Laserfiche WebLink
Bill Dircks <br /> From: Tolaas, James [James.Tolaas@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US) <br /> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:28 PM <br /> <br /> To: Duane Schwartz; Bill Dircks; michael.thompson@ci.maplewood.mn.us <br /> Cc: Haider, Ken <br /> Subject: TH36/Rice Bid Results <br /> Attached is a listing of Bids as read at the letting. We will complete the tabulation yet this afternoon. <br /> Lunda is the apparent low bid at $16,590,088.00. We have run their numbers-they are all correct. We have also <br /> verified they submitted all the required submittal pages and signatures.......so far so good. <br /> With respect to local shares, we should be in a very good position to substantially reduce each communities cost share - <br /> perhaps even eliminate the local share however, until we complete the tab and also review the cost eligibility rules for <br /> the $SM metro interchange fund source, I can't say local shares go to zero. It's a situation where the total funding <br /> should be sufficient to cover all costs, but certain fund sources are different "colors". If we are able to interpret the $SM <br /> metro interchange amount as the match to the federal money for the entire project, the local cost share should be <br /> eliminated -except for the non-eligible utility betterments. However, if the federal money is segregated into Trunk <br /> Highway and non Trunk Highway eligible -coupled with making the $SM metro interchange funds only a match for <br /> federal funds in the "trunk highway" portion, it means we need to use DEED or local funds (including turnback) to match <br /> the federal funds applied to the non-trunk highway road improvements. The adequacy of the DEED funding source <br /> under the split in federal funds swings on Right of Way cost- in the best case scenario it is sufficient without the local <br /> share. In a worst case scenario we are probably $1M to $1.6M short. <br /> There are several good arguments for the lump sum match to the entire project but state and fed staff may not agree. I <br /> think earlier discussions looked favorably on everything between County Road B and Minnesota being easily justified as <br /> required to make the interchange work.......stretching the northern limits to County Road B-2 is a little tougher but will <br /> be pushed aggressively by the County. <br /> JET <br /> 1 <br /> <br />