My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-11-1995 CC
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
City Council
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
12-11-1995 CC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2018 10:37:06 AM
Creation date
7/2/2018 10:36:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/11/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
80
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).
View images
View plain text
3' si " t3 at ; <br /> Page 6 <br /> November 27, 1995 <br /> Mounds View City Council <br /> 1 discussed as a part of the 1996 budget on November 29th when they were to <br /> 2 hold the Public Hearing. It was still in the 1996 budget. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 The residents did not have any notice that the council was going to take action <br /> 5 on this issue on November 13th. She feels the action was out of line with the <br /> 6 process. <br /> 7 <br /> 8 Mayor Linke stated at the budget work session there was not any discussion <br /> 9 about keeping it in the 1996 budget and removing-anotheF it. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Ms. Hankner stated this has been her position from the beginning. No one <br /> 12 mentioned at the work session that it would be taken out of the 1995 budget or <br /> 13 that it would be discussed at the November 13th meeting. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated he does not feel the council acted <br /> 16 inappropriately. They found resources that were not known beforehand to fund <br /> 17 the project. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, stated he understood that the <br /> 20 pedestrian bridge was a "dead issue". This was a comment he heard made by <br /> 21 Mayor Linke after the last meeting on the bridge. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Mayor Linke stated he was only referring to the tax increase to help fund the <br /> 24 project. If he were unable to find another funding source, it would have been <br /> 25 a dead issue because he was not going to support putting it on the 1996 <br /> 26 budget. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Mr. Ruggles stated theoretically, if the project funding had not been approved, <br /> 29 the residents may have been able to have a 3% decrease in their taxes for <br /> 30 1996. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Blanchard to direct staff to get a get an opinion <br /> 33 from the City Attorney on the 4/5 approval requirement for the use of the <br /> 34 interest of the Special Project Funds. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Ms. Hankner stated she would like this information available at the November <br /> 39 29th hearing if possible. <br /> 40 <br /> 41 An unidentified resident asked if there are cost overruns on the bridge, will the <br /> 42 State increase their share or will the city be responsible for the additional costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.