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 10 <br /> <br />year. He stated that they could perhaps do three miles of replacement next year, and, in fact, it’s 1 <br />more efficient to have a larger project. He stated that the red and green areas could be the 2006 2 <br />project. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Mayor Marty stated that if the petition comes in, then this project would be dead, but they should 5 <br />start working on the 2006 project. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Council Member Thomas questioned whether the red section should be put into the 2006 project 8 <br />because there is undeveloped land. She stated she thought they should tackle the places that were 9 <br />already fully developed first. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mayor Marty stated that at the EDA meeting it had been brought up that there were some 12 <br />developers interested in developing that land there, and why would they want to put in new 13 <br />streets and then have heavy equipment running over it. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that they would not allow any hauling on the road for 16 <br />development in the area. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Thomas stated that if they approve the feasibility report, it doesn’t mean they 19 <br />are approving the project; it only means they can use the report in three years. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that approving the report does not make the project official. 22 <br /> 23 <br />MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve Resolution 6474 Approving the Feasibility 24 <br />Report. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Mayor Marty reminded everyone that this is a work in progress, and he invited everyone to attend 27 <br />future meetings. 28 <br /> 29 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 30 <br /> 31 <br />B. Resolution 6436 Approving the 2005 Public Works Seasonal Employee 32 <br />Positions 33 <br /> 34 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that they had been under budgeting for seasonals for the last 35 <br />several years by about $15,000, so they need to do one of two things. Either they need to cut the 36 <br />services and not hire as many seasonals, or they need to adjust the budget to keep the same level 37 <br />of service. He felt that they get a lot of value out of their seasonals and their numbers in the 38 <br />Public Works Department is fairly low in comparison to other cities on a per capita basis. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Council Member Thomas asked for an explanation of why this wasn’t in the budget and hadn’t 41 <br />been caught the years before. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated he would take responsibility for that, and he hadn’t checked the 44 <br />personnel part of it. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.