Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-08-2004 Charter Minutes Charter Commission April 8, 2004 Page 1 APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL DATE : April 8,2004 TIME STARTED : 7:12 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dahl,Aldentaler,Trehus,Vacha,Warren, Duffy,Handrick,Williams,Bor, and Carlson MEMBERS EXCUSED : Zastrow, G. Lane, S. Lane MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : Montain, Storberg COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT : Carlson,Dahl,Reinert and Bergeson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : City Administrator,Gordon Heitke, Community Development Director, Mike Grochala City Engineer,Jim Studenski, legal counsel, Steve Bubul, Kennedy & Graven SWEARING IN OF NEW CHARTER COMMISSIONERS Mayor Bergeson swore in new member Charter Commission Members Warren, Duffy, Handrick, Williams and Bor. Mayor Bergeson also swore in reappointed member Carlson. Mayor Bergeson noted the meeting is a joint meeting between the City Council and Lino Lakes Charter Commission. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Bergeson called the special City Council meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. on April 8, 2004. Chair Trehus called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 7:12 p.m. on April 8, 2004. JOINT MEETING WITH LINO LAKES CITY COUNCIL Road Reconstruction—Michael Grochala and Steve Bubul—Community Development Director Grochala gave the background of the City's road reconstruction process and explained the special assessment procedure that is in place. He advised there is a provision within the City's Charter that allows residents to petition against a project. The City then cannot move forward with a project if residents petition out. If there is a project that the City needs to fund through general funds the City must go to the voters for approval of those funds. 1 Charter Commission April 8,2004 Page 2 APPROVED Community Development Director Grochala referred to the Lakes Addition project that was approved by voters in 1997. He explained the process that was used for that project and the amount of dollars that were assessed to the citizens. He indicated the last road reconstruction referendum failed by a substantial amount of votes. The City needs a plan to reconstruct and maintain City streets. There is a clause within the Charter that stipulates the City cannot go through the same process for the same project for at least one year. Community Development Director Grochala indicated staff is working on updating the Pavement Management Plan. The question is where to go from there in terms of implementing the plan. The City would issue bonds for the projects. Mr. Steve Bubul,Kennedy& Graven, is the City's consultant in terms of bonds and what can be done within the Charter provisions. Commissioner Warren inquired about the process for reviewing and approving a new five-year pavement plan. Community Development Director Grochala referred to the Pavement Rating Map noting how the ratings for each street were determined. The ratings prioritize the City's needs and where money could be best allocated. The ratings do not take into account drainage issues,water management needs and safety needs. City Engineer Studenski distributed a graph outlining the pavement life cycle. Community Development Director Grochala stated the City has the responsibility to maintain City streets. Staff cannot make that happen without a funding source. Seal coating and some street maintenance can currently be budgeted for if the City had an additional revenue source. The Pavement Management Plan is the first step in developing a street reconstruction and maintenance plan. Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the details of the Lakes Addition Street Project in comparison to the last street referendum. Councilmember Carlson stated that the City has had two road referendums. The project that had the benefiting properties paying 11%failed. The one that had the benefiting properties paying 28%passed. Chair Trehus pointed out that the last project would have been on the ballot with or without the City Charter. Commissioner Warren asked if there are other alternatives to get residents who are against a project in favor of a project. Mr. Bubul stated not being able to prove benefits to a property owner is a huge problem for cities within Minnesota. There is a new process to complete projects that include basic street reconstruction, lower assessments and a reverse referendum. Councilmember Reinert stated the City has roads that are falling apart. He inquired about the staff recommendation in regard to this issue. 2 Charter Commission April 8, 2004 Page 3 APPROVED Community Development Director Grochala stated he would prefer putting together a Management Plan and modify the Charter to fund those projects. Financing requirements and petitions within the Charter don't allow for the City to do that. Commissioner Warren suggested the use of surveys to see what citizens really want and how to accomplish those goals. She stated the surveys would also be used as a planning tool. Commissioner Vacha stated the City has had one successful project and one failed project. He suggested the City move on with another project and see what happens. Councilmember Reinert stated he believes the City should try another referendum in 2004. In the meantime,the City needs to put a plan in place to get roads fixed. Councilmember Carlson stated she is in favor of surveying the residents. Community Development Director Grochala stated feasibility studies and surveys cost a lot of money. Staff can look at as many projects as the City would like, but a funding source needs to be found to pay for the expenses. Commissioner Carlson stated the City could take dollars from the general fund for roads. However, the spending of those dollars has to be approved by the voters. He indicated he believes residents would be more willing to approve the expenditure if the City already had the funds. Community Development Director Grochala stated he does not believe the City can get a fund built up enough to cover costs for major road improvements. The