03-25-2024 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Schifsky is still in business, Schifsky is still the contractor of record, Schifsky still has retainage and a bond, Schifsky will remain as the General Contractor on the job. Whom they contract as subcontractor to do the work, is their contractual right. Staff will be investigating the “crumbling tar” and following up as appropriate. “And then, no response on if they took care of that sewer issue, why did they go back to the original contractor that did the damage, we don’t get any answers, and are we going to pay for that when we have to line it, why aren’t they going to take it out and do it correctly the first/ah second time correctly, why do we have to wait, why was it not done correctly when they found it, we have no answers.” On February 13, 2024, the morning after the council meeting, I emailed you the following: The city is very aware of this and has had it repaired twice, by contractors who are qualified and have done this work before. They are chosen thru the bidding process established in state statute. No one is quite sure what is happening but were working at depths in excess of 25’ and once we backfill there is limited diagnostic ability – other than putting the camera thru. We will be trying the vibration technique first given the alternative of digging again. Nothing has changed since the February 13, 2024. We are working to schedule the contractor that does the vibration technique this spring once the frost comes out and the soils stabilize. “And then Don brought up, it was saying, it was not, nothing was coming out of our project on this project, well, $17,000 worth of wrong wire was put in, and guess what, it came out of our taxpayer money, $17,000 that was not supposed to, no answers, why who, and then say there’s a loophole in the contract, did our attorney sign that, where there was a loophole that did not make them responsible, I don’t know, I’m still going to do some investigating.” We discussed this when you stopped in a week or so ago and I explained/shared with you the following. The $17,000 is related to lighting on the trail which is a separate bid but was done in conjunction with the street project (the trail was the project with lighting added) The wrong wire was ordered as the poles are manufactured for LED and the channel is smaller as the LED use less energy. The attorney did review the contract. These contracts have errors and omission clauses to cover unintentional “mistakes.” This was a mistake. There are no loopholes in the contract that we are aware of. The city could pursue litigation to recover, the city has pursued litigation on other contract breaches, the city made a conscious decision not to litigate knowing from experience legal costs would have likely exceeded recovery costs. In closing; Your allegation “we don’t get no/any answers” is a bit disappointing given the follow up the morning after council meeting on the 12th, and the meeting/discussion we have had in the past two weeks. You are certainly welcome to stop in and visit regarding your concerns, email me, or call me if you have questions. City Administrator Nyle Zikmund