Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />ADOPTED <br />129 4. West Shadow Lake Drive Project Change Order No. 2 — Jim Stremel, WSB & <br />130 Associates, reviewed the written report. He provided a brief project update and then <br />131 reviewed the requested change order. <br />132 <br />133 The council discussed with staff now the changes in the schedule have impacted the <br />134 project. City Engineer Hankee shared photographs taken during the project, showing <br />135 challenges as well as specific elements of the project. <br />136 <br />137 Community Development Director Grochala remarked that he has worked to get the cost <br />138 change down and that resulted in reduction. He added that this project was one of the <br />139 most challenging the City has faced. <br />140 <br />141 Council Member Lyden remarked that the overall budget cost is below budget. Staff <br />142 explained that the savings are mainly related to savings in quantities. <br />143 <br />144 Council Member Stoesz asked if the council were to decline the change order, would the <br />145 contractor still be required to finish the project. Mr. Stremel said there are performance <br />146 and payment metrics that that require completion of the project. <br />147 <br />148 The nature of the work remaining was briefly reviewed by Mr. Stremel. They will be <br />149 working to keep the remainder of the costs low but they will also make sure questions are <br />150 answered and concerns addressed. <br />151 5. Well No. 7 (509 Birch) Review Update —Community Development Director <br />152 Grochala reviewed his written update on the project. There are some increase in costs <br />153 predicted. The results of a structural review show nothing profound. He is at the point <br />154 now that, for what it will cost, it isn't a good investment at $150,000 to $200,000 in <br />155 added cost. <br />156 <br />157 Mayor Rafferty remarked that he has concerns about any extra cost. <br />158 <br />159 Council Member Lyden said personally enjoys restorations but he is concerned about a <br />160 restoration cost like this. He wonders if perhaps some bricks from the historic structure <br />161 could be reused in an honorable and appropriate fashion to recognize history. <br />162 <br />163 Council Member Stoesz asked how long the building will be available, when does the <br />164 well need to be in place and how does the manganese situation play in? <br />165 <br />166 Mr. Grochala said the county is probably looking at their cost and associated liability of <br />167 holding the building and would probably like to see the property gone if the City isn't <br />168 interested. The location of a well on the property is still feasible because it's a good <br />169 location near main system and the test well shows good quality of water. He added that <br />170 looking ahead, if treatment is in the future, then treatment at wells will no longer be done <br />171 and that raises questions. <br />172 <br />