My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/07/11
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/07/11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:56 PM
Creation date
7/31/2018 1:33:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/11/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/11/2005
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.
/
283
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 June 13, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br /> <br />Mayor Marty asked when the public hearing would take place. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated that the public hearing would be scheduled for the second 3 <br />Council meeting on July 25, 2005. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Mayor Marty suggested submitting a note in the Mounds View Matters that would notify the 6 <br />residents of the project. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Council Member Stigney stated that they are expecting to take 35-percent from the special 9 <br />project fund and also looking at possibly a Medtronic proposal that would bring in approximately 10 <br />$865,000 to the City and if they have that big project come in or other special projects he would 11 <br />like to see that money added back to the special projects fund. He stated that they need that 12 <br />money for future projects and if they have access to money to replace he would like to see that 13 <br />happen. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Mayor Marty asked how they would word it if the park dedication fund comes into a windfall, 16 <br />that this could be setup as a potential loan. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Thomas suggested stating that in Item 4 that at least 65-percent of the total 19 <br />project cost on the park dedication and up to 35-percent for the special projects noting that it 20 <br />would provide more flexibility. She stated that the whole point is if they have a windfall in the 21 <br />park dedication it is never a pay back situation it comes directly out of that fund. She stated that 22 <br />if they change the wording it makes the percentages more flexible and if the money is not there it 23 <br />stills allows the ability to do this. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Stigney expressed concerns that it does not address paying back the special 26 <br />projects fund. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Mayor Marty stated that he likes Council Member Stigney’s suggestion to make it a 29 <br />reimbursement process. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Public Works Director Lee suggested removing Items 2 and 4 from the proposed resolution for 32 <br />further review at the public hearing. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Gunn asked why they are ordering the public hearing when they are approving 35 <br />the bidding. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Thomas explained that the public hearing is for the public input. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Community Development Director Ericson clarified that the approval of the resolution ordering 40 <br />the project does not mean they are authorizing or awarding the project. He stated that this would 41 <br />provide staff with the time they need to work through the verbiage in time for the public hearing. 42 <br /> 43
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.