HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/30/1982 TENTATIVE AGENDA
ADJ .REG.SESSION SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA MARCH 30, 1982
Mayor Reinke presiding
1] Roll Call at 6:00 P.M. in Council Chambers
2] Orientation Session with Finance Department
3] 7 : 30 P .M. - Presentation by Anita Benda on the Evaluation of
the Cable Communications Proposals Submitted to the
City of Shakopee, with questions and answers
BRING YOUR COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT!
4] Approve a format for the April 27th public hearing on the cable
communications franchise
5] Set a public hearing for April 27th at 7 :00 P.M. on the cable
communications franchise and direct staff to secure an appropriate
meeting facility
6] Other Business:
7] Adjourn.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
DATES TO REMEMBER RELATED TO CABLE FRANCHISE AWARD :
April 20 , 1982 - Council meeting with Consultant Benda regarding
final evaluation report
April 27 , 1982 - Public Hearing on Cable Franchise
y
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Information Referred by Cable Communications Committee
DATE: March 26 ,. 1982
Introduction
Enclosed is information discussed by the Ad Hoc Cable Communications
Committee at its March 24, 1982 , meeting.
Background
The attached minutes of the March 24, 1982 meeting are provided for
City Council information. At that meeting two letters were referred
to City Council . Copies of these letters are also attached, with
the related staff memos .
The Committee recommended a format for the public hearing on the
cable franchise to be held April 27 , 1982 . This format is outlined
in the attached minutes , at the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2 .
City Council should make their own recommendations about the format
prior to adopting a procedure which will be shared with the consul-
tant , cable companies and the public .
Requested Action
Approve format for April 27 , 1982 public hearing on the cable communi-
cations franchise as recommended by the Ad Hoc Cable Communications
Committee at its March 24, 1982 , meeting.
JA/jms
• 11
AD HOC CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
Shakopee , Minnesota
Special Session March 24, 1982
Chairman Foudray called the meeting to order at 7 : 06 p.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall , with Committee members present ,
Christensen, Davis , Gorman and Kirchmeier. Ablen arrived at 7 : 10
p.m. Also present was Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant .
Davis/Gorman moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 1982 , as
presented. Motion carried.
Kirchmeier/Davis moved to direct staff to return the "confirmation
reply" to Shakopee Community Services indicating the Shakopee Ad Hoc
Cable Communications Committee will participate in the 1982 Showcase ,
May 3 , 1982 , and to prepare a timetable of events for activities re-
maining prior to the availability of Cable TV to local citizens , for
distribution at the Showcase . Motion carried .
Committee members Gorman, Kirchmeier and Davis volunteered to repre-
sent the Committee at the Showcase between 6 : 30 and 7 : 30 p.m. Foudray,
Christensen and Abeln were assigned to serve between 7 : 30 and 8 : 30 p .m.
Jeanne Andre was directed to request the two companies who have sub-
mitted proposals to supply brochures to distribute .
Lillian Abeln arrived at 7 : 10 p.m. and indicated she would not be
able to represent the Cable Committee at the Showcase .
Davis/Gorman moved to direct staff to send copies of the February
18 , 1982 , letter from the City Administrator of Worthington, Minnesota
to the Shakopee City Council , the Shakopee Public Utilities , North-
western Bell Telephone , Minnegasco and the Rural Electrical Association
for information and comments ; and request the City Council to forward
commentary regarding the resolution of the issue raised in the letter
to Attorney Adrian Herbst to incorporate into the final cable ordinance
prior to adoption.
Discussion was held on the format for the public hearing on the award
of the cable franchise . Eileen Christensen commented that in addition
to the format proposed in the staff memo, it would be useful to assign
someone to provide the public with an overview of the cable franchise
process and the purpose of the public hearing. Randy Gorman questioned
who will moderate the meeting and where it will be held. Jeanne
Andre indicated the mayor will chair the meeting which will be held
at an undetermined location. Discussion was held regarding possible
sites .
Gorman/Kirchmeier moved to recommend to City Council the following
format for the cable franchise public hearing:
1 . Hearing to be held at a location to be determined
by City staff , with the mayor convening and
moderating the hearing and staff presenting an
Ad Hoc Cable Comm. L
Page -2-
introduction which provides the public back-
ground on the cable franchise process .
2 . Continue the hearing with a presentation by
each competing company (order to be determined
by random lot ) . Presentation will include 30
minute allotment for company comments followed
by 15 minute question/answer period for questions
by the City Council , Ad Hoc Cable Committee and
the consultant .
