Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 08-06-76August 6, 10:00 A. Presiding 1. ROLLI SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1976 I. Officer: Mr. F. Jay Nimtz, President CALL Commissioners Mr. Present: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Legal Counsel: News I Media : C 1200 County -City Building 217 West Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601 F. Jay Nimtz, President Donald A. Wiggins, Vice President A. Peter Donaldson, Secretary Robert J. Cira, Assistant Secretary Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., Member Mr. Kevin J. Butler Mr. George T. Patton Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter Mr. Louis Tutino, WNDU -TV Reporter Mr. James L. Marchelewicz, WNDU -TV Photographer Mr. Wayne Doolittle, WSBT -TV Reporter Mr. Larry Ford, WSJV -TV Reporter Mr. Bill Cressler, WSJV -TV Photographer rs Present: Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Assn. Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council Mr. Edward F. Soltesz, Local No. 9, UAW Representative Mr. Keith P. Crighton nt Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller Sta ff : LPA Staff: Mr. C. Wayne Brownell Mr. Edwin R. Bauer Ms. Helen S. King Miss Pat Joers 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On m tion by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried, the MINUTES Minu es of the Regular Meeting of July 16, 1976, were approved as APPROVED mai 1 d. 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS On m tion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried, the CLAIMS clai s were approved, as submitted, and allowed and ordered to APPROVED be paid--totalling $25,401.90. The authorized claims are: - 1 - 3. PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT, INDIANA R =57 J. Butler $ 36.00 Kevin Department of Redevelopment 311.00 Wm. J. Parrish, Cashier 71.20 Wm. J. Parrish, Cashier 19.51 South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00 Total $- 467.71 PROJECT EXPENDITURES ACCOUNT, INDIANA R -66 Welding Company $ 5.00 Bean Kevii J. Butler 1,087.38 Indi na & Michigan Electric Company 15.30 Shil s, Graves & Associates, Inc. 80.00 The outh Bend Supply Co. 12.70 Souti Bend Tribune 7.44 Sout Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00 Wm. J. Parrish, Cashier 63.90 Bart n- Aschman Associates, Inc. 947.50 Westinghouse Electric Supply Co. 3.68 Total $2,252.90 NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT A -10 J. Parrish, Cashier $ 65.45 Wm. Total $- 65.45 REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND Payroll: June 26, 1976 to July 9, 1976 $ 5,799.78 Amoco Oil Company 59.74 Kevii J. Butler 200.00 Comm nity Development Program 274.15 Cred t Bureau of South Bend- Mishawaka 5.00 Doro by Z. Deane - Petty Cash 77.20 Gates Chevrolet Corporation 78.37 Inte national Business Machines Corp. 60.20 Inte national Business Machines Corp. 279.36 James R. Meehan & Associates 22.04 Musz nski Insurance Agency, Inc. 53.00 Post aster 12.50 Xero Corporation 10.50 Total 6,931,84 BURE8U OF HOUSING E -7 Bara y Sheet Metal & Heating Co. Bara y Sheet Metal & Heating Co. Bara y Sheet Metal & Heating Co. Kevir J. Butler Phillip Wesley WM Total $ 7,280.00 6,814.50 1,174.00 16.00 15.00 15,299.50 3. APPR VAL OF CLAIMS (Cont'd) 312 OANS The kbstract & Title Corporation $ 50.00 Abst act Co. of St. Joseph County, Inca 111.50 Abst act Co. of St. Joseph County, Inca 111.50 Abst act Co. of St. Joseph County, Inc. 111.50 is an eligible project cost, in Project Indiana R -66. b. Total 384.50 GRAND TOTAL $ 25,401.90 4. CORRESPONDENCE a. HUD Regional Office letter dated June 25, 1976: This letter is CAUSE NO. from Mr. Richard A. Kaiser, Assistant Regional Administrator H -698, for Community Planning and Development, advising the amount of ELIGIBLE $3,000 to be paid in settlement of Cause No. H -698, in the St. PROJECT COST, Joseph Superior Court of St. Joseph County and State of Indiana, R -66 is an eligible project cost, in Project Indiana R -66. b. HUD Area Office letter dated July 19, 1976: This letter is PROCLAIMER from Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Community Planning and CERTIFICATE Development, advising receipt of our Proclaimer Certificate FOR PLAN of a Plan Change for Block 6, Project Indiana R -66. The Certi- CHANGE, ficate is to be made a part of their official project files. BLOCK 6, R -66 C. HUD Area Office letter dated July 26, 1976: This letter is ITEM 6 CLEARED from Mr. James E. Armstrong, Area Director, advising Audit AUDIT REPORT, Finding No. 6 was inadvertently omitted in their letter of NDP A -10 May 10, 1976. This item is also cleared in the Audit Report for the Neighborhood Development Program, Project Indiana A -10, SE #1 and MN #1. d. HUD Area Office letter dated July 29, 1976: This letter is COLFAX PIER/ from Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Community Planning and PARK DREDGING Development Division, acknowledging receipt of our letter of & PLAZA PARK July 