My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/16/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
3/16/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:16 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:58:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/16/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
MAR 251981 <br />MR. REINHOLD OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION WISHED TO ADDRESS THE <br />BOARD ON SEVERAL MATTERS, THE FIRST BEING A LETTER DATED MARCH 20TH, <br />OF WHICH HE HAD RECENTLY BEEN MADE AWARE, ADDRESSED TO GULF INSURANCE <br />COMPANY, SIGNED BY ATTORNEY CAL BROWN AS THE BOARDS COUNSEL. HE THEN <br />PROCEEDED TO READ ALOUD THIS LETTER RELATIVE TO THE PERFORMANCE BOND <br />PUT UP BY REINHOLD-;CONSTRUCTION, WHICH PUT GULF INSURANCE COMPANY ON <br />NOTICE THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS IN DEFAULT OF THE CONTRACT FOR REASONS <br />ItTOONUMEROUS TO ENUMERATE It AND SUGGESTED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY <br />PROCEED ACCORDINGLY. MR. REINHOLD STATED THAT REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION <br />IS CONFORMING TO EVERY PART OF THEIR CONTRACT. HE WAS VERY UPSET BY <br />THIS LETTER AND WISHED TO_KNOW IF THE COMMISSION HAD AUTHORIZED THEIR <br />ATTORNEY TO WRITE IT. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS RESPONDED THAT THE BOND REQUIRES THAT THE <br />BONDING COMPANY BE PUT ON NOTICE IF THERE ARE ANY DISPUTES THAT MAY <br />GENERATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE; THIS IS CUSTOMARY EVERY DAY PROCEDURE, <br />AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THIS SORT OF LETTER REQUIRED COMMISSION APPROVAL <br />BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS <br />APPROPRIATE. HE EXPRESSED REGRET THAT MR. REINHOLD WAS UPSET, BUT <br />FELT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD KNOW THAT SUCH A LETTER IS COMMON TO THE <br />TRADE WHEN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS ARISE. <br />IT WAS NOTED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS AGREED THERE <br />WAS A"DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IN SOME AREAS AND THAT IT WOULD BE NECES- <br />SARY TO GO TO ARBITRATION. <br />MR. REINHOLD STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THIS LETTER IS LIBELOUS; <br />IT IS FULL OF FAULTS AND DOES NOTHING BUT HARM THE CONTRACTOR IN HIS <br />RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS SURETY COMPANY. MR. REINHOLD REQUESTED THAT <br />THE BOARD'DIRECT THEIR COUNSEL TO WRITE THE INSURANCE COMPANY A <br />LETTER THAT PROPERLY DELINEATES THE PROBLEM AND SETS OUT THE SPECIFICS, <br />WHICH ARE NOT "TOO NUMEROUS TO ENUMERATE." <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS REITERATED THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT TO <br />HARM THE CONTRACTOR, BUT JUST TO PUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON NOTICE. <br />HE CONTINUED THAT PROJECT CONSTRUCTION REPRESENTATIVE, HERCULES <br />KONTOULAS, IS COMPOUNDING A SPECIFIC LIST OF ALL PROBLEMS, AND WHEN <br />THAT IS COMPLETED, HE WILL BE GLAD TO GO OVER IT IN DETAIL. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.