My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-18-05
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
07-18-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2012 10:46:46 AM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:25:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />~~HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 2A <br /> <br />July 13, 2005 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator r!\~ <br /> <br />SUBJECT: July 18 Work Session: 2006 Lift Station Reconstruction Project <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />On the agenda for the July 11 City Council meeting, staff had requested authorization to prepare <br />plans and specifications for the 2006 Lift Station Rehabilitation Project. City Council votcd to <br />table the item to the July 18 work session, <br /> <br />The requested action was to authorize an expenditure of $26,600 to perform design and field <br />survey work (agenda item from July 11 attached for reference), Typically before such work is <br />pcrformed on a project, the City is asked to approvc a work order with URS, <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br />On April 11, during a work session discussion, staff presented an analysis of alternatives for lift <br />station rehabilitation projects (April 11 agenda item attached for reference,), The stalf <br />recommendation was to proceed with Option D as outlined in the report from URS dated March <br />28, Option D included procceding with the 2005 project (Lift Stations #4 and #9), and <br />preparation of plans for thc remaining four stations in time to bid during late fall/early winter. <br />Procceding with the 2006 project, of course, would depcnd on the following: (1) further analysis <br />during the budgct process; and (2) receipt of satisfactory bids, If this work is performed, but thc <br />project is delayed because of budget concerns, a poor bid environment, or othcr cause, the data <br />collected would still be of use with the exception of updating costs, <br /> <br />Proceeding with the design and lield survey work provides the following benefits: <br />L Determining a good estimate for 2006 budget prcparation purposes, <br />2, Providing the opportunity to bid the project early and try to take advantage of a more <br />competitive field of contractors. <br /> <br />REQUESTED ACTION <br />Advise staff if there is still an interest in pursuing Option D, If Council is comfortable, we will <br />place the request to prepare plans and specifications on the August 8 agenda for consideration. <br /> <br />\'IEarthiAdminiC;/y Admini.~lrator\MeiIEarlh\Admin\Cily Administl"awr\Memol.2005\07-13-05 Memo [0 Council Rl:.." 2006 LIft Sfation <br />Project.docmo\2005W5-0S-05 Memo to Council RE PCl Ratings.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.