2006_0828_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting— 0$II4/UG DRAFT Minutes - Page 12 withdrawn in the future, the City could do so; but, should the project be able to move forward, the City would have lost their ability to apply for the funds. Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion. Councilmember Pust suggested a clause modifying the resolution, third "WHEREAS," to state, "subject to findings of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals," to allow all facts in the record. John Stark, Community Development Director Mr. Stark advised that the contract was referenced several times; however, noted that as the roadway had been considered by the City Public Works Department and the community as a whole for almost 1$ years, it appeared to be an independent issue. Mr. Stark suggested simply striking the third "WHEREAS" clause in its entirety if the Council so desired; opining that it would not change the intent of the motion. Klausing moved, Maschka seconded, a friendly amendment to the motion withdrawing the third "WHEREAS" clause entirely from the draft resolution. Councilinember Ihlan reiterated her concerns; however, noted that since the resolution didn't identify the location of the parkway, there were no false statements being made to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and she would therefore support the motion. Public Works Director Duane Schwartz Mr. Schwartz advised that this project had been in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for a number of years, and other grant applications had been unsuccessful. Mr. Schwartz noted that the grant application may not be successful; but if it was successful, and it was later determined that the proj ect would not move forward for any reason, the money would be turned back to MnDOT. Councilmember Kough spoke in support of the motion;