01-08-1974 Supporting Documents1-1 1 11 U T E S No 1000
REGULAR MEETING
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Clermont was held in the
Council Chambers on Tuesday, January 8, 1974, The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P. M. by Mayor Claude E. Smoak, Jr. with the following members present:
Councilmen Schroedel, Byrd, Beals and Czech. Other officials present were: City
Controller Fleming, City Clerk Carroll, City Attorney Vason, City Manager Hopkins,
Director of Community Services Smythe and Chief of Police Tyndal. Others present
were: Mr. and Mrs. W. F. Perry, Mr. and Mrs. W. 0. Boone, Mrs. Esther Fox and the
Messrs. Waller, Oswalt, Loomis, Beals, Black, Wade, Carden, Hovis and Prior.
Representatives of the Daily Commercial, the Sentinel/Star and the 'local Press were
also present.
The invocation was given by Councilman Beals, followed by repeating of the Pledge
of Allegiance in unison by those present.
The Minutes of the meeting held on December 27, 1973 were approved as written.
Mayor Smoak announced the first order of business to be a public hearing to consider
request of Mrs. Esther Fox for a variance to Section 26-20 (C) (2) of the Zoning
Ordinance ( Lot width requirements in an R1A zone) in order that Lot 6 in Clermont
Heights be established as a buildable lot with a frontage of 88.5 feet. Motion was
Upon inquiry of City Attorney Vason if he had received an opinion from the Attorney
General as to the legality of Council taking action on proposed Ordinance 101-C, he
advised that he had not, but that in his research he had found no ordinances nor
statutes which indicated that Council's passing of an ordinance reclassifying a
zone would be illegal. Councilman Beals reported that the city charter specifically
states that a person must have a substantial interest to create a conflict of -
interest and that he personally did not feel his prescribed interests in the proposed
bank constituted a conflict of interest, but that in the event a negative opinion
is received from the Attorney General, he would immediately divest himself of any
interest in the proposed bank by disposing of the stock which he has prescribed for,
and based on these remarks, he would offer and move the adoption of AN ORDINANCE
UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA, REFERRED TO IN SECTION 26-1
OF APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES: REZONING LOTS 1 THRU 16, BLOCK 84,
AND BLOCK 89A FROM C-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO C-2 ZONING CLASSIFICATION: REPEALING
ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH: PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE: AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION and the motion was seconded by Councilman Schroedel.
The Ordinance was read by title only for a second and final reading by City Attorney
Vason, and upon roll call vote on passage of the motion, the result was: Ayes:
Schroedel, Beals and Czech. Total Ayes: Three. Nayes: Byrd. Total Nayes: One.
Abstaining: Smoak. So, the Ordinance was adopted, the Number 101-C assigned to it
and a copy ordered posted.
Councilman Byrd offered and moved the adoption of AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION 3-4
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES: REGULATING THE HOURS OF SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
WITHIN THE CITY: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH: PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY: PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION and the
motion was seconded by Councilman Schroedel. The Ordinance was read in full for a
second find final reading by City Attorney Vason, and upon roll call vote on passage
of the motion, the result was: Ayes: Schroedel and Byrd. Total Ayes: Two. Nayes:
Beals, Smoak and Czech. Total Nayes: Three. The motion failed to carry.
City Manager Hopkins reported as follows: That he had been unable to employ a
licensed treatment plant operator who would also serve as Utilities Director, based
on the city's pay scale, and therefore an organizational change had been made
whereby Bob Smythe had assumed overall administrative control and supervision of
the Utilities Department with a newly hired licensed operator being in charge of
the treatment section and Leo Creech being assigned to the water section; and,
That with regards the effluent disposal project which is currently underway,
he had made contact with the property owners involved regarding the necessary
easements and shall be meeting with them in the immediate future.
14 I N U T E S 1 t 0. 1001
With further regards to the effluent disposal project, Richard Oswalt reported
that he had met with the trustees of the Oswalt property involved, and that a
proposed lease had been prepared which he submitted to Council. It was the
suggestion of Mayor Smoak that Attorney Vason and members of the Council review
the proposed lease and then hold a Special Meeting of Council to authorize the
execution of same in order to expedite the matter. Mayor Smoak entertained a motion
that the City Manager be authorized to pursue the matter of the effluent dispusal
porject to its ultimate conclusion and in whatever manner is deemed advisable by
him, whereupon motion to proceed in this matter was made by Councilman Czech, second
City Attorney Vason reported he had received an appraisal of the Johnson property
as made by Larry King, and that it was in the amount of $48,000.00.
Attorney George E. Hovis reported to Council that he had been retained by Robert
Paxton to research the lakefront property on which he holds an easement from the
city to determine the ownership of same, and that he is of the opinion that the
a property is owned by the city, but he questions whether the city owns it as separate
' property or as part of a street. He advised that he would submit his findings
and recommendations to Council at a later date and in writing.
Motion was made fy Councilman Beals, seconded by Councilman Czech and carried that
the bills be paid.
Councilman Schroedel reported that he had received a complaint with regards garbage
being placed on the lawn and not in covered containers at 1140 8th Street. This
matter was referred to City Manager Hopkins.
With regards final payment of $5,000.00 being withheld from Bumby and Stimpson for
the sanitary sewer project construction, motion was made b Councilman Schroedel,
noai� and rarried that the eva uat_on an recommen at on
Expressions of thanks and appreciation were exchanged between Mayor Smoak and retiring
Councilmen Beals and Czech for cooperation and services performed while serving
as members of the City Council.
The meeting was adjourned to an organization meeting, whereupon the Oath of Office
was administered by City Clerk Carroll to Councilmen -Elect Richard E. Oswalt and
Dan A. Waller and they were seated at the council table.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
Mayor Smoak extended a welcome to the new members of the City Council and called
the organizational meeting to order.
Mayor Smoak announced the first order of business to be the various board and commission
appointments, the election of a Mayor Pro-Tem and the election of a Municipal Judge.
They were made as follows:
Mayor Pro-Tem
George Schroedel
Planning and Zoning Commission - One Year Appointment
Ronald Carden
Francis Loomis
14I N U T E S No. 1002
P3anninq and Zonin Commission - Two Year Appointment
enry zee
George E. Hovis
A. E. (Gene) Langley
Oakley Seaver
Richard B. Williams
Plumbing Board - One Year Appointment
Morton J. Barnes
William Lawson
Electrical Board - One Year Appointment
William Britt
Seldon Hanks
Jesse L. Madden
John Minor
Building Board of Appeals - Three Year Appointment
Jean Winston
Pollution Control Board - Indefinite Term
Mayor Claude E. Smoak, Jr.
Dan A. Waller, Alternate
Liaison Representative to the Library Board
George Schroedel
Liaison Representative to the Chamber of Commerce
Carlisle A. Byrd, Jr.
Municipal Judge - One Year Term
R. W. Waters
An election of a Second Judge was not made at this time, pending a recommendation
from Judge Waters, who had advised that because of ill health, John W. Parks, would
no longer be able to serve.
Council members requested City Manager Hopkins to investigate the following matters
which had been brought to their attention:
Chuck holes on Bloxam Avenue between Highway 50 and
Minnehaha Avenue
Consideration of changing the stop lite at the
intersection of 7th and Montrose Streets back to a
caution lite
Prevention of parking on both sides of Osceola Street
between Fifth and Eighth Streets
Prevention of parking on both sides of Fourth and Ryan
Streets between Chestnut and Seminole
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Smoak
Claude E. Smoa , Jr., Mayo
Dolores W. Carroll, City Clr erk
BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Gfr.-Ifll SS 1011
1973 1974
Pz11,h Alice N."Y Oakley Seaver
Hick jon(r: George HoV13
fain Carden
Richard iJjj'jiams
1'rancls Loonli!,; A. E. Langley
Henry Czech
i - 11,1131M, BOARD
!L J. Barnes Dill Lavison - Harvey Nagel
r.t.VURICAL BOARD
"on', i F--
tments-
3(-Adon Hanks J. L. Madden
jilliam Britt Harvey Nagel
John 1-11110'r
�!IILDPIG C00I.- BOARD OF APPEALS
,)p TiMilen T
Jean WirsLol' (1974) Donald St John (1973)
Hobert Paxton (197"!) Willie Creech (1973)
Y. fliddloton (1972)
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
C71, 'j7
31-RACIAL COMMITTEE
David Lofilron, Jr. John R. Jones
E'l-ris Konsler Richard I-lilliams
11inry Czech TorwLv L. lbotson
LAKE APOMM NATURAL GAS DISTRICT
,.'ohnson (1973)
Pq1j:jffIO,11 CONTROL -BOARD. AIRPORT STUDY _CC[,7IITrEE
Claude E. Smoal',, Y'. James Faris
9,111 tllllcr H. Clifton Bailey
LIBRARY
G^o,,,,jo Sn.hroedel
CHIVIPER OF COMMERCE
Carl -Isle Byrd
li� PAYAIJAI - JANUARY 1974
GENERAL FUND
Bowen Supply Cc,.
26.39
Harnotte'.,. Jan I, (, :�m ol it
iil�, Qfoil Cleaner)
49.00
Mements' Pw;t (0,11"111
1'!') ') 1 J;t i I )
9.00
Control Snocial-c,
I! oll [AU')
300.00
Culvert 11fil. r,'o.
in., 'I'd kowl")
250.74
Connrey.
'101 )
90.75
CIt.willoill; AuLo 11; (
'�-h ( :1(' ;, qido. Maintenance)
279.33
Ulnrmont k1dr-;. ', i dy, fo,;.
). I o Ills 1I.Inco)
12.96
Clermont 11ardk,;wi!
1 1 to i (.1r; - Padlocks)
17.56
Coble's Radiat;;w
':f1e 1"killurianue)
19.77
1) & 13 Fifth S,;. to (!� (!r�,
P� �'.( 1w" lc-i)
8.52
Dixie Lime and
I 'i.; firT 1
127.18
Eckord Drugs
CrAid)
32.23
Ed Revis Auto Pr-y-:s
:lot, 1.)
10.00
Great South Suppl-)
v. niceNJ)")
189.99
Greenlee, Paul ?. r.wto"
';'i nlj
2900.00
Graham -Jones
158.25
Goodyear Service 'Uwv
1058.86
Hydraulic Supply
i'. Vo
21.80
Hunt's Garden Cwt':cr
All -,"d)
17.40
Hilltop Stationer-
!1-Supplies)
67.20
John Lamb Chevrolet.
I;(- to ts'Ittll:enilnce
9.61
Jim Willis lfardvia?r.
I iof,t-), of Paris -Nuts -Hooks, etc.)
18.64
Jones Equipment
(weathalyzer)
79.95
Kirkland Cabinet
8.53
Kuechler's Fire l(,floiiwnt,
i r ;[I i!;hC(' recharge)
9.50
Lawton Bros., Ir
uii r 1 1 Supolies)
48.35
Mobil Oil
r,lfnim Products
794.56
Newsom Oil Co.
36.00
Orlando Paving
91.67
South Lake Press
'Ind 'rinting
296.33
Sentinel Star Ca,
15.57
Superior GHC Trtwk
1,; Maintenance)
34.10
Texaco
55.55
Tampa Tribune
fv, 'or!' i �:i (iq
9.00
Vason, Robert F.
L -, :it I I" --es)
112.50
Williams Garage
k,c)!,J� ltiirttenance)
545.46
UTILITIES
B & H Sales, Inc.
i (1.21et Rcpivirs)
195.15
Connrex
f 11"k
145.40
Cody Publications, in:.
