2l. Change Order No. 5 to Upper Bluff Creek Phase IIB Trunk UtilitiesCITY OF a L
CHANHASSEN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937- 5739ACtim b M, Adnftwa
Endam
W NW.
Don Ashworth ,City Manager De =
M sgmmm t Commissio
Charles Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer - 58i synmi k to caadt
July 6, 1994 7_ /L q�
Approve Change Order No. 5 to the Upper Bluff Creek, Phase I Trunk Utility
Improvement Project No. 91 -17A
The following change order represents a $6,
amount for the Upper Bluff Creek, Phase I
deduction is the result of a negotiated settl
associated with inspecting and televising the s
Order No. 2. Approval of this change I"
$2,537,155.75.
It is therefore recommended that City
$6,000.00 deduction to the overall c<
Improvement Project No. 91 -17A.
jms
Attachment:
0.00 deduction to the overall current contract
Funk Utility Improvement No. 91 -17A. The
ent for any future costs the City may incur
tary wer line installed under contract Change
er will yield a revised contract amount of
it approve Change Order No. 5 in the amount of a
for the Upper Bluff Creek, Phase I Trunk Utility
c: Jerry Boif6her; Utility Superintendent
Phil Gravel, Bonestroo - &; Associates
Dave Zelinski, Bonestroo & Assoeiat�
gAengkharleskckhange5
MEMORANDUM
9onestroo Owner City of Chanhassen, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Date June 30, 1994
as Rosene
�a Contractor Progressive Contractors, Inc., 8736 Zachary Lane, Osseo, MN 55369 Change Order No. 5
Assocla
' @ ~w°`° I Bond Co. 7284386 Cobb- Strecker - Dunphy, John Martinsen, 150 S 5th St, #2000, Mpls., MN 55402
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
Upper Bluff Creek District - Phase 1
Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Improvements
Project No. 91 -17
File No. 39305
Description of Work
This change order is a deduct of $6,000.00for the continued inspection and potential maintenance of the sanitary sewer installed
under change order No. 2.
Upon completion of the sanitary sewer installation the line was televised and a few minute leaks were identified. These areas were
then repaired from both the inside of the pipe as well as the outside.
Two subsequent television inspections of the line indicated that the leaks were repaired and the pipe was in good condition.
However, the contractor and pipe supplier have agreed to the deduct included in this change order to compensate the City for
future television and inspection costs.
Contract Unit Total
No. Item Unit Quantity Price Amount
Change Order No. 5
1 Deduct for continued inspection of sanitary sewer LS 1 6,000.00 (6,000.00)
Total Change Order No. 5 ($6,000.00)
Original Contract Amount $ 2,352,258.00
Previous Change Orders 190,897.75
This Change Order No. 5 - DEDUCT (6,000.00)
Revised Contract Amount (including this Change Order) $ 2,537,155.75
39305.CHA CO-1
Recommended for Approval by:
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
t f . �
Approved by Contractor:
PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS INC.
Distribution
1 - Owner
1 - Contractor
1 - Engineer
1 - Bond Co.
1
Approved by Owner:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN '
oe
Dot
L
0
J
I
393 05.CHA CO-2 1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Conrad: I don't know, that's fine.
Ledvina: It's the record.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Kate Aanenson gave the Planning Commission an update of the previous City Council
meeting.
Mancino: How come there's a first and second reading? Is it you just divided it?
Aanenson: They always do it that way. The first reading is a public hearing. Not public
hearing, public notice or new business ... and then we publish a summary in the paper of the
ordinance and that's officially adopted...
Mancino: Are there any changes? Significant changes that they?
Aanenson: No. They recommended approval as it was. There wasn't... basically the parking
in front of the buildings. Also the designating of pitched roofs. The Council asked why.
Mancino: And I think we decided to strike that out.
