Hammond Renaissance? Tom McDermott Jr's Standards

mattlap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 am **Posts:** 2529

xmpt wrote:

It seems to me that the bribe you suggest was an estimate from the contractor, pretty cheap too.

Well he reportedly said he could get Kim "off of her back" ..... don't you think that is a little unethical at the least? In addition the lawsuit says that Kim brought him to her ....

Don't you think that is a little more than a cheap quote? Not to mention him using his position to undercut other local contractors.

xmpt · **Joined:** Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:29 am **Posts:** 989

Absolutely unethical.

bert68 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:33 pm **Posts:** 1672

xmpt wrote:

Absolutely unethical.

If as portrayed in the lawsuit could it be criminal?

sparks · **Joined:** Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:17 pm **Posts:** 3800

mattlap wrote:

xmpt wrote:

It seems to me that the bribe you suggest was an estimate from the contractor, pretty cheap too.

Well he reportedly said he could get Kim "off of her back" ..... don't you think that is a little unethical at the least? In addition the lawsuit says that Kim brought him to her ....

Don't you think that is a little more than a cheap quote? Not to mention him using his position to undercut other local contractors.

The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.

lubu · **Joined:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:19 am **Posts:** 401

Bid resulted in a loss? Yes, and he won't know how big a loss until this plays out. Maybe sparks will take up a collection for those involved to cover their losses. Why were the inspector and the clerk's office employee together? Who brought this owner and building to the attention of the office clerk? There is a huge difference between an estimate and a bid. Did Made Rite actually make a bid? Sparks says that this particular project resulted in a loss since the job wasn't secured and payment wasn't made. See, it takes resources to scout for construction work and prepare bids. It's cheaper when a contractor can take advantage of contacts in the building department to drum up business and feed the leads. It's almost certain that work time paid by taxpayers produce these leads. Does anyone think the inspector was doing this on her own time? If that's the case maybe she found another way to leverage her authority to her own gain.

mattlap · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:24 am **Posts:** 2529

sparks wrote:

The reason the property owner is in court is because she refused to maintain her property. The city wants property owners to maintain their properties and improve them. Any licensed contractor who put a new roof on the building would "get code enforcement off her back" because the new roof would fix the issue that landed her in court. I'm having trouble following your logic that he uses his position to undercut other contractors. His costs are the same as every other contractor. He has to buy materials, pay his workers,provide tools,trucks and rent dumpsters. As a licensed contractor, he is required to pay for workmen's comp., unemployment insurance, license,bond and liability insurance. In this particular case, no work was performed so the time and energy he spent looking at the job and making a bid resulted in a loss.

Every other quote was 80% or more higher than his with 4 different quotes shown. Darren quoted $5000, and the other quotes ranged from $9500 to what looks like over $20,000 from Gluth (hard to read but it is 5 digits and looks to start with a 2).

So tell me how the next nearest quote is almost double? Either the other contractors are price gouging or Mr Taylor has found a way to cut corners.

In economics R= P*Q (Revenue = Price * Quantity). Is he receiving enough leads through his code enforcement sources or the clerks office that he can reduce price and still attain revenue? That is where he is likely using his position to further his business over other contractors.

Are other contractors allowed to drive along with code enforcement? My guess is probably not ........and that alone creates an unfair and unethical situation.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Whether she lives in the city or not, does not preclude her from filing a lawsuit.

Whether she does or does not have 1 or 500 rental properties, whether or not she does have a homestead or illegally have a homestead, or 5 homesteads, (as recently reported for one lake county politician), a chicago address, a new york address, or in court for code violations, it does not give entitlement to an individual who reportedly works for the city, holding any specific business license to offer an inducement, as described by the plaintiff, the exchange between plaintiff, kimmie and the contractor/person/business who worked in the city court, to be reportedly introduced by code enforcement, and working for the court clerk, to imply/offer per the plaintiff, if I put on your roof for $5,000, I'll make sure to keep code enforcement off your back, if someone else puts on the roof, code enforcement might find something else wrong. That very well may be criminal, not just unethical.

