10-10-90 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 10, 1990 Fahey stated that he did not know at this point what was fair and what was unreasonable. Fahey suggested that the City Attorney review the contract and report back in two weeks. Kroos reported that if the City looks at the issue from a purely legal standpoint, this could hurt the architect's position. Kroos asked that the City look at the issue from a standpoint of what is fair. Fahey stated that the same applies from the City's standpoint, and pointed out that there was no secret that the City did not want a lot of alternates in the project and was looking at using a construction management firm. Kroos reported that the idea of construction management never came up until the City Administrator was on board. The City Administrator stated that forgetting the discussion about alternates and work scope changes, when the project was started the City had estimated what it expected to pay for. The irrigation system was not included, and the Administrator felt this was an additional workscope item. The cavity wall within the Fire Station appartus,bay was added after the construction manager reviewed the plan, and may have been a problem with the design. The Administrator stated that he could not recall the initial discussions regarding the lower parking lot. Blesener stated that initially the City did not feel it could afford the lower parking lot. The Administrator stated that the specifics of both projects were not know when the budget was set, and the only way to deal with this was through additional workscope changes. As an example Kroos reported that last week his firm redid the drawings of the retaining wall at the Fire Station site to reduce the number of blocks. The firm expended $400 for make the changes so that the City could save $2,500. Scalze stated that she could see this as a workscope change. LaValle felt that the additional fees being requested by the architect should be paid. Page 12