My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10-24-2016 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2016
>
10-24-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2018 9:29:54 AM
Creation date
1/6/2017 1:27:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
10/24/2016
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
292
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
COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2016 <br />DRAFT <br />3 <br /> 91 <br />6B) Consider Resolution No. 16-128, Order the Project, Approving the Plans & Specifications 92 <br />and Authorizing the Ad for Bid, 2016 Surface Water Management Project - City Engineer 93 <br />Hankee noted that the resolution approves the City’s 2016 Surface Water Management Project. Sites 94 <br />included in this project are selected based on feasibility and public input. The project is preferred to 95 <br />be done in the late fall. She noted the project budget and, if approved, that the council will receive 96 <br />the results of a bid process in the near future. 97 <br /> 98 <br />Council Member Kusterman asked if this is the type of work that could be done by city staff. Ms. 99 <br />Hankee explained that staff is involved to a certain level, including assisting with impacts on property 100 <br />owners. Past that it is appropriate to outsource this work. 101 <br /> 102 <br />Council Member Manthey asked if the project is always within the allotted budget and Ms. Hankee 103 <br />explained that there is an established list and they work toward completing that list as much as they 104 <br />can within the budget. 105 <br /> 106 <br />Council Member Manthey moved to approve Resolution No. 16-128 as presented. Council Member 107 <br />Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 108 <br /> 109 <br />6C) Consider Resolution No. 16-129, Accepting and Approving the Grant Agreement between 110 <br />the City of Lino Lakes and the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Service for the 111 <br />Improvement of Publically Owned Infrastructure - City Engineer Hankee noted that the resolution 112 <br />authorizes staff to accept and approve an agreement related to receipt of funds to support a sewer 113 <br />lining project within the Shenandoah neighborhood. Ms. Hankee explained that the Metropolitan 114 <br />Council has identified the city as eligible for the grant and the eligibility doesn’t mean the city is 115 <br />mandated in any way at this time. 116 <br /> 117 <br />Council Member Kusterman moved to approve Resolution No. 16-129 as presented. Council 118 <br />Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote. 119 <br /> 120 <br />6D Consider Resolution No. 16-80, Approving a Minnesota Department of Transportation 121 <br />Final Layout, State Project 6284-172 I-35W North Corridor Improvements - Community 122 <br />Development Director Grochala reviewed the request before the council to approve a project on 123 <br />Highway I-35W, extending into Lino Lakes. The project scope was reviewed, including: 124 <br />- the area involved; 125 <br />- the addition of a lane in each direction 126 <br />- the inclusion of a MnPass Lane 127 <br />- spot improvements. 128 <br /> 129 <br />He reviewed the project funding and proposed schedule. A map was shown indicating the spot 130 <br />improvements. Noise walls are proposed to extend into Lino Lakes (a picture indicating the type of 131 <br />wall proposed was shown). The project layout was reviewed including the type of improvement that 132 <br />would occur on the Lino Lakes’ portion of the project. The Lino Lakes’ portion of this project would 133 <br />be rolled ahead from plans to do it at a later date. The noise wall process includes a vote of the 134 <br />residents and that is underway (with resident approval anticipated). Since the project extends into 135
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.