My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agda Pkt 2025.02.24 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
Agda Pkt 2025.02.24 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2025 10:55:59 AM
Creation date
2/25/2025 10:48:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
2/24/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
Text box
ID:
1
Creator:
REDWOOD_CITY\NANCYRAMIREZ
Created:
2/25/2025 10:55 AM
Modified:
2/25/2025 10:55 AM
Text:
http://www.redwoodcity.org/
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
330
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Page 1 of 2 <br />City of Redwood City 1017 Middlefield Road, Redwood City, CA. 94063 Tel: 650-780-7000 www.redwoodcity.org <br />STAFF REPORT <br />To the Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />From the City Manager <br />DATE: February 24, 2025 <br />SUBJECT <br />Rejection of general liability claim by McMillan Electric Co. Inc. C/O Furukawa Castles LLP. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />By motion, approve rejection of subject claim. <br />STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE <br />Excellence in Government Operations <br />BACKGROUND <br />Resolution Nos. 15081 and 15624 require City Council approval for the denial, allowance, allowance in <br />part, settlement, or compromise of a general liability claim, if it exceeds $50,000. The amount claimed by <br />the claimants exceeds that limit and therefore rejection must be approved by the City Council. <br />ANALYSIS <br />A subcontractor on the Veterans Memorial Building/Senior Center, McMillan Electric Co. Inc., through <br />their attorneys, Furukawa Castles LLP, submitted a government claim alleging $2.8 million dollars for <br />failure to pay for disruption and extra work on the project. The claim should be rejected as it is by a <br />subcontractor who is not in direct contract with the City. The claim is general and non-specific, lacking any <br />supporting explanation or documentation, and the project is still ongoing. <br />6.B. - Page 1 of 2 <br />66
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.