Laserfiche WebLink
Cich. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Peterson. <br />Case #7: Report On Streets In Rolling Green <br /> Avenue N.W.: <br /> <br />Addition And 156th <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka referred to his memo to City Council dated April 10, 1990. Mr. Raatikka <br />stated that he and Public Works Superintendent Mevissen reviewed the streets in Rolling <br />Green Addition and found minor damage at the intersection of 165th and Coquina. The <br />Public Works Department will be repairing the damage prior to sealcoating. There are also <br />several pieces of broken pavement where Coquina enters the plat of Oak Run and the <br />developer of Oak Run is responsible to repair this damage. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka stated that he also met with resident, Leonard Lewis, regarding the restoration <br />performed in conjunction with the 156th Avenue improvement project. There were some <br />minor repairs necessaD' that will be accomplished by the contractor next month. With <br />regard to the relocating of Mr. Lewis' fence, Mr. Raat' 'flrka stated that Mr. Lewis must have <br />misunderstood and it was explained to him that it has never been the City's policy to accept <br />responsibility for removing and reinstalling structures located within the road right-of-way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cich stated that in the interest of saving money, the Public Works <br />Superintendent versus the City Engineer should be performing inspections and following <br />up on complaints regarding sn-eet improvement projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka noted that in bid projects, inspections by the City Engineer are included in the <br />project cost that is assessed to the developer; Oak Run was not a bid project. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann noted that there are situations where Mr. Raatikka's engineering expertise <br />is necessary. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cich reiterated that street projects should be administered in the most cost <br />efficient manner by utilizing the Public Works Superintendent versus City Engineer <br />whenever possible. <br /> <br />Council then discussed the fact that even though it is discussed at the public hearing, there <br />always seems to be confusion as to what is included in the restoration part of an <br />improvement project. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that in the future, improvement project public hearing notices should <br />detail what the project includes, especially restoration, and what the responsibilities of the <br />City, resident and contractor are relating to the project. <br /> <br />Case #8: Adopt Resolution Authorizing Purchase Of Irrigation Sprayer: <br /> <br />Council proceeded to review the bids for the irrigation sprayer and Mr. Raatikka reported <br />that there are no used irrigation sprayers available for purchase. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cich and seconded by Councilmember DeLuca to adopt <br />Resolution #90-04-101 receiving bids and awarding same to Heinen and Mason in the <br />amount of $4,175 for the purchase of a portable irrigation sprayer for City Properties and <br />up to $500 be allocated for additional hose and couplers. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers DeLuca, Pearson and <br />C/ch. Voting No: None. Absent: CouncilmemberPeterson. <br /> <br />City Council/April 10, 1990 <br /> Page 9 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />