My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 01 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1985 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 01 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:54 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:44:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
1/15/1985
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1985 01 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
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
Leary moved and Johnson seconded the authorization <br /> • of the city administrator to proceed with the <br /> preparation of a revolution amending the 1985 <br /> budget. The motion was carried 6-1 with Fauson <br /> voting no. <br /> COUNCIL RETREAT Headley asked council to select a date, either <br /> February 9 or 10th to attend the proposed retreat. <br /> After determining that Councilman Fauson would not <br /> be able to attend on the 9th, the 10th was chosen. <br /> Hundley will choose a facilitator and location. <br /> Agenda items would include communication among <br /> staff and council members, goals, etc. <br /> This meeting will be open to the press and public . <br /> WATER TREATMENT PLANT A letter (not included in council's packet) <br /> PHASE II - AWARD BID from Rocky Mountain Consultants was <br /> presented to council regarding the bids for the <br /> Water Treatment Plant Phase II. The letter <br /> provides an analysis of said bids. <br /> A concern of Hundley's was having the bids come <br /> in higher than the engineer's estimate and that <br /> resulting impact on this as well as other <br /> water/sewer projects to be implemented. <br /> Mark Ilea from Rocky Mountain Consultants <br /> summarized for council the content of the letter <br /> and outlined the reasons for the high bids. <br /> A major reason was that RMC did not have the <br /> benefit of a r. asonably in depth preliminary <br /> design analysis to generate an engineering <br /> draft. An existing facility also presents <br /> problems with "unknown factors" as experienced <br /> with Phase I, i .e. , underground obstructions. <br /> RMC also felt that this is a "fast-track" <br /> situation and there is a premium involved with <br /> the liquidated damage potential and completion <br /> schedule requirement for the project . <br /> Areas of concern expressed by council included <br /> the "grey" areas of the cost element in the <br /> bids that could run over budget significantly <br /> with Change Orders, etc. The fast-tracking <br /> is only desirable from the stand point that <br /> certain components of the contract need <br /> to be fast-tracked in order to get this on-line <br /> within the time frame agreed upon. RMC's inability <br /> to get information to council in a timely manner <br /> for consideration was also expressed. <br /> In talking with Bundle), earlier , RMC suggested <br /> that some expenditures contained in the 20 Year <br /> Capital Improvement Program may not be required <br /> in 1985, i.e. buried water storage, engineering <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.