Agenda Packets - 1998/04/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

UNAPPROVED Page 5 March 23 1998 Mounds View City Council 1 Council member Koopmeiners aye 2 Council member Gunn aye 3 Council member Stigney aye 4 Mayor McCarty aye 5 6 Motion Carried(4-0) 7 8 C. Consideration of Resolution No.5213,Authorizing a Supplemental Feasibility Study for the 9 Proposed Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road/County Road I Project. 10 11 Mayor McCarty noted that Resolution 5213 orders a feasibility study and asked the City Attorney if the 12 requirements in Chapter 8 of the City Charter would be applicable requiring a 4/5 vote. A discussion 13 followed. Mr.Ulrich felt it was merely authorizing a feasibility study,not ordering a project. 14 15 Upon reviewing Charter requirements,Mr.Riggs,City Attorney,explained that approval of Resolution No. 16 5213 would indeed require a 4/5 vote. 17 18 Council member Stigney stated he understood that at one time the City Attorney informed them that if the 19 project costs were less than originally projected,a new public hearing would not be necessary. 20 21 Mayor McCarty noted that this was true in the case of a continued project,however that is no longer the 22 same project. Attorney Riggs agreed that with this being a new project,a 4/5 vote is necessary for 23 approval. 24 25 Mr. Whiting noted that if this is considered a new project,perhaps action may be necessary to end the other 26 project as proposed. 27 28 Mayor McCarty stated the Council did agree that because of all of the time that has expired since the first 29 offering and the 60 day time frame for residents to petition the project,the time frame should begin again. 30 However,the Council did not formally take action to end the previous project. 31 32 Resolution No. 5213,Authorizing a Supplemental Feasibility Study for the Proposed Reconstruction of 33 Spring Lake Road/County Road I Project: 34 35 RESOLUTION 5213 FAILS FOR LACK OF A MOTION/SECOND. 36 37 Council member Stigney stated he would like to know if the residents are aware of what is before the 38 Council and if it fits in with their desires. 39 40 Barbara Haake,3024 County Road I,wondered what this would mean-whether it would just authorize the 41 preliminary report. But furthermore,what specifications would they be going on? 42 43 Mayor McCarty stated it is his interpretation that the Council is not supporting the 28 foot road with curb 44 and gutter,etc. He stated he is hesitant to go through another lengthy process. 45 46 MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners that the City notify Ramsey County that they wish to turn the 47 road back to them for construction in 1999.