Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />This claim is based on a rectangular hole 6 feet deep x 200 feet <br />x 300 feet. At this point and time it is impossible to determine <br />whether or not such a depression ever existed. Mr. Colgate, who <br />was on the job, has indicated that there was no depression under <br />that pile of topsoil. This is a rather significant issue and as <br />such it should have been brought to someone's attention before <br />the work was done and the area was covered over. I find that <br />there is no way of substantiating this claim. <br />/w Hoc~z ~x~~'s Tim A~aw - Fiu.F~r~('~p,W,n+-W~+r~; 5 ritiA~ ~~to~~vr .wA~s ~R/~ <br />(~~{iN 7D/ SOl,t 4~ ~lu~Ky Aad~C4. Y~ !Y/`. Q- '~S r•~.7 <br />Item #13 Amount - $4,480 W~ ~~ h~,,,~ ~ ~SeiG <br />The contractor feels that h should be compensated for his cost <br />4f money for the retainage being held by the State <br />Because of the unsatisfactory completion of work in several <br />areas, monies have to be retained to cover that cost. There is <br />no justification on collecting interest on retainage being held <br />to satisfy a claim. <br />Item #14 Amount - S150.00 <br />The contract or wants additional D7 Cat tim for re- grading the <br />West Pit are a road to orovide the required 2% slope into the <br />hill. <br />This is for work that was improperly done and had to be <br />corrected. There is no justification for this claim. <br />STATE CLAIMS <br />#1 <br />The State has a claim of 5200 for a Ponderosa Pine which was <br />damaged by the contractor. <br />The Ponderosa Pine was outside of the work area and there was no <br />justification for the damage sustained. Regardless of this the <br />State has elected to drop the claim. <br />#2 <br />The State claims that the contractor has not completed the work <br />