My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/04/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/04/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:43:34 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:43:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
4/24/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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 April 24, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 34 <br /> <br />demonstrated that it is a clean site. He noted the City will be seeking Minnesota Pollution <br />Control concurrence that it is in a clean site. He noted the City is working on the title work, and <br />it is conceivable that this item may be back before the City Council to obtain authorization to <br />acquire the property on May 8, 2006. He noted that the property owner did everything that was <br />asked of him. <br /> <br /> 2. City Administrator Ulrich <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained that a draft questionnaire has been prepared for the Town <br />Hall Meeting. He stated that the survey does not have to be conducted and it is not scientific, but <br />it does give residents that attend the Town Hall Meeting the chance to give opinions and <br />feedback. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich reviewed some of the questions on the survey. He wondered if the <br />Council wants to proceed with the survey or change any of the questions. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich agreed that it would be difficult to give all the background information <br />to the billboard question. He stated it is a question that would have some obvious answers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stigney stated that something should indicate that the billboards will be in the <br />City for the next 30 years. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that County 10 should be broken up as a definition. She stated <br />that no one is proposing it for the length of County Road 10, and it should be presented as it is <br />being proposed. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty suggested adding the language “south of Woodale Drive to the Mermaid” on <br />County Highway 10. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas suggested the questionnaire could be double sided to allow for a place <br />for people to write in comments. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stigney suggested adding “in accordance with the current street policy” to the <br />seventh question. The Council concurred. <br /> <br />Councilmember Stigney suggested that the preference of bonding or TIF for the funding source <br />should be asked for the current street reconstruction projects. <br /> <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that gets into the specifics and it may get too complicated. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated this could be a problem if a person answering does not know what TIF is <br />or what the implication is. <br /> <br />Mayor Marty suggested leaving the question as it is as more of a general question without having <br />to go into the details.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.