3 . Follow with question/answer period open to questions
from the public and the competing firms . Request
that each person with comments or questions be
limited to three minutes until all parties have
spoken once , with the City Council to evaluate
how long to continue the hearing after each party
has had the opportunity to speak.
Discussion of the sub-committee materials on the formation of the
non-profit access corporation was held. Jeanne Andre presented
changes and corrections recommended by the City Administrator.
Kirchmeier/Gorman moved to develop further information on the forma-
tion, duties and responsibilities of the Citizen' s Advisory Committee
called for in the draft cable ordinance and to forward this informa-
tion to the City Council with a recommendation that the Council
form the Advisory Committee in a timely manner and refer the draft
information on the non-profit access corporation to this committee
when it is formed .
Roll Call : Ayes : Davis , Gorman, Kirchmeier, Foudray
Noes : Abeln, Christensen Motion Carried.
Staff was directed to revise draft ordinance to reflect this provision
and research possible format for Citizen' s Advisory Committee to
bring back for committee consideration.
Discussion was held on the preliminary report of the cable consultant
on the franchise proposals . A list of questions and clarifications
was taken by the Administrative Assistant to be forwarded to the
consultant prior to the March 30, 1982 , meeting.
Gorman/Abeln moved to forward a copy of the letter of March 15th
received from Zylstra Communications Corporation to the City Council
and consultant , Anita Benda, for information and further considera-
tion of the request to disqualify the cable proposal submitted by
Progress Valley Totalvision. Motion Carried.
Chairman Foudray commented that he personally thinks Zylstra is
stepping out of bounds and intimidating the City with this letter.
The Chairman recognized Roger Zylstra from the audience . Mr. Zylstra
indicated he did not expect a decision on the disqualification before
the consultant ' s final report is available and he did not mean to
= Ad Hoc Cable Comm.
Page -3-
intimidate the City by making this request . Arlen Muenzhuber of
Progress Valley Totalvision was also recognized to speak. He
indicated he was suprised by Zylstra ' s request , which he had just
received a few hours earlier, but did not wish to make further
comments at this time .
Gorman/Christensen moved that when the committee adjourned it would
adjourn to Wednesday, April 21 , 1982 at 7 :00 p.m. Motion Carried .
Davis/Gorman moved to adjourn at 8 : 30 p.m. Motion Carried .
Gene Foudray
Chairman
Jeanne Andre
Recording Secretary
MEMO TO: Members of the Shakopee Ad Hoc Cable Communications
Committee
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: City of Worthington letter on allocating costs for
relocating utilities for cable communications system
DATE: March 17 , 1982
Introduction
In February the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee visited the
City of Worthington to view the cable communications system operating
in that City and meet with City officials regarding their experience
with the system. City Administrator Gary Brown subsequently sent
the attached letter with additional suggestions not covered during
the Committee ' s visit .
Background
Mr. Brown ' s letter suggests incorporating a requirement that the
franchise pay costs of relocating City, electrical or telephone
utilities necessitated by the construction of the cable system.
This issue does not appear to be addressed in the preliminary cable
communications franchise ordinance prepared in 1981 under Committee
direction.
It is recommended that this issue be directed to the City Council and
the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for information and recom-
mended action before referring the issue to the City cable attorney,
Adrian Herbst , to include in the final cable ordinance.
Alternatives
1 . Drop further consideration of City involvement in allocating
costs of relocating utilities for cable communications system.
2 . Refer issue to staff for further study and recommendations .
3 . Direct letter and discussion of issue to the City Council and
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, requesting their comments
to be forwarded to Adrian Herbst to incorporate into final
franchise ordinance .
Requested Action
Direct staff to send copy of February 18 , 1982 , letter from Gary
Brown, City Administrator of Worthington, Minnesota to the Shakopee
City Council and the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission for
information and comments . Request the City Council forward com-
mentary regarding the resolution of the issue to Attorney Adrian
Herbst to incorporate into the final cable ordinance prior to
adoption.
JA/jms
1
CITY OF WORTHINGTON
303 NINTH STREET WORTHINGTON,MINNESOTA 56187
P.O.BOX 111 PHONE 507-376-3161
OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY HALL REEV€D
FL.b221982
February 18, 1982
CITY OF SHAKOPEE
Jean Andrea
Administrator Assistant
129 E. 1st Avenue
City Hall
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Dear Jean,
It occurred to us during a meeting last week
that we had not mentioned to you that you should
somehow require the franchise to pay for all costs
associated with the location of city utilities for
the installation of the cable. This should also
include any costs associated with the movement of
the city utilities if it is required to make certain
installations.
