HomeMy WebLinkAboutRM 04-01-77SOUTH BEND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
April 1, 1 77
10:00 a. m.
Presiding fficer: F. Jay Nimtz, President
1. ROLL CHILL
Commissioners Mr.
Present Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Legal ounsel Mr.
Mr.
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
Kevin J. Butler
George Patton
News M dia Mr. J. Scott Brink, WNDU TV Photographer
Ms. Lee Ann Chelminiak, WNDU TV Reporter
Othersl Present Ms. Janet S. Allen
Community Development Mr.
Staff Mr.
Mr.
LPA Staff Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Keith Crighton
John Davis
Ken Schaller
C. Wayne Brownell
Gertrude Barth
Susan Ragland
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson, and carried, MINUTES OF
the Minutes of the Regular meeting of March 18, 1977 were approved 3 -18 -77
as mailed. APPROVED
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS CLAIMS
APPROVED IN
On motion by Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Donaldson, and carried, AMT. OF
the claims in the amount of $7,132.84 were approved'as submitted $7,132.84
and we a allowed and ordered to be paid.
List of claims approved this date is as follows:
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS, Continued:
4.
PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, INDIANA R -57
Crowe, Chizek & Co. $ 1,500.00
Total $ 1,500.00
PROJECT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT, INDIANA R -66
Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. $ 7.23
George T. Patton 1,365.10
South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00
George A.'Wing 500.00
Total $ 1,902.33
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CAPITAL
Abstract Co. of St. Joseph County $ 25.00
George T. Patton 225.40
South Bend Exterminating Co. 30.00
Total $ 280.40
REDEVELOPMENT REVOLVING FUND
Payroll: March 14 to March 25, 1977 $ 2,996.93
Qualit Glass Service 24.90
C. Way a Brownell 81.90
C. Way e Brownell 109.33
Bobbs lerrill Co., Inc. 28.45
Jetsta t Graphic Corp. 195.05
Superi tendent of Documents 13.55
Total $ 3,450.11
GRAND TOTAL $ 7,132.84
COMMUNICATIONS
a. Letter from Roger 0. Parent,. President of the Common Council, CDBG HEARING
City of South Bend, re Public Hearing on CDBG Application. ON APRIL 13,
C. Wayne Brownell stated that Mr. Parent's letter concerns the 1977 --
public hearing for the Community Development block grant appli- LETTER FROM
cation. The hearing has been set for April 13, 1977, as announced ROGER PARENT
at the March 28th meeting of the Council. Mr. Brownell indicated
that he definitely plans to be in attendance, and hoped that Mr.
Ni tz would also be able to attend.
M . Nimtz stated that he will try to be there and commended Mr.
B ownell for his "performance" at an earlier meeting of the
C uncil. He ordered this communication be placed on file.
-.2-
4.
5.
[:1
COMMU
ICATIONS (Continued)
tter dated March 8, 1977 from James T. Zakrocki, Project
b. L
-Manager
of the Hicke Com any, Inc., addressed to the Haws
Drinking
Faucet Company,, Berkeley, California, re River Bend
Plaza
-- valves in drinking faucets Oresumed to be faulty.
M
. Brownell indicated that this is a follow -up to the previou!
letter
about getting the valves for installation in the drinkii
fountains.
Mr. Brownell also said he would call our architect
aid
ask him to call Haws again.
T
is letter was ordered received and placed on file.
OLD B
S INESS
Philadelphia, Inc. et al vs. City of South Bend, Cause No.
a. Tie
R-2051.
C. Wayne Brownell read the letter from Norman Kopec,
Edge,
St. Joseph Superior Court, which was directed to our
attorneys
regarding his finding in this case.
Mr.
Brownell stated that he assumed the attorneys would file a
motion
for correction of errors, and within sixty days we will
have
a determination.
Mr.
Nimtz stated that it appeared to be a very good outcome.
