FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

Home Open Chat Political Talk  Flint Journal Political Jokes The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: Flint Shadow Government- #1 Salem Housing
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Salem had a written no drug policy, but it appears that in some instances it was not adhered to. During the J Jones complaint, a communication was sent to Salem discussing several recurring themes.

!) That contractor x frequently came to work unprepared and was lacking at times the basic tools to perform the necessary rehab work.

2) That contractor X did not pay prevailing wages and encouraged resident RT to perform sveral tasks on the home, for which Rt was paid the equivalent of minimum wage. This is a violation of the city's "prevailing Wage" ordinance and it is a violation of HUD rules for a homeowner to be paid for labor on their home when federl funds are used.
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:38 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

3) That contractor x performed substandard work and Salem did not require the work to be repaired or redone. Me. james galford, Director of Development and Inspections Division, substantiated much of this substandard work. In addition , the work did not pass inspection and did not meet city code, a requirement for HUD work completion.

(Note: a city inspector had passed the roof and other other work that failed inspection by Galford)

4. That both residents of this address had informed employee A and others at Salem Housing of their suspicions that contractor X sometimes came to the worksite under the influene of drugs and/or alcohol. It was further alleged that employee A claimed contractor x was a "crack head" and that employee A claimed he had previously sold contractor x some "8 balls".
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:51 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The allegations about drug and alcohol use on the job was brought to the attention of Executive Director Hatter and employee A, but both dismissed them as untrue. After that time new information was found that involved employee a in drug sales and possession. A copy of the June 5, 2003 case involving a cash forfeiture judgement to Flint that involved employee A was included in the June 16, 2004 letter.

Flint police special operations seized the property, $1,233.00 after a traffic stop on Leith and Saginaw. Employee A consented to a search. Crack was found in a blue cushion the employee was seated on and Marijuana was found in his pocket along with the cash.

However the felony drug case had been suppressed and allegation from other employees that employee A had been allowed to perform community service with salem could not be substatiated because of the nonpublic nature of the drug case.
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:10 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Since Salem was the general contractor for the job, Salem was requested to complete the work using non federal funds. Also the homeowner had filed a complaint with the State of michigan regarding the substandard work in addition to complaints to Flint and HUD. .
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:20 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

The Mayor's office sent referral on a house that a resident wished Salem would complete as she and her daughter were to buy the home on a rent to buy program.

The Witherbee home was part of a $400,000 HOME grant for Salem Housing to purchase, rehab and resell. The grant limited costs to $50,000 per house. Salem was warned to keep their costs in line by city staff in January and june of 2004. The house was not completed because the city rejected the last payment request because Salem had reached the maximum allowed limit for the project. Salem had requested a waiver to cover the additional costs.

In addition a construction liein was placed on a home on Garland that was covered under the same grant. The budget for that house was $62,500.
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

On 3-31-2004, Salem had sent a waiver request to Major grants for $115, 837.40 to complete 11 homes in the Homeownership zone. The letter alleged that lead abatement issues had pushed them over the $35,000 limit for the Smith Village CDC HOZO Home Rehabilitation Contract.

Only one home of the 11 was under the HUD limit. The waivered amounts ran from $936 to $39,804.92 per house and totaled $166,036.07. That amount was reduced by Salem Housing reducing their soft costs from $79,466.10 to $15,109.23 for an amended grant total of $645,611.40 over the originl grant total of $529,774,00.
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:57 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Major Grants staff addressed the Council referral by Carolyn Sims on July 25,2004. The results were compiled by 9-16-2004

The Salem Housing Community Development Corporation 2002-3 HOME $400,000 grant had invested $237,099.30 for 5 houses and had a balance of $ 162,900.70. None of the houses were complete nor were final inspections made on many of the permits pulled.


The 11 houses of the 2003-4 Owner Occupied rehab Program (OOR). Grant award was $529,774 and had $1,922 remaining. Thee are the homes requesting waivers. None were completed and there were very few final inspections for the permits pulled. Electrical was always inspected.
Post Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:21 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

In a chart that detailed grants fon 2002 t0 2003 had 5 Salem Housing grants.

1. Community CDBG 02-03 $50.000 final payments pending
12 signature blocks planned and implemented. 17 blocks completed eligibility requirements for small household repair grants. 485 badly damaged sidewalk squares replaced on Dewey, Josephine, and Grace Streets.

Comments: Contract extension, as well as final payment requests. Work has been completed, resolution has been misplaced in City system for several months. Re-submission has occurred 4 times. Agency was given authorization by previous director to move ahead with project while change order was pending.


2. CHDO operating HOME 02-o4 $25,000 spent $$22,555 operating grant for the 14 homes that were under way . For HOME assistance on a Purchase/Rehab/ Lease proect


3. Purchase/ Rehab/lease HOME 02-04 $400,000 grant spent $242,307 $157.693 remaining total administrative costs $40,000 total project cost $360,000 on 14 home under construction
Part of this grant has administrative costs covered by the CHDO operating grant.

4. Buying and Beyond Homeowner center CDBG 03-04 $25,000 expenditures $21,600 balance, $3340 administrative costs $1857 total project costs $23,143
Serviced 174 households with pre-purchase classes, pe-loan counseling, maintenance skills and post - purchase classes

First report not submitted until 3/04, after notification of recapturing due to on-compliance of reporting requirements. Contract extension requested, staff recommends denial of request. Second contract year that total grant has not been expended.

HOZO Homeship zone owner assisted rehabilitation HOME 03-04 awarded $529,774
expenditures $527,839 (payments pending in Finance) balance $1,934 administrative costs $79, 466 total project cost $450,308
11 homes are currently underway for substantial rehabilitation. Grant includes 15% soft costs which are staff wages to run the program, inspections, lead testing and clearance
* comments: This program has had some problems. The funds invested are HOME funds. At the time the program was turned over to Glenda/Am, homes were already under way and work had already begun. This did not allow staff to have any input in the selection of homes being rhabilitatd. The homes that were selected by the agency were in bad disrepair and needed extensive work. This has caused many budget over runs. Currently, staff is working with the Development Division to do inspections and re-evaluate the homes to ensure that all work being requested by the agency are Code issues and not beautification issues. A contract extension is being requested and additional funds are being requested because this is a HOME grant and the houses must be brought up to code according to HUD regulations.If approved no additional funds will be released until a thorough investigation is conducted,
Post Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:25 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >