HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. MANAGERS REPORT 6/20/06
v
Mount Prospect
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE: JUNE 15,2006
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED FOLDERlSTUFFER MACHINE
PURPOSE
To recommend the purchase of an automated folder/stuffer machine to be used by various
departments in the preparation of their mailings.
BACKGROUND
The Finance Department currently has a folding machine to assist in the preparation of mailings for
the Village. The machine is five years old and is not designed for the volume currently being
processed. The machine is also limited in the different types of paper stock that it can handle.
Since the machine is only capable of performing the folding component of the mailing, staff must
still manually insert the documents into the envelope to compete the mailing. Based on the
limitations of the existing machine and efficiencies that can be gained in the mailing process, the
purchase of a combination folder/stuffer was researched.
DISCUSSION
Three vendors were contacted to begin the selection process. The three vendors were Pitney
Bowes, Neopost and Progressive Office Equipment (supporting the Formax line of mailing
machines). A meeting was held with each ofthe vendors to discuss the needs of the Village and to
set up a demo of their product. Only Pitney Bowes and Neopost were able to provide for a demo of
their machine. It was discovered that Progressive Office Equipment was strictly a reseller of the
product and does not have access to any of the Formax products for demonstration.
Visits were made to the showrooms of Pitney Bowes and Neopost to get exposure to their full line of
products and get answers to outstanding items from the initial demonstrations. From these visits,
Village staff was able to narrow the choices down to five machines with similar capacity and
features. Three machines were manufactured by Neopost and two were manufactured by Pitney
Bowes. Quotes for the machine purchase and annual maintenance cost were requested from the
two vendors. Attachment 1 provides this information as well as relevant machine specifications in a
table for comparison purposes.
After a final review of the favored machines it was felt that the Pitney Bowes 01400 best fit the
current needs of the Village and into the future. Although the Neopost SI 62 was available at a
lower price ($7,779 vs. $9,800), the "pieces per hour" volume would not be sufficient to handle
future growth. Other advantages of the 01400 include higher capacity insert and exit envelope
feeders and the ability to pre-program a larger number of re-occurring jobs. Also, the manner in
Folder/Stuffer Machine Recommendation
June 15, 2006
Page 2
which the Neopost completes the fold causes a problem with the set up and placement of Village
form letters that would require a modification in programming if selected. Annual maintenance
costs were lowest with the Pitney Bowes machines. A copy of the spec sheet for the 01400 is
included for your review.
Although only $4,000 was initially budgeted for this item, sufficient funds from the Other Equipment
and Office Supplies accounts are available in the Finance Department budget to facilitate the
purchase. A budget transfer will be processed upon approval of this request.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Village Board approve the purchase of the Pitney Bowes folder/stuffer
machine, Model 01400 for a not to exceed amount of $9,800.
J~t? ~
David O. Erb
Director of Finance
1:\Memos 2006\Folder and Stutter Memo.doc
"
"
($. II
en
LLCO
00
n::J
wo
COW
:!En::
;:)0
zl;)
....
...
Z
w
::E
:c
o
~
<C
tn
W
Z
-
:J:
~
:E
C)
z
i=
0::
w
tn
Z
-
.......
C)
Z
-
C
...I
o
LL
~
~~
n::r-
Wn::
COw
:!Eo
;:)w
z~
n::
W
a.n::
en;:)
Wo
@I
a::
W
U
Z
...J<C
<Cz
;:)w
ZI-
zz
<(<c
:2
W
~
J:~
u-
n::n::
;:)a.
a.
...J
W
o
o
:2
o
N
LO
N
o
o
LO
N
o
~
N
f"o..
......
......
~
o
LO
cO
co
f"o..~
o
......
~
o
LO
(t)
o
UJ
~
o
CD
>-
Q)
c:
-
a:
0')
Lq
N
o
o
"!.
N
o
o
lri
co
......
......
~
o
LO
co
f"o..
f"o...
f"o..
~
N
co
en
-
UJ
o
a.
o
Q)
Z
0')
o
N
(t)
(t)
o
o
q
(t)
o
o
LO
(t)
o
~
r:!:
~
......
~
o
~
C\I
'o::t
oct
......
~
o
o
~
(t)
~
o
......
~
o
~
o
f"o..
~
......
......
