Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Flaherty. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Ordinance 795, an 1 <br />Ordinance Amending Chapter 1001 Pertaining to the Building Code. 2 <br /> 3 <br />ROLL CALL: Marty/Stigney/Flaherty/Hull/Mueller 4 <br /> 5 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 6 <br /> 7 <br /> L. Resolution 7140, Updating Feasibility Report for the 2008 Street and Utility 8 <br /> Improvement Project 9 <br /> 10 <br />Public Works Director Lee reviewed the options for the Council to consider. There is also an 11 <br />issue with the Charter for a project in 2008, as it states that when a proposed improvement is 12 <br />disallowed, the City Council shall not vote within one year. So, using the 2007-2008 feasibility 13 <br />may violate the City’s Charter and Staff would need a legal opinion on that. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Director Lee indicated that the other issue is the definition of voting and what that covers, that 16 <br />will also need legal interpretation. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Director Lee indicated that there are some items that will need to be done including defining the 19 <br />scope of the project, and what the costs of those items would be. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Director Lee indicated that, from a cost effectiveness standpoint, and engineering perspective, he 22 <br />would recommend Option 4, delaying the street project until 2009. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Director Lee indicated that there is the potential for up to 800 rain gardens in the City, and that 25 <br />may require contracts with residents, and potential ordinance amendments. Staff noted that 26 <br />postponing this any longer may mean that there cannot be a street project in 2008. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether the City Attorney could comment on the legal concerns 29 <br />raised. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Attorney Riggs indicated that this was discussed with Staff briefly, and he generally concurs. He 32 <br />then said that if there is no special assessment involved then the timing requirements change. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Flaherty asked whether the fact that a portion of the project was stopped by 35 <br />petition, impacts whether another portion of the project can proceed. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Attorney Riggs indicated that it is his opinion, that this would be a different project. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Mayor Marty reviewed some of the requirements within the feasibility costs, and said he would 40 <br />think that it would cost well less than $17,000. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Joe Rhein, BRAA indicated that there was a complete report for this project and, when the 43 <br />petition stopped the project was put on the shelf. He then said that then this project came about 44 <br />for 2008 that is a portion of the other project. 45