careful
consideration the Redevelopment Commission ruled that the bid bond
requirement be retained although many small contractors would be
unable to participate in the program. The next bid opening was held
on February 3, 1975 with only seven contractors submitting bids. The
difference that the bonding "requirement has made is apparent. The
large, established contractor is at the other end of-:.tbe spectrum.
How do we get them interested in bidding on this work? Presumably,
the large contractor is considered more equipped to handle rehabili-
tation work with relative ease while maintaining quality workmanship.
It was discovered that large contractors have just as much difficulty
with the contracts as do the smaller firms. They simply do not have
the staff necessary to complete the contract documents and the wage
report forms. Also, they submit considerably higher bids due to
their higher overhead costs. The only alternative we have in attract-
ing "larger" contractors is to "bulk bid" ten or fifteen homes as one
contract. This would offer a larger margin of profit to the larger
firms but, unfortunately, would discriminate against the smaller
companies who are unable to obtain bonding in excess of $50,000. We
have incorporated this concept into the contract procedure for the
HAO Elderly &Handicapped Referrals Program but we have had very poor
response from the larger contractors. Also, we have done this with
only one program in order that smaller contractors still have the
other project in which to participate. We have still not abandoned
the "bulk bid" concept and through the staff efforts to interest more
large firms, we hope to have a better response from these companies.
3. Commissioner Robinson asked a number of questions related to quality
of the Bureau's inspections and specifications. It is an obviously
difficult situati.on considering the numerous change orders that are
presented for action by the Commission. Many of the inspections
were done well over a year ago by a different staff under different
management. I do not know what procedures were used and what type
of quality control was maintained. When the project came under my
jurisdiction I did not order a total project reinspection.because of
our serious shortage of manpower and time. As far as the inspections
we are doing at the present time under the Community Development.
Program, we are attempting to maintain quality and quantity simul-
taneously. Ideally, the perfect inspection /specification is prepared
by an engineer and an architect. Also, a good deal of time should be
allotted for the preparation of each specification to insure its
accuracy. Unfortunately, we are understaffed by approximately 40%
and we are expected to accomplish in 12 months _what previous programs
were expected to complete in three years. Our inspectors are gener-
ally persons with construction background who are familiar with the
BOCA. "One and Two - Family Dwelling" Code..
The main problem with contract specifications in the past was that no
two contractors would have the same interpretation of the recommended
work. Presently, we attempt uniformity of specification terminology
in order that each contractor will have the same interpretation as the
others. We attempt to make our specifications as exact as possible
and we require that the contractors bid only on the specified items.
Th -is has created a massive increase in the volume of change orders
presented for action. Because the specifications offer little or no
freedom for the contractor to account for.the individual idiosyncracies
of each house, he must now submit requests.for change orders to cover
unforeseen or changing situations in each unit. Because of the Bureau's
desire to document each expenditure and account for every contract
dollar, change orders have become an inescapable aspect of rehabilita-
tion work. It would obviously be much easier for the Bureau to prepare
vague specifications that would allow a contractor the freedom to do
what he wanted rather than what we specify. Also, change orders occur
for a number of other reasons; deteriorated items may become further
damaged by severe weather or continued use by the homeowner; items may
have been concealed at the time of the inspection by rugs, furniture,
etc.; the homeowner may make changes in living pattern or cause damage
themselves; the specified method of correction may not be sufficient
to eliminate the problem. Please keep in mind that these contracts
involve occupied structures and the specifications are very different
from those used in new construction. It is literally impossible to
cover all points under rehabilitation programs. There are too many
unforeseen items and situations that occur. Because accountability
of each public dollar is necessary, we will continue to submit change
orders as the need arises.
In general, rehabilitation programs are slow, plodding projects whose
effect is not immediately felt. If we are to do a good, accurate job -
they must remain so. We are grossly understaffed and working on limited
time. We also are restricted by dollar limitations for each project.
The projects are philosophically unpopular and aesthetically uncertain.
Is the Public getting their do.11ar's worth? I do not know - if you're
talking about each home's market value. My answer would be an emphatic
"yes" if you were talking about improving living conditions and the
safety of the unit's occupants. In our city's deteriorated neighbor-
hoods we are bringing homes up to minimum code with the hopes of making
living a little less difficult, improving the general condition of the
neighborhood, generating neighborhood interest and cohesion, and
possibly saving lives. The market value of the home does not enter
the issue at this stage.
In my five plus years working with rehabilitation programs, I can state
that it has never been an easy task with immediate realization of goals.
Housing and Urban Development says we are not encouraging smaller con -
tractors to participate in our programs - others.say we need larger
contractors who are able to do more and better work. The unions say
we do not involve them in our rehabilitation work - yet the Department
of Labor states that by law we cannot discriminate between union and
non - union contractors. The homeowners want more work done on their
homes. The general public feels that we are doing too much work.
Even though the apparent inequity exists, I do feel that these programs
accomplish some good. We are making life somewhat more bearable and
survival somewhat less difficult for persons who have to live in
deteriorated areas . who have no means to improve their property.
We are offering a solution for a problem to which no.alternative
exists. At the present time; rehabilitation is the best and least
expensive way of dealing with urban blight.
Sincerely,
Keith P. Cright
Director
Bureau of Housing
KPC:ef
M
1. Castlem n Construction Co.
1522 W. Ford Street
South B nd, Indiana 46619
Ph. 234-3810
2. Wm. Goi s Construction Co.
P.O. Bo 3558
South B nd, Indiana 46619
3. Vic Tri pel Plumbing
545 W. 3rd Street
Mishawaka, Indiana 46544
Ph. 259-5224
4. Wright onstruction Co.
2707 Middlebury Street
Elkhart Indiana
Ph. 293--3587
5. Case Co
6235 Co
Flint,
Attn. C
Ph. (31
6. Wm. Gyo
Mi chi an
15219 K
Granger
Ph. (21
struction Co., Inc.
unna Rd.
ichigan 48504
ifton Black
732 -2000
i
Roofing Co.
rlin Dr.
