Laserfiche WebLink
not sure he trusted the City to manage the next major construction project on the basis of the two <br />last experiences. Mr. Meisner said the City had to do better. <br /> <br />Mr. Matthews noted that the claim for consequential damages standard text was modified for the <br />library contract to indicate that the parties did not waive claims for consequential damages. Mr. <br />Meisner noted his concurrence with Mr. Papa's dissent from the manager's decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart wished the council could find a way to address such issues without being publicly caustic <br />to the City Manager. He believed there were other approaches. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if, prior to the council meeting on the issue, had the City had asked the architects <br />what it would cost the firm to redesign the library within the scope of the contract. Mr. Johnson <br />said there had been some discussion, but the council had been clear that it did not want the <br />library that would result. Mr. Pap~ said it would have been nice at that time to have the answer to <br />that question. He asked if there were any claims the City could make against the architect under <br />the contract. Mr. Matthews said yes; he suggested if the City Council wanted to discuss potential <br />litigation, an executive session be scheduled. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could include penalties or liquidated damages clauses in future <br />contracts. Mr. Matthews said yes, but noted that in construction law, liquidated damages clauses <br />were very difficult to enforce. The same was true of penalty clauses. One must show that both <br />parties reviewed and understood the potential penalties and they were correlated to a real loss in <br />value. They could not be penal in nature. Mr. Matthews said that one could revise the over cost <br />or remedy section of the contract and make it clear that if the design comes in over cost, the <br />architect is contractually responsible and liable, but he believed the result would be a building that <br />did not come close to the budget, but would be designed under budget to cover their liabilities. <br />Mr. Matthews said the AIA contract was used because it a standard in the industry, and because it <br />could be modified to fit the City's needs. The contract could be modified in any way desired. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ was disappointed there was not an Option 5, to make a claim against the responsible <br />party, suggested as a remedy. Mr. Johnson said that was not offered to the council because he <br />thought it an appropriate decision for the manager, rather than the council. Mr. Pap~ determined <br />from Mr. Johnson that the City always had the option to make a claim against the responsible <br />party. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 12, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />