CC MIN 1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

100 In response to question by Councilman Henderson, City Manager explained that the generally accepted policy in construction industry , when dealing with governmental bodies , is that change orders up to 10% are fairly standard practice . When the cumulative change orders come to 10% of the bid price , there are no additional changes ordered without specific approval of the Council . This in the balancing change order brought project 1 . 25% over the 10% , and this is why it was brought to Council . Mn Allen noted principal item contributing to the gross amount was for adding electroliers to provide safety lighting for the bridge structure . This was added November 9th . City Manager noted that in addition , what may have brought change order over the 10% was in negotiations with contractor relative to liquidated damages . City Attorney explained that the contract sets forth a given dollar figure for liquidated damages , and there are certain legal ramifi - cations in applying the strict terms of the contract , on which he advised Staff . In conjunction with his advice , the change order before Council has a given dollar figure for liquidated damages , representing the negotiated value , which brings down that mathematically continuous figure which occurred throughout the contract , based on the contract dollar for liquidated damages . That had been brought down to some extent , and as it came out on the balancing change order , caused the change order to go over the 10% figure . Back in October , there was no change order over 10% . Council indicated that a more detailed written report would have been desirable . Councilman Keckley moved to accept the project , subject to the usual one -year guarantee of workmanship and materials , seconded by Councilman Williams and carried . (MINUTE ORDER #71 - E1 ) Councilman Rhodes moved to adopt Resolution approving specifications , and authorizing call for bids , Truck Crane , seconded by Councilman Petersen . The equipment was requested for the Water Department , and funds had been budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Services in the amount of $3 , 300 . Councilman Henderson indicated reluctance , in view of potential depart- mental reorganizaton , and since surplus equipment is presently up for sale , to proceed unless this was emergency equipment . City Manager responded that the request was studied in view of the closeness to the end of the Budget year , but it was believed the equipment was needed , The crane would be a replacement , primarily designed for handling small , but heavy , pieces of water pipe . Councilman Keckley indicated he had been informed this was