|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I first heard about an alleged race discrimination case being filed against the Flint Department of Community and Economic Development after it was read on the A C Dumas Saturday morning radio show. I filed a FOIA with the city and they wanted a date. The city said no such document, although upon information and belief it was given to some council in late November, early December.
I had a copy e-mailed to me and quite frankly I am not sure what to make of this document. It is not a lawsuit. It s a letter to HUD and the law firm of Shedd-Frasier, PLC, whom I assume is representing the city. I have many of the documents referenced in the letter and I disagree with many of the statements in the letter. Others are just vague and reference nameless sources. There is nearly 5 pages of bullet points referencing alleged instances of discriminatory actions of the city. |
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:24 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The author of the letter is Attorney Sheldon L Miller of Farmington Hills.
* 2009-2010 OIG Report outlined the violations, findings, and reprimands of four women fro Flint Department of Community and Economic Development
* HUD mandate to remove women/ Emergency Manager instituted women back into Flint DCED to execute NSP 1 and NSP 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD never demanded, nor did HUD have the authority to reprimand anyone in this office. Greg Eason removed the four women after they filed whistleblower complaints with the City Attorney and the Department of Energy over Eason's actions. The Department of Energy concluded their allegations were in fact valid and suspended the DOE grant and demanded some repayments. The Council held hearings on the matter and were stunned to be told by City Attorney Peter Bade hat he had not informed them because it was an ongoing litigation matter.
The four women sued and the Emergency Manager settled the lawsuits.
This was a culmination of 17 years of unanswered HUD monitoring findings. HUD had demanded that all 17 years be resolved. Flooding in the basement storage area may have damaged some records and some may have been accidently shredded when files were consolidated. Files with monitoring findings were supposed to be marked on the exterior label of the box. Staff had worked many long hours, and even weekends, attempting to answer findings that may have happened before they came to the department.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:39 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
There was also other issues. Flo Mc Comick was made Director after she came highly recommended. She sometimes assigned the department supervisors to tasks and meetings that could not be reimbursed by HUD, such as Cities of Promise led by MSHDA. She and Williamson developed an adversarial relationship and she went to HUD and blamed him for department shortcomings.
I remember there was two staff that appeared incompetent. They were reprimanded for shopping on line while working and other abuses. Flo asked me to review some documents for one of the staff. The staff was asking to approve lengthy transfers of a nonprofit sub-grantee payroll for the executive director without documentation. My response was absolutely not. After Flo left and HUD pressure led to another director, the transfer was apparently approved. I was surprised to see a HUD finding for the very same transfer that Flo and I disapproved.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:50 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
When Ed Kurtz left and turned control over to Williamson, he implemented some lame duck resolutions that did not meet HUD guidelines or state rules. He gave large HUD grants to two agencies that had outstanding tax foreclosures and owed taxes. When Williamson declined to honor these inappropriate grants, council refused to allow the money to be reallocated. They held public hearings and attempted to smear Williamson's appointees. Some staff was removed from the budget. Council went so far as to try to give the money over to the county that was allocated by HUD to Flint . HUD disallowed this move. The money was lost because it was not reallocated and HOME funding for an additional time was lost. The findings in the report were some that the administration tried to deal with.
HUD played games too. When the review team came to Flint in the spring of 2005, they mainly asked questions about if Williamson was violating rules. However, they did verify some of the reports of the appointees regarding Salem, Flint West Village and GECA. Unfortunately, these were all criticisms. |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:04 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* Consultants. (CIG) which served on NSP1 was cited as nexperienced. An alleged HUD representative compelled City Administrator to accept the CIG consultants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I remember the audit findings as being that CIG was selected in an accelerated bid procedure which did not allow competition. Because of improper procurement practices by Eason and Tracy Atkinson, the city had to repay HUD and still had to pay CIG for services rendered.
Previously as part of a workforce harassment complaint, staff alleged Eason wrote a position for his friend Averyhardt. The complaint stated Eason was furious and accused staff of releasing confidential information to Carpenter who scored significantly better on his proposal by the review team.
The principals of CIG were extremely qualified. This is also part of the company that was replaced with Metro Housing by Eason in favor of Bret Russell and Charles young.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
OIG Michigan Audit Reports - HUD
www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/mi.cfm
... The City of Flint, ... Office of Inspector General audited the City of Flint's ... submitted an application to HUD, dated July 13, 2009,
Michigan Audit Reports
Information by State
This is the summary. Clicking on the audit number will bring up the entire audit after you use the above link. There are other Flint audits in the link.