Aanenson: Well we said we should leave it out so we relooked at the parapet wall. You
know we're looking at different interpretations of how to get... We were looking at different
interpretations of the ... The other was the approval of the preliminary plat, conditional use and
the site plan for the Kindercare. It does have to go back one more time for the final plat.
That would basically be for the subdivision though and that we scheduled for the 11th.
Mancino: And were there changes on the roofline for Kindercare and all that kind of?
Aanenson: They met the list of conditions...
Conrad: Anything new in their traffic flow?
Aanenson: No. No, no. They looked at quite a few different things there but.
Farmakes: One thing I think that hopefully the City Council will look at will be the, I think
that it's unethical to have a representative presentation to the commission and then not
remove themselves from the Council. I think precedent was set.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Aanenson: Well he indicated to the City Attorney that he had no financial...
Farmakes: It's still not relevant. If you're proposing and coming forward with a proposal to
a commission or council, it seems to me that.
Mancino: When you're in that facilitation position.
Farmakes: When you're in that proposing it, you're proposing it. If you're going to vote on
it later, it seems to be a conflict of interest.
Conrad: Oh absolutely.
Mancino: And it doesn't have to be an immediate reward. I mean it can be one of those
long term things that everyone knows about in business so why don't they talk about it
openly.
Farmakes: And I got the feeling that there was, that that affected the way that that was being
thought about from not removing, on how that was going through. Now maybe that's just my
interpretation but irregardless, looking at that from the outside and just removing the names
and looking at it from what happened, it seems to me if there's a conflict of interest there that
needs to be dealt with ... that nobody seems to want to deal with them. Which I think is
unfortunate. I understand.
Aanenson: It's really a Council issue.
Farmakes: I understand.
Aanenson: It was a very uncomfortable issue the whole way through. I don't think we need
to talk about that.
Farmakes: Moving on.
Aanenson: We resolved that. When a project like that comes in again, it's going to go a
public consultant. That would solve a lot of problems...
Mancino: But even still, it should be more dealt with more openly about does that person,
whether they're facilitating getting financial...
Aanenson: Yeah, that needs to go back and be discussed at the Council although I
understand your concerns.
51
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 6, 1994
Mancino: And also, when that same person asks for the City Council to go outside of city
' code.
Aanenson: Anybody can request that though.
' Mancino: Oh really?
' Aanenson: Certainly. Anybody can request to get in to Council at any time. The Council
can then decide whether they want to hear it. If you want to ask to be on the agenda, you
certainly can. Whether they choose to take action on you, that's something separate so.
' Farmakes: I think that there was one other P recedent that was set on that thing and it wasn't
addressed in the newspaper. That we were using the applicant's self imposed safety
restriction as a reason for not moving any of the pad. In other words, we were using their
criteria for not moving the pad and staying a certain amount of feet from the power line when
we ourselves, as a government body, had no restriction of that usage. So just as a
philosophical matter, it seems to me that that looks to me like we're surking our
responsibilities and then allowing an applicant to determine what the safety factor is.
' Aanenson: Okay, on number 4, we talked about Mission Hills. They tabled that and
recommended that it go to the Park and Rec Commission... meets the intent of what we feel,
' as a PUD, we look at the criteria, they need to provide open space to balance that...I think it's
going to be a better project. So it's going back for preliminary plat and I think the Council
did the right thing by tabling it and sending it to the Park Commission...
Ledvina: Yeah, there were some good comments at our level here, Planning Commission.
' Aanenson: That's what I was saying. You guys made good comments and I think they felt,
and Todd picked up on that and Todd ... took a lot of hits to say, we need to have a bigger
park ... but it is a PUD so I think your comments of forwarding up to Todd and Todd picking
up on those and you got a better quality project. As I indicated next week, it will be mostly
comprehensive plan issues.
Ledvina: Next or 2 weeks?
Aanenson: In 2 weeks. Next meeting.
Conrad: We have Vision 2002 tomorrow night?
' Aanenson: Yes.
1 52