Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
materials purchased by the ton. He stated that anyone should <br />know that when South Eugene High School was built, it was disco- <br />vered that the ground was soft, He said he is not satisfied that <br />they didn't know that in advance, He stated that the contractor <br />buried l2 yards of asphalt in a hole and could have used aggre- <br />gate, Mr, Lyle responded that soil conditions vary throughout <br />the City and it was late in the season. The preferred alter- <br />native is to allow the soil to dry-out and then compact it. He <br />said the City negotiated a change order with the contractor at a <br />given price. He felt that figure was within line, It was up the <br />contractor to use any of several possible methods to stabalize <br />the area, so long as he knew he was only going to get paid the <br />amount negotiated, Mr. Lyle later advised the Hearings Officer <br />that most of the base stabilization was done with aggregate, A <br />load of asphalt was also used at the contractor's expense. <br />Mr. Stints also questioned that the church got some additional <br />material placed on its property which doesn't show up on the <br />assessment. At a later point in the hearing Mr. Lyle pointed out <br />that the church may have had a separate arrangement with the <br />contractor and been billed separately. <br />Mr. Stints also said that the amount of assessment should be the <br />same for each property which has the same width. Mr. Lyle stated <br />that he believed that was in fact the case. <br />Pat Langon of the City staff pointed out on the spread sheet <br />which several people were using that the asphalt driveway amount <br />was $135. <br />Mr. Lyle stated that the assessment was based on deed infor- <br />mation. He said notices were mailed based on Lane County <br />Records, He pointed out that Mr. Stints has gotten some of the <br />mail, including the notification that told him about this <br />hearing. Mr, Stultz stated he would not have agreed to $7o per <br />front foot and didn't get any letter telling him that this was <br />going to be the amount. <br />It eventually became clear that the assessment information pro- <br />vided after the project was completed was the first time the pro- <br />perty owners became aware that the cost of the project had turned <br />out to be in excess of $69 per front foot, rather than the $40 <br />per front foot estimate provided in the initial correspondence. <br />The City Code does not require that a figure be specified in the <br />letter which notified property owners of the project award <br />hearing. <br />Toward the end of the hearing Mr. Langon said there were three <br />circumstances which resulted in over-runs. The first was the <br />soft soil underneath the Cul-De~-Sac area, the second was a sani- <br />tary sewer which didn't have enough depth, and the third was an <br />existing storm drain which also was not deep enough. None of <br />these matters were the fault of the contractor and it was <br />-~~. <br /> <br />t <br />