CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) closed out the former Smart Start Business Incubator front roof replacement, approving a $352 deductive change order and $27,749.88 final payment to SC Signature Construction.
4 items on the agenda · 2 decisions recorded
On the agenda
- 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
- 2
Approval of May 16, 2017 CRA Meeting Minutes
approvedThe CRA Board approved the May 16, 2017 meeting minutes with one correction: changing the description of Ms. DeBella Thomas's participation from 'appeared telephonically' to 'attended telephonically'.
- motion:Approve the May 16, 2017 CRA meeting minutes as corrected (changing 'appeared telephonically' to 'attended telephonically' for Ms. DeBella Thomas). (passed)
▶ Jump to 0:18 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:00:18] First item is the approval of the May 16th meeting minutes. Motion and second. [00:00:25] Any discussion? Yeah, Mr. Mayor, there's only one thing. It indicates that Ms. [00:00:31] DeBella Thomas appeared telephonically, attended, attended might be better. I [00:00:40] didn't see her hologram on the table. And by all means, like we do, [00:00:46] Chopper and I, you know, we've entertained the audience with our big [00:00:51] face up on the screen. So yours would be much slimmer and much better looking than [00:00:55] ours. So if we could just change that to attend instead of appear, because I kept [00:01:02] wondering. So, so noted. I think it was actually the mayor that kept talking to [00:01:08] the roof, thinking that she was up there. He kept moving and she'd go, wait a minute, [00:01:12] didn't she come back? I do it now just even thinking about it, staring at the [00:01:21] ceiling. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes as corrected. All [00:01:27] those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed, like sign. Next item is
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 3
You arrived here from a search for “Smart Start Business Incubator” — transcript expanded below
Former Smart Start Business Incubator – Front Roof Replacement Project Close Out
approvedThe CRA Board approved a deductive change order of $352 and final pay request of $27,749.88 to SC Signature Construction Corporation for the front roof replacement at the former Smart Start Business Incubator. The project remediated defective workmanship from a 2016 roof project; documentation has been turned over to the city attorney to pursue legal recovery (in excess of $50,000) against the original contractor's bond.
- motion:Approve the deductive change order of $352 and final pay request of $27,749.88 to SC Signature Construction Corporation for the front roof replacement. (passed)
former Smart Start business incubatorCarlisleJohn MansvilleMulehideSC Signature Construction CorporationMr. DriscollMr. RiveraMs. MannsFront Roof Replacement Project Close OutSmart Start Business Incubator▶ Jump to 1:32 in the videoShow transcriptHide transcript
Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors
[00:01:32] former Smart Start business incubator front roof replacement project closeout. [00:01:36] And I will apologize up front, I forgot to bring all of the roofing screws and [00:01:43] nails that I've collected during that project to give back to the city. Ms. [00:01:48] Manns. Here, duly noted. How many did you pick up in your tires? None in the tires, but I think I had eight or nine total that I picked up. Mr. Rivera, do you want to start this one off? Sure. This item for the CRA board of directors is to consider for approval the attached deductive change order in the amount of $352 and the final pay request in the amount of $27,749.88. [00:02:19] from SC Signature Construction Corporation for the front roof replacement of the [00:02:25] former Smart Start business incubator. This project was the result of defective [00:02:30] workmanship during the front roof replacement project that occurred in 2016. [00:02:36] This project began on May 15, 2017 and the substantial completion was issued May [00:02:43] 25, 2017. Subsequent to its completion, the engineering report was submitted to [00:02:51] the city identifying and confirming all the defective workmanships that occurred [00:02:55] during the first project. All warranty and closeout paperwork has been [00:03:01] completed and all of the documentation required for [00:03:07] the city attorney has been turned over to him to start the legal phase of this [00:03:11] project. We would ask that you approve the deductive change order and the [00:03:17] final pay request. Open this up for public comment. Seeing no one coming down, [00:03:24] bring it back to council. Move for approval. Second. To the maker. How