Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-2011 Council Minutes COUNCIL MINUTES September 12,2011 APPROVED 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES 2 MINUTES 3 4 5 DATE : September 12,2011 6 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m. 7 TIME ENDED : 9:05 p.m. 8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Gallup, O'Donnell,Rafferty, 9 Roeser, and Mayor Reinert 10 MEMBERS ABSENT : none 11 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Attorney Joseph Langel; Community 13 Development Director Michael Grochala; Director of Public Safety John Swenson; Director of 14 Finance Al Rolek; and City Clerk Julie Bartell 15 16 PUBLIC COMMENT 17 18 No one was present to address the council regarding a matter not on the agenda. 19 20 SETTING THE AGENDA 21 22 The agenda was approved as presented. 23 ■."' 24 SPECIAL PRESENTATION 25 26 Proclamation recognizing the week of September 17-23, 2011 as Constitution Week—Mayor 27 Reinert read the proclamation and it was then presented to Gail Lossing, representative of the 28 Daughters of the American Revolution. 29 30 CONSENT AGENDA 31 32 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items lB through 1F, as 33 presented. Council Member Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice 34 vote. 35 36 Council Member Rafferty moved to approve Consent Item 1G as presented. Council Member Roeser 37 seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member O'Donnell abstained from 38 voting. 39 40 ITEM ACTION 41 42 Consideration of Expenditures: 43 44 September 12, 2011 (Check No. 91451 - 45 91600, $414,199.62) Approved 1 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12,2011 APPROVED 46 47 Centennial Fire District (Check No. 4946- 48 4972, $33,321.14) Approved 49 50 August 22, 2011 Council Work Session 51 Minutes Approved 52 53 August 22, 2011 City Council Meeting 54 Minutes Approved 55 56 August 22, 2011 Special Budget Work Session 57 Minutes Approved 58 59 August 15, 2011 Special Budget Work Session 60 Minutes Approved 61 62 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK 63 64 2A) Resolution No. 11-89,Adopting Preliminary 2011/2012 Property Tax Levy—Finance 65 Director Rolek reported that it is time for the City to consider a maximum levy amount for the coming 66 year, as is required by state statute. Mr. Rolek noted that the amount of the maximum preliminary 67 levy is $8,227,259, a decrease of 5 percent over the past year. This levy amount may be decreased by 68 the council for the final budget adoption but it may not be increased. A public hearing on the levy is 69 scheduled for December. 70 71 The Mayor congratulated the council for their work on this budget. They worked essentially all year 72 and the result is a decreased budget achieved through review of the organization, a change in 73 engineering services and some outsourcing of services. He believes the council has accomplished 74 what the citizens want. 75 76 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 11-89 as presented. Council Member 77 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 78 79 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 80 81 3A) Amendments to Lino Lakes City Charter: Public hearing and consideration of 1st Reading 82 of two ordinances—Administrator Karlson noted that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission has 83 submitted two ordinances for consideration by the City Council. State statute includes a process and 84 timeframe under which the amendments must be considered. The schedule was reviewed and it was 85 noted that an affirmative vote of all council members is required for an amendment to pass. 86 87 Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. He noted that the council has not had the opportunity to 88 hear from the Charter Commission on the amendments and would much appreciate getting some 89 clarification from the commission now. a.. 90 2 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 91 Mike Trehus, Lino Lakes Charter Commission member, addressed the council. He confirmed that he . 92 would offer an explanation of the amendments and then reserve the opportunity to rebut what he 93 understands he will be hearing from the city as far as a critique of the amendments. 94 95 Mr. Trehus first explained that a charter commission is a group of volunteer city residents that work 96 with a small budget. The charge of the group is to frame and amend the city charter, based on their 97 view of city operations. The commission doesn't have power to directly amend the charter and can 98 only propose amendments to the city council or the voters. The Lino Lakes Charter Commission is 99 proposing amendments to the council now mainly because this year's Minnesota Legislature did not 100 include in their budget actions any tax cap for cities. That being the case, the commission decided it 101 would be a good time to suggest that a tax cap be added to the city charter. He noted that taxes are 102 high in Lino Lakes and he showed a chart comparing the City's taxes to other cities. The other 103 amendment proposed clarifies and speaks to the duties of the Commission. 104 105 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Section 1.04. Mr. Trehus explained that while some 106 of the added language may be duplicative to what's currently in state law, the commission feels it 107 should be in place within the Charter in case there are law changes in the future. It is meant to be 108 reaffirming. He will be demonstrating the need as he moves further into his presentation. 109 110 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Section 1.05. Mr. Trehus explained that the courts 111 have decided that any public money spent on a referendum issue belongs to both sides of the issue. 112 That has not been the case in Lino Lakes. This would be a no cost option that doesn't change any 13 power for the Commission. He noted the history of the city council trying to get the word out on an X114 amendment on the ballot and that the city advocated but didn't allow the Commission to get the word 115 out on the other side of the matter. 