Minutes - Council - 05/22/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Terry O'Connell, Quad Cities, stated that they are requesting that the cities transfer the authority to the Quad Cities Cable Commission to issue Revenue bonds. Mr. O'Connell explained as to how the issue came about and that the firm of Juran and Moody has determined that the Commission could in fact issue revenue bonds. Currently there is nothing in the current Joint Powers Agreement that prevents such a thing, but when the Bond Counsel analyzed the agreement they wanted some stronger wording. Mayor Gamec inquired if the City Attorney had an opportunity to review the resolution. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, noting that he had no concerns. Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Hendriksen, to adopt Resolution #01-05-208 amending the Joint and Cooperative Powers Agreement proposed by the Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Kurak, Hendriksen, Anderson, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. Case #3: Order Street Maintenance Project #01-01 Through #01-16, Exempting Improvement Project #00-15 City Engineer Jankowski stated that the 2001 annual street maintenance program, as proposed, consists of sixteen individual projects. Eleven projects consist of seal coatings preceded by crack sealing. Five proposed projects consist of one-inch bituminous overlay. All of these projects, except project #01-01, will be financed through a partial (50 percent) assessment to the benefited property owners. Project #01-01 will be financed through developer escrows that were set aside for the first seal coating of the recently constructed pavement. On May 10, 2001, a petition was received opposing Improvement Project #01-15, an overlay project proposed in the Riverwood Hills subdivision. This petition was signed by 35 of the 45 benefited property owners. The City Charter specifies that an assessment project may not be undertaken if it is petitioned against by more than 50 percent of the benefited properties. As a result, this project may not be undertaken as a part of the 2001 program, unless at least 12 petitioners withdraw their signatures prior to the petition being accepted by the City Council. Since there was no discussion regarding opposition to this project, the petitioners may not be aware of the City policy regarding rejected maintenance projects, which state that the City will not participate in 50 percent funding if a more expensive type of project is needed in the future. In this case, a street reconstruction may be required in place of an overlay depending on the severity of the pavement deterioration. Staff recommended that the Council accept plans and specifications and authorize solicitation of bids on the 2001 Street Maintenance Program (advertising Improvement Project #01-15 as an alternate bid) and delay the acceptance of the petition opposing Improvement Project #01-15 until June 12, 2001, so that property owners within the project can be advised in writing of the City's policy toward rejected maintenance projects. City Council/May 22, 2001 Page 8 of 23