My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000038_pg221
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000038
>
gr00090_000038_pg221
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 4:15:14 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 9:54:21 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
-3- <br />with no use of the basement since last May and June. I really don't <br />see that the City is liable for the problems in any way and should <br />not be front ending the costs. I think the funds should be withheld <br />and, if they refuse to complete the building, have it completed by <br />other means. <br />Administrator Achen: The total of the payment due them is $12,272.20. <br />Walijarvi: I think B -E are due money. I agree with the three Councilmen <br />that the differences will be resolved. Let's get the building completed. <br />Mayor Johnson: In an effort to get the building completed at this point, <br />will you accept $8,181.42 and put in three more days and get it done? <br />Miller: We have to stick with our original amount. <br />Mayor Johnson asked Council if there is any action to be taken. <br />Attorney Meyers: We have paid already $8,800 over and above the anticipated <br />cost. We are placed in a position tonight with a 99% building. <br />Administrator Achen stated that the three days necessary to finish is only <br />B -E's portion and does not include the other contractors. <br />Attorney Meyers stated that our architect, who is the City's agent, feels <br />that they should be paid. Remedy is to notify the bonding company that <br />the contractor refuses to go ahead with the job and face the risk of <br />hiring another contractor and maybe not collecting on the bond. <br />Councilman Pickar: To the best of my knowledge I didn't intend that we <br />were not going to pay. <br />Attorney Meyers: We could argue that we anticipated taking the change <br />order out of the normal commission of the contract. We unilaterally <br />conditioned the acceptance of it. It is not a clear cut, one -sided <br />question. <br />Councilman Pickar: By withholding payment, we could be required to pay <br />it twice. <br />Attorney Meyers: The bonding company could argue that they had legitimate <br />grounds. They had done the work. Does the system that we now have work? <br />Until we get a downpour we won't know. We would not sign any releases <br />until we know. Everyone wants to see B -E finish the building but on what <br />terms is up to the Council. <br />Walijarvi: My opinion is that those change orders were signed on the basis <br />that they be paid. If the Council feels they are out $22,000 -- as of this <br />date our firm has not requested payment from the City of Mounds View <br />of $12,000 due us. Again, like the contractors, we have performed work. <br />We indicated to you earlier that we would not apply for any payment at <br />this time so the $22,000 for the extra changes can be partially covered <br />by the amount of monies that our firm has not received. I offer this as <br />a gesture of good will in trying to compensate for some of the errors <br />we have made. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.