Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Punch List And Glazing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff dispute punch-list acceptances; south door, glazing and abatement remain unresolved
Summary
Board members and project staff disagreed about which completed items are acceptable and which should remain on the punch list. The south entry's glazing requires abatement and a curing period; speakers agreed to coordinate vendors and to test the door before re-opening to the public.
A disagreement over whether certain repair work meets contract standards dominated discussion at the meeting, alongside unresolved glazing and abatement work for the south door.
Speaker 3 repeatedly challenged staff decisions to mark several sections "accepted," calling the work "very low" quality and asking why it had been removed from the punch list. Speaker 2 responded that he had reviewed existing conditions, compared repairs to the project documents and standards, and was recommending that certain items be accepted. "I'm recommending that they accept it," Speaker 2 said, describing the approach used to decide what goes on the punch list.
The two speakers disagreed over who defines acceptability. Speaker 3 asked, "So who sets the standards?" Speaker 2 answered that the specifications in the project documents define the standards and that staff would perform a final punch list review and insist on completion of unacceptable items before final acceptance.
Separately, participants raised concerns about the south door, which had been taped off. Multiple speakers reported that people had tried the door and then needed to walk back down stairs. Speaker 7 said the doors "have been operational" after rework; Speaker 3 and Speaker 2 disagreed at one point about whether a camera's record showed the door had been left unlocked overnight. At one exchange Speaker 2 said, "So the camera to the courthouse is lying," and Speaker 3 countered that when he tested it earlier it "was not working right." Speaker 7 reiterated the doors were functional and that the plunger issue that had prevented latching earlier had been addressed.
Glazing remains outstanding. Speaker 2 said Kaminsky Glass (Paul Kaminsky) had provided a price but the glazier had been unavailable because of health issues. He said the glazing work requires abatement and a curing period; "It may take 60 days to for that to completely cure," he said, and suggested temporarily protecting the interior glazing so the door could be used while the new glazing cures. Speakers asked that the county coordinate with the abatement and glazing vendors so work is sequenced correctly.
Speaker 2 said Mitch has been sending updates on completed punch list items and that he would not finalize the punch list until the remaining issues were resolved; when ready, he said he would perform a final punch before acceptance.
The meeting concluded with plans to test the south door in a controlled manner and to remove temporary signage once staff is satisfied that the door can safely be used.