Date Issued: October 13, 2010
Audit Report No.: 2011-CH-1001
File Size: 543KB
Title:The City of Flint, MI, Lacked Adequate Controls Over Its HOME Program Regarding Community Housing Development Organizations' Home-Buyer Projects, Subrecipients' Activities, and Reporting Accomplishments in HUD's System
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Office of Inspector General audited the City of Flint's (City) HOME Investment Partnerships Program (Program). The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2010 annual audit plan. We selected the City based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to Program grantees in Region V's jurisdiction and a citizen complaint to our office. Our objectives were to determine whether the City complied with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for community housing development organizations' (organization) home-buyer projects and subrecipients' activities and accurately reported Program accomplishments in HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (System). This is the second of three planned audit reports on the City's Program.
The City did not comply with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for organizations' home-buyer projects. It (1) did not ensure that organizations entered into lease-purchase agreements or entered into appropriate lease-purchase agreements with households, (2) failed to ensure that an organization transferred homes to home buyers within 42 months of project completion and did not convert the home-buyer projects to rental projects, (3) did not reimburse its HOME trust fund treasury account (treasury account) for terminated projects, (4) inappropriately used Program funds for home-buyer project costs that were administrative expenses, (5) did not prevent an organization from entering into a land contract with a home buyer, (6) inappropriately used Program organization reserve funds for an owner-occupied single-family rehabilitation project, (7) used Program funds for unreasonable acquisition costs, and ( did not decommit and reprogram Program funds for a terminated project. As a result, the City drew down and disbursed nearly $1.7 million in Program funds for organizations' home-buyer projects that did not meet Federal requirements and inappropriately drew down and disbursed more than $143,000 in additional Program funds.
The City also did not comply with Federal requirements in its use of Program funds for subrecipients' activities. It (1) inappropriately used Program funds for costs that were not associated with an eligible project, were administrative expenses, and were unrelated to the City's Program activities; (2) lacked sufficient documentation to support Program funds used for projects; and (3) did not reprogram Program funds for a terminated project. As a result, the City inappropriately drew down and disbursed nearly $427,000 in Program funds and lacked sufficient documentation to support nearly $65,000 in Program funds.
Further, the City did not accurately report Program accomplishments in HUD's System. It (1) inappropriately entered activity data into HUD's System for 61 properties under 2 or more activity numbers for a total of 130 activities, (2) overreported Program units created by 79 units, (3) did not accurately report completion dates for 35 home-buyer activities, and (4) inappropriately reported the type of activity in HUD's System for 2 activities.
We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD's Detroit Office of Community Planning and Development require the City to (1) revise 12-month lease agreements and 60-month purchase option agreements with households to 36-month lease-purchase agreements, convert the home-buyer project to a rental project, or reimburse its Program more than $843,000 from non-Federal funds; (2) convert home-buyer projects to rental projects if it can support that the homes meet property standards or reimburse its Program more than $607,000 from non-Federal funds; (3) reimburse its treasury account nearly $164,000 from non-Federal funds; (4) reimburse its Program nearly $406,000; (5) reimburse its Program nearly $26,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram the nearly $26,000 from Program organization reserve funds to Program entitlement or subrecipient funds; (6) decommit more than $94,000 in Program funds; (7) reimburse its Program nearly $112,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram the nearly $112,000 from homeowner and/or acquisition-only activity costs to administrative costs; ( provide supporting documentation or reimburse its treasury account nearly $65,000 from non-Federal funds; (9) reimburse its treasury account nearly $14,000 from non-Federal funds or reprogram nearly $14,000 to the appropriate project; (10) revise Program accomplishments in HUD's System as appropriate; and (11) implement adequate procedures and controls to address the findings cited in this audit report. |
|
|
|
Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:18 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* In 2011, the emergence of the Emergency Manager and the New Director of Flint DCED refused to communicate or pay service provider Operation Unification and Smith Village/Charles Yong Jr. for six months.
* NSP1 and NSP2 contracts stipulate payments every 30 days.. NSP1 and NSP2 contracts were not paid for six months. Introspectively and consecutively, payments would be missed for more than 60 days.
__________________________________________________________________
Smith Village Construction was the second contractor for Smith Village. The resident agent was Bret Russell and the permits being pulled were by Russell through his various entities.