Ad '(w ( i s .1 11(l)
19.95
Clermont Auto Part.,
Vel, cla E Equip. Maintenance)
25.01
Curtin Matheson `.,c4ut)tl[`!c
44.98
Clermont Bldrs. Eujpply, inc.
47.36
Clermont Hardware
: , - '
r,, 1; ',c ti::pe, PVC Glue, etc.)
10.3u,
Eckerd Drugs
F-Ii---t Aid Kit)
10.64
Greenlee, Paul & Furn,is
io 110
2500.00
Harry P. Leu, Inc.
( Cv;d. Icio')or-Couplings, etc.)
39.95
Hughes Supply, Inc.
"nr Irrigation System -
Inv ncory
206.10
Jim Willis Hardware
Ile,.:;)
5.00
Moffatt Bearings
46.12
Pardue, William P.
850.00
Public Gas
Gas. nor 3aker Groves)
19.20
Standard Oil Co.
6.72
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
SUBJECT Bumby & Stimpson
DATE: December 26, 1973
As the City Council is aware, we have run into some problems regarding final
wrap up of the sewer project as it relates to Bfty & Stimpson.
Bumby & Stimpson is contending that the City of Clermont has failed to honor
the contract since $5,000.00 was withheld from the final payment. Since they
feel the city has not honored its responsibility with respect to payment,
they are under no obligation to return to satisfy a list of final corrections.
It is my contention that the sanitary sewer project portion that was the
responsibility of Bumby & Stimpson was never finally accepted. If we assume
that premise, then the city had very right to withhold a portion of the final
payment pending final completion and acceptance. It seems that Bumby & Stimpson
does not accept this premise, and as a result contends that the city's
failure to pay the $5,000 constitutes a breach of contract.
In an attempt to support my contention, let me review what has transpired
since the date of substantial completion on November 1, 1972. On November 1,
1972 a Certificate of Substantial Completion was issued. The date of substantial
completion of the project is the date when the construction is sufficiently
completed in accordance with the contract documents so that the project can
be utilized for the purpose for which it was intended. The Certificate of
Substantial Completion that we issued was subject to the replacement of a
sizeable number of manhold covers that did not have water -tight pick holes.
It was my understanding at the time the Certificate of Substantial Completion
was issued that the job would not be completed and accepted until the conditions
of the certificate were honored. A copy of the certificate is attached as
Attachment 1.
Early in 1973 the final estimates for contracts 1 and 2 were processed. They
reached my office in early April and were executed by me on April 6, 1973. Prior
to execution and endorsement by the engineers and myself, I had conversations
with Jim Westbrook of Michael s-Stiggins regarding the retainage of $5,000.00
by the City pending the installation of the manhole covers. Mr. Westbrook concurred
and the retainage was so noted on the final estimate and initialed by Mr.
Westbrook. This in my mind further supported my contention that the city had
the right to withhold $5,000.00. Copies of the final estimate for contracts 1
and 2 are submitted as Attachments 2 and 3.
Since the Certificate of Substantial Completion was issued on. November i, 1972,
it was necessary under the contract to have a final inspection drier to November 1,
1973. It is the purpose of the final inspection to review any warranty items
or other problem areas that need attention prior to the release of the maintenance
bond. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to get .the engineers, the
contractor and the city together for a final inspection during the month of
October, we finally had a final inspection conducted on November 1, 1973. Paul
Wesley and Jerry Houston representing Bumby & Stimpson, Jim Westbrook and Don
Phillips representing Michael s-Stiggins and Bob Smythe and myself representing
the city conducted the inspection. A number of problem areas were looked at
and discussed and a letter was generated by Jim Westbrook to Bumby & Stimpson out -
ling the problem areas and the necessary action to satisfy the city. Throughout
Page 2
the entire inspection there was no indication from Bumby and Stimpson's
representatives that the city was being unreasonable and that they would not
complete the work as specified. The letter from Jim Westbrook dated November 5,
1973 to Bumby and Stimpson is submitted as Attachment 4.
on November 8, 1973 we received a copy of a letter from Paul Wesley of
Bumby & Stimpson dated November 7, 1973 to Jim Westbrook. The letter claimed
that the city violated the contract by failing to pay the $5,000.00 to Bumby
& Stimpson and that Bumby & Stimpson had been advised by their attorneys not
to return to Clermont to undertake any further work. A copy of the Paul Wesley
letter dated November 7th is submitted as Attachment 5. This was our first
indication that we were going to have a problem with Bumby & Stimpsrn regarding
the final corrections.
Upon receipt of the Paul Wesley letter I sent the contract documents to the
City Attorney with a request that he review the documents to determine if
the city had failed to honor its obligation and whether Bumby & Stimpson had
a case against us. The City Attorney responded in a letter dated Nuveriber 29,
1973 which is submitted as Attachment 6. From the City Attorney s letter it
appears that the City of Clermont has a cause of action against Eumby & Stimpson
for failure to remedy all the defects in the project. It also appears that
Bumby & Stimpson has a cause of action against the city for failure to make
the final payment if the job was finally completed and accepted. My contention
that the job was never finally completed and accepted remains unchanged.
In a letter dated December 4, 1973 I asked Jim Westbrook if he thought I was
evaluating the situation properly and drawing a sound conclusion. A copy of
my letter dated December 4, is submitted as Attachment 7.
In a letter dated December 13, 1973 I received a reply from Mr. Westbrook.
It was Mr. Westbrook's opinion that the city had the authority to withhold
the money from Bumby & Stimpson in that the Certificate of Substantial Completion
makes no mention of final acceptance. A copy of Mr. Westbrook's letter is
submitted as Attachment 8.
After reviewing the comments of the City Attorney and the engineers, it is still
my contention that the city was within its right to withhold the $5,000.00
pending what we consider to be final completion and acceptance. The question now
is whether or not the city wishes to accept the $5,000.00 and attempt to satisfy
itself with respect to the outstanding items as suggested in Paul Wesley's
letter or to attempt to get Bumby & Stimpson to return to Clermont to satisfy
those items and possibly be involved in a lawsuit in the process.
While I think the City has a strong case against Bumby & Stimpson and would
like to see the matter pursued as a matter of principal, I don't think by so
doing would be in the best interest of the city. After reviewing the punch list
again and considering the numerous problems we have had with the contractors
throughout the project, it is my recommendation that the City of Clermont accept
the $5,000.00 from Bumby & Stimpson in lieu of final payment. I select this
course of action with some reservation but feel that it will be the least expensive
and the least aggravating to the city in the long run.
Page 3
It is requested that this situation be considered by the Council at an early
date so an official position can be taken.
u7l4�;eertM. Ho
cc; City Attorney w/attachment
Director of Community Services w/attachments
City Clerk w/attachments
1
i
(': `011,1CAT[, OIL sims'rANTIAL, COMM ETION
rr•L-r•LA-124, wrc-Fla-?zz-`--'--''--""'���.�'�
Owner's Project No, MS41a-166 lintsinecr's Project t4o.......
C-G212N
p r1feLl Sanitary Sower Systorn, Contract 111 and
Contract 112.
Contractor ,,..,Duml?y and $Hmpsonl Inc.., .................... Contract Dale ..APri.�„30, 1972
.........................
Contract Pot ..,Tiio,C�ly.,o,F„Clormont,r„Florida
.....................................
Project or Specified pan shall Include.......pA.l�?..G411fCg9rS....... .
.....................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
DI:PINITION Or SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
The (title of Substantial Completion of a Project or specified purl of a project
is the date when the construction is suflicienlly completed. in accordance with
the t:ontract Documents, so That the Project or specified part of the project can
he I lilized Ior the purpose for which it was intended.
To .,CITY OF CLERMONT
(owner)
And To ......BUMBYI. AND STIMPSON INC.
(cnna:,anr)
Date of Substantial Completion ..... NOvetr)ber I_ 1972....._ .. _.................
'I he Work performed under Ibis contract has been inspected b p' y authorized representatives of the Owner, Contractor and lEngineer, and the Project (or specified part of the Project, as indicated above) is hereby declared to be substantially com-
pleted on the above date. V
A tentative list of items In he completed or corrected is appended hereto. This list may not he exhaustive, and the failure t
to include an item on it does not Idler the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all the Work in accordance. with the contract documents. TKKXMeMxlolkboxwxxpkklkjIDjxkxg3py)xptya kxxxxxxx7dx.,,) x%,,,.CCordanc with
NSPE 1910-8-1) 0970 Editia I)
070, Notlnnvl sncicar ur
Pmf oionel P.nXin!m
Page I of ....z.... pages
1
IV-8a r},
'fho date of 501).00ntial Cornplotlon is the duto upon which all gunrunlous unri
wurrunties bugin, except as noted below.
The responsibilities butwoon the Owner and fho Contractor for moinlc•nenro, heat
and utilities shall be as set forth holow.
C, offd�
MICHACLS-STIGGINS, INC, am.�es�CWaslbroo I1-13-7?. _
L•nginaor 4 iorizee Represonlul vu — Uatu
Subject to;
Replacement of Manhole covers without watertight pick holes.
Page 2 of 2 pages
HUD,•,itro U, S, 6EPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN OCYCLOPMPIT Arrra�e9
11a'lra Dana, He, 67.P,0746
i
PERIODIC ESTIMATE FOR PARVAL PAYMENT
Wri-Fi.A-166
SANITARY SEWER SYSTCM, Pf1-FLU,-124
Nam and Location of Projoct GRAVITY MAINS AND APPUnTF.IIANCCR.__C(, CfI P10NT�F1.A..•pro,nr,, r,q, �l�PC�-1rLA�2r•r?
Now of conaomor BNMnY & S7TIMPSONr INC, Addroln, _r!-_0^ r1oR 2601.E
51.AIIPe, I't.A, ..�
Porlodic f.minloto Na, �,ttM porlod 925
1. COST OF WORK COMPLETED TO DATE UNDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT ONLY
Enlrles,munt be limited to work and costa under the) original contract only,
(Work and coot data under change orders Is to be shown IR Part 2 of thin form.)
Columns (U through (5); Enter data shown in columns 1, 2, 3, 4, mid 8, renpoctivoly,on 17orfa IIUD-4207pr,,p,an l by
Contractor.
Columns (6) and (7)..Shov all work completed to data undor orlguurl contract,
Column (8). Enter the difference between entries In columns (5) and (7),
Column (9). Show percent ratio of column (7) to column'(5),
M
`
CONTnACTITE
/
T'C COMPLaD TO OATS
74
NO.
DESCRIPTION OR TEM
I
COST 0I
UNCOMPLRTKO
COMP
.
CO4TPLn
---
TOTAL COST
•-----
OUAHT,�,;
UIIIT
OP ITL'M
QUANTA
TOTAL C07T
WORK
'13)
141
IGI
101
171
lal
171
SECTION 8 - NUD INELIGIBLE 'ITEMS
SUD BASE•& BASE REPAIR '
61709
26
1175
I07,975 00
62,ilill:4
109.34
.45
101
27
TYPE II AsPHAL'T'LkVELINa 1
38DD
,ilr)0
43,(oO,DD
4165'95
. 46,63
.52
207
28
1e TYPE II,'ASPHALT SURFACE
15400C
61
93,940.00
219,8100.6
134,12
.16
143
29
PAVEMENT REPAIR TYPE,A ,; '
250Q
I 3,00
7,500,00
19,78
.4 59,34
.20
1791
3o
PAVEMENT REPAIR, TYPE 8 '•
940
8.00
7,520.00
2,447.5
19,56
.00
260
31"
CONC- DRUVIWAY, SIDEWALK REPAIR
4606
5,75
26,450.00
4922A
28,304.3a
I
32
caasslNa
746o6
,'' ,13
9,698.00
42,71
5,55
.46
57
SUB TOTAL - SECTION B
856,629.70
1004,12
.92
•117
I
GRAND T t c iec i=na $ECT�10. 9 (>, 8i
B."...