19, 1976, with regard to completion of Colfax Pier /Park CONTRACTS, Dredging Contract No. land the Plaza Park Contract. R -66 They advise they will schedule a final inspection on both, preferably after the Plaza Park is completed, so only one trip will be required for their inspector. We are to advise them when Plaza Park is completed, Project Indiana R -66. e. HUD Area Office letter dated July 30, 1976: This letter is REVIEW AP- from Mr. Stephen J. Havens, Director, Community Planning and PRAISER Development Division, advising the Review Appraiser Contract CONTRACT we submitted has been reviewed by their Realty Specialist APPROVED, and the contract appears to be acceptable to HUD. R -66 They suggest we have our attorney read the contract and we follow any recommendations he may make. This is for Project Indiana R -66. Mr. Brownell advised he has discussed this contract with Mr. Kevin J. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel. The Commissioners have signed the Contract along with Real Estate Research. The review appraiser came in this week and is doing the review now. - 3 - 4. CORRESPONDENCE (Cont'd On motion by Mr. Donaldson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried, the abovo letters were received and are to be placed on file. 5. OLD a. IN ESS Report on ladders, Plaza Park Contract No. 1, Project Indiana R -66: The Chair requested Mr. Slab.augh submit a report on the ladders for this Commission meeting. Mr. Bill Slabaugh, Project Engineer, in his memorandum dated August 5, 1976, advised the Rogers Company of Indianapolis manufactures a stainless steel ladder which has been detailed on a shop drawing by Mr. Gerald Kinyon of Lawson- Fisher Associates. The shop drawings have been sent to Rogers Company for firm price quotations. This would be to replace (3) ladders which were redesigned by Lawson- Fisher Associates. On motion by Mr. Cira, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried, the above report was received and is to be placed.-on file. 6. NEW OUSINESS a. 0 Urban Design Review Committee Report on Block 6, Project Indiana R -66: This was a written report by Mr. Edwin R. Bauer, Assis- tant Director, Department of Redevelopment, which Mr. Brownell read in its entirety. The Urban Design Review Committee had voted unanimously to ap- prove the preliminary building design and the members in atten- dance signed. The preliminary plans were also tentatively ap- proved by Lt. Robert Janowiak and Battalion Captain Szymkowiak of the Fire Department. The Commission concurred with the Urban Design Review Committee's acceptance of the architectural drawings, and upon motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried, the above report was received and is to be placed on file. Section 312 Loan Applications: Commission approval was re- quested for the following 312 Loan Applicants: Name Amount Loan No. Robert E. Johnson $ 3,050 18 /SOU- 2/2/1 -76 3215 W. Dunham Street William & Alberta Gilkey 2,350 18 /SOU- 2/3/1 -76 1521 Kemble Street Ronald B. & Frances I. Bailey 12,000 18 /SOU- 1/4/1 -76 4431 Huron Circle Robert & Helen Hubler 3,450 18 /SOU- 2/5/1 -76 146 N. Sheridan Street - 4 - LADDERS, PLAZA PARK CONTRACT NO. 1, R -66 BLOCK 6 ARCHITEC- TURAL DRAW- INGS REVIEWED & ACCEPTED, R -66 EIGHT (8) 312 LOAN AP- PLICATIONS APPROVED a ESS Name Amount Loan No. Karolyn Brooks $ 12,000 18 /SOU- 1/6/1 -76 1616 S. Carlisle Street John & Carolyn Bonk 12,000 18 /SOU- 1/6/1 -76 517 E. Dubail Avenue Joseph & Billie Wesley 7,450 18 /SOU- 2/8/1 -76 226 E. Donald Street Mary Ann Norman 10,000 18 /SOU- 1/9/1 -76 1633 S. William Street Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, advised this is the last of the Section 312 Loan Applications for money alloca- ted this year as the deadline from HUD is Wednesday of next week, August 11, 1976. These loans must be filed with HUD prior to the deadline so the proper fund allocation is made. Ms. Jeanne Derbeck, South Bend Tribune Reporter, raised various questions on qualifications for getting the loans, whether it is federal money, loans to be paid back, program to help low income people, and whether there was any competition for the loans? Mr. Crighton answered that these are actual loans to be paid back at a low interest rate of 3% per annum; it is federal money; and the applicants applying for these loans must actually reside in the homestead neighborhoods- -the three (3) areas of town where the Federal Government had determined that we were allowed the homestead properties. Essentially, it is to act in unison with the homestead program in assisting the other residents of the homestead area who wish to rehabilitate their homes. It is a program to assist persons who normally have had difficulty in obtaining loans through normal procedures. He stated they had approximately 40 applicants of which approximately 25 were ineli- gible because they either had a faulty title or a poor credit rating, or no income support for loan repayment. The above eight (8) applicants, plus the one (1) approved in the last Commission meeting, totalling nine (9), represent those persons who met the deadline and submitted all the information in time for the pro- cessing. On the question asked by Mr. Louis Tutino, WNDU -TV Reporter, if these people need to meet any financial levels, Mr. Crighton ad- vised these loans are processed like a standard loan application through a banking institution. We have to get property appraisals, credit bureau reports, verification of employment, and for any loans over $3,500 we have to get a title report and clear the title if necessary. - 5 - 6. NEW 6USINESS (Cont'd On the question asked by Mr. Wayne Doolittle, WSBT -TV Reporter, if there is any maximum on the income, Mr. Crighton advised that technically there is not, but practically there is. We have to follow the 221(d)3 which is considered the moderate income. Priority applications are given to persons whose income falls within that level. It is a scaled income based on, he stated he believed, $10,000 for one person living alone, up to $18,000 per family of nine. It is considered median income. FHA uses approxi- mately the same standards. On the question by Ms. Derbeck, if more people would have been eli- gible for the program if more money was available, Mr. Crighton advised there was money for the program; the question was time. This is a very time consuming program and we just didn't have enough time to get all the applications in that we could have. Had we had another three or four months, we probably would have done better. There may be a possibility of additional funding for the same type of program next year. On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried, the above - listed 312 loan applications were approved. C. Resolution No. 528: This Resolution authorizes the execution of RESOLUTION the Redevelopment Agreement for the disposition of land and execu- NO. 528 tion of Quit Claim Deed for the transfer of title thereto in connec- ADOPTED, tion with land to be disposed of in the LaSalle Park Urban Renewal R -57 Project, Indiana R -57, for Parcel Nos. 5 -5 and west 24 feet of Parcel 5 -4 on Holland Street, to Ivan C. Bobo, in amount of $540.00. Motion for approval of this conveyance was made by Mr. Robinson, seconded by Mr. Wiggins and carried, and Resolution No. 528 was adopted. d. Change Order No. 4 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 16, Southeast CHANGE Code Enforcement Project E -7: Approval was requested of this ORDER 4 Change Order, for an increase in contract amount of $277.00, TO REHAB. with Ted Combs Decorating & Construction Company, (Contract: CONTRACT $7,722.69), or an amended contract total of $7,999.69, with 16 APPROVED, contract time unchanged, for rehabilitation work at: 1121 South E -7 Carroll Street, in the Southeast Code Enforcement Project E -7. Because of unresolved differences between the homeowner and Mr. Combs, Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal Company is finishing the contract. The contract price of $1,570.00 with Slatile is being increased $277.00 for the replacement of the basement stairs. This item, while conforming on the original inspection, has deteriorated to the point where the possibility of a safety hazard could occur if replacement of basement stairway is not made. Opinion had been received from Mr. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, whereby the contract amount could be increased for any work not included on the original specifications up to $8,000 limit. The homeowner had wanted other items completed which ran over the $8,000 limit, and a determination was made that any of the items that were critical in terms of health and safety should be taken care of. 6. NEW (BUSINESS (Cont'd Motion for the approval of Change Order No. 4 to Rehabilitation Contract No. 16 was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira. Mr. Gene Evans, Executive Secretary, Civic Planning Association, raised the question on having a contract with the original con- tractor, Ted Combs Decorating & Construction Company, for $7,722.69, and having a second contractor, Slatile Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, with the contract price of $1,570.00, on how that will work out, with reference to the memorandum? Mr. Crighton advised the contract with Slatile will be deducted from Ted Combs' contract relative to the items that Slatile is completing that the original contractor was to have completed in his contract. The original contractor will not be paid the full amount of the contract obviously, so he will be taking the loss on the portion the other contractor is completing. This has been under negotiation for some time. The vote for the approval of the above Change Order was unani- mous and motion was carried. e. Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. SECD /PR /CS -2/21, CHANGE Southeast Community Development Housing Program: Approval was ORDER 1 requested of this Change Order, for a decrease in contract amount TO REHAB of $40.00, with Fleming Masonry Construction Company, (Contract: CONTRACT $3,975.00), or an amended contract total of $3,935.00, with con- SECD /PR /CS- tract time unchanged, for rehabilitation work at: 707 E. Indiana 2/21 AP- Avenue, in the Southeast Community Development Housing Program. PROVED, SECD HOUSIN, Mr. Brownell read Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, Project Engineer's PROGRAM memorandum, which states that the homeowner is having additional work performed on the exterior of her home and prefers to have those individuals scrape and paint her gutters and downspouts. The work the homeowner is having completed does not conflict with the contract specifications. This work totals $40.00 and would be deleted from the contract amount, reducing the contract amount to $3,935.00. Staff recommends the Change Order for ap- proval. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira and carried, for the approval of Change Order No. 1 to the above Contract, for a decrease in contract amount of $40.00, or an amended con- tract total of $3,935.00, in the Southeast Community Development Housing Program. f. Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation Contract No. SECD /PR /CS -3/23, CHANGE Southeast Community Development Housing Program: Approval was ORDER 1 requested of this Change Order, for an increase in contract amount TO REHAB of $396.00, with Area Services, Inc., Contract: $7,276.00), or CONTRACT an amended contract total of $7,672.00, with contract time un- SECD /PR /CS- changed, for rehabilitation work at: 407 E. Ohio Street, in the 3/23 AP Southeast Community Development Housing Program. PROVED, SECD HOUSING The specifications called for painting of the walls in the bath PROGRAM room. However, because of the present condition of the walls and also the type of covering on the walls, the contractor recommends - 7 - 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd Per memorandum of Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, Project Director, the original Housing Allowance Office's housing unit deficiency check- list that was given our staff by the homeowner at the time of her initial application did not list deficient the main roof of the home. It had stated the front porch area was leaking, and to correct that health and safety hazard, the porch was re- roofed including replacing of 70 square feet of sheathing. The homeowner brought to our staff's attention the latest Housing Allowance check- list which lists the main roof as a deficiency causing interior damage with water leaking into the interior. President Nimtz requested Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, to explain this change order request. Mr. Crighton advised that, essentially, the housing unit deficiency checklist we are provided for the Housing Allowance Program lists various items that have to be corrected. In this particular case, the main roof was not listed as deficient on the housing unit deficiency checklist at the time of the initial application; however, at the present time and for some time in the past, the water has been leak- ing into the interior structure and is making a hazard and safety problem right now. So, in order to correct this problem, we are requesting this change order; however, we would like it understood or at least arrange, so that this does not set precedence for correc- tion conditions which were not in existence at the time of initial application to our referral program. Because it is a health and safety problem we feel that we are at least within our bounds to go above the Housing Allowance's inspection listed on their unit deficiency checklist for the initial application. Commissioner Robinson asked, "When this home was originally inspected, the woman didn't know it was leaking to this extent, or leaking at all, and all of a sudden it developed this water damage?" Mr. Crighton stated he did not know; all they can go by is the checklist that the Housing Allowance Program provides. Commissioner Wiggins added that our staff _covering the walls with marlite, including trim. Staff also re- commends the change order. The marlite with installation costs $460.00, less the deletion for the painting of $64.00, leaves an increase in the contract amount of $396.00. Motion was made by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson and carried, for the approval of Change Order No. 1 to the above Con - tract, for an increase in contract amount of $396.00, or an amended contract total of $7,6 72.00, in the Southeast Community Develop- ment Housing Program. g. Change Order No. 6 to Rehabilitation Contract No. SECD /HR /CS -1/07, CHANGE Southeast Community Development Housing Program: Approval was re- ORDER 6 quested of this Change Order, for an increase in contract amount TO REHAB of $1,796.00, with Slatile Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, (Contract: CONTRACT $4,016.00 to amended amount of: $5,812.00,. for Contract No. 