My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (2 SETS) 05-02-2016
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2011 - 2020
>
2016
>
05-02-2016
>
4.1. DRAFT MINUTES (2 SETS) 05-02-2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 2:18:32 PM
Creation date
4/29/2016 2:14:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
5/2/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
City Council Minutes Page 8 <br /> April 4,2016 <br /> ----------------------------- <br /> 8.4. Rivers Edge Commons Park Expansion Bids <br /> Mr. Hecker presented the staff report and presented a PowerPoint. HKGi <br /> representative Paul Paige was available to answer questions. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard asked for clarification if the alley would remain next to <br /> Sunshine Depot. He also stated he did not think there would be any loss of parking <br /> spots. <br /> Mr. Hecker indicated the alley would remain, allowing traffic into the back lot behind <br /> Sunshine Depot. He stated the concept plans were not able to specifically determine <br /> how many parking spots would be lost,and although they are losing five, two <br /> parking spots would be added on the other side of the lot, as indicated in the parking <br /> lot study. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard explained that the engineers estimate for this project was <br /> $428,700 and with planning and design fees spent, $382,000 remains for this park <br /> expansion and asked what could be constructed for that amount. He stated he was <br /> trying to understand what pieces and parts of what was already submitted and he was <br /> trying to follow <br /> Mr. Paige stated the scope of the project changed during the construction meetings <br /> and staff determined the west staircase would be an important park expansion piece <br /> to include,which would greatly assist pedestrian movement in the park. Mr. Paige <br /> suggested asking for two sets of alternative bids; a price on the west staircase as an <br /> alternate bid, and a price for future electrical and lighting components. He indicated <br /> they received figures that are more competitive by bidding it the way they did, and <br /> stated the base bid did include the west staircase plaza. Also,Mr. Paige was <br /> concerned with the $82,000 figure received for a set of lighted handrails and found <br /> the apparent low bidder had checked with one handrail supplier; therefore,he felt <br /> they could exclude that item from the original bid and find on their own a more <br /> competitive price for handrails. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard asked why the city would purchase the stone versus <br /> including it in the contract. <br /> Mr. Paige stated in his experience there could be concerns when trying to match <br /> items like stone and because they had a good relationship with their stone supplier, <br /> they would provide the same type of stone as they provided the stone when the park <br /> was originally constructed. The supplier would refine the steps and provide a flatter <br /> surface to the tops of the stones, as they will be cut top and bottom. The new stones <br /> will be placed in the center of the park, reusing the older stones to the east and west <br /> of the park,providing a more rustic look on the ends but more refined for seating in <br /> the center of the park. <br /> Councilmember Westgaard asked Mr. Simon about the differences in fund <br /> allocations. <br /> UREJ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.