My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-1997 CC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
12-08-1997 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:35 PM
Creation date
6/29/2018 8:25:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/8/1997
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/8/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
'7 <br /> Page 3 i. <br /> November 24, 1997 IL <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> 1 would be continuing and sufficient and adjusted for inflation as required. The Hold Harmless Clause seems <br /> 2 to affect body injury and property damage only. He wondered if the injury provision would include tort liability <br /> 3 such as Human Rights litigation. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Attorney Long explained that the way the clause is currently worded,per request of the MPHA,it would need <br /> 6 to be a result of negligence or a breech of the agreement. It is his understanding that the city would not be <br /> 7 covered under MPHA's language,but would be covered by the insurance language. However,if the developer <br /> 8 went away due to bankruptcy,etc.the city would not have the protection from the MPHA. He would like to <br /> 9 get additional language incorporated for added protection. Mayor McCarty commented that he would feel <br /> 10 much more comfortable having the MPHA or HUD involved in the indemnification. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 A discussion continued as to timing concerns. Attorney Long stated he believes the developer would have <br /> 13 until the end of the year,but would likely face penalties. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Council member Stigney stated the residents have concerns with this project He strongly opposes the project <br /> 16 as well and noted that the city is not under any obligation to sign the contract and would urge the council to <br /> 17 reconsider. Mayor McCarty noted that the project is in conformance with all building codes and therefore <br /> 18 there is no reason for denying it. Council member Stigney noted that he does not feel the city should support <br /> 19 the use of public funds for the project. Furthermore,if the developer wishes to come in and complete the <br /> 20 project using his own funds,he would have no problem with it. <br /> • 21 <br /> 22 MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Gunn to table Resolution No.5185, until the concerns addressed have <br /> 23 been resolved. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay(Stigney) Motion Carried <br /> 26 <br /> 27 1. Consideration of Resolution No.5182 to consider the reconstruction of Spring Lake Road/County <br /> 28 Road L <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 p.m. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Mr.Ulrich,Public Works Director,introduced Barry Peters,Project Manager, Glenn VanWormer,Traffic <br /> 33 Engineer,and Steve Campbell,City Engineer. Mr.VanWormer provided some basic background information <br /> 34 about pavement management,curb and gutters,street widths and street utilization. Mr.Peters of SEH <br /> 35 provided a map of the project area. He noted that the project area currently has sanitary sewer over the length <br /> 36 of it so this has not been included as part of the improvements. Water mains will need to be installed on <br /> 37 County Road I from Pleasantview to Spring Lake Road. The roads are anticipated to be a part of the <br /> 38 Municipal State Aid system that the city has and therefore there is certain criteria which need to be followed. <br /> 39 Mr.Peters went over the design standards for MSA roadways,dated April 1996. Information was provided <br /> 40 for both suburban and urban design roadways. He explained the three options/alternatives for water <br /> 41 collection over the project area. <br /> 42 <br /> 43 Mr.Peters briefly went through the city's current assessment policy. He provided information in regard to the <br /> 44 estimated project costs which included contingencies,engineering,administration,fiscal,legal and <br /> 45 miscellaneous costs. Estimated construction costs were provided for roadways ranging from 32 feet wide to <br /> 40 46 26 feet wide. It was noted that one of the options presented,a 28 foot Cold In-Place Recycling of the existing <br /> 47 asphalt without curb and gutter would not be eligible for MSA funding. An estimated project schedule was <br /> 48 presented,indicating an estimated construction completion date of 9/15/98. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.