For our city, this cost amounted to just under
$7500, however it should be pointed out that the
majority of this money involved the electric distribution
system which, to my knowledge your municipality is
not involved with.
You may also wish to check with your local
telephone Company as ours incurred expenses as we
did with our electric distribution system.
You trul ,
Gary . rown
Ci Administrator
GEB/ss
cc: Carol Dyke
MEMO TO: Members of the Ad Hoc Cable Communications Committee
•
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Letter from Zylstra Communications Corporation
DATE: March 22 ,, 1982
Introduction
The attached letter was received from Zylstra Communications Corpora-
tion requesting disqualification of Progess Valley Totalvision, Inc .
( PV) in the current Shakopee cable franchise process .
Background
Zylstra lists several items presented by the Shakopee consultant in
her preliminary report as deficiencies by PV. I discussed the letter
with Consultant Benda , to consider whether action should be taken
now on the issues raised in the letter. She advised that as her
report is only preliminary, she cannot make judgments regarding sub-
stantive deficiencies at this time . Each company now has the oppor-
tunity to respond to the questions raised. Therefore the questions
may be resolved , and if they are not , it is the consultant ' s role
to point out substantive deficiences which still remain. City
Administrator, John Anderson, agrees this is a reasonable way to
proceed.
It is recommended that a copy of the letter be forwarded to the City
Council for information and Ms . Benda for consideration in her final
report . No further action is recommended at this point .
Alternatives
1 . Refer information to consultant and City Council for information
and further consideration.
2 . File letter and take no further action.
3 . Refer letter to an attorney for an opinion on the request for
disqualification.
Recommended Action
Move to forward a copy of letter of March 15th received from Zylstra
Communications Corp. to the City Council and consultant , Anita Benda,
for information and further consideration of the request to dis-
qualify the cable proposal submitted by Progress Valley Totalvision.
JA/jms
ZYLSTRA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
THE DEPOT
C1 v POST OFFICE BOX 178
YANKTON,SOUTH DAKOTA 57078
MAR 1 91982
CM( OF SHAKOPEE March 15, 1982
City of Shakopee
129 East First Avenue
Shakopee, MN 55379
ATI'N: Ms. Jeanne Andre
Administrative Assistant
This letter is submitted on behalf of Zylstra-United Cable Television Company for
the purpose of requesting disqualification of Progress Valley Totalvision, Inc.
(PV,V) in the current cable television franchise proceeding. We respectfully sub-
mit this request based on the conclusion by the City's consultant that PV's
application is deficient.
The "Request for Proposals" adopted by the City of Shakopee on August 18, 1981
explicitly set forth strict filing requirements. The application selection pro •
-
cedures described in the RFP clearly state that applicants must comply with
certain minimum bid requirements. The RFP also explicitly stated that no
substantive amendment will be allowed to correct deficiencies in a proposal. As
stated on page two of the City's RFP:
"Substantive amendments to proposals will not be considered
except to acknowledge involuntary changes such as a change in
ownership due to death."
Nowhere in the RFP did the City of Shakopee reserve the right to consider a
deficient application. Accordingly, we respectfully subnit that the City of
Shakopee must disquality a deficient proposal that cannot be corrected without
substantive amendment. On this basis, Progress Valley Totalvision's application
must be dismissed.
The deficiencies in PV's application have been found by the City's own consultant.
There is no question that the deficiencies are major and require substantial modi-
fications to PV's proposal.
CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEMS:
IOWA
SHELDON MINNESOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SIBLEY LUVERNE CANTON
ORANGE CITY WORTHINGTON VERMILLION
ALTON YANKTON
Ms. Jeanne Andre
Page 2
These are the deficiencies in PV's application as listed by the City of
Shakopee's consultant:
1) "PV did not account for a 5% franchise fee."
2) "PV did not establish rates for the line extension areas
based on proximity to the initial service area."
3) "PV did not propose activation of the required 50 channels."
4) "PV did not provide separate public and government access
channels."
5) And PV "did not place the regional channel on Channel 6 of
the universal tier."
The deficiencies listed above are of varying degrees of significance, of course.
But changing PV's proposal to provide a separate channel for public access and
a separate channel for government access--as required by state law--would be a
major substantive amendment. Likewise, PV's failure to propose 50 activated chan-
nels is in direct contravention of the City's mandatory requirements as listed on
pages 8 and 9 of the RFP. Finally, placement of the regional interconnect channel
on Channel 8B rather than the state required Channel 6 is in direct conflict with
state law as well as the Shakopee RFP.
We respectfully request, therefore, that Progress Valley's application be dis-
missed without delay and that the City proceed forwith to grant Zylstra-United's
application.
Re •-ctfully submitted,
lerC• '
r
',o'er E. Z100
� a
President
REZ:jdw
Ca;
MEMO TO : John K . Anderson
City Administrator
FROM : H . R. Spurriero . \‘,
City Engineer
RE : Halo 2nd Addition and Bluff Avenue Improvements
DATE : March 29, 1982
Introduction :
Attached is Change Order No. 3 for the above-captioned project for
consideration and approval.
Background :
There are eight items of work covered by Change Order No. 3. The reason
for the items is noted below :
Item No. 1 - Original contract did not include this work required for
the completion of access to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC) lift station.
Item No. 2 - Additional grading was required in order to improve walk-
grades along 1st Avenue.
Item No. 3 - Actual grade of Bluff Avenue was higher than anticipated in
Change Order No, 2. This item of work was performed in
lieu of placing Class 5, deleted in Item No. 6 below,
Item No. 4 - Additional fence was moved to facilitate grading required
by tvMWCC.
Item No. 5 Original contract provided services. A canvass of the
neighborhood resulted in the installation of fewer services and
other services specified below. Contract provides for payment
to the contractor for returning materials.
Item No. 6 - See Item No. 3 above.
Item No, 7 - Larger fittings were required by property owners and installed;
100 percent of the cost will be assessed.
Item No. 8 - Consultant did not include curb and gutter required by MWCC
in original contract.
John Anderson March 29, 1982
Halo 2nd Addition/Bluff Avenue Page -2-
The table below summarizes the changes made in the contracts. Schedule 1,
the contract for Halo 2nd Addition Improvements has increased approximately
11 percent. Schedule 2, the contract for Bluff Avenue Improvements has
decreased approximately 26 percent. The principal increase in Schedule 1 is
due to the construction of Bluff Avenue and additional electrical work in 1st
Avenue. The principal decrease in Schedule 2 is due to the fact that services
and rock quantities under-ran estimates.
Original Quantity Change
Description Contract Change Order Total
Schedule 1 -
Watermain $ 11, 465.25 $- 2,677.39 $ - 1, 000.00 $ 7, 787.86
Sanitary Sewer 5,490.70 - 1, 174. 90 -- 4, 315.80
Storm Sewer 2,714.00 - 350.40 -- 2, 363.60
Roadway 63,231.85 - /4, 119.29 -- 59, 112.56
Change Order #1 --- --- 5, 570. 30 5,570.30
Change Order #2 --- --- 8, 872.25 8,872.25
Change Order #3 --- --- 4, 000.89 4, 000.89
Summary $ 82, 901.80 $- 8,321.98 $ 17, 443.44 $ 92, 023.26
Schedule 2 -
Watermain $ 40,866.90 $- 5,258.42 $ -- $ 35,608.48
Sanitary Sewer 47,932.80 -25, 186.68 -- 22,746. 12
Change Order #1 --- --- -- ---
Change Order #2 --- --- -- ---
Change Order #3 --- --- 6,931 .20 6, 931.20
Summary $ 88, 799.70 $-30,445. 10 $ 6, 931.20 $ 65,285.80
Total Schedule 1 $ 82, 901.80 $- 8, 321.98 $ 17,443.44 $ 92, 023.26
Total Schedule 2 88, 799.70 -30,445. 10 6,931.20 65,285.80
GRAND TOTAL $171, 701.50 $-38, 767.08 $ 24, 374.64 $157, 309.06
Also attached is Partial Estimate Voucher No. 3 for this contract. It would
create an undue hardship for the contractor if payment was delayed until the
regular bill cycle, therefore, it is recommended that the Partial Estimate Voucher
be approved.
Action Requested :
Direct the proper City officials to execute Change Order No. 3 for Halo 2nd
Addition/Bluff Avenue Improvements Contract No. 80-10/81-2 in the amount of
$10,207. 09.
