My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/19/2000 Meeting Minutes
DOcument-Host
>
Mayfield Village
>
Meeting Minutes
>
2000
>
06/19/2000 Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2019 9:26:38 AM
Creation date
7/18/2018 5:16:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legislation-Meeting Minutes
Document Type
Meeting Minutes
Date
6/19/2000
Year
2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Regular Council Meeting <br />6-19-00 <br />Page 8 <br />would have a revenue stream that he estimates would result in about a quarter of a million dollars <br />over 30 years in present dollars. Mr. Brett said in his view, it is a pretty good rate of return and he <br />thinks we are close to an agreement and the course would be a detail agreement for Council's review <br />as well as the legislation; he hopes it would come forward in July. <br />Roll Call: AYES: All <br />NAYS: None No Objections from Council <br />^ A motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $109,591.24 to Perk Company, Inc. <br />for release of retainage -less $10,000 <br />Mr. Busa, seconded by Mr. Buckholtz, made a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of <br />$ 109,521.24 to Perk Company, Inc. for release of retainage, less $ 10,000. <br />Council President Marquardt opened this up for discussion. <br />Mr. Brett advised he talked to the inspector from URS Greiner. Mr. Brett would like to be able to <br />give back the bulk of the retainage at this point. The job has been substantially complete for a year. <br />Everything has been done to our satisfaction with some quid pro quos along the way in dealing with <br />the contractor. The $ 10,000 would address the issue of entire replacement of the stretch of road that <br />is in question here. He would propose that if we are not satisfied with the fix that is done at this <br />time, we would use the $ 10,000 to take out the road entirely and replace it at the cost of the <br />contractor's retainage, subject to whatever provisions that are in the contract between the Village and <br />the contractor at that point. Mr. Brett feels we have an obligation to return most of the retainage at <br />this time as we don't have any qualms with 99% of the job, we just have this one issue and he feels <br />this $ 10,000 hold back would cover any expense on that piece of road. <br />Roll Call: AYES: All <br />NAYS: None Motion Carried <br />Expenditure Authorized <br />A motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of $56,573.00 to Wichert Insurance <br />Company for approval of insurance for general liability for the year 2000-2001 <br />Mr. Busa, seconded by Mrs. Mills made a motion to authorize an expenditure in the amount of <br />$ 56,573.00 to Wichert Insurance. <br />Council President Marquardt opened this up for discussion. <br />Mr. Brett advised this is about a $ 4,000 increase from last year's coverage and reflects partly our <br />increasing property holdings, and the addition of a swimming pool, the addition of the modular unit <br />as well as some changes in coverage for uninsured motorists, which has been subject to some <br />adverse case law in the last year. Mr. Brett said those were the things that drove the cost up but we <br />are still paying less than what we did seven years ago for about six times the amount of coverage. <br />Mr. Brett would recommend that we continue using Wichert Insurance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.