Ordinance No. 19538 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

materials purchased by the ton. He stated that anyone should know that when South Eugene High School was built, it was disco- vered that the ground was soft, He said he is not satisfied that they didn't know that in advance, He stated that the contractor buried l2 yards of asphalt in a hole and could have used aggre- gate, Mr, Lyle responded that soil conditions vary throughout the City and it was late in the season. The preferred alter- native is to allow the soil to dry-out and then compact it. He said the City negotiated a change order with the contractor at a given price. He felt that figure was within line, It was up the contractor to use any of several possible methods to stabalize the area, so long as he knew he was only going to get paid the amount negotiated, Mr. Lyle later advised the Hearings Officer that most of the base stabilization was done with aggregate, A load of asphalt was also used at the contractor's expense. Mr. Stints also questioned that the church got some additional material placed on its property which doesn't show up on the assessment. At a later point in the hearing Mr. Lyle pointed out that the church may have had a separate arrangement with the contractor and been billed separately. Mr. Stints also said that the amount of assessment should be the same for each property which has the same width. Mr. Lyle stated that he believed that was in fact the case. Pat Langon of the City staff pointed out on the spread sheet which several people were using that the asphalt driveway amount was $135. Mr. Lyle stated that the assessment was based on deed infor- mation. He said notices were mailed based on Lane County Records, He pointed out that Mr. Stints has gotten some of the mail, including the notification that told him about this hearing. Mr, Stultz stated he would not have agreed to $7o per front foot and didn't get any letter telling him that this was going to be the amount. It eventually became clear that the assessment information pro- vided after the project was completed was the first time the pro- perty owners became aware that the cost of the project had turned out to be in excess of $69 per front foot, rather than the $40 per front foot estimate provided in the initial correspondence. The City Code does not require that a figure be specified in the letter which notified property owners of the project award hearing. Toward the end of the hearing Mr. Langon said there were three circumstances which resulted in over-runs. The first was the soft soil underneath the Cul-De~-Sac area, the second was a sani- tary sewer which didn't have enough depth, and the third was an existing storm drain which also was not deep enough. None of these matters were the fault of the contractor and it was -~~. t