02-24-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

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