My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/05/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:51 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 4:22:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/8/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/8/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
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 April 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 34 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained that a draft questionnaire has been prepared for the Town 2 <br />Hall Meeting. He stated that the survey does not have to be conducted and it is not scientific, but 3 <br />it does give residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting the chance to give opinions and 4 <br />feedback. 5 <br /> 6 <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed some of the questions on the survey. He wondered if the 7 <br />Council wants to proceed with the survey or change any of the questions. 8 <br /> 9 <br />City Administrator Ulrich agreed that it would be difficult to give all the background information 10 <br />to the billboard question. He stated it is a question that would have some obvious answers. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Councilmember Stigney stated that something should indicate that the billboards will be in the 13 <br />City for the next 30 years. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that County 10 should be broken up as a definition. She stated 16 <br />that no one is proposing it for the length of County Road 10, and it should be presented as it is 17 <br />being proposed. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Mayor Marty suggested adding the language “south of Woodale Drive to the Mermaid” on 20 <br />County Highway 10. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Councilmember Thomas suggested the questionnaire could be double sided to allow for a place 23 <br />for people to write in comments. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Councilmember Stigney suggested adding “in accordance with the current street policy” to the 26 <br />seventh question. The Council concurred. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Councilmember Stigney suggested that the preference of bonding or TIF for the funding source 29 <br />should be asked for the current street reconstruction projects. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that gets into the specifics and it may get too complicated. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Director Ericson stated this could be a problem if a person answering does not know what TIF is 34 <br />or what the implication is. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Mayor Marty suggested leaving the question as it is as more of a general question without having 37 <br />to go into the details. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Councilmember Stigney wondered how a resident can answer the question if the impact of the 40 <br />funding mechanism is not discussed. He stated the current policy says the neighborhood is asked 41 <br />how it wants it reconstructed. 42 <br /> 43
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.