My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/03/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/03/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:08 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 1:05:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/28/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
3/28/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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 March 14, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Public Works Director Lee pointed out the location on the map of the section of streets slated for 2 <br />improvement in the 2005 Street Improvement Project that are south of County Road I 3 <br />and east of Silver Lake Road. He stated the reason for doing this section is economy due to its 4 <br />proximity to the location of the streets that were done in 2004 and storm water utility 5 <br />considerations. He advised that the map was set up based on 1 ½ miles of streets per year, which 6 <br />correlates to $1.5 million per year. He stated this is a complete street upgrade, and the streets 7 <br />would be completely removed and new subgrade added. There would be concrete curb and 8 <br />gutter and a new bituminous. There would be utility repairs, sanitary sewer repairs, and storm 9 <br />sewer added, along with storm water infiltration basins. He stated that as part of this plan, they 10 <br />would like to add a sidewalk on Knollwood and Woodcrest. He stated that $950,000 of the cost 11 <br />would be paid out of city funds, and they would be selling bonds for that, and there would be 12 <br />$350,000 of assessments allocated between 101 single family properties. The single family 13 <br />residential home assessment would be a little under $3,000, payable over 10 years with an 14 <br />interest rate of 5 percent, although this could be paid off early to avoid interest charges. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that should the Council proceed with this project, the next 17 <br />thing that would occur is a 60-day appeal period established by the City’s Charter, and if there is 18 <br />a Petition filed with the City Council with more than 50 percent of the people in that area, this 19 <br />project cannot go forward. However, if the project does go forward, Staff would be coming back 20 <br />to the City Council on May 9th to order the project, and July 11th would be the assessment 21 <br />hearing, and awarding the contracts for construction would begin August 1st. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Public Works Director Lee reported that a survey had been sent out regarding the sidewalks on 24 <br />Knollwood and Woodcrest, and they had received 26 responses back, all opposed to the 25 <br />sidewalks. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Mayor M arty opened the public hearing. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Valerie Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, stated that since she had sent her survey in, she had 30 <br />decided she was opposed to the project because there is a property across the street from hers that 31 <br />has not been developed yet. She informed that over the last three or four years the City has been 32 <br />dumping fill from projects on the property, and there has been substantial damage that has 33 <br />occurred to their street as a result of that. She doesn’t believe this project should move forward 34 <br />until the dumping has ceased and the property has been developed. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Mayor Marty stated it was his understanding that the fill had stopped last year. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Public Works Director Lee advised that their grade permit had expired, so they would have to 39 <br />come back to the City to get another grading permit. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Ms. Amundsen stated that the property could not be developed as it is now, and there would need 42 <br />to be major work to make that property buildable. She stated she didn’t want to waste her $3,000 43 <br />until that was done. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.