My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Council_Minutes_1984_03_12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
Council_Minutes_1984_03_12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 9:54:53 AM
Creation date
2/7/2011 2:27:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
3/12/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council March 12, 1984 <br />Regular Meeting Page Four <br />Mayor McCarty stated his reasons for the iiwsuit <br />as being: <br />1. We intend to pursue the legal question as to <br />the control the Metropolitan Development Guide <br />has over the types of facilities that can be <br />installed in various classes of airports. <br />2. We question whether there is a basic need for the <br />upgrading of the Anoka County Airport. <br />3. We intend to determine and pursue whether there <br />are environmental questions to resolve. <br />4. We intend to determine whether the City, by <br />virtue of property ownership, and /or residents <br />will sustain compensable damages as a result <br />of the airport upgrading. <br />Mayor McCarty asked Attorney Meyers for his <br />recommendation regarding petitioning the Court <br />for a temporary injunction, as well as determining <br />whether the City could bring in an outside con <br />iltant to verify findings. <br />`attorney Meyers clarified there is a lawsuit now on <br />one issue against the Met Council, and the City has <br />prepared an outline to address certain issues in view <br />of the Master Plan that has been adopted by both the <br />Met Council and MAC. The strategy would be to add <br />MAC as an additional defendent in the lawsuit, to <br />bring in the issue of the reliability and accuracy <br />of the plan. In order to proceed, the City would <br />have to get outside consultants to review the plan <br />and testify, and the City would have to be able to <br />produce evidence to attack the plan. <br />Motion /Second: McCarty /Doty to amend the previous <br />motion to have Attorney Meyers coordinate the legal <br />involvement of the consultant employed by the City. <br />3 ayes <br />2 nays Motion Carried <br />Councilmembers Linke and Hankner voted against the <br />motion. <br />Councilmember Hankner reminded the Council that they <br />had earlier agreed to go ahead and seek consultant <br />For the study, then look at the cost and determine <br />Fther it would be feasible to proceed. She also <br />',minded them the Legislature is in session right now, <br />and to surface the issue now could reactivate the <br />whole issue. There is a task foL:e from the Met <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.