My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:40 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 12:48:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/24/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/24/2005
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.
/
297
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 July 25, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br />they would be discussing tonight. He acknowledged that the bids came in much higher than 1 <br />anticipated and agreed that the costs should be reviewed. He stated that the air conditioning costs 2 <br />are a minor issue noting that he does not want to say that a $5,000 to $7,000 cost is a minor issue, 3 <br />he is not saying this, but, if the intent is to add the air conditioning in the future the retrofit would 4 <br />be more expensive than including it now as a part of the construction process. He stated that this 5 <br />building and Hillview, in comparison to the Community Center, where there is a lot of activity, 6 <br />would provide an ideal location for events such as wedding parties and reunions. He noted that 7 <br />people would not want all of the activities around them during these events and this building 8 <br />could provide that avenue. He explained that the rental fees could be structured and tiered to 9 <br />compensate for the use and the energy used. He stated that the air conditioning makes the 10 <br />building a better asset for the City than a liability. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Mayor Marty closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Council Member Thomas agreed with Mr. Aukee noting that whether they include or exclude the 15 <br />air conditioning for this project means absolutely nothing when you think of the overall costs. 16 <br />She stated that the air conditioning would be great and probably is a necessity for events. She 17 <br />stated that Council has to consider the overall costs of the building. She stated that she cannot, in 18 <br />good conscience, agree to this project. She stated that she would have been fine without the 19 <br />letter from TKDA, which was the biggest piece of BS she has seen in quite some time. She 20 <br />stated that the Council has to re-evaluate this proposal adding that she cannot support $300,000 21 <br />for this building. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Council Member Flaherty stated that he would like to table this discussion until they can get 24 <br />further clarification on the information provided. He stated that at this point no one has been 25 <br />able to justify the costs for this building noting that it is his hope that the parks are not trying to 26 <br />compete with each other for activities and events. He stated that this is a community and what 27 <br />they are talking about is one neighborhood and he wants to see the costs for stick construction. 28 <br />He suggested tabling this discussion until the Council has all of the answers on this project. He 29 <br />stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission has a meeting scheduled for this Thursday and 30 <br />recommended that they include this issue on their agenda. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Council Member Stigney stated that $330,000 for a cement block building at a park is 33 <br />outrageous. He stated that as far as the air conditioning is concerned, the price for the unit is 34 <br />only about 2-percent of the total and asked why the building would cost so much. He stated that 35 <br />the Council should take a serious look at what is being spent for this project adding that whatever 36 <br />they determine for the cost, he is not in favor of the 35-percent funding from the Special Funds. 37 <br />He stated that he would not have a problem with loaning the funds but he would want to see it 38 <br />paid back. He stated that if they want it that bad they can pay for it but he is uncomfortable with 39 <br />the $330,000 figure. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Council Member Gunn agreed that this is way too much. She stated that they should look at an 42 <br />alternative to the masonry, as it is a lot of money to spend. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.