Laserfiche WebLink
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL 1 <br />CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW 2 <br />RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA 3 <br /> 4 <br />Regular Meeting 5 <br />April 25, 2005 6 <br />Mounds View City Hall 7 <br />2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 8 <br />8:30 P.M. 9 <br /> 10 <br /> 11 <br />1. MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER 12 <br /> 13 <br />2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 14 <br /> 15 <br />3. ROLL CALL: Marty, Gunn, Flaherty, and Thomas 16 <br /> 17 <br /> NOT PRESENT: Stigney 18 <br /> 19 <br />4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 20 <br /> 21 <br /> A. Monday, April 25, 2005 City Council Agenda. 22 <br /> 23 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Flaherty. To Approve the Monday, April 25, 2005 agenda as 24 <br />presented. 25 <br /> 26 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 27 <br /> 28 <br />5. PUBLIC INPUT 29 <br /> 30 <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, referenced the proposed 2005 Street Projects stating that 31 <br />the project plans were flawed and the communication regarding the projects was poor. He 32 <br />expressed concerns that the broken processes and communications has now broken the 33 <br />community’s trust because they did not comply with the City’s Charter. He referenced 34 <br />Ordinance 723 stating that the ordinance is a result of policies adopted by City Council, which in 35 <br />turn provided Staff with the approval to prepare the Ordinances 654 and 723 from the Street 36 <br />Committee Policy. He stated that the intent of the ordinances was supposed to foster community 37 <br />involvement and protect the wetlands throughout the City. He called for the streets to meet 38 <br />current design standards stating that the 2003 and 2005 Street Projects did not follow the first 39 <br />step of the ordinance by presenting the cost of design and current costs prior to being approved. 40 <br />He stated that for the sake of both staff direction and fiduciary responsibility, the City Council 41 <br />should have directed Staff to present costs of the design prior to approving the project. He stated 42 <br />that the Council did not ask for any input from the Community nor was any direction given to 43 <br />Staff. He stated that the feasibility report exceeded the costs noting that the maximum allocation 44 <br />allowed is $14.50 per foot. He stated that the cost total should have been $869.00 not $3,000.00. 45