529, 175.55
1080r375.
..1
HUO-aO U.
S; DEPARTMENT OFNOUSING"AND URBAN DEVEI:OPMENT
I0-66) 0uupe 13 r ., NU, 63-140146
PrR101bi&E.STIMATr.FOR PARTIAL PAXMrNT-.'3'="•I 'WS-F'I e=1GG"
Namo-avl•4',n o , AMI TA ' riirins';if 1`rol4+c) S
Nr SF.WF,R' STOTeIA'
01091Urj1'i'r.A, r...«,Z=.I.:C1:7. Ae•+(1�(-r4r��+4^Il, ..ILrt,.��.�1,.�:F--� ���-•-r-tr«.»rmr--«I(iuf!IfoVl rlv� Ny„�........«nl�....�
' n. :Fl Pnrlotl lc Ohtlmoln,No,l-CTn�nT'19r, rpUtlodr lT T�.:�.. I�x," fo �2^LJu' _.IV 72.
1, COST OF WORK COMPLETED TO DATE UNDER ORIGINAL CONTRACT ONLY
n�;nufonitltust U,t.Ifmlti9dtalwork andeoutalundorthu original contract only.
(Work and coat duta under change orders Is to ho shown In Part 2 of thfn form,)
Columns 01 through (5). Entor dots shown in columnu 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, roupoctively, on Form HUL7-420 i pruprnrd by
Contractor.
GblumndZ6) "and (7)." Strew 611 work coihblofed to ddfu under orlgfncd contract.
Column (8). Enter tho difference between entrfeu In columnu (5) and (7).
I 'Column (9).':Sh6w per(*fn4tat•lo of'doltlmn'(7) tolddh11M14'(5).''°""''"' '''"'I' ' I III'•
ITEM
. I„ , , I, r.
I
•• CONTRACT
,
• `
COMPI-ETI'll
BO TO DATE
"CO,T 0'P
' r
"mP
NOS'-
,041SOMPTION OF ITEM, .,
I
r. l
"
C0UNIT
-
TOTAL COST
•,
uMCOMPLeTR'p
F�
I •' - I r••,I II' I .: � �i•
gU�IITn
it iUNIT �
� OR ITEM
QUANTA
TOTAL C06T
i WORN
,, i, , pit(9)
(4)
(U)
161
(7)
IUI
191
INELIGIBLE ITEMS
3.
LIFT STATION No. 51 u-I:'.,
,1
11,275.
0 11,275.0
.: I-.
11,275,Q,,
RICO
7-
LIFT STATION No, ia,. _ ,.._,
1,.
.,960-0
9,96o.0
1
9,9Go.OP
IICJI
8.
LIFT Srnritin No. 12 '
"--1-'-
10,015.
0 10,015.0
9.
LIFT STAvilow Not 131';`lt 1 fll'
liAPu'S,645F
O'151645.0
1
I5,E45 00
too
t 1 I 1. b OAI ,,
cu r I.
,: , u-.
,pal,. ,�
r11,
..
l0.
LIFh STAY(GN''NW 14 ' ni rr I
1 "
10,015
0 10,015 0
I
10,015 00
It)0
I,1113,IIO.CO
11.
Lt FT'STAT(ON'No, 16.
11 R'
13,110. C
013'1IOIO
r T3
. ,
Li Fr �3TA4I'orl'Nd T7 "�` 1 F `
`'P g
tz,75o•
0 12;p5a^o
1,.
I2 750 A0
I
[GO ,
��.
LIFIr'-'BfAtCoM'4Je1u201 +
III{A.+
)
II,'..
0,115.
, l,,,
0 10,115. 0
•.
I
, ,..I:;:".-
10 115.0c
... ,,.,
100�
iii
19.
4" C-t:'FORCE•MAIN' ,,rN.__....
8T46
2.4
19,957--7
%358
10,677JO-.
..9,26060-..531
20:
61 C 1 'FORCE MAIN •I'" + I'•'
204@
3,2
6,534.4
5 401
47,283.20
23:
C. is Flr'r)NOS " "I':.
e 6ozln'95<J.0
.""2,4�1iv0
I".1.50
1,4Y5.00
-1,045.00-'58I
2
PAV@MENY REPAIR TYPE A "
vNT'
'2-OC
1,408.0
23.38
f,446.56
I
103�
'28,'
PAVEMENT'REP 144Rt•T.YPe,'•6
95
6.5
617 5
52
338.00
279.50
55,
29;
•GRA5SPNG „orc+.:..
9B0
:1
--'98.0
3,04
304 50
_
3111
_._,.5
30:'
HaY' XfNG 4" C':
1
2 095.00
100{
rrlr,.l_I'.SR•.5ov'A_R'eAolk_q_I �.o'14
;095-0
2,095.00
32.
Hwy. XING 4' C.1 FORCE MAIN
1,000-0o.
_i_..-.. -•- SR 50-AREA 5-'
1'-
-11000. 0
0 1 1,000-00
1__
_.i
34,
CONC. bRIVE & SIDEWALK REPAIR
115
4.0
I
460.00
�
20.9
83.60
' 37640
18'
SUB TbTAL INELIGIBLE ITEMS
1:27,525.60
127,537,9b
I
,
u,;
k' .Yi,i n )l UI:Al:lll
it^I1
f ]ttl
l
co?co?j
C.,,
_
' Tutnl c9 wee eoium�
06y, 330.4 I
u a A O
..
