Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br /> Page 7 <br /> February 10, 1997 <br /> . Mounds View City Council <br /> cross at one point on Highway 10,unless sidewalks are provided. Furthermore,if safety is such an issue,why <br /> haven't more sidewalks been added. <br /> Dave Melrick,(inaudible-Spring Lake Park Road),noted the city has expended$55,000 on the project which <br /> cannot be recouped. He wondered if the city has thought about the liability of not proceeding with the project <br /> after spending this amount,should there be a severe injury or fatality crossing Highway 10. <br /> Jerry Linke,2319 Knoll Road,stated in response to the comment on lack of input,there was a Trailways <br /> Committee that met and Focus 2000 talked about the separation between the North and the South areas of the <br /> community. The bridge would help to identify Mounds View. Information was provided to residents as to <br /> what they could expect as far as tax increases if the project were funded that way. Additionally,the$190,000 <br /> local cost was discussed at numerous meetings. Mr.Linke noted a Public Hearing was held before the actual <br /> grant process. In response to the benefits to Mounds View Square versus the benefits to the city,he feels if <br /> the city can keep one business due to better access,it is also a benefit to the city. <br /> Tamara McBride,stated she is a student at Edgewood Middle School and she is also concerned about safety. <br /> Often she is assigned report projects which require her to go to the Ramsey County Library. It is difficult to get <br /> transportation there and often the kids end up putting themselves at risk by having to cross Highway 10. She <br /> is in support of the bridge. <br /> • Marshall Johnston,5701 Bunker Hill Drive,asked if the council had considered using MSA funding to finance <br /> part of the project. He noted that another financing option to consider is an interest-free advancement <br /> Jerry Linke stated MSA funding was discussed early on,but at that time the city was told they could not use it <br /> for this purpose. <br /> There were no further public comments and Mayor McCarty stated there are several issues he would like the <br /> staff to examine before a final decision is made on this project. He proceeded to address these concerns. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Trude/Quick that the Council continue to allow the pedestrian bridge to move forward. <br /> Council member Trude stated she has had several telephone calls from residents who were very alarmed that <br /> since the new council members took office the council has suddenly been backtracking and looking at every <br /> issue that was voted on in the past two to three years. She is very concerned about that precedent occurring on <br /> any project and feels it give the city a bad reputation in the metropolitan community. She is concerned about <br /> the city's reputation when they go out to apply for other grants. She thinks irreparable harm will be done to <br /> the community if the city turns its back on a grant that it went out and sought based on community input She <br /> would ask that everyone give this matter sincere consideration. <br /> MOTION/SECOND: Koopmeiners/Stigney to postpone the council's decision on the pedestrian bridge until <br /> the February 24, 1997 City Council Meeting. <br /> VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay(Trude) Motion Carried <br /> Mayor McCarty asked Attorney Long to check out Section 804,Subdivision 3 of the Charter,to see if the <br /> pedestrian bridge would be affected by this section of the Charter. <br /> • <br />