Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 27, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />E. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 723, an Ordinance Amending 1 <br />Chapter 202 of the Mounds View City Code Pertaining to Apportionment of 2 <br />Cost Associated with Roadway Major Maintenance Projects 3 <br /> 4 <br />City Administrator Ulrich indicated that this Ordinance would allow the City the option of 5 <br />considering adjusted front footage or a per unit assessment method. 6 <br /> 7 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading, Approve the Second Reading and 8 <br />Adopt Ordinance 723, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 202 of the Mounds View City Code 9 <br />Pertaining to Apportionment of Cost Associated with Roadway Major Maintenance Projects. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Council Member Stigney reiterated what he said at the previous reading that, in his view, this 12 <br />unit method of assessment unfairly penalizes those with a small lot to make them subsidize those 13 <br />with a larger lot and he does not see that this is fair and he is against this change. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Council Member Marty indicated that Staff has explained that the same number of cars is 16 <br />averaged out to each family regardless of lot size. He then said that if someone does have a 17 <br />double lot they would be charged for two units. He further commented that no system is 100% 18 <br />fair but this seems to be equitable. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Stigney asked how it can be more equitable to pay more for someone with 21 <br />small frontage than someone with a larger lot. He then said that residents are taxed on the size of 22 <br />their lot and home and this unfairly penalizes those with small lots. 23 <br /> 24 <br />ROLL CALL: Linke/Quick/Marty/Stigney/Gunn 25 <br /> 26 <br />Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 27 <br /> 28 <br />F. Consideration of Resolution 6118, a Resolution Authorizing the Re-bidding 29 <br />of the County Road H Sidewalk Project 30 <br /> 31 <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed the Staff recommendation for this item indicating the City 32 <br />Engineer recommends rebidding for January 8, and awarding the contract on January 26, 2004. 33 <br />Option A is the segment from Edgewood Drive to Silver Lake Road; Option B is Silver Lake 34 <br />Road to the western City limits; and Option C is from Edgewood Drive to the western City 35 <br />limits. 36 <br /> 37 <br />City Administrator Ulrich indicated that the option including the Spring Creek crossing would 38 <br />include sheet pilings rather than a bridge as that was determined to be impractical due to issues 39 <br />with the property owner and prohibitive costs. 40 <br /> 41 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Quick. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6118, a 42 <br />Resolution Authorizing the Re-Bidding of the County Road H Sidewalk Project. 43 <br /> 44