...I UUt Y I•
-
F c;Ull'uIAFT :rf1Al10E QRDERS • '^ ' �'�"''
I.-1 WVery 611 align Olda ,buua 111, 11,410 of IA In rogiin-( nvm ll no work I,- ADDITIONS TO 01110111AI. x ,
trn In, of nna of Lamm" melt ordnlo, CONTRACT FRICK In OTMO Nb
�C31.'I)�
01T " •- -- � � !. RACT FRICk,
RkI.ATkp +.-,-......T TOTAL• C06T OP C04T OI CHANIIk Ap b110WN'
611091,115
li ITk1A OII OP.4CIIIFTI011 w- I'rkMS Appkp (ty On TO ITkMb OII CN AN OII
Nn pA Tq P4pM COMp'. ETEp
1 —� 1tI1p-Ag07 CIIA1AOk D9011 TO OATk ^ i oCHAN
III I lit 111 lal lei al I Ill
1 i1-12- 2 Soo nchudulo attachod 403 - 1,467 80!
2 :'i-7.5- 72 L I f t Stat l0n 1.",1)5^, I- 12, 95r,
4 12" Cu s l nq 111 ghr1ay 50 1, 5U0 i - 1, 50o
I I
Total"
- — 14tJ33 - I5T917 5Q
a. ANALYSIS OF ADJUSTED CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE '-
(a) Original contract nmouni (Col. 5 - front of this form)
(h) Plant Addltlons nc}loralud In column 5 aL va t
(c) L-II-I Drid—ti—ri achodulnd In Miami, 7 nbuvn (J -
(d) Adlunl,d contract amount to date _____.... _ NI dt)A, UV _ I
4. ANALYSIS OF WORK PERFORMED 413,864.64
(a) Coul of arlq tool cunt tier work ped—ned to dato (Col. 7 • front of dda far,,,)
(b) I:Ills work performed to Jute (Cole 6 alone minus cal, 71`_. 0_,9U,, ,(1
ic) TIA.i cost of work pwirarasd to Jet,, 47.,1 7tl1.14-
(d) L.tma: Amount retained In accordapcn with contract Inputs (Slots balk percent and dollar amount) 5e - C -
!)) NsI amount eamr,d on contract work to dmnA42Yr782.24 —
(II Adds IActerlala elated at close n1 thin poriad (:Attach detailed achedlde)_ �0 -
(q) Subtotal of (a) and (f) —"— ,3.91782.24 _
(h) Lno.s Amount o1 previous payment. _ _ 4 JG i3J7 a3
(I) BALANCE DUE: THIS PAYMENT:-_•___• _ _ L y ��• alQ :� 1/ Je{6 41
S. CERTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR r
C�IJJ rPi.20 TgG�Cf/�
According to the. beat of my knowledge and banal, I Mrllly that all itren to sh wn or>/tho lacy cl mi P2—dis Er.timate for
Partial Payment are correct; that all work has been performed and/or material e. .pl led !n full oeeor a e r e requonman'. of the _far.
enced Carlract, and/or duly oulhorl-A deviation., substitutions, alt, r Ii.an, and; or additions; that the Iotegolnq Is a true -ad celeot ata,e•-
meal of the contract account up,to and Including the lout day of the period covered by this Parlodic Estimate; that no poet al the'•Baionee
-- Duo Thin Payrann V' hoe bem received, and that the undatmgned and I- subcontractom have - (check applicable line)
a. rA Compiled with all the labor provisions of cold contact.
La. [] Complied with all the labor provisions of acid contract except In those Inmancen where an honest dispute exists with eepeet to
.aid labor provision.. ",I (bl is checked, deIC1 it'bri efly noture a, dispute.)
i3U14uY L STIMPSON, INC.
13y
,'(Contractor) (Signature of A.thcr .ed Representenne)
6. CERTIFICATION OF ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER _.
I certify that I have checked and verified the above and Jotegolsq Periodic Estimate for Partial Payment; shut to the best of my know:-
edge and belief it 16•a true and correct stalmnMt of work performed and/or material supplied by the contractor; that all work and/or material
included in this Periodic Estimate han been inspected by me cold/or by my duly mthorized representative or aaa:ctmnts mid that It has beer.
performed aid/or supplied In full accordance with requirements oI the referenced contract; and that partial paylrent clmaad and reyvented by
the contractor le correctly computed on the basis of work per armed and/or material supplied to date.
Staned• _
(Architect or engineer)
7. PRE -PAYMENT CERTIFICATION BY FIELD ENGINEER
y
Check type of payment ceTll fled'
�] : have checked this Inn le oyal t the. cant 6 t Sched.le of Amounts for ContractPayments, the notes and tepert- of my lmr
spectiona of the pmI 1, told the porlodlc•rsports aubmIttod by the archll.ct/engineer. lei. my opinion that the statement of work
r.i
performed and/or materials.u'pplfed In accurate, that the,;contraetor in abnervtng the requirements of the contract, and that the con -
to ac,., should he paid the amount requested above.
I certify that allwork and/or material. under the contract he, been lnspoetad by me and that it has been performed and/or supplied
in lull accordance with the requiremento of it, cnntracl.
l/d F,ngi eer) .: ' / / ) are
Approved: ----- G�—d•O f-= 2 — ! L• / .)✓
• (Canfrncdn f/icrrl cPo (Dote) u�•n
f2CCCIV-rjNOV C j
M CHA LS-STIGGINS, INC. I rNGIrll'•er:., It, Al r,.rlrrrctrri
3021, l:mrl Bnulll 11 011dndo, tlnndn ;01303
�rrllrllllrirlll :tQQ•RQ,I .('J 3l•
'f V.I,II
November 5, 1973
Bumby & Stimpson
P.O. Box 2608
Orlando, Florida 32802
Attention; Mr. Paul Wesley
Re: Clermont Inspection, November 1, 1973
Dear Paul:
On the above date, Paul Wesley and Jerry Houston representing Bumby &
Stimpson, Robert Hopkins and Bob Smythe representing the City of Clermont,
and Jim Westbrook and Don Phillips representinry. Michaels-Stiggins, Inc. re-
viewed Ilia iIams under warranty concerning the Sanitary Sewer program in
Clermont, contracts dated April 30, 7971, Some repairs were found necessary,
both old and since the end of job inspection. Numbers referred to in this letter
are from Ilia bound final inspection list.
