Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, February 17, 1954 to September 21, 1955, lvc000009-121

SEWER CONTRACT Discussion 1. Assessment District No. 100-27 2. Sewer Contract discussion s/ Shirley Ballinger City Clerk ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE We, the undersigned Mayor, Commissioners, City Manager and City Attorney of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada, do hereby admit due service of the fore­going notice of Special Meeting. s/ C. D. Baker s/ Wendell Bunker s/ Howard W. Cannon s/ Rex A. Jarrett s/ Reed Whipple Las Vegas, Nevada 5-13-54 A special meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Las Vegas, Nevada held this 13th day of May, 1954, was called to order at the hour of 9:00 A.M. by His Honor Mayor Baker with the following members present: Mayor C. D. Baker Commissioner Wendell Bunker Commissioner Rex A. Jarrett Commissioner Reed Whipple City Attorney Howard W. Cannon City Engineer George Wade City Clerk Shirley Ballinger Absent: Commissioner Harris P. Sharp City Manager George Rounthwaite Also Present: Mr. Simon Perliter Mr. L. E. Tyson Discussion was held on the Ralph O. Dixson Sewer Contract. Thereafter Commissioner Bunker asked Mr. Simon Perliter, engineer for the City for City-wide sewer improvement program, what his recommendation was on the proposed negotiations with the Estate of Ralph O. Dixson, and requested that Mr. Perliter's statements be made a matter of record. Mr. PERLITER - First, I do not know what the $42,000.00 is for. I did not participate in the negotiating, so I do not know what it covers directly. In a general way I know the details of what should be paid —approximately $16,000.00 was for extras due to line change on Rancho Road; the rest I never did get straight, and for what reason. MR. CANNON - The settlement itself, if it is made would do these things. It would result in a dismissal with prejudice of the action brought by Ralph O. Dixson against the City. It would be a waiver of all rights for any com­pensation by reason of water or any other soil conditions in connection with the sewer completed to date. It would be consideration with the bonding company to complete the balance of the project, relieving the City of any liability by reason of change of line on Rancho Road sewer and any claim for extras. But on the further con­dition that the bonding company proceed under their bond to pay the claims incurred by reason of the Dixson Sewer Contract, which are believed to be in excess of $100,000.00. Further that the bonding company waive any additional compensation by reason of soil conditions, including water on the remaining portion of the contract to be completed. MAYOR BAKER - What is the approximate amount the bonding company is contributing? MR. CANNON - The situation is this— the water claim of $16,000.00 and the bonding company would have to pay all creditor's claims and in addition, $60,000.00 for completion of the contract. MR. WHIPPLE - Plus unpaid bills. MR. JARRETT - Is the Estate bankrupt? MR. CANNON - This is the representation made to me. The Estate is not bankrupt, but practically insolvent and the bonding company agreed that if this proposal is worked out to their satisfaction, they will not make any claim against the Estate— Mr. Dixson has left a wife and two children with less than $1,000.00 and assets of an undetermined value— the bonding company agreed that on a basis of satisfactory arrangement they will not make any claim or take over equipment. 5-13-54