|
3
<br />Mr. Huffaker answered this is correct.
<br />Councilman Gonzales asked what provisions the City would make in the case of Mr. Huffaker's absence or
<br />illness. Mr. Gonzales said he knows the City has very capable employees and department heads that could
<br />take over in case of emergency, as this has been done in the past.
<br />Councilman Gonzales felt the position of Assistant City Manager should be retained and hire someone in this
<br />capacity, as this classification would be more needed than that of Assistant to the City Manager.
<br />Councilwoman Spragins said there would be no need for the two positions, only one of them would be necessary.
<br />Councilman Gonzales said the Council had decided to establish the position of Assistant City Manager, possible
<br />due to the fact that at one time the City was without a City Manager and the vacancy had to be filled by others
<br />in an "Acting" status. Mr. Gonzales stated that he would not like to see the City in that kind of a situation
<br />again, and now that the position of Assistant City Manager has been created, he thinks it should be retained.
<br />Councilwoman Spragins said that if anything should happen to our City Manager and in case of emergency, the
<br />City Council can meet at any given time and appoint someone in an Acting status.
<br />Councilman Gonzales said this is true, however, why establish the position of Assistant City Manager if it is not
<br />going to be used.
<br />City Manager Huffaker said that Councilman Gonzales' remarks are well taken, however, he feels that in case of
<br />emergency, or his absence, the City has several well qualified department heads that could step in and take
<br />over the duties in the interim. Mr. Huffaker said the salary difference between the two classifications, Assistant
<br />City Manager and Assistant to the City Manager, is considerable and is another reason he felt the position of
<br />Assistant to the City Manager should be considered.
<br />Councilman Hayes asked what the difference in salary would be in the two positions.
<br />Mr. Huffaker stated the difference would probably be approximately 150/, to 20% salary -wise.
<br />After additional discussion, Councilwoman Spragins moved that the recommendation as made by the City Manager
<br />for approval of class specification and salry range for the position of Assistant to the City Manager be accepted
<br />and approved.
<br />Motion died for lack of a second.
<br />Councilman Gonzales asked if any of the department heads were considered or asked to fill the position of
<br />Assistant City Manager.
<br />City Manager Huffaker answered no.
<br />Councilman Rehrer asked if this item could be held over for two weeks for additional study before making a decision.
<br />Mr. Huffaker said this would be all right.
<br />On motion of Councilman Hayes, seconded by Councilman Rehrer and unanimously passed, the class specifications
<br />and proposed salary resolution for the position of Assistant to the City Manager was held over to the next regular
<br />meeting, April 2, 1974, for additional study.
<br />Notice of Completion.
<br />Mr. Earl Young, Public Works Superintendent, stated this item concerns the project at the Water Quality Control
<br />Plant and its completion.
<br />Mr. Young advised that all work to be done under the contract documents by Norman Engineering has been completed,
<br />and this engineering firm has requested payment for all items at 1000/c complete, minus the 100/, retention, which
<br />amounts to $43,114.
<br />Mr. Young said there are two items, however, which result in a reduction in cost to the City which involves
<br />landscaping work and credit permitting the change in location of a 10 inch and an 8 inch diameter reclaimed
<br />water line that reduced the contractor's cost, both items amounting to approximately $2,590., therefore, the final
<br />payment of $43,114. should be less the amount of $2,590., until these matters can be resolved.
<br />Mr. Young continued that after a minimum of thirty-five days, the retention will be due to the contractor, and this
<br />amounts to $96,128. At the time this occurs, liquidated damages should be retained.
<br />Mr. Young said allowable delay time due the contractor, as closely as it can be calculated at this time, is 113
<br />days, leaving approximately 252 days over -run at $200. per day, which amounts to $50,400., to be retained at
<br />some time in the futre .
<br />Mr. Young stated the action needed this evening is to accept and authorize for recording the Notice of Completion
<br />for Norman S. Fink and Norman Engineering Company, to set these days of time extension, and to authorize the
<br />final payment as previously outlined - $43,114. less $2,590.
<br />Mr. Young further advised that on March 15, 1974, the City Clerk received a Claim against the City from Norman
<br />S. Fink and Norman Engineering Company, a joint Venture, for payment of increased costs on the construction and
<br />enlargement of the Water Quality Control Plant. Mr. Young read portions of the Claim to the Council members and
<br />stated that no action is needed this evening, and Staff will be reviewing this Claim further and report to the Council.
<br />�w; I 1974
<br />
|