My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 1995/11/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
Minutes - 1995/11/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2025 1:27:06 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 2:43:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/27/1995
Description
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Page 6 <br />November 27, 1995 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />The residents did not have any notice that the council was going to take action <br />on this issue on November 13th. She feels the action was out of line with the <br />process. <br />Mayor Linke stated at the budget work session there was not any discussion <br />about keeping it in the 1996 budget and removing another item to allow for it. <br />Ms. Hankner stated this has been her position from the beginning. No one <br />mentioned at the work session that it would be taken out of the 1995 budget or <br />that it would be discussed at the November 13th meeting. <br />Jim Schmitt, 5446 Erickson Road, stated he does not feel the council acted <br />inappropriately. They found resources that were not known beforehand to fund <br />the project. <br />Henry Ruggles, 2629 Lake Court Drive, stated he understood that the pedestrian <br />.bridge was a "dead issue". This was a comment he heard made by Mayor Linke <br />after the last meeting on the bridge. <br />Mayor Linke stated he was only referring to the tax increase to help fund the <br />project. If he were unable to find another funding source, it would have been a <br />dead issue because he was not going to support putting it on the 1996 budget. <br />Mr. Ruggles stated theoretically, if the project funding had not been approved, <br />the residents may have been able to have a 3% decrease in their taxes for 1996. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Hankner/Blanchard to direct staff to get a get an opinion <br />from the City Attorney on the 4/5 approval requirement for the use of the interest <br />of the Special Project Funds. <br />VOTE: 5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />Ms. Hankner stated she would like this information available at the November <br />29th hearing if possible. <br />An unidentified resident asked if there are cost overruns on the bridge, will the <br />State increase their share or will the city be responsible for the additional costs. <br />Mayor Linke stated the Engineers are provided with a maximum amount and it <br />must not exceed that amount. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.