Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 5 <br />December 15, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />APPROVED <br />Council member Koopmeiners asked why a new roof is necessary when the original inspection of the building <br />indicated that the roof was in satisfactory condition. <br />Mr. Olson explained that WAI did an assessment report in April of 149? and at that time they did a visual <br />inspection of the roof which indicated that the roof was in relatively good shape -the membrane and fleshings <br />appeared good. The report did note water damage in the interior of the building, but they were not able to <br />determine when that damage occurred. Mr. Olson noted that during the construction of Phase I, there was <br />some roof traffic and it was noted that there was a lot of glass on the roof between the rocks. It is possible that <br />there was damage which occurred during that traffic -however it cannot be proved or disproved. There have <br />been some leaks in the roof since Phase I was completed. The contractor has looked at repairing some of the <br />leaking areas, and has repaired some but there still appears to be some leakage. Therefore, the recommendation <br />was made to replace the roof. <br />Council member Stigney stated at the last Council meeting, he asked Attorney Long to contact WAI to check <br />on the contractors insurance to cover the roof problem. This matter will be checked into by Mr. Long. <br />Mayor McCarty stated he would like to have an options list to look at if the roof is necessary to allow the city to <br />stay within the project budget. If the roof needs to be done, then the Council should consider dropping some <br />other items so that they can stay within budget. <br />. A discussion followed in regard to whether the roof and sidewallc should be bid out as alternates or as a part of <br />the entire project bid. Furthermore, it was felt that a list of options totaling the estimated roof and sidewallc <br />improvements should be put together. Mayor McCarty stated he would like to involve the Community Center <br />Committee on some of these decisions as well. <br />Mike Coon, 7851 Eastwood Road, asked if a heated sidewalk is really necessary at the Community Center. <br />Mayor McCarty noted that this is only a suggestion and that no decisions will be made on this until a price has <br />been obtained on the necessary improvements. <br />Mr. Olson stated he would nevi to have some direction from the council inmid-January so that the bid <br />specifications can, if necessary, reflect the roof replacement and heated sidewalk. <br />Mr. Olson proceeded to present samples of the proposed brick and color samples of the interior/exterior. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Quick to approve the Design Development Documents for Phase II of the <br />Community Center. <br />VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carved <br />6. Consideration of Resolution No. 5203, Re-scheduling City Council Meetings Falling on Legal <br />Holidays. <br />MOTIONISECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to approve Resolution No. 5203, Re-scheduling City Council <br />Meetings Falling on Legal Holidays. <br />• VOTE: 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carved <br />7. Consideration and Selection of City Council Team Building/Retreat Facilitation and Meeting Date. <br />