It was Russell who purchased the Champion Homes through his Russell Building company. After Eason went to council and ceased the contract with Metro Housing and Smith Village Development, there was a time when arrangements had to be made to repay Metro for work completed and transfer property titles to start over. Shannon Easter White of the architecture company Funchiture had to be paid as she had already designed the houses.
Smith Village Development (CIG) sued Young, Russell, Eason, Walling,and Smith Village Construction in a lawsuit that has yet to be completed in Judge Yuille's Court.
A0000008247 3/12/2012 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $225,638.31
A0000007808 2/13/2012 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $475,361.44
A0000007477 1/23/2012 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $215,101.26
A0000007040 12/26/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $340,357.90
A0000006814 12/5/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $418,833.76
A0000006661 11/21/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $515,050.90
A0000006319 10/31/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $850,000.00
A0000006221 10/25/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $15,370.51
A0000006101 10/17/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $819,163.00
A0000006009 10/11/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $785,682.56
A0000005905 10/3/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $370,571.50
A0000005606 9/12/2011 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES $107,891.56
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:47 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
7th CIRCUIT COURT
Register of Action
OPEN CASE REGISTER OF ACTIONS 04/03/14 PAGE 1
11-096209-CK JUDGE YUILLE FILE 06/17/11
GENESEE COUNTY JDF
P 001 SMITH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT,, VS D 001 YOUNG,CHARLES,JR
2050 WARNER
FLINT MI 48503
ATY:PAESANO,ANTHONY
P-60173 248-792-6886
SERVICE/ANS 11/14/11 ANS
P 002 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT GROUP,, VS D 002 CITY OF FLINT,,
1101 S SAGINAW
FLINT MI 48502
ATY:PAESANO,ANTHONY ATY:CHUBB,ANTHONY, 09/01/11
P-60173 248-792-6886 P-72608 810-237-2078
SERVICE/ANS 09/08/11 ROS
P 003 STRAYHORN,N,JASON VS D 003 SMITH VILLAGE CONSTRUCTION,,
RES-RUSSELL,BRET,
2050 WARNER AVENUE
FLINT MI 48503
ATY:PAESANO,ANTHONY ATY:SCHWARTZ,JAY A. 09/01/11
P-60173 248-792-6886 P-45268 248-553-9400
SERVICE/ANS 10/10/11 ANS
P 004 DEMARIA,MARK,H VS D 004 S E METRO PROPERTIES,,
RES-RUSSELL,BRET,
31114 BINGHAM ROAD
BINGHAM FARMS MI 48025
ATY:PAESANO,ANTHONY ATY:SCHWARTZ,JAY A. 09/01/11
P-60173 248-792-6886 P-45268 248-553-9400
SERVICE/ANS 10/10/11 ANS
D 005 EASON,GREGORY,
1534 S FRANKLIN AVENUE
FLINT MI 48503
ATY:GILDNER,MICHAEL 09/01/11
P-49732 810-235-9000
SERVICE/ANS 11/21/11 ANS
D 006 RUSSELL,BRET,
31114 BINGHAM ROAD
BINGHAM FARMS MI 48025
ATY:SCHWARTZ,JAY A. 09/01/11
P-45268 248-553-9400
SERVICE/ANS 10/10/11 ANS
CP001 S E METRO PROPERTIES,, VS CD001 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT GROUP,,
ATY:SCHWARTZ,JAY A. 10/10/11 ATY:AKKASHIAN,BRIAN 10/10/11
P-45268 248-553-9400 P-55544 248-792-6886
SERVICE/ANS 10/28/11 ANS
CD002 STRAYHORN,N,JASON,
ATY:AKKASHIAN,BRIAN 10/10/11
P-55544 248-792-6886
SERVICE/ANS 10/28/11 ANS
CD003 DEMARIA,MARK,H
ATY:AKKASHIAN,BRIAN 10/10/11
P-55544 248-792-6886
SERVICE/ANS 10/28/11 ANS
Actions, Judgments, Case Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Num Date Judge Chg/Pty Event Description/Comments
---- -------- ---------- ------- ---------------------------------------------
1 06/17/11 YUILLE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT FILED
RECEIPT# 00347006 AMT $235.00
2 COMPLAINT FILED
3 P 001 JURY DEMAND FILED
4 08/05/11 STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Not much has happened with this case in the last year and more!
