HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2009 Council Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
4
5 DATE : June 1,2009
6 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m.
7 TIME ENDED : 7:35 p.m.
8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Gallup,
9 Reinert, Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson
10 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member O'Donnell
11
12
13 Also Present: City Administrator Dan Tesch; Community Development Director Michael
14 Grochala; City Engineer Jim Studenski; City Finance Director Al Rolek; Economic
15 Development Coordinator Mary Alice Divine; City Clerk Julie Bartell
16
17 EDAC UPDATE—ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ONE-YEAR ACTION
18 PLAN—Economic Development Coordinator Divine reported that the Economic
19 Development Advisory Committee (EDAC)has recently completed an update of their
20 Five-Year Plan and one year action plan as called for in their goals and the city's draft
21 comprehensive plan. A copy of their draft is included in the council's letter. The council
22 has a goal relating to enhancement of economic development that includes holding a
23 meeting with EDAC to discuss the council's economic development goals, EDAC's role
`- 24 in meeting those objectives and establishing some communications procedures, etc.
25 EDAC is very interested in proceeding with such a joint meeting.
26
27 The council was informed that the next regular meeting of EDAC is July 16, 2009, at
28 7:00 a.m. All council members present agreed to attend that meeting. It would also be
29 helpful to share the results of the recent value setting sessions with the EDAC group.
30
31 CHARTER COMMISSION AUDIT -Attorney Michael Doherty presented the results
32 of the audit conducted on the practices of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. He noted
33 that the council received a memorandum that was presented to the city on April 6, 2009
34 outlining the investigation results as well as a summary of the attorney opinions contained
35 in the report. The audit was started as an investigation on the expenditure of public
36 dollars and whether or not the Charter Commission had overextended its authority in that
37 area. Under state law, charter commissions have limited powers that are enumerated in
38 Chapter 410 of the Minnesota Statutes and they have no power past that. Their focus is
39 to be limited to the charter itself and whether it should be amended. The city has an
40 obligation under state law to pay up to $1,500 per year for allowed commission
41 expenditures; additional reasonable expenses can be authorized by the council but not
42 beyond allowed expenditures. In an attempt to gather information about how funds were
43 expended by the commission, Mr. Doherty asked the commission for public data related
44 to communication on the subject. He received a response from their attorney indicating
45 that the data would not be made available and that any data the commission has is
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009
APPROVED
1 maintained at city hall. Mr. Doherty reported that the city has no legal obligation to be
2 the commission's repository of data unless that duty is first accepted by the city. Charter
3 commissions have an obligation under data practice law to take care of their own
4 information. Mr. Doherty did not receive access to the e-mails between commission
5 members that he requested and that are public data. In reviewing the commission
6 minutes, there was no evidence that the charter commission ever approved the
7 expenditure of funds (for signs and brochures). There is reference to something like a
8 subcommittee and, if that group did exist, it is under the same obligation to maintain data
9 and make it public.
10
11 A council member suggested that the report seems to indicate that there were some
12 activities that weren't within the scope of the commission's legal charge; are there any
13 consequences for those actions?
14
15 Mr. Doherty reviewed the section of the report that relates to signs and brochures used by
16 the commission. To the extent that those were not legal and allowable expenses, the city
17 should not have paid the bill if and when it was presented. Further the commission has
18 no authority to enter into a contract or to order goods. Regarding the commission's Web
19 site,while the site is prepared and paid for by other than the city, if it represents the
20 commission, it cannot contain advocacy or preferential information; it must be neutral to
21 any ballot questions.
22
23 A council member suggested that the bills were prepaid by the city.
`- 24
25 Responding on a question of consequences, Mr. Doherty explained that there is little that
26 could occur in that area between the city and the commission since the commissioners are
27 appointed by the chief judge. It would be up to the judge to deal with issues. It would be
28 within the council's purview to inform the chief judge of issues if they deem that is
29 necessary. The council doesn't make appointments to the commission, the chief judge
30 has that responsibility. An individual could pursue a complaint under fair campaign
31 practices.
32
33 A council member suggested that the council must consider the matter of intent. If there
34 was something done that could be considered illegal, did the commission know that? It
35 may be prudent to put something together to inform the commission of what is legal and
36 what isn't. Mr. Doherty suggested the League of Minnesota Cities is a good resource for
37 assistance in that area. The council member added that individual charter commission
38 members shouldn't be muzzled on issues; they are volunteers. Mr. Doherty pointed out
39 that the Web page was presented as belonging to the commission however. Mr. Doherty
40 further explained that the commission has more limitations than the city council and
41 cannot even offer an information piece—the commission is not allowed to present that
42 type of information. The city, on the other hand, cannot advocate but can provide
43 information.
44
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009
APPROVED
1 There was discussion among council members about whether or not the information piece
2 done by the city was opinionated. It was pointed out that the piece was approved in its
3 entirety by the city's attorney.
4
5 On the issue of data practices, Mr. Doherty suggested that it will be a policy issue
6 whether the city takes on the responsibility(under contract)to maintain the commission's
7 data. If so, there needs to be a clear understanding of how the practices will occur and
8 responsibilities. The commission has the same obligation as the city to appoint a
9 responsible authority and follow data practice law. It was pointed out by a council
10 member that it may be difficult for a volunteer group to respond to public requests for
11 data.
12
13 A council member suggested that the result of the audit should be to move toward
14 improvements but not to be punitive—a positive outcome should be the goal.
