Laserfiche WebLink
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 4 <br />Councilman Williams indicated he was in favor of posting the <br />"no parking" signs and realized there is a safety hazard. He <br />was not trying to prolong the existence of the safety <br />hazard, but as a matter of good public policy, we should <br />give the people to be effected an opportunity to speak and <br />bring up other facts that might influence their decision. <br />M/S/P Williams/Dick Johnson - to postpone consideration of <br />the motion until such time we can have a public hearing on <br />this question and further that we call a public hearing for <br />the first meeting in July and notify all residents within <br />500 ft. of the boundaries of that part of DeMontreville <br />Park. (Motion carried 3-1: Mottaz: If we recognize there is <br />a safety hazard here, we should do something about and a <br />postponement is not necessary). <br />MIS/ Dick Johnson/Williams - to direct the city <br />administrator to have the Public Works Dept. install two-30 <br />mph speed limit signs each 150, on either side of <br />Demontreville Park for the on -coming traffic in the park <br />area. <br />Councilman Mottaz suggested installing the large yellow <br />signs that state "play ground ahead" or "slow, children <br />playing" because he felt they were more effective than speed <br />limit signs. <br />M/S/P Mottaz/Mayor Johnson - to amend the motion to postpone <br />consideration of the main motion and to include prior to <br />consideration of posting of the signs, the public works dept <br />be directed to evaluate the situation and recommend the <br />total signage needs of the area. (Motion carried 3-1: Dick <br />Johnson: we were just arguing about the safety situation and <br />we have to get some signs up, and now we are postponing <br />placement of speed limit signs.) <br />5. OLD BUSINESS• <br />A. Cottage Grove Ravine Watershed <br />Councilman Williams brought up the following concerns: <br />The state law which states that decisions by joint <br />powers boards shall not require more than a majority vote <br />except for capital improvement projects. Therefore, we <br />should insert a stipulation that all capital projects need <br />to have a 4/5ths vote. Attorney Filla explained decisions <br />to amend the agreement itself require the approval of the <br />city council with the exception if you want to change the <br />voting requirements to authorize project you need five <br />votes. This could be a potential problem for the City of <br />Lake Elmo because the Board has reserved for itself the <br />authority to order projects with three votes, and they would <br />