My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:048
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:048
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2005 9:12:21 AM
Creation date
2/10/2005 8:39:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:048
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
of potential move-Es on the project; and the fact that project was competing with severa/other <br />large projects in the area that were out to bid at the same time. Because of the reasons cited <br />above, it has made it difficult to accurately assess the cost of doing this work. The single bid <br />received was from Prism Engineering (the same company re-bid the project at the present <br />time). Upon receiving the bid, staff noted some apparent last minute changes in the bid <br />proposal form that unbalanced the bid. Staff recommended and Council approved the rejection <br />of all bids and readvertising the project. Bids were opened on January 25, 2005, and one bid <br />was received from Prism Engineering in the amount of $229,000. In reviewing the low bid, it <br />was determined that the costs were evenly distributed over all of the properties, as opposed to <br />accurately reflecting actual costs for each individual property owner. Since the commercial <br />properties will be required to reimburse the City for costs in excess of the Rule 20A provisions, <br />staff is recommending that the Director of Public Works be authorized to negotiate a fair and <br />equitable reimbursement of actual costs incurred, or to direct the property owners to perform <br />this work themselves as provided under the City's Municipal Code. <br /> <br />BUDGET <br /> <br />The original budget for the project provided for the replacement of existing lighting supported <br />on PG&E poles and costs not covered under Rule 20A in the amount of $350,000. In forming <br />the district, the City Council authorized the use of project funds to cover those costs not covered <br />by Rule 20A for residential properties. For commercial properties the City Council invoked <br />Rule 20A provisions that allowed for Rule 20A funds to go towards paying for 100 feet of <br />trenching costs onto private property and up to $1500 for each panel box conversion. <br />Commercial properties were to be responsible for any costs in excess of the Rule 20A <br />expenditures. <br /> <br />The project involved two separate and distinct types of work that include the installation of street <br />lighting and the utility and electrical panel conversions on private property. For tracking <br />purposes, the street lighting portion is CIP No. 025071A and the electrical conversions are <br />referred to as CIP No. 025071B. As the project evolved, the scope of work expanded to convert <br />the existing street fixtures from cobra-head fixtures to decorative lighting and to include the <br />replacement of additional existing cobra-head fixtures with decorative lighting along First Street <br />from Vineyard Ave to Old Stanley Boulevard. On October 5, 2004 City Council authorized <br />the additional work for the street lighting and appropriated an additional $140,133 from the <br />General Fund to cover the street lighting costs. Included in the approval was an estimate for <br />additional funding to complete the conversion work, estimated at $325,000, with the <br />recommendation to appropriate the additional funding once plans were completed and bids were <br />received. <br /> <br />Based on the bids received (the remaining work and a contingency of $32,000), the estimated <br />cost to complete the work is $286,000 of which $91,500 is either reimbursable under Rule 20A <br />or by private commercial property owners. Therefore, the total projected additional cost to the <br />SR 05:048 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.