They are separate legal issues. Considering Lake County's history on exemptions and Tom does have a history of being able to play with exemptions, removing homestead exemptions and triggering audits to fit his own political vendetta.

As to the $5,000 bid reportedly presented, and the other bids coming in much higher. Haven't spent much time on this one, but I saw one ROOFING contract for $14,000. If what Spunfcuk said is correct about the roof, it appears either someone did not have the skill to bid a job.....

Or, many unscrupulous contractors, and of course I am not saying Taylor made Rite Contracting is unscrupulous, low ball a bid, open up a roof and then come back to the client saying it will be another $10,000. What does a client then do? They either cough up the dough, or being litigation which may last years and the client has an open roof, eventually loosing the property. For another contractor to walk in and finish the job, seldom will any reputable contractor enter such agreement after a project is started.

Now to initiate litigation against an insider, we all have seen how the Lake County Election Board dealt with the allegations against Tom. Is Mr. Taylor a Lake County Insider? Is Kimmie a Lake County Insider? Someone reported no Kimmie works in code, someone else wrote Kimmie left code enforcement over a year ago, hell I don't know.

A common practice of some favored contractors in some cities :smt004

, The contractors low balling a bid on city rehab projects, win the bid in an uncompetitive process, then go in and bump up price. In some communities, the favored contractor gets approval to bump up cost, yet others in the same community, contractors who are not favored eat cost. There are a lot of small contractors who just don't want to do business in Hammond. Bigger firms have legal relationships with law firms to deal with such situations.

Now interestingly enough, Hammond had the feds knock on its door, as a result of an unfavorable SBA audit. Yep Tom got a warning, and his ego got in the way costing Hammond $10,000,000 in funding for a Senior citizen's project. Or is it some believe Tom's campaign fund got in the way? Hell, you answer that for your self.

Someone in Tom's administration over at the Redevelopment Commission was approving bump ups above 25%. They had the authority, by federal guidelines, to increase bids up to 25% above the bid, but anything above that amount required full Redevelopment Commission Board approval. Full Board Approval didn't happen, some wonder why?

HUD came to town, audited the books because of a SBA audit and suspended/disbarred Hammond from participation in the program until things were refunded, explained and resolved. Tom on WJED minimized it saying it was an accounting problem, no big deal. Yea and pigs do fly!

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf,

Was someone following Tom's pay book on this? Did someone have enough influence in Hammond City Court to negate any legal action taken against a unscrupulous contractor? Valid questions.

HUD's Audit letter:

Quote:

http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit_Reports/2012-CH-1009.pdf
Issue Date: August 3, 2012
Audit Report Number: 2012-CH-1009

TO: Forrest Jones, Program Center Coordinator, Office of Public Housing, 5HPH
//signed//

FROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA

SUBJECT: The[color=#800000] Hammond Housing Authority, Hammond, IN, Did Not Administer Its Recovery Act Grants in Accordance With Recovery Act, HUDâ€™s, and Its Own Requirements

Enclosed are the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Inspector Generalâ€™s (OIG) final results of the audit of the Hammond Housing Authorityâ€™s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Public Housing Capital Fund stimulus formula and competitive grants.

HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.

The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8L, requires that OIG post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at http://www.hudoig.gov.

If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me at (312) 913-8684

I believe there were more than just one of these findings by the SBA.

I am as well especially fond of those one word responses, Corrected!57368

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

I would certainly like to know how one property, McDermott rehabbed with federal tax dollars found its way on the market and two other properties rehabbed with federal tax dollars were sorta rehabbed with federal tax dollars and wound up looking like they do in the above lower two pictures.

It is exceptionally fortunate that the first pictured property found it way, to be listed with a Hammond City Council member.

