05/26/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009 DRAFT 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 WORK SESSION MINUTES 3 4 DATE : May 4, 2009 5 TIME STARTED : 6:10 p.m. 6 TIME ENDED : 9:25 p.m. 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members O'Donnell, Reinert, 8 Gallup. Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : none 10 11 12 Staff members present Director of Finance, Al Rolek; Director of Community 13 Development, Michael Grrochala, City Engineer, Jim Studenski; Director of Public 14 Safety, Dave Pecchia; City Clerk, Julie Bartell 15 16 A Special Council Meeting to discuss a personnel matter and possible litigation was held 17 immediately prior to the work session. 18 19 At the regularly scheduled work session the following items were discussed. 20 21 Pine Street Petition - City Engineer Studenski reported on a petition that the city has 22 received from residents of Pine Street, a gravel road that is shared between the City of 23 Columbus and the City of Lino Lakes. The petition requests that the city research the cost 24 of paving the roadway and is signed by 69 percent of the property owners on the Lino 25 Lakes side of the street. Mr. Studenski recalled that a petition was received from Pine 26 Street residents in 2005 after which the city sent a letter to residents requesting further 27 input; the response was varied and 41% of the residents didn't respond at all. Although a 28 project did not proceed out of that effort, the City of Columbus did do an estimate that 29 year on the cost of a project with no curb or gutter or utilities. The estimate was 30 $471,300 but a project now would no doubt be more due to inflation of costs. Mr. 31 Studenski reported that he is not aware that a petition has been submitted to the City of 32 Columbus at this time but he is keeping that city aware of this matter. 33 34 The council discussed the City Charter public improvement process as it would relate to 35 this type of project. The project could be brought to referendum for city wide 36 participation. The process for consideration is preparation of a feasibility study, 37 notification of property owners, public hearing, 60-day waiting period to allow for a 38 petition of property owners against the project, and then, if still on track, a full assessment 39 project can proceed and if city wide contribution is included, it goes to the ballot. 40 41 A council member noted that the cost of preparing a feasibility study has been an issue in 42 the past — if the project doesn't go forward, that cost is left hanging. Is there a way to 43 save on that cost by using information already in place from the 2005 petition? 44 1 —55—