Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-1997 Charter Minutes JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL DATE : February 11, 1997 TIME STARTED : 7:00 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Bening, Dahl, DeMotts, Dunn, Lane, Montain, Rehbein, Scharpen, Solfest, Stoulil, and Trehus MEMBERS ABSENT : Bernier, Corson, Sullivan, and Turner(Excused) COUNCIL PRESENT : Bergeson, Kuether, Lyden, Neal, Landers Staff members present: City Administrator Randy Schumacher; City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; City Engineer Dave Ahrens; BRW Consulting Engineer John Horn; and Recording Secretary Carla Wirth. APPEARANCES Dave Ahrens introduced John Horn, BRW, and stated he will present the road reconstruction plan. ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, PLANS AND SCHEDULE Mr. Horn provided a brief report of the four tasks they undertook as part of the study to review existing pavement information, field review of existing pavement conditions, proposed street reconstruction program, and program costs. He advised the initial task was to determine the existing pavement condition from the City's pavement management program, but they found some of that data outdated. Then they met with City staff to review roadway conditions and added street segments identified by staff to be in the greatest need of repair. Mr. Horn displayed an overhead identifying 63 street segments and explained a field inspection was conducted on these segments to determine which were in the worse condition. Based on that field review, they identified 36 street segments which were in the worse condition. Mr. Horn presented a colored map which identified those streets in each of the five phases, which BRW recommends for improvement. He explained the five phases also identifies localized segments which can be considered for reconstruction without impacting the same neighborhood more than once. Commissioner Trehus arrived at 7:13 p.m. PAGE 1 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Mr. Horn explained the proposed street construction standards and techniques. Based on these assumptions, cost estimates were determined as follows: Phase 1 of$1.9 million; Phase 2 of$1.6 million; Phase 3 of$1.5 million; Phase 4 of$2.1 million; and Phase 5 of$1.9 million. Mr. Ahrens reviewed the rules by which the City must abide with regard to assessment of public improvement projects in that the amount of assessment cannot exceed the value of improvement to the property. He explained how front foot assessments were calculated and advised they are as follows: Phase 1 is $90/foot; Phase 2 is $80/foot; Phase 3 is $100/foot; Phase 4 is $70/foot; and Phase 5 is $100/foot. Commissioner Solfest asked if 100% of the improvement costs will be covered by assessments. Mr. Ahrens explained that is the basis for this presentation. Commissioner Solfest stated his understanding is that it is typical to assess 30%. Mr. Hawkins agreed this may be the amount which could be sustained as property value improvement. Mr. Ahrens reviewed the percentage assessed by several other cities, ranging between 25% to 50% of the improvement cost. Chair Montain inquired regarding a cost discrepancy. Mr. Ahrens explained one set of figures identify construction costs only, without the extra 30% for engineering and other associated costs. Commissioner Solfest asked if the amount to actually be assessed will be about one- third of those being presented with the remaining two-thirds needing to be financed by the City. Mr. Ahrens stated this is correct and financing could include use of MSA funds. He noted a typical lot is estimated at 80 feet which results in an estimated assessment of$6,400 to $8,000 using the basis of assessing at 100% of the project cost. Mr. Ahrens then reviewed a proposed street reconstruction schedule assuming the project is City initiated by the Council on March 10, 1997. He explained a specific feasibility report would need to be prepared for each individual phase including soil borings, drainage problems, determination if utilities are adequate or in need of repair, etc. This feasibility study could be received by the Council on May 12, 1997, and the public hearing scheduled for June 23, 1997. Mr. Ahrens explained that as part of this study, a financing scenario would be prepared and presented. Once the public hearing is closed, the petitioning process will begin. No action can be taken by the City Council until the 60 day "window" has expired. If the majority of the residents petition against the project, it would probably not proceed at that time. However, if the petition supports the improvement, an election would be held within 120 days of the close of the public hearing, or October 15, 1997. Mr. Ahrens explained how these dates could be slightly adjusted considering the upcoming election to be held in November of 1997. If the project proceeds, plans and PAGE 2 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 specifications would be prepared and advertisement for bids ordered. The Council would then accept bids and hold an assessment hearing with the start of the project in the Spring of 1998 with substantial completion in the Fall of 1998 and the final course laid in the Spring of 1999. He explained why it may be better to hold the public hearing prior to the start of construction in case there are objections and/or appeals. Commissioner Solfest noted some of the properties do not have sewer and water utilities. Mr. Ahrens explained they did not consider utilities but he would recommend those utilities be installed prior to constructing the street. He stated he will have to research what those costs would be. Commissioner Solfest inquired regarding the City burden in general and possible increase to the property owner's tax bill. Council Member Bergeson noted the City only receives about 24% of the total tax bill. Chair Montain asked if any group of property owners have expressed interest in roadway improvements. Mr. Ahrens advised there may have been several calls of inquiry but no direct request for road improvements. Chair Montain asked if additional roadway phases will contain similar costs, or be reduced somewhat. Mr. Horn explained the first five phases include streets in the worst condition so the next phases will not include such extensive work. Thus, the cost may be lower, unless the work is not completed in the near future and the roads have deteriorated to the point of those in the first five phases. Mr. Ahrens concurred that the streets within the first five phases require complete reconstruction but doing an overlay now to some of the streets included in future phases would greatly extend the life of those roadways. Council Member Lyden asked of an overlay is a maintenance item, or a construction