My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/26/2009 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2009
>
01/26/2009 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2014 2:14:10 PM
Creation date
5/19/2014 2:06:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/26/2009
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.
/
49
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
• <br />• <br />• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES January 12, 2009 <br />DRAFT <br />91 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried. (Council Member Reinert was absent for the vote) <br />92 <br />93 Council Member Stoltz moved to approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 17 -08 as <br />94 presented. Council Member Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: Yeas, 4; <br />95 Nays, 0 (Council Member Reinert was absent for the vote) <br />96 <br />97 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER <br />98 <br />99 There was no report from the Public Services Department. <br />100 <br />101 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT, MICHAEL GROCHALA <br />102 <br />103 6A. Resolution No. 09 -01, Participating in Convention and Visitors Bureau — Economic <br />104 Development Coordinator Divine reported that she has been working with representatives of the two <br />105 hotels that are located in Lino Lakes regarding their interest in future convention and visitor <br />106 opportunities. They have expressed an interest, along with other hotels in Blaine, Shoreview and <br />107 Coon Rapids, in creating a convention and visitor's bureau that is focused on cities that are in close <br />108 proximity to the National Sports Center. For some cities, this would mean opting out of the existing <br />109 Visit Minneapolis North bureau. <br />110 <br />111 Cities do have statutory authority to charge a 3% lodging tax to support this type of bureau. Staff is <br />112 not requesting that the council authorize that tax at this time but recommends approval of a <br />113 resolution indicating the city's support for participation in a new bureau. The matter was reviewed <br />114 and discussed at the council work session. <br />115 <br />116 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve Resolution No. 09 -01 as presented. Council <br />117 Member Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />118 <br />119 6B. Resolution No. 09-02, Authorizing Agreement between RCWD and City for <br />120 Preparation of a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) — Community Development Director <br />121 Grochala explained that in conjunction with collaborative work with the Rice Creek Watershed <br />122 District (RCWD) on the city's comprehensive plan update, RCWD is recommending that a Special <br />123 Area Management Plan (SAMP) be prepared. This SAMP would be used as a tool to provide <br />124 streamlined and consistent guidance in the issuance of Section 404 permits in areas of abundant or. <br />125 sensitive aquatic resources and anticipated population growth. The SAMP would also assist both the <br />126 city and the RCWD in implementing the Resource Management Plan. Staff is recommending <br />127 approval of the RCWD proposal to execute an agreement with the city to cost share this project. <br />128 <br />129 Council Member Reinert moved to approve Resolution No. 09 -02 as presented. Council <br />130 Member Stoltz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />131 <br />132 6C. Resolution No. 09-03, Accepting Quotes and Awarding a Contract, Demolition of <br />133 Hazardous Structures at 745 Oak Lane — City Engineer Studenski reported that staff is <br />134 recommending and has received a court order authorizing that this hazardous structure be razed and <br />135 the cost charged as a special assessment against the property. He added that an inspection has <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.