Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Minutes <br />February 26 , 1985 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Motion by Harcus, seconded by Schmidt, to WAIVE THE READING, <br />HOLD THE SECOND READING, AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING <br />CHAPTER TWO OF THE NEW BRIGHTON CITY CODE BY THE ADDITION <br />OF ARTICLE VII RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEVELOPMENT <br />FUND AND GUIDELINES FOR ITS USE. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Proper had nothing to add to the staff report concerning <br />repair work on City Well #11. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked if there was anything that the driller or the <br />construction company could have done to minimize the on-going <br />expenses. <br /> <br />Proper indicated that the process of determining where the <br />casing would be set was his, based in information from the <br />Minnesota Geological Survey people and the driller; in hind- <br />sight we should have set it higher because the hole has moved <br />up. <br /> <br />Schmidt stated that, in other words, we used the best pro- <br />fessional advice at the time and made a calculated decision. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Proper feels things have gone extremely well and we haven't <br />had too much problem for the amount of construction done. <br /> <br />Blomquist feels the decision that was made was incorrect for <br />reasons beyond our control; but that our decision was the <br />right one at the time. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Janecek, to AUTHORIZE REPAIR <br />WORK ON CITY WELL #11 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 <br />WITHOUT FURTHER COUNCI L AUTHORI ZATION. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Harcus stated credit is to be given to Sinda and Don <br />Salverda, County Commissioner, for making sure the project <br />didn't fall apart. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Benke commented that staff report discusses last-minute nego- <br />tiations; stated the State took a position and the County <br />staff took a position that suggested the bridge would go down <br />the tubes; it was only the City agreeing to pick up that cost <br />that saved the project. One question of the County from the <br />City might be: "If it's not a County obligation, how can it be <br />a City obligation?" It's a policy issue we may want to consid- <br />er further discussion with the County on, because we do have <br />additional bridges coming. <br /> <br />Motion by Janecek, seconded by Schmidt, to: <br /> <br />1. APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MN/DOT BRIDGE <br />PLANS: <br /> <br />Page Six <br /> <br />Development Account <br />Report 85-51 <br />Ord i na nee <br /> <br />City Well #11 - <br />Repair Work <br />Report 85-55 <br /> <br />Silver Lake Road <br />Bridge Project <br />Approvals <br />Report 85-56 <br />Resolution 85-21 <br />Resolution 85-22 <br />Resolution 85-23 <br />Resolution 85-24 <br />