Minutes - Council - 09/28/2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Councilmember Look, seconded by Councilmember Elvig to close the regular portion of the City Council meeting to conduct the public hearing. Motion carried. The regular meeting was closed at 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Dick Giddings, 18001 Ute Street NW, stated that everyone is in acceptance of the assessment. Councilmember Elvig stated that in the letter that was handed out, it says the amount of the assessment proposed represents 30 percent and it is being reimbursed through tax revenue. He stated that is not true as about 40 percent was drainage. The other issue the City has a problem with is this project should have started in May, then June, then July, then September and it is still not complete. He wondered if that might cause some problems for seeding. He added that the road turned out really well. He talked about the nice improvements, but added that we need to find more tools for City staff to be more authoritative when it comes to contractors. Councilmember McGlone stated, perhaps part of this problem is, it comes down to the contractor. He added when he signs a contract, there's usually a deadline and retainage. He wondered if the City is missing something in our contracts that is putting us at a disadvantage to control this. Councilmember Dehen stated that was his concern as well and asked Director of Public Works Olson to weigh in. Director of Public Works Olson stated we have deadlines and retainage and we do have maintenance guarantees. One of the things that Councilmember Elvig is talking about is not necessarily the subcontractors but the small utilities that had to do work in the area before our contractors get in. We will look at that process and see if there is a way to improve it to better collaborate with the contractor. He felt that Rum River did an excellent job. He added that contracts can be written a lot tighter but generally, you get increased cost with that. Barb Bennett, 18043 Ute Street NW, stated she likes the road but has a personal concern. She stated she has an invisible fence and underground sprinklers that were destroyed. She stated she was charged $131 to have the fence repaired and $495 to have the sprinklers repaired. She stated there was also difference in cost as she paid to have the end of her driveway done but she was told the cost between bituminous and concrete would be reimbursed. She stated she was told to pay these fees out of pocket and she would be reimbursed. Assistant City Engineer Jankowski stated he has given the contractor the option of fixing what was destroyed. The contractor has said he will have it done. He will either pay the bill directly or it can be deducted from the bill we pay them. Mr. Jankowski continued that the City Council has asked staff to include 200 feet of bituminous. Mrs. Bennett has a concrete drive. Staff is proposing reimbursing Mrs. Bennett $500 for the difference. City Council / September 28, 2010 Page 8 of 16