05-22-2023 CC (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 22, 2023 Regular Meeting Page 12 jointly with the City of Fridley. He explained a Joint Powers Agreement was in place for the redevelopment of this road. He noted Fridley volunteered to complete the plans, specs and engineering for this project at an 8% cost to the City of Mounds View. He reviewed the plans for the proposed roadway improvements noting there would be a walking trail on the east side of the road. Staff recommended the bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, T.A. Schifsky & Sons with the bid alternate for the trail section. Acting Mayor Meehlhause asked if the 8% engineering cost was just for the City’s portion of engineering expenses. Public Works/Parks and Recreation Director Peterson reported this was the case. Acting Mayor Meehlhause opened the meeting for public comments. Ann Tate, 3048 Bronson Drive, reported the neighbors do not want or need the trail. She questioned why the City would want to spend a great deal of money on a four block trail. She explained if a trail had to go forward, she recommended the trail without a boulevard be considered. Rene Johnson, 7385 Pleasant View Drive, stated the reason she brought up the Charter question earlier was because she would like the Council to table action on the walking trail at this time. She supported the Charter being amended before action in order to allow the neighbors to go through their due process. She explained if the district court states the trail should move forward, then at least she had a chance to fight. She believed this was the proper course of action for the City to pursue. She indicated if the trail had to be installed, she would prefer that her mailbox remain where it is. City Attorney Riggs explained what is being asked is if the residents can use the petition situation for this type of matter. He stated the assessment provision for the petition does not apply because the City does not assess. He reported there was another vehicle in the Charter that allows for petitions to be done. However, with the type of decision before the Council, courts in Minnesota have said it’s not right for this type of petition. Ms. Johnson commented she understood she was not being assessed for this project, but the Charter allows for petitions regarding improvements that would impact 100% of the residents on her street. City Attorney Riggs reported there was another avenue in the Charter that allows for this question to stop the trail. However, in Minnesota the courts have stated that is not a petition for the Council to utilize and it would not stop the trail. Ms. Johnson asked what would stop the trail. City Attorney Riggs reported the residents would have to elect different Councilmembers in order to make a different decision. He explained that even if the Charter were amended, this type of petition would not work because it was not something the Council could consider. Ms. Johnson asked if the Council would consider tabling action on this item for 60 days to allow the public to prove why the trail wasn’t needed.