53 08/15/12 MOTION FEE PAID
RECEIPT# 00368598 AMT $20.00
54 D 001 SET NEXT DATE FOR: 08/27/12 1:30 PM
MOTION HEARING
ATTY DAVISON'S MOTION TO
WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY
MOTION AND NOTICE OF HEARING
AND PROOF OF SERVICE ON
8-14-12 FILED
MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED
55 PROOF OF SERVICE FILED
OF MOTION, NOTICE OF HEARING,
PROPOSED ORDER UPON ALL
PARTIES ON 8-14-12 FILED
56 08/27/12 MOTION HEARING
PROCEEDING DIGITALLY RECORDED
PRESENT: ATTYS EDWARD DAVISON,
AND POSTULKA. ATTY DAVISON'S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY
MOTION HEARD AND GRANTED.
57 D 001 RE-ASSIGNED DAVISON TO PRO-PER
58 ORDER ALLOWING WITHDRAWAL
FILED
59 03/18/13 DEFT CITY OF FLINT'S
SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DISPOSITION WITH
PROOF OF SERVICE 3/15/13
FILED
60 09/25/13 D 002 APPEARANCE
ATTORNEY: P-72608 CHUBB
CONSENT,ACCEPTANCE AND ORDER
FOR SBUSTITUTION OF ATTY FOR
CITY OF FLINT FILED
............................... END OF SUMMARY .............................. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:02 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
More than one thread details the Smith Village saga. It appears that Eason was still in control in June 2011 when he changed developers. Young was an agent of Smith Village Development and a partner in Smith Village Construction.
There is no six month delay in payments in 2011 shown in the check register.
Payments do end abruptly in April of 2012. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:09 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Flint continued to contract with Operation Unification and gave them CHDO status although they continued to have taxes owing on their properties and the properties of Charles Young Jr., Lela McGee Johnson and other partners.
Consumers Energy and the City of Flint both sued for fraud. Consumers won treble damages and the Flint case is ongoing.
Once again I don't see a six month delay in payments in 2011!
170924 3/21/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $9,379.75
170923 3/21/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $29,225.00
170895 3/14/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $10,834.00
170894 3/14/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $954.25
A0000013186 3/8/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $17,508.82
170837 3/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $13,930.81
170836 3/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $10,655.00
170835 3/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $19,076.00
A0000013080 3/1/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $9,286.64
170804 2/28/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $9,897.26
170803 2/28/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $15,834.76
170802 2/28/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $2,250.00
A0000012878 2/15/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $2,689.52
170719 2/14/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $22,800.00
170718 2/14/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $17,500.00
170717 2/14/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $9,827.56
A0000012781 2/8/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $13,813.83
170672 2/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $4,600.00
170671 2/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $12,424.50
A0000012697 2/1/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $3,271.27
170549 1/24/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $43,180.65
170548 1/24/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $17,648.00
170547 1/24/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $18,998.50
A0000012523 1/18/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $16,522.72
A0000012522 1/18/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $9,347.00
A0000012521 1/18/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $1,031.50
170520 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $17,744.60
170519 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $5,561.27
170518 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $14,950.00
170517 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $23,600.00
170516 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $13,536.68
170515 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $21,900.00
170514 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $2,294.00
170513 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $27,774.76
170512 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC OR $2,608.01
170511 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC OR $1,722.41
170510 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC OR $4,761.37
170509 1/17/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $14,236.00
A0000012302 1/7/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $10,143.25
170428 1/3/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $16,801.25
170427 1/3/2013 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC OR $322.00
A0000012202 12/24/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $4,412.00
170386 12/20/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC OR $17,123.25 Void
170371 12/14/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $2,950.00
170370 12/14/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $600.00
170369 12/14/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $550.00
170368 12/14/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $1,000.00
170367 12/14/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $18,575.00
170303 12/6/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $4,954.60
170302 12/6/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $19,582.90
170301 12/6/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $9,300.00
170300 12/6/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC AND $2,430.44
A0000011829 12/3/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $5,222.00
170237 11/29/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $31,313.34 Void
170164 11/29/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $31,313.34 Void
A0000011487 11/5/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $14,353.81
A0000011406 10/29/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $31,109.99
A0000010994 10/1/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $7,818.80
A0000010883 9/24/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $5,585.17
A0000010720 9/10/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $15,701.09
A0000010642 9/4/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $41,806.35
A0000010212 7/30/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $24,300.00
A0000009499 6/11/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $32,107.62
A0000009339 5/29/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $10,374.64
A0000008550 4/2/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $4,550.00
A0000008467 3/26/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $34,483.50
A0000007345 1/17/2012 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $50,829.77
A0000006799 12/5/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $27,172.81
A0000006512 11/14/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $5,765.25
A0000006416 11/7/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $43,164.58
A0000005887 10/3/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $66,001.50
A0000005692 9/19/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $5,900.69
A0000005404 8/29/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $126,569.58
A0000005256 8/15/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $52,662.84
A0000004730 7/5/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $75,438.13
A0000004281 5/31/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $57,588.02
A0000003497 3/14/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $28,846.93
A0000003349 2/28/2011 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $83,154.81
A0000002837 12/27/2010 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $32,076.94
A0000002367 11/1/2010 OPERATION UNIFICATION INC $82,058.99 |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* Director of Flint DCED changed and altered the terms of the contract. In midst of development, it was altered from a Fixed Cost to a Cost Plus.
