My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1985-09-24
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1985
>
1985-09-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:28:24 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:40:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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 24, 1985 <br /> <br />Motion by Harcus, seconded by Blomquist, to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY <br />WITHIN THE CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON and motion TO APPROVE FINAL PLAT FOR <br />LOT 1, BLOCK 1, RUSH LAKE ADDITION, PL-140. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Motion by Blomquist, seconded by Schmidt, to APPROVE THE FINAL <br />CURB CUTS FOR PUD-3 WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY RAMSEY COUNTY. <br /> <br />Benke stated his concern is with the sixty-foot driveway and the <br />possibility of two-way traffic on both sides of the sign. <br /> <br />After a brief discussion, it was resolved that there would be <br />one-way traffic on each side of the sign and that "Keep Right" <br />signs would be installed. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes. Motion Carried <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Bauer introduced the committee that worked on the specifications <br />(Steve Caswell, John Niles. Jim Doherty. and Ed Frey). <br /> <br />Blomquist asked how many responses were expected; Bauer felt we <br />would receive at least four bids. <br /> <br />Benke was impressed by the amount of detail and complimented the <br />committee on their work; asked a few questions concerning speci- <br />fied brands. Niles stated the specifications indicate the bidder <br />could submit alternative brands except where "no exception" was <br />s ta ted . <br /> <br />Schmidt stated it was apparent that a great deal of time went <br />into the specifications and that the bidders would realize the <br />City should see some significant savings. <br /> <br />Benke questioned the ramifications of the lowest bidder not being <br />able to deliver by the specified date. and the location element <br />between receiving and opening the bids. <br /> <br />Janecek pointed out that the wording is "may" not "shall" be cause <br />for assessment of a penalty (Section 18. Delivery Date); LeFevere <br />expressed no concern for the language as written. <br /> <br />Motion by Benke, seconded by Blo~quist. to ^PPROVE THE 1986 FIRE <br />PU~PER SPECIFICATIONS A~D AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, t10ti on Carri ed <br /> <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Fire Pumper - <br />Plans/Specs <br />Report 85-271 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.