It’s been a long few years for Rushford Village when it comes to road maintenance and needs. The city has begun to wrap up work on an $878,000 bid street improvement project, centered largely on needs in the South Rushford area. The project has been something of a frustration for the city, with communication and timeline issues with the contractor, McHugh Excavating of Onalaska, Wis. At a swift Tuesday, December 20 meeting, the council heard from Bolton & Menk Project Engineer Josh Pope regarding action taken against the contractor.
At the December 6 meeting, the council debated the best path forward in securing completion of the project. The council gave Pope the go ahead to work with the contractor to determine amended substantial completion and final completion dates for the project. Per the contract, the project was to be substantially complete by September 17 and wrapped up October 1. When that didn’t happen, the city took liquidated damage action against the company, as the contract detailed. When litigation was threatened, the city began to look for the best solution to finish up the project with the contractor. Pope presented the results of those solution discussions at the December 20 meeting.
“McHugh is agreeable to what we’ve laid out,” said Pope. “The substantial completion date would be September 28 and November 18 the final completion date. $6,885 deduct would be included.” The reduction would be included as a change order in the fourth pay application. “In my opinion, it would signify everything paid up to today.” Two concrete driveways and culvert grading on Whitmore/Highway 43 will be done next spring before the project is completely wrapped up. When completed, a $31,000 retainage would be released. The road work is coming in roughly five percent below budget, as noted at the meeting.
Mayor Gordon Johnson suggested the council accept the negotiated agreement with no additional damage to McHugh. “Or we can hold them to the frying pan,” he added.
“Didn’t they say something about no one had filed claim against them and they were so proud of that,” questioned Councilor Todd Baker.
“Perhaps it’s happened before,” responded Johnson, “But it may have been negotiated, too. That doesn’t affect their bond rating.”
Pope clarified that liquidated damages carry more weight than negotiated change orders in bonding, which are based on performance. “It seems like a trivial difference, but that’s what it comes down to,” added Pope.
Going forward, Pope suggested steps the Village can take in future project, including being able to select the best value bid, not simply the lowest bid. “It may or may not be the lowest price. Criteria could include past city projects. In a bonding capacity, it’s not going to impact them. But, it’ll impact their cost of doing business.” The council approved the negotiated change order.
On other road issues, the council once again discussed bridge deficiencies. This time, the area was an inspection of Bridge #3827 on Aspen Lane. The county’s inspection report was “concerning” to Pope. “The language suggests it’s very old and heading for a state of disrepair,” he added. The bridge I part of the state bridge system and therefore is eligible for state funding, if high enough on the list, and likely, if done to state standards. Engineers had considered just overlaying the asphalt, but it doesn’t ensure a long-term solution if the bridge in in a poor state and will be overhauled within ten years or less. The city may or may not want to take ownership of the bridge, and be faced with funding all future repairs, but the state may mandate certain aspects that the Village doesn’t want either.
“I think we need to proceed with caution,” noted Pope. “There’s still a lot of questions that need to be answered.”
The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Tuesday, January 17, at 7:00 p.m., at the Village Hall. Please note that the council will not host a meeting the first Tuesday that month, opting instead to hold its annual organizational meeting on the third Tuesday. The public is encouraged to attend.
Leave a Reply