Brownell
pointed out that the Plaintiff was seeking $21,000 in
damages,
which was denied. Mr. Nimtz also expressed surprise
at the court allowed Mr. Reinke's estimate cost, since there
apparently
were a lot of flaws in the estimate. "It was no
good,
but it ought to be paid for."
Mr.
Nimtz congratulated Mr. Patton and Mr. Chapleau on this an
indicated
he felt the Department came out very well on this
matter.
NEW BUSINESS
for Commission authorization for contract award on the
a. Request
following
bid amount, subject to legal counsel review, per re-
commendation
of the Southeast Advisor Board:
SECD2
/PR /CS -9/66 533 E. Milton St. $2,730.00 Siding Masters
Mr.
Brownell indicated that he had been in attendance at the
meeting
of the Southeast Advisory Board and that in this
articular case, the estimate for labor and materials was
$2,545.00
with Siding Masters' bid being $2,730.00, so if
something
was added for overhead and profit, it appears they
are
in line.
-3-
LETTER FROM
MR. ZAKROCKI
RE DRINKING
FAUCETS IN
RIVER BEND
Ig PLAZA
Mr.
FINDING IN
PHILADELPHIA
INC. CASE
BY JUDGE
KOPEC
APPROVAL OF
CONTRACT
SECD2 /PR/
CS -9/66 AT
533 E.
MILTON IN
AMT. OF
$2,730:00
6. NEW BOSINESS (Continued)
a. ( ontinued) Mr. Wiggins stated that "Siding Masters" was a new
name to him. Mr. .Brownell said that they are a new contractor
f r this operation. Mr. Donaldson observed that "somebody is
9 tting the message," that that's what we wanted.
M�. Wiggins moved to award the contract as bid. Motion was
s conded by Mr. Cira and carried.
b. Raquest for Commission authorization to award the following
c ntract, per recommendation of the Southeast Advisory Board
s bject to Common Council approval and legal counsel review:
c.
S CD2 /PR /CS -8/65 217 E. Pennsylvania Ave. $6,845.00 Siding
Masters
Mr. Brownell stated that he also had been in committee meeting
oi this contract discussion. The reason for the Common Council
r view proviso is that the contract is over $5,000. In this
case the labor /materials estimate was $6,526.00 and the bid is
$ ,845.00. Obviously, when you add overhead and profit on the
e timate figure, this brings the bid in line.
M . Wiggins moved to award this contract. Motion was seconded
b Mr. Donaldson and carried.
I R quest for Commission approval of the following bids for con -
t act award, subject to South Bend Common Council a royal and
1 gal counsel review, per recommendation of the Southeast Ad-
v'sor_y Board:
S CD2 /PR /CS -8/61 1219 High St. $5,970.00 B.W. Electric
S CD2 /PR /CS -8/64 211 E. Calvert $7,743.00 B.W. Electric
Mr. Brownell stated that in the committee meeting (the report
o that is in your packets) the 1219 High Street property,
1 bor and materials estimate was $5,106.00. The low bid was
$ ,970.00, and again by adding profit and overhead, it brings
i well in line.
M . Robinson asked if this contract was re -bid, or "is this the
s me old price he set before ?"
. Brownell stated that these are new bids. Mr. Crighton added
at this is the third time around for bidding on these properties.
e Chair noted that there is a $3.00 difference between two of
e bidders.
Brownell observed that it appears they (the contractors) are
?ally bidding . . .
-4
APPROVAL OF
CONTRACT
SECD2 /PR /CS-
8/65 AT 217
E. PENN. AVE.
IN AMT. OF
$6,845.00
comm.
APPROVAL OF
CONTRACTS
SECD2 /PR/
CS -8/61 &
8/64
6. NEW BOSINESS (Continued)
c. Continued) Mr. Donaldson moved to award the above contracts,
s conded by Mr. Wiggins and carried.
d. R uest for Commission approval of Change Order #1 to Contract
S CD PR /CS -4/36 with Area Services, Inc.; a Southeast Communit
D velo ment Housing Program for a net increase in contract
amount of $71.00 amended contract total of $7,820.00).
