My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:04:23 AM
Creation date
10/29/2010 1:40:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/04/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
road turned out really well. He talked about the nice improvements, but added that we need to <br />find more tools for City staff to be more authoritative when it comes to contractors. <br />Councilmember McGlone stated, perhaps part of this problem is, it comes down to the <br />contractor. He added when he signs a contract, there's usually a deadline and retainage. He <br />wondered if the City is missing something in our contracts that is putting us at a disadvantage to <br />control this. <br />Councilmember Dehen stated that was his concern and asked Director of Public Works Olson to <br />weigh in. <br />Director of Public Works Olson stated we have deadlines and retainage and we do have <br />maintenance guarantees. One of the things that Councilmember Elvig is talking about is not <br />necessarily the subcontractors but the small utilities that had to work in the area before our <br />contractors get in. We will look at that process and see if there is a way to improve it to better <br />collaborate with the contractor. He felt that Rum River did an excellent job. <br />Barb Bennett, 18043 the Street NW, stated she likes the road but has a personal concern. She <br />stated she has an invisible fence and underground sprinklers that were destroyed. She stated she <br />was charged $131 to have the fence repaired and $495 to have the sprinklers repaired. She stated <br />there was also difference in cost as she paid to have the end of her driveway done but she was <br />told the cost between bituminous and concrete would be reimbursed. She stated she was told to <br />pay these fees out of pocket and she would be reimbursed. <br />Assistant City Engineer Jankowski stated he has given the contractor the option of fixing what <br />was destroyed himself. The contractor has said he will have it done. He will either pay the bill <br />directly or it can be deducted from the bill we pay them. Mr. Jankowski continued that the City <br />Council has asked staff to include 200 feet of bituminous. Mrs. Bennett has a concrete drive. <br />Staff is proposing reimbursing Mrs. Bennett $500 for the difference. <br />Councilmember Dehen inquired if that is in accordance with the policy - we authorize <br />bituminous but they can upgrade and pay the difference. <br />Mr. Jankowski stated that's what we are proposing to be fair. <br />Councilmember Dehen agreed it seems fair. <br />Consensus of the Council was that Mrs. Bennett should be reimbursed $500. <br />Councilmember McGlone sated his concern is the expectation of the folks in the neighborhood <br />whether we are presenting these expectations properly. <br />City Council / September 28, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />P25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.