The following work must be corrected:
Page 14 - Item 6 Overlay low area on Lake Shore Drive to remove pending.
Looks like about 35 feet.
Item 6A (New) Clean two storm drain pipes at Anderson and Lake
Shore Drive. 2 pipes.
Item 8 Overlay asphalt at Lift Station fiS, looks like about 75 feet.
Page 14 - Item 10 Replace two sections of asphalt curb on North side of Hook
Street. Each about 10 feet long.
Page 15 - Item 20 Clean storm drain between inlets on Oak Street. Bob Smythe
says limerock has washed out of discharge end of system. Has
Photos.
Item 26 Dropped curb on Lake Avenue South of Chestnut - Replace two
joints.
Re.porls—Apprnlcd Dc::ipno •-Bupervir;ion
I,Lm c,paI end Puolrc wort,.: W,.Iar Su ppiy—Sov.npo aml W-II Dr.pnn;d—HIQnNays —fitid lac. —Damn : r.•I V.aI croay.
Municipal, Commtvcial and Rufpro . (iuddinfp
- 2
8umby R Stimpson
Ro: Clermont Inspection
Novembur 5, 1973
Pago 16 - Item 37 Replace broken and dropped curb South of loth and Linden,
East side. Looks like about 70 fact.
Now Items
A. 1191 Lake Shore Drive. Repair curb and paving.
B. 1029 Loko Shore Drive. Replace paving.
C. 902 Lake Shore Drive. Replace 24 ft. of curb.
D. 1029 Magnolia. Remove and replace surface and bwe-enlarge patch.
E. Alley behind Standard Auto. Repair radius, east side, both curb and paving.
F. Lower Manhole at 12th and Fran -Mar.
G. Lateral cut at 1137 7th Street. Replace two sections of sidewulk and one
joint of curb.
H. Repair lateral crossing a1 1222 51h Street.
I. 1420 Anderson Street. Replace two joints of curb at lateral cut.
J. Lateral crossing at Millholland and Minnehaha. Overlay.
K. Drew Street. Replace about 100 feet of low asphalt curb on cast side with
6" curb. Construct grate type drop inlet over exist 12 inch storm drain.
L. 285 Osceola. Replace two joints of curb. j
Page 17 - Item 52 Line around center Lake East of Lift Station add sand and level.
I
Item 58 Overlay and 8ondo curb near library.
Item 61 Overlay two worst lateral crossings on Montrose between 10th
and 1 tth.
Item 64A (New) Repair lateral crossing 1st lateral North of Swap Shop
driveway on 8th.
Item 67 Remove and replace fractured concrete in radius, approximately
6' X 10'. 6 inches 3000 psi concrete with 6 inch X 6 inch X l
10 ga. X 10 ga. mesh. j
Page 18 - Item 74A (N ew) 12th Street and Carrel . Overlay patch on 12th Street,
Remove and replace surface and base over sunken area on
Carrel North of 12th. Looks like about 100 ft. Sew cut edges.
Use vibratory compactor on sand below base. Replace with
minimum 6" limerock and 1 inch type II asphaltic concrete.
i
- 3 -
8umby & Stimpson
Re: Clermont Inspection
November 5, 1973
Page 18 - Item 79 Low area, 8111 and Old eth. Water ponds. Chock with
level to got grade and overlay to stop ponding.
Item 79A (New) Old 8th and Juniata. Remove asphalt where loose.
(Saw cut). Prime base and replace asphalt.
Page 19 - Item 95 The asphalt curb on the west end of 700 block, Desoto Sheet
on North side needs replacing. Looks like about 50 feet.
l
Item 98 Curb and paving low of Lift Station /121, ponds water. Needs
overlay and possibly new curb if appearance is bad. Looks
like about 50 feet.
Page 22 - Item 137 Pavement and curb low 448 Osceola. Water ponds. Necals
overlay to centerline and replace about 20 feet of curb.
Item 152 Replace 8 ft. of curb and some patchwork to do.
In general where pavement (flexible or concrete) is to be removed for the above wort:
The edges shall be saw cut. Where depressions ate such that base and surface must
be removed, use a vibratory compactor on sand before replacement.
I
Please proceed with these corrections at your earliest convenience. Also advise the
City and us prior to starting the work. (At least three (3) working days, preferably
one week).
i
Very truly yours, lj
MICHAELS-STIGGINS, INC.
4
James C. Westbrook, P.E.
Vice -President
JCW:csr
cc: Mr. Robert M. Hopkins, City Manager
Mr. Don Phillips
BUMB9, STIMPS011
GENGRAL CONTRACTORS
7
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32802
Novu.mbcr. 7, 1973
� rail
I
Mr. James C. Westbrook
" Michael...-Stiggins, Inc.
3025 P•.ast South Street
Orlando, Plorida 32803
j; Dear Jim:
In reply to your letter of November 5, we have reviewed our
positJ.on with respect to Clermont's obligations to us and any
claims the City might have against us, including those listed
in your letter of November 5. In January 1973, we completed
this project and submitted our final billing, which was approved_ _
" by your office, under which Clermont was obligated to us and
remains obligated to us in the amount of $5,000.
It1� The City's failure to pay us, we are advised, consitutes a breach
of contract, relieving us of any further obligations. However,
1, r we would like to conclude this matter on an amicable basis, and
we would rather settle than have a dispute with the City.
