Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memorandum, City Hall Bid Results <br />Page Three <br />June 22, 2000 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Alternate B. Construction of a Left Hand Turn Lane off Hil!:hwav 96 (in the amount <br />of $16.000) <br />After discussion, it was the consensus to include Alternate B as part of the construction <br />bid, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Alternates No.2 and 3 (Variations of Window Styles for the Second Floor (at a cost <br />of $16.000 and $25,000 rcsvectivelv) <br />After discussion, it was the consensus to include Alternate No, 3, in an amount of <br />$25,000, as part ofthe construction bid, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Alternate No. A (Installation of a Twelve Inch (12") Watermain from Hamline <br />Avenue to City Hall (in the amount of $16.000) <br />The purpose ofthis pipe up sizing was to accommodate future cross connections to the <br />City of Shoreview for emergency purposes, <br /> <br />Public Works Director Stafford and City Administrator Lynch met with representatives <br />of the City of Shoreview regarding this opportunity, but the City of Shoreview did not <br />express any interest, due to the apparent prohibitive cost oftunneling under Lexington <br />A venue, Without the cost sharing of the City of Shoreview, a twelve-inch line is not be <br />feasible for Arden Hills to pursue. Mr. Stafford indicates that a six inch (6") line would <br />be sufficient for City Hall purposes, installation of an eight inch (8") line would allow for <br />future expansion, and potential cross-connection to our own line, Mr. Stafford <br />recommends installation of the eight-inch (8") line in conjunction with the City Hall <br />infrastructure construction. This is part of the base bid, and will not increase or decrease <br />the construction bid. <br /> <br />After discussion, it was the consensus of City Councilmembers to authorize installation <br />of an eight-inch (8") water line as part of the construction bid. <br /> <br />. Alternate No.!, allowinl!: for brick masonry. rather than stone masonry (a votential <br />deduct of $315.000) <br />Mr. Vesterholt and Ms, Sterner reviewed the two (2) options, advantages and <br />disadvantages of stone and/or brick masonry. <br /> <br />After extensive discussion of both options, budgetary concerns and aesthetics, it was the <br />consensus of City Councilmembers to ratify inclusion of the stone masonry, ratber than <br />the deduct for brick masonry as part of the construction bid, <br />