Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 2016 <br />136 Lino Lakes, MnDOT has asked the city for municipal consent. Mr. Grochala reviewed the process <br />137 expected of the city (pass a resolution, not pass a resolution). The council did have a discussion <br />138 about a possible resolution and an alternate resolution was developed that reflected some council <br />139 concerns. That resolution was forwarded to MriDOT staff and they have indicated they would take <br />140 the resolution as a disapproval of the project. Staff is now presenting three resolution options to the <br />141 council: a) approving the layout with conditions related to lane restrictions; b) opposing MnPass in <br />142 general but approving the layout of the project; or c) approving the lay out as is. The council did see <br />143 resolution options at the last work session, and he reviewed each of those three resolutions as they are <br />144 included in the staff report. <br />145 <br />146 Mayor Reinert moved to approve Resolution 16-80A (he read a section of the resolution.). He noted <br />147 that he feels the resolution is a win/win for everyone as it allows the city to oppose the concept of <br />148 special lanes for special people (as he does) while allowing the project to go forward for those who <br />149 support it. It also will assure, if the state were to come to the city and ask for city assistance, the city <br />l 50 cannot be asked for funds for that purpose. This protects the city from having to fund a special lane <br />151 and thereby protects the city's residents from that. Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion <br />152 for discussion purposes. <br />l53 <br />154 Mayor Reinert asked City Attorney Langel to further explain the resolution. <br />l55 <br />156 Mr. Langel explained that the language of the resolution was previously proposed. He agrees that the <br />157 language agrees with the improvements outside of the MnPass lanes. His understanding is that <br />158 MnDOT has looked at the language and is interpreting it as a city denial. That would have <br />159 consequences that could remove Lino Lakes from the project and therefore risk loss of the <br />160 improvements. Mayor Reinert suggested that the consequences aren't based on legality but on the <br />161 firm hand of the state in their need to get full compliance. He is fully opposed to the MnPass lanes <br />162 and would like to state that. <br />163 <br />164 Council Member Manthey noted that there are three resolution options. He understands that the <br />165 mayor is in favor of 1640A. He noted 16-8013 and that it allows some footing for the city while <br />166 allowing the project to continue within the city. The goal seems to be to get a message on MnPASS <br />167 lanes but not to stop the project. <br />168 <br />169 Mayor Reinert remarked that Resolution No. 16-80b doesn't have any teeth. Council Member <br />170 Manthey said the council has discussed the options and MnDOT has come back with their opinion; he <br />171 thinks getting the project done is important. <br />172 <br />173 Council Member Kusterman said he will vote no on all three of the resolutions. He prefers to ensure <br />174 there will be a noise wall and not allow that to fall on principle. That is the most important thing for <br />175 him. <br />176 <br />177 The motion failed on a voice vote. <br />178 <br />0 <br />