HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-2009 Council Minutes CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 3, 2009
APPROVED
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
4
5 DATE : August 3, 2009
6 TIME STARTED : 5:35 p.m.
7 TIME ENDED : 8:15 p.m.
8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Gallup, O'Donnell
9 Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson
10 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member Stoltz
11
12
13 Also Present: Director of Public Safety, Dave Pecchia; Community Development Director,
14 Michael Grochala; City Planner, Jeff Smyser; City Finance Director, Al Rolek; Economic
15 Development Coordinator Mary Alice Divine; City Clerk Julie Bartell; City Attorney, Joe Langel
16
17 1. Charter Commission Budget Request-The Lino Lakes Charter Commission had submitted a letter
18 to the council requesting additional funding of$4,000 in 2009.
19 Charter Commission Chair Caroline Dahl and Charter Commission Member Connie Sutherland were
20 present. Ms. Sutherland was introduced as a subcommittee member and explained that the commission is
21 seeking funding to work with their attorney to frame language regarding a tax cap amendment. It was
22 noted that the cities of Fridley(since 2001),Mounds View(since 2006)and West St. Paul (1950's)have
"s -- 23 similar charter provisions. Other cities have tax related language in their charters. The Lino Lakes
24 Charter Commission would like to look for what would make the most sense for this city. Ms.
25 Sutherland noted that she had not had the opportunity to meet with the city's finance officer.
26 Finance Director Rolek remarked that when thinking about this type of restriction, it would be important
27 to proceed carefully so as to identify the areas you want to target or control and the factors that should be
28 considered. The council is the elected body that has control over the budget.
29 A council member noted that the lack of business (commercial and industrial)tax base is low in the city
30 and that affects property taxation. That takes some time to build.
31 Ms. Sutherland distributed a chart comparing population change in the city to tax levy increases.
32 A council member noted that the merits of the amendment would not be under consideration at this
33 meeting; the request before the council is for additional funding for attorney assistance. Chair Dahl
34 added that there could be other"housekeeping"amendments related to such matters as data practice.
35 Council Members O'Donnell and Reinert agreed to add the question of the additional funding to the
36 council agenda.
37 A council member remarked that it would be discerning to have legal work done by the commission and
38 then have it repeated by the city. Ms. Sutherland suggested that the commission's work relates to
39 framing an amendment while the council would deal with finalizing language.
40
41 2. Proposed Charter Amendment(televising meetings)—City Clerk Bartell reviewed the written
42 report. The amendment was officially received by the council on July 13 and was designated as an
*-- 43 amendment by ordinance under state statute. The process for such an amendment is included in the
1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 3,2009
APPROVED
44 report. Ms. Bartell noted that City Attorney Joseph Langel as well as Attorney Michael Doherty have
45 reviewed the proposed amendment. The subject of the amendment has been found to be an appropriate
46 one for a charter amendment. The attorneys have indicated that they have some questions about the
47 language in the amendment,however.
48 City Attorney Langel stated that an ordinance would need to be drafted but,more importantly,he also
49 believes that some language is not clear enough to avoid future confusion or misread. He suggests you
50 don't want more language in the amendment than you need. The"open mike"portion isn't actually part
51 of the meeting so it should be reworded to identify it as a public comment period. "Council work
52 sessions" is not an official term so that should not be included. He would prefer that this proposed
53 amendment be reworked so that it doesn't run afoul in the future. He suggests that the council ask the
54 commission to take the amendment back for more work knowing that it will be returned.
55 A council member suggested that City Attorney Langel be directed to assist with redrafting of the
56 language.
57 City Clerk Bartell noted that if the commission doesn't agree to take the amendment back,the schedule
58 defined by statute must continue.
59 A council member noted that just the council chambers are television ready and there are other groups
60 that use those facilities. There could be cost implications such as retrofitting other rooms.
61 A council member noted that the quality of production has not been defined by the commission nor is it
62 included in the amendment. Perhaps just a simple single camera filming would suffice.
63 Charter Commissioner Sutherland noted that perhaps a simple recording device may be enough. The
64 goal is transparency.
65 A council member noted that the idea of transparency should also include charter commission meetings.
66 Commissioner Sutherland suggested that the commission would be glad to have the assistance of the city
67 attorney.
68 The suggestion is that the commission should formally withdraw the amendment,reword it and then
69 resubmit it.
70 Commissioner Sutherland asked for clarity on how assistance will be provided to make the necessary
71 changes.
72 The council concurred that the city attorney will work on the matter.
73 Chair Dahl noted that she doesn't have the authority to rescind the action of the commission (there was a
74 formal vote taken on the amendment).
75 A council member suggested that perhaps the commission could allow the council leniency with the
76 statutory schedule.
77 The group concurred that the schedule will proceed as proposed with the understanding that there could
78 be a revision in the language and that language will be provided as soon as possible after the commission
79 considers the matter on Thursday of this week.
80 A council member suggested that there will be questions about the concept of televising all the meetings.
81 City Clerk Bartell reviewed the proposed schedule of consideration by the council. The council elected
82 to schedule a public hearing on the amendment for September 8,2009, 5:30 p.m.,to precede the regularly
83 scheduled work session that evening.