But, why were the other two properties not listed? Why were they left like they are/were. And what was the extent of rehab? Why had one of the properties wound up with a new roof, fell in such disrepair so quickly after the new roof was put on.

Who in city pay roll gave the approval on this work?

Does the Sonia Moreno-Avalos Vs McDermott and Others http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=992a3940257a69aa2cdd0cb9f25d7994 federal litigation raise some questions on some of Tom's Departments?

Are there other Hammond property owners treated like this?
Or is just the labeled scumbag landlords?
Or is it scumbag labeled minority landlords?

Quote:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Free-Press/186249654744245

Gary Free Press
September 30
The High Cost of Free Speech in NWI:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution:

â€œCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.â€

One of many Americansâ€™ most valuable inalienable rights, is the right to free speech, right? Well I thought so until a few years ago. But in NWI, more specifically Gary and Hammond, we find the right to free speech often comes at a price. The high costs of freely expressing oneâ€™s opinions publicly are often met with some form of retaliation. The Constitution does not intend for us to be allowed to speak freely, but then be subject to reprisals by the government at which criticisms are being directed. It surely means that we Americans should be able to publicly criticize our governmentâ€”either local or nationalâ€”without the fear of reprisal.

Too bad this is not the case in NWI. In NWI, if you plan to exercise your right of free expression, you had better be prepared to field some kind of flak from whomever your criticisms are directed towards. This type of intimidation has been relatively effective. This tactic probably explains the reluctance of individuals or groups to openly be critical of their local government officials.

There have been numerous instances of local government officials abusing their powers of office to intimidate those who are critical of their performance or behavior. There have been illegal searches of private property. There have been many times when code enforcement has been used as a weapon to silence critics of different local administrations. There have been personal attacks against the character of individuals that opt to vocalize their opinions that local officials find displeasing. There have been either threats to litigate, or at times, even legal actions brought against private citizens that choose to speak their minds freely. There have been statements made which some individuals perceive to be threats to their well-being. There have been numerous cases of individuals that are critical of local officials being harassed by the police.

Citizens should not have to live in fear of these various types of retaliation just for voicing or otherwise expressing their opinions.

There is something very wrong when local government officials can tap the cityâ€™s coffers to hire attorneys to silence their critics or use the full resources of the government bodies over which they temporarily preside to intimidate certain members of the public.

This type of behavior is the province of tyrants; the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Kim Jong IL. Our forebears fought to be Americans because we refused to submit to this kind of oppression. So donâ€™t now let it get a toehold in our own backyard! Speak freely. Speak truthfully. Speak fearlessly.

And speak as often and as loudly as necessary to communicate your views to your desired audience. Donâ€™t let them bully you into submission! Be heard! Be seen! Be read! Be â€œlikedâ€! Be â€œfriendedâ€! Tweet! Text! Message! Email! Network! Converse! Communicate with any and every tool at your disposal!

58932

Freedom Fighter · **Joined:** Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:13 am **Posts:** 475

I would speculate that there could be a conflict of interest, or at the least, a stench of impropriety, when you have a city councilman marketing a property owned by the municipality he serves.

Tiger1 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 30, 2013 7:38 pm

justcallmetommy wrote:

I would certainly like to know how one property, McDermott rehabbed with federal tax dollars found its way on the market and two other properties rehabbed with federal tax dollars were sorta rehabbed with federal tax dollars and wound up looking like they do in the above lower two pictures.

It is exceptionally fortunate that the first pictured property found it way, to be listed with a Hammond City Council member.

But, why were the other two properties not listed? Why were they left like they are/were. And what was the extent of rehab? Why had one of the properties wound up with a new roof, fell in such disrepair so quickly after the new roof was put on.

Who in city pay roll gave the approval on this work?

Does the Sonia Moreno-Avalos Vs McDermott and Others http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=625c5ce4416456aedb7bac66f8960961 federal litigation raise some questions on some of Tom's Departments?

