HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-04 - Minutes - Archive•
•
•
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
The Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in Special
Session at 9:30 a.m., Monday, February.4, 1980 in the Library of the Authority,
#1 North School, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Upon Roll Call, the following were present:
Commissioners Present: Windham, Endress, Seaton, Shreve
Commissioners Absent: Morgan
Others present: Chak Kumpe, Bromo Wilson, Pat Donat, Fredia Sawin
Lloyd Clapsaddle, Kenneth Brown, Coy Howard, Phil
Taylor, Channel 29 News, Springdale News
There being a quorum present, the following business was transacted:
Mr. Windham brought the Meeting to order by explaining the reasons for this
Special Meeting. Chad went over the past happenings to bring the Board up to
date and the reason for these three gentlemen to be here from Little Rock.
The reason is, being to explain to us the Board of the Housing Authority why
they picked another Developer other than the one that we selected as well as
to explain the options that were available.
Mr. Clapsaddle then explained to the Board that there are four catagories of
evaluation factors first of which was submitted to the Little Rock Office
indicated that the sites as reviewed by our Housing Authority and submitted
to HUD indicated that of the two proposals the Comley sites were the preferred.
Mr. Seaton questioned that relative to the socialogical impact could we have
at that meeting in December amended.
Mr. Clapsaddle explained that as far as being pursuasive it was not.
After further discussion, Mr. Windham introduced Mr. Taylor as our past
Chairman and stated that we have specifically invited Mr. Taylor to participate
in this meeting and is welcome to speak.
It was stated by Mr. Clapsaddle that he knew of nothing in the regulations that
would allow a socialogical factor to be rated with the rest of the form.
Mr. Clapsaddle futher stated that the area of difference existed in your assessment
of the Developers qualifications, that is Mr. Coleman was given a rating of 22
and Mr. Comley was given a rating of 11 which is considerably more than half
the distance between the 66 total over all the score which was given to Mr. Comley
and the 83 which was given to Mr. Coleman. The Little Rock Office has had a
working relationship with both and we know of nothing that would indicate that
either builder is superior to the other as it relates to their capacity to finish
this particular job. So from our point of view, they are standing on equal.
Mr. Taylor referred to in terms of the bids the Coleman Company was able to present
to us a letter indicating they had commitment for funds, Comley was not, that in
itself was a bit of physical evidence. Once again, we were led to believe that
it was necessary.
•
•
•
Mr. Clapsaddle stated that he understood but at this early part of the
submission of the proposal the tentative commitment for financing is not
a factor that is instrumental in determining the capability of the contractor.
This can change.
Mr. Windham pointed out, looking at Mr. Comley's proposal evaluation system,
under the explanation on page four it says at the top of the page last item
Letter C, failure to prove evidence of the building is secure without intrum
financing lowers the otherwise superior rating. Technically we were in error
of declaring the bid responsive when probably it wasn't responsive to start
with.
Mr. Brown mentioned that both, Mr. Comley and Mr. Coleman, have completed
Single -Family and Multi -Family projects. Located various places in the State.
I kon't know if either one of them have done anything under Turnkey per say.
After further discussion Mr. Clapsaddle brought out that with design and
construction quality and price we must review this in terms of its connection
with price and we're talking about $312,000 spread between the two. On the
basis of the price difference of $312,000 there is nothing we could see in
the Coleman proposal that would justify this difference.
Chad indicated that we could have possibly been in error because we eliminated
two proposals simply because they did not meet the specifications that we
put out. Those two proposals being, UMIC and Pete Sissan.
Mrs. Endress stated that when she was looking at the $300,000 difference she
thought "I can understand thats a lot of money but its going to be here for
a long time and all the folks are going to live in those houses and so its
real important to us." We feel the difference in design and layout is worth it.
Mr. Howard explained a little about Conventional Housing. In the Handbood,
7417.1, the Turnkey and Conventional Method the procedual sequence has been set out.
The Housing Authority does hire the Architect they do select the site, subject to
HUD Approval. Mr. Howard stated he had talked to the Chief Appraiser recently
and he said that he would be very glad to work with anybody. The basic difference
is that under the Conventional Method HUD provides the money and under the Turnkey
Method its up to the Architect to provide his own financing and the Housing Authority
basically just buys the project after its completed. Funds, as my understanding,
have already been set aside for the project X amount of dollars. Also, under
the Conventional Method you have an option to reduce the number of units to still
get some Housing with the dollars available whatever you can buy because of in-
flation.
It was agreed by all the Board members and Mr. Clapsaddle to prostpone the date
to confirm our option to Friday, February 29th.
Mrs. Endress and Mr. Seaton cordially thanked Mr. Clapsaddle and his companions
for coming to Fayetteville to explain and outline the options for us.
Mr. Clapsaddle stated that Mr. Howard would send us a letter concerning the
question about whether you have to put the Architect out for bid or not.
•
•
•
After further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS