Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Retaining Wall topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident asks city to provide $1,500 in materials for retaining wall after 73rd Street work

Windsor Heights City Council · October 8, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the Oct. 7 Windsor Heights City Council meeting, a resident asked the city to supply $1,500 in block materials to extend a retaining wall affected by recent 73rd Street reconstruction; staff recommended the city install the corner wall and to explore paying for materials to match contractor blocks.

At the Oct. 7 Windsor Heights City Council meeting, resident Randy Manning asked the city to provide $1,500 in block materials so he and neighbors could complete a retaining wall at 7254 El Rancho Avenue that was affected by the city’s 73rd Street reconstruction.

Adam, a city staff member who led the inspection and brought cost estimates to council, said the city’s reconstruction work moved the curb toward private property and created a slope that justifies installing a retaining wall at the corner as a city project. He told the council that contractor pricing for 100 square feet of material to extend the wall to the driveway is about $1,500 and that a contractor had volunteered to install the blocks beyond the corner if the city provided the materials.

Manning told council he and neighbors could supply the labor if they received the correct block material at cost. “I would supply the labor; you guys supply the material,” he said, noting neighbors had offered to help.

Council members and staff discussed procurement and federal DOT bid rules. One member said leaving materials at a private driveway could raise compliance issues with project funding; another noted the quoted full-install price they received—about $118,000—seemed excessive for the work described. Staff said the installation cost quoted by the contractor appeared high and that providing materials only would be a lower-cost approach that still creates administrative questions about payment and responsibility.

Council did not take a formal roll-call vote on the spot but signaled support for staff to identify feasible budget sources and to provide materials where appropriate, subject to documentation of responsibility and compliance with bid procedures. Staff said they would follow up, visit the site as requested by council members, and return with an administrative recommendation or place the topic on a future agenda if council preferred.

Next steps: staff will research budget options, confirm the exact block specification and delivery logistics, and return with recommended language or an agenda item so the council can make a formal determination.