Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> 1. Removed for discussion immediately following adoption of the Consent Calendar; <br /> K. Approve warrants dated through February 26, 1996 and usual and necessary payments <br /> dated through March 11, 1996; <br /> APPROVED <br /> L. Reject claims of Jean and Annie Hardsy, No. 1402; Michael Nager, No. 1406; Helene <br /> Marque, No. 1416; Irwin Cameron, No. 1427; Victor Perez, No. 1429; Dirk and Marjorie <br /> Duffner, No. 1430; <br /> MINUTE ORDER NO. 96-040 <br /> --------------------------------------------------------n______--------------------------------------------------------- <br /> 2. CONSENTCALENDAR-CONTmUED <br /> The following items were removed ITom the Consent Calendar by Mayor Hartnett for <br /> discussion at this time. <br /> C. Request for an increase in scope to the Slurry Seal Project, 1995 (304) <br /> REPORT: City Engineer, February 26,1996 <br /> In response to Mayor Hartnett's questions, City Manager Everett explained that this <br /> project was budgeted in the Capital Improvement Projects program and the City had <br /> received a good bid for a unit cost contract. City Manager Everett explained that the <br /> Engineering Division combined the Intersection Reconfiguration Project with the Slurry <br /> Seal Project after the bids went out to take advantage of the good unit cost, and the <br /> additional striping projects were added for the same reason. After all the jobs were <br /> completed it was discovered the amount of work on base bid items exceeded the initial <br /> estimate by nearly 20%. City Manager Everett said the projects and monies had been <br /> approved by Council in the C.1.P. but proper procedure was to take each project before <br /> Council for authorization. He added that staff was now aware of this major oversight in <br /> procedures and it would not happen again. <br /> In response to Mayor Hartnett's questions, City Attorney Schricker advised that the <br /> City was obligated to pay the Contractor for the unit price items in the estimate, but was <br /> not obligated to pay for "add-ons." City Attorney Schricker stated, however, that if the <br /> City did not pay the contractor for the work done, litigation would probably ensue. He <br /> added that not paying for work done would also affect the reputation of the City and <br /> impact future contracts. <br /> MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 <br /> Page No. 092 <br /> Regular Meeting Minutes <br /> February 26, 1996 <br /> Page 4 <br />