3/7/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that it was stated that the person who put the surface on was inexperienced, and he did not feel he should have to pay twice just because someone did not know what he was doing. Mr. Vuikovich continued that they did not get a street the first time; the paving tore up in a week and had to be done over. He felt if, the County had this work inspected as they should have, it would not have to be done over, and he started that he does not intend to pay a second bill. Commissioner Wodtke explained that the problem is that the property owners actually have not paid for all the asphalt they received. They are only being asked to pay for a small portion of what was put on the road, which was well within the original estimate. He further pointed out that it would be much more expensive to have to come in at a later time and redo the road than to make it right now. Public Works Director Davis tried to clarify the situation by relating it to buying hamburger, i.e., you ask for 2 lbs. of hamburger at the store, and then when you get home, you find they have inadvertently given you one pound, but you only paid for one pound. In other words, even though they got shorted on the first application, they paid for the material by the weight. Mr. Davis further noted that the contractor worked when the base was wet because of the pressure from some of the people to get the road done. Staff feels this situation resulted from a compilation of circumstances, and they do not feel it was one operator's error or all the contractor's error Administrator Wright'stressed that the second applica- tion of asphalt brought the paving up to greater than called for in the specifications, and the contractor assumed half of the additional cost. The residents, therefore, ended up with a better road, and the Administrator felt they really got a good deal for the price. 31 BOOK 56 PAu IM