Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 17, 2005 <br />not occur to him that these schedules were overly aggressive, especially <br />given the poor soil conditions of the area. The City Engineer stated that <br />he did feel the schedules were overly aggressive, but noted that the City <br />added caveats in our notices pointing out the impact that weather and other <br />factors could have on the schedules. <br />A property owner again requested a reduction in the assessment amount <br />given poor contractor performance. The City Engineer again explained <br />total project costs as will as assessment caps thaC are in place. He noted <br />that while property owners are being assessed for $154,626.43 of street <br />improvement costs, the actual cost is estimated at $500,000.00. The <br />Engineer noted that the general taxpayers of the City pay the <br />approximately $350,000.00 difference. <br />The City Administrator indicated that the City has not had to typically <br />impose liquidated damages on contractors. He noted that if liquidated <br />damages are imposed and collected, it would be the Council's decision <br />whether or not to abate or refund a portion of the proposed assessment. <br />He noted, however, that there will be legal costs involved in collecting <br />liquidated damages. <br />One property owner asked the completion date for the project. The City <br />Engineer indicated that substantial completion is required by September <br />15, 2005 under the contract. Liquidated damages can be charged up to <br />$500 for each day that substantial completion is not achieved. Substantial <br />completion includes all project work except for the spreading of black dirt <br />and hydro-seeding. That work is addressed under a separate contract. <br />LaValle asked if those present had a dollar amount in mind that they feel <br />would offset the fi•ustrations that property owners experienced during the <br />project. Those present did not. <br />One property owner asked how often the Mayor and Council Members <br />visited the project over the course of the summer. The Council responded <br />and the City Administrator noted it is staff's job to keep the Council <br />informed of project status and issues. Those present indicated that Che <br />City Administrator as well as the Project Supervisor were very responsive <br />to their calls. <br />One property owner felt that a reduction in The assessment amount would <br />be great public relations, noting that Che property owners puC up with a <br />project that took four months rather than one. <br />The City Administrator indicated that it is always a risk when a <br />construction schedule is put out for an improvement He indicated that the <br />initial one month project schedule put out by the contractor was <br />11 <br />