My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-16-11-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
05-16-11-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2011 10:25:48 AM
Creation date
6/16/2011 8:22:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
City Council Worksession Minutes
General - Type
City Council Worksession Minutes
Category
City Council Worksession Minutes
Date
5/16/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 16, 2011 14 <br />Councilmember Holden asked if, at the Council's next meeting, Staff could have an analysis of <br />the Ramsey County agreement with the Vikings to see if those items requested by the Council <br />have been included. <br />Mayor Grant asked if it is Councilmember Holden's intent to go over this analysis at a Council. <br />meeting. <br />Councilmember Holden responded yes, that is what she wants to do. <br />Community Development Hutmacher responded that Staff has been reviewing the agreement <br />informally. She then asked if the Council wants a memo they can simply review, or if they want <br />to discuss the comparison at a regular meeting. <br />Councilmember Holden stated that residents have been asking over and over what is being done <br />to protect the City financially; such as with increased public safety costs, and the City Council <br />needs to respond. <br />Councilmember Tamble agreed that the public needs to hear more from the City about the <br />stadium. <br />Mayor Grant stated one of the issues is that Ramsey County was negotiation with the Vikings <br />right up to the last moment prior to the public announcement; there wasn't time to review the <br />language or contact the residents. He agrees that residents want to know particularly the financial <br />aspects of this proposal. <br />Councilmember Holden pointed out that this is just an agreement to start talking about an <br />agreement, but residents don't realize that. <br />Discussion ensued and it was decided to place this matter as the first item on the Council's next <br />meeting agenda with an analysis of the County agreement in memo form with the packet. <br />4. STAFF UPDATES <br />MnDOT Request <br />City Administrator Klaers reviewed correspondence from MnDOT regarding the 1 -694 / TH 51 <br />project indicating that they would like to move forward with advertising for bids for this project. <br />Public Works Director Maurer explained that MnDOT's request is to advertise for bids a month <br />early before the City approves Municipal Consent or the Appeals Board gives a final ruling. The <br />Appeal Board met today and MnDOT was directed to include in the layout for this project the <br />location of the berming, to prepare a letter specifically talking about the timeframe for <br />improvement to the Lexington Avenue Bridge, and then get those items to the Appeal Board. The <br />Appeal Board has another meeting scheduled in early June where they will review the decision <br />made by the Council at their last meeting in May and then based on that, the Appeal Board will <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.