City needs to put together a plan. Staff will continue to work on the Pavement Ratings but needs direction from the Council on how to implement the plan. Going forward with another referendum this year would be premature. The City could utilize public information and surveys for a project on the 2005 ballot. Mayor Bergeson stated road reconstruction is a major problem in the City and a solution is needed. Five-Year Plan—Gordon Heitke—City Administrator Heitke stated two components of the Five-Year Plan include a Capital Improvement Plan and a Capital Budget Plan. The Pavement Management Plan is part of the Capital Improvement Plan. The Capital Budget Plan is dollars allocated to fund the Capital Improvement Plan. City Administrator Heitke stated the City does have a Five-Year Plan in place. The plan will be updated every year. Preliminary work on the Five-Year Plan leads into the budget process. Staff will be working on those updates in the next few months. It is very difficult to revise the Five- Year Plan where there are so many unanswered questions in regard to funding sources. The 3 Charter Commission April 8, 2004 Page 4 APPROVED Five-Year Plan is and will continue to be a work in progress. Staff will keep the Charter Commission updated on the status of the Five-Year Plan. Update on Charter Discussion (from October meeting)—Michael Grochala—Community Development Director Grochala reviewed the background of the three Charter exempt areas within the City in relation to tax exempt bonds. Staff did discuss the possibility of changing that clause with the Charter Commission at a previous meeting. Staff has not pursued that because the Charter Commission did not show any interest in changing that clause. Community Development Director Grochala advised two of the three districts no longer have residential properties so it is no longer an issue. The third area has 14 residential properties and approximately 5 of them are on the market. Staff may come back to the Charter Commission with a recommendation on that district because the clause will make it more expensive for the City to develop in that district. City Policy on Residents' Charter Concerns and Informational Needs—Contacts with Staff - Chair Trehus asked how staff handles residents' concerns or questions in regard to the City Charter. City Administrator Heitke stated he does not believe the City has a set policy regarding this issue. He indicated he does have a copy of the City Charter in his office and does make that available to residents. He stated he would forward a specific Charter questions to the Charter Commission Chair. Councilmember/Commissioner Dahl stated information on the Charter used to be included in welcome packets. She stated will now direct any questions about the Charter to the City Administrator. Contacts with the Charter Commission—Chair Trehus stated the Commission has not had any citizens come to the Charter Commission with a question about the City Charter. Contacts with the Mayor and/or Council -Handling of the Stern Letter—Chair Trehus inquired how the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Stern was handled by the City Council. Mayor Bergeson stated he does not believe the City has responded to the letter and he is unsure on how to respond. He stated it is a letter of complaint and should be acknowledged but does not think it is a good idea to get into a discussion about a difference of opinions. He suggested sending an acknowledgment and indicating the letter would be forwarded to the appropriate City Board or Department. Commissioner Bor stated every resident deserves a timely response. The response should thank them for their concern and indicate the issue will be looked at. Chair Trehus stated the Council has to respond to the letter somehow. 4 Charter Commission April 8, 2004 Page 5 APPROVED Commissioner Warren stated the acknowledgment should also include an invitation to come in and address the issue. The letter of acknowledgment needs to be copied to the Charter Commission. Commissioner Bor stated the City Administrator should respond to the letter and decide the appropriate action that should be taken and forward it to the appropriate department. Chair Trehus stated if a member of the Charter Commission receives an inquiry from a resident, the resident should be invited to a meeting for a response from the entire Commission. Commissioner Warren stated the citizen should be invited and allowed time in the meeting to discuss their concerns. Chair Trehus stated Open Mike should be added to the Charter Commission Agenda. MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Handrick, to direct a Charter Commission Member call the resident and respond to their letter. Chair Trehus volunteered to call Mr. and Mrs. Stern. MOTION carried unanimously. Mayor Bergeson advised the City would also respond on behalf of the City Council. Chair Trehus stated that in the future, letters should be forwarded to one of the Officers of the Commission to respond. Chair Trehus thanked the City Council and City staff for attending the meeting. Councilmember Carlson moved to adjourn the Council meeting at 9:40 p.m. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Trehus advised he would entertain a motion to table the additional Charter Commission agenda items to the July 8, 2004 meeting due to the late hour. MOTION by Commissioner Warren, seconded by Commissioner Handrick, to table the additional agenda items to the July 8, 2004 meeting and adjourn at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Aup-ust 14,2003 January 8,2004 5 Charter Commission April 8, 2004 Page 6 APPROVED REPORTS OF THE CHAR New Members (Chair Trehus) Five-Year Plan (Chair Trehus) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES Archives Report(Commissioner Dahl)—Response to Charter Documents Letter UNFINISHED BUSINESS Review City Council Meeting Minutes for Charter Compliance Open Meeting Law/E-mail City Web Site NEW BUSINESS Set July 8,2004 Agenda Mayor's Response to Mr. and Mrs. Stern's Letter Minutes Editing Joint Meeting with City Council (discussion) ADJOURN Respectfully Submitted, Kim Points TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 6