15
16 A council member noted three issues that the council should deal with: 1) if there are
17 issues of inappropriate activities, they should be addressed because wrong is wrong; 2) a
18 system should be developed to review expenditures to ensure they are appropriate; and 3)
19 data practice of the commission is an issue and it needs to be clear how data will be
20 properly handled in the future. These matters should be put on a future council agenda
21 for discussion. It was suggested that a process for expenditures could be: a) commission
22 approval; b) council approval; c) expense can be incurred.
23
�— 24 Charter Commission member Rosemary Storberg was present. She suggested that city
25 hall also did everything wrong that attorney Doherty said the commission has done. The
26 commission was simply defending the existing charter.
27
28 A council member clarified that the city's piece was found to be neutral by the city
29 attorney.
30
31 A council member noted that the city didn't write the rules but if something was done
32 wrong, it needs to be dealt with. The council has an obligation to deal with the findings
33 of the independent audit.
34
35 At the request of a council member, Mr. Doherty confirmed that the law offers the
36 commission no authority to present an opinion. He further explained that the way the law
37 works for individuals and government entities is different—individuals can do something
38 unless the law says it is prohibited; government entities can only do things that are
39 specifically designated by state law. The commission has no authority to contract except
40 for attorney services and charter printing services. It was clarified that individual
41 commission members, as well as council members, can do advocacy as long as they don't
42 purport to represent the group.
43
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009
APPROVED
1 Mr. Bob Bening, 6788 E. Shadow Lake Road, in regard to a statement that the council
�_. 2 cannot make appointments to the commission,pointed out that state law allows the
3 council to do so if the chief judge doesn't do it.
4
5 The council discussed the history of receiving instruction regarding charter commissions
6 from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC). Both the council and the commission have
7 had the benefit of those presentations. In this case, it would be appropriate to take full
8 advantage of those services.
9
10 When asked if his appointed task has been completed, Mr. Doherty responded yes with
11 the exception of following through on the data practice request for information on how
12 the contract for services was let.
13
14 Rosemary Storberg, speaking as a citizen of Lino Lakes,noted her concern that the audit
15 wouldn't have happened if the referendum hadn't lost. She suggests that too much
16 money has been spent already on these issues (the referendum) and she doesn't think the
17 citizens of Lino Lakes would welcome yet more publicity. It would not be good for the
18 city.
19
20 A council member clarified that the council never took a stand on how they wanted the
21 referendum to turn out. The citizens need to have as much information as necessary for
22 them to understand what is going on. The effort should be to continue to provide
23 proactive information that is helpful to the public in understanding the charter.
24
25 A council member noted the history of the referendum that includes a citizen task force
26 recommendation that was more moderate than what was on the ballot. The process of
27 bringing that thorough and thoughtful recommendation to the people was high jacked.
28
29 A citizen in the audience remarked that the citizens of the city have every right to know
30 when something runs afoul. It appears the commission worked outside the boundaries of
31 their authority whether they knew or not.
32
33 A council member remarked that the council needs to be pro active on communicating
34 how the charter works. How do we communicate what our charter means? That's
35 another task for the council to consider.
36
37 ANNUAL FINANCIAL AUDIT
38
39 Finance Director Rolek introduced Michelle Bruley and Craig Poppenhagen of the city's
40 financial auditing firm, LarsonAllen, LLP. Mr. Poppenhagen distributed a summary of
41 the 2008 audit and reviewed the content(summary and all audit reports on file).
42
43 The audit will be considered for approval by the council at their meeting on June 8, 2009.
44 Once the document is approved, it will be posted on the city's Web sit.
45
4
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009
APPROVED
1 PINE STREET PAVING
2
3 City Engineer Studenski recalled that, after receiving a petition from some Pine Street
4 residents requesting street paving, the council directed staff to investigate the matters of
5 how that street is currently maintained, how street construction could possibly be funded,
6 what a construction schedule would look like, and update a cost estimate from 2004. He
7 reported that the road is graded monthly and sprayed for dust control with costs basically
8 split between the city and the City of Columbus. Regarding funding, the road is not
9 designated for any state aid and unless a project would be 100% assessed to property
10 owners, it would require referendum approval. He presented two cost estimates, for a
11 project extending from Lake Drive to the end of Pine Street and for a project from Lake
12 Drive to 4th Avenue only. Costs would be split equally between Lino Lakes and
13 Columbus residents. He reviewed a possible schedule based on a scenario of one-
14 hundred percent assessment.
15
16 The council and Mr. Studenski discussed how assessments would be considered (by
17 property, not by footage). Lots that could possibly be subdivided would be assessed
18 based on that potential. The council asked if the Columbus side of the street is firmly
19 committed to the project and will the level of interest on the Lino Lakes' side remain the
20 same when the cost is presented?
21
22 A resident in the audience suggested that the last time the suggestion of street
23 improvement was considered, the matter became so confused that people were reluctant
`�— 24 to sign on. The council concurred that providing adequate and clear information to the
25 residents is important.
26
27 A resident suggested that the issue may be just that the grading and regular maintenance
28 work isn't done properly.
29
30 A council member suggested that the project remain on a dual track to look at both a
31 project only to 4th Avenue as well as one for the entire street, so the project doesn't die if
32 the whole thing isn't viable.
33
34 Staff was directed to work with the neighborhood in putting together a letter with a cost
35 estimate and other information to be sent out by the city to all property owners.
36
37 The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
38
39 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
40 June22, 2009.
41
42
43 t.
44
45 Julianne B ell, City Cl rk n Ber son, Ma or
5