Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> <br /> CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> FEBRUARY 10, 2010 <br /> The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Boss. <br /> Ayes (5). <br /> Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br /> LITTLE The City Administrator reviewed the City Engineer's report relative to bid <br /> CANADA opening for the Little Canada Road Bridge rail replacement project. He <br /> ROAD noted that the project had been bid in the fall and only one bid was <br /> BRIDGE received and, therefore, rejected. The project was rebid and two bids were <br /> RAIL received with the low bid submitted by Sunram Construction in the <br /> REPLACEMENT amount of $112,534.12 which was appiroximately $6,8001ess than the bid <br /> last fall. The Administrator reported that given this is a small project, it <br /> did not draw the interest of many bidders. The Administrator reported that <br /> City staff recommends the award of the low bid subject to MN DOT's <br /> concurrence. <br /> Keis asked the Engineer's project estimate. The Administrator reported <br /> that the estimate was $100,000. However, a big factor in the cost was the <br /> fact that a large freeway sign had to he removed and then reinstalled iu <br /> order to complete the work. That removal and reinstallation involves the <br /> use of special equipment. <br /> The Administrator pointed out that the City has a cost share agreement <br /> with MN DOT in which they will pay 50% of project costs up to $50,000. <br /> Therefore, the City's share of the cost will be $62,534.12 plus City <br /> engineering expenses. <br /> Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUT10NN0. 2010-2-37-AWARDING THE LITTLE CANADA <br /> ROAD BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT LOW BID TO SUNRAM <br /> CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,534.12 SUBJECT TO <br /> MN DOT'S CONCURRENCE WITH THIS BID AWARD <br /> The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br /> Ayes (5). <br /> Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br /> GOAL The City Administrator reviewed the results of the 2010 Goal Setting <br /> SETTING Session which was held on February 3, 2010 noting that at the session a <br /> SESSION number of both long-term and short-term goals were identified. The <br /> Administrator pointed out that based on past practice the top goals have <br /> been those that received at least three votes from elected officials. There <br /> was some discussion of including non-elected participants rankings in <br /> determining the top goals. The Administrator pointed out that regardless <br /> 5 <br /> <br />