Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, August 8, 2016 <br />Page 6 <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. <br />Nays: None. <br />9. Consider Items Removed from Consent <br />e. Approve Fairview Traffic Control Signal Agreement <br />At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item <br />as detailed in the RCA dated July 25, 2016 and related attachments. <br />By way of additional information for public awareness, Councilmember McGehee <br />noted the total cost to the city for installation of this signal would be $224,610 in <br />addition to the electricity costs once installed estimated at $3,000 to $4,000 per <br />year. Councilmember McGehee noted the cost to the city when initiating signal <br />installation versus Ramsey County installation. <br />McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of entering into an Agreement for <br />Maintenance of Traffic Control Signals Agreement No. PW2016-02M with Ram- <br />sey County Public Warks (Attachment A) <br />Councilmember McGehee noted her ongoing objection to the construction of <br />Twin lakes Parkway and future related changes that she opined would prove prob- <br />lematic. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe. <br />Nays: None. <br />10. General Ordinances for Adoption <br />a. Request to Amend City Code Section 101112 to Opt Out of the Require- <br />ments of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.3593 Pertaining to Temporary <br />Family Health Care Dwellings (PROJ0017-Amdt. 29) <br />As detailed in the RCA, City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed this re- <br />quest to amend city code (Section 1011.12) to opt out of Minnesota Statute, Chap- <br />ter 462.3593 pertaining to temporary family health care dwellings to allow more <br />review and Roseville-specific flexibility with this type of housing unit. <br />Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that this topic had been covered earlier to- <br />day at the Metro Cities meeting, and through a show of hands of cities choosing to <br />opt out, every city in attendance indicated that opt out option. Councilmember <br />Laliberte further noted that the League of Cities (LMC) representative attending <br />that meeting noted that, while this opt out process seemed frustrating, it provided <br />a better scenario than the legislation that was originally proposed was requiring. <br />Once the legislature becomes aware of these collective city opt outs, the LMC <br />