much are we asking for [00:03:32] back from the attorney to go get? You know, I've got the figures. I don't [00:03:39] remember exactly what the total was, but I want to say it's in excess of $50,000, I [00:03:43] think. Correct. We've documented everything that the city had to incur. [00:03:50] It will exhaust the limits of the bond. The second. Just a couple of [00:03:58] questions. Mr. Rivera, obviously the mayor indicated that there were some issues [00:04:05] with nails and metal and stuff like that. I'm just trying to make sure that we [00:04:09] don't have any outstanding claims out there for people that ran over something, [00:04:15] picked them up, you know, as part of the closeout because obviously we've got a [00:04:19] deductive change. That's question one. Correct. Not that I'm aware of. We [00:04:26] haven't had anybody contact us as far as those types of claims or any claims from [00:04:33] the tenants that are there as far as any leaks or anything like that. I [00:04:36] thought it was well done. The only thing about the report was it lacks being [00:04:42] specific of the prior roof that was put on. It didn't give the date parameters, so [00:04:49] it just said that the TPO roof. So to me, with that report, if it showed that it [00:04:54] only been put on six months ago as part of your legal strategy, it would have [00:05:00] those elements. Because it gave the impression that that new roof [00:05:05] system had been on there for a while, and we know that. The other is, I guess, I [00:05:13] wasn't here when you made the selection with Signature. I was [00:05:21] out, but it appears that we used the same type of TPO roof material as what was [00:05:30] applied by the other contractor. I believe it was called Mulehide. Yes, sir. [00:05:36] And then there were some, and this gets down into the weeds, just trying to make [00:05:41] sure from the, you know, there was, only because I have familiarity in the [00:05:46] industry, sorry, that some of the flashing material used is from a [00:05:52] different manufacturer being John Mansville. I just want to make sure that [00:05:57] there's no wiggle room there for those flashing details. I know that you've got [00:06:05] warranty. I know you've got a contractor warranty with Signature for their work, [00:06:11] and it wasn't specific on how long the warranty is from the manufacturer, or [00:06:17] what kind of warranty we received, whether it included labor and [00:06:22] material, whether it was prorated and non-prorated. And I think Mr. Driscoll is [00:06:27] probably going to need to have that in the warranty phase of what we bought [00:06:32] from the warranty aspects as to what we purchased from the other contractor that [00:06:38] really underperformed there. And then, of course, I asked it early on. I don't think [00:06:43] it has anything moving forward, but the transferability of that [00:06:48] warranty was important to me, because at some time in the future, I would hope [00:06:57] that, and we actually have placed it in our lease agreement with the tenant, that [00:07:03] they have kind of first right of refusal if we ever decide to sell that building. [00:07:08] And part of the value in selling it is the roof asset. And if it is transferable, [00:07:18] you could add that, what I call a non-closing statement deductible, because [00:07:24] the value of that roof goes into the value of the overall physical plant. If [00:07:30] it isn't transferable, anybody that comes to us is going to say, well, I'm not [00:07:35] recognizing that as part of the value. And I know it gets weighed down into it, [00:07:39] but this is all part and parcel of what this project does. Moreover, keeping the [00:07:45] tenant dry and keeping their valuables moving forward and treating our asset [00:07:51] with the respect it needs to be treated with. So I know it gets weighed down into [00:07:54] that, but for the record, I wanted to make sure we had those points, if it helps [00:07:59] Mr. Driscoll and his claim against the other, because obviously over and above [00:08:06] that was the emergency repairs we had to do over that one weekend with the tenant. [00:08:11] So the exhaustibility of all of that claim all falls into that. So again, just [00:08:18] point in fact. Sure, I understand that. I appreciate it. I think those are good [00:08:22] points. We did submit the warranty paperwork to the city attorney. I will [00:08:27] personally review it again to double-check and make sure, but it should [00:08:30] be the same Carlisle product that had the transferable warranty, but I'll [00:08:34] confirm it. All right, we need a motion and a second to approve.
This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.
- 4Adjournment▶ 8:41