Mr. Schaller was asked to comment on the justification for this
c ange order and he passed around a set of pictures which were
taken when this building was inspected: He indicated that
t ere was a hole in the wall which was made by the contractors
w en they had to get in to check the plumbing. This was a
false wall, so it had to be re- built. The ceiling was only
cracked when the inspector had inspected the property, and it
has sagged since then. Since this was the only bathroom in
tie structure, the contractor was to proceed on the work so
tie family would have proper sanitary facilities in the
s ructure.
M% Wiggins asked if this was a $71 .00 increase, and upon re
c iving an affirmative answer, moved to approve this change
o der #1 to Contract SECD /PR /CS -4/36, with Area Services, Inc.
M tion was seconded by Mr. Donaldson and carried.
e. Request for Commission approval of the followi
-find allocation for non-profit groups, as set
recommendation of the Southeast Advisory Boarc
q ants
requests for
rth below; per
rehabilitation
1138 N. Blaine Ave. $5,000. So. Bend Homeowners of the Near
NW Side, Inc.
1015 W. Colfax Ave. $5,000. Renew, Inc. - St. Augustine Div.
1204 W. Thomas St. $5,000. Renew, Inc.
532 S. Grant St. $5,000. Renew, Inc.
f .;Brownell;asked Kevin Butler whether a separate motion was
i eded for each grant and Mr. Butler indicated that was not
cessary, one motion would suffice.
Tion was made for the approval of these rehabilitation grants
Mr. Wiggins, seconded by Mr. Robinson.
On call by the Chair for comments or questions, Ms. Janet Allen
asked the following: "The fact that each of these are for the
l mit ($5,000), suppose they had come in for more -- or what
ff the renewal does not cost that much ?",
M% Brownell replied that under the guidelines, they cannot ask
f r more than $5,000 and if it costs less, as we hope it does,
t ey get to use the balance of the money on another house. "Is
t at correct Keith ?"
-5-
APPROVAL OF
C.O. #1 TO
CONTRACT
SECD /PR /CS-
4/36 FOR
AMENDED
TOTAL OF
$7,820.00
APPROVAL OF
FUND ALLO-
CATION FOR
NON- PROFIT
GROUPS
(REHAB
GRANTS)
6. NEW BOSINESS (Continued)
e. (( ontinued) Mr. Crighton indicated that this was correct.
tion was put to the vote and carried.
7. PROGRESS REPORTS
Mr. Brownell stated that he presumed everyone had read the paper the
last ccouple of days regarding the Lowe move to Block Six. In order
to get more information, he had talked to Mr. Rosenthal Friday morning
who said that he thought they were working on the architectural plans
right now and they expect to break ground and build this spring. They
are n t yet confirmed on the size of the building they will erect.
They iave a problem as to the amount of space they need, both now and
"on d wn the road," do they build it all right now or do they add
on later. They do not know yet which they will do.
Upon. request by Mr. Crighton, Mr. Brownell read a letter from Mr.
Crighton regarding alternative bonding procedures to facilitate more
competitive bidding on the Community Development Rehabilitation Con-
tract 3. Mr. Crighton suggested that an additional paragraph be added
to Se tion 121, Performance and Payment Bond of the General Conditions
for R habilitation of Real Property, Part I, allowing a contractor to
submit a 10% cash bond in lieu of a surety bond. It is suggested
that this cash bond be retained until completion of the contract at
which time, 9% will be returned to the contractor. The remaining 1%
will a used to correct any problems associated with the previously
compl ted work. The contractor is held responsible for a one year
perioJ after date of final inspection of the job.