84
2
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 3,2009
APPROVED
85 3. Centennial Utilities Commission—Robin Doege(city rep)—Mr. Doege said that he is
86 reporting to the council as he promised he would do when he interviewed for appointment to the position.
87 He has met with the city's former representative,Vernon Reinert, and received valuable historical data
88 about the work of the commission through many years. The franchise agreement is in place until March
89 31,2012. There was some discussion about how the franchise agreement could ever be amended(all
90 parties must agree). Mr.Doege pointed out that there is an option in the agreement for the city to acquire
91 as property the lines located within the city. In his opinion,the system is in good shape. Mr Doege
92 shared information from an auditor's report that was recently received by the commission. The city does
93 receive a franchise fee but that does mean that there isn't as much funding left with the utility for capital
94 improvements.
95 A council member noted that the utility is clearly presented as a department of the City of Circle Pines.
96 As the utility has grown and other cities joined, perhaps that isn't as appropriate as it once was.
97 Mr. Doege remarked that the franchise agreement indicates that passing a certain revenue point entitles
98 the city to another representative on the commission(and that point has been surpassed). He will ask
99 Circle Pines Administrator Jim Keinath about that situation as a direction from the council.
100 A council member asked when Mr. Doege recommends that the city start working on a new franchise
101 agreement,knowing that the expiration lies ahead. Mr. Doege will research that question.
102 The council thanked Mr. Doege for his volunteer service to the city through the commission.
103
104 4. I-35E/14 Funding/JPA with Anoka County—Community Development Director Grochala
105 reported that discussions with Anoka county have continued regarding funding for the project. The new
106 base cost is $5.4 million for a project that encompasses both intersections. There are several types of
■._,107 funding proposed—grant funding, state funding, county funding and federal stimulus funding. Cash flow
108 is an issue since the city wouldn't be in a position to issue bonds on deferred assessments. The county
109 understands that situation and has indicated that it would be willing to issue the bonding for the city's
110 share (with the possibility of a surcharge). The percentage rate for the bonds cannot yet be determined
111 but the county does carry an AAA rating, so that will keep the rate low. He added that the city has also
112 been looking at the opportunity to gain credits through the process (such as turn-back of county roads or
113 reservation of land for a county maintenance facility),to keep costs as low as possible. The two big
114 unknowns are right-of-way costs and construction bids. Staff wants the council to have this information
115 so that they can begin drafting a joint powers agreement for the project. Mr.Grochala then pointed out
116 that the proposed assessment area for the project encompasses an area covered by the charter regulations
117 and an area that is exempt. There are seven property owners within the charter area and staff has asked if
118 the result of four of those property owners signing a petition against the project would be to halt the
119 project.
120 City Attorney Langel opined on the matter. A matter of consideration is what was intended when the
121 charter language was approved. He suspects that the language never contemplated the situation that this
122 project presents. There could be a strong argument that the majority of seven is not sufficient but there is
123 also concern that those outside the charter zone wouldn't be appropriately involved in a petitioning
124 process.
125 Mr. Grochala noted that there is some concern, as the council heard at the public hearing, about the
126 interest rate for deferred assessments. That figure cannot be determined at this point. There was a
127 discussion about how assessments are decided and Mr. Grochala noted that the city proposes to use trip
128 generation as a guideline. Ultimately,the city will have to put together an assessment roll and those
129 proposed to be assessed will be invited to a public hearing,will understand the amount and terms of the
�--130 assessment and will have an opportunity to appeal their assessment to the district court. Staff is asking
3
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 3, 2009
APPROVED
131 the council for direction on the parameters of a JPA and also on the matter of the impact of the charter
32 provisions.
133 Attorney Langel suggested that the city will have to deal with a decision about how a petition will be
134 viewed if in fact one is submitted.
135 The council had general agreement with the parameters of the JPA that had been presented.
136
137 5. Liquor License Investigation Fee—City Clerk Bartell reviewed the report before the council
138 regarding the city's practice and charges for liquor license background investigations. The process has
139 come under review since one renewal applicant is refusing to pay the fee for the annual background
140 investigation. The city attorney is suggesting that the council reinforce the rationale and the city code
141 language if they wish to continue the requirement for investigations for renewal applicants.
142 The council concurred that annual investigation is a good practice and they would like to continue that.
143 Staff was directed to prepare a resolution that reinforces the practice and also prepare the appropriate
144 code amendment(to be considered as part of the recodification approval).
145 The council suggested that it may be appropriate to rework how the investigation cost is charged,perhaps
146 by adding it into the license fee.
147
148 Review Regular Agenda-City Planner Smyser reviewed Item 6A, second reading of an ordinance. He
149 provided requested information on what other cities are doing in the same area. While zoning districts
150 can be titled or separated differently in cities, it appears that most cities do allow the situation staff is
151 presenting for this city. The city's Economic Development Advisory Committee will also be offering an
52 opinion as of the end of the week.
153 A council member noted concern about"shoddy"church-type operations that could take advantage of the
154 change. It would be preferable to consider individual situations as they come forward. Staff pointed out
155 that the city isn't allowed to grant variances to zoning.
156 The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
157 These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council meeting held on August 24,
158 2009.
159
160
161 • ghl:P667/41dV%7
162 Julianne B ell, City Cl k John Bergeson, Mayor
4