Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2020 10 15

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 9 of 27 has not replaced either roof or made any repairs. Clark continues, both roofs were in poor condition and need repaired before being occupied again --both buildings are being redeveloped. Clark summarizes the concern is, there is a breach of contract. Clark continues, roofs are not replaced and yet Severy Creek has received 100% of the insurance proceeds they were entitled to under the contract. Gollin asked, as to the contract, it reads, under scope of work stating-- type of architectural shingle, gutter replacement, paint color (all to be determined) plus inclusion of a supervisor at all times and direct communication. Clark agrees and restated none of that work has been done. Gollin asked if Severy Creek's contract has Mr. Louden's signature. Clark confirms it is Steve Louden's signature. Gollin asked Clark the size of the roofs. Clark answered, they are approx. 3000 SF and 8000-9000 SF or about 15000 SF total. Gollin asked if there was discussion on the cost of the repairs. Clark replied there was. A couple insurance companies that specialize in roof replacement came to Fordyce, and were shared. Next Gen gave an estimate of $141,000, and Licensee represented to Fordyce and to court the damages were in excess of $200,000. An expectation was sent to Fordyce from Severy Creek that the collection of the insurance proceeds would be $200,000 to the benefit of the building repairs. Gollin askedif there was an understood timeline in the matter. Clark replied, the understanding was the roof replacement would begin immediately upon signing of the contract. Clark continued, presumably, Severy Creek did not collect money from the insurance in a timely manner. Fordyce and Severy Creek had several discussions as to when the repairs would start. Clark continued, when he got involved Severy Creek would not respond to him, and would not respond to concerns about the litigation. Severy Creek would not reply to anybody. Gollin asked how long of a time span. Clark replied from April 2019 to present, more specifically to 7-17-2020—this is when, without authorization, Severy Creek tried to collect $60,000 of insurance proceeds, then refused to do any work on the property. Gollin asked Clark, in his expert opinion, the contract, Exhibit 13, whose problem is it that the work was not done? Clark replied it is a bad situation and no matter what amount was collected, Severy Creek was obligated to complete the scope of what was on the contract. Whatever he collected did not change the scope of work that was required to complete. Gollin stated it was a Severy Creek problem that they did not collet right away. Clark agreed. Clark continued, it is a Severy Creek contract and they are to be held to it. Gollin stated, the contract was signed on 8-1-2018, then four months later there is an Assignment of Right to Collect document —why was this necessary? Clark answered, he understood Severy Creek went to Fordyce saying, we have not started because we need you to sign this document. In good faith, Fordyce signed the document, which is in line with the contract, then Severy Creek is obliged to replace the roof. Craig continued, from his knowledge in Real Estate, Severy Creek had this document signed so they could directly negotiate with the insurance or commence legal action. 9