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