05/09/2005 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 9, 2005 APPROVED 0181 that voters can use to make a good decision. He stated this type of street improvement process is very 182 dependent on the voters having current, accurate, thorough information that the feasibility study could 183 provide. 184 185 Patrick Smith, 6922 West Shadow Lake Drive, noted he has served on the City's Charter and 186 Planning Commissions. He expressed some fundamental concerns with the process, stating they are 187 hoping to get a new study and go to referendum, however the city has not had the best tax voting 188 recently. He suggested the city may need to look at other financing methods and possibly get a 189 community action group together to make a recommendation. 190 191 Councilmember Stoltz asked for clarification on the Pavement Management Study. 192 193 Community Development Director Grochala advised that the City retained an engineering firm to 194 look at the City streets. During that study the streets were rated and a recommendation was put 195 together for a five -phase street reconstruction. He explained that the first phase was approved in 196 referendum in 1996, and constructed in 1997. He stated the second phase was Shenandoah and West 197 Shadow Lake Drive, which was brought for referendum in 2003 and turned down. He commented the 198 point of the study is to rate the streets and put the dollars where they can best be used to extend the 199 life of the streets, and reach a point where it is costing the city and the taxpayers less dollars. 200 201 Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 05-62 declaring adequacy of petition and 02 ordering Preparation Report, West Shadow Lake Drive Area Street and Utility Improvements. W203 Councilmember Stoltz seconded the motion. 204 205 Councilmember Dahl clarified that Lino Lakes is not the only community where the City Council 206 cannot initiate road re -construction. She indicated at the last City Council meeting she was not aware 207 how many residents of this street were interested in having the road improvement, and she wants 208 something on the ballot that will pass. She stated she is concerned about subdividing of the lots and 209 how that will be adjusted with the 147 homes per year regulated by the City's Comprehensive Plan. 210 She stated she also does not want the taxpayers to have to pay $55,000 for something that may not be 211 approved. 212 213 Councilmember Carlson commented that Elm Street was a correction, and the City did not know they 214 would need additional MUSA until they were very far into the project. Community Development 215 Director Grochala disagreed, indicated the Elm Street reconstruction had been proposed for several 216 years, and the City knew when they started moving forward with the road reconstruction they would 217 need to make adjustments to the MUSA. He stated in reality West Shadow Lake Drive is a 218 correction; the Comprehensive Plan, while showing areas in MUSA, show it as unsewered residential, 219 which is in conflict. 220 221 Councilmember Carlson indicated that tonight is not a re -vote or a reversal, as the City -initiated 222 project was 2:2, and there were discussions about there being other ways to go about this. She 223 commented on a flyer that was distributed asking for her and Councilmember Dahl to not only change 24 their vote but also provide an indication on why they voted against the study. She read a statement 225 concerning the previous referendums, and her concern that the Council has not addressed the cost 5