My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/10
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/07/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:55 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 4:57:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/10/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/10/2006
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.
/
222
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 June 12, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 21 <br /> <br />Public Works Director Lee addressed the issue of the gate that was not included and stated there 1 <br />was an additional cost incurred by the City. He stated Staff is recommending approval of Change 2 <br />Orders 27 through 30 and is looking for direction. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Acting Mayor Stigney stated the automatic door openers were taken out and that SEH said it was 5 <br />decided not to include them because of cost issues. He said not including the automatic doors is 6 <br />not a cost-saving issue, it is an issue of it being accessible to those in wheelchairs. He explained 7 <br />someone made a blunder, because the doors open out instead of in and that the automatic doors 8 <br />should be re-installed at SEH’s costs. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Acting Mayor Stigney addressed the front vestibule and stated that it is a problem because it 11 <br />looks different than the rest of the City Hall. He stated that as far as the $4,000 is concerned, 12 <br />someone should have addressed the issue of the bricks matching before it was done. He stated 13 <br />that he believes the architect or whomever made the decision should make the corrections 14 <br />without charge. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Acting Mayor Stigney also said the front of the chambers look bad and asked who authorized the 17 <br />new front. He asked how it came about. He stated it is his opinion that all they needed was 18 <br />wheelchair access and now they got the entire new front. He asked that the people who made the 19 <br />mistake fix it. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Councilmember Flaherty agreed with Acting Mayor Stigney, particularly with the bricks on the 22 <br />front vestibule that do not match. He said of course the Council wanted it to match and believes 23 <br />it is something that could be taken care of, or at least considered. He asked if the City still has 24 <br />the automatic doors, and Public Works Director Lee said he does not know. He said they were 25 <br />eliminated because they were a cost saving measure and because they cost a lot to maintain. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Councilmember Gunn said she cannot believe the automatic doors are not required. Acting 28 <br />Mayor Stigney said the current doors might minimally meet the standard, but the City is taking a 29 <br />step back without the automatic doors. Public Works Director Lee responded he will look into 30 <br />what happened to the doors and get a quote. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Councilmember Flaherty said that he is bothered that the Council may have change orders that 33 <br />will eventually equal the original amount. Acting Mayor Stigney asked when it will stop, and 34 <br />stated he believes the additional costs will end at $1.6 million, which was originally proposed. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that in the packet there are all outstanding Change Orders and 37 <br />that it should be a complete list. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Councilmember Flaherty asked Public Works Director Lee to look into the automatic doors, 40 <br />whether the City still has the old ones, and if they will get bids for new ones. He said he would 41 <br />not have voted for it as a “cost saving measure” 42 <br /> 43 <br />MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6845, A 44 <br />Resolution Approving Change Orders No. 27 through 30 for the City Hall Rehabilitation Project. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.