7), SECD /HR /CS- with original contract set total of: $40,246.00 to amended total 1/14 TABLED, of: $42,042.00, in the Southeast Community Development Housing SECD HOUS- Program. Contract No. 7 rehabilitation work is at: 502 Sherman ING PROGRAM Avenue. Per memorandum of Mr. Kenneth J. Schaller, Project Director, the original Housing Allowance Office's housing unit deficiency check- list that was given our staff by the homeowner at the time of her initial application did not list deficient the main roof of the home. It had stated the front porch area was leaking, and to correct that health and safety hazard, the porch was re- roofed including replacing of 70 square feet of sheathing. The homeowner brought to our staff's attention the latest Housing Allowance check- list which lists the main roof as a deficiency causing interior damage with water leaking into the interior. President Nimtz requested Mr. Keith P. Crighton, Director, Bureau of Housing, to explain this change order request. Mr. Crighton advised that, essentially, the housing unit deficiency checklist we are provided for the Housing Allowance Program lists various items that have to be corrected. In this particular case, the main roof was not listed as deficient on the housing unit deficiency checklist at the time of the initial application; however, at the present time and for some time in the past, the water has been leak- ing into the interior structure and is making a hazard and safety problem right now. So, in order to correct this problem, we are requesting this change order; however, we would like it understood or at least arrange, so that this does not set precedence for correc- tion conditions which were not in existence at the time of initial application to our referral program. Because it is a health and safety problem we feel that we are at least within our bounds to go above the Housing Allowance's inspection listed on their unit deficiency checklist for the initial application. Commissioner Robinson asked, "When this home was originally inspected, the woman didn't know it was leaking to this extent, or leaking at all, and all of a sudden it developed this water damage?" Mr. Crighton stated he did not know; all they can go by is the checklist that the Housing Allowance Program provides. Commissioner Wiggins added that our staff 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd does not do the inspections in this program; Housing Allowance does it. The rehabilitation is done to qualify these places for the Housing Allowance Program. Lengthy discussions followed with Mr. John R. Kagel, Executive Director, Downtown South Bend Council, asking numerous questions involving the properties being rehabilitated and what records, studies and /or data are available on the various histories of the property as to whether they were rental properties, owner - occupied or both in the past, times vacant, land contract prior to the 12 -month residency requirement, a complete run -down on the homes before it is considered for rehabilita- tion, improper use of the home through South Bend Water Works cut -off information, etc. Mr. Crighton advised that as far as these people qualifying for our program, we get referrals from the Housing Allowance Program for both renters and homeowners. The Housing Allowance Program does not differ- entiate between the two in the applications for their program. However, because the only persons that are eligible receive assistance through our various projects have to be owner- occupants, we process occupancy verification to determine, in fact, that they are the owner and occu- pant of the structure and have been for the past 12 months at least. It could have been a rental property previous to the date of the ap- plication. There would be no way to determine how long the homes previous to the residency requirement may have been rented for a portion of the period and the homeowner living in it himself, as the owner would be listed on the records. The problem in obtaining all of the information Mr. Kagel requests on each home is obviously man - hours. We do not have the staff to run down each structure and what has happened to it over the years. The Planning Bureau in our Com- munity Development Department is in the process of determining what the use of the properties have been, or change in use over the years just prior to the initiation of the project in that area. He suggested for a given area Mr. Kagel contact the Planning Bureau and they may be able to supply him with information concerning the ownership. Commissioner Wiggins made the comparison of roof repairs to those made by insurance companies, and that when a windstorm tears up some shingles and water leaks into the house, all they would take care of is the place where it is leaking. They wouldn't put a new roof on and all the rest we are talking about here. Mr. Crighton said it is the opinion of the HUD Area Office that once a roof starts leaking, and, if it is not due to