John K . Anderson March 29, 1982
Halo 2nd Addition/Bluff Avenue Page -3-
Direct the proper City officials to make partial payment to Parrott Construction
Company, 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd., Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 for Halo 2nd
Addition and Bluff Avenue Improvements, Contract No. 80-10/81-2 in the amount
of $18, 0140. 36.
HRS/jiw
Attachments
CHANCE ;)fiDEN
Change Order No. : 3 Pro jr et. ;i:: Halo 2nd Addn. /Bluff Ave. Impr.
Date: March 16,_1982 Ccurt.,•,t . . 80-10/81-2
Original. Contract Amount. 171, 701. 50
Change Order(s) No. _ thru No. ._.2- 16,715.30
Total Funds Encumbered �'��;or Lo Chang. order 188,416.80
Description of Work to be (Added/Del'•t cci ) :
See Attachment
The above described work shall be incorporatou i:; the Contract, referenced above,
under the same conditions specified in the or i r i:rt l Contract as amended unl.c:;::
otherwise specified herein. Any work not, so sp, i f is ci :;hall be performed in :t.c(:ordance
with the Standard Specifications adopted by the City of Shakopee, Minnesota.
The amount of the Contract shall be ( i nerea:;eri/lxxxxxx$ by 10,207.09.
The number of calendar days for completion shall be ( increased/decreased) by 0
Original Contract Amount ;p 171, 701. 50
Change Order(s) No. 1 Lhru 3 26 922.39
Total Funds Encumbered :$ 198, 623.89
Completion Date: November 1, 1981
The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to pert',r•m
the work specified in this Change Order in r►c eor irunwe
with the specifications, conditions and prices
specified herei .
/ REVIEWED:
Contracto 1 —4
Shakopee Public Utilities Commission
By ,1- tib
Title:
Date: Manager Date
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED:
City Ingineei -- — -- Date .
APPROVED: City of Shakopee
By:
Mayor Date
Approved as to form this day of
City AdministratorDate __ 19 •
City Clerk Date
City Attorney
HALO 2ND ADDITION /BLUFF AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
Project No. 80-10/81-2
Change Order No. 3
Attachment
Item No. 1 - Raise Valve Box and Manhole
3.0 hrs. John Deere 3010 Tractor Backhoe @ $ 51 . 50 = $ 154.50
1. 0 hr. Cat 966 Loader @ 83. 50 = 83.50
1 . 0 hr. Laborer @ 22.00 = 22.00
1. 0 hr. Foreman @ 33.50 = 33. 50
3.0 Ft. Manhole Riser @ 46. 13 = 138. 39
1 Ea. 3 Ft. Valve Box Extension @ 40.00 = 40.00
Total Item No. 1 $ 471.89
Item No. 2 - Cut Drive and Walk
7. 5 hrs. Cat 966 Loader @ $ 83.50 = $ 626.25
3. 5 hrs. Galion 450 Blade @ 56. 00 = 196.00
0. 5 hr. John Deere 3010 Tractor Backhoe @ 51. 50 = 25. 75
10. 0 C .Y . Class V @ 7. 50 = 75. 00
Total Item No. 2 $ 923.00
Item No. 3 - Fine Grade Bluff Avenue
10 hrs. Cat 966 Loader @ $ 83.50 = $ 835. 00
10 hrs. Galion 450 Blade @ 56.00 = 560. 00
2 hrs. Galion Rollamatic @ 42. 00 = 84.00
4 hrs. Laborer @ 22.00 = 88.00
Total Item No. 3 $1, 567. 00
Item No. 4 - Move Fence
2 hrs. John Deere 3010 Tractor Backhoe @ $ 51. 50 = $ 103.00
2 hrs. Foreman @ 33. 50 = 67.00
2 hrs. Laborer @ 22. 00 = 44.00
Total Item No. 4 $ 214.00
Change Order No. 3 (Attachment) Page -2-
Item No. 5 - Return Unused Fitting for Bluff Avenue Services
3.5 hrs. Boom Truck @ $ 60.00 = $ 210. 00
3.5 hrs. Laborer @ 22.00 = 77.00
1. 0 hr. Cat 966 Loader @ 83.50 = 83. 50
3. 5 hrs. Pickup and Laborer @ 28.50 = 99.75
1 Ea. Restocking Fee from Water Products 0 $1, 031.20 = 1, 031. 20
Total Item No. 5 $1, 501.45
Item No. 6 - Delete Item No. 2 of Change Order No. 2, "Install Class 5 base
material at an estimated cost of $725.00 from funds encumbered.
