Laserfiche WebLink
REPORT FROM PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE <br /> By: Public Works Staff <br /> <br />CASE #: <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />The Public Works Committee met on Monday, July 16, 2001 and discussed the following five <br />cases: <br /> <br />Case #1: Reaffirm Procedure for Handling Residential/Commercial Storm Drainage <br /> Utility Fees <br /> <br />Council Action: <br /> <br />No action required <br /> <br />Case #2: <br /> <br />Staff explained the method of calculation used in determining the storm drainage utility fee for <br />properties that operated business on the same property that they lived. After much discussion, the <br />consensus of the Committee was that no new motion was required for the drainage fees to be <br />handled 50% residential and 50% commercial. <br /> <br /> Request for Change Order to Improvement Project 00-35 141~t Avenue NW <br /> Street and Utility Construction <br /> <br />The Committee discussed the current and proposed conditions near 141st Avenue NW and Basalt <br />Street NW. Staff requested authorization for a change order to Improvement Project 00-35 to <br />extend 141st Avenue NW to the east to Basalt Street NW. This authorization would approve a <br /> an additional' 220 lineal feet of concrete curb, <br />change order in the amount of $6,000 for __ <br />additi°nal grading' and bitumin°us pavement'council Action: __/~ ) ~/~~ ~~J.-v, //d- '~ '~,/. /"ff'~ <br />Motion to ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee and direct Staff to <br />authorize Erickson Construction to install approximately 2,9.20 feet of concrete curb and gutter to <br />more clearly delineate the shift of traffic and to ,.w~ye the ¢vater connection charges associated <br />with Lot 1 of the St. Paul Terminals property. ~ <br /> <br />Case #3: <br /> <br />Consider Change Order NO. 1 for Improvement Project #99-51 Alpine Drive <br />Extension <br /> <br />Discussion was held regarding Improvement Project 99-51. A 64% discrepancy resulting in an <br />overage of $59,130 was discovered as a result of the method of payment for modular block wall. <br />This overage was in addition to the amount anticipated in the bidding quantities. <br /> <br />In addition, the current MnDot specification for modular block was changed since the time the <br />specifications were originally prepared. A higher strength block is now required since problems <br />were experienced with the lower strength block crumbling in a number Of installations. The <br />higher strength block was used in the installation. The contractor is asking for a $1.00 per square <br />\kRA_FS l\VOLl\users\City Shared File~Pablic Works Department\CommitteeskPublic Works Committee\Casesk2001\Council Update\cc <br />07.24.01 .doc <br /> <br />-123- <br /> <br /> <br />