My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_08-27_PWETCpacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2019
>
2019_08-27_PWETCpacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2019 11:12:45 AM
Creation date
8/23/2019 11:11:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/27/2019
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
34 Chair Cihacek inquired if the Fairview Underground Reuse System Project would <br />35 be rebid due to the bids being higher than anticipated. <br />36 <br />37 Mr. Freihammer indicated the city will not be proceeding with that project because <br />38 staff did not think it was feasible at this price point and will be removed from the <br />39 Capital program and looking at other options for other stormwater improvements <br />40 in the area. <br />41 <br />42 Public Works Director Marc Culver explained staff has come to the conclusion that <br />43 the site is a bad site for what the city is trying to do and that is a combination of a <br />44 park being there with a lot of trees and it is trying to be confined to a small footprint <br />45 as well as the fact that the storm sewer system the city is trying to tap into is on the <br />46 other side of Fairview. There are some is <br />ues with elevation and that forces the <br />47 system to be deeper than it really needs to be to be functional. <br />48 <br />49 Member Huiett asked if there was r bid participation thN go around as <br />50 the first go around. <br />51 <br />52 Mr. Culver recalled in 2015 the bids started high and went,ut he thought <br />53 there were three bids the first time and four bids the second time. He indicated it <br />54 was not for lack of number of bids: <br />55 <br />56 Chair Cihacek asked staff if the bids seemed to be accurate or were the bids put in <br />57 at a high p ' to reflect some desired need. <br />58 <br />59 Mr. Culver thought staff felt the climate, with so much going on, contributed to the <br />60 high prices. He did not know if the project were bid this fall for next spring if the <br />61 city would receive any lower bids. The cost of materials is higher, labor is higher <br />62 #as is supply and demand for the labor market. <br />63 <br />64 r. Freihamm Ne <br />ow bid contractor spoke with staff and explained <br />65 the site constrain cult and they do not have a lot of room to store <br />66 material and other <br />67 <br />68 Mr. Freihammer co ed with his update on projects and maintenance activities. <br />69 <br />70 Vice Chair Wozniak asked how far away staff thought the Organic Site Project was <br />71 from being done. <br />72 <br />73 Mr. Culver indicated because this site is within the existing fence there will not be <br />74 any screening done. He noted the slab that was poured is for the dumpsters and he <br />75 thought some paving would be done. Because it is such an abstract site, a yard <br />76 waste site, there will not be any real defined trail through there but there will be a <br />77 paved surface to the pad from where the people would enter in. <br />78 <br />79 Vice Chair Wozniak asked what the timing looked like for completion. <br />Page 2 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.