My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/09/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/09/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:47:56 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:47:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
9/25/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 September 25, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 20 <br />within the week. He said the property owners filed an insurance claim against the City and <br />contractor and the property owner's attorney is in close contact with both. <br />Director Lee assured the Council that the City and contractor are working with the property <br />owner to resolve the issue. <br />Mayor Marty stated that news article stated the property owners might be out of their home for <br />five to six weeks. Director Lee stated that a week may be aggressive, but five to six weeks is a <br />long time. <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated he spoke with City Administrator Ulrich and felt the paper did <br />not "paint" the City is a positive light. He said that the contractor said there were no markings <br />for the sewer lines, and Councilmember Flaherty stated he wanted to ensure the record was <br />straight that it was marked. He stated the City's priority is to take care of the property owners. <br />Mayor Marty stated there were photos of the street with the markings before the incident <br />happened. He stated what was told to the paper was not factually correct. Director Lee stated the <br />contractor did not have the documentation the City had, which the City forwarded to the <br />contractor. <br />C. Reports of City Attorney <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that an action was filed against one of the Councilmembers, which <br />implicate the City. He stated the matter has been entirely dismissed as of September 25, 2006. <br />He stated it dissolves the need for the executive session meeting, but it does bring up the issue <br />that the Council needs to have a way to respond to an issue of this nature. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated the attorney general opinion stated that when questions are brought <br />about regarding the Charter and whether a Councilmember can sit on the Charter Commission, it <br />falls to the City Attorney to determine and recommend action. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated the City has responded to the Attorney General, and based on the <br />response, the charge was dismissed. He stated he was preparing for a further response, but he is <br />currently not sure how to proceed given the developments. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated he is not sure if anything else will be filed, and he was not able to <br />determine officially if everything has been dismissed, but he is pretty sure everything has been <br />dismissed. <br />Mayor Marty stated one point in question is that the Charter states a person may not serve in an <br />elected capacity and also on a Commission in the City. He stated State Statue overrode that, but <br />in 2004, the State changed the laws stating that the Charter takes precedence. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.