My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/01/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/01/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:35:49 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:35:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
1/9/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 January 9, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br />• Mr. McCarty stated he wants Building Official Osmonson to have the best backup possible and <br />commented that Ms. Osmonson will become the best commodity for the City in the future. He <br />suggested the Council approach engineering firms that could provide a higher comfort level. <br />Building Official Osmonson stated it sounds like everyone is on the "same page" in wanting to <br />do the finest job on this project and suggested that an engineering firm be placed on retainer for <br />highly specific or specialized issues that may arise. <br />Mayor Marty stated the fee for G & H Consultants is about one-third or less than what the other <br />consultants quoted. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated everyone realizes this is a big project and everyone wants to be <br />comfortable before moving forward. He explained that having a list of consultants on retainer to <br />address those specifics can be part of the package. City Administrator Ulrich stated that these <br />two consultants are familiar with those firms and would be comfortable working with them. <br />Since time is not of the essence, he suggested staff prepare that information. <br />Mayor Marty stated that as far as costs go, the plan review will be paid from the permit fees. He <br />agreed that a more expensive firm could cover the specialized areas but he likes the fact that <br />these people are available. He noted that one individual is retired so most of the building <br />inspections and plan reviews would be done by these two consultants after business hours. <br />• Mayor Marty stated if the one consultant is retired, he would probably be available during other <br />times. Building Official Osmonson stated that is correct; however, the contract is for plan <br />review, not inspections. <br />Building Official Osmonson clarified that these individuals were not chosen because of the <br />financials, they are her first choice. <br />Councilmember Gunn stated just because a company charges a lot of money does not make them <br />a better company. She noted the City has had experiences with companies that have charged a <br />lot and the City, has not received what they paid for. Councilmember Gunn stated her agreement <br />with Building Official Osmonson, who is the City's expert. She stated she is comfortable with <br />her recommendation of these consultants. In addition, she pointed out that Building Official <br />Osmonson can gain expertise from these individuals and other inspectors will be coming in for <br />the specialized inspections. Councilmember Gunn stated the agreement also requires the <br />insurance requested. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6694 <br />Authorizing an Agreement with G & H Consultants LLC for Plan Review Assistance Associated <br />with Medtronic Phase I Construction. <br />Councilmember Flaherty noted that Ms. Grove and Mr. Hagedorn are not present to defend <br />themselves. He stated previously he had mentioned that their cost is lower because they have no <br />• overhead while engineering firms have extensive overhead. Councilmember Flaherty noted that <br />Ms. Gove and Mr. Hagedorn have 44 years of experience and the State recognized them as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.