Agenda Packets - 1997/02/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 5 • November 27, 1995 Mounds View City Council determine whether or not this bridge was a good, usable amenity to the entire community. The residents did not have an opportunity to ask the questions they planned to on November 29th. He does not believe that the November 29th discussion date was only in the event that a tax levy would be required. Furthermore, it his understanding that per Code 203.8, Subdivision 5, a 4/5 vote of approval is required to spend any money out of the Special Projects fund which the city does not have at this time as it was passed on a 3/1 vote. Mayor Linke explained that he asked the Auditors about the proposed expenditure of the funds for the pedestrian bridge and they assured him that the interest portion could be used for this project. Mr. McCarty suggested that the City Attorney be contacted about this issue, as he believes the funds were committed without a 415 vote. Pam Starr, 7778 Woodlawn Drive stated she would like to applaud the City Council for finally making a decision that is looking at the safety of the efrren in Mounds View. She does not know how anyone can be so short-sighted that they can say Mounds View cannot afford the bridge when there are children who • need to cross the highway. Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated there has been public input on this issue since April. At the meetings he has attended there has been a greater number of residents in favor of the bridge than opposed to it. Furthermore, at the Public Hearing on the issue of whether the city would use tax increment financing , he heard four out of the five council members state two different times that they were in favor of the bridge, they just had a disagreement on taxes. He stated the city must find funding for a project such as this. He has three children and is active in youth activities in the community. They use the community as a whole and he feels access is a problem in the community. T he bridge will greatly improve this problem. He is happy that the decision was made. Ms. Hankner stated the council decided they would not increase the taxes for purposes of funding the pedestrian bridge, but that they would still go ahead with the grant and directed staff to go into the budget and try to determine where funds could come from. At that time it was still in the context of the 1996 budget. For public purposes, the council let them know that it would be discussed as a part of the 1996 budget on November 29th when they were to hold the Public • Hearing. It was still in the 1996 budget.