Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> I . <br /> Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Tharp said that the developer <br /> e believes that the change order it submitted to City staff regarding a change in <br /> materials to be used on the penthouse was sufficient notification to staff of <br /> the proposed construction changes. Mr. Tharp said the question was whether this <br /> was legally adequate notice. Responding further, Mr. Tharp said that the <br /> developer has indicated that the City would need to sue to have the original <br /> design executed. <br /> Mr. Hamel said that if the cost of the copper dome indicated in the original <br /> design of the building was less than the baked enamel structure, then the costs <br /> to the City should be lowered to correspond to the lower costs to the developer. <br /> Councilor Miller discussed the relation between performance such as this by a <br /> developer and the public contracts law. She felt that the past performance of a <br /> bidder should be taken into consideration when contracts are awarded. Tim Sercombe, <br /> City Attorney's Office, responded that State Law does allow pre-qualification of <br /> a bidder on the-basis of prior performance but that the City Code differed <br /> slightly in requiring bids to be awarded to the "lowest and best" bidder. <br /> Mr. Sercombe said that the word "best" did allow the City the latitude to <br /> consider past performance. Mr. Ball asked who would make the determination for <br /> the City that past performance of a contractor was unsatisfactory. Mr. Sercombe <br /> responded that under State Law, the City Council is the City's contract review <br /> board, with council decisions implemented by the City's purchasing officer. <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Gleason, Mr. Sercombe said that past performance <br /> decisions must be made on a project-by-project basis. Ms. Miller suggested that <br /> the council discuss the larger public contracts issue at a future meeting <br /> e and that some mechanism be developed to store information about past contract <br /> performance in the City's "institutional memory". <br /> Councilor Obie said that he and Mr. Lindberg had dealt with this issue from the <br /> outset due to their positions on the ERA. He ,said that the root of the problem <br /> is that the developer failed to understand the public-private partnership. <br /> Mr. Obie said he had made a motion in the ERA consideration of this issue that <br /> payment by the developer of the increased administrative fee be negotiated <br /> separately with the developer. He noted that this motion had failed. Mr. Obie <br /> felt that in consideration of this issue by the ERA, the Design Review Committee, <br /> and the Downtown Commission, the best recommendation had been sifted out. <br /> He agreed with Ms. Miller that this was the second time that the City had had a <br /> problem in dealing with this firm and that the City should not get involved with <br /> the firm again. He felt that the City should retain the experience learned from <br /> this matter and "put the matter behind us." <br /> Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve, as recommended <br /> by the Downtown Commission, the design modifications to the <br /> penthouse of the Park Willamette Building, and to direct the City <br /> Manager to take appropriate action. <br /> - <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 1982 Page 8 <br />