Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/19/1972MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE VILLAGE COUNCIL Tuesday, Septerber 19, 1972 7:30 P.M., Village Hall Member s present were: Mayor Paul R. Recbath, Councilmen Nesbitt, Cosmano and McCulloch. Also present was Village Manager, Robert P. Heinrich and Vil lage Attorney, Harlan Perbix. MITCHEL HEIGHTS SUB-TRUNK SANITARY SEWER. .SAN 72-1-1 3. AWARD OF BIOS A motion was made by Mr. McCulloch to approve the Mitchell Heights Sub-Trunk Sanitary Sewer to Lametti & Sons in the amount of $174,795. Hr. Nesbitt seconded. On roll call, all voted aye. Motion carried. In response to Mr. Douglas Johnson's request for earl y service to New Town Development, the Village Manager offered to assist the developer by permi tting the use of temporary holding tanks until the sewer would become availabl e. Mr. Nesbitt made a motion to adjourn at 7145 p.m. Mr. McCulloch seconded. All voted aye. Motion carried. Edna M. Holregren, Clerk Tuesday, September 19, 1972 7:30 P.M. Village Hall Members present were: Mayor Paul R. Reath, Councilmen Nesbitt, Cosmano and McCulloch and Councilwoman Meyers. Also present was Village Manager, Robert P.Heinrich and Village Attorney, Harlan Perbix. MITCHELL HEIGHTS SUB-TRUNK SANITARY SEVER. SAN 72-1-13 AWARD OF BIDS. A motion was made byhtwAill' to approve thedliiiell Heights Sub-Trunk Sanitary Sewer in the amount off.. ergo. MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE VILLAGE COUNCIL Mr. LIU seconded. On roll call, all voted aye. Motion carried. Aid vl- Ate- adt:4-t 4.7- :ses--,„ 014--414"4-;4 *4 * Pni4 ,44"*" Art i t- A k be-dv r4 Iftfte/ teott4. oh44,4t_ 6iste-"4ri-24 -c44*4r-hte-44 .z44urd*4e4,41,.."...i 4 temsat 4.40.4344,401. REPORT ON BIDS RECEIVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VILLAGE OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA SUB-TRUNK SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT NO. SAN 72-1-13 MITCHELL HEIGHTS LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT: COUNCIL MEETING DATE: BIDS OPENED: Mitchell Heights Sub-Trunk Sanitary Sewer Eden Prairie, Minnesota September 19, 1972 September 15, 1972 2:00 P.M. C.D.T. SUMMARY OF BIDS AS SUBMITTED TOTAL BASE & CONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID ALTERNATE A ALTERNATE A 1. Lametti & Sons $ 174,795.00 15,000.00 189,795.00 2. Austin P. Keller Construction Co. 185,818.92 5,000.00 190,818.92 3. McDonald & Associates,Inc. 198,712.05 2,500.00 201,212.05 4. Northern Contracting Co. 202,866.30 0.00 202,866.30 *5. Erwin Montgomery Construction Co. 221,597.00 500.00 222,097.00 6. Peter Lametti Const.Co. 227,792.95 3,500.00 231,292.95 7. Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. 232,982.40 10,000.00 242,982.40 8. Orfie & Sons, Inc. 233,437.00 6,800.00 240,237.00 9. Nodland Associates, Inc. 245,676.00 6,000.00 251,676.00 10. C.S. McCrossan, Inc. 250,919.00 15,000.00 265,919.00 Mitchell Heights 2 TOTAL BASE & TOTAL BASE BID ALTERNATE A ALTERNATE A 11. F.D. Chapman Const. Co. $ 259,879.20 12,000.00 271,879.20 *12. Hoffman Bros., Inc. 283,931.00 No Bid 283,931.00 * Check of proposals revealed errors in base bid totals. Corrected totals are as follows: CORRECTED CORRECTED TOTAL BASE & CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE A ALTERNATE A Erwin Montgomery Const. Co. $ 220,697.00 500.00 221,197.00 Hoffman Bros., Inc. 284,331.07 No Bid 284,331.07 ENGINEER'S REVIEW OF BIDS SUBMITTED: The above bids have been audited by the engineer for accuracy of totals and reviewed for"reasonableness" of unit prices. With the exception of the above two corrected bids all bid totals appear to be accurate as submitted. A check of the base bid unit prices submitted by Lametti and Sons. Inc. against current prices for similar work being constructed elsewhere showed that unit prices bid are within reason. Lametti's lump sum bid price for Alternate A also appears to be sufficient to accomplish the work specified for Alternate A. ESTIMATE OF ASSESSMENT COSTS: The following proposed assessment method was considered by the Council during the hearing of July 11 1972. Using the low base and