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