Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES September 13,2010 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 91 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH <br /> 92 <br /> 93 There was no report from the Administration Department. <br /> 94 <br /> 95 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT <br /> 96 <br /> 97 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. <br /> 98 <br /> 99 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER <br /> 100 <br /> 101 There was no report from the Public Services Department. <br /> 102 <br /> 103 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT,MICHAEL <br /> 104 GROCHALA <br /> 105 <br /> 106 6A) Public Hearing(continued from 8/23/10) on Ordinance No. 09-10, Establishing a <br /> 107 Storm Water Utility—The mayor announced that the council would not be considering approval <br /> 108 of this ordinance this evening but would be hearing comments as part of the continued public <br /> 109 hearing. The council is not ready to make a decision on this matter and will continue their review <br /> 110 of the matter at their next regular work session. <br /> 111 <br /> 112 The following comments were received during the public hearing. <br /> ' 13 <br /> `-114 Amy Donlin, 6100 Centerville Road, read a statement indicating her concerns. The original <br /> 115 wetlands of the area were negatively impacted by the growth and development in the city. The <br /> 116 retention and other mitigation efforts have not acted in the same manner as those original <br /> 117 wetlands so now the city is paying and must attempt to determine how to deal with water <br /> 118 management. She lives on a farm and is a good steward of the environment. She is concerned <br /> 119 that the real offenders should be paying their fair share to correct the problems they caused. <br /> 120 <br /> 121 Mike Trehus,Lino Lakes,wondered why street sweeping is considered part of storm water <br /> 122 management and is included in a proposed budget when it's been a long term practice. He is <br /> 123 concerned that the budget for storm water management this year is $125,000 and would jump to <br /> 124 more than$500,000 next year. That proposed budget looks like a revenue enhancement system <br /> 125 for the city. If a fee is enacted, it will never go away. <br /> 126 <br /> 127 Dean Hausladen, Lino Lakes, noted that he has reviewed the entire proposal and is unconvinced <br /> 128 of the need for this utility. He fears it represents a blank check and the work should be done but <br /> 129 as part of the city's regular budget. The fee is open ended so it will only go up. <br /> 130 <br /> 131 Council Member Rafferty moved to close the public hearing. Council Member Roeser seconded <br /> 132 the motion. Motion adopted on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> 133 <br /> 3 <br />