Minutes - Council - 03/25/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #12: Authorize Advertisements for Bids for Phase II of Improvement Project #99- 67 (Mississippi Subdrainage District No.1) Principal City Engineer Olson stated that in November 1999, 'the Mississippi Subdrainage District No. I was created to provide drainage improvements for the acre of land located between the railroad tracks and Highway #10, from Sunfish Lake Drive (C.R. #57) and the eastern City limits. Plans were subsequently prepared for a construction project, which would involve two phases. The first phase would install storm sewer eastward from and including the Zitzloff property. This portion of the district had existing drainage problems, and needed a storm sewer to facilitate the development of the Zitzloff property. The western portion of the district was to have the storm sewer installed at a later phase. Bids for both Phase I and II were received in September 2000. Phase I was constructed under a contract utilizing these bids during 2001 construction season. At this time, it is desired to proceed with Phase II of the construction. Because of the length of time, which has elapsed since bids were originally obtained in September 2000, staff is recommending that bids for Phase II of this project be solicited at this time to avoid any question of compliance with legal bidding requirements. He noted that staff would not release the advertisement for bids until after the land acquisition is completed. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Mayor Gamec, to adopt Resolution #03-03-079 soliciting bids for Phase II of Improvement Project #99-67 upon .the completion of the condemnation action. Further discussion: Councilmember Pearson inquired as to where the funds were coming from to pay for the project. Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the impacted residents are paying about $43,700 a year in a special taxing district in order to complete the project as well as contribution from the City for the outlet of Business Park 95. Councilmember Zimmerman inquired if there was going to be a problem with the original contract. Principal City Engineer Olson explained that the project was bid in two phases with the second phase occurring when condemnation action was completed. Last year the contractor asked for a 20 percent increase to complete phase II of the project. Staff felt that they were at a point where they should re-bid the project. The second phase of the project was not awarded, but would have been done so upon completion of the condemnation action. Councilmember Kurak stated that the City is currently considering placing a moratorium along Highway #10 to determine if the property should be officially mapped so how do they justify charging property owners for a project that would allow for future development and then take those rights away. Principal City Engineer Olson replied' that last year the City received a proposal to develop the property, which would have required the project to be completed. The Council at this time has not made an official decision to officially map the property or place a moratorium on the property.. Councilmember Kurak stated that if the City is going to look at eliminating the area, then why would they want to invest in infrastructure and charge it to the people they are looking to eliminate. Councilmember Elvig inquired if there was a way to do an evaluation of the property before and after the pipe is installed. City Attorney Goodrich explained that last fall the Council authorized him to restart the condemnation action and, as part of that process, they have had the property appraised, which includes a before and after evaluation. The condemnation action is for a 20-foot easement.from JR's Saloon to Sunfish Lake Boulevard. He noted that failure to go forward with the bid request is inconsistent with proceeding with the condemnation action. 'Mr. Goodrich noted that the Council could stop the condemnation action, but noted that they have been working on it for three years. Councilmember Elivg stated that Councilmember Kurak made a good point that property owners City Council/March 25, 2003 Page 14 of 16