MONROE - The insurance company that was evaluating whether KPH Construction and Environmental of Milwaukee had been at fault during their work to remove asbestos and replace flooring tile at Monroe City Hall denied the city's claim.
If the claim had been approved, the city would not have been responsible for the costs of upcoming repairs to finish the renovation project. The denial means officials need to take different steps moving forward to complete work that has displaced city employees since mid-August.
Monroe Common Council members met in closed session Wednesday to decide how to address the issue. Once open session reconvened, alderman Michael Boyce moved to instruct City Administrator Phil Rath to locate a contract attorney "to explore options" regarding the flooring contract.
"We don't want to put ourselves in a bad position," Rath said. "We want to make sure we're put in the best light, that we're above board, so to speak."
The vote passed 6-0 with Richard Thoman, Tom Miller, Chris Beer, Ron Marsh, Rob Schilt and Boyce all in favor. Council members Brooke Bauman and Jeff Newcomer were absent from the meeting. Fellow alderman Charles Koch, who had voted against convening in closed session, left the meeting before talks began.
A blow to the progress Rath and other city officials had hoped to make, the denial means the relocation of a number of employees spread throughout the city in an assortment of municipal buildings will continue indefinitely.
Work on the facade of the building scheduled to take place during that time ended months ago, but issues with the building's flooring tile persisted. KPH workers found the majority of the flooring material would not stick. Adhesion in other areas of the decades-old building proved too effective, tiles sticking with no flexibility.
A new product meant to solve the issue was installed in December and cleaning was done to accommodate for a possible issue stemming from the chemicals used by KPH during the cleaning process. City workers anticipated a move-in date of Dec. 15, but the tiles still didn't stick.
During a council meeting in late December, KPH contractor Dan Scharf asked for a $163,000 change order for a new sub-flooring material called VersaShield and the costs of additional labor to fix the still unknown cause of the problem. Council members refused the offer, even after Scharf reduced it to $141,000. The city originally budgeted $150,000 for the project.
After requesting a better estimate be proposed the next week, Scharf returned with three options. The city could either install VersaShield for an additional $43,000, use an adhesive system recommended by Scharf with additional guarantees for $56,000, or include a $15,000 cement core test with either method.
Council members denied all choices, and instead officials mandated KPH verify through an independent company that asbestos cleanup was performed correctly.
Now that the company has denied the city's stance that KPH had acted irresponsibly in their work on City Hall, council members want to find out what options they have to deal with the project. Rath said the city has not "ruled out still working with the current contractor" and that seeking advisement from a contract attorney simply means the city is "exploring their option" on what to do next.
If the claim had been approved, the city would not have been responsible for the costs of upcoming repairs to finish the renovation project. The denial means officials need to take different steps moving forward to complete work that has displaced city employees since mid-August.
Monroe Common Council members met in closed session Wednesday to decide how to address the issue. Once open session reconvened, alderman Michael Boyce moved to instruct City Administrator Phil Rath to locate a contract attorney "to explore options" regarding the flooring contract.
"We don't want to put ourselves in a bad position," Rath said. "We want to make sure we're put in the best light, that we're above board, so to speak."
The vote passed 6-0 with Richard Thoman, Tom Miller, Chris Beer, Ron Marsh, Rob Schilt and Boyce all in favor. Council members Brooke Bauman and Jeff Newcomer were absent from the meeting. Fellow alderman Charles Koch, who had voted against convening in closed session, left the meeting before talks began.
A blow to the progress Rath and other city officials had hoped to make, the denial means the relocation of a number of employees spread throughout the city in an assortment of municipal buildings will continue indefinitely.
Work on the facade of the building scheduled to take place during that time ended months ago, but issues with the building's flooring tile persisted. KPH workers found the majority of the flooring material would not stick. Adhesion in other areas of the decades-old building proved too effective, tiles sticking with no flexibility.
A new product meant to solve the issue was installed in December and cleaning was done to accommodate for a possible issue stemming from the chemicals used by KPH during the cleaning process. City workers anticipated a move-in date of Dec. 15, but the tiles still didn't stick.
During a council meeting in late December, KPH contractor Dan Scharf asked for a $163,000 change order for a new sub-flooring material called VersaShield and the costs of additional labor to fix the still unknown cause of the problem. Council members refused the offer, even after Scharf reduced it to $141,000. The city originally budgeted $150,000 for the project.
After requesting a better estimate be proposed the next week, Scharf returned with three options. The city could either install VersaShield for an additional $43,000, use an adhesive system recommended by Scharf with additional guarantees for $56,000, or include a $15,000 cement core test with either method.
Council members denied all choices, and instead officials mandated KPH verify through an independent company that asbestos cleanup was performed correctly.
Now that the company has denied the city's stance that KPH had acted irresponsibly in their work on City Hall, council members want to find out what options they have to deal with the project. Rath said the city has not "ruled out still working with the current contractor" and that seeking advisement from a contract attorney simply means the city is "exploring their option" on what to do next.