Minutes - 2000/08/28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 28, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 functionality of the roadway at some point in the process. He reviewed the issues that would be addressed at the public informational meetings. Acting Mayor Stigney stated his understanding this action will only bring it before the residents and then, based on their input, it will be determined if the project moves forward or not. Acting City Manager Ulrich stated that is correct and when before the Council they will be advised if there is or is not a favorable consensus of the residents. If there is no consensus, then the Council will move on and consider the next project. In response to Acting Mayor Stigney, Acting City Manager Ulrich stated staff was directed by the Council to review the PCIs and the condition of the streets. He explained how a sealcoat project does not increase the load capacities or strength of the roadway, but would raise the rating by two to three points. Acting Mayor Stigney stated since the resolution establishes a PCI of 75 and 45, he still objects. Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mayor Coughlin was not present for the vote. J. Consideration of Charter Commission Resolutions 2000-11, 2000-12. The Interim City Administrator explained that staff presented Charter Commission Resolutions 2000-11 and 2000-12 to the City Council at the August 21, 2000 Work Session for review and discussion. Staff was given direction to seek the City Attorney’s opinion of these resolutions. Findings were as follows: 1. The City was presented with Resolutions 2000-11 and 2000-12, which request and extension of the review period, for an additional 90 days to consider Ordinances 661 and 662 on August 14, 2000. 2. These resolutions state that they were adopted on August 10, 2000. 3. An official meeting of the Charter Commission was not held on August 10, 2000 due to a lack of a quorum. 4. Council was presented unapproved minutes of the July 13, 2000, Charter Commission meeting which stated that a motion was made and seconded to apply for a 90 day extension regarding Ordinances 661 and 662. 5. The 60-day period of time for the Charter Commission to submit an extension terminated on August 14, 2000. Based on these findings the City Attorney stated that the City Council could: A. Accept the resolutions as the intention of the Charter Commission was to comply with the 60-day period, but erroneously dated the resolutions. B. Reject the request for the extension, as the proper documents were not submitted with the given time period.