My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02-27-2012 Council Work Session Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2012
>
02-27-2012 Council Work Session Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2014 11:48:52 AM
Creation date
3/7/2013 9:57:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
02/27/2012
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 27, 2012 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> 2 MINUTES <br /> 3 <br /> 4 DATE : February 27,2012 <br /> 5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. <br /> 6 TIME ENDED : 6:28 p.m. <br /> 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, <br /> 8 Rafferty (arrived at 5:35), Roeser and <br /> 9 Mayor Reinert(left at 6:07) <br /> 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : None <br /> 11 <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development <br /> 14 Director Michael Grochala, Centennial Fire District Chief Jerry Streich; City Engineer <br /> 15 Jason Wedel; City Planner Paul Bengtson; City Clerk Julie Bartell <br /> 16 <br /> 17 1. Otter Lake Road Extension Improvement Project(from 2-13-12 Hearing)- <br /> 18 Community Development Director Grochala recalled that the council held a public <br /> 19 hearing on this project at the last council meeting. Action at this point is at the council's <br /> 20 choice. To move the project forward,the council could authorize the development of <br /> 21 plans and specifications (at an estimated cost of$40,000 to $60,000). He added that Mr. <br /> 22 Schrier(proposed to receive an assessment)has indicated that he will continue to object <br /> 23 throughout the project process. The council does have the ability to move on this as an <br /> 24 assessment project because it is located within the zone exempted by the city charter. A <br /> 25 mid-ground action,he suggested,would be to request additional information perhaps <br /> 26 through an appraisal and special benefit analysis,taking about six to eight weeks. He <br /> 27 added that the engineering firm TKDA did the feasibility study for this project and the <br /> 28 council could continue with them or as an alternative they may want to package this <br /> 29 project with another being done by WSB for possible savings. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Council comments included a member indicating he is ready to move forward. A council <br /> 32 member noted the objection of Mr. Schrier is really about timing(not wanting all the <br /> 33 work done now). The council indicated that they see the benefit to the area property <br /> 34 owners of moving forward on this. Mr. Grochala added that it is important that the city <br /> 35 have a clear and strong standing on the assessments,perhaps through the appraisal. <br /> 36 Basically,however, without a road, the property has little worth. The mayor concurred <br /> 37 that the city will do what it must to ensure this project is done right. Mr. Grochala <br /> 38 indicated that the cost of an appraisal would be $9,400 and he has added authorization for <br /> 39 an appraisal to the council agenda as an assumption; it is the council's prerogative. Mr. <br /> 40 Grochala then reviewed the project process that would lie ahead, specifically noting that <br /> 41 right of way issues are always a possibility. The council concurred that they will <br /> 42 authorize the appraisal at the council meeting and directed staff to report back at the next <br /> 43 work session with an update on plans and specifications. <br /> 44 <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.