My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/13/2012 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2012
>
11/13/2012 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2014 4:12:11 PM
Creation date
1/14/2014 11:03:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
11/13/2012
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.
/
80
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 October 22, 2012 <br />DRAFT <br />45 2B) Resolution No. 12 -106 Approving Post - Issuance Compliance Procedure and <br />46 Policy for Tax- Exempt Governmental Bonds — Finance Director Rolek explained that <br />47 the city's bond counsel is recommending that the city approve this as a policy. The items <br />48 in the policy are actually things the city has been doing all along but a policy will <br />49 formalize those practices. Council Member Roeser noted that Centennial Fire District is <br />50 in the business of buying equipment and he wonders if financing at a low rate would be a <br />51 good option. Ms. Heaton explained that bonds are sometimes an option under a joint <br />52 powers agreement if that is authorized within the agreement. <br />53 <br />54 6A) Resolution No. 12 -108 Approving the Twin City Gateway Budget for 2013 - <br />55 Economic Development Coordinator Divine explained that staff is bringing forward the <br />56 annual budget proposed for the area's tourism bureau of which Lino Lakes is a member. <br />57 She reviewed the budget as outlined in her report. She noted that revenue for the budget <br />58 comes through a lodging tax and that sports events are the biggest driver of hotel nights <br />59 for this group (see visitor profile included in the staff report). There is a large reserve <br />60 built into the budget and eighty percent of the budget is used for marketing and <br />61 promotional programs. <br />62 <br />63 6B) Resolution No. 12 -59, Establishing a Cartway — Mayor Reinert noted that the <br />64 council met the previous Monday at the site of the cartway and discussed some access <br />65 options. Community Development Director Grochala noted that some questions arose <br />66 regarding wetlands and he has included information in the staff report on the process used <br />67 to consider wetland delineation. Looking at options to minimize wetland impact, the <br />68 location closest to the bridge would have the most impact; moving away from the bridge <br />69 would lessen the impact. There were three locations for access off the roadway that were <br />70 considered. <br />71 <br />72 Mayor Reinert noted the variables — location, a bridge, a road and compensation. <br />73 Currently the location that had been discussed is 488 feet from the bridge, the middle <br />74 location is approximately 250 feet from the bridge and the third point was next to the <br />75 bridge. Issues are compensation (wide range proposed between parties) with the council <br />76 having received a proposal from the city attorney of $51,982. There is also a maintenance <br />77 requirement for the bridge and for the road — the bridge is proposed to be one sixth of the <br />78 actual cost and the road two percent of the cost. Council Member Rafferty expressed <br />79 support for the middle access point as it represents "middle ground" between the desires <br />80 of the petitioner and the homeowner's association (HOA). Mayor Reinert pointed out <br />81 that the middle area would represent additional costs to the petitioner that should perhaps <br />82 impact damages. <br />83 <br />84 Council Member O'Donnell noted that he feels it isn't fair to assess the petitioner for the <br />85 full length of the road because he obviously won't be using the entire road. He respects <br />86 the privacy of the neighborhood but in visiting the site he doesn't see too much impact on <br />87 the neighborhood through the petitioner's use unless the cartway remains public. It seems <br />88 the neighbors are concerned about use of the property once access is granted but that use <br />89 can't be a concern in the council's decision. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.