My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/06/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/06/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:29 PM
Creation date
7/18/2018 4:40:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
6/12/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
6/12/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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 May 22, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 15 <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she agrees and likes Option 2, noting that in the second survey 1 <br />the opposition numbers go down and the support goes up for Project Areas B and E. She 2 <br />commented on the need to activate the community and noted that maybe starting a road project 3 <br />will help to do that. Councilmember Thomas thanked staff for sending out the second survey to 4 <br />determine trends and areas of support. She stated her support to move forward with Option 2 5 <br />since the numbers of support are not present for Project Areas contained in Option 1. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Councilmember Stigney noted the majority are opposed in Project Areas A, B, D, and F and in 8 <br />Area E there is only support by five votes. He stated if the Council is going to act against the 9 <br />survey results, they should stop doing surveys. Councilmember Stigney stated if something is 10 <br />approved, he would support Project Areas A, B, and E (Option 1). 11 <br /> 12 <br />Public Works Director Lee explained there will be an economy of scale to centrally locate the 13 <br />project but if Project Areas A, B, and E are approved, it may not make that much difference. He 14 <br />recommended keeping Project Areas B and E together since they are joined and share traffic 15 <br />issues. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Councilmember Stigney reviewed the numbers in support and opposition of the Project Areas 18 <br />and again stated if you listen to the people, only one area supports a road project and there have 19 <br />been two opportunities to vote on this issue. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she didn’t ask them to vote, but to state their opinion and she 22 <br />took that into consideration. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated the survey results are disheartening since the project is long 25 <br />overdue and the streets are crumbling, as is his own road. He stated he looks at what the 26 <br />residents are saying and Councilmember Stigney is correct that only one area supports it. 27 <br />However, he thinks this is something that has to be done, noting it will improve home values 28 <br />when the streets are improved. Councilmember Flaherty stated he supports moving forward with 29 <br />Project Areas A, B, and E (Option 1). 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Marty stated he could also support Project Areas A, B, and E (Option 1). 32 <br /> 33 <br />Councilmember Stigney asked staff’s preference. Public Works Director Lee stated his opinion 34 <br />would be to move forward with Project Areas A, B, and E (Option 1). He noted that there are 35 <br />two segments in Project Area A on Sherwood Road that are actually in better condition than the 36 <br />rest of Project Area A. Those two segments could be dropped if the property owners agree to not 37 <br />be included, which would greatly increase resident support for Project Area A. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated the next step would be to hold a neighborhood meeting with 40 <br />the three Project Areas and consider their input in the project. 41 <br /> 42 <br /> Councilmember Thomas asked what would be the impact on the project if there is further 43 <br />development in the LaPort Meadows area. She also asked how it would impact the project if that 44 <br />section of Sherwood Road is removed from the project. Public Works Director Lee stated those 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.