My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2007/02/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
Agenda Packets - 2007/02/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:26 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 2:00:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/12/2007
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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 October 9, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> <br />C. Resolution 6948 Approving the County Road 10 Pedestrian Crossing Options 1 <br />Report 2 <br />D. Resolution 6949 Approving the Preliminary Design of Landscape 3 <br />Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor 4 <br /> 5 <br />MOTION/SECOND: FLAHERTY/GUNN. To Approve the Consent Agenda as amended. 6 <br /> 7 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 8 <br /> 9 <br />D. Resolution 6949 Approving the Preliminary Design of Landscape 10 <br />Architecture Elements for the County Road 10 Trailway Corridor 11 <br /> 12 <br />Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that the Resolution does not specify the funding 13 <br />source or cost. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Director Lee explained that within the capital improvement program that passed in August, the 16 <br />trailway plans were approved and adopted. He shared the plan with the Council. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Councilmember Stigney stated his concern is that there are many areas in the plan that should be 19 <br />considered further, rather than be voted upon in the Consent Agenda. He suggested the 20 <br />Resolution be brought back for further discussion. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Councilmember Thomas explained that the Resolution does not approve spending money, and 23 <br />that the plans will come back to the Council before any money is spent. She explained that the 24 <br />Resolution approves various elements that will be included in the plan, not authorizing such 25 <br />elements to be constructed. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Mayor Marty said his and Councilmember Stigney’s concern is that such projects do not go 28 <br />forward without Council approval. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Director Lee pointed out for each segment, the feasibility report will come back to the Council. 31 <br />In addition, the plans and specs would come back and the project would have to be ordered and 32 <br />approved by the Council. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated the current Resolution is before the Council because it saves 35 <br />money by approving all of the proposed elements that could potentially be used in the design. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Councilmember Gunn agreed with Councilmember Thomas that the Council is approving the 38 <br />preliminary design. She suggested that the elements the City has so far be brought together for a 39 <br />more comprehensive look at the trailway corridor. She said it is a big project and before the City 40 <br />loses sight of the project, a discussion should be held. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Councilmember Stigney stated that each segment is made up of many individual elements and his 43 <br />concern is approving all elements. He said he would like to look at each element before they are 44 <br />installed and that his problem is with the vague language of the Resolution. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.