116 117 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Chapter 7.13. Mr. Trehus presented a chart 118 indicating tax levy increases in Lino Lakes over the past ten years and comparing the levy amounts to 119 population growth and he explained that the primary purpose of the tax cap is to prevent this type of 120 tax growth. He noted that the current city council has worked to reduce the city's levy and that is 121 appropriate, but it's important not to return to the past ways of rampant growth of taxes. He noted 122 several cities that have tax caps in place. A council member noted that the information being 123 presented ends at 2009 however that is when democracy took its course and the council make up 124 changed, trends reversed and taxes were reduced; the presentation ignores that more recent relevant 125 information that may indicate that a tax cap isn't needed. Mr. Trehus acknowledged that the 126 amendment goal is trying to limit taxes from rampant growth; the statement regarding the election 127 would be an opinion; he added that the current council in perpetuity wouldn't be a problem but there 128 could be change in the future. Mr. Trehus noted that the tax cap proposed is good one that is tried and 129 true and working in other cities. A council member asked for a comparison of population for the tax 130 levy comparisons and when a chart was shown he noted that many are not in the range of Lino Lakes; 131 another council member added that the comparative figures are not from the current decade. Mr. 132 Trehus noted that he has compared current information, focusing on cities that are growing like Lino 133 Lakes, and he continues to have a goal of reducing the cost of government and he added thateven if 134 the council doesn't intend to allow taxes to run rampant again, they have nothing to lose by enacting 35 this tax cap. A council member noted that the finance director has opined that there could be an 3 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 136 implication on bond ratings, raising capital, etc. The mayor suggested that there are two questions: i37 does the city want a tax cap and, if so, how that is done. Mr. Trehus further reviewed the proposed 138 tax cap amendment, noting that it allows for consideration for growth, not incenting or punishing that 139 type of thing. The proposed amendment also addresses special levies and tax increment financing. 140 141 Mr. Trehus was asked to drill down deeper on the Chapter 1 amendments. Section 1.04 reiterates 142 state statute and firms it up by putting it into the Charter and stipulates further that one of the duties of 143 the Commission is to inform residents of the meaning or impact of a proposed charter amendment. 144 Section 1.05 requires that ballot wording be reviewed by the Commission. It adds a funding 145 requirement for information given on amendments so that both sides will be treated fairly and equally; 146 in the past, there has been a problem and the new language would avoid similar problems in the 147 future. He noted specific elements of a past referendum and information given and how the process 148 failed to provide enough appropriate and clear information. The Charter Commission thought that 149 should not be allowed to happen again. 150 151 Caroline Dahl, 1101 Holly Court, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Chair, first noted that the 152 Commission was not invited to attend the council's recent work session discussion on the 153 amendments and they wouldn't normally attend unless asked. She shared a note from a commissioner 154 clarifying that last year's budget cut was very small (.4 of 1 percent). Also the last two years the city 155 has been under a tax cap but that it will expire as it was not renewed by the State Legislature. The 156 reason that the tax cap and other amendments are being proposed isn't necessarily for this council but 157 for the future. State law has been known to change and it makes sense to have the language in the 58 Charter. x`159 160 Rosemary Storberg, 6978 Lake Drive, Charter Commissioner, noted that three of the current council 161 members were sitting in 2008 and she would ask them why the newsletter on the amendment wasn't 162 handled differently? The mayor noted that he recalls that it was suggested that the Commission 163 submit a page for the newsletter but that there was disagreement on content so the Commission never 164 officially submitted anything. Ms. Storberg added that the Commission should have the same 165 opportunity to provide information to the public. Also she said she's heard the warning about harm 166 to the city's bond rating before (when the charter was originally approved) but it never panned out. 167 The bottom line is that the City Charter is a document that is needed and wanted by the residents of 168 this city. 169 170 Tim Henderson, 6987 West Shadow Lake Drive, noted that he admires everyone involved in this 171 discussion and for their service. What he would like to see for the charter amendments is a citizen 172 vote; that would be the optimum. He urges caution in not handcuffing future city leaders as 173 consideration is given to the amendments. 174 175 There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. 