Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Elvig reviewed the costs and cost sharing of the project. He noted the City is trying <br />to find a way to make tiffs project affordable, as they would like the project completed, but there <br />is concern about setting a precedent. He suggested overhead costs that are charged be limited to <br />hard costs, which would be approximately $11,000 at this point. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson advised the City assesses many projects every year, and has always <br />assessed overhead costs by a straight percentage. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig noted legal advice should be obtained regarding consideration on the soft <br />costs. He commented to set a precedent an only save the residents $54 per year is too big of a <br />risk. He inquired if there was any discussion regarding an extension of the amortization <br />schedule. <br /> <br />City Engineer $ankowski replied fi.om past practice sewer and water projects have been assessed <br />over 10 years. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig directed staff to discuss any legal issues with the City Attorney regarding a <br />savings for the residents on the soft costs and extending the amortization schedule on this <br />project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson stated his biggest concern would be setting a precedent. He noted the <br />project cost is large, but it will not get cheaper. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig noted a precedent was set to some degree when the policy was changed two <br />years ago to a 50/50 cost contribution. The possibility of a precedent would concern him if they <br />were to increase the City participation. He questioned if the current bid is solid. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski indicated there is not currently a bid, as it was determined not to accept <br />the bids. This project will need to be re-bid. He indicated the recommendation of the <br />Committee will be included on the agenda of the next Council meeting. The feasibility study <br />will be revised in accordance with the direction and distributed to the residents. The residents <br />will then have until June 9th to petition against the project. If the majority of the residents <br />petition against the project it will not proceed; if a petition is not submitted the project will be <br />brought forward to the Council on June 11th with a request for authorization to go out for bids <br />again. Bids would be awarded following July 4th. <br /> <br />John Ritcey, 7521 164th Lane N-W, stated as it stands now there is a petition against the project <br />that has been signed by all but two people on the street that will be submitted if the cost is not <br />reduced. The big issue is the huge increase in the cost. The residents are looking for bottom line <br />figures, and this really comes down to the numbers at the end. <br /> <br />Chairperson Elvig inquired if there is anything due to the layout that has increased the cost of the <br />project. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / May 16, 2006 <br /> Page 4 of 16 <br /> <br /> <br />