HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-2009 Council Minutes SPECIALCOUNCIL MEETING October 5, 2009
APPROVED
1
2 CITY OF LINO LAKES
3 MINUTES
4 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
5
6 DATE : October 5, 2009
7 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m.
8 TIME ENDED : 6:30 p.m.
9 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Members Reinert, Stoltz,
10 Gallup, O'Donnell and Mayor Bergeson
11 MEMBERS ABSENT : none
12
13 Also Present: Acting City Administrator Dan Tesch; Community Development Director
14 Michael Grochala; Economic Development Coordinator Mary Alice Divine; City
15 Engineer Jim Studenski; Director of Finance Al Rolek; City Attorney Joseph Langel; City
16 Clerk Julie Bartell
17
18 Mayor Bergeson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Community Room at Lino
19 Lakes City Hall.
20 2A. Second Reading and passage of Ordinance No. 06-09,Amending the City
21 Charter to Require that Council Meetings be Televised
22
23 City Clerk Bartell reported that Item 2A is consideration of second reading and passage of
24 a charter amendment proposal brought forward by the Lino Lakes Charter Commission
25 on July 13. The amendment would add language to Section 3.01 of the Lino Lakes City
26 Charter requiring that all regular open council meetings, including the Open Mike
27 portion,be televised. State statute defines a schedule for consideration of this type of
28 amendment. To this point, the council has held the required public hearing and approved
29 1st reading of the ordinance on September 8. Second reading of the ordinance was
30 tabled by the council on September 28 as all council members were not present. The
31 statute requires that within one month of the public hearing(by October 8), the council
32 must vote on the proposed charter amendment ordinance. The ordinance is enacted only
33 if it receives an affirmative vote of all members of the council. If the ordinance is
34 enacted, there is a required delay period to allow for submission of a petition for
35 referendum on the question. If no petition is received, the amendment becomes final and
36 would be properly filed and placed into the city charter.
37
38 Ms. Bartell reported that the council has had discussion about the text of the proposed
39 amendment as well as the logistics of implementing the televising of all city meetings.
40 There has been discussion of placing language into the code of ordinances in lieu of a
41 charter amendment. A joint meeting of the council and the charter commission that
42 would include that topic is pending.
43
44 Council Member Reinert moved to approve the second reading and adoption of
45 Ordinance No. 06-09 as presented. Council Member Stoltz seconded the motion.
1
SPECIALCOUNCIL MEETING October 5, 2009
APPROVED
46
47 Several council members commented that they still have questions about the text and/or
48 the logistics of implementing the amendment. Some items that need to be discussed
49 further are associated costs (Administrator Tesch had provided an email communication
50 to the council indicating costs associated with televising equipment for the community
51 room), options for meeting location, and what city meetings will be included. The
52 council intends to have a formal discussion with the charter commission on the subject.
53
54 One council member suggested that if the council is to consider an ordinance in lieu of
55 this amendment to the charter, the time to act on that is now. It is concerning that there's
56 been no activity in the way of bringing forward an ordinance.
57
58 City Attorney Langel opined that, considering the statutory schedule for consideration of
59 this amendment, the council must act on the amendment at this meeting.
60
61 Council Members Reinert and O'Donnell requested that the topic of televising city
62 meetings and ordinance language requiring such be placed on this evening's council work
63 session agenda.
64
65 A roll call vote was taken on Council Member Reinert's motion. Motion lost as follows:
66 Yeas, Reinert;Nays, Gallup, Stoltz, O'Donnell, Bergeson
67
68 1A. I-35E/CSAH 14 (Main Street) Interchange
69 i. Resolution No. 09-72, , Ordering Improvement, I-35E/CSAH 14 (Main
70 Street) Interchange Improvements, Michael Grochala
71 ii. Resolution No. 09-73, Authorizing Execution of Joint Powers Agreement
72 with Anoka County, I-35E/CSAH 14 (Main Street) Interchange
73 Improvements, Michael Grochala
74 iii. Resolution No. 09-81, Dedicating city-owned property for project
75 purposes I-35E/CSAH 14 (Main Street) interchange Improvements,
76 Michael Grochala
77 Community Development Director Grochala noted that the council has three resolutions
78 before them this evening all relating to the 35E/CSAH 14 (Main Street) Interchange
