Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates UDOT Highway 31 sidewalk work after contractor pulled sidewalk beyond bid
Summary
A lengthy exchange at the Huntington City Council meeting focused on a dispute where a contractor removed and replaced sidewalk not included in the original curb-and-gutter bid; council members said the contractor "screwed up" and directed staff to negotiate over material vs. labor costs.
Council members at the May 21 meeting spent an extended portion of the agenda discussing an apparent change in scope on a UDOT Highway 31 project after a contractor removed and replaced sidewalk that council members say was not part of the original bid.
The city’s planning/maintenance discussion traced the sequence: a curb-and-gutter contract was awarded, and work began; council members and staff later observed that the contractor had removed and replaced sidewalk sections in addition to the curb work. The contractor has submitted an extra invoice for the sidewalk work; Janine (city staff) reported the difference between the contract amount and the contractor’s charge as $6,298.50, and another line in the materials presented listed $9,851.50 for the full sidewalk work.
Council members repeatedly said the contractor should bear responsibility for labor if the contractor exceeded the bid. One council member told the contractor, "He screwed up. He eats it, not the city," and another said they were willing to pay for the concrete materials but not the labor to pull and reinstall the sidewalk.
City staff and the contractor acknowledged the record-keeping problem. As one speaker described it, the project was bid months earlier and winter intervened, and some on-site supervisory changes meant the city did not review all work as it proceeded. A contractor representative said they were relying on verbal direction in some instances and that "their story has changed a little bit once they found out what they did." Another speaker noted the contractor “lost his paperwork” and that Derek, the on-site person, was the usual contact.
Numbers discussed in the meeting were inconsistent in places: a curb quantity of 367 linear feet was mentioned, a per-linear-foot sidewalk price of $30.50 was cited in discussion, and staff summarized the extra invoice as $6,298.50 in one place and referred to $6,262.98 50 as another figure. The council asked city staff and Mike (identified in discussion as the staff member who can negotiate) to meet with the contractor and return to the council with a resolution.
Direction given: council consensus was to negotiate directly with the contractor and attempt to limit city payment to material costs (concrete) rather than labor costs that the contractor incurred after deviating from the contract. The chair asked staff to "go and negotiate, see what he says, bring it back." No formal motion or final payment decision on the sidewalk additional invoice was taken at the meeting.
Ending: The council closed the discussion by directing staff to open negotiations with the contractor and report back with documentation and recommendations for any payment or dispute resolution.
