Section 106 Review: Are we doing our homework?

[m74reeves]

By law, before they can demolish a home more than 50 years old, except EXTREME emergency, they are required to do a 106 review for the historic officer.  "Emergency" demolitions have been BADLY abused.  And, to top it off, as far as we can tell, NOT ONE SINGLE 106 review has been done for ANY demolition.

Let's get back around to the subject of the post. If federal funds are being used on a property older than 50 years old, the City should be doing a Section 106 review. PERIOD.

And the city's definition of "EMERGENCY" does NOT excuse them from doing this review. Let me repeat that. If the City deems the structure an emergency AND they want to use federal funds to demolish it, THEY MUST STILL DO THE REQUIRED SECTION 106 REVIEW.

HUD only waives that review requirement in cases of a federally or state declared emergency, say if we had a natural disaster or something.

[strider]

I think it is obvious that if SPAR Council had been doing a good job on Preservation, Preservation SOS would not exist.  It exists because there was a need. What is truly important here at this point is not what SPAR Council may or may not have done right or wrong, it is what we all do moving forward.  SPAR Council, the organization, can not be held responsible for the issues that we are facing.  At worst, the organization used poor judgement and awakened that sleeping monster and now we all have do our best to put that monster down.  That monster is Municipal Code Compliance and it is doing harm even as we speak.

PSOS and SPAR Council are talking and that is a good thing.  The more united front we can present, the better.  The NSP  and the coming CDBG issue has been called huge by some and so as more and more gets brought out to the public eye, more and more will help us get to the bottom of this issue and help us make the changes in both the city ordinances and department polices so that MCC can start helping Jacksonville become the place to go for Historic Preservation.

[strider]

By law, before they can demolish a home more than 50 years old, except EXTREME emergency, they are required to do a 106 review for the historic officer.  "Emergency" demolitions have been BADLY abused.  And, to top it off, as far as we can tell, NOT ONE SINGLE 106 review has been done for ANY demolition.

Let's get back around to the subject of the post. If federal funds are being used on a property older than 50 years old, the City should be doing a Section 106 review. PERIOD.

And the city's definition of "EMERGENCY" does NOT excuse them from doing this review. Let me repeat that. If the City deems the structure an emergency AND they want to use federal funds to demolish it, THEY MUST STILL DO THE REQUIRED SECTION 106 REVIEW.

HUD only waives that review requirement in cases of a federally or state declared emergency, say if we had a natural disaster or something.

And I am assuming that they cannot now go back and say, "Gee, we 're sorry we didn't do them up-front, but here are all the 106 reviews for all those illegally demolished houses"  After the fact won't cut it.

What I am waiting for is that we find out that all of those demolitions were reported by MCC as being less than 50 years old.  Can you say fraud?

[m74reeves]

And I am assuming that they cannot now go back and say, "Gee, we 're sorry we didn't do them up-front, but here are all the 106 reviews for all those illegally demolished houses"  After the fact won't cut it.

It would be hard for the City to produce that given that the Section 106 review involves the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). That would be a boatload of reviews. We know for a fact that the SHPO never reviewed either of the 2nd Street properties. I suspect that the case is similar for these other NSP demos, too.

[strider]

Wouldn't they have to turn in SOMETHING to the feds to show how they spent the money? If they said or implied that none of the demolitions were older than 49 years old, no review would have been expected, correct?  Then later if it comes out that they turned in fraudulent paperwork, does that make this criminal?

[strider]

Yes, it's all coming back to me now.  I have contacted a few of my buddies in the right places for a bit more information on another situation that may also be tied to this one.  When I get my ducks in a row, I will have further comment.  Let's just put it this way, "folks are gettin paid" and the right type of investigation can show the who and the how.  Working on that right now.

We don't know if Duchee Steven's garage was demolished with federal funds, but I've put in a request for a list of ALL properties/structures demolished using NSP1, NSP3 and CDBG funds.   We shall see.

And interfering with a city demolition is a Class D Misdemeanor - that's what they were threatening to do.  Same demo contractor (Michael Lloyd Hauling) that took down Duchee's structure also took down 129 E 3nd and 253 E 2nd.  He called the cops on me too at 129 E 2nd and had them onsite at the other.

They were also the contracting company that took down the 100 year old Duckeeville house on Myrtle -- waiting to hear the funding source on that one too.  Interesting story on that one.  Original bid $7200.  Change order for $7400.  which brought the total job cost to a whopping $14,600.

Something to note about this demolition.  The original $ 7,200.00 was low bid for wet demolition.  The change order was for the Ooops, we found out we have to abate the asbestos.   Except that in the file was a report from 2010 that stated the asbestos had to be abated so it was known already.  Just another example of extreme and arrogant mismanagement on the part of Municipal Code Compliance's Chief or actually a good way to launder some extra cash to a favored contractor?  We are still waiting on how this was funded. In any case, no 106 review on it and so if any federal funds were used, it is another $14,600.00 due back to the feds.  Let's see, so far we think the tally could be up to $ 500,000.00 so far and we are still waiting for many public records requests to come through. 

The thing to remember here is that when this is paid back, it must come from the regular city budget not any kind of federally supported program.  So where will that funding come from?  The police and Fireman's budget?  The Library's?  Maybe we could do without the top three or four MCC people and then move the Neighborhoods department into Public Works and do away with Mr Barker's position.  That may pay back us taxpayers in about a year.

Strider, we are probably straying from the original thread topic, but the change order regarding the asbestos being found is good to note.  According to Procurement procedures, each demolition bid must include a bid for an asbestos survey, the cost of an asbestos-free demolition, and a bid for a wet demolition (asbestos found).  The award goes to the bidder with the lowest bid for the survey and asbestos-free demolition combined.  Then when the survey is done and asbestos is found, the City has the right to rescind the award and re-award to the lowest "wet demolition" bid.  See below:



Now, what is interesting with the Myrtle Street demolition you reference, Michael Lloyd Hauling's survey/dry demo bid was $7,210, and a wet demo was $8,720.  So, why is it that Michael Lloyd Hauling submitted a change request once asbestos was 'discovered' to add $7,400 when his original bid for a wet demo was $8,720.  That's a wet demo cost of $14,610, $5,890 higher than his wet demolition bid.  Sound fishy?

I missed this some how.  Yes, this is correct.  The right way was to pull the demolition contract once asbestos was found and give it to the lowest bidder for wet demolition, which was, oddly enough, the same contractor.  So there are two huge issues here.  The first is the fact that the file says an asbestos survey was already done so it was a given it was to be a wet demolition to start with.  The second is the fact that from the above, the cost should have been $ 8,720.00.  So now the questions are why did Kimberly Scott allow the contractor to overcharge the city $ 5,880.00 and who really benefited from those unearned funds?

This isn't really straying form the ordinal topic because more than likely when we finally get the account information we will find this was funded from that $400K of NSP3 funds that MCC was given.   And the fact that it is very much indicative of an abuse of power on the part of Kimberly Scott. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Strider, I think that the bids show the cost of an asbestos survey, dry & wet demo.

Based on the other bids, I'm completely unsure as to the methodology these guys use to bid a wet demo, but they're all over the place from $15k to $40k.  The dry demos are a bit more in-line with each other.

That being said, and based on only what's in front of me, I have no issue with a change order being issued.  This could just be a simple screw-up by the estimator and the total cost of roughly $15k is still the lowest bid. 

But.....

In most cases, when these bids are awarded, the purchaser probably looks no farther than the lowest number in the spread sheet.  There are a few things that would need to be determined to see if anything truly nefarious is going on with the bidding.


A couple off the top of my head:

1.)  Does Lloyd Hauling have a habit of lowballing bids and then submitting change orders to 'make up' the difference?
2.)  Is there a pattern within the department of the total amounts paid to the winning bid being more expensive than the next highest bidder?
3.)  Are the RFPs open to everyone or do they only get sent to a few select bidders?
4.)  What are the requirements for making the shortlist?

[strider]

Strider, I think that the bids show the cost of an asbestos survey, dry & wet demo.

Based on the other bids, I'm completely unsure as to the methodology these guys use to bid a wet demo, but they're all over the place from $15k to $40k.  The dry demos are a bit more in-line with each other.

That being said, and based on only what's in front of me, I have no issue with a change order being issued.  This could just be a simple screw-up by the estimator and the total cost of roughly $15k is still the lowest bid. 

But.....

In most cases, when these bids are awarded, the purchaser probably looks no farther than the lowest number in the spread sheet.  There are a few things that would need to be determined to see if anything truly nefarious is going on with the bidding.


A couple off the top of my head:

1.)  Does Lloyd Hauling have a habit of lowballing bids and then submitting change orders to 'make up' the difference?
2.)  Is there a pattern within the department of the total amounts paid to the winning bid being more expensive than the next highest bidder?
3.)  Are the RFPs open to everyone or do they only get sent to a few select bidders?
4.)  What are the requirements for making the shortlist?

Tell me something, if you hired that contractor yourself and told him that he had to bid a survey, a non-asbestos demo and one with abating the asbestos when you knew you already had a report that said the house needed the asbestos abated, would you accept a change order for only doing what he bid  $8,620.00 to do? If it was your dollars, I suspect not. If fact, as you already knew it needed asbestos abatement, why would you let the contract out for non-asbestos demo?  And why let a contractor turn in a change order to do that abatement for over $5,000.000 more than he bid?  Frankly, the huge difference in costs, even with the change order, makes me wonder if it was done properly.  Easy to be low bid if you figure out a way around the rules.  Of course, the other bidder (Arwood) may have simply not wanted to do a wet demo so bid high.

There are two companies, P & G Land Clearing and Lloyds Hauling, the owners are related and we have seen both show up at each others demos, that have gotten 80% of the last 50 odd demolition contracts, including the ones not let out for bid because they were declared emergencies.  We are still trying to get the invoicing for many of these demolitions.  This mayoral administration and the various division heads do not make getting the public record requests very easy these days so it just takes extra time to get them.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I would have asked him to take another look at his bios and revise the price.  If he was still the low bidder, he gets the work.  If not, the contract is awarded to the next guy.

Edit:  Sometimes mistakes happen.  That's why i emphasised determining whether or not low balling then receiving change orders
was a pattern with that contractor.

[strider]

I would more readily see it as a mistake and accept that overall the price was fair (if it was...) except that everyone should have known already that it required asbestos abatement (wet demo) as its in the file.  Mismanagement on the part of MCC?  Something done on purpose?

If the invoice had been for the $225 plus the $8620 and then there was a change order, it would look less suspicious. It would look like the guy said he made a mistake and could not do the job for the bid.  They asked how much and he was low bid anyway. Though one has to realize that the bid amounts were most likely known by then so easy to be the low bid.  Plus his relative was second in line. 

This is only part of the issue with the NSP funds.  1.4 million between NSP1 and 3.  All for demolition and clearance.  All of which appears to have been mismanaged. The big question is becoming if that mismanagement is due to people unable to perform their jobs or purposeful.  When a Department Chief is in her position for 6 plus years with two different Mayors, hard to believe the rules were not known so it makes it less likely it is just poor job performance.

[mbwright]

If you are in the demo business, you should know how to price and estimate.  These are not complicated structures, and based on age, almost guaranteed to have asbestos.  Absolutely no reason to get extra money. 

