My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:28 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 4:53:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/13/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/13/2006
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.
/
381
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
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that one of the things that he has not heard is the timeframe 1 <br />involved. He questioned Mr. Bteibet regarding what the timeframe is and how long enforcement 2 <br />would need to be delayed. Mr. Bteibet responded that two weeks would be more than enough, 3 <br />and he stressed that he is trying to resolve this issue for whoever takes over the business. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Mayor Marty asked when the City is willing to act on the bids, and Council stated it would be 6 <br />tomorrow. 7 <br /> 8 <br />City Administrator Ulrich asked Director Ericson how long the bids are valid. Director Ericson 9 <br />stated that there is probably a 30 or 45 day window, but he will double check. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Councilmember Gunn questioned if the highest bidder would still be able to complete the project 12 <br />immediately if the issue is pushed out two weeks. Director Ericson replied there were three bids 13 <br />received, and if the low bidder is unavailable to do the work, the next lowest bidder would be 14 <br />selected. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Mayor Marty asked if the bids are relatively close. Director Ericson stated that there is a $2,000 17 <br />difference between the two lowest bids. 18 <br /> 19 <br />City Administrator Ulrich proposed to give Mr. Bteibet until the February 13 Council meeting. 20 <br />He stated this would give him a three week time frame, the bids still would be good and it would 21 <br />give him more time to make the corrections. City Administrator Ulrich pointed out that the 22 <br />canopy damage was a result of the storm and not neglect by the business operator. He stated that 23 <br />in itself calls for leniency with anticipation that the property owner would make corrections by 24 <br />that time. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Councilmember Gunn asked if there would need to be a court date if the citation items are taken 27 <br />care of. Mayor Marty stated that it would be up to the Council, and he would like to have more 28 <br />discussion at the January 30, 2006 Work Session. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Councilmember Gunn pointed out that if the Council waits until the February 13, 2006 meeting, 31 <br />it would be only one day before the court date. Mayor Marty confirmed that the Council should 32 <br />let the courts know ahead of time. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Councilmember Stigney stated that if progress has been made before the next meeting, Mr. 35 <br />Bteibet could give City Administrator Ulrich an update as to where he is at in the progress. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Councilmember Gunn stated that the citation from Ramsey County is already done and Mr. 38 <br />Bteibet is not involved with that. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Mayor Marty stated that Mr. Bteibet is asking for the citations that he was specifically charged 41 <br />with to be removed from his record. Mayor Marty confirmed that the canopy and the car wash 42 <br />are not part of the action needed. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.