My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1991/10/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
Agenda Packets - 1991/10/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:46 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 6:17:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/28/1991
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/28/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
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 Page F <br /> Regular Meeting October 28, 19 <br /> Councilmember Blanchard inquired as to where the streetlight <br /> is being placed, not at 5249? <br /> Minetor stated the light will not be put at 5249 without the <br /> owner's permission. <br /> Councilmember Rickaby asked if the wires would be aerial or <br /> underground. <br /> Minetor replied that the wires could be either aerial or under- <br /> ground. Normally, these wires are run along the lot line and <br /> in this case would probably be brought in from the rear lot line. <br /> Councilmember Rickaby stated she once signed a petition for a <br /> streetlight and regrets doing so. She stated that she regrets <br /> her decision because she did not check into how the wires would impact <br /> the trees on her property. The City Forester, apparently stopped at <br /> her residence and commented that he would not have allowed NSP to run <br /> wires across the backyard because NSP can come in at any time and <br /> top or cut down the evergreens and large oaks if they feel they are <br /> interfering with the wires . Rickaby states that she was not given <br /> this information when she signed the petition. <br /> Minetor stated that the City does not get involved with who signs • <br /> the petition until after the petition has been brought in. <br /> Councilmember Quick stated that he has dealt with NSP several times in <br /> the past, and that NSP has always met him more than half way with any <br /> work that had to be done. Quick stated that one has to let NSP know <br /> their concerns before the work is done. Quick stated he has an aerial <br /> power line running down the south side of his property. He has been <br /> very satisfied with the work NSP has done. <br /> Councilmember Wuori inquired as to where the streetlight would be <br /> placed. Minetor responded that there are normally three <br /> e r lac-motions tha-t—v311—mee he-eriteria forsLreeLlight <br /> installation. <br /> Shirley Arbour, 5270 Greenfield stated that #30 and #31 listed on <br /> the attached petition would be willing to have the streetlight placed <br /> on their property. <br /> 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br /> 5 . Samantha Orduno, City Administrator, reviewed Staff Report No. <br /> 91-102C regarding an informational meeting for' Tuesday, <br /> November 12, 1991 to discuss implementation of a Street Light <br /> Utility and/or a Utility Franchise Fee. Due to the publication <br /> requirements for public hearings and possible ordinance publication, <br /> 411 <br /> should the city move forward with a proposal, it is in the City's <br /> best interest to make the meeting on November 12th a public hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.