03/23/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 2, 2009 DRAFT 45 Legislature. There would probably be some federal funding involved with a match 46 required. 47 Mr. Olson added that he is not disputing the information being presented by the residents. 48 Officially, Anoka County Airport is a MAC reliever airport and it is completely under the 49 authority of MAC; the county's involvement is through a lease of property. While the 50 county has no position because the issue isn't officially at hand, they will continue to 51 attend and participate in discussions as requested. 52 Mr. Rice and Ms. Jaconich suggested that even though MAC and Anoka County are 53 denying there is activity in the area of an expansion request, citizens should let their 54 concerns be known to officials on this important issue. They believe that local entities 55 may also want to engage in this issue before it becomes a crisis. A group of entities (such 56 as a north metro league of cities) should be formed and a lobbyist hired to work on this 57 daunting task. There are strong property value issues involved that will impact cities. 58 They do not see this as a job creation situation since expansion of the airport would 59 probably just mean a swap with the current jobs. 60 When asked about positions taken by other cities in the area, Mr. Rice explained that he 61 has presented to officials in Shoreview and Mounds View. Blaine has a resolution on file 62 from years back opposing expansion. The council offered thanks for the very 63 comprehensive presentation. One council member noted that the residential nature of the 64 city of Lino Lakes would naturally lend the city to opposing airport expansion. Another 65 member suggested, as a first step, forming a council resolution stating an opinion 66 opposed to airport expansion. The council members present concurred; they would like 67 to have a resolution on the March 23 council agenda (with an opportunity to review it at 68 the pre- council work session). 69 2. John DeHaven, 612 Birch St, property subdivision — Administrator Heitke 70 recalled that Mr. DeHaven had approached the council contesting expenditures related to 71 his escrow account for the city review of a minor subdivision application. Mr. DeHaven 72 believes he has been overcharged and is requesting reimbursement of some charges 73 relative to staff and city attorney work. At the council's direction, the city attorney has 74 reviewed the charges and responded to Mr. DeHaven's concern. 75 Mr. DeHaven suggested that he has given staff the opportunity to respond but it was 76 refused and he is concerned that information being presented is not accurate. His escrow 77 money has essentially been stolen. Now there is a response from the city's new attorney 78 who has never been involved. He believes this is a moral issue. 79 A council member suggested that it is time to reach a solution to this issue. It is 80 recognized that Mr. DeHaven brought forward an issue that challenged the city to make a 81 change in process and the council directed staff to proceed with preparing a way for that 82 change. It has been clear that staff spent a good amount of time working on that change. 83 Since Mr. DeHaven has concern about legal fees as well and the council isn't as familiar • • •