My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-26-09-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
04-26-09-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/3/2024 12:11:31 AM
Creation date
7/16/2009 9:56:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
Date
4/26/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
AR—DEN HILLS CITY COiTNCIL—May 26, 2009 16 <br /> Mayor Harpstead asked why Kimley-Horn was not assisting the City with writing <br /> the variance justification, which would be under Alternative 1. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga clarified that they could if this was the direction that the <br /> Council decided to move forward with. <br /> Mayor Harpstead asked if this could be incorporated into this contract. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that this was possible. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that the Council should lock in the prices for both <br /> alternatives because the bids may expire before the City hears back from Mn/DOT. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that this was possible to lock into both and the motion <br /> could specify the amount of $32,360.00 for Alternative 1 and $78,555.00 for <br /> Alternative 2. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked for clarification on how the totals were reached. <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that the total was based on the estimated fee on page 6 <br /> plus the supplemental amount in the e-mail response from Kimley-Horn for some of <br /> the services the City wanted included. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if an agreement could be written that would lock in <br /> the prices for both alternatives but have it state that it would be either Alternative 1 <br /> or Alternative 2. <br /> City Administrator Moorse asked if Mn/DOT determined that Alternative 1 is <br /> structurally workable in the next few months would the Council automatically make <br /> a decision to accept Alternative 1 without waiting to hear if the City would receive <br /> Federal Funds for Alternative 2. The City would not know about the Federal <br /> Funding until January of 20 10. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that going over the costs of the two alternatives <br /> then she would recommend going with Alternative L <br /> Civil Engineer Giga stated that Federal funding requires a 20% local match and <br /> engineering fees are not an eligible cost. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that Alternative 2 did not include the additional <br /> pathways that would be needed or if there would be land that would need to be <br /> purchased for right-of-ways. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.