Alternate A bids the estimated unit assessments are as follows: 1. Estimated total project cost (base bid work only) Construction cost (base bid) Engineering fees (estimated) Administration (2% construction cost) Eastments (estimate) Add 6% interest for 12 months $ 174,795.00 37,100.00 3,500.00 1 1.200.00 216,-595.0 13.000.00 $ 229,595.00 Mitchell Heights 3 2. Estimated assessment costs (base bid work) by proposed method: OWNER PARCEL . UNITS APPROVED Shel ter Corpora tion Sect. 15, Parcel 5000 593 New Town Development Sect. 15, Parcel 4500 515 Hipp's Construction Co. Sect. 16, Parcels 3630, 2800 165 Total units approved 1 273 Estimated cost per unit: $180.36 3. Estimated total cost to New Town Development Corporation if Alternate A is accepted in contract award and assuming that extra costs are to be assessed to New Town: Construction Cost (Alternate A, Lametti bid) Interest @ 6% for one year Estimated cost Alternate A $ 15,000 900 $ 15,900 Additional unit assessment to New Town for Alternate A: $15,900 315 units ° $30.87 per unit Total unit assessment to New Town including Alternate A: Base bid unit cost assessed $ 180.36 Al ternate A unit cost assessed 30.87 Total unit assessment New Town $ 211.23 ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION: 1. The engineer recommends that the Council award the base contract to the low bidder, Lametti and Sons, Inc. ., Mitchell Heights 4 2. Regarding Alternate A to the base contract: Alternate A requires an accelerated construction schedule for completion of the first two-thirds of the trunk sewer from the interceptor up to a manhole in Mitchell Road adjacent to the Atherton Townhouse Development. Since no actual extra work is required by Alternate A, the low Alternate A bid submitted by Lametti and Sons represents the extra cost of rapid completion of the sewer trunk to serve Atherton at an earlier date than called for by the basic contract. Since the bid submi tted by Lametti and Sons clearly identifies the cost of the accelerated construction, the Council's discussion as to whether or not to accept Alternate A should focus on whether or not those who benefit are willing to bear the extra cost. 1 September 19, 1972 Planning Commission Action D. Preserve Hinhpoint Addition Two, a single family plat adjacent to the East/b!est Parkway in Phase I. Lee Johnson made a presentation of Preserve's Highpoint Addition Two. Pointed out that Lots 3,4,11 5 12 were designed to he extra wide and houses would be placed on lots so that the closest these buildings could be would he 66' to the curb and Parkway. hr. Johnson said that they would like approval of the plat as presented. Lots will average $10,000. i.layne Drown asked about the possibility of making Lots 3 t 4 larger and building duplexes on them. ".r. Johnson said that duplexes have not proved satisfactory and wanted to keep them sinale family. Putnam said he had no recommendation and this would not be on the Council agenda until Cct.ol.er 10th. Defore that time the Planning Com- mission would have a chance to again look at this. Putnam i not satis- fied with entrances and lots next to the street. Chairwman Schee sug- crested that Lee Jo'inson and Dick Putnam get together and settle these differences and brine it back to the Planninn Commission. Action Taken: 15 on Sorensenmoved and motion seconded that they refer the plat back to the staff. All in favor - motion carried. October 3, 1972 Planning Commission Action B. The Preserve, Addition Two single family plat for Highpoint Area; 16 single family lots. The original submission was revised to better line up the entry streets with Ridgewood Condominiums. Also the pedes- trian pathway was moved to along Neill Lake Road rather than the rear lot lines. Also two lots adjacent to the East-West Parkway were made deeper. Action Taken: Recommend to the Village Council that the Addition 2 of Highpoint area in the Preserve be rezoned to RH6.5 for single family detached units as per the preliminary plat submitted. Approve the revised preliminary plat contingent upon location of a public walkway for this addition meeting staff approval. Motion passed unanimously.