My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
02/14/95
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Road and Bridge Committee
>
Minutes
>
1995
>
02/14/95
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2025 11:31:09 AM
Creation date
7/10/2003 8:24:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Road and Bridge Committee
Document Date
02/14/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the City and have submitted lower bids. He inquired if the Committee is interested in <br />adding more names to the list or possibly rotating one in and one out each year. He also <br />suggested that the Road and Bridge Committee could also interview the consultants. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that big projects would involve a lot of money. If each <br />of these 20+ consulting firms are licensed, etc., any one of them could do the work for the <br />City. He felt that by selecting only four firms out of all of them, we may receive higher <br />bids. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski felt that approximately four frans should be chosen so they become familiar <br />with the City. He added there is a fair amount of work spent by consulting firms in <br />responding to requests for proposals to all the firms. Firms incurring the expense of <br />preparing proposals should have a reasonable expectation of being awarded the project. He <br />felt that a short list should be created as it would not be advisable to take every project the <br />City has and open it up to every firm. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that his main point is that it would be more competitive. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski explained that the City has been normally awarding to the lowest bidder. <br />Once a short list is available, we could negotiate on a not-m-exceed price. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman suggested that this issue also be discussed at a workshop. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to table <br />this for discussion later at a Council workshop. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Case #4: Update on 153/155th Avenue N.W. <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski reported that in the summer of 1994, the firm of RLK, Inc. <br />presented an engineering report which identified the proposed alignment for 153/155 <br />Avenue N.W. between Variolite Street N.W. and Armstrong Boulevard N.W. In that <br />preliminary engineering report, it was noted that the desired connection between 155th and <br />Variolite Street and 153rd and Armstrong Boulevard could be achieved without filling DNR <br />protected Wetland #111, which is also known as Jeglands Marsh. He continued that the <br />consultant was directed to do a detailed delineation of the Wetland and complete final <br />design for the roadway. Due to a combination of factors, which included the wetland being <br />delineated about 25 feet inland further than anticipated, and the need to increase the <br />roadway curve radius 30 feet due to some State Aid super-elevation design requirements, it <br />now appears that the alignment proposed in the preliminary feasibility study would require <br />filling approximately one-tenth of an acre. Staff and the Consultants met with the County <br />Highway l)epartment to consider some possible alternatives to impacting the wetland. <br />These included the regrading of Armstrong Boulevard N.W. to allow for the original <br />design radius and also the straight westward extension of 155th Avenue N.W. to <br />Armstrong Boulevard N.W., which would then require the use of Armstrong Boulevard <br />N.W. as a segment of the east/west collector. The County Highway Staff felt both these <br />options had serious negative impacts and suggested the Consultants approach MnDOT on <br />the possibility of granting a variance to either the 35 mile per hour approach design speed <br />or the super-elevation requirements along the approach. Mr. Jankowski stated that Staff <br />would report back when a response is received regarding the variances. He added that this <br />case if for informational purposes only and no action is necessary by the Committee. <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/February 14, 1995 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.