My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
10-10-2016 Council Meeting Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
10-10-2016 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/15/2021 11:54:01 AM
Creation date
9/7/2017 3:42:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/10/2016
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
OUN IL MIN T S October <br />223 Council Member Maher suggested that the policy set by the resolution would require staff process be <br />224 developed and Mr. Grochala concurred. <br />225 <br />226 Mayor Reinert asked Mr. Grochala if he has any concern that the job that has brought this policy <br />227 forward will be done correctly? Mr. Grochala said he suspects there will be more staff involvement <br />228 and there may be kick -back. He believes that regardless there must be that line of communication. <br />229 <br />230 Council Member Kusterman recalled that staff reported that the homeowner himself applied for the <br />231 permit. Mayor Reinert explained that staff will be held accountable for a safe end product. <br />232 <br />233 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16 as amended to reflect that <br />234 communication is required to the homeowner. Attorney Langel explained the difficulty of adding <br />235 language that would actually serve that purpose. Council Member Rafferty withdrew his motion. <br />236 <br />237 Mayor Reinert said the bottom line is to have a system installed correctly; a process including some <br />238 city oversight seems the answer to him. Will staff put together that process? Mr. Grochala explained <br />239 that the existing rules establish the process; additionally they would have to be clear on everyone who <br />240 is working on the project so contact and oversight doesn't become unclear. <br />241 <br />242 Council Member Kusterman expressed concern that this action could open the process up very wide. <br />243 Would a bonding process be appropriate? He isn't uncomfortable opening the door for all <br />244 homeowners to bring in unlicensed, non -bonded individuals to do this important work. <br />245 <br />246 Mr. Grochala clarified that the current law allows an individual to put in their own system, without a <br />247 bond but with a plan prepared under license. For staff, understanding who to contact is very <br />248 important. <br />249 <br />250 Mayor Reinert asked, under what the state allows are there issues that arise? Mr. Grochala said he <br />251 doesn't think so. Mayor Reinert suggested that the action is a resolution, presenting a policy, not <br />252 changing regulations; perhaps the city could have discussion in the future about how this is working <br />253 and tweak it if necessary. <br />254 <br />255 Council Member Manthey suggested that he hears staff indicating concern that project standards <br />256 could be lessened. Mayor Reinert said staff will require certain standards and enforce them and he <br />257 feels that getting a report back on this from staff is an important element to moving forward. <br />258 <br />259 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 16-132, amended to require that the <br />260 subject will be revisited at a future work session. Council Member Manthey seconded the motion. <br />261 Motion carried on a voice vote. Council Member Maher voted "no". <br />262 <br />263 UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />264 <br />265 There was no Unfinished Business. <br />266 <br />267 NEW BUSINESS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.