Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends pulling, reinstalling Hunter Street lift station and moves $214,930 invoice to council
Summary
Lebanon City committee agreed to recommend engineering option 2 — removing the incorrectly installed lift station, excavating to the proper depth and reinstalling it — and by consensus forwarded a $214,930.80 pay request for Hunter Street to the full city council for final action.
Lebanon City’s council committee on Oct. 20 recommended that the full council consider a $214,930.80 pay request tied to the Hunter Street water-and-sewer project and endorsed an engineering fix that would remove and reinstall an incorrectly sited lift station.
The committee’s discussion centered on whether to release roughly half the contractor’s invoice while residents and some members said work on yards and other punch-list items remains incomplete. "The work hasn't been done right," a committee member said, adding the project is nearly a year over the contract deadline. Staff countered that permanent equipment — including the lift station and force main piping — has been installed and that withholding all funds would be a poor-faith response to contractor costs incurred.
Staff member (unnamed in the transcript) told the committee that the contractor had placed the lift station and the force main "and they have provided work," and that some change orders and supplier delays contributed to the schedule slip. The committee discussed a $200,000 holdback the city is retaining while engineers assess outstanding issues.
On the engineering remedy, committee members reviewed two options: run a new line to the existing lift station in its current (incorrect) depth, or pull the lift station, excavate to the proper depth and reinstall it. After questions about grant deadlines and schedule risk, the committee reached consensus to recommend the latter — removing and reinstalling the station to the depth specified in the original design — and to forward the pay request and recommendation to council for a final vote.
Resident commenters had urged caution. One resident, who identified himself during the public-comment period, said the project had damaged yards and a sprinkler line and alleged the contractor was operating under an expired contract; staff responded that change orders and supply delays had affected the timeline and that the contract remains open.
Next steps: the committee advanced the invoice and the recommended engineering option to the full city council for action at the next meeting.