~
co
co
en
1;)
o
a.
o
Q)
Z
o
f"o..
en
o
1;)
o
a.
o
Q)
Z
en
Q)
o
"0
-
UJ
o
a.
o
Q)
Z
Q)
J::
-
c:
m
J::
-
'-
Q)
"0
Q)
~
-
'X
Q)
"0
c:
m
'-
Q)
"0
Q)
~
t::
Q)
UJ
.5
Q)
a.
o
as
>
c:
Q)
~
'5
m
a.
m
o
'-
Q)
E>
J2
m
Q)
>
m
..c:
UJ
Q)
c:
J::
o
m
E
UJ
~
CD
>-
Q)
c:
-
a:
Q)
J::
r-
o
f"o..
en
o
Q)
J::
-
>-
.0
"0
Q)
o
m
a.
~
c:
Q)
Q)
..c
UJ
m
J::
"0
c:
m
E
Q)
:!:
"0
c:
m
a.
::J
Q)
UJ
Q)
J::
-
J:: .
:!:Q)
~o.
UJ.2
E ~
Q) c:
15Q)
e Q)
0.:5
~ E
UJ e
::J't"-
~ Q)
.....-
J::~
om
'- a.
j~
Q) '-
0.Q)
00.
-co
~o.
c: Q)
Q)J::
>--
a.:Q
~-E
UJ UJ
UJ Q)
Q).5
C:J::
.- 0
UJ co
.5E
Q) UJ
J::Q)
-~
"00
5CD
e>-
co ~
'-:!:
~a.
co .
o.~
Q) Q)
J:::l::
-Q)
"0-
-EE
UJ-E
Q) '-
.5 ::J
J::O
o-
m 0
E1::
-Q)
~ E
0.Q)
00
Q) co
za.
"0
Q)
::J
c:
:;:.
c:
o
o
.!a
"0
co
.!a
co
co
en
Q)
.5
J::
o
m
E
1;)
o
a.
o
Q)
Z
::!JeL. .
=i1 n= Pitney Bowes
DI400
FastPac™ I nserti ng System
Designed for productivity in the maiL center
;~ Pitney Bowes
D1-1OO
';:{,t~~~\,: ,;:-_~;,-:i':
li'F . . . i., TM
rV"FastPac InsertingSystem
Insert Feeder adds a piece that does
not need folding a.e. a coupon, a reply
envelope, or a pre-folded flyer! and nests
it in with the folded material from the
Sheet Feeder.
~
Add Optional Optical Mark Recognition
For Customization Of Each Mail Piece
,:~, ,',:;',-r, ",;,-r,':',:' " '.' '.i
cc'l':,~!~',j...J~im~p'roven method for delivering your message. It's the
:-{:,..): ~.':t~:T.',':G'.':: If, .:";': '~:~~i:
eyUnkrbetween you and your customers, and it's a key element in
~,':~:>:;r'.~:,':~-:t:,L'~:'";,"'-,,, ""-': ;.,':" ,", '
. . inl'l,ing"new customers.
Sheet Feeders
each feed a single
sheet (or predeter-
mined number of
sheets with OMR
option! into a mail
piece. The pages .............
from one or both
feeders are then
gathered and folded
together.
Command Center
allows up to 20 jobs to
be preset and saved in
memory for error free
job change-overs.
Optical Mark Recognition [OMR] makes it easy to control the
contents of each individual mail piece. OMR lets you collate
multi-page documents that vary from as few as a single page
to as many as 5 pages from a single sheet feeder, and incre-
mental inserts can be included in the collation if extra feed-
ers are used.
The completed piece
is inserted into an envelope,
then the envelope is sealed
and neatly stacked.
.ll.y~lJr~fritical communications flow through the mail - outbound
t,;:'.:'_.I-\ ":, -'.' .-~":'\):
nYP~;CE!!sHillcoming payments, promotional mailings that generate
, ;/t":~: ">1<.:-_;,.:,':<-, }~--i::::, C,":;,'" ,.,' .
r~,e[~,:~sweU ~s payroll and critical employee communications.
f:~\L7':~:?::--,':'i'~::,,'::-,:.<,:: ,'" ,:,-,- , .'
a,~~~~o~~ln.g:a?d basic mailing machines frequently can't keep up
"; .i:---'F'.:':,':-':_-' ",' ',' ",-:
!~~:'th~automation level of the rest of your operation, or with the
ii,:-'::>,:.,_:,"':f,:.":_ _~ :,' "
~e;r:3i.n'Creasing' standards of productivity and reliability demanded by
,~I'l~gement.
~:,"::ij':!,)~
,you'rmailing function as productive as the rest of your operations?
The DI400 with OMR assures that your customers receive not
just the right number of pages - it assures that they will
receive the right pages.
You can also include inserts selectively. Whenever there is
room left in a one ounce postage break, you can use it to pro-
mote your service or product. You can even use this feature
for target marketing by adding inserts based on the recipi-
ent's profile. For example, a gender specific campaign
for Valentine's Day is always appropria.t tee... ~ ..... . 'i. \"
With OMR and the batch func- ~~ \'
tion, you can also create tray ~. ---;~~~.,~ \'
"..\\',~ 1: ,,,t~\"\ ____ ',' ___". \ ___,
breaks to earn postal discounts. . .'':'~~ ,,;:..-'.~~~--. \:.
~,t'i'~\".....1:.,,,,~
'l-3<~~ "' __ \~"
,-- ~
;~--:::"i
-~""'~-'".---- --. ',..
~\)"V~~ _------ ..
~--~~::::'
~~-.~._,-
,:,",0')',.' '
,lJ~Om,Ci~e.7tour Folding And Inserting To Make Your
,ffj,(;~;,MprePr()~~~tive
Now the DI400 FastPac™ Inserting
System from Pitney Bowes gives your
staff a leg up on productivity. The Dl400
makes the advanced technology of our
high volume, production mailing systems
available for mail center applications. By
folding and inserting up to seventeen
times faster than by hand, the 01400
gets your mail out the door faster. And,
its small footprint and contemporary
design make it perfect for the mail cen-
ter environment.
The D/400 reads OMR marks and
interprets specific processing
instructions for each mail piece. This
ensures the security, accuracy and
confidentiality you need.
\
A Flexible System ~~~~~d To Work
Your Way
The 01400 FastPac™ Inserting System is extremely flexible at
handling a wide range of paper and envelope formats.
· Flexible design allows for either one or two Sheet Feeders to'
be combined with the standard Envelope and Insert Fe~ders.
· Handles a wide range of materials to satisfy almost all
applications.
· Enjoy optimum feeding flexibility with a wide variety of
folding options. The system can also handle "fold only"
applications that do not require insertion.
· Fold and insert a single communication [up to 5 pages],
using the manual feed, daily mail mode.
· Run a sample piece for accuracy and inspection with the
trial piece mode.
Easy To Use - Even For
New Users
Putting OMR Marks On Your
Documents - The Easy Way
\mounl
'8)
\
)
The DI400 Inserter knows your routine
jobs, and it will guide even a novice
through the easily understood operating
procedures.
· Program up to 20 jobs in the insert-
er's memory for automatic set-up of
regular applications.
· Get visual and text based prompts
to guide job set-up at the LCD
Command Center.
Pitney Bowes can supply templates to assist you in the
printing of OMR marks on your documents.
However, we've found that a simpler way is to combine PB
First™, our revolutionary file importing, reformatting and
sorting software utility with the integration services of our
Pitney Bowes systems engineers. There are several benefits
to this approach:
· Ensures the correct
application of OMR
Marks.
· Get the mail out fast with cycle speeds
of up to 3500 pieces per hour.
· Reload on-the-fly for maximum pro-
ductivity - when one sheet feeder
empties, the system automatically
switches to the other full feeder.
· Get maximum throughput with the
lowest fault rate in its class;
· It's easy to do the job right with
automatic adjustments for fold
settings and page separation.
· Eliminates costly
preprinted forms.
· Structures your out-
put files for maximum
processing efficiency.
"4qe.,~p'plicationf
ijnd.a product promotion sheet
"t!~~hc!tolt!ed together.
r~lopeis.nested inside the folded
ii '-- -- ' ,,"," " c
~___------=-~tr
:"t/
Simplified setup delivers maximum
productivity. You can pre-program and
store even complex jobs to minimize
set-up time between multiple runs.
When you place OMR or dash marks on
each sheet in your collation, the D/400
will optically scan and interpret them
into system control commands.
)
The DI400 fits right into your office environment.
A Reliable System From A Company
You Can Count On
At Pitney Bowes Mailing Systems, we are committed to pro-
viding our customers with reliable products backed by the
highest quality of service. If the job needs to be done accu-
rately and fast, the 01400 is the answer.
· State-of-the-art Paper Handling capabilities maximize
uptime while virtually eliminating document damage.
- Short paper path
- Automated paper separation controls
- Trial piece mode to verify proper set-up
· Double Document Detectors on each feeder automatical-
ly detect multiple feeds, so you can be assured that the
final collation your customers receive is accurate.
· Customer Satisfaction Guarantee"" that promises,
"W-;-won't be satisfied until you are."
Product Specifications
· Dimensions:
-38" long without catch tray
-29" footprint
-24" high
-20" deep
· Electrical: no VAC, 60 Hz
· Weight 127 lbs.
· UL approved.
. PltneyBowes
@
Engineering the flow of communication--
An ISO 900~ Re!!.istt~d Finn
F~l 12b16
World Headquarters
Stamford, CT 06926-0700
Material Specifications
· Paper Weight:
-16 to 32 Ibs. - Sheet Feeder
-19 to 48 lbs. - I nsert Feeder
-17 to 26 Ibs. - Envelope Feeder.
· Paper Dimension:
-5" x 5" to 9" x 16" - Sheet Feeder
-3 1/5" x 5" to 6" x 9" - Insert Feeder
· Envelope Dimension:
-3 112" x 8 2/3" to 6 3/8" x 9 1/2" - Envelope Feeder.
· Collation Thickness: Maximum of 2 mm/.08".
Will insert into #9, #10. 6"x 9" and 6"x 9 1/2"
envelopes.
The 01400 with and without OMR is
available in one configuration:
· Two sheet feeders and one insert feeder.
Optical Mark Recognition Specifications
Basic OMR Marks [Optional] -For Varying Number of
Pages Per Document & Improved Integrity
· Benchmark
· Beginning Of Collation
· End Of Collation
· Parity
· Safety
Advanced OMR Marks [Optional! - For Select Feeding and
Top Level Integrity
· Benchmark
· Beginning Of Collation
· End Of Collation
· Parity
· Safety
· Select Feed
· Batch
· Wrap Around
Sequencing
0/400 Inserter on
optional Rolling Stand
For more information call toll-free:
1-800 MR BOWES (800-672-69371.
www.pb.com
J
(i~
I
(t
j
(i
@2002 Pitney Bowes Inc. All Rights Reserved An Equal Opportunity Employer.
Printed in U.s.A. AD 11531 R0504
Mount Prospea
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS
~l>. ~
"" (2.0 \0(.0
FROM:
PROJECT ENGINEER
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JUNE 15, 2006
2006 BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT...., GEORGE STREET BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION RECO~NDATION - $196,359.00
ENGINEERING INSPECTION RECOMMENDATION - $16,752.00
Background
For the past eight years, the Village has invested in the rehabilitation of bridges under our jurisdiction.
Some bridges have required minor maintenance work such as the bridges along Burning Bush Lane,
Feehanville Drive, Business Center Drive and Wolf Road. Four bridges, Emerson Street, William Street,
See-Gwun A venue and Lincoln Street, have all had major work done to them. This year, the
rehabilitation project includes work to the George Street Bridge. Upon completion of this project, it will
conclude the multi-year bridge maintenance program. Public Works will continue to inspect the bridges
and perform routine maintenance but it is not expected that major work will be necessary for another 10-
15 years.
The project will involve deck replacement, abutment wall and beam repairs, and channel stabilization
beneath the bridge. No other bridges are included in this year's program. Also included in the project is
the replacement of the deteriorated bank stabilization measures 100' upstream and downstream of the
bridge. Funding for this project has been allocated in the Bridge Account using Motor Fuel Tax (MFT)
funds as well as the Creek Bank Stabilization Account. The work is expected to begin after the 4th of July
and be completed by the end of August.
Bids Results
At 10:00 a.m. on June 12th, sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud for the 2006 Bridge
Rehabilitation Project. A Notice to Bidders was published in the mOT Bulletin and local newspaper and
several local contractors were sent invitations to bid on the project.
Three contractors submitted bids. A low bid of $196,359.00 was received from Martam Construction of
Elgin,nIinois and a high bid of $322,510.00 from Sebastian Contracting of Brookfield, Illinois. The
engineer's estimate for the project was $199,432.00.
All bidders submitted bid bonds in the amount of 5% of their total bids as required by the contract
documents. All bids were checked for their accuracy. There was one error but it did not affect the order
of the bids. All bidders correctly signed their bids and bid bonds. Below is a summary of the bids.
