My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SFM Services
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Bids-RFQ-RFP
>
ITB
>
(08-10-01) Streetscape Improvements
>
Responses
>
SFM Services
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 4:46:04 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 4:45:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-Bids_RFP_RFQ
Project Name
Streetscape Improvements
Bid No. (xx-xx-xx)
08-10-01
Project Type (Bid, RFP, RFQ)
Bid
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. As of 4-01-07, SFM paid all employees performing under this contract the living <br />wage. However to this day, the City has refused to adjust our contract accordingly. <br />In light of this fact, I settled the class action lawsuit and paid out of pocket the <br />differential due to the living wage ordinance from 10-01-06 to 3-31-07 which <br />amounted to $85,000.00 plus $12,000 legal fees to Jose Rodriguez. <br /> <br />. Unlike the Orange Bowl, Bayfront Park did the right thing and adjusted our billing <br />rate to reflect the living wage in the hourly rate and in the after cleaning which is a <br />flat fee. See attachment "Bl and B2". How can one facility do the right thing and <br />the other facility not, while both are under the same contract? <br /> <br />. On September 28th, 2007, The City Manager presented Amendment No.4 to our <br />contract which does address the living wage from that date forward, but does not <br />reimburse SFM for the prior additional amounts paid by SFM due to the <br />application of the living wage ordinance. <br /> <br />. I have taken it upon myself to present these facts to each commissioner and request <br />that these monies owed to SFM be paid in an expeditious manner as per our <br />attached demand letter. We are not asking to increase SFM's profit in on any way <br />due to the increased costs (which SFM could not under any circumstance have <br />foreseen). We are merely asking that the direct costs incurred by SFM from the <br />enactment of the living wage ordinance by reimbursed to SFM, while SFM's profit <br />level (on an absolute basis) remains the same. <br /> <br />. SFM has suffered economically and is presently suffering a hardship due to <br />honoring my contractual obligations with the City of Miami. Our reputation was <br />harmed by the class action lawsuit. <br /> <br />. This matter was brought in front of the City of Miami Commission and they <br />unanimously voted to pay SFM for services rendered and partially pay for <br />legal fees incurred. <br /> <br />Note: for the sake of brevity, attachments are not enclosed but can be supplied <br />upon request. Mr. George McArdle can be contacted at 305-442-2214 for any <br />additional information, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.