[mccookgazette.com] Overcast ~ 30°F  
High: 33°F ~ Low: 20°F
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014

What cost, color?

Monday, November 26, 2012

Dear Editor,

Like many others in McCook, I have been watching the progress of the new city building and it seems like it is coming right along. But I understand there is a snag. It seems as though someone does not like the color of the building and now finds it necessary to repaint to a color more pleasing to their taste. Now, really. does anyone know how much this preference will cost? It will be necessary to rent a boom for the painter to reach the upper parts of the building,, then the cost of ... I would guess ... 50 gallons of paint and the labor to apply such paint.

I believe for the thousands it would cost to apply a different color, I could look at the building the color it is. Could anyone else?

Phyllis Ogg/Scott

McCook

City Manager Jeff Hancock responds: "The cement board area (top area as opposed to the grey metal at the bottom) was painted a green, however it was painted in semi-gloss paint. It should have been painted a flat. The contractors will have it repainted at no cost to the city."


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on mccookgazette.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

They are probably the same republicans who complain that Obama wastes money. I wonder why it's ok when they do the same thing.

-- Posted by bob s on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 5:43 PM

It's not no cost...at least to the contractor. And The difference between flat and semi-gloss? Really?

-- Posted by quick13 on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 9:09 PM

If it's in the specs that it was to be flat, then unfortunately it is the contractor's problem at whatever cost. Each project (residential or commercial) has a punch list and if there is something not according to what is bid, then it must be corrected at the contractor's expense.

-- Posted by Rural Citizen on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 8:54 AM

@quick 13, if there weren't repricussions for not installing the proper materials, then why wouldn't every contractor just do the easiest and least costly thing. Bid specs are assembled to keep it "apples to apples". Yes it costs the contractor..... but thats how it goes when the specs aren't followed. Believe it or not, there is quite a process of checks and balances to assure that things are furnished as expected. Shop drawings, Product tear sheets, MSDS sheets, Physical samples.

That being said, there are often things specified that are unrealistic, expensive, or just plain unavailable. This is where the costs are often forced on someone, ironically, the specifications are drawn up by the architects and the architects almost never take out there wallets for it.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 11:28 PM

And bob s, when you order a steak medium rare and it comes out well...... do you just turn the other cheek and eat it all for the sake of NOT wasting? Or do you require your purchase to be as ordered? Complaining Republicans?, or just a hypocrite?

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Tue, Nov 27, 2012, at 11:35 PM

@nick. Who noticed the paint was semi gloss instead of flat? I sure as hell wouldn't have noticed that, even with a "check list" in hand. And I doubt very few other people would have as well. Really, it's not like it was painted neon orange when it should have been a nice unobtrusive green. Yes I agree that a contractor needs to adhere to the plans as specified. But aren't we splitting hairs here?

-- Posted by quick13 on Wed, Nov 28, 2012, at 1:34 PM

Who would have noticed the 2.3 liter tank over the 1.7 liter tank on the restroom toilets? The architect most likely. (I'm not saying there was a toilet debacle, just an example). The thing is this, there are reasons for specific items to be specified, the tank capacity translates to water conservation over the long term, perhaps the flat paint wears better than the simi-gloss, I don't know, but invariably there is a reason. Again, if one contractor was bidding low against another because they intended to use a lesser product and they successfully managed it, then the consumer would be the one to suffer. The architect finds an issue and determines if it needs to be addressed. Ethically, the sub contractor needs be bound to specifications.

-- Posted by Nick Mercy on Wed, Nov 28, 2012, at 6:30 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.