My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 02/09/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2010
>
Minutes - Council - 02/09/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 1:32:48 PM
Creation date
3/10/2010 3:54:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
02/09/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
<br />City Engineer Himmer stated if the existing plans are bid, the only revision is to assure all <br />specifications are updated that may have changed since 2004. Some revisions can be done in <br />house. He noted the plans include nodes of existing streets that are no longer there and that <br />needs to be addressed. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey asked if the revisions are needed because of how it will be bid, to do only <br />portions of the project. <br /> <br />City Engineer Himmer explained that is the most difficult process, how you do the bid. He <br />asked if the City will start with the intermediate plan and add bids, or group some improvements <br />together depending on the option selected. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated his surprise the City could have paid $80,000 for new plans and is now <br />paying 25% more to revise the existing plans, which is probably not that much work. <br /> <br />City Engineer Himmer explained the earlier proposals were based only on the master planning <br />process and not related to plan preparation. He stated that depending on the direction given, staff <br />can make plan revisions. However, to take advantage of the intricacies it is wise to include a <br />consultant. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated he had the opportunity to join staffs meeting when they were <br />strategizing how to break this down. He noted the Council gave staff three options to scale it <br />back and described the ripple effect to the plan when provisional features are added or removed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Look stated the Council had decided to go with the third option, the more <br />expensive option and to scale it back later, if desired. He stated his concern with bidder's failure <br />to disclose information that later results in a project cost increase. He stated his support to bid <br />the plan as it is. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wise stated he does not support spending the money if City staff has the ability <br />to do the engineering work in house. <br /> <br />City Engineer Himmer clarified he is not proposing to do any engineering work, just to put <br />together a tighter bid specification until it is known what will be bid. He stated the City can bid <br />the existing plan with some groupings such as the Rhinestone Park parking lot because that bid <br />will be based on quantity. He cautioned.that if the bid is stripped down, there is a threshold <br />where the bid is no longer applicable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen stated everyone was on board with the plan and the only debate was with <br />the parking lot area and number of trees in that area since the City owns a tree spade. <br /> <br />Mayor Ramsey stated the Council gave direction to bid this park with the exception of the <br />parking lot, and just because other features were discussed does not mean they will be included. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson stated staff will do whatever is directed by the CounciL The case <br />before the Council is to utilize expertise to tighten up the specifications. He reviewed the cost of <br /> <br />City Council / February 9, 2010 <br />Page 8 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.