My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/19/1997 Council Minutes
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1997
>
11/19/1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2015 1:03:14 PM
Creation date
1/29/2015 1:01:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/19/1997
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 19, 1997 <br />DISCUSSION OF SAC REBATE, RANDY SCHUMACHER <br />Mr. Schumacher explained that when Metropolitan Council implemented the SAC <br />charges, SAC was collected on the building permits for all new homes and <br />commercial/industrial building regardless of whether or not sanitary sewer was available. <br />Recently, a north suburban city sued the Metropolitan Council asking that the SAC paid <br />for homes and commercial/industrial business that would not receive sanitary sewer until <br />far in the future be refunded to that City. This north suburban city won the lawsuit. <br />As a result of that particular lawsuit, other suburban cities have requested a similar <br />refund. The City of Lino Lakes also requested the refund. The refund was received and <br />placed in a special account so that it could be easily identified. Now, some of those areas <br />are receiving sanitary sewer and staff must make a decision on how to handle payment of <br />the SAC to Metropolitan Council for homes actually connecting to the utility. <br />Mr. Schumacher was directed to determine how many properties <br />much money is available to pay the SAC at the time they conn <br />information will be brought to the next work session. <br />ed and how <br />y. This <br />CONSIDERATION OF A DRAFT GAS FRAN NCE, RANDY <br />SCHUMACHER <br />This item was delayed until the next w <br />RECOMMENDATION FO ' 1 I NCE REVISION, CAMPAIGN <br />SIGNS MARILYN AN 1 <br />During the recent <br />prompting citizen <br />signs on rights -of - <br />complaints from the <br />tion, many signs and extremely large signs were erected <br />well as candidate complaints. Placement of campaign <br />on utility poles also prompted citizen complaints and <br />oka County Highway Department. <br />Ms. Anderson reviewed the current Sign Ordinance addressing campaign signs. She noted <br />that her biggest concern was the inability to regulate the signs. She asked the City Council <br />for direction on this matter. <br />Council discussed several items they would like included in a revision of the Sign <br />Ordinance. Those items included regulating the number of signs that could be posted in <br />one location, regulating the size of the signs, limiting the time the signs can be posted, <br />eliminating campaign signs near the polling places, regulating setback requirements and <br />determining who is the enforcement authority. <br />PAGE 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.