Laserfiche WebLink
January 22, 1979 Page 6 <br />MSP (Rowley - Ziebarth) to give the Mayor the authority to set up, in clear <br />terms, the guidelines for the proposed committee, and that they be brought <br />back to the Council as quickly as possible, and that the Mayor review the <br />minutes to sort out the various discussions. <br />A rollcal vote was taken: <br />Councilmember Hodges - aye <br />Councilmember Forslund - aye <br />Councilmember Rowley aye <br />Councilmember Ziebarth - aye <br />Mayor McCarty - aye <br />5 ayes <br />Mayor McCarty stated he would do his best to come up with a clear proposal. <br />AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 78 -25 - MOUNDS VIEW <br />DEVELOPMENT CO. NO. 1 PLAT <br />Official Rose explained that approximately one year ago, the City reviewed <br />the proposed plat for Mounds View Development Co. No. 1. The developer <br />proposed to provide approximately 20 residential lots, involving cul -de -sacs, <br />and the City approved the preliminary and allowed the developer to install <br />his own improvements. The City entered into a development agreement with <br />the developer, and the developer had the project bid from the plans and <br />specs and chose Carpenter Construction, Inc. as the contractor. <br />Official Rose reported that three construction meetings were held, where <br />the City designated Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. to do the inspection <br />work. The meetings consisted of S.E.H's inspector, LarryDecheine, the <br />contractor, and Comstock and Davis, the developer's consultant. Upon <br />starting the improvement, the S.E.H. inspector and the job foreman agreed <br />on a format for when, how and which inspections would be called for. <br />Work then started and problems arose from the contractor's unwillingness <br />to call for inspections and install the improvements per the plans and <br />specs the City had approved. Official Rose added that there was a dispute <br />over how the plans and specs were to be read and if the piping was to be <br />installed with an 18" vertical separation or a 10' horizontal separation. <br />Official Rose read the five points recommended by S.E.H. to continue on <br />with the improvements. He added that he would recommend the developer <br />post a bond of $15,000 for an additional two years to cover anything that <br />could happen, but that if the developer would agree to dig up what has <br />been done so far so it could be inspected, the bond would not be required. <br />Bob Teiso stated he was an attorney representing Mr. Carpenter and that <br />after briefly studying the matter, he felt the issue was the dispute between <br />Mr. Carpenter and the inspector from S.E.H. <br />Mr. Carpenter stated that he had called for an inspection 12 days prior to <br />completion of the work but that it actually took him three days to complete <br />the work, yet the S.E.H. inspector never showed up at the job site. He <br />added that he should not have to call at all and that the inspector should <br />come out as it was a continuous project and someone was there every day. <br />Mr. Carpenter also stated that he could not afford to leave the trenches <br />open for inspection as they were so deep due to safety hazards, but that <br />he had taken pictures of the work done. <br />