10-24-95 Council Special Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 1995 constructed will drain the roadway to the level of current day design standards. Since the wear course of the street is not on, the manholes at higher elevations do not have the trapping ability they will have once the final lift is in place. In the meantime, the lower elevation manholes and catch basins are draining the street. There are some modifications that will be made next week which will improve this situation. The City Engineer reported that there are two ways to handle the blacktopping of a street. The first would be to allow the base to dry out before it is blacktopped, and then put down both lifts of blacktop. The second would be to blacktop the first lift, fix any problem areas which show up, and then put on the final list in the spring. The Engineer reported that when the contractor got into the soil conditions, there were some area which were had to stabilize. The contracter's decision was made to cap these soils, and get the streets open to traffic minimizing inconvenience to property owners. The Engineer reported that there are completion dates in the contract that the City has with Valley Paving. There is a provision for liquidated damages for failure to meet those completion dates. The Engineer also reported that this contractor has been paid for work completed, however, there is still $297,000 owed to Valley Paving. The City is holding those funds as leverage to get the project completed in a satisfactory manner. Once work is completed, the City would hold 5% retainage, or approximately $39,000, until the project has been accepted by the City. A punch list has been compiled of work that needs to be completed. If property owners have any concerns or items which should be added to this list, they should meet with representatives of the City Engineer's firm in the conference room following this assessment hearing. The Engineer reported that the final cost of the project is very much in line with pre-bid estimates. The City did bid the project a year earlier, however, those bids were rejected as being unfavorable. The project was then rebid early this year, and a$32,000 to $37,000 cost savings was realized. The City Administrator began his review of the assessment calculations by reporting that the City Council spent a significant amount of time drafting its assessment policy. In drafting the policy it looked at what other cities do, talked to appraisers, tried to balance the interests of every taxpayer and property 3