My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2005-09-26
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2005
>
AgdaPkt 2005-09-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2012 4:38:09 PM
Creation date
9/22/2005 11:13:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
9/26/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
356
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 /> Alternative Type of Paver Total Developer City/RDA Funding <br /> Cost Share Available Needed <br /> Funding <br /> I. Granite $7.1 M $1.3M $3.OM $2.8M <br /> est. <br /> II. Hanover $5.7M $1.3M $3.OM $1.4M <br /> III. Brick (McNear) $5.5M $1.3M $3.OM $1.2M <br /> IV. Cobble (McNear) $5.7M $1.3M $3.OM $1.4M <br /> + Hanover Comb. <br /> Thus, it can be seen that, other than the granite pavers, the final costs for the other three <br /> options are very close. Since the ARC meeting, we have learned that, although the unit <br /> costs for the cobble pavers is less than the Hanovers, the installation of the combination is <br /> more complicated, and there is no savings. Given the design considerations that the <br /> subcommittee and the ARC expressed, it appears that there are two final options: <br /> 1. The Hanover pavers installed throuqhout Theatre Way from buildinq face to buildinq <br /> face (Alternative II). This option is fully designed and the final costs have been <br /> presented (pending some minor VE). Work would be able to start immediately upon <br /> execution of the attached Construction and Reimbursement Agreement, and there <br /> would be no further delays in the schedule. This option has a funding gap of $1.4M. <br /> This money would be available from the following sources: (1) the RDA Working <br /> Capital Fund Balance, and (2) the private incentive project identified in the original <br /> downtown funding plan. <br /> 2. Apply the ARC recommendation of a combination Hanover and cobble pavers as <br /> described previously (Alternative I�. This option would require some redesign work <br /> and would create further delays in the schedule. The cost is the same and funding <br /> would be available as noted for Alternative II. <br /> The designers, FTB, strongly recommend the Hanover paver option, because it is <br /> consistent with their original vision of utilizing one material throughout Theatre Way, and <br /> creating a unique place that would blend with the surrounding streetscape during closure of <br /> this portion of the roadway for special events. Staff also agrees that the Hanover paver <br /> option provides a higher quality product at basically the same price. Additionally, the <br /> Hanover paver will provide the design character that has been presented to the public and <br /> the City/Agency for many years to come. <br /> Construction costs continue to escalate across the Country and the bids we have to date <br /> can only be guaranteed until the end of September. The project will be placed in serious <br /> jeopardy if there are any further delays. <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.