Laserfiche WebLink
unds View City Council <br />~gular Meeting <br />Page Five <br />February 11, 1991 <br />Discussion again followed regarding easements purchased by the <br />City and areas on private properties which are to be maintained <br />as a wetland. <br />Bill Frits inquired if this plan was subject to any changes once <br />it is approved by Rice Creek Watershed District. <br />Mayor Linke stated that the plan will always be under review. If <br />anew plan comes along that better suits Mounds View the old plan <br />can be revised. <br />Discussion centered on the fact that throughout the plan <br />reference is made to utility. Mr. Minetor explained that a <br />utility, as a financing method, has not been decided upon and <br />suggested that the way to make it clearer would be to remove all <br />references to a utility. <br />Mr. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, questioned section 3.2.9, <br />which is a continuation of table 3.5, and asked if there is a <br />budget line item for this with supporting documentation. <br />• Mike Lobermier, SEH, responded that some items were specifically <br />budgeted but some were general items. <br />Mr. McCarty asked if the Council or consultant anticipated at <br />this time a reallocation to utility accounts of items previously <br />supported by the tax levy? Would these items be supported by <br />utility acitivity? <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer stated that the purpose <br />tonight was to approve the Plan and the specifics of a financing <br />method would be explored in depth at a later time. <br />Mr. McCarty, questioned if it was the Council's intent to use <br />this Plan and utility charges to escape levy limits. <br />Mayor Linke stated that new items would be paid for under the <br />Plan, but existing items would be paid for under the Streets <br />fund. <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer suggested the Plan be adopted <br />with the contingency that all areas referencing utility, will be <br />stricken from the Plan. <br />Russell Pahl stated that he would like to see an itemized <br />statement. He said that there had been nothing publicized that <br />listed the dollar figures and suggested putting off adoption. <br />