Laserfiche WebLink
APP~Q~JED <br />Page 5 <br />March 23, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Council member Koopmeiners <br />Council member Gunn <br />Council member Stigney <br />Mayor McCarty <br />aye <br />aye <br />aye <br />aye <br />Motion Carried (4 - 0) <br />C. Consideration of Resolution No. 5213, Authorizing a Supplemental Feasibility Study for the <br />Proposed Reconstruction of Spring Lake Road/County Road T Project. <br />Mayor McCarty noted that Resolution 5213 orders a feasibility study and asked the City Attorney if the <br />requirements in Chapter 8 of the City Charter would be applicable requiring a 4/5 vote. A discussion <br />followed. Mr. Ulrich felt it was merely authorizing a feasibility study, not ordering a project. <br />Upon reviewing Charter requirements, Mr. Riggs, City Attorney, explained that approval of Resolution No. <br />5213 would indeed require a 4/5 vote. <br />Council member Stigney stated he understood that at one time the City Attorney informed them that if the <br />project costs were less than originally projected, a new public hearing would not be necessary. <br />Mayor McCarty noted that this was true in the case of a continued project, however that is no longer the <br />same project. Attorney Riggs agreed that with this being a new project, a 4/5 vote is necessary for <br />approval. <br />Mr. Whiting noted that if this is considered a new project, perhaps action may be necessary to end the other <br />project as proposed. <br />Mayor McCarty stated the Council did agree that because of all of the time that has expired since the first <br />offering and the 60 day time frame for residents to petition the project, the time frame should begin again. <br />However, the Council did not formally take action to end the previous project. <br />Resolution No. 5213, Authorizing a Supplemental Feasibility Study for the Proposed Reconstruction of <br />Spring Lake Road/County Road I Project: <br />RESOLUTION 5213 FAILS FOR LACK OF AMOTION/SECOND. <br />Council member Stigney stated he would like to know if the residents are aware of what is before the <br />Council and if it fits in with their desires. <br />Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, wondered what this would mean -whether it would just authorize the <br />preliminary report. But furthermore, what specifications would they be going on? <br />Mayor McCarty stated it is his interpretation that the Council is not supporting the 28 foot road with curb <br />and gutter, etc. He stated he is hesitant to go through another lengthy process. <br />MOTION/SECOND: McCarty/Koopmeiners that the City notify Ramsey County that they wish to turn the <br />road back to them for construcrion m 1999. <br />