Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br /> 4110 <br /> September 9, 1996 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> Mr. Colmark explained that for every dollar that is collected from Tax Increment Financing they apply it to <br /> the taxes in the school district and the state reduces the general education revenue for that. He does not <br /> know specifically what that revenue would be. <br /> C. Consideration of Approval of New Fencing for the Silver View and City Hall Athletic Fields. <br /> Mr.Whiting noted that a discussion was held between council and staff at a work session in regard to <br /> adding new outfield fencing for Silver View and City Hall Park athletic fields. Three bids were received. <br /> The low bidder was Town&Country Fence in the amount of$25,716.00. Staff is requesting Council <br /> approval to remove the current fencing and replace them with new 10 foot high fencing at Silver View <br /> Park and City Hall Park. The project would be funded with Park Improvement Funds,monies received as <br /> Park Dedication fees. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Blanchard to award the bid for fence replacement to Town&Country Fence <br /> in the amount of$25,716.00. <br /> VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> D. Surface Water Abandonment for Pedestrian Bridge Construction. <br /> Mr.Ulrich,Director of Public Works,explained that at the last council work session,Rocky Keen and <br /> Steve Campbell were present to discuss eight options for the removal of the storm water pond for the <br /> proposed pedestrian bridge. The options ranged in cost from$20,000 to$223,000. After some discussion <br /> amongst the staff,it was felt either option#1 or#2 would be the most economical and preferable way of <br /> removing the storm water pond; this was also felt to be the best options by BRW who indicated that <br /> Option#2 would be the preferable option. They indicated,however that they would like approximately <br /> $3,000 added to the$27,000 to include some decorative rock and structure around the protruded <br /> corrugated metal pipes to provide a more aesthetically pleasing situation. <br /> Staff requested Council authorization to proceed with a meeting with the two engineering firms to discuss <br /> what type of arrangements can be made in regard to designing,etc. of the project. <br /> Ms.Trude asked if Option#2 will reduce the cost of the bridge. <br /> Mr.Ulrich explained that if the pond were to stay and was reconstructed to function,it would cost <br /> approximately$40,000. (This cost would not be incurred if the council authorized Option#2.) <br /> Ms.Hankner asked if this cost would be in addition to the$180,000 which has already been committed for <br /> the project. If so,she wondered where the additional money would come from. <br /> Mr.Ulrich stated it is proposed to come from the Surface Water Management Fund. <br /> Mr.Quick asked if the city had an alternative way of designing the bridge. <br /> Mr.Ulrich stated the alternate method would be utilizing a switch back design. If this were approved, <br /> • Option#2 would not be necessary. <br />