03/23/1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 23, 1998 Council Member Bergeson asked about the type of infiltration, to which Mr. Ahrens responded ground water is entering the sewer system. He added that the cracks in the pipeline allowing this infiltration also represent structural deficiencies, which should be repaired. Council Member Lyden moved to adopt Resolution No. 98 - 41, as presented. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Resolution No. 98 - 41 can be found at the end of these minutes. Consideration of Resolution No. 98 - 42, Approve Change Orders 1, 2 and 3 and Payment No. 7 (final), Centennial Middle School Street and Utility Project - Mr. Ahrens explained that the contractor for this project is requesting final payment in the amount of $199,834.60, including change orders 1, 2, and 3. The final contract amount is summarized as follows: Contract amount Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 $ 819,516.63 30,237.38 42,321.92 133,965.79 Final Contract Amount $1,026,041.72 Change Order No. 1 includes items not contained within the original contract, such as signing and striping changes pursuant to Anoka County comments, construction of a culvert for the trail, removal and replacement of a driveway resulting from trail work, and installation of a plastic wrap around each storm sewer and sanitary sewer manhole to prevent groundwater infiltration. These additional costs were included in the final. assessed project costs when the City levied the special assessments to the school district and other benefiting property owners. Change Order No. 2 represents the cost of a 4 -lot subdivision completed by the contractor along Second Avenue related to Lang Pine Valley Estates, which cost is the responsibility of the developer. Change Order No. 3 includes work to provide sanitary sewer and watermain to service to GNW, Inc., a new business on Cedar Street. This cost will also be borne by affected property owners. Council Member Neal expressed concern regarding the large amount of Change Order No. 1. Mr. Ahrens explained that typically Anoka County's comments are received prior to bidding; however, in this case, the signal system was separate from the road work. The best way to accommodate the later signaling work was through the current contract rather than the bidding process. Council Member Bergeson commented that perhaps the City should develop a policy for limiting the amount of change orders beyond the legal limit of 25%. 10