puncture, (let's say a tree falling into it, or something like that), but the roof has deter- iorated to the point where it will start leaking some place else, that's considered an incipient violation by Mr. Norman Clifton, Chief of the Program Planning and Support Branch. Mr. Clifton has advised us that in these types of situations, it is best to replace the entire roof, rather than pate a job that will not last, whereas a new roof will last for approximately 20 years. Mr. Kagel added that he and others have similar type questions and the information would be interesting to have. They are not as inter- ested in a given area, but more in pieces of property that may be a NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd isolated and snuggled in better pieces of property. Mr. Kagel stated that he commends the Commission on what they are trying to do to up- grade these properties, but we should try to find out why some of these properties are distressed or any number of reasons why these properties suddenly become available for programs of this type and money is dished out for major repair work, etc. President Nimtz advised Mr. Kagel to direct his questions on the dwellings that come under the Housing Allowance Program directly to the Housing Allowance Office as there is a lot of data that they would have on those as their intereviews on applicants go into great detail. We would not have data on the previous history of the houses, and as Mr..Crighton had said, they do not have the personnel for the history of the homes; if the person is eligible, that's it. Mr. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, stated the HUD Program does not require that kind of data. The HUD program basically requires the 12 -month residency. Commissioner Wiggins said we have two things involved here: We have to deal with realities of the situation as it is now. One of the things Mr. Kagel is concerned with is how the house got to be the way it is, but whether you can do anything about that is an entirely different kind of program and problem. Commissioner Robinson added that there has to be some way to keep these homes from deteriorating; you not only take care of the symptoms, you have to take care of the disease. Mr. Kagel added, "You.hit the nail on the head, Mr. Commissioner. I wasn't as forthright in my statement in how did the property get that way. I think that the Municipal City of South Bend would probably be very interested in this particular problem. Someone should initi- ate that interest problem." ommissioner Wiggins stated that we also have the problem in that he idea that a man's home is his castle, and it is pretty well esta- lished in law that he can do jolly well as he pleases up to a degree. here comes a point what he does or fails to do influences his neigh - ors, then it is no longer just his business. But that is a hard hing to nail down in terms of law. That is a fine line in fixing nd meddling in those cases. =HE President Nimtz requested a motion concerning this item, 6g. No notion was made by the Commissioners, and the Chair said he will ass on this item for lack of a motion and that this item be placed n the Agenda for the next Commission meeting. (Refer to Item 6h for further discussions relating to this item.) h. Order No. 7 to Rehabilitation Contract No. SECD /HR /CS -1/14, CHANGE outheast Community Development Housing Program: Approval was re- ORDER 7 uested of this Change Order, for an increase in contract amount TO REHAB f $675.00, with Slatile Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, (Contract: CONTRACT Ihange 4,316.00 to amended amount of: $4,991.00, for Contract No. 14), SECD /HR /CS- ith original contract set total of: $42,042.00 to amended total 1/14 TABLED, f: $42,717.00, in the Southeast Community Development Housing SECD HOUS- rogram. Contract No. 14 rehabilitation work is at: 1525 Swygart ING PROGRAM venue. =HE 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd President Nimtz called on Mr. Crighton to explain this change order request. Mr. Crighton stated that essentially this involves the same problem as the previous change order. This is also on the HAO Program. The inspection was not specific in terms of what had to be done with the roof and the inspectors determined that only the south section be re- roofed. From that time period leaks have occurred on other portions of the roof. The contractor upon getting on the roof has patched several leaks on the north section, although not required by the specifications, and that the possibility exists that other areas will start to leak and that the other roof sections should be replaced. Mr. Crighton said he is suggesting the entire structure be reworked plus an extension of contract time to September 1. The cost to re -roof the north side of house proper and front and rear porches with 3 -in -1 asphalt shingles would cost $675.00. Commissioner Robinson said they are a little confused; one time you tell us that HUD official recommends