10-17-05 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 17, 2005 completed as it is completed, subject to a 5% retainage. The retainage is held Co ensure that Che contractor comes back and completes the small portions of the job that might be outstanding at the end of the project. Dr. Skibsted, 819 Carla Lane, asked why the property owners are being assessed at this Cime. The City Administrator noted that the City could delay the assessment until the project is fully completed in the spring when the final lift of bituminous is put on. However, there would be the cost of carrying these assessment amounts which would have to be added into project costs. He also noted that given fluctuating interest rates, to delay Che assessment until next year may result in a higher interest rate. A resident asked the timeline for completion of the restoration work. It was noted that Chere were a number of days that work was not performed on the street when there was no apparent reason for it. The property owner was concerned about paying for work that was yet to be completed. The City Engineer stated that the plan is to complete the rain water gardens and restoration work yet Chis fall. Boulevard seeding will be dormant seeding. Any seeding or rain water garden plantings Chat do noC make it over the winter, will be redone in the spring. Skibsted stated Chat he did noC like being assessed for a job that is not complete. A property owner pointed out that fact that the project is not complete and there has been great inconveniences to the neighborhood as a result of the length of time work is taking Co complete this project. This property owner indicated that some of the Carla Lane property owners are discussing annexing the neighborhood to Maplewood. This property owner indicated that if he hires a contactor and work is done in an untimely or unsatisfactory manner, he requests a reduction in the bill.. The property owner asked for a reduction in the assessment given the contractor's poor performance. One property owner noted that there were 45 to 50 days over the summer that no work was done on the project. She felt that there has been very little concern for the property owners' satisfaction. The City Administrator again noted thaC part of the reason for the delay was not the fault of the contractor, but Xcel's delays in addressing the power lines. He noted that other reasons for delays was the weather and the poor management of sub-contractors. A property owner expressed concern with the construction schedules that were distributed to property owners, and asked the City Engineer if it did 10