My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/05/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/05/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:04 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 1:22:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/23/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/23/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
215
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
4 <br />On July 6, 2004, Staff presented two options for Segment A. The option of <br />extending the wall and not impacting the pond (Option 1), and the option of <br />extending a berm and impacting the pond (Option 2). The estimated cost of <br />Option 1 was $277,189.43 and the estimated cost of Option 2 was $267,800.60. <br />Neither option accounted for Staff time and costs. Since the proposal for <br />Segment “A” would be to have Staff administer and inspect the project, this cost <br />should be factored in. The Public Works Director will need to dedicate numerous <br />hours to perform project administration. The Public Works Supervisor will act as <br />the on-site project foreman - again, requiring the dedication of numerous hours. It <br />was conservatively estimated that Segment “A” will require $20,000 to $25,000 in <br />Staff time. <br /> <br />Given the following: <br />1. ) The costs of any option involving a berm in Segment “A” and a project <br />managed by the City will be equal to the amount offered to the City by Mn/DOT. <br /> <br />2.) A wall will require the removal of only a couple of trees, whereas the berm <br />option would require removal of over seventy (70) trees. <br /> <br />3.) The City will be taking on all liability for the construction and performance of a <br />berm, whereas Mn/DOT will take on all responsibility and liability for a wall. <br /> <br />Staff continued to recommend that the City require Mn/DOT to construct a noise <br />wall through segment “A”. <br /> <br />On July 6, 2004 Staff presented new cost estimates that included engineering <br />and other factors. These cost estimates were: <br /> <br />For segment "A", estimated total cost (excluding Staff costs) is $277,189.43 for a <br />wall / berm combination or $267,800.60 for a berm only. Including Staff time both <br />options would be equal to or exceed $300,000. <br /> <br />For segment "B", estimated total cost $127,669.50. <br /> <br />For segment "C", estimated total cost $426,710.70. <br /> <br />On July 12, 2004, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6302 authorizing the <br />preparation of final plans and specifications for Segments B (wetland berm area) <br />and C (the LaPort Neighborhood) of the Trunk Highway 10 Noise Wall / Berm <br />Project. Council also directed Staff to submit a letter to Mn/DOT requesting the <br />installation of a noise abatement wall in the Ardan Park area. <br /> <br />On July 22, 2004, Mn/DOT responded by stating that they do not have the <br />capability to produce the Ardan Park wall plans in time for a combined bid letting <br />of the Ardan Park and LaPort wall. Their design staff is all booked up. However,
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.