Are there other Hammond property owners treated like this?
Or is just the labeled scumbag landlords?
Or is it scumbag labeled minority landlords?

Quote:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Free-Press/186249654744245

Gary Free Press
September 30
The High Cost of Free Speech in NWI:

The First Amendment to the US Constitution:

â€œCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.â€

One of many Americansâ€™ most valuable inalienable rights, is the right to free speech, right? Well I thought so until a few years ago. But in NWI, more specifically Gary and Hammond, we find the right to free speech often comes at a price. The high costs of freely expressing oneâ€™s opinions publicly are often met with some form of retaliation. The Constitution does not intend for us to be allowed to speak freely, but then be subject to reprisals by the government at which criticisms are being directed. It surely means that we Americans should be able to publicly criticize our governmentâ€”either local or nationalâ€”without the fear of reprisal.

Too bad this is not the case in NWI. In NWI, if you plan to exercise your right of free expression, you had better be prepared to field some kind of flak from whomever your criticisms are directed towards. This type of intimidation has been relatively effective. This tactic probably explains the reluctance of individuals or groups to openly be critical of their local government officials.

There have been numerous instances of local government officials abusing their powers of office to intimidate those who are critical of their performance or behavior. There have been illegal searches of private property. There have been many times when code enforcement has been used as a weapon to silence critics of different local administrations. There have been personal attacks against the character of individuals that opt to vocalize their opinions that local officials find displeasing. There have been either threats to litigate, or at times, even legal actions brought against private citizens that choose to speak their minds freely. There have been statements made which some individuals perceive to be threats to their well-being. There have been numerous cases of individuals that are critical of local officials being harassed by the police.

Citizens should not have to live in fear of these various types of retaliation just for voicing or otherwise expressing their opinions.

There is something very wrong when local government officials can tap the cityâ€™s coffers to hire attorneys to silence their critics or use the full resources of the government bodies over which they temporarily preside to intimidate certain members of the public.

This type of behavior is the province of tyrants; the likes of Hitler, Stalin, or Kim Jong IL. Our forebears fought to be Americans because we refused to submit to this kind of oppression. So donâ€™t now let it get a toehold in our own backyard! Speak freely. Speak truthfully. Speak fearlessly.

And speak as often and as loudly as necessary to communicate your views to your desired audience. Donâ€™t let them bully you into submission! Be heard! Be seen! Be read! Be â€œlikedâ€! Be â€œfriendedâ€! Tweet! Text! Message! Email! Network! Converse! Communicate with any and every tool at your disposal!

58932

JCMT, would a city councilman marketing a property owned by the city he works for, be a violation of the "Hatch Act"???

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

an example of more outstanding work at keeping up hammond's housing stock.

62991

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

On this picture, I just love patch of missing brick work.

Maybe Tom might use Redevelopment Money to rehab this.

Now for those of you who haven't read about it, Hammond's Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr is being sued individually and as in his role, along with a few other key personnel. This is not McDermott's only lawsuit. Tom may be in a trifecta loosing streak! First on to the first settlement tom was muscled into.

Because of Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr's antics, insensitive and racially charged comments, Hammond not only lost a multi million dollar partially HUD funded Senior Citizen program because of questionable bookkeeping; Tom behind the scene actions, got a Hispanic Department Head fired. The Hispanic woman, backed by HUD's legal department won a judgment of $200,000 large.

HUD representing the Hispanic woman, gave Lake County Democratic Chairman and Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott few options. HUD knowing how to use the legal ring, giving McDermott Jr a taste of his own medicine, boxed Tommie into a corner. Tom not wanting to testify on the stand, making his infamous statements record for all eternity, chose to have the statement immortalized in an agreement which cost the Hammond Voucher Program $200,000, plus all the lawyer's fees a couple of Tom's pals made, along with the loss of several million to be used to house Hammond's senior citizen population.

