Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting — 03/08/04 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 11 <br />documentation to gain the money and final settlement. <br />Mr. Brokke reviewed the four (4) options outlined by the City <br />Attorney, and staff's recommendation to accept the low Quote <br />from Roofspec for their preparation of specifications and <br />advertisement of bids for the replacement and remediation of the <br />roof. <br />Discussion included the proposed time line for roof replacement; <br />amount of monies from the class action suit related to <br />depreciation; extent of the corrosion of the existing roof and how <br />much of the roof was anticipated for replacement or epoxy <br />treatment; alternative replacements; paperwork documentation <br />during the replacement process; existing mechanicals on the <br />building and additional expenses; and calculations used for the <br />settlement and whether there was any room for negotiation. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that state law and building <br />standards had changed since the building was constructed, and <br />replacement of the roof would need to take those into <br />consideration; and that the settlement offer would not cover a11 <br />expenses for replacement of the roof to today's standards. City <br />Attorney Anderson further noted that there was no room for <br />negotiation in the class action settlement amount; and the City <br />had to accept the settlement calculation as offered, with a right to <br />appeal, but that appealing was not his recommendation. <br />Mr. Brokke noted that in discussions he had participated in <br />regarding cost, it would be cost prohibitive for the City to file <br />suit on its own; and that limited funds were available from the <br />original roof material supplier, Beazer Phenolic Foam Insulation. <br />City Manager Beets advised that the City had also filed a claim <br />with the City's insurance carrier, League of Minnesota Cities <br />Insurance Trust (LMCIT); but were advised that this claim is not <br />a covered casualty under the City's policy and that the class <br />action suit was a11 that could be recovered financially. <br />Further discussion included the public bidding process; condition <br />of the current roof and further exposure to liability if replacement <br />were not sought; and the need to involve others familiar with <br />