that you replace the whole roof, and now on the next item, you are only going to replace half of the roof. Mr. Crighton stated actually under the Housing Allowance Program, his staff has to go by the Housing Allowance's inspection, which, at times, are vague, and initially, as in the previous change order, requested that the entire roof be done. His staff had stated in that memorandum that this was not specified by the Housing Allowance inspection for the initial application, but that we are doing it by our own volition because we felt it would help them in the safety hazard. In all of our other projects if we have a roof leaking any- where, even the front porch, we recommend the whole roof be re- roofed. But because this is tied in with another program - -the Housing Allowance Program - -we are trying as close as possible to stay with their unit deficiency checklist, but there are instances where we feel that we cannot in the interest of the health and safety of the occupants. Commissioner Wiggins referred to the memorandum that states the con - tractor has patched several leaks on the north section, and that one of the problems that he didn't quite understand, is that he understood the recipients of the Housing Allowance Program are to use part of the money they receive to maintain the house. If we are going to pay for all of these things, what is the housing allowance for? Mr. Crighton said these people aren't receiving housing allowance from HAD at the present time. Commissioner Wiggins said they will be if this thing is patched, just as they will be if this is re- roofed, and he is wondering if we really ought to be doing all this. If Housing Allowance comes up with a monthly figure that is supposed to cover normal maintenance on this house, then some items of normal maintenance can be financed over a period of time. Mr. Butler said that basically the money is for rent or debt service, depending upon whether they are leasing the property or whether they own it and have a mortgage on it, and in addi- tion to that, payment for utilities. Mr. Evans stated, "I think Com- missioner Wiggins has made a strong point here, that if you begin to go beyond the point that the Housing Allowance inspection has said is necessary for that house to meet Housing Allowance requirements, then you may be doing more than you really should. Like he says, the allow- ance is to assist the homeowner in the maintenance of the home, and if at!some future date the roof does deteriorate to the point where it - 11 - 6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd has to be repaired, the homeowner is receiving assistance that should allow them to hire a contractor on their own, and that's a part of what the program is attempting to do, is to help people assume respon- sibility for their own home. Commissioner Donaldson asked if our inspectors make the Housing Allow- ance inspections? Mr. Crighton advised our inspectors do not make the actual inspections of the dwelling. In our other projects, we have the massive 10 -page inspection sheet filled out;'in the HAO program our inspectors do not. Mr. Crighton added that most of the people in the program are elderly. We have a few handicapped persons under the age of 62; however, most are over 62 living on rather limited incomes. In all probability, the subsidy they get will not be sufficient to pay for a new roof and they are not in the particular income group where they can readily go to a bank and get a large loan for the repairs. That's the problem. Commissioner Wiggins said he would like to suggest, that perhaps in these instances we approve the change orders, but we need to have some sort of an understanding, or meeting, with the Housing Allowance people so that this business is a little better refined, or at least for his own understanding, if that is a possibility. Mr. Brownell said one of the things he might bring to the Commission's attention is that HUD has stated that Community Development can no longer do this sort of thing. These two sets of HAO contracts will end it. HUD has ruled that city -wide repair of houses for Housing Allowance is an improper expenditure of funds for Community Development. They can only do it in selected neighborhood areas where they are attempting to stop deterioration, so the Commission is facing the last of the two sets of HAO contracts for rehabilitation. HUD has agreed they will pay these to meet their obligations they have incurred on these applications. Commissioner Wiggins said in view of the circumstances he will make the motion that the previous Change Order No. 6 that was tabled, (6g), and this Change Order No. 7, (6h), be approved in the amounts as stated. The Chair asked for a second to the motion. Commissioner Cira asked why approve them now, if there is only going to be the two they are going to be making. If you don't really approve of it, why approve them just because it is going to be the last two? Mr. Crighton said they will not be the last