3/7/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAR 7 1984 BOOK 5 FAGEi Public Works Director Davis informed the Board that the petition paving of both 10th Court and 11th Avenue required the application of some additional asphalt, and he would recommend an additional assessment of about 72G per front foot, or about $50 per typical lot. Mr. Davis explained that this was required for three reasons, i.e., because of wet conditions at the time we did the project, the asphalt did not bond properly to the base; the initial application of the asphalt was a bit light; and the base finishing was not perfect, which resulted in some irregularity. Staff's recommendation, therefore, is an additional assessment to fund only a portion of the cost of the additional asphalt, i.e., 37h%. Administrator Wright noted that even with the addi- tional assessment, the cost still is significantly under the preliminary estimate._ The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard regarding 10th Court. Mrs. Kosmala, 325 10th Court, came before the Board and noted that when you hire a contractor, you -have specifica- tions he is supposed to meet and then the County has inspectors to check the work. She stated that she received a bill for the paving which she paid the next day. Mrs. Kosmala did not feel any of the reasons given by Mr. Davis for the application of additional asphalt are her fault, and she does not intend to pay any additional bill. Administrator Wright informed those present that the cost of the additional asphalt was approximately twice what is being assessed - the contractor assumed half of the cost himself, and the Administrator believed the other half should be borne by the property owners. George Vuikovich, 326 10th Court, agreed that the cost may be under the estimate, but emphasized that he did not pay for estimating; he paid the bill he was sent. He noted 30