[sheclown]

Sec. 5311.* Remedies for noncompliance with community development requirements[* Section 111 of the Act]

Features

Also in this Section:

(a) Notice and hearing by Secretary
(b) Referral of matters to Attorney General
(c) Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals

From the U.S. Code
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 1999]
[CITE: 42USC5311]

    Notice and hearing; termination, reduction, or limitation of payments by Secretary

    If the Secretary finds after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing that a recipient of assistance under this chapter has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, the Secretary, until he is satisfied that there is no longer any such failure to comply, shall--
        terminate payments to the recipient under this chapter, or

        reduce payments to the recipient under this chapter by an amount equal to the amount of such payments which were not expended in accordance with this chapter, or

        limit the availability of payments under this chapter to programs, projects, or activities not affected by such failure to comply.

    Referral of matters to Attorney General; institution of civil action by Attorney General
        In lieu of, or in addition to, any action authorized by subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary may, if he has reason to believe that a recipient has failed to comply substantially with any provision of this chapter, refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States with a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be instituted.

        Upon such a referral the Attorney General may bring a civil action in any United States district court having venue thereof for such relief as may be appropriate, including an action to recover the amount of the assistance furnished under this chapter which was not expended in accordance with it, or for mandatory or injunctive relief.

    Petition for review of action of Secretary in Court of Appeals; filing of record of proceedings in court by Secretary; affirmance, etc., of findings of Secretary; exclusiveness of jurisdiction of court; review by Supreme Court on writ of certiorari or certification
        Any recipient which receives notice under subsection (a) of this section of the termination, reduction, or limitation of payments under this chapter may, within sixty days after receiving such notice, file with the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a petition for review of the Secretary's action. The petitioner shall forthwith transmit copies of the petition to the Secretary and the Attorney General of the United States, who shall represent the Secretary in the litigation.

        The Secretary shall file in the court record of the proceeding on which he based his action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. No objection to the action of the Secretary shall be considered by the court unless such objection has been urged before the Secretary.

        The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm or modify the action of the Secretary or to set it aside in whole or in part. The findings of fact by the Secretary, if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive. The court may order additional evidence to be taken by the Secretary, and to be made part of the record. The Secretary may modify his findings of fact, or make new findings, by reason of the new evidence so taken and filed with the court, and he shall also file such modified or new findings, which findings with respect to questions of fact shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole, and shall also file his recommendation, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original action.

        Upon the filing of the record with the court, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment shall be final, except that such judgment shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

(Pub. L. 93-383, title I, Sec. 111, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 650.)
Legislative Annotations

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fprogram_offices%2Fcomm_planning%2Fcommunitydevelopment%2Frulesandregs%2Flaws%2Fsec5311

NSP is under CDBG and governed by the same regulations.

[Cheshire Cat]

Just saw you on the news Gloria, it was another great piece.  I see the city now says they will no longer use the FED funds for demo's.  That's all fine but do they suppose no one should answer for the misuse of the funding all along?  Seems to me Ms. Kim Scott was in the drivers seat while regulations continued to be violated and well knew that the proper paperwork was not being done.  If she claims she did not know then that spells incompetence.  The other thing the city will still have to answer is why Scott had "Carte Blanche" when it came to picking contractors for the demo's where funds were misused and why all the contracts seemed to go to the same family members?  Lot's in the way of answers still remain as well as the how and when of what will be done in the case of Kim Scott.  I hope they realize that this is not over.

[JaxUnicorn]

Just seems to me that it is easy to submit a "change order" for a wet demolition once you've been awarded the contract.  You've already seen the other bids for the wet demo, so the change order is easy to submit to still be the lowest.  There's NO WAY a reputable demo contractor should make a $5,000 mistake in a bid.  And if he does, then next time he'll be more careful.  A bid is a bid...if you accept the contract you are awarded, you should be held to the price you quoted.

[sheclown]

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/City-will-no-longer-use-federal-program-to/C68z73hZVE6pi2iKQWtilA.cspx

Now...about those emergency demolitions.