Minutes - 1977/06/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- Administrator Achen reported that the Council had three options open to them, to stick to their guns and not approve the overlay until the interchange is okayed, or to drop the issue of approving the overlay but continue to discuss the inter- change with Mn /DOT, or approve the overlay project with a compromise condition, to get Mn /DOT to approve the interchange when new TH 10 is put in. Mn /DOT will be opening the bids for the overlay project on June 24, and Administrator Achen suggested that the Council could hold a special meeting the night of June 22 and request the State send a representative to the meeting to discuss the interchange and work out an agreement. Attorney Meyers stated he felt the City had a good lever to use with Mn /DOT and that he did not feel Mn /DOT could bypass the City without it's approval of the overlay project. MSP (Rowley Ziebarth) to hold a special meeting the night of June 22 at 7:00 PM and that Mn /DOT be directed to study the issue and have the results of that study presented to the Council that evening. 4 ayes CONTRACTORS LICENSE BONDS ORDINANCE Administ. Achen. presented a survey of other cities' licensing and bonding requirements. Mounds View's current bonding requirement creates two problems in that the admini- stration and enforcement are very time consuming and the costs to contractors are greater than in most communities. The bonding requirement serves as an enforcement threat but the City has actually never collected on a bond. The City Attorney has advised that for smaller bonds the cost of collecting may exceed the amount collected and that the collection process can be lengthy. He indicated that a cash deposit is much more effective because the City holds the money. Complete elimination of the bonding requirement seems to be the best solution. The legal costs required to enforce code or ordinance requirements is probably less than the combined costs of contractor bond costs which are undoubtedly passed on to the consumer, the City's cost to annually administer the bonding provisions, and the City's costs to collect on such bonds. In addition, the City's rather comprehensive licensing requirements provides an enforcement tool. Adm Achen stated if complete elimination seems too extreme, a standard contractor's bond of $2,000 could be maintained as a nominal enforcement tool. Such a bond will cost most contractors only $40 -50 and does not require elaborate financial statements. Mr. Harstad stated that as a contractor he was well aware uF the bonding oeghlerc and that while they serve as a nuisance to large contractors, the bond often pre- vents the smaller contractors from working. They cannot get bonded, or afford to meet the bonding requirements. MSP (Ziebarth- Rowley) to adopt Ordinance #265, repealing Chapter 60.02 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, Subdivision 10, requiring bonding. 4 ayes