Bidders
Martam Construction, Inc.
Alliance Contractors, Inc.
Sebastian Contracting Corp.
Engineer's Estimate
Total Bid
$196,359.00
$269,306.75
$322,510.00
$199,432.00
page 2 of2
2006 Bridge Rehabilitation Project
June 15, 2006
Discussion
The low bidder, Martam Construction, was the contractor for the 2005 Bridge Rehabilitation Project and
they have also performed streetscape and pond dredging projects for the Village. Their workmanship has
been acceptable.
Engineering Inspection Services
Ciorba Group, Inc. of Chicago, lllinois was requested by the Village to submit a proposal to provide
inspection services throughout this project. They are the designer of the project as well as the previous
bridge rehabilitation projects. They have also been the Village's consultant on various street lighting and
pond dredging projects.
Ciorba Group's quote to provide inspection services for this project is $16,752.00. Based on the scope of
the project, it is Staffs opinion that the quote is acceptable.
Recommendation
It is Staffs recommendation that the low bidder, Martam Construction, be awarded the construction
contract for the 2006 Bridge Rehabilitation Project in the amount not to exceed $196,359.00. This
approval would be contingent upon acceptance by IDOT.
It is also Staffs recommendation that Ciorba Group, Inc. be awarded a contract for construction
engineering services in the amount not to exceed $16,752.00. This approval, too, would be contingent
upon acceptance by IDOT.
Funding for this project is available in the 2006 Budget. Please include this item on the June 20th Village
Board Meeting Agenda.
Matthew P. Lawrie
I concur with the above recommendation.
Attachments: Project Area Map
cc: Village Clerk Lisa Angell
h:\engineering\bridges\2006project\construction Jec _ memo.doc
~
t
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
2006 BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROJECT
n D
COUJ:iQb TR
0
I- c:k:
l- V) l-
V) LU I~
~ 01
<( c:k: V)
0 0
:J LU
-I 0 c:k:
~ a...
I-
Z
:::::>
0
~
GEORGE 5T
BRIDGE
GOLf RD
if'
Mount Prospect Public Works Department
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
VILLAGE MANAGER, MICHAEL E. JANONIS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
~~
IP/2J>/ c(II
FROM:
DATE: JUNE 15,2006
SUBJECT: FINAL BALANCING CHANGE ORDER / FINAL INVOICE RTE 83
IMPROVEMENT - PROSPECT AVE. TO GOLF RD. - $419,441.92
Background
The Village Board, at the December 21, 1999 Board Meeting authorized the execution of an
agreement between the Village and the Illinois Department of Transportation (mOT). The
agreement dated January 18,2000, as amended, specified those portions of the costs the Village
would be responsible for, in conjunction with the improvement of Route 83 from Prospect Ave.
to Golf Rd.
Improvements included widening, resurfacing and reconstruction of the roadway; modernizing
and interconnecting all traffic signals; replace and relocate storm sewers; replace the bridge over
Weller Creek; sidewalk replacement; and replacement and relocation of Village water mains and
sanitary sewers. The total estimated cost of improvements was $5,285,925.00 and the Village's
share was $555,561.00. Harza Engineering was the design engineer who developed the cost
estimates and mOT Engineers provided all construction engineering services. mOT secured
bids and awarded a contract to Martam Construction for $5,592,549.99.
Discussion
Construction started April, 2000, and road was reopened in November, 2000. Final punch list
items were not completed until July, 2002. Once construction was well under way, mOT
inspectors realized the design construction quantities were severely under estimated. This
resulted in a significant increase to Martam's Contract. Their final contract amount was
$7,390,165.88 and fmal construction engineering services was $1,013,734.82 for a total
improvement cost of$8,403,900.70 (see attached detailed final cost table).
Per the terms of the agreement "The Village's final cost shall be determined by multiplying the
final quantities times contract unit prices plus 10% for construction engineering and 5%
preliminary engineering".
FINAL BALANCING CHANGE ORDER / FINAL INVOICE
June 15,2006
Page 2 of2
Over the past year, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and I have been meeting with IDOT off and
on comparing their final construction quantities against our quantities and field notes. IDOT's
original final invoice they sent to the Village in April, 2005 had the Village total share at
$2,216,132.89. Less previous payments of $480,660.70 and a credit of $20,748.39, IDOT said
we owed them $1,714,732.80. This did not agree with our records.
IDOT has since agreed with our measured quantities and records and has reduced the Village's
final total share to $920,851.01. Less our previous payments of $480,660.70 and the same credit
of $20,748.39, the Village's balance due to IDOT is now $419,441.92. Jeff and I are both in full
agreement with these revised numbers.
The Village Board had originally approved an agreement amount with IDOT of $555,561.00.
The Board also previously approved two change orders. One was for the installation of brick
pavers in the narrow parkways from Prospect Ave. to Pine St. at a cost of $66,810.00. The
second change order was for coating all the new traffic signals with a black powder coating at a
cost of$68,001.15. This increased the revised total Village Board approved agreement amount to
$690,372.15.
In order to final out this agreement, the Village Board now needs to approve a final balancing
change order for $230,478.86. This will bring the approved agreement amount up to
$920,851.01, and would authorize final payment of $419,441.92 to IDOT. Over the past several
budget years I have been carrying over funds from both the Village MFT Fund and Street
Improvement Fund in anticipation of this final payment. Therefore there are sufficient funds in
the 2006 budget to cover this final payment to IDOT.
Recommendation
It is my recommendation the Village Board authorize a final balancing change order for the
Route 83 Improvement agreement with IDOT for an amount not to exceed $230,478.86 and
authorize final payment to IDOT for an amount not to exceed $419,441.92.
Please place the item on the Village Board Agenda for their consideration at the June 20, 2006
board meeting.
~
Glen R. Andler
H:\Administralion\IDOT\Final Balancing Change Order-Final Invoice RTE 83 Improvemenl.doc
Village Share Village Share
Pay Item Agreement Cost % Cost Final Cost % Cost
Q050L01- All $3,449,400.00 0 $0.00 $4,696,669.12 0 $0.00
Roadway Work
Including Bridge
P & C Engineering $517,410.00 0 $0.00 $704,500.37 0 $0.00
(15%)
Q05L02 - Traffic Signals $120,000.00 6.7 $8,040.00 $116,443.25 6.7 $7,801.70
83/Lincoln
P&C Engineering $18,000.00 6.7 $1,206.00 $17,466.49 6.7 $1,170.24
(15%)
Q050L03- Traffic Signals $360,000.00 10 $36,000.00 $442,504.57 10 $44,250.26
83/Council - 83/Lonnquist
US14/Emerson
P&C Engineering $54,000.00 10 $5,400.00 $66,375.69 10 $6,637.55
(15%)
Q050L04 - Traffic Signals $240,000.00 5 $12,000.00 $99,546.80 5 $4,977.34
IL83/US14
P&C Engineering $36,000.00 4 $1,800.00 $14,932.02 5 $746.59
(15%)
Q05L05 - Brick Sidewalk $0.00 0 $0.00 $59,615.80 88 $52,461.55
(Change Order)
P&C Engineering $0.00 0 $0.00 $8,942.37 88 $7,869.27
(15%)
07AOL01Y0313D - Painting $12,500.00 100 $12,500.00 $77,951.15 100 $77,951.15
Traffic Signals
(Change Order) and
Preemption Relocation
P&C Engineering $1,875.00 100 $1,875.00 $11,692.66 100 $11,692.66
(15%)
1180L01 - Sidewalk $0.00 0 $0.00 $1,634.00 50 $817.00
P&C Engineering $0.00 0 $0.00 $245.10 50 $122.54
(15%)
07 AOL01 J002A $0.00 0 $0.00 $1,298,866.63 3.34 $43,386.49
Traffic Signals
And Storm Sewers
Construction Engineering $0.00 0 $0.00 $129,886.66 3.34 $4,338.65
(10%)
07AOL01 $433,400.00 100 $433,400.00 $596,934.56 100 $596,934.56
Watermain and sanitary
sewer relocations, removals
and adjustments
Construction Engineering $43,340.00 100 $43,340.00 $59,693.46 100 $59,693.46
(10%)
t
Rte 83 Improvements - Prospect Ave to Golf Rd.
Contract No. 82270
Ag~ementDmed3nroO
Final Cost and Participation Table
6/14/06
TOTALS
$5,285,925.00
$555,561.00 $8,403,900.70
$920,851.01
Total Village Share $920,851.01
Less Previous Payments ($480,660.70)
Less Credit Due Vii/age ($20,748.39)
H:\Administration\lDOT\Cost and Participation Table, Contract No. 822770, Invoice No. 79934
Balance Due $419,441.92