Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />! <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />adopts this resolution, the property owners will have 30 days to pay the past due amounts <br />without incurring certification charges. The certification amount will be a one year <br />assessment and will include a $10 administrative charge and interest at 10.75 percent from <br />the date of adoption to December 31, 1996. <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin ~:losed the regular portion of the City Council meeting at 7:42 p.m. in order <br />to conduct the [ublic hearing. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin ~alled the public hearing to order at 7:42 p.m. <br /> <br />None <br /> <br />Motion by Cou~cilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to close <br />the public hear~?g. <br />Motion carried~,Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beahen, Zimmerman, Beyer <br />and Peterson. ~oting No: None. <br /> <br />The public healing closed at 7:42 p.m. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Mayor Hardin called the regular portion of the City Council meeting back to order at 7:42 <br /> <br />Motion by Co~mcilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Beahen to adopt <br />Resolution g951-09-230 adopting assessments for past-due charges on municipal utility bills <br />(which may include water, sewer, street lighting, recycling charges and penalties incurred). <br /> <br />Motion carriedi Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Peterson, Beahen, Beyer <br />and Zimmerm~. Voting No: None. <br />Consensus of ~e Council was that the utility billing issue should be discussed at their next <br />Finance Committee meeting. <br /> <br />Case #11: ~wa. rd Contract for Improvement Project g95-16 Bituminous <br /> Faving of Bison Street from 171st Avenue to County Road #63 <br />City Engineer lankowski stated that the bids were opened for Improvement Project g05-16. <br />He noted that Ope amount of the low bid was in excess somewhat of the project estimate. <br />This is due prin~trily to the cost of gra~.ng as the road needs to be relocated. The projected <br />assessed cost v~ill increase approximately 8.3%, however, the cost to the City will increase <br />from $6,344 tO~ $11,000. <br /> <br />Councilmembe~ Peterson inquired if the Public Works Department could perform any of <br />the work. <br /> <br />Mr. Jankowski! <br />contractor. <br /> <br />replied that he did not feel we would be able to do it as efficiently as the <br /> <br />City Council/September 26, 1995 <br /> Page 13 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />