HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-04-2009 Council Minutes (2) CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 WORK SESSION MINUTES
3
4 DATE : May 4, 2009
5 TIME STARTED : 6:10 p.m.
6 TIME ENDED : 9:25 p.m.
7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members O'Donnell, Reinert,
8 Gallup. Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson
9 MEMBERS ABSENT : none
10
11
12 Staff members present: Director of Finance, Al Rolek; Director of Community
13 Development, Michael Grochala; City Engineer, Jim Studenski; Director of Public
14 Safety, Dave Pecchia; City Clerk, Julie Bartell
15
16 A Special Council Meeting to discuss a personnel matter and possible litigation was held
17 immediately prior to the work session.
18
19 At the regularly scheduled work session the following items were discussed.
20
21 Pine Street Petition - City Engineer Studenski reported on a petition that the city has
22 received from residents of Pine Street, a gravel road that is shared between the City of
23 Columbus and the City of Lino Lakes. The petition requests that the city research the cost
24 of paving the roadway and is signed by 69 percent of the property owners on the Lino
25 Lakes side of the street. Mr. Studenski recalled that a petition was received from Pine
26 Street residents in 2005 after which the city sent a letter to residents requesting further
27 input; the response was varied and 41% of the residents didn't respond at all. Although a
28 project did not proceed out of that effort, the City of Columbus did do an estimate that
29 year on the cost of a project with no curb or gutter or utilities. The estimate was
30 $471,300 but a project now would no doubt be more due to inflation of costs. Mr.
31 Studenski reported that he is not aware that a petition has been submitted to the City of
32 Columbus at this time but he is keeping that city aware of this matter.
33
34 The council discussed the City Charter public improvement process as it would relate to
35 this type of project. The project could be brought to referendum for city wide
36 participation. The process for consideration is preparation of a feasibility study,
37 notification of property owners, public hearing, 60-day waiting period to allow for a
38 petition of property owners against the project, and then, if still on track, a full assessment
39 project can proceed and if city wide contribution is included, it goes to the ballot.
40
41 A council member noted that the cost of preparing a feasibility study has been an issue in
42 the past—if the project doesn't go forward, that cost is left hanging. Is there a way to
43 save on that cost by using information already in place from the 2005 petition?
44
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009
APPROVED
45 Engineer Studenski suggested that it may be possible to do more of a"ballpark" estimate
46 initially by updating that information. A formal feasibility study would be required
47 eventually if the project moves forward.
48
49 Community Development Director Grochala suggested that the council may have to look
50 at the matter from a policy view point, since the current policy on referendum relates to
51 "road reconstruction" but this is not a full reconstruction project.
52
53 Some residents of Pine Street were present and spoke on the matters of how many
54 residents it would take to block a project, information that indicates that Columbus has
55 already signed onto the project, the possibility of a speed study, and the possibility of
56 paving only to Zodiac Street. The residents also expressed interest in getting more law
57 enforcement (traffic) on the street; they were urged by the police chief to call 911 or
58 Anoka County dispatch whenever there is a problem. Some residents requested that the
59 city put down calcium chloride on the current gravel roadway since it has been helpful in
60 the past with keeping the dust down.
61
62 The council directed staff to get a rough estimate of the project costs, contact the City of
63 Columbus regarding their interest in the project, research the possibility of any state
64 funding for the project and report back with a calendar indicating a referendum option.
65 The city will communicate back to the residents by sending out information and possibly
66 calling a neighborhood meeting. The council will discuss the matter again before
67 information is distributed and residents will be informed.
�-' 68
69 Charter Commission Bills—City Clerk Bartell reviewed the background on the 2008
70 and 2009 bills that have been submitted by the Commission. The Charter Commission
71 attorney has submitted a more detailed bill for 2008 expenses; as well, the commission
72 has submitted two bills for 2009 services.
73
74 The council accepted the detail of the bills submitted and directed staff to arrange for
75 payment. Regarding the 2009 budget, the council noted that these bills will bring the
76 Commission very close to expending their entire yearly budget; if the Commission
77 anticipates going over in 2009, they should inform the council.
78
79 Strategic Planning Process - Agendas for the May 9 and May 14 special sessions were
80 distributed. A council member suggested that when the council decided to do these
81 sessions, the concept was to look at upcoming financial challenges; the proposed agendas
82 for the sessions indicate something of an expanded approach such as more general goal
83 setting. While that could be good, there is some concern about losing focus on the
84 original goals. The council should stay on task for that important discussion about
85 maintaining quality with a dwindling budget. Also the idea of 1) a meeting with the
86 council, 2) a meeting with the council and staff, and 3) a meeting to discuss progress
87 seems to be missing an important implementation phase.
88
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009
APPROVED
89 Finance Director Rolek explained that the council needs to zero in on overarching goals
90 and priorities so that they can look at the finite amount of dollars that will be available
91 and use those goals and priorities to guide apportionment of the funds. The strategic
92 planning that the council accomplishes in these sessions can guide staff in what
93 information to bring forward to the council.
94
95 The council concurred that there should be some discussion up front about what needs to
96 be accomplished in the sessions.
97
98 Review Regular Council Agenda—The council reviewed the May 11 council agenda;
99 there were no changes to the agenda.
100
101 Anoka County Airport Update (not on printed agenda)—Community Development
102 Director Grochala responded to a council member question about developments in the
103 discussion of upgrading the Anoka County airport. Mr. Grochala had attended a recent
104 Anoka County/Blaine Airport Comprehensive Plan Update meeting. The Metropolitan
105 Airports Commission(MAC)has received a request from Key Air to extend the runway.
106 MAC will be evaluating the request to determine if it should be included as a review
107 alternative in the airport's comp plan update. MAC will hold a second public meeting
108 with adjacent communities prior to a determination on whether to study the request.
109
110 Comprehensive Plan—Community Development Director Grochala reported that he is
111 not providing any new information at this point. The packet for the city council meeting
"" 112 does contain just a paragraph change in the staff report but is otherwise the same as the
113 last staff letter. Regarding the O'Connor property, staff removed her property from the
114 medium density designation as she requested but is leaving the Joyer property unchanged.
115 Mr. Grochala then briefly reviewed the process that has brought the Comprehensive Plan
116 (the Plan) update to this point. The council has been discussing enacting changes to the
117 city's code(ordinances)to address certain concerns. The discussion of the affordable
118 housing component was continued. Staff and the council have identified that affordable
119 housing will probably not happen in the city without incentives and staff has
120 recommended an approach utilizing the planned unit development (PUD)process already
121 in place. The council viewed the 2030 future land use proposed map that indicates mixed
122 use areas that could accommodate affordable units and how the 1275 units could be
123 achieved. Staff clarified that the ten-year forecast for new units overall increased and that
124 drives the affordable number. There is a great slow down in development right now and
125 that may impact the forecasts. At the council's direction, the Plan will be reviewed in
126 five years.
127
128 A council member asked about the possibility of putting an ordinance in place that caps
129 the level of subsidy that the city will accept. Is there any way to slow down the pace?
130 Staff suggested that the site and building design elements should be the major
131 consideration and the PUD process will allow that type of case-by-case review to ensure
132 that the city's established values are met. Staff's goal is to have a policy in place that
133 allows that review. As far as "exclusions", a legal opinion should be sought. On the
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 4, 2009
APPROVED
134 question of"slowing down", Mr. Grochala explained that it boils down to changing the
135 forecast or removing land and that, in turn, impacts all the other elements. The Plan is a
136 planning tool and is in place to give direction and to frame but it cannot be precise. A
137 council member noted that the 147 limit of the past worked because it minimized pace
138 and therefore mistakes. A council member suggested that the Plan that is called for by
139 the Metropolitan Council doesn't necessarily meet the council's vision of quality, etc. for
140 the city and so dealing with ordinances that will enhance the Plan toward the city's vision
141 has to be a high priority for 2009; staff must commit to reworking regulations to ensure
142 that happens. Mr. Grochala explained that staff does have a plan to get the necessary
143 policies in place (zoning map, housing policy, etc) and that includes ordinance
144 amendments. The Plan is a living document and the city should continually ensure that it
145 works. The council will discuss priorities for policy review.
146
147 The Plan is due to the Metropolitan Council on May 29 and consideration of approval
148 will be on the May 11 city council agenda.
149 The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
150 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on June 8,
151 2009.
152
153
154 66.3Ale %3
155
`- 156 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk John Bergeson, Mayor
157
4