Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> APRIL 14, 2010 <br /> The City Engineer stated that the bids are based on unit prices. He <br /> indicated that if the Council adjusted the pavement width, the quantities <br /> would be less, but the project would essentially be the same. Keis asked if <br /> there would be an $8,000 savings with a 24-foot pavement width as <br /> indicated by Mr. Dick Boss. The City Engineer replied that Mr. Boss is <br /> correct in that estimate. McGraw noted that the $8,000 savings would be <br /> realized by the general taxpayers as it would accrue to the City's share of <br /> project costs. <br /> Keis felt that the $8,000 cost savings in constructing a 24 foot wide road <br /> was not a factor that would change his support for the City Engineer's <br /> recommendation. Keis asked if there were other factors that should be <br /> considered, and indicated that, at this point, he did not know. Keis noted <br /> that the property owners want the street reconstructed. I~Ie asked if there <br /> were alternatives between what the City Engineer is recommending and <br /> what the property owners want. Keis felt that the compromise that the <br /> City Engineer presented was a good one, but again asked are there others. <br /> Keis suggested that a 26 foot width might be an option. He indicated that <br /> at this point his vote is to support the City Engineer's recommendation. <br /> However, he would be willing to sit down and work with the City <br /> Engineer and property owners to see if there are other alternatives that <br /> could be considered. Keis felt that the bid should be awarded at this time <br /> and then the details worked out. Keis stated that he is not in support of the <br /> 24 foot width, but again suggested there might be other options. He noted <br /> that in considering other options, the impact to traffic flows will have to be <br /> considered. Keis asked if there was time to work out the details before the <br /> contractor would be ready to start the project. The City Engineer stated <br /> that there was time, but that a decision would have to be made in the <br /> relatively near future. <br /> McGraw stated that in considering other options, he would also like <br /> information on how many other streets there are in the City that might be <br /> impacted by a decision on Bryan Sta•eet. McGraw stated that he was <br /> looking for a fair and equitable solution for everyone. McGraw stated that <br /> the Bryan Street situation may be a one-time variance from the City's <br /> standards. If not, there may be the need to amend those standards. <br /> McGraw stated that it was his position flat the City Engineer's design was <br /> a good compromise. <br /> Keis agreed, and stated that if another acceptable solution cannot be <br /> identified, he is in support of the City Engineer's proposal. <br /> Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOL IITION NO. 2010-4-85 -AWARDING THE LOW BID OF <br /> TOWER ASPHALT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BRYAN STREET <br /> 9 <br /> <br />