09/13/2005 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 APPROVED W11 Councilmember Reinert stated a levy question on the ballot is how Lino Lakes reconstructs roads, and 12 asked if language could be put on the ballot communicating this. He requested the communication 313 plan for this item be put on the next work session agenda. Community Development Director 314 Grochala replied since there already is a lot of text on the ballot he would not recommend adding this 315 language, but will try to provide information such as a brochure identifying the project and details. 316 317 Councilmember Dahl asked if it takes 25% of owners to petition for or against. Community 318 Development Grochala replied the Charter specifies a minimum of 25% of property owners to be 319 assessed. He added in the absence of a petition with 25% or more Council needs to initiate a 4/5 vote. 320 321 Councilmember Dahl noted 15 people that signed the feasibility study petition signed the petition 322 against and asked how this affects the petition. Attorney Sullivan replied owners could sign both 323 petitions; they can decide against the project within the 60 -day window. Community Development 324 Director Grochala stated out of 69 owners 20 are against, which does not meet the criteria. 325 326 Councilmember Dahl suggested Council recognize the second petition then vote. Acting Mayor 327 Stoltz replied the second petition is duly noted. 328 329 Acting Mayor Stoltz opened the issue for public comment. 330 331 Mike Trehus, 675 Shadow Court, stated he would be assessed $40,000 with no benefit. The petition 332 was for a feasibility study and contrary to the understanding of owners the City treated it as a petition 0333 for the project. The school district has a parcel with nine lots but if charged for one what happens to 334 the assessments for everyone else. Community Development Director Grochala stated if the school 335 receives one assessment, based on a change of land use this would not change assessments across the 336 board but would change the cost portion the City is picking up as a part of the street improvements. 337 338 Chris Bretoi, 6779 West Shadow Lake Drive, stated he signed the original petition and it was clear it 339 was a feasibility study only with no commitment to property owners. He added people were 340 interested in this study because of streets in need of repair and failing septic systems. He noted he 341 finds it interesting the petition for a feasibility study evolved into a request for improvements. He 342 suggested there should be a referendum that would arrive at more of a consensus. 343 344 Kim Fossey, 6900 West Shadow Lake Drive, stated previously there was conflicting cost estimates 345 with regard to sewer and water. Since the study was done and costs were received, some property 346 owners changed their mind; however for the dollar amount they are getting a good value and you 347 cannot put a price on fire protection. 348 349 Curt Kinghorn, 6769 West Shadow Lake Drive, stated he signed the petition for a feasibility study. 350 He noted many trees on his property will be removed and the unique neighborhood should not be 351 turned into something else. From the feasibility study Staff decided City water and sewer was the 352 only option, with cost being the only undecided issue. He suggested Staff provide a range of options 353 and let the neighborhood decide. He added a number of people are against the project but do not want 354 to say it because the project helps their neighbors. Community Development Director Grochala stated *355 several options could be evaluated but there are limitations on what can be done. The City does not 8