gr00090_000042_pg270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 27, 1976 Page 2 would be better served if they use the money for police protection. He asked why there is not also an ordinance on cats? Councilmember Hodges stated that most of the complaints were on dogs. Mr. Lauterback suggested that the money now being used for dog control be devoted to the Police Department for more resources. Mayor Pickar stated the Mounds View Police Department has been ranked among the highest and the City can't pay a police officer's wages for this type of animal control so the City got an animal abatement officer at a lower wage. Mr. Lauterback stated he felt the money would be better spent to have the Police Department get more equipment. Mayor Pickar explained that the City received a lot of complaints about running dogs so they contracted for this service. Councilmember Shelquist stated that the City must provide services for all of the citizens. Councilmember Baumgartner suggested that the Council consider a cat ordinance. Mr. Lauterback suggested they at least be required to have rabies shots. At 8:20 p.m. Mayor Pickar recessed the regular council meeting and called to order the public hearing on Drainage Improvement Project 1975 -4 and 1975 -4A. Mr. Thomas J. Stearns, attorney from Nilva and Frisch, filed, in writing, Paster Enterprises objections to the assessment. Engineer Hubbard reviewed the procedure used in assessing the project. The cost of these projects are broken down as follows: Engineering fees - $9,264.19; Legal fees - $2,655.00; Construction costs - $18,375.53; Advertising costs - $111.01; 2% Assessing fee - $608.11. The total assessment is $31,013.84. The total cost was divided by the actual square footage of the benefited property. The square footage is 427,760. The unit cost is $0.072503 per square foot. Attorney Meyers stated that this matter is controlled by Minnesota State Statutes. He explained that it is the duty of the Council to consider the assessment as prepared by the staff. The clerk's office has published the notice on this assessment in the legal paper and a notice was also sent to the property owner. The Council must hear all objections to the proposed assessment and then amend the proposed assessment, approve the assessment as presented or cancel the assessment. The assessment hearing may be continued from time to time but adequate notice should be given to the property owners. The propert owners have 30 days in which to pay the assessment interest free, so if it is adopted tonight they will have until October 27, 1976. Council must decide on the number of years for this assessment. Councilmember Hodges stated that for the safety of the citizens, the assessment roll should be adopted. We can't measure the value of a person's life on a few dollars. Councilmember Hodges stated that he realizes it is quite a chunk of money but it is hard to sit in judgement. Councilmember Hodges stated that he felt the assessment roll must be adopted. Councilmember Baumgartner stated he agreed and he can recall the evenings the Council spent listening to all the reports. He felt the assessment roll must be adopted and this is the only property which would be benefited. Councilmember Rowley had no comment since she was not a member of the Council at that time. Councilmember Shelquist stated he felt we have amply demonstrated over a period of two years with the late meetings and pictures of the problem, that there was not adequate drainage provided at Mounds View Square when it was constructed. This will remedy the situation.