CC 05-22-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - May 22, 2006 5 Option 5: Table the item to the next Council meting to allow staff time to discuss the changes to the contract with the Contractor, in an attempt to reduce project cots. Ms, Giga stated that in both instances, it should be noted that the low bidder has no obligation to the City to offer lower prices for alternate materials. The low bidder was over $300,000 lower than the next lowest bidder, and with re-advertising the project, value engineering opportunities may not result in a reduction in project costs. She stated that the consulting engineer, URS, has been in contact with the low bidder and they are willing to consider some proposed changes. Ms. Giga requested Council to discuss the options and provide staff with direction on how to proceed. Councitmember Grant asked where the storm sewer fund balance would be in 2007, Mr. Siddiqui responded that in the scenario he worked on was if they were to take on this project, they would be in a deficit of almost $200,000 at the beginning of next year. If they were not to do this project they would be $400,000 in the positive. He noted this project would cost $605,000 for storm sewer. Councitmember Grant asked if they did this project next year, what the fund balance would be. Mr. Siddiqui responded they would be looking at the same situation. Councilmember Larson stated if they put this project off until next year, it did not appear there would be any significant difference, The only difference was that if they did it this year, there would be a larger negative balance this year that they would recover next year, He stated that did not seem to him to be a significant consideration as to whether they went forward or not. He stated they either did the project his year, or next year with the same difference. Mayor Aptikowskl suggested they table this until next month. She agreed this was not a strong enough reason to not do this because they did not gain that much by putting it off. Councilmember Holden asked what kind of changes could decrease the cost. Ms. Giga responded some of the pipe material included in the project was more expensive and there would be alternatives using other pipe that may be less expensive, Councilmember Grant stated it appeared they were over budget by $437,000 and what would they forego in the current capital budget to make this up, Ms. Wolfe responded they have not had an opportunity to scrutinize this in great detail because the bid just came in last week, but two of the largest overages were in the storm sewer fund and water main fund, She noted options were limited for these funds because there were no major projects in the next two years, She stated the third fund affected was the capital fund. She indicated that two other purchases for this year would probably not be brought forward this year which may cover some of the cost overage.