Mr. Crighton further requested permission to bulk bid rehabilitation
work Jirectly to subcontractors or skilled tradesmen, in an effort
to lower the cost of rehabilitation. These bulk bids would be com-
bined into three contracts, one each for plumbing /heating, electrical
and carpentry.
Mr. Brownell explained that this matter was discussed at some length .
in th Southwest Committee meeting. This is an idea that these people
have )een working on for some time in order to facilitate the rehabili-
tatioi work.
Mr. Crighton then added that he had subsequent to writing the letter,
talkei to our HUD representative for Community Development. They are
in agreement with the changes that he would like to make. He also
point ?d out that he had not discussed this matter with counsel as to
legal ramifications and obviously before we would incorporate this
into he contract, the change would be properly drawn by Commission
couns 1.
LOWE MOVE
TO BLOCK
SIX
LETTER FROM
MR. CRIGHTON
RE BONDING
PROCEDURES
ON CD REHAB
CONTRACTS
7. PROCR�ESS REPORTS (Continued)
Mr. B ownell said that he had gone further with this, and has given a
copy o Kevin Butler.
The Chair asked if this would increase the supervision. . .
Mr. Robinson then asked: "Point of clarification, on the statement
that the Bureau will combine specific work for fifteen or twenty homes
into three contracts. Are you really saying that it is still the same
thing -- they are going to bid on fifteen or twenty projects -- or are
you talking about their subcontracting and this is the way it is going
to be broken down, for plumbing, electrical and so forth?
Mr. Crighton answered: "We are going to take, for instance, twenty
house3 and have all the electrical on one contract, all the plumbing
and hating on another contract, and all the carpentry and finishing
work on a third contract. I think we can get better prices this way
and along with the addition of the cash bond, I think we can get some
of the smaller subcontractors involved and get a little more pro
ductivity out of our program.
Mr. Robinson said the only objection he would have with the change
would be this item of the skilled tradesmen. I think it is unfair to
the sma1l businessman, and I think it would be too hard to place,
as far as, let's say, the federal dollars and the prevailing rate that
has to be established on this type of project. You are going to talk
to skilled tradesmen only, rather than to some company.
Mr. Crighton said they would not restrict them in that respect .
Mr. obinson said that was his interpretation, and that is what he
wanted to find out.
Mr. Crighton said they would not do that. The Chair asked again whether
this change would increase their supervision. Mr. Crighton replied
that undoubtedly it would, because they will be tripling their con-
tractual procedures on these.
Mr. iggins: In essence then, the bureau will operate as the general
con
Mr. Brighton: Yes.
Mr. Robinson said he thought the "skilled tradesmen" should be struck
from the paragraph because it is his interpretation that it would mean
that they could pick on individuals whether he is in business, has a
company established and pays taxes, and things that are necessary for
a person to be in business. "Maybe I am interpreting it wrong, maybe
a la er could straighten me out later."
-7-
7. PROGRESS REPORTS (Continued)
Mr. Wiggins: Are some of these subcontractors little more than indivi-
duals?
Mr. R�binson: Subcontractors should be more than individuals. -- then
they re in business.
Mr. Wiggins: I mean some of them who are operating now.
Mr. C ighton: They won't be working as our employees. I suppose the
term "skilled tradesmen" would refer to that, but we do have a lot of
subcontractors who are one and two -man companies, but they would still
have to be a company in order to bid anyway and they have to get in-
surance requirements that we have in our contract. The only way they
can d that is to be a bona fide company.
Mr.'W'ggins: There is one other aspect of this, since Lloyd brought
it up. That is that this gets under the supervisory aspect -- to
make 3ure that the subcontractors are skilled in their work . . .
that they are capable of performing the work.
Mr. C ighton: If they have a good reputation in South Bend as being
a wor manlike contractor, someone who does workmanlike performance
on hi contracts, we would not have a problem. If it is a new contractor,
we wo ld obviously have to check them out much, much further than we
would with an established contractor.
Mr. Butler: What reaction have you gotten from the skilled contractors?
