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 10 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Council Member Stigney stated that he would like to know the actual costs for operation of the 2 <br />building. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Ms. McIntire stated that a cost comparison was done two years ago between Mounds View and 5 <br />New Brighton adding that it was found that Mounds View was very reasonable and affordable. 6 <br /> 7 <br />MOTION/SECOND. Flaherty/. To Postpone to a later date pending a re-evaluation of the 8 <br />stick construction and include alternatives for construction that would include numbers on the 9 <br />usage for all parks including Groveland. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that they do have this information. He stated that in terms of 12 <br />what to do with the bids, based on the direction just recommended, he would recommend 13 <br />canceling the bids because the City has a 45-day window to award a contract. He stated that it 14 <br />would take several months to go back and redesign the building and that it would be better to 15 <br />cancel the bids and take a few steps back to come up with the information. He stated that they 16 <br />also run into an issue where they paid TKDA approximately $20,000 to develop the design of the 17 <br />proposed building and they do not want to pay that much to get a design for the stick 18 <br />construction. He suggested going through a different contractor for the stick design. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Stigney asked if they could utilize the current design. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Public Works Director Lee explained that the City does not own the design and cannot provide 23 <br />this design to another contractor. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Thomas stated that she couldn’t justify spending $330,000 for this building just 26 <br />because the City paid $20,000 for design plans. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Flaherty withdrew his motion to postpone. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Council Member Gunn stated that the City could also consider utilize volunteers to help with 31 <br />certain phases of the construction noting that there are several who would be willing to donate 32 <br />their time. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Flaherty agreed with the concept noting that the savings would be minimal. He 35 <br />stated that there is a possibility that the City could save some money and agreed that it could be 36 <br />included as an option but he is not sure of the actual return the City would see. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Mayor Marty noted that there have been several projects in the City where volunteers have 39 <br />donated time to help in the process. He stated that it would be good to see some of the residents 40 <br />take more pride in the ownership. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Stigney asked if the City could contact specific contractors for bids or does the 43 <br />City have to place an ad in the approved press and wait to see who responds. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.