Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council March 12, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Jahnke stated he had watched the work session and is concerned about some of the issues <br />discussed indicating he is hoping this Council and Mayor will take accountability for their <br />actions. <br /> <br />John Stacy of 8000 Woodlawn Drive addressed Council and expressed concern for the $47.00 <br />sewer charge as he does not feel it is fair to charge him a flat rate. He stated he would prefer to <br />pay per usage as he does for the home he owns in Minneapolis. He then questioned whether the <br />$47.00 is actually more than what it costs the City to provide sewer service. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre indicated the Public Works Director was not at the meeting and noted he was not <br />privy to the information needed to properly answer the question. He then asked City <br />Administrator Miller to investigate the situation and provide Mr. Stacy with an answer. <br /> <br />Finance Director Kessel arrived at the meeting and explained there are two ways to bill for sewer <br />noting the revenues that are generated equal the expenses and the City is not overcharging <br />anyone. In the metro area most cities bill a flat amount for sewer service. Finance Director <br />Kessel referred to a report from the Metropolitan Council noting he could get a copy for Mr. <br />Stacy which outlines the flat rate billing as the most common way to bill for sewer services. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty stated he had raised this question a year and a half ago and it faded off <br />the agenda and was not dealt with. He then stated he felt it was a valid question that he would <br />like to see revisited. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney thanked Mr. Stacy for bringing the issue to Council. He then stated he <br />would like to discuss the issue at a work session. <br /> <br />10. COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Consideration of Resolution 5537, a Resolution Awarding and Authorizing <br />Execution of a Contract for the Highway 10 Reconstruction and <br />Revitalization Corridor Study. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller noted the City received six proposals and of those six three firms were <br />interviewed. Of the three that were interviewed, Staff feels one in particular stood out as being <br />the best firm for the project. Staff recommends URS/BRW be awarded the contract. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty noted the BRW bid was the low bid and that it fit with the RFP but noted <br />with the other costs included some of the other bids could have come in under the BRW bid. <br />Council Member Marty then inquired as to whether BRW had been asked what the costs for <br />everything would be and, if not, if the City should ask the total amount of costs ahead of <br />awarding the contract. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller noted there was a problem comparing proposals as each firm submitted <br />a slightly different proposal. She then explained BRW matched the needs of the City the best