My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0420_Packet_Exec
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0420_Packet_Exec
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 2:40:32 PM
Creation date
4/20/2009 8:54:23 AM
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.
/
110
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
Cohansey St (Co Rd B to Co Rd C <br />Fernwood St (Woodhill to Co Rd C2) <br />Judith Ave (Fernwood to Griggs) <br />Griggs St (Woodhill to Co Rd C2) <br />SS-09-15 Cleveland Ave — Sanitary Sewer <br />P-09-16 Roseville Oval — Track <br />Street Reclamation <br />Street Reclamation <br />Street Reclamation <br />Street Reclamation <br />Utility Replacement <br />Bituminous Repair <br />At the Public Hearing for Segment 1: Roselawn Avenue, the City Council requested that staff <br />investigate the expansion of the City's current Hardship Deferral Policy for Street Improvement <br />Assessments to include other types of economic hardship. The City's current deferral policy is <br />limited to; Homestead property with the owners being age 65 or older, or retired by virtue of a <br />disability. A deferred assessment would accrue interest until paid. The policy does not require <br />documentation from the owner, only their sworn statement that the payment of the assessment <br />would be a hardship. Since 1998, we have had no property owners request this deferral. <br />The authority for this deferral policy is contained in state statute 435.193-195. This statute limits <br />the scope of deferral to what currently exists in city policy. In discussing this matter with the <br />City Attorney he indicated that we would not be able to expand the policy further to include <br />economic hardship as discussed at the City Council meeting. <br />POLICY OBJECTIVE <br />Sased on past practice, the City Council has awarded the contract to the lowest responsible <br />bidder. The following is a summary of the bids received for this project: <br />Contractor Sid <br />Tower Asphalt, Inc $2,442,586.90 <br />Frattalone Companies $2,489,848.47 <br />Asphalt Surface Technology Corp. <br />(aka ASTECH) $2,491,836.78 <br />TA Schifsky & Sons, Inc $2,610,222.69 <br />North Valley, Inc $2,675,361.01 <br />Hardrives, Inc. $2,762,509.35 <br />Midwest Asphalt Corporation $2,807,796.75 <br />Park Construction $3,000,842.37 <br />, After a thorough review of the bids received we have determined that while Tower Asphalt had <br />� the low bid, it did not conform with City Specification General Provision 249.0. This section of <br />� the specifications limits the total mobilization for the project to a m�imum of 5% of the total <br />� bid. The Mobilization item is compensation for preparatory work and operations, including the <br />, movement of personnel, equipment, supplies and incidentals to the Project site. Selow is a <br />summary of the Mobilization percentages for all of the Contractors that bid this project. <br />Contractor Mobilization <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.