My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
05-28-2019 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2019
>
05-28-2019 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2021 1:08:47 PM
Creation date
10/16/2019 12:05:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
05/28/2019
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.
/
96
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 6, 2019 <br />DRAFT <br /> 1 <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 <br />MINUTES 2 <br /> 3 <br />DATE : May 6, 2019 4 <br />TIME STARTED : 6:00 p.m. 5 <br />TIME ENDED : 10:30 p.m. 6 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Rafferty, Maher, 7 <br /> Manthey, Stoesz and Mayor Reinert 8 <br />MEMBERS ABSENT : None 9 <br /> 10 <br />Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Public Safety Director John 11 <br />Swenson; Public Services Director Rick DeGardner; Community Development Director 12 <br />Michael Grochala; Finance Director Sarah Cotton; City Planner Katie Larsen; City 13 <br />Engineer Diane Hankee; City Clerk Julie Bartell 14 <br /> 15 <br />Annual Board of Appeal and Equalization Hearing, Council Chambers 16 <br />(See separate minutes) 17 <br /> 18 <br /> 1. Review Public Works Facility Concept Plans – Rick DeGardner 19 <br />reviewed his written report outlining the matter of replacing the City’s public works 20 <br />facility and introduced Jeff Oertel of Oertel Architects to present concept plans based on 21 <br />the council’s previous directions. Using the video screen, Mr. Oertel reviewed the site 22 <br />noting the space constraints at the current site. They’ve come up with a couple options. 23 <br />He noted that the Mayor had asked what the City can get for $4 million and the options 24 <br />are based on that premise. Mr. Oertel showed concepts and noted the following: 25 <br />- there is an option to leave the community space as is or hold for future expansion; 26 <br />- a possible location for adding a maintenance bay; 27 <br />- moving the office area to the SE corner of building (someday you can meet your 28 <br />total space needs); 29 <br />- big box presented would be about $4 million and adding that maintenance bay 30 <br />(current dollars) would be an additional $1 million; 31 <br />- noted that construction costs are somewhat volatile; 32 <br />- a look at what some other cities have built, some larger and some smaller; Little 33 <br />Canada built a smaller facility; 34 <br />- focus would be on space rather than aesthetics. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Mayor Reinert suggested that the council is looking for something utilitarian more than 37 <br />paying a lot for design. The last proposal they saw was much more expensive and he felt 38 <br />at that time that for the use requirements, the project could be done for less. He doesn’t 39 <br />necessarily see the return on a larger investment for the residents. He is cognizant of the 40 <br />need to have a workable space. He offered that as background on this discussion. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Rafferty noted that the conceptual building seems far to the east of the 43 <br />lot and he wonders if that doesn’t make access harder. Mr. Oertel explained that the 44 <br />location is greatly impacted by wetlands and setbacks, unless the community land is used. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.