Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 28, 2011 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />  Page 5 of 13   <br />   <br />(4. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION UPDATE, Continued) <br /> <br />Kellogg indicated that it would and that the City would not need to do both. Kellogg noted the warranty <br />on the trees would still be in effect. <br /> <br />Printup asked whether the Council should discuss the maintenance agreement with the School District. <br /> <br />Mattick stated that the irrigation system would be one of the main items included in the maintenance <br />agreement if the City Council elects to go that route. <br /> <br />Printup indicated he would like to see a monetary cap on the maintenance of the landscaping. <br /> <br />Mattick stated the question is whether the maintenance agreement would include all items or exactly how <br />maintenance of the landscaping would be handled. Mattick indicated Staff was not sure how to handle <br />the irrigation portion. <br /> <br />Kellogg pointed out the School District does not have the equipment or the ability to water the <br />landscaping and that they would need to involve the Public Works Department for watering the <br />landscaping or the contractor doing the watering through an agreement. <br /> <br />Franchot noted when they spoke with the School District a couple of weeks ago, they had indicated they <br />would take over maintenance of the irrigation system. <br /> <br />McMillan asked what type of controls would be included on the irrigation system. <br /> <br />Kellogg indicated they would consist of rain sensors and soil sensors to trigger the system on and off. It <br />would not be an elaborate system but would be greener than most systems. <br /> <br />Kellogg indicated the median landscaping plan will be ready to bring to the March 14th Council meeting. <br /> <br />5. CHANGE ORDER #1 AND REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2, LIFT STATION 12 <br />IMPROVEMENTS <br /> <br />Printup noted the work on the lift station is to correct something the contractor had done incorrectly. <br />Printup asked why the City is being held responsible for work that was apparently done wrong by the <br />contractor. <br /> <br />Kellogg indicated this was a project that was done in conjunction with TH 12 and the City did not have <br />oversight of that project. The only plans the City had for reference were record plans, which typically <br />only show pipe locations and pipe elevations. The plans said the structure was to be abandoned to 4 feet <br />below grade and to fill the rest with sand or granular material. The contractor did not fill it with granular <br />materials. It is very likely the process of abandoning the manhole was not inspected or documented. <br /> <br />Printup asked if it had to do with compaction over time that would make it unsafe. <br /> <br />Kellogg stated the work is not unsafe but that they reused an existing structure. When the structure was <br />abandoned, the top 4 feet was to be removed and the rest was to be filled with granular material as <br />opposed to removing the entire structure which was approximately 20 feet deep. Kellogg indicated the <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/14/2011 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 02/28/2011 [Page 5 of 13]