( Rather than claiming our exemption from further obligations to
the City, due to the City's breach, we propose, in order to settle,
that the City retain the balance due us under our contract in the
above amount and that the City undertake to satisfy itself with
respect to all maintenance and warranty items, including those
listed in your letter of November 5.
We have been advised by our counsel not to undertake any further
work for the City in view of the City's failure to honor `_ts obli-
gation to us. Please let us know if this proposal is acceptable
in settlement of this matter.
Yours very truly,
PAUL WPSLPY
:bi
CC: Mr. Robert M. Hopkins
C. WEt.t70RN DA1�
NIE,4"ECEIVEDDCC3 t9w'3 ATTON„rY A'r L1_
r.'crnMONT, FLON10A 32711
„rAL n, IIIICIIr1V.H
NR,:1111„RRL Mnr4Twirw rirrrT
nwn.Nr r. wunN, M. November 29, 1973 rl� 1. nnx Ina
❑•• r :19•,•y 1a11
•LRII4i�IR
Robert M, Hopkins, Esquire
City Manager
1 Westgate Plaza
Clermont, Florida 32711
Re: Sanitary Sewer System - Bumpy & Stimpson, Inc, Contract
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Per your recent request concerning correspondence of November 7,
1973, from Paul Wesley of Bumby & Stimpson, Inc., please be
advised that having reviewed the contract I feed that the present
legal status of this matter is as follows:
1. Section 25 of the contract authorizes the
City to withhold 10% of each draw as retainage
until final completion and acceptance of all
work covered by this contract. Since it is my -i
understanding that the City has made final
acceptance of the project, any and all retainage
was due and payable on the date of said final
acceptance.
2. Section 40 of the contract requires that the
contractor remedy any defects due to faulty materials
or workmanship within one year from the date of
final acceptance. It is under this provision that the
City's cause of action accrues against Bumby & Stimpson,
Inc. for the remedy of defects and corrections listed
on the Michaels - Stiggins, Inc. , punch -list of November
5, 1973.
In a nutshell, the City has a cause of action against Bumby &
Stimpson, Inc. for failure to remedy defects (Section 40) , and
Bumby & Stimpson, Inc, has a cause of action against the City
for failure to make final payment (Section 25) .
I trust that the above is the information which you sought; it is, of ((
course, predicated upon the assumption that Final Completion has been 1
made.
Yours very trul ,
RO ERT F. VASON, JR.
RF /lsd /
n
December 4, 1973
James C. Westbrook
MIchoala-Stlogin$. Ind.
3025 East South Street
Orlando, Florida 32003 E
Door Jim:
Section 25 of the Oumby 6 StIrRoon contract authorizes the City to
withhold 10% of each draw as retalnoge until final completion and
acceptance of all work covered by the contract.
According to our records, the Certificate of Substantial Completion
was Issued on November I, 1972. The Certificate was subject to
"Replacement of manhole covers without watertight pick bolos".
On November 1, 1973 representatives of Mlchaels-Stiggins, Dumby s -
Stimpson and the City aedo.onA nspactlon of the project to review
Items under warranty. (Y wps,,during this Inspection that thn City
learned for the first time;f'rom the contractor that he had taken care
of the manhole 11&.roplaeemont as required by the Cortlflcste.
The $5,000.00 Nab retained.by the City pending satlnfactory eomplation
of the project; namely, the lid replacement. it is our contention
that the project was not completed and not finally accepted, thus we
had every right to contlnua-,Ro withhold the $5,000.00.
Please advise as to whether'yon concur In this evaluation and con-
cluslon. It was never the,C.ity's Intent to arbitrarily withhold money
duo the contractor, only to provide assurance the project would be
completed to our satisfaction.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Hopkins
City Manager
RMH:md
cc: City Attorney
,� bc: R. M. Hopkins
MIC:t-A L.S-S11G INS, INC.,
nV6 Hnsl Seulh Sir • Orlando, I1n ,Li:WWK;
� IInphn„n aeGllf14 'i: YI
December 13, 1973
City of Clermont
City Hall
Clermont, Florida
Attention: Mr. Robert M. Hopkins
Re: Your letter of December 6, 1973
Dear Bob:
It is our opinion that the City had the authority to withhold some
amount of money from Bumby & Stimpson in that the certificate of
substantial completion defines within itself the following:
"DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION"
The date of Substantial Completion of a Project or specified part
of a Project is the date when the construction is sufficiently com-
pleted, in accordance with the Contract Documents, so that the
Project or specified part of the Project can be utilized for the
purpose for which it was intended.
This does not mention anything about final acceptance.
This plus the fact that the certificate does state "subject to man-
hole cover replacement" and in considering paragraphs 25 and 40 of
the General Conditions, plus paragraph 17 of the Supplemental
General Conditions leads me to believe the City had the right to
withhold money.
I was not informed that the covers had been replaced until the
day of the inspection on November 1, 1973.
As a matter of fact, we or the owner have withheld final payment
on several occasions (Chilton being one) and have never been questioned
as to the legality of it.
Rr-port-;— Appraisals — Design up._ry i A
.,....,.. ..,�� . •uGllc W-11,5 W"lor Su 1ply —Se Iflc end WanW D
A1"11¢ipal, corrlm"Tclal end Rca"iou> lt"ddrial,
City of Clermont
Page 2
December 13, 1973
However, bear in mind that we are not attorneys.
Also, Bumby $ Stimpson obviously do not want to come back and
are of a nature, and probably have sufficient money to make a longthly
legal hassle out of this. It might save you and I some grey hairs to go
ahead and accept their $5,000.00 and end the battle.
Whatever your decision, we will sland behind you and assist in
any way we can.
Very truly yours,
MICHAELS-STIGGINS, INC
mes C. Westbrook, P.E.
Vice President
JCW/fl