Item No. 7 - Bluff Avenue Services
159 L.F. 1" Copper @ $ 10. 25 = $1,629.75
5 Ea. 1" Corporations @ 45.00 = 225. 00
5 Ea. 1" Curb Stop @ 80.00 = 400.00
4 Ea. 6' Wyes @ 190. 00 = 760.00
161 L.F. 6" E.H. C .I .P. @ 15.00 = 2,415. 00
Total Item No. 7 $5, 429. 75
Item No. 8 - MWCC Driveway Curb and Gutter
220 L.F. B612 Curb and Gutter @ $ 3.75 = $ 825. 00
Total Item No. 8 $ 825.00
SUMARRY
Item No. Halo 2nd Addition Bluff Avenue Improvements Total
1 $ 471. 89 $ $ 471.89
2 923. 00 923. 00
3 1, 567. 00 1, 567. 00
4 214. 00 214. 00
5 1,501.45 1, 501.45
6 - 725. 00 - 725. 00
7 5, 419.75 5, 419.75
8 825. 00 825. 00
$3, 275.89 $6,931.20 $10,207. 09
GRAND TOTAL $10, 207. 09
PARTIAL. ESTIMATE VOUCHER
80-10
Contract No. 81-2 Partial Estimate Voucher No. 3 h'ried Endinr,:February 28, 1982
TO: Contractor Parrott Construction Company
Address 2047 Eagle Creek Blvd. , Shakopee; MN 55379
Project Description . 'Halo 2nd Addition and Bluff Avenue Improvements —
1. Original Contract Amount
* 171, 701. 50
2. Change Order No. 1 Thru No. 3 26, 922. 39
3. Total Funds Encumbered 198, 623.89
L. Value of Work Completed $ 153, 649. 06
Value of work
5. 5 Percent Retzinage ; 7, 682.45 remaining
6. Previous Payments ��- $ 3-660.00
�'n $ 127, 9266.25 Percent Complete
98%
7. Deductions or Charges ; -0-
8. Total $ 135, 608. 70
Payment Due (Line 4 - Line 8)
$ 18, 040. 36
CERTIFICATE 0V i'AM.I I•N P
(I, We) hereby agree Lhat the quantity and vain,. ..I' work :.ii',trn horein i:: :i fair
c::tininte of the work • . 1plcted to dute.
CONTRACTOR: �< hl;v.11•;wi•:u BY SHAKOPIE PUBLIC
J1,; UTII,[TIES COMMISSION
*-• ,
TITLE:
Nalnliwr
A.' '' OVFI) - CITY OF SHA OPEE
City Engineer
City Administrator
=, . -_.. ..__
•
• PROPOSAL SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME Halo 2nd Addition Improvemen s/ OWNER Don Parrott Construction
Bluff Avenue -Improvemens
TYPE OF WORK ___ _ PROJ. NO.80-10/1--2_ SHEET 1 OF 3 '
ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT UNIT CONTRACT ACTUAL______
NO. PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT Quantity Total
WATERMAIN (Schedule 1)
1 6" D.I.P. L.F. $ 13.60 250 $ 3,400.00_ 225" 306,0 00
2 Hydrant Assemblies Ea. 820.00 2 1,640.00 2 /4'0 00
3 6" G.V. & Box EH.. 275.00 2 550.00 2 5-CD 00
4 Fittings lbs. 1.20 300 360.00 3247 38''t 00
5 Relocate Existing Hydrant & 6"
G.V. Ea. 9J0.00 1 900.00 / 900,00
6 F & I 6" x 6" Tapping Sleeve w/ pa.iate-oe by C4.7e
6" G.V. & Box Ea. 1000.00 1 1,000.00 47vof'e. #1
r/
7 Remove Existing 6" Plug &
Connect to existing 6" DIP Ea. 75.00 1 75.00 / >5-co
8 Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.95 175 3,316.25 55,5, /05-2. ?e,
