7/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 95 PAGE 762 clause was specifically excluded from their contract. Second, as a technician, he wants to know why something failed. Mr. Cummings characterized the rainfall, prior to the failure, as being like a 100 -year flood. He thought, because of the rain, it caused a subsidence in the system. When they looked further to the design calculations of the designer of the infiltrator, they were advised they didn't have any. That got them nervous. When they called the architect and the engineer and asked to see what they used to design the system, they did not receive anything. They went to another civil engineer and asked them to call Infiltrator System for their current data on how to install the system. He received anew brochure which was totally different from what they installed. There had been mention of venting and a question was asked, why. He felt what happened was the system heaved from all the water. They put concrete, not asphalt, over the second installation. All the information was in the hands of the County's architects and engineers. There was no need for a subpoena, because they were given daily reports of what was done. As far as he knew, all the information was available, and he just wants an expedited resolution. The stonewalling, in his opinion, was because of the architect. He felt when the technicians got involved and the lawyers were out of it, it would be resolved. The County had a problem because there was no continuity of architects. Mr. Cummings stated that Martin is one of the finest subcontractors that he has had the pleasure of dealing with and he felt the County would be cutting -off -their -nose -to -spite -their -face to not have them do County work. Commissioner Adams wanted to see the arbitration run its course, but Chairman Macht disagreed because he felt it was not in the best interest of the taxpayer to go to arbitration. He supported the County Attorney's office recommendation. Commissioner Bird thought they had to honor the contract, go to arbitration and then go to court and recover through the court because the other contract does not provide for arbitration. Commissioner Eggert disagreed with Commissioner Bird's suggestion. Attorney O'Brien responded to questions with respect to the process. County Attorney Vitunac wanted the Board to know that going to arbitration puts the County at risk. Everyone agrees that the County is an innocent party, and it may be that Martin and Cummings are innocent; Therefore, three innocent parties would be going to 62 July 18, 1995