My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 08/21/2001
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2000 - 2009
>
2001
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 08/21/2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:47:31 PM
Creation date
5/14/2003 2:49:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
08/21/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
UPDATE ON ALPINE DRIVE PROPOSAL <br />PROJECT #99-51, <br /> By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />P.W. CASE <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />At the Juty Public Works Committee meeting, staff reported that several issues associated with the <br />construction of this project would require a change order increasing the project cost by over $100,000. <br />Staff was directed to request a letter of explanation from our Engineering Consultants on the project, RLK, <br />Inc. The City Attorney was also requested to comment on the legal aspects associated with these issues.- <br /> <br />Attached is a letter from RLK, Inc. There are three major issues: (1) an over run on the plan quantities of <br />modular block associated with the retaining and turtle walls, (2) an increase in the unit price of the cost of <br />the module block due to changed specifications, and (3) the addition of safety fencing at the top of the <br />modular block wall. RLK's position is that the proposed change order costs for the items under estimated <br />or overlooked in the bidding documents are within the prices that could reasonably be expected for these <br />items and that they are necessary for the completion of the project. In a phone conversation with Mr. Gary <br />Brown of RLK, Inc., he stated that it was RLK's desire that the City should pay no more than it would have <br />paid if the actual quantities had been the bid quantities. <br /> ..~. <br /> <br />The purpose of this cas~ is two fold. First, the City must resolve our issues with RLK over the overages <br />and omissions in the original contract documents. Staff is still awaiting the City Attorney's comments on <br />this issue. A second and more time sensitive issue involves item No. 3 above, the placement of the <br />fencing. <br /> <br />The project is proceeding such that the road could be opened to traffic on or about Labor Day. However, <br />safety concerns, particular in the first 400 feet east of Armstrong Blvd. where there is up to a ten foot grade <br />difference between the top of the retaining wall and the grade below, would prevent opening this road <br />section without some additional measures to ensure public safety <br /> <br />The City could open the road to traffic and place type '3 barricades with signs stating the trail is closed. <br />The condition would be maintained until the permanent railing is in place. As an extra measure of safety, <br />plastic orange construction fencing could be placed behind the curb, preven, ting the public from getting <br />within ten feet of the retaining wall. <br /> <br />Alternatively, the City can delay the road opening until the fencing is installed by maintaining the Class III <br />barricade across both ends of the project. If the fencing would be author/zed through a change order, the <br />fencing could be anticipated to be in place by mid September. If the fencing is to be competitively bid and <br />installed subsequent to an additional contract and additional month can be anticipated over the change <br />order schedule date. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.