My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-09-23
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-09-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 6:01:00 AM
Creation date
8/10/2005 3:46:00 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />September 23, 1986 <br /> <br />Public Hearings, continued <br /> <br />to the 8% carry-over, Benke recalled that when the city goes into <br />an agreement with the county, the city had to put its money up <br />front which is deposited for withdrawal to pay for contract <br />progress payments. Benke asked staff if the city could make <br />some claims on the county, which is probably earning interest on <br />the monies. <br /> <br />Schmidt commented this project has dragged on so long and he <br />believes it is an embarrassment to the county; suggested that <br />before we proceed with the Long Lake Road project, we should get <br />specific answers to questions we should be asking. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked if staff is to report back to council on the 8%; <br />Benke stated the 8% is a given on the County Road D project but, <br />it seems with the Long Lake Road project coming up, there will be <br />a substantial city contribution up front and prefers not to have <br />the city's money earning interest for the county if we can avoid <br />it. Benke further stated that, because there are state regula- <br />tions to be followed, legislation may need to be changed so that <br />when work is not delivered, the people paying the additional <br />penalty are not subjected to the kinds of conditions Eichers <br />described. <br /> <br />Gunderman stated his concern was that if the county did, in <br />fact, earn interest on our money we should check on the <br />possibility of a rebate and asked for clarification. <br /> <br />Benke felt the possibility of a rebate is probably nil, but <br />needs to be discussed in future contracts. <br /> <br />As neither the councilmembers nor the audience had further <br />questions or comments, Schmidt moved, seconded by Gunderman, to <br />CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Brandt, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT ON COUNTY ROAD D UPGRADING <br />STREET AND UTILITIES, PROJECT 84-2. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Schmidt, to DIRECT STAFF TO <br />NEGOTIATE WITH RAMSEY COUNTY THE POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING A <br />REBATE ON THE 8%. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Page Four <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.