Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES October 8, 2012 <br />DRAFT <br />1 CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />2 MINUTES <br />3 <br />4 DATE : October 8, 2012 <br />5 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. <br />6 TIME ENDED : 8:05 p.m. <br />7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, Rafferty, <br />8 Roeser, and Mayor Reinert <br />9 MEMBERS ABSENT : none <br />10 <br />11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael <br />12 Grochala; City Attorney Joseph Langel; City Engineer Jason Wedel; Chief of Police John Swenson; <br />13 and City Clerk Julie Bartell <br />14 <br />15 PUBLIC COMMENT <br />16 <br />17 No one addressed the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. <br />18 <br />19 SETTING THE AGENDA <br />20 <br />21 The agenda was approved as presented. <br />22 <br />23 SPECIAL PRESENTATION <br />24 <br />25 Charter Amendment Update — Community Development Director Grochala offered information on <br />26 the charter amendment that will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot. He stressed that city <br />27 residents should get informed about the amendment that involves how the city deals with public <br />28 improvements. He noted that information is available on the city Website and at a kiosk at city hall. <br />29 One question often asked is what is the history on this topic. He noted a report done by a citizen task <br />30 force in 2008 that makes recommendations on improving the public improvement process. The <br />31 amendment on the ballot in November is essentially the ordinance recommended by the task force <br />32 with a couple changes, one being adding a reverse referendum that would bring a question to the <br />33 voters. He compared the proposed public improvement process to the current process. <br />34 <br />35 Council Member Roeser confirmed that it was a citizen group that originally brought the changes <br />36 forward, not the city council. Also he noted that the amendment would be a continuation of this <br />37 council's efforts to reduce government. <br />38 <br />39 Mayor Reinert offered the following points: <br />40 This proposal is about city roadways, not those under the jursidiction the county or state; <br />41 The process is not about maintenance of roadways, but when a road requires reconstruction; <br />42 In most cities, the city council makes the decision and everyone is billed for the work. But 30 <br />43 years ago, this city made a different choice recognizing that an increase in property value may <br />44 occur and he agrees with that different choice. However, since that other choice was decided, <br />