* In 2011, Emergency Manager and Director of DCED intentionally delayed both NSP1 and NSP2 contracts. The six-month delay caused instability to homes.
* There were five Administration Changes since the execution of NSP1 and NSP2
Of the five, only one Administration honored HUD mandate and removal of women cited in the OIG report.
* Both NSP1 and NSP2 were reimbursable contracts. The six months of nonpayment created financial atrocities causing O.U. not to compete nor pay suppliers.
* The intentional six-month delay and non-communication by Flint City created a time loss. Flint City chose to rectify this by blaming O.U. and executing as the Developer. A formal letter went to the Emergency Manager opposing this and other violations in November of 2012.
* The letter written by O.U. compelled Flint City to amend the contract in justifying the grievances and violations imposed by Flint DCED.
* NSP1 Contract stipulates fees for Marketing, Administration, Maintenance, Soft Cost. Flint City refused to pay this to O.U.. O.U. went on record demanding payment.
* Fees owed to O.U. were stipulated by the contract. However the fees owed were used to build garages and pay the new contractors Flint DCED hired to regain time to meet HUD's August deadline. O.U was the Developers, yet were not permitted to execute as such.
* NSP1 an NSP2 contracts stipulate the processes by which a Developer or Contractor must be cited or reprimanded by Flint DCED relative to workmanship, quality, and etc. The contract stipulates a notice is given and 30 days is awarded to rectify any issue. To date O.U. Smith Village/ Charles Young Jr. has never received a citation.
* Consultants served on both NSP1 and NSP2 prohibiting any violations from occurring. All work and Consultants and Flint Building Inspection, and then O.U. was able to proceed and receive payment. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:10 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* The homes in NSP1 and NSP2 were abandoned for almost seven months without direction or workmanship from Flint City DCED. This resulted in vandalism and theft on both projects. Prior to the Emergency Manager, there was 24-hour security on site.
* Relative to NSP1, the Director of DCED compelled O.U. to accept contractors by which the opposed in attempting to make time or meeting the completion date of HUD.
(Note : NSP 1is the 14 houses that Operation Unification was to renovate and sell to low income)
* Contractors selected by Flint City DCED on the Nsp1 Contract left homes unsecured. Resulting in DCED choosing to make O.U. responsible. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:25 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* Flint City mishandling and execution of reimbursable contracts resulted in O.U. and Smith Village/ Charles Young Jr. not being able to pay suppliers or subcontractors. Thus damaging its reputation and credit standing.
* Disputed fees owed too (sic) O.U., compelled Flint DCED to operate on a distrust accord. Flint DCED, hired other contractors, created a two party check and further compels O.U. Director to appear every other Friday to pay contractor. However, O.U. begins to refuse and DCED begins to duplicate O.U. signature. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:35 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
* The mishandling of NSP1 Contract and its execution compelled Flint DCED to use funds from (Home) CDBG Dollars. The homes were not at their completion when DCED chose to add garages and contractors that increased the monetary amount of the original Contract.
*DCED personally called Contractors and hired them. One particular Contractor met privately with the Flint City Administration. Ultimately ,O.U. was told to work with him. O.U. reused this and the Contractor called and met with O.U. and explicitly stated, I can get you paid by the Flint City DCED.
* Relative to NSP 1 new Contractors were allowed to bid on completed work and paid higher fees.
* Relative to NSP1 disagreement ensued regarding Acquisition cost. In an attempt to resolve this, the Consultant requested O.U. to fabricate old time cards to offset fees. |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
