Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 30,1999 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />number 15. Mr. Post stated that the basis was due to the fact that the last time this position was . <br />filled there had been about 50 applications and 15 candidates seemed a reasonable number to <br />consider. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that, as the applications are reviewed, he did not feel staff should include <br />extra candidates simply to reach the goal of 15. He would prefer that the number be reduced to a <br />manageable number. Mr. Post concurred. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted that staff was recommending the week of October 4, 1999 for the first <br />interviews and the week of October 18, 1999 for the second interviews. Councilmember Malone <br />suggested that the first interviews be conducted on October 4th and 5th, or October 20th and <br />21 st, with the second interviews being conducted the week of October 25th. Mayor Probst <br />preferred for the first interview schedule to be conducted on October 4th and 5th. <br />Councilmernber Aplikowski concurred. Mayor Probst suggested that stafftarget these dates and <br />that the dates be confirmed at the September 20, 1999 Council Worksession. Mr. Post agreed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski asked why the new City Administrator would be scheduled to begin <br />work prior to the end of the year. Councilmember Rem stated that the sooner the position can be <br />filled the better. <br /> <br />Mr. Post asked Councilmembers Aplikowski and Larson ifthey were comfortable with the rating <br />form as submitted. Councilmember Aplikowski felt that the rating form would be acceptable. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS <br /> <br />Mr. Post stated that Engineer Brown has spent time with Mr. Stafford and himselfto reevaluate <br />the scope of the Pavement Management Plan. An issue was that there were more projects in the <br />plan than there was money to handle them. Mr. Brown had some suggestions that the City <br />Council would explore in more detail at the next Council Worksession. <br /> <br />Mr. Post noted that the City received a petition from the property owners on Old Highway 10 <br />regarding the extension of the City water line to these residences. This was not considered in the <br />Capital Improvement Plan for the year 2000. He suggested that the City Council discuss whether <br />or not it wished to proceed with this project. <br /> <br />With regard to the October Council Worksession, Mr. Post stated that he had two agenda items <br />he would like included. These are subsequent to the I35W Corridor Coalition making its <br />presentation to the Metropolitan Council in early October. The two agenda items were: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />The City Council's direction regarding a recommendation to Ramsey County for the <br />Highways 96/1 0 intersection. The Coalition and the Metropolitan Council may impact <br />the City's proposal for the triangle area. <br />The City received a petition stating, if there is work to be done at the Highways 96/10 <br />intersection, residents on Old Highway 10 and Lakeshore Place implore the City Council <br />to consider a condition of approval that a sound barrier on the east side of Highway lObe <br />constructed. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. <br />