My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/04/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/04/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:35 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 1:12:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/25/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/25/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
214
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 8 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Mr. Rudnik stated he is in support of the street project, and the streets need to be redone, but the 2 <br />biggest issue is finding a solution for the ponding that doesn’t destroy everything. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Mr. Amundson stated he didn’t understand why this section of town was being done right now 5 <br />when there were other sections in the city where the streets were in worse condition than his 6 <br />neighborhood. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Kimberly Kris, 2824 Woodale Drive, stated that it was time to stand up against the Rice Creek 9 <br />Watershed District. She also stated that she is definitely opposed to the sidewalks. She stated 10 <br />she agreed with the comments made about the dangerous parking situation at the church. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Mayor Marty closed the public hearing. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether there were areas of the city that had streets in worse 15 <br />condition than this area. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that some of the areas slated for 2006 were in worse condition 18 <br />than this area that was slated for 2005. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Stigney asked if the main factor was the contractor’s proximity to the 2004 21 <br />project, regardless of whether they were bidding for the 2005 project or not. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that another factor was that the City Council had wanted to 24 <br />look at doing a larger project in 2004, and at that time they were using the 1999 pavement 25 <br />condition indexes, and since that time those have been updated. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Council Member Stigney stated it would have been preferable to have asked on the feedback 28 <br />form whether they were in favor of concrete curb or bituminous, but his personal opinion was 29 <br />that if it was only a $186 difference, he would definitely favor concrete. He asked why the 30 <br />county didn’t put concrete on Silver Lake Road. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that they hadn’t because it’s not permanent, and they are 33 <br />planning to do something else with Silver Lake Road in the near future so that’s why they used 34 <br />bituminous. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Council Member Thomas stated she felt the question regarding concrete curb and gutter versus 37 <br />bituminous was important to be asked of the citizens in each separate project. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Mayor Marty stated from here on out, they better put that question back in at the neighborhood 40 <br />meetings every year. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Flaherty stated that what he is hearing is that the curb and gutter are virtually 43 <br />secondary, and that he is hearing that they don’t want them touching their streets this year. He 44 <br />stated they need to take a look at the future on what they are doing. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.