My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2000/02/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
Agenda Packets - 2000/02/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:28 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 2:47:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/14/2000
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/14/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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 March 22, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 27 <br /> <br />Council Member Marty expressed his thanks to Mr. Schmidt for posing this question, and to <br />Director of Public Works Ulrich, for having the City covered. <br /> <br />Wendell Smith, representative of Anthony Properties stated they would request the Council vote <br />in favor of this item, with the contingency indicated. <br /> <br />David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road, inquired regarding the term “significant changes.” He <br />pointed out that the word “significant” is quite open, and could mean different things. He <br />requested clarification in this regard. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works Ulrich stated this term had been utilized in two different contexts. He <br />explained that the plan has already been through the MNDot Committees for additional <br />comment, and the corrections have been made. He noted that the majority of these corrections <br />were merely identifying what would be State Aid eligible, and what would not. He indicated he <br />had moved some of the amounts from the Surface Water Fund into a Local Project, and staff had <br />submitted the entire parking lot project, because the design must be completely reconfigured in <br />order to be State Aid qualified. He stated they anything that was within the right-of-way was <br />discarded as local funding. He explained that all of these corrections have been made, and the <br />last portion of the recommendation would authorize the Director of Public Works to sign all <br />change orders up to the amount of 10 percent. He advised that staff does not anticipate this <br />amount would be exceeded with this project, because they are so close with regard to the <br />approvals. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith stated the original estimate from the City engineers was slightly over $600,000, and <br />the current proposal would be coming in at slightly over $400,000, therefore, there was already a <br />$200,000 savings between the estimated cost and the actual cost. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin thanked Mr. Smith for pointing this out. He stated that actual bid was <br />approximately $463,000. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Marty: To Approve Staff’s Recommendation, Contingent Upon <br />Final Approval from MNDot, Given the Parameters the Director of Public Works has Indicated, <br />in that Action Could not Occur Until the Information is Received, and If There is Anything of <br />Any Significance, Over 10 Percent of the Bid, Brought Forward, that Was Not Anticipated <br />During the First Review of this Matter, this Action Would be Halted, and Be Brought Back <br />Before the Council for Further Consideration, Subject to a 5 Percent Change Order Limit, Before <br />Being Required to Come Back Before the Council. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney stated he had previously been put on the spot for voting for something <br />he really did not desire to vote for, under the threat of legal obligation. He stated he would have <br />felt more comfortable with this, if the developer was paying half the cost for the signal light, <br />rather than one-quarter, while the City pays three-quarters, however, he would support this <br />action, in that the Council is legally obligated to proceed with it. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomason pointed out that 10 percent of $463,000 was still quite a significant <br />amount of money. She inquired if the Council would have an opportunity to review the changes, <br />if any, in terms of a specific dollar amount, rather than a percentage. She stated she found the <br />bid acceptable, however, was concerned that it remain that amount. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.