Laserfiche WebLink
Lake Elmo <br />Agenda Section: Planning, Land Use and Zoning <br />No. 9C <br />City Council <br />April 4, 2006 <br />Agenda Item: CDBG Project Update — Cimarron Gas Line Replacement <br />Background Information for April 4, 2006: <br />Mayor Johnston has requested an update to the City Council on the subject project. The Council will recall <br />that the City mailed a Request for Proposals to do the work to about 10 plumbing firms in 2005. We <br />received a single written proposal at fixed per unit pricing that was rejected by Washington County as both <br />too high and non -responsive to the RFP. The City was advised to reject the proposal and pinpoint the <br />specific Cimarron units that the bidders were to address with their proposals. It was decided that the best <br />way to do that was to solicit applications for CDBG grant assistance from the unit owners, and then focus a <br />new RFP on just those units where we have owners qualified for assistance. <br />The City hired (with CDBG funds) an independent consultant to interview and qualify to approximately 50 <br />Cimarron applicants for grant assistance during the latter part of 2005 and early 2006. Each applicant was <br />interviewed, asked to provide certain personal financial information and then determined to be qualified <br />under very specific HUD rules as eligible as a Low/Mod income household. Of the initial group of about 50 <br />applicants our consultant finally certified 44 as eligible for assistance. <br />Upon staff being notified by our consultant which specific Cimarron units qualified for grant assistance <br />(early 2006), a new Request for Proposals was prepared and sent to 15 plumbing firms — from a list of <br />qualified firms provided by the Lake Elmo Building Official. As Washington County advised, this RFP <br />made reference to Davis Bacon wage rules and the HUD paperwork entailed in the process. With that <br />information added to the RFP, plus a list of specific units on which proposals for gas line replacement were <br />contemplated the new (2006), RFP went out on February 5, with written proposals due March 10. No <br />written proposals were submitted. One firm contacted the Building Official for more information, but <br />passed on bidding. <br />(CDBG — Continued on Page 2) <br />PersonfeRponsible: <br />Action items: <br />None <br />sty P "r��ier <br />required <br />Attachments: <br />Time Allocated: <br />1. Cimarron RFP - 2006 <br />