My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05-03-2010 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2010
>
05-03-2010 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2014 2:13:53 PM
Creation date
3/8/2013 10:47:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
05/03/2010
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.
/
4
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 May 3,2010 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 46 require the city to be notified before the group home went in. Those presenting at the <br /> L 47 meeting suggested that Lino Lakes' residents don't have anything to worry about. It was <br /> 48 clear to him that if there is any concern among citizens, it is about safety issues. He feels <br /> 49 there are still some unanswered questions such as what could this facility evolve into. <br /> 50 Mayor Reinert indicated that he intends to submit any and all questions and get answers. <br /> 51 It may be appropriate for the council to memorialize the information the city receives now <br /> 52 into a resolution or the like for the record and future reference. The council requested <br /> 53 that the city attorney and police chief comment on the legal and public safety aspects <br /> 54 (respectively) of the situation. <br /> 55 <br /> 56 City Attorney Langel reported that the group home facility current located in Lino Lakes <br /> 57 is properly licensed and that limits the type of people it can serve(limited to <br /> 58 developmentally disabled persons). The specific records for the persons in the home are <br /> 59 private and thus are protected under law. He noted that this type of home is quite <br /> 60 common, with 114 of them located within Anoka County alone. As was indicated by the <br /> 61 county at the meeting, dealing with sex offenders is not allowed under the license for this <br /> 62 facility. <br /> 63 <br /> 64 A member of the council discussed the possibility of a sex offender ending up at the <br /> 65 facility because of a low IQ or a disability. The council heard from the city attorney how <br /> 66 the term"sex offender"is defined by state statute. The council discussed the level of <br /> 67 supervision planned for the group home residents; it was reported at the meeting that <br /> 68 there will be 24-hour"awake" supervision as well as a guarantee that residents are not <br /> Li 69 allowed to go anywhere outside the facility without supervision. <br /> 70 <br /> 71 The council will submit their questions to be submitted to Anoka County for response. <br /> 72 Staff should bring responses to a future council work session. The city attorney informed <br /> 73 the council of the legal limitations of keeping out facilities. When asked about the <br /> 74 criteria for openings at the facility,the attorney remarked that he would assume the <br /> 75 criteria would be the same as for current residents. <br /> 76 <br /> 77 3. Signal Justification Report update(Birch/Ware and Lake/Main intersections)- <br /> 78 City Engineer Studenski explained that upon the direction of the council,the process of <br /> 79 developing a signal justification study for each of the two intersections is underway. The <br /> 80 purpose of each study is to determine if signals are warranted using established criteria <br /> 81 such as traffic counts. The next step in the process would be a feasibility study for each <br /> 82 project. Mr. Studenski then indicated that, based on the traffic count data already in,the <br /> 83 Main St/Lake Dr intersection meets the justification criteria but the Ware Rd/Birch St <br /> 84 does not. Without meeting the standard criteria, he explained, Anoka County would not <br /> 85 be participating in the project, at least up front. <br /> 86 <br /> 87 The council concurred that staff should continue to work with the county on both <br /> 88 intersections. It is a council priority to get a question on the ballot this fall; it may be <br /> 89 appropriate to discuss the matter with the charter commission also to keep them <br /> 90 informed. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.