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 11 <br /> <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that they could only get quotes from specific contractors if the 1 <br />project is less than $50,000 noting that legally, because the City is a public entity and the project 2 <br />cost is over $50,000, the City would have to go out for competitive bidding. He stated that the 3 <br />City could not specifically ask individual contractors to bid on the process but specific 4 <br />contractors could provide the City with their cost estimates for the project adding that the City 5 <br />would also have to open the bid process to competitors. He explained that the City would have 6 <br />to have plans and specifications for stick construction done before the City could open the bid 7 <br />process noting that the City is back to square one in the planning process. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Council Member Thomas suggested exploring some of the local community colleges as a 10 <br />possibility for construction resources. She stated that utilizing the students could be a significant 11 <br />savings for the City. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Council Member Flaherty referenced the letter from TKDA to Steve Dezinski regarding stick 14 <br />construction and reviewed the letter with Council. He clarified that Council was not asking for a 15 <br />recommendation on stick construction they are asking for variety of options that would include a 16 <br />breakout of the costs for those options. He stated that in the future Council would like options 17 <br />from TKDA. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Public Works Director Lee acknowledged their request stating that providing options would be 20 <br />an additional cost. He stated that he would ask them to include the comparisons. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Mr. Werner clarified that TKDA charged the City $20,000 for the purpose of giving the City a 23 <br />bid. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mayor Marty clarified that the $20,000 is what TKDA charged for designing the plans and 26 <br />reviewed the process with Council. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Public Works Director Lee further clarified that the $19,600 was for the plans and specifications 29 <br />noting that TKDA came in the lowest bid noting that other engineering firms had stated that they 30 <br />could not come close to that bid. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Mayor Marty thanked the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission for their work noting that 33 <br />the Council is not trying to shoot them down. He explained that Council would like further 34 <br />review of the options noting that the City can’t afford this and should work to determine what 35 <br />would work best. He stated that this is too extravagant and should be more realistic. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Cindy Palm, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission stated that she too was surprised at the 38 <br />amount when the bid came back from TKDA. She stated that she had expected this reaction 39 <br />from Council and agreed that the Council should consider other options including stick 40 <br />construction. She also agreed that the bid was too high and expensive and explained that they 41 <br />had to bring the current bids before Council for their review in order to get to this point in the 42 <br />process where they could move forward with considering alternate options. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.