My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6887
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6800
>
res_6887
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:12:30 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:01:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6887
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. P-78-9 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
8/27/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3 <br /> <br />signed by six of the 11 people on the Court. I would like to <br />present that at this time. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Is that new, or the original? <br /> <br />MR. WIER: This reaffirms our position. One of the persons <br />that signed on there - Mrs. Horton - originally when the price <br />increase came out, she was against it. She has since viewed all the <br />different matters and the angles of it, and now is for the street. <br />We would still like to go ahead with it even though we have a <br />higher cost involved. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Anyone else? <br /> <br />MR. JAMES MC CUTCHEON, 3056 Lydia Court: I guess I wasn't <br />given the opportunity to sign the petition, and also, I'd like <br />to ask if recycling had been considered in the cost as a method to <br />reduce costs, and also I think (inaudible) consider recycling, if <br />feasibile, would be a kind of environmental plus and cost reduction <br />plus, and also I think it could be used to save energy also, so <br />I'd like to go on record as saying that. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Do you have any comments on recycling? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: Recycling was not bid as an alternate on this <br />project although we have bid recycled asphalt projects on several <br />other improvements this construction season. What the city has <br />done is more or less go along with the thinking of the Highway <br />Department that as far as a base material (inaudible) is concerned <br />that we feel it's a very fine and acceptable material to use.. <br />They are still using this process essentially as base material rather <br />than the top wearing surface. This individual job has an aggregate <br />base. Therefore, the recycled material was not a viable bid <br />alternative because you would be substituting asphalt for <br />aggregate and it was felt the aggregate bid ~ is as Iowa bid as <br />possible. If we had used a recycled base, we do not feel (inaudible) <br />We also base this on our experience with other bids we have received <br />this year. The contractor that is apparently low bidder is <br />C. S. McCrossan. He's also the individual that's been doing all <br />of our recycling of asphalt on other projects. If he would be <br />agreeable to substituting an equal design at a lesser cost or even <br />an equal cost, the city would certainly be amenable to consider <br />that proposal. He has not made any proposal like that, but we will <br />be happy to approach him to see if any savings could be made. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: Am I correct in assuming that perhaps the <br />reason that wasn't bid is because being bid with Highcrest there's <br />very little to recycle? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.