My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2004/07/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
Agenda Packets - 2004/07/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:58 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 4:40:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/12/2004
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/12/2004
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.
/
325
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 28, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 1 <br /> 2 <br />J. Resolution 6292 Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Letter 3 <br />Agreement with TKDA for the Groveland Park Building Replacement 4 <br />Project. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Council Member Marty stated he had received calls regarding the high cost for simply a cinder 7 <br />block building. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Council Member Stigney stated the staff report had said it was assumed the building would use 10 <br />the same general plans as the Hillview building with some minor modification. He asked why 11 <br />they were asking for $19,600. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated he had made the assumption they could use the same plans 14 <br />over again, which was true to some degree. He stated there is going to be a lot of expense in 15 <br />ter ms of coming up with a site plan for the building and also doing the topographic layout for the 16 <br />building. He stated they would also be doing some minor modifications to the building, so they 17 <br />are looking at a lot of drafting time to redo the plans. He stated t he City would not be realizing 18 <br />the cost savings that he had thought would be the case. He pointed out that they had budgeted 19 <br />$20,000 for this work. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether they had gotten estimates from anyone else. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated they had not. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Stigney stated he had a problem with the cost of the project since the building 26 <br />was almost the same as the other one. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that if you took into account the inflation factor in the last 29 <br />four years, the cost of the project could have been $23,000 - $24,000. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Linke pointed out some provisions in the contract that he found unsatisfactory, including 32 <br />TKDA stating they were only going to provide three hard copy sets of the contract document s. 33 <br />He stated he would like to see a list of what their principals and techs make. He stated the 34 <br />contract states the City would be charged for reimbursables, but it doesn’t specify what the 35 <br />reimbursables are and what those costs will be. He stated in th e general provisions for 36 <br />architectural, where it says, ‘‘outstanding professional technical services with a cost defined as 37 <br />amounts billed for extras, plus 10 percent,’’ he would like to see that number at 5 percent. He 38 <br />also stated that the floppy disk they receive should be reusable for longer than 30 days. He 39 <br />stated he would like to get estimates from others. 40 <br /> 41 <br />MOTION/SECOND. Marty/Gunn. To disapprove Resolution No. 6292. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Mayor Linke stated he would rather see a postponement of this item rather than rej ection at this 44 <br />time to let staff go back and discuss it. 45 <br /> 46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.