Laserfiche WebLink
ANALYSIS <br />Staff has negotiated a settlement with the contractor. The result <br />of said settlement is that the contractor agreed to pay all costs <br />of repair including manpower, material, and equipment used in the <br />reconnection effort of said water main. The total settlement cost <br />is $4,181.37 (Change Order No. 1). It will be deducted from the <br />contract cost, which results in a new contract cost of $97,418.63. <br />The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the <br />Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1, the <br />settlement cost in the amount of $4,181.37 and the new contract <br />amount of $97,418.63. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change <br />Order #1, the settlement cost in the amount of $4,181.37 and the <br />new contract amount of $97,418.63, as recommended by staff. <br />CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE <br />OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD <br />12. PERSONNEL DIRECTOR RON BAKER'S POST—TERMINATION <br />HEARING <br />The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 25, 1997: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />and <br />James E. Chandler, County Administrato ' — <br />DATE: August 25,1997 <br />RE: Post -Termination Hearing - Ron Baker <br />Ron Baker has filed a request for a post -termination hearing contesting his dismissal by <br />the County Administrator after an approximately 11 -hour long pre -termination hearing held <br />on August 13, 1997. Mr. Baker's attorney has indicated that he will vigorously pursue this <br />appeal, including court action, if necessary. Because of this possible exposure to Federal <br />Section 1983 liability claims we jointly notified the law firm of Roberts and Reynolds so <br />that our actions in the administrative appeals process would conducted by the same <br />person who would handle any Section 1983 action in court. <br />Mr. Roberts strongly suggested, and we agree, that Mr. Chandler himself cannot hear the <br />post -termination appeal because he held the pre -termination hearing, even though that is <br />provided for in our personnel rules. There are two alternatives, one, a hearing by either the <br />Board of County Commissioners itself, as was done under the dismissal of former <br />AUGUST 26, 1997 <br />n <br />25 BOOK 1-0-1'.'PAGE 4" <br />