My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 01-29-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 01-29-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:30 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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 />"> .'"C.'."" ~,.T" <br /> <br />~:." t;j """ !;~..- ~.U.. .. <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 16 <br /> <br />representatives of the architect, contractor and contractor consultants to review the need for the <br />changes and to review the costs associated with such changes. The costs for all of the items, e <br />except the 6ml polyethylene barrier, reflect an agreement on costs and responsibility of those <br />costs. Staffrecommended Council approve the request for items in Change Order #1 and pay <br />Rochon Corp. in the amount of$12,443.00. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch indicated he was not pleased with this situation because the City had not been notified <br />about construction meetings and this work was started before the City was contacted. He stated <br />he had spoken with the architects, contractor and contractor consultants about this and the City <br />will be added to all meeting notices in the future. He indicated he did not anticipate this to be a <br />regular occurrence and this was a code compliance issue and therefore needed to be done. <br /> <br />2. Payment Request #3 <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch stated Payment Request #3 was for work completed through November 30,2000. <br />There was a retainage of 5% and the total amount year-to-date requested was approximately 12% <br />of the total amount of the contract. Staff recommended Council approve the request for Pay <br />Order #2 and pay Rochon Corp. $169,479.17. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked what the ductwork was, how it was missed and who caught it. Mr. <br />Lynch replied the building inspector caught that it was galvanized ductwork and not PVC <br />ductwork and the Fire Inspector informed the City this needed to be Code compliant and would <br />need to be done correctly. Mr. Lynch stated he had a discussion as to who would pay for this. <br />The amount before the Council was the result of that compromise. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked who inspected the work other than the building inspector. Mr. <br />Lynch responded he was now at the construction meetings. The architects were not responsible <br />for inspection. He indicated at one time Council had discussed getting a construction manager, <br />but this was never decided upon. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated Rochon Construction was responsible for the management of the project. <br />He applauded staff for the effort they made in catching this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski also applauded staff for catching this mistake, even though she <br />stated she wished the City did not need to pay this. She requested staff to continue to monitor all <br />contractors closely so mistakes are caught in time to eliminate any future problems. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant also applauded the efforts of staff in finding and negotiating this <br />settlement. He recommended the building inspector keep a close watch on City Hall to catch <br />things up front and make things go smoothly. He inquired if the $169,479.17 included sales tax. <br />Mr. Lynch responded he assumed it does include sales tax. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked if there would be legislation coming up at some point in the future <br />that would return some of the sales tax the City had spent. Mr. Lynch replied if the could get the . <br />legislation to be retroactive to January 1, 2000 there would be a refund, but the League of <br />Minnesota Cities stated they did not believe it would be retroactive to that date. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.