03-24-14 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES March 10, 2014 DRAFT 180 181 Council Member Stoesz ensured that the city would still be able to enforce regulations not to do with 182 the storage issue. 183 184 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 14 -26 as presented. Council Member 185 Kusterman seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 186 187 6D) Resolution No. 14 -25, Approving Site Performance Agreement with Metro Transit — City 188 Engineer Wedel showed the location of the transit park and ride facility on an overhead. Another 189 element impacting this project is construction of the roadway, a joint project with the City of 190 Centerville. The agreement is a standard required by this city and outlines project information and 191 fee /requirements. 192 193 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Resolution No. 14 -25 as presented. Council Member 194 Stoesz seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 195 196 6E) 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 03 -14, Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City 197 Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments 198 199 Community Development Director Grochala explained that there are two options (ordinances) that 200 were forwarded from the council's work session discussion. 201 202 Mayor Reinert asked staff to explain why charter amendments are important. Mr. Grochala 203 explained that the Lino Lakes City Charter is unique in how it addresses public improvements. State 204 Statute Chapter 429 provides cities the means to assess for public improvements costs. The city 205 charter allows for neighborhood veto and also, past that process, election is required if any property 206 tax funding is used. In terms of street reconstruction, the problem has been the difficulty in getting 207 any of that type of work accomplished. A modification that provides a more streamlined process for 208 public improvements is desired. Something that provides residents with a voice and the opportunity 209 of ballot consideration if that is desired. He explained that the two proposed amendments are 210 outlined in the staff report. Briefly the first option is generally consistent with the amendment placed 211 before voters in 2012 with some changes incorporated that mostly respond to concerns heard about 212 the 2012 ordinance (changes reviewed). Option two combines some of the changes from option one 213 as well as retains language existing in the current Charter. The hearing process is the same (follows 214 Chapter 429) but a requirement is added that the hearing notice include a cost assessment notification. 215 This option also allows the neighborhood 60 days to petition against the project (existing Charter 216 language). It would still require an election if any property tax dollars are proposed to be used except 217 for street reconstruction projects to be done under state law (street reconstruction bonding). The 218 remainder of changes proposed in option two were reviewed and Mr. Grochala indicated they are 219 fairly general in nature. 220 221 Staff is in the process of preparing a synopsis that will compare the amendment(s) with Minnesota 222 Statutes. Because of the statutory process for charter amendments, the council would need to move 223 now on forwarding an ordinance to the Charter Commission in order to meet the ballot deadline. 224 5