Wayne White
Managing Editor

Recommended changes and additions to Burlingame’s water line project have left the city council in a quandary over added expenses.

During a special meeting held Sept. 22, the council considered adding fire hydrants, paying the contractor to remove old meters and install new ones, and installing a chlorinator. Also considered was whether to pay the contractor for an oversight during the bidding process that excluded $10,800 in specified clamps. During the meeting, Mayor Brenda Dorr expressed disappointment with the company responsible for inspecting the project, Bartlett & West.

The council reviewed the project with project manager Lavene Brenden, of Bartlett & West.

Burlingame City Administrator Flip Hutfles said the cost of the additions is about $43,000, which is included in the $752,886 estimated cost of the total project.

Brenden said the contractor, J&H Construction, Inc., is completing the project in sections, and needed answers about the meters and fire hydrants to complete two sections.

“We really need to have decisions on these,” Brenden said.

According to Brenden, Burlingame Fire Chief Jim Strohm had proposed adding five fire hydrants.

After much discussion on whether and where the new hydrants were needed, councilwoman Vikki DeMars said she would like to keep added expenses as low as possible until the council can be informed of the ongoing costs.

“I’m all about doing what we can with the money we’ve got,” DeMars said, “but we don’t know if we’re going to have that much.”

See Burlingame, Page 4A

Continued from Page 1A

Brenden said incurred costs would be known at a progress meeting in October when the first pay request is presented.

Jim Strohm explained the locations of the proposed hydrants and said they were needed.

“That’s the minimum by fire engineering standards,” he said. “I won’t recommend taking anything out.”

DeMars offered a motion to install two new hydrants along Topeka Street to finish that section, with other hydrant locations to be determined later.

Pressured by councilwoman Carolyn Strohm to clarify whether DeMars’ motion meant the other three hydrants would not be considered, DeMars said, “I’m not saying we’re not going to do it, I just don’t think we have to decide on that now.”

The council, with councilman Kevin Fry absent, voted unanimously to install the two hydrants.

The council also considered a letter from J&H president Robert Helton, in which Helton requested additional compensation for specific retainer clamps. As explained by utility foreman Gerry Grandstaff, city staff noticed the specified clamps were not being used and brought it to the attention of the project inspector.

Brenden said the additional cost of the clamps had not been included in the contractor’s bid and a less expensive clamp had been used. Helton requested an additional $10,800 for 380 clamps.

“I do believe it was an honest mistake on his part,” Brenden said.

Councilman Dustin Swander questioned how the contractor could have misquoted the price of the clamps.

“That should have been something he should have seen,” Swander said. “I think what happened, he seen it, he bought the cheap ones, he got called on it, and now he comes back saying he wants some money.”

Brenden argued, “It’s not in the drawings, and he did not see it in specifications specifically.”

“I don’t buy that,” Swander said.

Swander also pointed out that city employees were first to notice the discrepancy.

“The inspector we have that we’re paying $70,000 for, he didn’t see it … Gerry and them guys caught it,” Swander said.

Brenden said he had informed the contractor that he could request the additional amount, but the city would not be required to pay it.

“He did not see it on the drawings,” Brenden said, noting it was the council’s decision whether to pay for the error.

“I hope turning this down won’t affect any work that he’s doing,” DeMars said.

“It better not,” Dorr answered.

The council agreed with DeMars’ suggestion that the decision on the change order be delayed until the project nears completion.

Brenden said the error was an example of why an inspector is needed on such projects.

“We have the city guys looking too, catching things,” he said, drawing an objection from Dorr.

“I don’t think our guys should have to quit what they’re doing and baby-sit for the amount of money we’re paying,” she said.

In other discussion, Grandstaff questioned why the line was being installed in open ditches across streets, when specifications called for boring under streets.

Brenden initially said the “open cuts” would save money for the city, but agreed with Dorr that the city may have to repair the cuts in the street at a future date after the excavation settled.

“I know when they end up open cutting those,” Dorr said, “we’re going to end up paying in the long run having to rebuild that as it ends up sinking and we have dips.”

“He’s supposed to repair those,” Brenden said.

“Is he planning on coming back in three or four years and redoing them?” Dorr asked.

With Grandstaff saying the bid specifications required boring under asphalt streets, Brenden agreed to discuss the council’s concerns with the contractor.

Discussing the city’s responsibility in installing new meters, Brenden said the contract specified the city would assist by moving the meters and removing old meter boxes. “Removal of the old meter pits is not in the original bid,” Brenden said.

Grandstaff said he believed the city was only to “hook up the meter.”

Brenden said the contractor had agreed to move the meters, remove the old meter boxes, and cover up the holes for $45 a piece. In all, 170 meters will be moved.

Grandstaff and Carolyn Strohm both agreed the city crew did not have time to assist.

“To my way of looking at it … we have to go in with our equipment, tear it out, fix the hole and mess around with it, when is this going to get done?” Strohm said. “This won’t be done in a very timely manner … it may be cheaper in the long run to have them do that as they go along.”

DeMars’ motion to allow the contractor to install the meters was approved with councilman Norman Bloomquist voting against it.

In other discussion, the council delayed a decision on installing an extra chlorinator, which is to cost $25,000 for equipment; Brenden estimated installation would cost $15,000 to $20,000. It was noted a chlorinator would likely be used only certain times of the year depending upon conditions such as temperature and water tower levels. Water received from Osage City is chlorinated when it is delivered to Burlingame, it was noted.

“It really becomes a matter of best guess of investing in the equipment and leaving it sit there nine, ten months out of the year,” Brenden said, but said the city had the grant and loan now to pay for the chlorinator “other than to figure out how to pay for it later.”

"We’re going to have to make some cuts here, or there is no way we’re going to finish this project,” Dorr said, and noted the chlorinator is “something we actually need here.”

Brenden said the need for a chlorinator is “debatable.”