Agenda - Council - 05/23/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Engineer Jard<owski replied it would drop the cost slighdy. Mayor Gamec noted somethit~g like a $500 drop in the price would not mean too much. Pie suggested this project and what the City can do with the cost be discussed further by the Cotmcil. I% stated all of these gravel road pro}eels will need to be treated equal. Councilmembcr Jeffrey requested information regarding why the overhead costs have doubled. City Engineer Jankow~ki replied the overhead relates to areas such as costs for engineerlog, k'~spection, fineaming and contingencies. Twenty-five percent is used as a percentage, so when the construntion estimate was raised from $142,000 to $200,000, the 25% in verhead increased as well. The overhead costs could be changed to only charge the exact cost of the overhead. Couneilmembar Jeffrey inquired if25% is standard in the calculation of overhead costs. City Engineer ~rm~kowski responded in the aff~rnativ¢. Councilnmmber Cook noted there have been roads coming before the Public Works Comwnittee that were put in improperly and need to be reconstructed. The mason some of &e costs tbr this project have gone up is doe to the engineering checks and determining that more is needed for the road to stand than mfginally estimated. They need to be certain that these roads are engineered correctly for them to last. Mayor Gamec asked if this process will begin ali over again if it is re-bid. City Engim:er Jankowski replied the same plan would be re-bid. At this point, to re-initiate the process, this public hearing is ~equired to inform the resideuts of the costs. The costs can come M lower than this estimate, and staff wants to be certain things are well covered this time. A£ter the close of tbe public hearing the citizens would have an opportunity to petition for or against the project, if the project is not petitioned agai~xst within 60 days, the CnunciI could reorder the project; the project could then be advertised and ordered by July 1 I, which would enable the project to be completed this y.ear. Conncilmember Elvfg expressed confusion as to why the same specifications would be re-bid. because it would not seem to reduce expenses irt the project. City Engineer Jankowski replied the only place staff could look at reducing expenses would be the tyv', o£ bituminotts. A premium oil was included in the bituminous in the last b/d, and 55,000 could possibly be reduced fi'om that cost. Coanc/hnember Elvig noted the Public Wo~ks Con~mittee has discussed a concept of bow the City would charge for the reconstruction of inadequate roads. The assessments would be a percentage, but not to exceed a certain cost on the roads. He suggested they may be splitting hairs if the cost per foot of this project comes up near the cost of rebuilding a road. City Coudeil / March 28, 2006 Page 11 of 3I -301-