A side note, this HUD settlement mandated 97% of this funding to be allocated to the Housing Voucher Program and mandated Jr to make an announcement endorsing the program. http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11536&sid=d7c2e03ac52f0ea914846efd1a44d2c6 It's implied McDermott reallocated the voucher funds to some other project.

Then, In June of 2013, while the city was working on dealing with the 644 sibley Code Enforcement issues, which appears both Code and the City Law Department, involving some of Tom's Key People, failed to prevent three children from dying in a January 2014 house fire. It appears at, this time, whole responsibility can't be pointed in their direction, but the McDermott Administration had a substantial contribution to circumstances which led to these children's death. http://nwigazette.com/2014/01/22/a-tragedy-of-errors-fatal-hammond-fire/.

A retired post tribune editor, writes a great piece on the need for answers in these children's death. http://posttrib.suntimes.com/opinions/25159174-474/rutter-be-honest-about-how-and-why-3-children-died.html

Unknown to the public, not until the federal litigation had been filed in January 2014, and pointing to the need of a fact finding timeline, Hammond's Mayor, Thomas McDermott JR, a Notre Dame Law School Graduate, walked into Code Enforcement and re assigned, some would say demoted two African American/black women, seasoned Code Enforcement Personnel and made them secretaries. One of them had been in their position for 18 years. Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr, who is a licensed attorney is being sued again in federal court because of his actions. http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11544&sid=d7c2e03ac52f0ea914846efd1a44d2c6

One of these women's replacements, well per a federal lawsuit filed by one of the aggrieved, was a 20 something year old white male, who reportedly did political work for Tom. Both women are in a protect class due to race, being women and their age. Watch Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr, no Hammond residents spend somewhere more than $250,000 defending his actions, and another judgment will be won against the city.

Now didn't that get Gerry Genova, another Notre Dame Law School Graduate, an up and coming politico federal charged with using city employees to do campaign work while on the job? Genova got several years http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/21970052-418/once-disgraced-cal-city-mayor-back-in-political-life.html

Genova, For those of you who don't remember, just a year after earning a Notre Dame law degree, forsaking what some may say a bright future for the charismatic son of a steelworker, Genova was sentenced to five years in federal prison on charges that he accepted [color=#800000]$125,000 in kickbacks and used city workers â€” on city time â€” to help his political campaigns.

Then, a pending federal case, filed pro se, by another hispanic woman, outlines per the plaintiff, a horrendous series of questionable behaviors from some of Mayor's McDermott's key staff, the allegations include a city employee soliciting property rehab work from individuals brought into housing court, some also may question the bid/quote. http://www.northwestindiana.com/discussionforum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11488&sid=d7c2e03ac52f0ea914846efd1a44d2c6

Representing yourself, pro se, is a very difficult task, especially when a good deal of Hammond's budget is being spent on attorneys defending McDermott.... Tom just loves to file suit, as long as he doesn't have to pay for it!

Then the last federal litigation, questions the legality of Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr and some of his minions, discharging Carlotta Blake King. King ran United Neighborhoods Inc, and if anyone would know how Tom plays his games, well .....
King's termination, is quite similar to the Lake County's Election Board removing Janick off the 2011 Mayoral Ballot because he was on the School Board. The Indiana Supreme Court, in just days, reversed the action of the Election Board.

65580

Tom, as an attorney, not just some garden bottom basement, scum sucking attorney, but a Notre Dame Graduate Attorney really should know better, don't you think?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Finally some legislative sense.

Tom abused this Energy Grant program, by what appears to be, rewarding a pal with 1/3 of the $1.6 million dollar grant.

Well someone is looking at pulling the plug on this boondoggle. The only people this program apperently helped were the friends of Tom who he allowed to skim 1/3 of the grant off the top.

Souldn't that be criminal?

Quote:

http://indianaeconomicdigest.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=65&ArticleID=73568

Indiana House pulls the plug on state's energy efficiency program

Dan Carden, Times of Northwest Indiana

INDIANAPOLIS | The Republican-controlled House voted 69-26 Wednesday to terminate Energizing Indiana, the statewide energy savings program that conducts home energy audits, provides new light bulbs and runs other energy efficiency programs.

Senate Bill 340, which now must be re-approved by the Senate, requires the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to wind down the program by the end of the year, rather than forcing electric customers to pay $1.2 billion to keep it going another five years.

"The low-hanging fruit for this program is gone," said state Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, the sponsor. "This will be a very, very expensive program going forward.

But state Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said without energy efficiency efforts, ratepayers instead will get stuck with the cost of building new power plants, such as the $3.2 billion Duke Energy facility at Edwardsport.

The measure authorizes the state's electric utilities to establish independent energy efficiency programs.Indiana House pulls the plug on state's energy efficiency program

Dan Carden, Times of Northwest Indiana

INDIANAPOLIS | The Republican-controlled House voted 69-26 Wednesday to terminate Energizing Indiana, the statewide energy savings program that conducts home energy audits, provides new light bulbs and runs other energy efficiency programs.

Senate Bill 340, which now must be re-approved by the Senate, requires the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to wind down the program by the end of the year, rather than forcing electric customers to pay $1.2 billion to keep it going another five years.

"The low-hanging fruit for this program is gone," said state Rep. Eric Koch, R-Bedford, the sponsor. "This will be a very, very expensive program going forward.

But state Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said without energy efficiency efforts, ratepayers instead will get stuck with the cost of building new power plants, such as the $3.2 billion Duke Energy facility at Edwardsport.

The measure authorizes the state's electric utilities to establish independent energy efficiency programs.

Quote:

FINDING 2010-5 - PROCUREMENT
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy
Federal Program: ARRA Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG)
CFDA Number: 81.128
Award Number: SC0001386

The City submitted their overall goals and objectives for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Block Grant Program (EECBG) to the U.S. Department of Energy which included the breakdown of
activities and the budgeted amounts for these activities. The planned activities included: EECBG
strategy development, administration/program delivery, marketing/outreach, light bulb giveaway, and the
remaining portion was housing, commercial, and large business audits and retrofits.

The City submitted a Request For Proposal (RFP) for consulting services for the administration of the EECBG program which were due to the City by January 22, 2010. The services included in the RFP
were: marketing, evaluation of selected buildings, oversight of contractor selection and the construction
work, maintenance of records, assistance with reporting requirements, and facilitation of public presentations.
The City received four proposals for consulting services for $364,000, $133,500, $72,600 and
$88,000. The proposal for $88,000 also included an amount for construction services for another
$640,000 for a total proposal of $728,000. (now what ever happened to taking the lowest bid?)

The City, without supporting documentation to document the reasoning, chose the vendor that proposed both the consulting and construction portion of the project even though the RFP did not provide general plans or specifications for the construction portion of the project. The awarded contract totaled $530,000 even though the total proposal amount submitted was $728,000 for both the consulting and construction portion.

The City did not prepare general plans and specifications for the public work, publish notice in
accordance with Indiana Code 5-3-1 calling for sealed proposals for the public work needed, or allow for
the submission of bids separately for the construction portion of the project; therefore bypassing the City's
procurement policy. The City's procurement policy is to follow Indiana Code.
Since the construction services were not let in accordance with Indiana Code, $323,865 of 2010
grant disbursements made to the construction company are considered questioned costs.

Failure to properly procure public works projects in accordance with state and federal guidelines
could result in the contract for public work being voided and the City losing future federal awards .
We recommended the City establish control procedures to ensure that all contracts awarded,
whether consulting services or construction, are awarded in accordance with state and federal guidelines.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

A few months ago, a for sale sign was on this wondrous Hammond property. I thought the asking price was $34,000.

I believe this is a two for.

70187

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

An outstanding accomplishment! Hammond needs another 4 years of Tom.

71089

Northwest Indiana Discussion

Hammond Renaissance? Tom McDermott Jr's Standards

Who is online