CC MINUTES 06121979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- the representatives of the benefited properties who were present his firm had "made certain assumptions regarding the storm sewer project which, when it came to details , resulted in a difference between the estimated cost of $48 , 875 and the bid cost from Arcon of $78 , 734 . 93, plus engineering, legal administrative and Hennepin County fees. " He said his firm' s original estimate had been based on a field survey which did not take into account the flow from Roseville which Ramsey County has assumed would be collected into their line via flow through Anthony Lane. A rebidding of the pro- ject, in an attempt to lower the costs , had resulted in the lowest of the three bids coming in at least $14 ,000 higher than the Arcon bid, which Mr. McCombs recommended be accepted if the project is to be continued. He later conceded that "the error was his com- pany ' s only considering the drainage flow from St. Anthony and ignoring the Roseville flow when they made the field estimate on which the project was ordered" , which called for only one 18 inch pipe on one side of the street instead of the two 36 inch pipes which will be necessary for both sides of the street to accomodate the flow. Part of the discrepancy in estimated and bid costs are due to a 25 percent inflationary raise in the construction costs amounting to approximately $10 ,000 . He discussed the Roseville ordinance which restricts the flow from undeveloped lots requiring developers to provide storage for excess flow, but also said there is some question of whether the munici- pality ' s ordinance or the watershed district regulations prevailed. • Six benefited properties were represented at the meeting: Aro Industries, 3615 29th Avenue N.E. ; Cassidy Products , Inc. , 2920 Anthony Lane N.E. ; Cash Register Sales, 2909 Anthony Lane N.E . ; C. G. Hill and Sons, 2917 Anthony Lane N.E. ; Impressions , Inc . , 2908 Anthony Lane N.E. ; and Central Engineering Company, 2930 Anthony Lane N.E. Mr. Hill said he "is the largest property owner on Anthony Lane" and assumed all the contracts had been signed since the work on County Road C is already started. He said he had not been present for the public hearing on the project in 1978 , but "was looking forward to the curbs" . He chided the McCombs firm for giving an inaccurate estimate suggesting they "should be forced to do the job for $48, 000" . Mr . McCombs told him his firm does not do the construction work, "and the difference in costs resulted when only a field survey and not a detailed study to keep the costs of the project down in the first place resulted in their basing the estimate on the need for only one pipe. " Jon Miner, of Impressions , Inc . , told the Council , "It is apparent the owners of Cash Register, Cassidy Products , Aro, and Mr. Hill are opposed to the project at its higher cost" . In his June 5 notice to the property owners , Mr. Fornell had advised them that in addition to the increase in costs for the project there would also be discussed at the hearing the request from a prospective developer, M & M Development Corporation, for road access to Anthony Lane for a parcel located in Roseville to the northeast of the end of Anthony Lane as well as storm sewer service to drain this parcel for which the developer would be willing to share in that cost .