Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> *the architect had agreed to reimburse the City for between $500 <br /> 2 to $600 of the $970 . 00 it cost to add an exterior finish system <br /> 3 to the higher west parapet wall because it had been BWBR' s fail- <br /> 4 ure to let the contractor know the change was required before <br /> 5 his crews left which had resulted in a higher cost for that <br /> 6 project; <br /> 7 *the City had not been able to use all the old entrance door <br /> 8 control mats for the new front door and had to pay $849 . 00 <br /> 9 for three new ones , which should be enough for now at least, <br /> 10 although a few of the others may need replacement later. <br /> 11 Recalling the conversations earlier in the evening, Mr. Childs <br /> 12 recommended the Council deny the requested 35 day extension on the <br /> 13 job and instead, instruct him to see what he could negotiate in the <br /> 14 way of a trade-off in rent for the time the City has to remain in the <br /> 15 old location as a result of the contractor ' s failure to get the <br /> 16 project completed at least by January 1st. The City Manager <br /> 17 indicated he believed the major part of the contract increase could be <br /> 18 directly attributed to Fullerton' s failure and no one else ' s. <br /> 19 Councilmember Enrooth agreed that the contractor should be asked to <br /> 20 pay the rent on the old location past January 1st because he perceived <br /> 21 time was of the essence now to get the liquor operation moved during <br /> 22 what has always been the slowest seasonal sales period after the <br /> 46 3 holidays . <br /> 24 Council Action <br /> 25 motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve the $2 , 469 . 00 Change <br /> 26 order on the Stonehouse liquor warehouse project, less the amount of <br /> 27 the error on the exterior wall finish system to be paid by the <br /> 28 architect but to deny the requested 35 day extension on the contract. <br /> 29 Motion carried unanimously. <br /> 30 Bids Lower Than Engineer Estimated on Kenzie Traffic Signal <br /> 31 As stated in the December 16th letter from the project engineer, Rieke <br /> 32 Carroll Muller Associates , Inc. , the low bid of four made on this <br /> 33 project came from Collins Electric for $67 , 567 . 00 , about $3 , 000 less <br /> 34 than the $70 , 000/$80 , 000 the engineers had estimated the job would <br /> 35 cost. <br /> 36 Mr . Childs indicated this would bring the total project cost up to <br /> 37 around $75 ,000 when engineering costs are included. He also indicated <br /> 38 he had consulted Mr. Soth regarding the contractor ' s typo error <br /> 39 indicating the bid security as $350 rather than $3 , 500 as provided in <br /> 40 the bid bond and the City attorney had advised that the 5% bid bond <br /> 41 would prevail. <br /> • <br /> 5 <br />