A pair of bills from two different contractors for the new garage caused some questions that Mahoning Township supervisors want answered before they are paid since both seem to be more than the amounts agreed to when the building committee met with them at the pre-construction and bid meetings.

The first bill from Frable and Son Electric first was discussed briefly at the last meeting when supervisors questioned why a quote for $12,400 which the supervisors approved to move reroute the electricity for the buildings and tie them both into the generator resulted in an invoice for $13,925.Supervisor Frank Ruch explained, "Frable said the $12,400 option was wrong because he figured the wrong equipment. " Ruch said Frable was originally going to use a 400 amp disconnect but then realized he needed to use two 200 amp disconnects and a 200 amp transfer switch instead."One of the disconnects was being moved from the existing building," said Ruch at that meeting. The board decided at that time to direct Ruch to contact Frable and tell him that the amount was on an approval that was approved by the board and they expect him to honor his commitment.Ruch said last evening he did discuss the bill and the discrepancy with Frable to find out why the amount was off by $1,500. "He told me that he didn't get the parts when he quoted them to us last fall because he couldn't afford to keep them sitting until the spring when he would need them and the prices went up in the meantime," Ruch said.He also told the board that Frable claimed there were some extra things he did during the electrical work for which he did not charge the supervisors and he hoped that would count toward the discrepancy and that we split the other $500 or $600 difference."He could not tell me though what the extras were," Ruch said. "If he did help us though, I'm all for helping him." Supervisor Bruce Steigerwalt said he would talk to Ron Reeser to see if he could determine with Ron's help to what Frable was referring.The board decided to find out what the extra items were that were done before they make a final decision about paying the bill.In the second matter, T&M Engineering submitted a bill for almost $2,600 more than they quoted in the proposal for the engineering costs. One of the items on the bill was a change to the type of operators used for the doors. Steigerwalt said, "Greg Duncan (of T&M) was given the information in January and they charged us to review the operator they changed because they made a mistake."Ruch added he and Steigerwalt sat with T&M just like they did with the other contractors and explained the project. "We asked what their [T&M] cost would be and they gave us a proposal. It's not an estimate. It's more of a contract that our chairman signed so how could we be responsible for these extra costs."Solicitor Tom Nanovic said they should contact the engineer and have them sit and explain the bill to them and how they are costs above the proposal. Ruch said he thought the bill should go to the architect since they specified the wrong openers.Steigerwalt said he and Ruch should meet with the engineer together to make sure they don't miss anything. He quipped that he hoped the engineer doesn't charge them to review the bill.