Resolution No. 4294
.
..
. ,
1 RESOLUT ION NO. 4294
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN RUANE COR-
3 PORATION AND THE CITY OF VERNON
4 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
5 WHEREAS, MR. ARTHUR E. NELSON, JR., Director of Pub 1ic Works
6 of the City of Vernon has recommended that the Contract between
7 Ruane Corporation and the City of Vernon be amended, a copy of said
8 amendment being attached to the letter from the Director of Public
9 Works, and
10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon feels that
11 it is in the best interests of the City of Vernon that said Con-
12 tract be so amended,
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
14 SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Vernon does
15 hereby authorized and direct the Mayor and the City Clerk to execu
16 said amendment to the Contract described above.
17 SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
18 certify to the passage of this Resolution and thereupon and there-
19 after the same shall be in full force and effect.
20 ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5th day of November, 1974.
21
22
23
24
25
.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
~
F. A. · I~R. C;ty Clerk
. .
...' ,
. .
. i i
II
11
I
i
:[1
4'1
il
5i
I
I
I
6:1
711
. II
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
"
~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 4294, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Vernon, and approved by the Mayor of said City, at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on
November 5, 1974
~
Clerk
` ~ - - 1
- \
~~,Q~ Contract No. 383
[ ~"'d/1
f
" December 1 19
r ~ , 78
G~
MEMORANDUM
TO: David B. Brearley, city Attorney;
.FROM: A elsan, Jr., Director oaf ~'ublic Works/Building
SUBJECT: Ruane Corporation Request fog Additional $26,.461.:00.
The time period involved .in the Change Order request
is -from August 1, 1976. to Ootober: 5, 1976, sixty-six- (C6) 'days.
Costs, about .$400 per day are based on the contractor's original
quotation., "other direct cost". sheet... The-City. has no eaay~of
knowing whether or not actual costs. were comparable
The following is offered. in an .attempt to settle the
matter. Since the: fire alarm system final. inspection was P;uc~ust
25, _1976,_with one man.. on the'-job clearin
g punch li~:t items on
August- 25, 1976 and August.,30, 1976, the~move date and the move
should have been completed September 1'1-12:, 1.976: This assumes
the contractor could have .placed the temporar~r asphalti.c'cancrete
at the front entrance prior to the weekend of September 1'
-~1~°`
2,~`°
19 76 . (The . contractor did not do so sooner: ths:n September. 27 ,
1976 since he knew on September 3, 1~
76 that the xr~ove lzad beers
postponed until. the weekend of September 2~-26, 1976.) September
3,.1976-was after the fire alarm system: had-been. completed. 1f
the move had been completed the weekend o~ September 11-12x1976,
the old City Hall would have been available to the contractor on
September 20, 1576 instead of October; 5 ~ 19'76 F Thus allows a
week to complete. clearing the old City: HaT1 after the ..move.
The request could be considered favorablF
.amounting to about.'$6,000. or 15 days,
1
r