Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />regular meeting, february 8, 1971 <br /> <br />page four <br /> <br />The second item for consideration concerned final <br />payment to Action Utility, Inc., sub-contractor on <br />the water and sewer project. George Consolidated, Inc. <br />was the prime contractor. <br />The Mayor explained that $34,377.70 was being held in <br />escrow for Action Utility, Inc. since George Consolidated <br />claimed it had back charges against Action. Attornies for <br />Action requested payment of the $34,377,70, and had pre- <br />sented an Indemnification Agreement in favor of the City <br />to cover the amount. A balance sheet dated June 30,1970 <br />accompanied the Agreement. A letter from the City Attorney <br />recommending that Action be paid is attached. . <br />2/22/71 *,'11 . K:>'I,~ I,lo.ul It,at tile City lI<Cv~pt tl.e II.e1clftnificatlol, <br />See correctionA!j' e.erne"t fl. Ol~ ,~.e.tio" Utilit" 1I1c, il. tl.e. affl6U/'lt af <br />below'11~'_1 tl.6 cI611~'. $34,377.70. 'I, ,. nOIe.s aeeanaed the ~eti.en. <br />~ Mr. Ya, bl augk eM~1 esse~ Derne deubt ab6ut the ~iDdern of <br />", .."gwpti"g th8 ^srQQIIlQnt. ..1618 tQ the i'lreearie"'6 finsneial <br />cenelitien ef maR) ee/'lstruetiBA fir~s ~t t~is time. <br />On roll call, the following vote was recorded: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />AYE: Flores, King, Smith, Zavesky <br />NAY; Yarbrough <br /> <br />The Mayor declared the motion carried, <br /> <br />The Council recessed at 8:45 p.m., to reconvene at the <br />call of the Mayor.. . / <br /> <br /> <br />:;J/&~/~ <br />// Hollis W. Sm1:fih'r;kl ~ <br />~~/i~ ~f4 <br /> <br />Councilman Council an <br /> <br /> <br />i?!% l;(zl:-? <br /> <br /> <br />Councilman Councilman <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.l <br /> <br />ATTEST: <br /> <br />~O~~,n,~ <br /> <br /> <br />City Secretary <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Mr', King moved that the City pay Action Utility, !nc. its I <br />claim of $34,377.70, and accept the Indemnification Agree- <br />ment in that amount. Mr. Flores seconded the motion. <br />Mr. Yarbrough expressed some doubt about the wisdom of <br />paying the claim, due to the precarious financial condit- <br />ion of many construction firms at this time, <br />