10-24-95 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 1995 contract. However, courts in applying those provisions have modified them. This does not take away the legitimate frustrations of the property owners. The Engineer stated that he just wanted to point out that a literal interpretation of one paragraph of the contract may not be realistic. Nagle stated that if the City does not recover substantial liquidated damages on this project, then he would suggest a new model be used for contracts, one that becomes enforceable, as well as a new engineer. Scalze asked if the contract used was a typical construction contract. The Engineer replied that it was. Fahey pointed out that reasonable delays must be allowed for. Morelan stated that early on in the process Valley Paving identified themselves as not being very responsive. Morelan asked the Engineer how much time was spent by his office on the project site watching the construction to make sure it met specifications. The City Engineer reported that the time spent averaged between a minimal amount of time and full-time inspection. The Engineer stated that he could look through his records for a more exact estimate. Morelan stated that his point is that at the beginning of the project it was evident that Valley Paving was not the best contractor. At that point the only recourse was to stay on them and make sure things were done correctly. Fahey recommended that the Engineer begin working on the liquidated damages case pulling together whatever documentation is necessary. Nagle asked that the City communicate with the property owners in terms of the progress being made on this issue. Fahey also asked that the City Administrator look at the issue of assessing projects upon completion. Fahey felt there may be ways to finance the project in the interim that do not add significant carrying costs. Mrs. McDonough asked the starting date of the project. 29