176 177 City Attorney Langel reviewed his written memorandum regarding the proposed amendments. The 178 basic issues with the Chapter 1 amendments are that they are mainly duplicative to state law. The 179 Commission has made the argument that the state law could change however even if that occurs, it L i 80 raises the question that a charter cannot contravene state law so putting the language into the charter 4 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12,2011 APPROVED 181 wouldn't necessarily guarantee that it will remain valid. So it begs the question of why should you 182 add the language? The Commission's authority is narrow and is laid out in statute. Another issue 183 raised is about creating authority for the Commission to get into the public information area, a job that 184 is given to the city council by state statute. He questions if a charter commission can create authority 185 for itself Charters are generally speaking constitutions designed to decide how a city operates and 186 not how the Commission operates. Mr. Langel noted that he also has a concern about the amendment 187 dealing with granting use of public funds. The language implies that the council cannot do what it is 188 responsible for doing unless it provides equal funding to the Commission. While the Commission 189 representative has indicated that that language is intended to get the two bodies to work together, Mr. 190 Langel fears it would have the opposite effect in keeping the work from getting done. The language 191 also seems to imply that there are always two sides to an amendment; the fact is that neither side 192 cannot advocate. If there is an issue about the past and a goal to prevent it to happen again, the 193 answer wouldn't seem to be a charter amendment but a rather to find a process whereby the groups 194 will work together. The mayor confirmed that the Commission has had the opportunity to review 195 Mr. Langel's written comments. 196 197 Terri Heaton, Springsted, financial advisor to the City, indicated that she would be reviewing her 198 written comments regarding the proposed Chapter 7 charter amendment. As financial advisor to the 199 city, it is her job to consider the city's ongoing ability to finance its operations and meet debt 200 obligations as well as meet ongoing capital needs. She has looked at the proposed levy limit language 201 (to continue a levy limit for this city) using 2010 rates. Currently, the city has reacted to the reduction 202 in its tax base by reducing its levy. The current state limit would actually allow the city to levy higher :03 than it is proposing. By locking into a low year, the city may put itself in a different position than x204 other cities in how it can respond when the economy comes back. Another portion of the proposed 205 amendment deals with special levies and she noted that many are not funded from tax base and 206 melding them into a tax cap as the proposed amendment seems to do is unclear. Another item 207 includes restriction of special levies to a vote process and she sees that could limit the city's 208 flexibility, an item that is a key area that credit agencies look at. She noted that she sees credit 209 agencies comparing cities more for rating purposes these days, looking at flexibilities for instance, 210 and they are changing ratings much more than in the past. The city should also consider the 211 systematic replacement of infrastructure and maintaining the ability to do replacement at the most 212 effective time. Ms. Heaton also expressed that the amendment is confusing in that it uses the term 213 "net tax capacity" but Minnesota cities do not use mil rates so that term doesn't make sense with 214 current law. There was discussion about tax increment financing and that it is a tool that is being 215 used by many cities and very effectively for development. A city's tax base grows when the tax 216 increment capture period ends. Regarding the proposed amendment, it would allow the city to use tax 217 increment but without the same advantages as other cities in that the increment is pulled away from 218 the development. She pointed out that the council should consider the possibility of a negative impact 219 on the bond rating, that sending more matters to voters is costly in terms of special elections and that 220 the city's long term sustainability could be challenged by tying hands to a rate at an economically low 221 time. When the mayor asked if there is a"good" way to do a tax cap, Ms. Heaton responded that 222 citizens should be confident that they are getting the best value for their tax dollar and there are ways 223 for the council to know that. 224 5 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 225 The council reviewed the proposed amendments to Section 1.04 and 1.05. City attorney Langel noted ' 226 that the only new language (different from existing state law) relates to informing residents. A 227 council member noted that adding language to the charter would mean that the city may end up 228 needing to amend the charter if state law changes. The city attorney suggested that it is never a good 229 idea to regurgitate state law in a document such as the City Charter. City Attorney Langel pointed 230 out that, while charter amendments always get reviewed by the charter commission, ballot language 231 doesn't so that would be a new concept. 232 233 The mayor recalled that within the past year the city council and the charter commission held a joint 234 meeting and there was great hope for progress through that process. At that meeting, a suggestion 235 was brought forward to set up a joint side group made up of council members and charter 236 commissioners and, if that had happened and was functioning, that could have meant a better 237 understanding of these amendments coming forward. Unfortunately at that joint meeting there was an 238 explosion of emotion and the good idea didn't happen. He still believes that it could happen and that 239 it would result in some good accomplishments. 240 241 i. Ordinance No. 17-11, Amending the City Charter by adding a new Section 1.04 and 1.05 242 243 The mayor called for a motion on Item 3Ai, First Reading of Ordinance No. 17-11. The item failed 244 for lack of a motion. 