My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2011/05/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
Agenda Packets - 2011/05/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:04 PM
Creation date
6/27/2018 1:17:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/23/2011
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/23/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
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
Mounds View City Council April 11, 2011 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br />Provide Engineering Services for the Construction Phase of the 2011 Street and Utility 1 <br />Improvement Project – Area D. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Council Member Mueller asked how many contractors bid last year for Areas B and C. Public 4 <br />Works Director DeBar noted Areas B and C had 15 bids and some contractors may have gone 5 <br />out of business or did not have the bonding capacity for the Area D project. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned how many subcontractors were anticipated for this project. Public 8 <br />Works Director DeBar indicated very few were used by this vendor. He explained only the 9 <br />concrete work and landscaping would be subbed out. The City had a great working relationship 10 <br />with Northwest Asphalt. 11 <br /> 12 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Public Works Director DeBar asked if the Council would like Staff to advertise for bids for 15 <br />engineering services. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Council Member Gunn felt the current provider understood the City’s overall project and 18 <br />guidelines well and did not feel it was necessary at this time. She felt it would be a mistake to 19 <br />change vendors at this time because she saw the entire street improvement project as a single 20 <br />issue, not individual projects. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Mueller agreed with this comment. She did not want to see the timeliness of 23 <br />the future projects to be jeopardized. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Hull questioned if Bonestroo’s rates were competitive. Public Works Director 26 <br />DeBar indicated Bonestroo’s rates were competitive. For this reason, Council Member Hull 27 <br />requested the City keep the current engineering services provider. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Council Member Stigney felt the City should not be making a decision on the issue this evening. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Flaherty stated the City would be doing its due diligence if it were to seek alternate bids. 32 <br />He favored receiving a recommendation from the Street and Utility Commission as well. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Public Works Director DeBar commented he this issue was brought up last year to the Street and 35 <br />Utilities Committee and a consensus was not reached. He indicated that most of the Committee 36 <br />members were fine with City staff making the decision of which consultants to recommend 37 <br />hiring. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Finance Director Beer explained there would be an expense and Staff time needed to create an 40 <br />RFP. He did feel there was time to stay on schedule for Area E if solicitations were sought 41 <br />soon. 42 <br /> 43
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.