9 Granular Bedding C.Y. 5.60 40 224.00 12.5 /2(0,00
SANITARY SEWER (Schedule 1) � /7 g 7 86
1 6" Extra heavy C.I.S.P. (includes
restoration of Hwy. 101) L.F. $ 43.14 75 $ 3,235.50 75 1235:50
2 Cut in 6" extra heavy C.I.S.P.
into existing Sanitary Sewer
include Bend & Wye Ea. 276.20 1 276.20 / 27G, 2-o
3 Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.95 100 1,895.00 _ 38 7520, /0
4 Granular Bedding for 6" C.I.S.P C.Y. 5.60 15 84.00 /5 ittQ,p
STORM SEWER (Schedule 1 ) 4/-3/5' , $0
1 12" R.C.P. (0-8) Cl. IV L.F. 29.20 45 1,314.00_ 33 %.3.4o
2 Std. 2' x 4' Catch Basin w/ i
. Salvaged Casting (C.B. #2) Ea. 650.00 1 650.00 / 4,5-0a,
3 Build Catch Basin over existing
12" R.C.P. Storm Sewer line
(C.B. #1) w/Salv:ttred CnsLinu, Fa. 650.00 1 650.00 / 66-
4 Raise existing Storm Sewer
Manhole 0.9 Ea. 100.00 .1 100.00 / /00,00
ROADWAY (Schedule 1) 21363 4°
1 Concrete Curb & Gutter B612 L.F. 3.75 120 450.00 /pq ;loco
2 Concrete Curb & Gutter B618 L.F. 10.05 508 5,105.00, (e94, 691464
3 Concrete Curb & Gutter B624 L.F. 12.65 260 3,289.00 _ ;35 z/-23 7.75
4 Transition Section (B618-B624) L.F. 1.4.35 27 387.45 •20 .24°P,'GO
5 Concrete Sidewalk (4" thickness S.F. 1.95 5685 11,085.75 4/00 q5144 5"0
6 Concrete Sidewalk (8" thickness S.F. 3.00 440 1,320.00 1/-70 MVO, oo
7 4" Sand Base for Sidewalk/Apron S.Y. 2.10 681 1,430.10 5`y/ // `19, /0_
' Halo 2nd Addition Impro PROPOSA SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME OWNER Don Parrott Construction
B}uff-�4ventre�-=lmproy,emrnLs - -- --
TYPE OF WORK _ PROJ. N0.80-1081-2 SHEET 2 OF 3
ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT -UNIT CONTRACT _
NO. PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT
_ 4
8 18" Pit Run Gravel (Inset #2) S.Y.
$ 7.16 695 $ 4,976.20. --o- -o-
9 6" Class 5 Gravel Base (Inset
#2) S.Y. 1.50 835 1,252.50 7cre //5 /45,C
10 9" Class 5 Gravel Base (Inset
#1) S.Y. 2.33 5470
r( 1 ,274.51 30/ /, 33
11 5" Class 5 Gravel Base S.Y. 2.33 553 1,288.49 383 892,39
12 6" Buse Course Bituminous
Mn/DOT 2331 (Inset #2) S.Y. 15.23 615 9,366.45 6f / g333- 99
13 2" Base Course Bituminous
Mn/DOT 2331 (Inset #1) S.Y. 5.45 526 2,866.70 µy0 2640,5o
14 1T" Binder Course Bituminous
Mn/DOT 2341 (Inset #2) S.Y. 4.35 615 2,675.25 (ole 1444 53
15 1i" Wearing Course Bituminous
MnDOT 2341 (Inset #2) S.Y. 4 .55 615 2,798.2527n 15"
�/ 3
10 2" Wearing Course Bituminous
MnDOT 2341 (Inset CO S.Y. 6.05 340 2,057.00 ;37o z7..,5a
17 Reconstruct 110' ± of MWCC
Driveway 6" C1. 5 Gravel;
2" 2341 L.S. 985.00 NA
985.00 50% it.92,So
18 Concrete Apron Ea. 402.50 3 1,207.50
3 /Zo7. co
19 Removal of Existing Concrete
Curb & Gutter L.F. 2.00 640 1,280.00 '703 /`/06.
4)412
20 Poured Concrete 4" Thickness
(Center Island) S.F. 2.65 342
906.30 263 61G.95'
21 Relocate Fence & Gate L.S. 400.00 1 400.00 / ,Voo o0
22 Rough Grading of Bluff Ave.
(Sta. 7+50 to 10+55) L.S. 1500.00 1 1,500.00 / /5-co GD
23 Sod S.Y. 2.05 2600 5,330.00. A2/ y/q3 05-
WATERMAIN (Schedule 2) ��5,4 ;$e.
