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