The Courthouse Roof is not completely fixed according to the commissioners and the present commission was under the impression that the engineer was supposed to oversee the roof project. While it is partially fixed, there are still parts of the Courthouse that leak. But S&V, the engineering firm hired for the project, said that the former commission and clerk were in charge of the oversight and that Frazier Roofing, the contractor, was responsible. New County Attorney David Baird said, "We thought that everything on the roof was done, but now we find out it's not." James of S&V said that he had inspected it visually in December and thought that it was done but "now you say it's not." "Either something has happened since I was here, or there was something that was not caught," he said.
Debbie and James of S&V outlined the history of the project at the regular County Commission meeting Monday. They said that previous commissioners had sought to minimize costs as much as possible; therefore, they would send pictures to S&V so that they would only have to come and inspect the work at critical points. That way, it would save substantial costs on the project. Debbie said that their understanding was that the county would oversee the project and that they would only come when needed. On the other hand, the present commissioners thought S&V were the overseers of the project. However, Debbie said that the original understanding was that the county commission would oversee the project. This, she said, was in accordance with DNR regulations under which the project was done which require a close working relationship between the commission and the engineer. "We have to be able to justify our budget before DNR," she said.
Debbie of S&V said that she didn't know how much has been paid to Frazier; she said that they knew how much was approved, but they did not know what was actually paid. Debbie explained that under the terms of the agreement, S&V came up during critical points of the project. For instance, they came during the installation of the flagpole; if it had not been installed property, it would have fallen sideways and torn up the cupola.
Baird said that, "If there are leaks, then that means that something is wrong and possibly a defect in workmanship," he said. Debbie said that S&V was not an expert in roofing, but in design and construction. James of S&V said that there was a five year warranty and that it would go against Frazier's bond if the work was not done right and that the county could work with the bonding company in that regard.
Debbie produced a bill totaling thousands of dollars which she said that the county had not paid since February 2009 and which she said that the county owes; she said that there were $6,000 in other charges since then that she says the county owes as well. She said that work could not continue on the project until the county made some kind of arrangement to pay. She said that it used to be that the county had always kept them paid, but that the payments had stopped early in 2009. Regarding the payment of the bill, the county had refused to pay it based on what Debbie termed an "inappropriate response;" the county's position had been that S&V had not performed their duties. "We assumed that you were responsible for the oversight," said Debbie. "We trusted Clerk Lisa Hargrave that she was going her job and keeping you in the loop." In addition, she said that Frazier owned the slate that was out in the Courtyard because she said it had been deducted from the bid that they put in. The Commissioners said they thought they had paid directly for the slate and that the county owned it.
Debbie said that there were numerous problems with Frazier regarding the work on the roof; for instance, she said that she had written letters to Frazier asking them to be onsite more and to get their paperwork in order and that some of them had been written at the county's request. She said that their whole premise was that they had been working under the prior agreement with former Commissioner Bill Mozingo and that was what they were going by. "We assumed that you had been told that; we thought Clerk Lisa Hargrave had told you what was going on," she said. She produced the pictures of the work on the Courthouse that had been sent as well as correspondence from both Mozingo and former Clerk Lisa Hargrave showing their roles in overseeing the project.
Debbie characterized Mozingo as being in desperation mode at one point; Frazier's bid was much cheaper than any of the other bids and she said that he feared that if they lost the Frazier bid, they would not get the project done. The county, at that time, had negotiated a raise in Frazier's bid because working with the slate roofing would cost more than had been anticipated.
Debbie then said that the present commission was in the dark regarding major aspects of the project. "You don't know how much money is left on this project," she said. She said that the project involved a loan with a payback period that they didn't know about and that they also needed to get with Mark Miles of DNR, who is in charge of historic preservation projects like the Courthouse Restoration Project; she produced a copy of the DNR loan and the letter of approval for the loan for the project.
She then talked about the county's relationship with S&V. "We can't have a working relationship with you if there is no trust involved," she said. Debbie said that the county had to make sure that Frazier was doing their job. "When you have someone like Frazier who is licensed by the state, you don't have to oversee them as much," she said. But she said that Frazier was "notorious" in dragging their feet in signing needed paperwork "and we have the paperwork to prove it." "You got the cheapest contractor that you could find and this is what we had to deal with," she said. Subsequently, after going into closed session that afternoon and meeting with Attorney David Baird regarding potential pending litigation, the commission decided to continue their relationship with S&V, saying that they were privy to a lot of information about the project that the county didn't have.
No comments:
Post a Comment