1 6" DIP L.F. 11.60 78 904.80 77 of 59X, If
2 8" DIP L.F. 11.60 1081 12,539.60 /290 /11; qG4,419
3 Hyd. Assembly Ea. 820.00 3 2,460.00 3 2N'GD.OD
4 6" G.V. Ea. 275.00 3 825.00 _, 3 125,0P_
5 8" G.V. Ea. 366.50 3 1,099.50
3 /0.n._,Sd
6 Fittings lbs. 1.10 930 1,023.00 910 /O12,61:12
7 3/4" Copper L.F. 3.85 500 1,925.00 / 33 5/1.05
8 3/4" Corporations Ea. 27.00 15 405.00 A/ /0C 00
•
Halo 2nd Addition ImproLh3R( SCHEDULE
PROJECT NAME Bluff Avenue lmprgvjment_s_ OWNER __Dan Parrott Construction
TYPE OF WORK — __._-___– .__ PROJ. No. .8O-10/81-2 _ SHEET 3 OF 3
ITEM CONTRACT ITEM UNIT UNIT CONTRACT
N0. PPI CI UUANUTY AMOUNT '–
9 3/4" Curb Stops & Boxes Fa. $ 49.00 1,, $ '(35.0•
cf" 19G
10 Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.1)5 100u 18,950.0. 7/#, 2 13,531409
SANITARY SEWER (Schedule 2) 3541g
1 8" D.1.P. 0/8 ' L.F. i3.60 743 l0,1104.8o 760 / ;3Lpo
2 8" D.I.P. 8/10 I.Q.F. 13.65 100 1,365.00
/13 /54 2,0y
3 8" D.l.P. 10/12 L.F. 13.65 2U 273.00 -p- -0-
4 Std. Manholes Ea. 775.00 3 2,325.00 3 1325
60
5 4" Wyes Ea. 190.00 15 2,850.00
/ lgO.GiD
6 4" E.H. C.I. L.F. 10.05 500 5,025.00 —p— —0-
7‘
O-
7‘ Rock Excavation C.Y. 18.95 1001) 18,950.00 ;is 2. 637a
8 Sod S.Y. 2.05 2000 4,100.00 rd;7 /6?135
9 Drwy. Rock Ton 5.60 75 420.00
10 Granular Bedding C.Y. 5.60 450 2,520.00- jg0 /40$,426
;;71/4 .t2
•
Yo+.,I 1 126F14*
'i
CL u..r,1 t o rd,,.,,
8 SS7a, 30
•
a1..r. at .c_ Ok/dc..- -Z_ 1$ g72. zs
L 10-4....1,` 0 v<<< A (n;')1-4.6=1
c4.2a�1 - 1 153Piii106
rc P
Halo 2nd Addition Quantities
Listed below are quantities that either over--ran or under-ran proposed quantities:
Watermain -
Rock Excavation - Under-ran by $2, 263. 39
Sanitary Sewer -
Rock Excavation - Under-ran by Si, 174. 90
Roadway -
1. Curb & Gutter B-618 - Over-ran by $ 1,889.40 because of underestimated quantit
2. Curb & Gutter B-624 - Over-ran by $948. 75 because quantity was
underestimated;
3. 4" Sidewalk - Under-ran by $2, 486.25 because Bakken installed his
own sidewalk;
4. 18" Pit Run Gravel - Under-ran by $4, 976. 20. This quantity was not
used because in place material was found to be at least equal;
5. 9" Cl. 5 Gravel Base (Inset #1) - Under-ran by $573. 18. The quantity
appears to be overestimated.
Bluff Avenue Quantities
Watermain -
1. 8" DIP - Over-ran by $2,424.40; quantity underestimated;
2. 3/4" Copper - Under-ran by $1,412. 95; property owners either decided
they didn't want a service or wanted a 1" service;
3. 3/4" Curb Stops & Boxes - Under-ran by $539. 00; same reason as above;
4. Rock Excavation - Under-ran by $5, 415. 91; fewer services were installed.
Sanitary Sewer
1 . 4" Wyes - Under-ran by $2,660. 00; few services were installed, or 6 inch
services were requested by the property owners.
2. 4" E.H .C.I . - Under-ran by $5, 025. 00. This quantity was not used;
3. Rock Excavation - Under-ran by $13, 606. 10; few services were installed;
also, depth of rock was shallower than anticipated;
4. Sod - Under-ran by $2, 404.65; quantity was overestimated;
5. Granular Bedding - Under-ran by $1, 512. 00; few services installed.