245 246 ii. Ordinance No. 18-11, Amending the City Charter by adding a new Section 7.13 regarding :47 tax cap 248 249 The mayor read the proposed amendment and noted that he is not opposed to the idea of a tax cap but 250 he sees there are issues with the language proposed. It concerns him that the proposal would actually 251 allow the council to add a $1 million to the tax levy this year. The down economy has been difficult 252 for the tax situation but the council has acted to keep taxes down. In the area of special taxing 253 districts, he sees that there are situations where it occurs through an outside request; having a vote on 254 everything reminds him of California and that isn't Lino Lakes. The city has a representative republic 255 form of government whereby people are voted into office to make decisions on behalf of the public. 256 He wishes the council would have had the opportunity to work with the commission on the matter. 257 258 A council member noted that there has been good information offered in a lot of areas. He's been on 259 the council for ten years and understands that the budget process is complicated and he pointed out 260 that it impacts him as a property taxpayer also. The citizens have a good form of representation and it 261 is called the election. He knows that people will come to the voting booth and decide if they are 262 getting the value they want from their tax dollar. 263 264 Other council members concurred that the voting process works and that an automatic taxing system 265 isn't needed. They expressed the desire to continue working with the Charter Commission in a joint 266 fashion. 267 268 The mayor called for a motion on Item 3Aii, First Reading of Ordinance No. 18-11. The item failed .69 for lack of a motion. 6 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12,2011 APPROVED 270 ■ 271 3B) Resolution No. 11-88, Employee Severance Package for 2011 —Administrator Karlson noted 272 that the council will soon be considering the elimination of two city positions based on the results of 273 the organizational study. The council is being asked to consider granting 12 weeks of severance pay 274 to those employees affected by position elimination. 275 276 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 11-88 as presented. Council Member 277 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 278 279 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, JOHN SWENSON 280 281 There was no report from the Public Safety Department. 282 283 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER 284 285 There was no report from the Public Services Department. 286 287 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MICHAEL GROCHALA 288 289 6A) 1-35E/CSAH 14 Interchange Project: 290 i. Resolution No. 11-92, Amendment to General Obligation Improvement Note of 2009 and 291 Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County; :92 ii. Resolution No. 11-93, Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Ordering Preparation of Proposed X293 Assessments 294 295 Community Development Director Grochala reported that this is an interchange project that is being 296 managed by Anoka County and it has come in considerably under the original cost estimate. 297 Therefore staff is requesting that the city's portion of the General Obligation Note issued for the 298 project by Anoka County be reduced from $4,260,000 to $3,695,000 and that the joint powers 299 agreement with Anoka County that relates to the project be amended as well. 300 301 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve Resolution No. 11-92 as presented. Council Member 302 Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 303 304 Community Development Director Grochala explained that the project costs for the city's share of the 305 interchange project will be assessed to benefited property owners. Since the project costs have been 306 reduced greatly, the proposed assessment is also less. Staff proposes to proceed with the process for 307 assessments. 308 309 Council Member Gallup moved to approve Resolution No. 11-93 as presented. Council Member 310 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 311 312 6B) Resolution No. 11-94,Approving the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update—Community 313 Development Director Grochala reviewed the multi-year process, including citizen input elements, _314 that has gone into the proposed Comprehensive Plan Update. He explained changes that occurred 7 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12,2011 APPROVED 315 during that process to the areas of growth management and housing. He also noted the decrease in X316 household forecast, a reduction in the affordable housing goal, modifications to the utility staging 317 plan, and density modifications. As mentioned previously, the inclusion of the wetland impact 318 element to the Plan is streamlining and unique. 319 320 The mayor noted that his consideration of the Plan has specifically focused on three things—pace, 321 density and quality. He believes the work of the council has made for an improved plan. He is happy 322 with the results of the work and noted the change that calls for a five-year review rather than ten. 323 324 Community Development Director Grochala thanked the community members who worked on the 325 Plan and helped with the process. The work couldn't have been accomplished without them. 326 327 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 11-94 as presented. Council Member 328 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 329 330 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 331 332 There was no Unfinished Business. 333 334 NEW BUSINESS 335 336 There was no New Business. 137 338 COMMUNITY CALENDAR 339 Community Calendar—A Look Ahead 340 September 13, 2011 through September 26, 2011 341 342 al Wednesday, September 14 6:30 pm, Council Chambers Planning&Zoning Bd 343 mlw Monday, September 26 5:30 pm, Community Room Council Work Session 344 -446 Monday, September 26 6:30 pm,Council Chambers City Council Meeting 345 346 ADJOURN 347 348 There being no further business, Council Member Rafferty moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Council 349 Member Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 350 351 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Co • `I eeting, Septe• ber 26, 2011. 352 353 354 3 • 356 Ju 1.1 e Bartell, City C erk Jeff R-'n. , Mayor 357 8