Agenda - 02-01-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

]U�� " Response to Mr. Smith and Mr. Levy Allegations 1. The work should not have been judged unsatisfactory as they had received favorable comment from the property owner (Miss Katy McNeil who has since died) and a signed certificate of satisfaction. They acknowledge that a CD staff member developed a letter outlining certain deficiencies (May 22, 1981 letter of Robert B. Wilson, Rehab Specialist). They said they were ' - not aware of the letter until their meeting with Mr. Kittrell , however,- , Response' Mr' Smith denial of further participation in the rehab program was based on inefficient work performance (as indicated in Robert Wilson's memo). i d certificate of Final Inspection; however, Ms. McNeil and Mr'�Hil�»»d�tQ»eCoa certy Development Task Force questioned the Mr, Wilson, Hs McNeil and the =mv/ - means to '`e end. '`They ^` ~ undue hardship (time) was placed on Ms. McNeil m�^ = �' ' felt as a result of inefficient work performance, Homeowners live in the units while rehab work is performed. Mr. Smith was not aware of Robert Wilson's memo until December 31 , 1981 because' Mr. Smith did not question the July 16, 1981 ban until December 31 , 1981. The memo has been filed since May 22, 1081 2. The fact that the job was late by five days should not be a factor. An amount of $1,190 was on deposit for 60 days for anything not completed, Moreover, payment of $10 per day was paid as penalty for lateness. Response: Mr. Smith was charged $10 per day for Mr. u` lateness. Mr. Smith c*mp�/ted the job—Five days over his scheduled time limit nf forty-five days. r' � /u/ s lateness is not the result of bad weather, etc, but more actually related to inefficient work performance. Since the homeowner remains in the unit while rehab is being porformed, timeliness is an important factor. The department does hold ten percen t of the contract amount for r DO days s after construction has been completed to allow the homeowner ample time to inspect the unit. This period has no relationship with the scheduled time limit for rehab construction. 3' Being banned from the Durham program should not be a criterion for Mr. Levy pointed M L out that the Durham letter was dated April 15. eliUib1lity' d d work in June or early July, Mr, Kittrell's letter to Mr' Smith--denying further participation—was dated July 16, 1981' Response: M r' Smith signed a Rehab Contract on March 17, 1981. Mr. Smith's s "Notice to Proceed" (agreement to start work) authorizes work to begin March 24, 1981' Mr. Smith completed construction work on May 14, 1981' The City of Durham reference letter is dated April lO` 1981 and received April 16, 1981, Contrary to Mr. Levy's assertion, past work performance is an excellent criterion for eligibility. -