HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2012 Council Special Work Session Minutes CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 27, 2012
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4 DATE : February 27, 2012
5 TIME STARTED : 7:00 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 8:20 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell,
8 Rafferty,Roeser and Mayor Reinert
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
10
11
12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development
13 Director Michael Grochala; City Engineer Jason Wedel; City Clerk Julie Bartell
14
15 Possible Charter Amendment—Community Development Director Grochala reported.
16 He noted that the council discussed at the last special session on February 13 the different
17 elements of the citizen's task force proposal to amend Chapter 8 of the City Charter.
18 There was a review of what the process would look like under that language. The council
19 also brought up the idea of a cap and staff did have a discussion on that concept with
20 bond counsel, Steve Bubul, and financial advisor, Springsted. The council also asked
21 questions about how many miles of city roads are in a deficient situation at the current
22 time.
23
24 Community Development Director Grochala reviewed how the task force proposal would
25 work for the improvement process including when the actual improvements are decided
26 upon. Under the task force amendment, a hearing on the improvements is required.
27 Property owners can object at that meeting and, if at least fifty percent of those property
28 owners object, another hearing is scheduled 45 days out. If there is not that level of
29 objection,the council could take action to order the improvement at that same meeting
30 and would decide at that point what would be included in the project. The scope of the
31 improvement is always left to the council with public input. The feasibility study would
32 be done based on all possible improvements but if there is an element that the council
33 wants removed based on public testimony, for instance,the council could spell it out
34 differently. The second public hearing could be the opportunity to review the actual
35 improvements. The task force proposal also contains a provision allowing affected
36 property owners to petition against a project and stop the improvements (within a 30 day
37 period after action—a notice to residents having been required within five days of action).
38 The council and staff acknowledged that there will be situations where improvements like
39 water/sewer wouldn't make sense. Also a process like"stubbing"would allow future
40 hook ups as an option. The mayor acknowledged that it's important for property owners
41 to have choice rather than having all improvements imposed upon them. Mr. Grochala
42 added that staff is bringing forward the concept of adding in a reverse referendum,
43 allowing voters to petition for a referendum and the idea was discussed by the council.
44
45
1
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 27, 2012
APPROVED
46 Community Development Director Grochala then explained staff's research of the
47 proposal to designate 5% of the city budget for a street reconstruction budget. He
48 recommended that the council look at the current status of road work and how much a
49 budgeted amount of work would allow. The city has been doing maintenance in the form
50 of overlay and sealcoating for many years. The Pavement Management Plan has
51 categorized all city roads and maintenance is based on those ratings. There are about 20
52 miles of roadway that fall into a category that is beyond where sealcoat and overlay will
53 help. The city does have a computer program that is used to track the streets and what
54 work is done and current conditions. A council member noted that the liability and
55 problem of not fixing roadways needs to be clear to the residents, with the understanding
56 that there will always be some roads that are in line needing to be fixed. Mr. Grochala
57 explained that the bottom line is that the percentage cap idea would greatly inhibit the
58 city's ability move in on the 20 mile number.
59
60 Community Development Grochala then pointed out that the city has spent approximately
61 $2.5 to $3 million on road work in the last ten years (not including a few areas such as
62 patching and crack sealing). There is a responsibility beyond that to get the
63 reconstruction work done,recognizing that input from the citizens through the process is
64 important.
65
66 The council then discussed the ability to do road reconstruction without any special
67 assessments and they heard that the city's bond counsel Steve Bubul will be at the next
68 work session to discuss the city's bonding ability in that area. Mr. Grochala noted that
69 state statute does contain language that allows cities to issue debt for improvements with
70 certain requirements. The mayor asked for a discussion of the possibility of the city
71 doing projects without special assessments. The council reviewed the cost of some
72 recently proposed projects;the suggestion of the cost being one million dollars a mile
73 doesn't apply for all projects.
74
75 The mayor recalled that the current charter language came to be because the council was
76 abusing its improvement power and leapfrogging to areas for development purposes and
77 thus causing costs for people along the way that didn't need or want water/sewer. Mr.
78 Grochala recalled that the Bisel amendment of the 1990's was passed to prevent that type
79 of situation.
80
81 The mayor suggested putting aside an amendment for this year but rather putting an
82 improvement project on the ballot and explaining to the citizens that approving the
83 project would mean that a portion would be assessed to the benefiting property owners
84 while not approving the project would result in all city taxpayers paying the full cost with
85 no assessments. It's important to clearly explain the situation to the citizens. The council
86 expressed concern about the ability to fully convey a proposal including through ballot
87 language. Doing a project at full city expense would also present a situation where you
88 don't want to change the process down the road so some people get their road paid 100%
89 and then there's a process change and they end up having to pay an assessment on their
`.� 90 roadway.
2
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 27, 2012
APPROVED
91
92 Community Development Director Grochala suggested that the council continue to also
93 look at the street construction statute. While it may not work with every project, it is a
94 tool available that may be helpful to the city. It does contain a reverse referendum clause.
95
96 The council discussed next steps in the process. They have the citizen's task force
97 amendment under review and are considering adding a reverse referendum to that
98 proposal and starting the process to put that on the ballot. The council will get more
99 information at the March work session and could then proceed with first reading of an
100 amendment at the regular council meeting and referral to the charter commission. They
101 will also see more information on the roads that are in need of reconstruction.
102
103 The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
104
105 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
106 March 12, 2012.
107
108
109 •
111 Juliann Bartell, City lerk Jeff Reins , fayor