1986-07-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I 1 Council Meeting Minutes July 8, 1986 Council Business, continued Proper stated the Seminary has requested that we not assess certain lots which we normally would (that the Seminary is retaining) and that is the concern for assessment appeals. LeFevere stated, regarding supplemental assessment, we would take care of that by an amendment to this agreement; special assess- ments would not be limited to the 45 lots, but would be levied by the city according to its normal assessment policy. Schmidt stated the courts have been making it even more compli- cated it terms of being able to prove that benefit because some assessments are being drawn out. City should facilitate a project and do everything to be flexible, but it has to balance flexibility against any risk that could be passed along to the city. In terms of projects, bids, and change orders, recalled it is very seldom that we have a project over what we have estimated the bids to be; Proper stated it has happened, but the cost gen- erally comes in a little lower because of contingencies, which is one of the options we would consider. LeFevere stated a practical problem is a time problem for the Seminary. Mary McMillin, Chairman of the Board of Trustees and acting on behalf of Dr. Mills in his absence from the Seminary, and the vice president for the developer, Charles Green, were in atten- dance. Benke stated a contingency is contrary to what we have done be- fore; Brandt stated one would outweigh or balance out the other; a higher than usual contingency would justify deviating from our procedure because we are intentionally building in those excesses to protect ourselves. Schmidt stated he would have no problem with agreeing in principal to refunding excessive costs, providing the city is able to account for its costs. LeFevere stated the language would need to be fine-tuned because it is workable; would propose the administrative costs be taken as an assumed number; however, we would agree upon a number that Proper had already determined to be hard-construction costs. Benke asked if any extraordinary bidding situation or on-site problems were anticipated that we might run into; Proper did not believe so, except maintaining service to existing homes, but those have already been included. Brandt asked, in connection with the escrow agreement and the proposal to include a provision assigning to the Seminary any rights against the contractor for faulty workmanship, if there would be a cap on the assignment; LeFevere responded there would be. Page Eleven