two. Mr. Brownell's statement was that we will only have the last two contracts. There will be 36 more houses on the last HAO contract set that will be having construction work performed on them during the next three months; the Contract above has 17 houses on that contract set, and discussions are on Contracts 7 and 14 of that set. The last contract set has been awarded but is not in effect yet. Commissioner Wiggins said his concern was really in determining policy insofar as the Housing Allowance people are concerned; if this kind of operation is not going to proceed or go forward, then there is no real problem in determining policy. The policy for a non - existent program doesn't mean much. In these terms, do we hang up these people or not? - 12- 6. NEW $USINESS (Cont'd Mr. Butler asked if a lot of these homes are within the existing project areas, and the answer was in the affirmative from Mr. Crighton. Mr. Butler added further, "So conceivably, might this program not continue in fact ?" Mr. Crighton said, "Because we have two additional project areas for fiscal year '76 -'77 under Community Development, we have incorporated the aspects of this program and the other program that was cancelled - -the city -wide emergency repair program - -into the project rehabilitation. The HAO homes will not be inspected by the HAO people. It will have to meet our requirements, which are over and above the Housing Allowance requirements in some cases. In cases, with the excep- tion of homes which are extremely bad with safety problems, I would say 99% of the cases would qualify for Housing Allowance assistance after we rehabilitate the property, and we have incorporated the emergency repair aspect into the project rehabilitation too, but that will not go into effect until the Council appropriates the budgets, probably around September 1st." President Nimtz said he will try once again- -there is a motion made by Mr. Wiggins to pass Items 6g and 6h, do I hear a second? No second was forthcoming, and the Chair declared the motion lost for want of a second, and requested this item also be placed on the Agenda for the next Commission meeting. i. Bids for Contract Set No. 5, Southeast Community Development Housing Program: Per recommendations of the Community Develop- ment Southeast Advisory Board, it was requested that the bids received for Contract Set No. 5 be rejected by the Commission, and the total contract set be re- advertised to obtain competitive bids for bid price comparison, per bid tabulation for Contract Nos. 19, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44, submitted by Slatile Roofing & Sheet Metal Company. Mr. Brownell advised that most of the bids were $2,000 or more over the estimated price. Mr. Wiggins made the motion that the bids received for Contract Set No. 5 be rejected and re- advertised, seconded by Mr. Cira. Commissioner Robinson asked on these plans when the contracts will be re- advertised, will the homes be re- inspected, the specifica- tions and requirements changed? Mr. Crighton advised they would remain the same. On the question, "Where were the contractors the first time around ? ", Mr. Crighton said all of the contractors are very busy right now and do not have the bonding capabilities. Some of their bonds will be released and then they can rebid on these contracts. Commissioner Donaldson asked, "What if we only get one bidder the next time around ?" The Chair advised then it will be up to the Commissioners to decide whether we will accept the bid. Motion was carried. - 13 - BIDS REJECTED FOR CON- TRACT SET NO. 5, TO BE RE- ADVERTISED, SECD HOUS- ING PROGRAM 7. TRIBUTE TO DR. OLIVER C. CARMICHAEL President Nimtz expressed the sorrow of the passing of one of our great TRIBUTE community leaders, Dr. Oliver C. Carmichael, as mentioned in the Tribune TO DR. Editorial last evening. Dr. Carmichael was very much involved in the OLIVER C. Downtown South Bend, and in the program for rehabilitation. Many people CARMICHAEL will never know the amount of time and effort he has been placing in this project. A meeting had been scheduled to go to Washington this week which was cancelled because of the commitments for another meeting here n South Bend yesterday so we didn't go. The Chair appointed Commissioner Wiggins and himself to prepare an appro- priate resolution to be placed on record of the Commission concerning the passing of Dr. Oliver C. Carmichael. 8. PROGR SS REPORTS PROGRESS REPORTS None. 9. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Thenext regularly - scheduled meeting of the Redevelopment Commission NEXT will be Friday, August 20, 1976, at 10:00 a.m., E.S.T., in the offices COMMISSION of the Department of Redevelopment. MEETING, 8 -20 -76 10. ADJOU LAMENT There being no further business for discussion, motion was duly made ADJOURN - for a journment, at 11:00 a.m., by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Cira MENT and c rried. . wme- Browne , (S cuti ve Di r@cV - 14 - mtz, Preside