My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1984/03/26
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
Agenda Packets - 1984/03/26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 12:58:05 PM
Creation date
3/17/2025 2:19:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/26/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
March 12, 1984 <br />Mounds View City Council page Two <br />Regular Meeting <br />------------------------------ <br />commn/Stcethreeyoung <br />nBlanchard/Doty <br />forttheirrove Item efforts. A, and <br />e <br />5 ayes 0 nays <br />Councilmember Hankner questioned whether, in looking <br />at a membership in another organization that provides <br />lobbying services, a cost benefit analysis was done. <br />She pointed out that these groups represent numerous <br />cities, and questioned whether there could be a <br />conflict of interest at some time. She also pointed <br />out the City has memberships with other groups already, <br />and questioned the cost. <br />Motion Carried <br />Mayor McCarty replied that experience has taught that <br />some of the major groups were not effective, and the <br />cost of $3,200 was reasonable for professional lobbyist services. <br />Clerk/Administrator Pauley added that $7,700 has been <br />spent for the year, and this would bring the expense <br />close to $11,000. <br />Councilmember Hankner stated she was concerned about <br />joining another organizationespecially one that is <br />not well <br />established, <br />vand <br />g,whether <br />considera- <br />tion was given tohaingaCouncilmemberlobby. <br />haveCouncen ugher Doty stated representationhatfeels the this time. does not <br />Mayor McCarty stated past experience has shown they <br />are only effective with their own Legislators, due to <br />tie asma measure1ofssuccesshey withlll theuse newthe lobbyingetrack record <br />group. <br />Motion/Second: Doty/Blanchard to approve Item D of <br />t e consent agenda. <br />4 ayes 1 nay <br />Councilmember Hankner voted against the motion. <br />Clerk/Administrator Pauley advised the applicants have <br />filed their preliminary plat, and the Planning <br />comi <br />ssion will be reviewing it at their March 21 work <br />session. <br />Motion/Second: McCarty/Blanchard to table action <br />theiFairchildcAvenuelrightiof-wayncil development on <br />5 ayes 0 nays <br />The Council expressed concern with any time delays <br />for this development, and stated they want it to <br />proceed in a timely mn:iner. <br />Motion Carried <br />6. Consideration o: <br />Public Improve- <br />ments/Vacation <br />of Fairchild <br />Avenue North of <br />Laport Drive <br />Motion Ca <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.