My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/13/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
7/13/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:54 PM
Creation date
6/8/2015 12:38:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/13/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JUL 13 19,91, <br />BOOK 89 F'nFI041 -7 <br />Director Pinto explained that the job is inspected every day <br />by staff and the consultant, but the contractor is unresponsive to <br />complaints. When the project is completed, we have the ability to <br />demand that the problems be corrected, or use the contractor's bond <br />money to make repairs. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt that problems such as the fill dirt <br />should be taken care of immediately, rather than waiting until <br />after the project is completed. <br />commissioner Adams agreed that problems should be discussed <br />with the contractor before the end of the project. She stressed <br />that contractors'need to know what is expected of them, and those <br />who do not perform to our expectations should not be given an <br />opportunity to bid on jobs in the future. She was disappointed <br />that the contractor did not send a representative to participate in <br />this meeting. <br />Director Pinto's understanding was that the primary purpose of <br />this meeting was to discuss the timing of the projects. Had he <br />known the residents were going to bring up problems about the <br />workmanship, he would have asked the contractor to attend this <br />meeting. <br />Lurinda Durfee, 505 35th Avenue, indicated that the main <br />reason the residents were here today was to communicate to the <br />Board that the residents do not f eel it is f air to be charged twice <br />for the same work. The County assessed the property owners a large <br />amount money for the paving and drainage project because there are <br />no homes on the opposite side of the street. The County knew that <br />a utilities project was planned for that street. She contended <br />that the residents requested the County to delay the paving and <br />drainage project until after the utility lines were in place, but <br />the request was denied. Now the County plans to charge the <br />residents for the cost of repairing the driveway aprons and for <br />replacing the soil and sod. Some of the people in the neighborhood <br />work two and three jobs to support their families, and this is <br />placing a tremendous burden on them. She wanted the Board's <br />assurance that the cost of replacing the driveway aprons and sod <br />would be deducted from the assessment. <br />Director Pinto explained that the residents would have had to <br />petition for utilities at the same time as they petitioned for <br />paving in order for the projects to have been done at the same <br />time. However, it creates a greater burden on property owners if <br />they are assessed for all the improvements at the same time. <br />21 <br />M . M M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.