HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-13-2012 Council Special Work Session Minutes CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 13, 2012
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : February 13, 2012
5 TIME STARTED : 7:45 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 9:40 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell,
8 Rafferty,Roeser and Mayor Reinert
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
10
11 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Engineer Jason Wedel;
12 Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Clerk Julie Bartell
13
14 1. Possible Charter Amendment—Chapter 8—Community Development Director
15 Grochala noted that the question of continuing the process that was started on an
16 ordinance in 2008 has been researched. The law firm of Kennedy and Graven has
17 recommended that the city proceed according to a new schedule, citing reasons such as
18 change in membership and the council since 2008.
19
20 Mr. Grochala then reviewed the cover page of his staff report, a schedule for
21 consideration of a council proposed charter amendment in 2012. The schedule includes
22 work session and council consideration in March with referral of the ordinance to the
23 Charter Commission by March 14. The schedule would then allow for a 60 plus 90 day
24 period for charter consideration and then two weeks for final council consideration of
25 sending the question to the ballot. The schedule somewhat assumes that the council goes
26 forward with the ordinance originally proposed by the citizens task force with the change
27 to remove the exempt zone language. He recalled the process the council followed in
28 2007 and 2008 in reviewing the original task force amendment, a proposal by former
29 charter commissioner Bob Bening, and the charter commission substitute proposal. He
30 also explained the tax exempt bond implications of continuing to have the exempt zones
31 within the charter language. He noted that the process of review of the amended
32 ordinance was ended basically with the submission of a citizen petition to put enactment
33 of Chapter 426 process on the ballot. Under state law, the council didn't have any
34 recourse other than to put that on the ballot so the decision was made to not have any
35 other amendments on the ballot because it would be too confusing. The citizen petition
36 question did not pass and that brings us to the current.
37
38 The mayor suggested that staff go through the entire process of road improvements,
39 comparing what would have to occur with the current charter language compared to what
40 would happen with the proposed charter language. The council received a chart prepared
41 by Attorney Steve Bubul comparing elements of all the charter proposals and Chapter
42 429. He noted that Chapter 429 was basically what the citizen petition proposal brought
43 forward. Mr. Grochala also reviewed a pavement management policy table that set forth
44 a standard for financing road improvements. The policy established a maximum
45 assessment rate and costs to be paid by general property tax levy. It generally resulted in
1
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 13, 2012
APPROVED
46 a fixed rate that was clear, that took the subjectivity out of the process and also allowed
47 the city to plan financially. The council heard that the term of a spread assessment is
48 fifteen years, but that is a policy choice. The process would provide predictability to the
49 city and the public. The feasibility study portion of a project allows you to look ahead at
50 all anticipated costs and what improvements are appropriate and needed in the area. For
51 water, it has in the past been considered a safety issue by the fire department.
52
53 The mayor noted, looking at the comparison sheet that the charter commission actually
54 came back with their proposal that changes seven of the eight things on the list. Mr.
55 Grochala remarked that the charter proposal actually added more complications than the
56 existing charter language. The mayor remarked that he looked for things that could be
57 brought from that proposal and doesn't see any at this point. A council member asked if
58 things like ignoring the safety of roads doesn't make the city liable in some way and Mr.
59 Grochala pointed out an email from the League of Minnesota Cities that is included in the
60 citizen's task force report that responds somewhat to the city's responsibility in getting
61 work done.
62
63 The mayor proceeded to going down the list,reviewing each area of comparison. When
64 the mayor asked staff what they would view as the biggest problem area, Mr. Grochala
65 suggested the referendum requirement.
66
67 The mayor discussed the feasibility study element and the presumptions that occur
68 because people believe that everything in the study must be done. There has to be a
69 point where you can draw a line of what is optional and make it clear that all the costs
70 aren't necessarily going to occur. Mr. Grochala explained that in a typical process, the
71 council would be making the project decisions at the time of the public input;the current
72 charter doesn't allow that decision point. The mayor noted that it must be clear from the
73 point of the feasibility study that residents have the ability change the project.
74
75 In the area of paying for improvements,the mayor threw out the possibility of the city
76 budgeting five percent of the budget for roads. There could be a one-time question to the
77 citizens—do you want to set aside five percent of the city budget for road improvements?
78 It could be a ten year program and, if it doesn't work as needed, it could be ended after
79 that period. A council member expressed some concern that building up the money
80 wouldn't necessarily be the most sensible way financially. The mayor suggested that
81 whatever the way,the payment process needs to be understandable and feel fair to the
82 citizens. When the topic of the basic cost per mile came up, Mr. Grochala noted that each
83 improvement project is really unique so you can't really presume something like $1
84 million a mile.
85
86 A council member asked for a discussion on next steps. How would a five percent
87 proposal fit into the citizen's task force ordinance? The mayor suggested that it was just
88 a concept that revolves around the question of what do you ask the public to decide and
89 what is going to be understandable to them. A council member suggested that the figure
90 isn't static; shouldn't the request be for what is needed? The mayor remarked that it is
2
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 13, 2012
APPROVED
91 something that people can understand and something that you could see some results
92 with. Perhaps you could go to referendum if it would go over five percent. A council
93 member suggested that the amendment should rather allow the city to go forward and
94 bond for road improvements under a plan that is publicized to the public. A council
95 member suggested that a levy limit on the budget may be in the future so it may be wise
96 to take that into consideration when planning future finances.
97
98 Staff should crunch the numbers as far as the five percent concept goes and also think
99 about that in relation to a plan for improvements. A council member suggested that the
100 figure be tied to tax capacity rather than budget; it's a more stable situation. The council
101 would like to hear back from staff on the workability of the idea.
102
103 The council set a special meeting for February 27, 2012, following the regular meeting
104 that night.
105
106 The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
107
108 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
109 February 27, 2012.
110
111
112
'%am, 114 Juli. ' e Bartell, City lerk Jeff ' • e , Mayor
115
3