Minutes - Public Works Committee - 08/21/2001

Home

City Engineer Olson recommended that the Committee authorize an expenditure of $6,000. Motion by Mayor Gamec, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to recommend the City Council authorize an expenditure of $6,000 and direct staff to work with the property owners on tree selection and location. Further discussion: Mayor Gamec suggested the possibility of placing some of the trees on the property owner's properties. City Engineer Jankowski inquired if the Council would be comfortable with. Mayor Gamec recommended having the citizen's sign something stating that they would be responsible for maintenance or upkeep. Councilmember Anderson stated that in this case she thinks it would be sensible. Mayor Gamec requested that any agreement the residents sign include the stipulation that they would have to receive permission from the City to remove the trees. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec and Councilmembers Kurak, Anderson, and Hendriksen. Voting No: None. Case #2: Update on Alpine Drive Proposal City Engineer Jankowski stated that at the July Public Works Committee meeting, staff reported that several issues associated with the construction of this project would require a change order increasing the project cost by over $100,000. Staff was directed to request a letter of explanation from the Engineering Consultants on the project, RLK, Inc. The City Attorney was also requested to comment on the legal aspects associated with these issues. There are three major issues: 1) an over run on the plan quantities of modular block associated with the retaining and turtle walls; 2) an increase in the unit price of the cost of the module block due to changed specifications, and 3) the addition of safety fencing at the top of the modular block wall. RLK's position is that the proposed change order costs for the items under estimated or overlooked in the bidding documents are within the prices that could reasonably be expected for these items and they are necessary for the completion of the project. In a phone conversation with Mr. Gary Brown of RLK, Inc., he stated that it was RLK's desire that the City should pay no more that it would have paid if the actual quantities had been the bid quantities. The purpose of the case is two fold. First, the City must resolve our issues with RLK over the overages and omissions in the original contract documents. Staff is still waiting the City Attorney's comments on the issue. A second and more time sensitive issue involves item No. 3 above, the placement of the fencing. The project is proceeding such that the road could be opened to traffic on or about Labor Day. However, safety concerns, particular in the first 400 feet east of Armstrong Boulevard where there is up to a ten foot grade difference between the top of the retaining wall and the grade below, would prevent opening this road section without some additional measures to ensure public safety. The City could open the road to traffic and place type three barricades with signs stating the trail is closed. The condition would be maintained until the permanent railing is in place. As an extra measure of safety, plastic orange construction fencing could be placed behind the curb, preventing the public from getting within ten feet of the retaining wall. Alternatively, the City can delay the road opening until the fencing is installed by maintaining the Class III Public Works Committee/August 21, 2001 Page 3 of 11