6.2. SR 01-13-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was assessed for a water service but did not actually get a water service replaced. Since Bryan anticipates that most of the services will be non-copper, the general consensus was that it would be better to lump the assessment of the water services in with the street and do a rebate after. Terry indicated to Bryan that there will be a cost associated with the actual assessment of the water services. Terry suggested to Bryan that the services be assessed on a unit cost, rather than trying to determine the actual cost of each service to each individual property. Bryan is going to consider this and discuss it with his Utilities Commission next week and will provide information back to Terry, Pat, and Lori after his Utility Commission meeting. There was a discussion relative to how to determine final costs for the water improvements. Terry went through a discussion with Bryan on identifiable water units, which would be bid in the project, such as temporary water service, water service replacement, water service connection, sodding when outside of the sidewalk area is disturbed due to service installation, and rerouting if necessary of any sanitary sewer services, depending on how their contractor pursues his work. We discussed the sanitary sewer replacement, and Terry indicated they will only be paid if they were in direct conflict with the watermainmif they were removed for the contractor's convenience, he would be liable to pay for the reinstallation to them. Terry talked about the overhead costs for engineering being substantially higher than on typical projects that the City and ERMU have done jointly. The reason for it is the amount of time that will be necessary to spend on service relocations and replacements, together with dealing with homeowners relative to water service. Terry had suggested a percentage of construction costs larger than used in the past to compensate for the increased engineering cost. Bryan suggested that the percentage of engineering be set to cover the plan and specification preparation, bidding and construction administration issues, and that staking and construction inspection be billed directly to Bryan at ERMU and that he would pay those bills himself. That proposal was acceptable to everybody. Terry will suggest a percentage for feasibility plan and specification preparation, construction administration, and 429 process to be used for the ERMU portion of the project. Terry also indicated that there should be some percentage of construction costs that ERMU should pay for the incidentals that a contractor puts into his bid, such as bonding costs, mobilization costs, traffic control costs, etc. It was agreed that Terry would do some further investigations and suggest a percentage to be used for this that could be reviewed and agreed upon. Terry suggested that all of the information be assembled relative to what the utilities want to do, how they want to treat the services, what will be paid for during the construction, and that this information be included in the final feasibility study. Terry then suggested that the City Council could approve the feasibility along with the Utilities Commission, so that there would be no confusion when talking to residents about what the Utilities Commission position on the service replacements and/or assessments of them was or on what the City and ERMU has agreed to relative to reimbursement for construction and overhead costs. O:~PROJ\818980J\0030~Vlin utes-120502.doc