My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2004/11/22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
Agenda Packets - 2004/11/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:11 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 8:44:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
11/22/2004
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/22/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
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
<br />• The County has not worked much with SEH’s Project Manager, but has <br />been pleased with past SEH projects and past project teams. <br /> <br />• The County has less experience with BRAA (than SEH). The County was <br />not pleased with a past BRAA project (Silver View north of 694). <br />However, once BRAA brought on the proposed Project Manager, the <br />issues with the project were corrected. <br /> <br />• BRAA additionally provided a focus on funding. They would be including <br />a team of grant writers and staff experienced in the details and issues <br />needed to obtain federal funding. <br /> <br />• BRAA included / proposed other support items such as addressing the <br />water resource issues (working with Rice Creek Watershed District) and <br />neighborhood and community information campaigns, - both frequently <br />overlooked but vital to the success of a large, complex project that spans <br />several years. <br /> <br />• In comparing SEH to BRAA, Staff weighs heavily the success of the <br />recent 2003 Street Improvement Project, and considers the issues and <br />problems of the County Road H2 Project. Staff feels that the level of <br />attention to detail and the spirit of being proactive to solve issues <br />separated the success of these two projects. These attributes will be <br />even more important with the County Road 10 Project. <br /> <br /> <br />Based on the review of the RFP submitted and the consideration of past <br />performances, Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to the <br />firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Incorporated for work <br />associated with the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Project. <br />Ramsey County concurs with this recommendation. <br /> <br />It is proposed that the funds to provide engineering consulting services be <br />derived from Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Fund – District No. 1. However, if <br />applicable, and when possible, other sources may be used. Said funding sources <br />may include DNR or Federal Grants, and Ramsey County Signal Fund. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br />It is recommended the City Council approve a resolution to award a contract to <br />the firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, Incorporated for work <br />associated with the County Road 10 Redevelopment and Revitalization Project <br />and authorize the execution of said agreement. <br /> <br />Respectfully Submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Greg Lee, Director of Public Works <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.