|
212 City Attorney Edwards told Mr. Perez that the City Council has accepted the two
<br />.Centers and they are now being used, however, the City has not accepted or filed
<br />a Notice of Completion on the projects, and asked Mr. Perez if he would discuss
<br />the effect of the Notice of Completion.
<br />Mr. Perez advised there are three basic steps taken towards the final phase of any
<br />project. After a punch list, listing all required corrections, is prepared based
<br />on visual inspection on the site by the City's representative, the architect, and
<br />the contractor's representative, the action would begin with the City Council making
<br />a finding that the project is substantially completed in accordance with the plans,
<br />specifications and any change orders. The acceptance then triggers the next step
<br />which would be the filing of a Notice of Completion. The filing of the Notice of
<br />Completion serves two or three purposes - in the first instance it assures the City
<br />that the contractor, his subcontractors, his laborers and material suppliers are
<br />not owed, any money which would cause them to file a lien against the City, thereby
<br />preventing the City from using the Centers or, in essence, having an equity in those
<br />buildings. After you are satisfied, and,the Contractor is required to file an affi-
<br />davit, notarized, stating there are no liens of record. Based'on that finding then,
<br />the City files a Notice of Completion for recording, and 35 days after the filing of
<br />the Notice of Completion the Contractor is entitled to the remaining ten percent
<br />(10%) retention fee., in this case approximately some $77,000., however, before the
<br />final payment is made, there is a final verification that there are no liens, that
<br />the City is satisfied the Contractor has used good faith efforts to rectify any items
<br />that are not functioning properly that have been brought to his attention. There-
<br />fore, the City has 35 days in which to determine the Contractor's willingness to make
<br />repairs, to come back and make right those items which are not functioning properly.
<br />City Attorney Edwards asked Mr. Perez what he considers, in his professional opinion,
<br />is the appropriate action for the City Council to take at this time.
<br />Mr. Perez stated that based on the wide -spread publicity that these Centers have re-
<br />ceived - are they finished or are they not finished - there is no way that he, or any-
<br />one who has been directly involved with these projects, could ever satisfy each and
<br />every one; that what one person says, or what he says, can actually be proven. Mr.
<br />Perez said in his opinion the City Council has to assess did the Contractor perform
<br />his duties well and faithfully under the contract so that these Centers could be built
<br />reasonably within the budget and reasonably within the time limit, or did he not. Mr.—
<br />Perez also discussed the option of assessing penalties against the Contractor. a
<br />City Attorney Edwards asked Mr. Perez from what he could observe and based upon his
<br />experience as an architect, did he have an opinion with regard to the performance
<br />of the Contractor on this project.
<br />Mr. Perez stated that in his personal opinion, he was very pleased when he
<br />learned that Senk and Anderson had been awarded the contract on this project
<br />as he had prior experience with this contractor on a very large project. Mr.
<br />Perez reminded the Council Members that at the time the contract for the Centers
<br />was released for bid, construction was at the highest peak and, at that time, it
<br />was difficult to interest qualified general contractors to even bid on the job.
<br />Mr. Perez said that Senk and Anderson happened to be the low bidder on this
<br />project, and was awarded the contract.
<br />Mr. Perez stated that in his opinion the Contractors performed their job to the
<br />very best of their ability.
<br />Mr. Twiss stated that he would like to clarify the matter regarding the dishwashers.
<br />Mr. Twiss said he knew nothing whatsoever of any equipment that went into either one
<br />of the Centers prior to the time it was sitting in the Centers to be installed. Mr.
<br />Twiss said he had no prior knowledge of this and he cannot answer who authorized the
<br />purchase, nor who authorized what type of equipment was purchased or installed.
<br />Mr. Twiss stated he agrees in some part with Councilman Temby in that some of these
<br />minor change orders were undertaken due to a change in construction at one certain
<br />point. Mr. Twiss said he covered every one of the change orders and the only ones
<br />that were pointed out to the Council were the four outlined in his memorandum dated
<br />February 28, 1979, that he felt needed clarification. Mr. Twiss stated that he is
<br />well satisfied that the work has been done and completed, he didnot feel it was
<br />within his power or jurisdiction to question any amounts; the work was done, it was
<br />required to be done, it possibly did not pass the correct procedure of being author-
<br />ized by the City by someone signing their name, but he felt it was done, it was
<br />finished, it had to be done, and the overall project of $13,000 in change orders
<br />for a project of almost one million dollars is well below the average for change
<br />orders that might be incurred on a job of this kind.
<br />FEB 2 8 1979
<br />
|