My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2007/03/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
Agenda Packets - 2007/03/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:55 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 2:39:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/12/2007
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/12/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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 February 12, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Anna Schovanec of 7959 Sunnyside Road said that Council had passed the project in December 2 <br />of 2006 so the only way to stop it would be to go forward with a petition. She then said that they 3 <br />were not trying to misinform anyone but felt that a lot of the homeowners had a lot of questions 4 <br />about the project. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that they talked to over 200 people and they have no interest in providing 7 <br />false information but tried to provide information to the residents. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that a majority of people wanted to know why an additional survey was sent 10 <br />out after a majority of people said they were not interested. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Mayor Marty indicated that the pavement index shows that these streets were the worst quality in 13 <br />town, and that is why the project was considered for this part of town, and that is why the City 14 <br />resurveyed and got somewhat of a majority. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Ms. Schovanec asked if the $200,000 costs include the survey costs. She then said that they did 17 <br />not get paid for their door to door petition and resident contact. She further said that they did not 18 <br />know until they were two weeks into the project that it was almost 2 to 1 against the project. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that they heard that residents wanted to sign the petition but did not think it 21 <br />would do any good. Another concern was with any more increased costs on the property taxes. 22 <br />She then said that another big issue was with barrier curbs. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that residents expressed concern about grouped mailboxes and barrier curbs 25 <br />and did not want to change the look of the neighborhood. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Ms. Schovanec indicated that there was concern of the residents on Red Oak Drive about traffic 28 <br />volume and they felt they were misled that this project would do something for their traffic. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that the majority of the people do not have strong support for the project. 31 <br />She then suggested other ways of contacting residents than these meetings and asked the City to 32 <br />consider less costly alternatives for residents especially those on lower incomes. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Mayor Marty asked whether the levy passing for the school was the last straw. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Ms. Schovanec said that it is a budget concern for many and the addition of the school levy will 37 <br />impact them. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Council Member Flaherty asked how many people did not know about the project. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Ms. Schovanec said it was about 10% that did not know, but there were varying levels of 42 <br />knowledge among those that were aware of it. 43 <br /> 44 <br />Mayor Marty asked where the information on losing trees in the boulevard concern came from. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.