Mr. C ighton: They seem to be in favor of this. They seem to feel
they ill be able to coordinate their work rather than working through
a gen ral contractor.
Mr. B tier: Do you anticipate you will get companies that are not now
involved in rehab work subcontractors?
Mr. C ighton: Correct, along with the cash bond retention. I think
we will improve . . .
Mr. Wiggins: Hasn't it been a problem in the past that some of these
contractors stack up a lot of these and then have a problem trying
to keep up with getting their schedules done?
Mr. C ighton: It's definitely been a management problem on the part of
the a neral contractor.
Mr. Wiggins: I think that's one reason we have seen a lot of additions
here that there is such a long delay in it that some of these bad
condi ions continue to get worse to where the anticipated repair is
no to qer feasible.
7. PROGR�SS REPORTS (Continued)
The Chair recognized Mrs. Janet Allen: I just wondered, I thought when
I read about that, I thought it meant you were going to get plumbers
to bid on the plumbing, electricians to bid on the electrical work,
etc., instead of a contractor handling these things. I thought you
were going directly to .
Mr. C ighton: That's what we are doing.
Mr. B tler: . . to the plumbing contractors, the electrical contractors,
as op osed to the general contractors and then subbed out. Keith, on
the 1)% cash bond other than the one we are dealing with now, it looks
like we are pretty much out of the woods on it. We really have not had
to go back against bond yet, have we?
Mr. C ighton: No, we have come pretty close where we have negotiated
with the bonding company and the matter has been settled. But, our
major problem is the high cost of bonding. Some of our contractors,
the l rger ones, can get bond, but because of that, we are not getting
much ompetition in our bidding.
Mr. B tier: Our performance payment bonds were for the full amount of
the c ntract price? Now we are talking about a 10% coverage, is that
right.
Mr. C ighton: Right.
Mr. Butler: In your estimation, is that sufficient to .
Mr. C ighton: Yes, because of one major thing. We do not make any
payments to contractors until they are finished, so if a contractor is
going to back out of a contract, he will lose not only what he has in
the job, but he will also lose the 10% cash bond.
Mr. Butler: Has that been discussed with some of the specialty con-
tractors?
Mr. C ighton; Yes, we have discussed it with prospective contractors
who are interested, and they understand that. Their only problem is
the high cost of bonding.
Mr. Butler: They feel they can come up with this 10% cash bond?
Mr. Cri.ghton; Yes.
Mr. Butler: Then, the 1% retainage in terms of dollars, on a $5,000
contr ct, we are talking about a $50.00 retainage. $7,000 contract,
$70.0 it really doesn't cover much.
7. PRO
SS REPORTS (Continued)
Mr. Wliggins: It would cover the cost of the "complaining letter."
Mr. C ighton: That is something I discussed with Wayne earlier.
I feep if we retain the 1% on many contracts over a period of years . . .
Mr. B tier: Right now, we have no coverage at all after the contract.
(No) )ecause performance and payment bonds do not cover any guarantee.
Once ie sign off on the job, that is it. So I am wondering whether
the to is even necessary -- there is more paper work for you.
Mr. C ighton: It would cover something like -- one common problem
we have had is where, for instance, not enough straps were put up on
the gutter and the gutters came down because of all the ice we had this
winter. The 1% would have been enough to get the contractor back out
there and put additional straps on. The contractors we have dis-
cusseo this with are in agreement with it, they don't think the 1 %. . .
The C air: We just receive this (Mr. Crighton's letter) and place
it on file. Is there anything further?
8. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
There being nothing further, the next Commission meeting will be
on Fr'day, April 15, 1977 at 10:00 a.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Commission, motion was
made y Mr. Wiggins, for adjournment at 10:31 a.m. Motion was
secon ed by Mr. Cira and carried.
rowneii, txec.
(SEAL
-10
0
President
NEXT COMM.
MEET ON
APRIL 15,
1977