79 Project(the "Project"). He distributed written information on Interchange Financing
80 Projections as prepared by Springsted Incorporated, consultant to the city on the Project.
81 Jenny Wolfe of Springsted was present. Staff last reported to the council that there was
82 not agreement with Anoka County on how to handle the city's portion of financing for the
83 project. At a previous meeting, staff presented four options to the council (as laid out by
84 Springsted)regarding the city's financial involvement in the project.
85
86 Finance Officer Rolek noted that negotiations have continued with Anoka County and
87 several financial scenarios have been explored. Possibilities included the county carrying
2
SPECIALCOUNCIL MEETING October 5, 2009
APPROVED
88 the bond for the city's portion and getting full reimbursement after five years, or the
89 county carrying the bond for five years and then the city pays debt service over a several
90 year period after year five, or the city paying debt service throughout the term. Under any
91 of those scenarios, since the county would actually be carrying the debt, it is expected that
92 the city would be charged a fee to the county for that service. When the county indicated
93 that there would be an interest charge for carrying debt service and the city determined
94 the additional risk that would come with that situation, staff asked Springsted to run
95 additional information based on an agreement with the city paying the debt service from
96 day one on the bonds. In putting that additional information together, there was
97 consideration given to when the assessment area for the project will need to see
98 development(and payment of deferred assessments) in order to work. As a result, the
99 projections look at fifteen percent of the land developing within 10 or 11 years, a lower
100 risk than earlier projections. There would still be a fee to the county(for carrying the
101 bonds but not the debt service) and that fee is set at 75 basis points, equating to $2,000 a
102 year initially and escalating to the end of the bonds (as an incentive for the city to pay
103 down the debt early).
104 Community Development Director Grochala,referring to the proposed joint powers
105 agreement (JPA) for the Project, further described the terms of the financing. He
106 reviewed the amount of assessments expected to be received at the front end of the
107 Project and the amount expected to be deferred. He noted that the city's annual allotment
108 of municipal state aid(MSA) funds would be used as an interim funding source until such
109 time as all deferred assessments are received. Actual construction costs would be put
110 into the JPA when they are determined. The note(representing the debt carried by the
111 county on the city's behalf) could be prepaid to the county at any time. The mandatory
112 redemption says that the city will forward toward the debt any prepayments received. The
113 County public works committee reviewed the JPA language and is comfortable and is
114 awaiting city approval.
115 The council discussed the three items under consideration: the order for improvement,
116 approval of a joint powers agreement and dedication of city property for the project.
117 David Graetzer, owner of Applecrest Orchards, an impacted area property owner who
118 was in audience, noted that the finance plan presented includes 500 basis points to be
119 charged as part of the assessments but staff has only pointed out 405 of those basis points.
120 Mr. Rolek explained that the rate of the bond is yet unknown but state law requires 105%
121 of the debt service to be covered by the city so that is built into the interest rate that will
122 be charged on the assessments. If not used, those funds would be allocated at council
123 discretion. Mr. Graetzer further noted that he is within the impacted area that is covered
124 by the city charter provisions but he was not able to get the majority signatures on a
125 petition against the projects. He still wishes to voice his concern about the unfairness of
126 how this project will be funded. It is a multi jurisdictional project so for 20 plus property
127 owners to pick up the entire city cost is unreasonable. These type of costs could end up
128 driving him from the area due to affordability issues.
129 A council member noted that there could be some savings in the area of construction
130 costs. Staff will see those final costs later in the process when they are asked to put
131 together the final assessment roll.
3
SPECIALCOUNCIL MEETING October 5, 2009
APPROVED
132
133 Council Member Stoltz moved to approve Resolution No. 09-73 as presented. Council
134 Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
135
136 Council Member Gallup moved to approve Resolution No. 09-72 as presented. Council
137 Member Stoltz seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
138
139 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve Resolution No. 09-81 as presented.
140 Council Member Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice
141 vote.
142
143 The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
144
145 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
146 October 26, 2009.
147
148
149
150 PLPI:P.661,41°)A'
151 City Clerk, Julianne Bartell John Bergeson, Mayor
4