Indiana 46530
684 -5793 after 6 P.M.
7. Bond -Bi t Construction Company
0. S. J hnson, Jr.
13800 W Eight Mile Road
Oak Par l, Mich. 48237
Off. 561 -8600
Res. 34 -0764
8. Tom Gel ner
1417 E.. Donald
South B nd, Indiana
Ph. 289-4927
9. Bill Ri
827 E.
Mishawa
Ph. 259
10. Mi l l i kei
54933 Q
South B
Ph . 233•
ker Remodeling Service
th Street
a, Indiana 46544
8764
Construction Co.
ince Road
nd, Indiana
5833
11. C. E. S afford Construction
111 Cherry Street
South Q nd, Indiana
Ph. 287-9696
12. Palmer
12892 F
Mishawa
13. Area Se
P. 0. B
502 S.
Mishawa
Ph. 255
onstruction Co., Inc.
ilmore Road
a, Indiana 46544
vices, Inc.
x 178
Ironwood
a, Indiana 46544
6372
CONTRACTORS
14. A.B.C. Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Attn. Mr. Ray Guzman
121 W. Mishawaka Avenue
Mishawaka, Indiana 46544
15. Allied Construction Company
1110 Western Avenue
South Bend, Indiana
16. Clyde Wardlow
1351 E. Corby
South Bend, Indiana
17. Burkholder & Ford Construction
440 Dragoon Trail
Mishawaka, Indiana
18. Bell Aluminum Sales
Mr. Norman Theobald
3319 W. Sample Street
South Bend, Indiana 46619
Ph. 232 -9903
19. Mr. Richard A. Madison
Madison Builder's, Inc.
422 S. Kaley Street
South Bend, Indiana 46619
Ph. 289 -9072
20. Woodcox Building Contractor
51175 Prescott Avenue
South Bend, IN 272 -6905
21. All State Builders
740 E. Bronson Street
South Bend, IN Ph. 234 -1603
22. Fred Bennett Construction
61647 Meadowlark Lane
South Bend, IN 46614
Ph. 288 -0191
23. Building.Service Company
2111 Gertrude
South Bend, IN 287 -5265
24. F & F Home Improvement
22988 W. Ireland Road
South Bend, IN
Tele. 288 -7580
25. Jack Frost Company
3015 W. Western Avenue
South Bend, IN
Ph. 289 -2252
26. Earl Schmucker
730 W. Indiana Avenue
South Bend, IN
Ph. 289 -1470
27. Michiana Construction
700 St. Joseph Bank Building
South Bend, IN
Ph. 272 -6882
CONTRAC ORS - Page 2
29. Pub is Service Bureau
424 13th St., N.W.
Was ington, D. C. 20004
30. Cha les Brown
P.O. Box 3050
Sou h Bend, Indiana 46619
31. Ant ony's.Home Improvement-
1154 W. Washington Street
South Bend, IN
Office: 232 -0600
Hom : 287 -3811
32. Ros land Construction Company
138 Dixieway North
Ros land, Indiana
Ph. 272 -6288
33. Cir le Lumber Co.
121 S. Walnut Street
Sou h Bend, IN
Ph. 287 -5971
34. Dav d Rydzins-ki
Ame..Home Improvement
139 W. Willow Drive
Sou h.Bend, IN 46637
Ph. 233 -5636
35. Jim Swartz
Sun asters Awing, Inc.
905 E. Jefferson Street
Mishawaka, IN 46544
PH. 259 -2476
36. Robert J. Elwood
Great Horizons Development Corp.
Box 1750
5185 Broadway Street
Gary, IN 46408
37. Roscoe Baily
602 Euclid
South Bend, IN 46628
Ph. 233 -8464
38. Harlan Lusk
'Harty W. Verkler Construction
Box 3608
645 Wilber
Sou h Bend, IN 46628
Ph. 232 -5801
41. Newton Contractors
St. Joseph Bank Bldg.
South Bend, IN 46601
Ph. 288 -9000
42. Christman Construction
850 Fellows Street
South Bend, IN
287-2827
43. Barany Heating & Sheet Metal
1202 E. Jefferson St.
Mishawaka, IN 46544
Phone 259 -9771
44. Van Overberghe Builders, Inc.
.57440 Peggy Drive
South Bend, IN 46619
45. Reinke, Carl J. & Sons, Inc.
721 N. College Street
South Bend, IN 46628
46. Slatile Roofing Co.
1703 S. Ironwood Dr.
South Bend, IN 46613
Ph. 233 -7485
47. Able Construction Service
1212 S. Walnut St.
South Bend, IN 46621
48. Plaia Construction
228 W. Broadway
South Bend, Ind. 46618
49. B. L. Guthrie
P.O. Box 345
Lakeville, IN 46536
50. Hance Construction
700 W. Front St.
New Carlisle, IN 46552
51. Hosea & Son Construction Co.
322 N. Huey St.
South Bend, IN 46628
52. LaPlace Electric Co.
702 S. Main St.
Mishawaka, IN 46544
Ph. 256 -0256
53. Thomas Scheibelhut Construction
39. Ted Combs Decorating & Construction, Inc. 25665 New Road
801 E. Colfax Avenue North Liberty, IN 46554
South Bend, Indiana 46617
Phone 232 -5138
40. Ray Bennett, General. Contractor
166 6 Brick Road
Sou h Bend, IN
Ph. 272 -4970