HomeMy WebLinkAboutgr00090_000049_pg026January 22, 1979 Page 6
MSP (Rowley - Ziebarth) to give the Mayor the authority to set up, in clear
terms, the guidelines for the proposed committee, and that they be brought
back to the Council as quickly as possible, and that the Mayor review the
minutes to sort out the various discussions.
A rollcal vote was taken:
Councilmember Hodges - aye
Councilmember Forslund - aye
Councilmember Rowley aye
Councilmember Ziebarth - aye
Mayor McCarty - aye
5 ayes
Mayor McCarty stated he would do his best to come up with a clear proposal.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 78 -25 - MOUNDS VIEW
DEVELOPMENT CO. NO. 1 PLAT
Official Rose explained that approximately one year ago, the City reviewed
the proposed plat for Mounds View Development Co. No. 1. The developer
proposed to provide approximately 20 residential lots, involving cul -de -sacs,
and the City approved the preliminary and allowed the developer to install
his own improvements. The City entered into a development agreement with
the developer, and the developer had the project bid from the plans and
specs and chose Carpenter Construction, Inc. as the contractor.
Official Rose reported that three construction meetings were held, where
the City designated Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. to do the inspection
work. The meetings consisted of S.E.H's inspector, LarryDecheine, the
contractor, and Comstock and Davis, the developer's consultant. Upon
starting the improvement, the S.E.H. inspector and the job foreman agreed
on a format for when, how and which inspections would be called for.
Work then started and problems arose from the contractor's unwillingness
to call for inspections and install the improvements per the plans and
specs the City had approved. Official Rose added that there was a dispute
over how the plans and specs were to be read and if the piping was to be
installed with an 18" vertical separation or a 10' horizontal separation.
Official Rose read the five points recommended by S.E.H. to continue on
with the improvements. He added that he would recommend the developer
post a bond of $15,000 for an additional two years to cover anything that
could happen, but that if the developer would agree to dig up what has
been done so far so it could be inspected, the bond would not be required.
Bob Teiso stated he was an attorney representing Mr. Carpenter and that
after briefly studying the matter, he felt the issue was the dispute between
Mr. Carpenter and the inspector from S.E.H.
Mr. Carpenter stated that he had called for an inspection 12 days prior to
completion of the work but that it actually took him three days to complete
the work, yet the S.E.H. inspector never showed up at the job site. He
added that he should not have to call at all and that the inspector should
come out as it was a continuous project and someone was there every day.
Mr. Carpenter also stated that he could not afford to leave the trenches
open for inspection as they were so deep due to safety hazards, but that
he had taken pictures of the work done.