item. Mr. Ahrens stated he considers it to be a maintenance item since it does not involve tearing out and replacing materials. Mr. Hawkins stated at this point, it really makes no difference since the work still needs to be paid for. Council Member Lyden inquired regarding the budget impact. Mr. Ahrens estimated $110,000 per mile of overlay which could result in a substantial impact. He advised that some cities assess for this type of work. Mr. Hawkins agreed this type of work can be assessed to benefiting property owners or general fund dollars can be used. However, if assessed, residents have the right to petition against the project. Council Member Lyden suggested the status of MSA be considered separately (Ware Road) and MSA roadways be removed from consideration in the phases. PAGE 3 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Commissioner Solfest asked if the Council believes this issue needs to be acted on or can be ignored. Council Member Lyden said the Council is aware of the importance of this issue and is determined to work on it. Commissioner Dahl asked if an overlay project adds a pad of bituminous or removes, recycles, and then reuses the material. Mr. Ahrens explained a "recycled mill and overlay" uses recycled material but an "overlay" places a new pad of asphalt on the roadway. Commissioner Dahl asked if the recycling method is less expensive and more effective. Mr. Ahrens stated this depends on whether the subgrade is in good condition. If there is no subgrade strength, a recycled mill and overlay is a waste of money. He explained the importance of investigating the soils and subgrade condition. Commissioner Dunn complemented Mr. Horn and Mr. Ahrens on providing such a comprehensive plan and start on road reconstruction. He commented on the previous Council discussion regarding the impact of garbage trucks on City roadways and reviewed details of the number of miles and condition of City roadways. He commented on the need to address the condition of roadways at this time to prevent further costly deterioration. He asserted a serious crisis exists and there is a need to do something about it now. Commissioner Dunn stated the funding will need to come about through an election or change in the Charter to allow the City to put the costs in the tax structure without concern for an election and the like. He suggested the Charter Commissioner consider the potential redefinition of what "streets" are. He further suggested that there be two categories, those needing road reconstruction, and those needing road reconstruction and utilities. ROAD PLANS AND SCHEDULE In response to Chair Montain, Council Member Bergeson explained the Council does not yet have a plan and the schedule is as submitted by Mr. Ahrens. Commissioner Solfest asked if the Charter Commission can assist in this process. Council Member Kuether expressed a reluctance with moving ahead until the funding issue is resolved. She explained the Council will need to determine if this issue should go to a referendum and if successful the Council will then need to determine percentages. Mayor Landers concurred with the need to place this issue on a referendum to allow residents to vote so the Charter issue can be put to rest, one way or the other. Chair Montain asked if the actual project would be placed on the referendum. Mayor Landers explained the suggestion was to select five projects and deal with those first. He suggested these five projects be placed on the ballot and allow residents to vote. PAGE 4 a JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 19W Then, the Charter issue can be put to rest and a road reconstruction fund can be put into place. Council Member Bergeson stated his understanding was that the Council would select one high priority project, notify impacted property owners, prepare a feasibility study, and get resident's input after they are informed of all the issues, including cost. At that time, assuming it fails due to cost, that specific project would be placed on the ballot to use general funds. If that fails, then a Charter amendment would be considered to allow usage of general funds. Commissioner Solfest noted that since some of the project costs cannot be assessed and State Statute does not allow assessing beyond benefit, the issue must go on the ballot. Council Member Kuether noted that some residents do not understand their ability to object to the assessment. Chair Montain agreed that this process has not been done recently so an educational process will be needed to make residents aware of the need and process. He noted it appears the Council is aware the roads are an important issue, a very large investment, are deteriorating at a rapid rate, and five phases have been identified. He stated it comes down to what the Council will do. Council Member Lyden stated this is a very complicated multi-faceted issue, including the definition of"maintenance." He stated the issue is being proactive and protecting the City's good roadways. Council Member Lyden explained if the City's maintenance budget is not adequate, the Council is of the resolve to make that change. Council Member Lyden stated his willingness to consider creative financing methods. He concurred with Commissioner Dunn regarding the great impact of solid waste trucks on City streets. Council Member Lyden noted that the Council can consider separately the improvement to Wear Road which is an MSA road. Council Member Bergeson stated he holds a different view and believes the amount of money placed into road reconstruction is "fiddling" with the bottom part of the chart. He stated he believes the Council needed to meet with the Charter Commission so they are able to deal with the big ticket reconstruction costs which cannot be done now by assessment or by the City. He stated it is his belief that the improvements need to go forward to the top of the chart and the Council needs to make a determination on the bottom of the chart. Commissioner Scharpen asked if all of the MSA funds should go into fixing Wear Road or if the funds should be spread out to improve the two other MSA roadways. She suggested not all of the money be placed in "one basket." PAGE 5 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Council Member Kuether stated her support to remove MSA roads from this proposal. Mayor Landers advised that MSA roadways are also assessed to benefiting properties. Commissioner Dunn noted a fairly ambitious course was set to focus on one area. He advised that within the Charter Commission, a majority, but not a consensus, felt there needed to be a test case. This was the focus of the road improvement plan; to identify five priorities. Since this is done, he believes the next step is to identify which of the five to tackle first. Commissioner Dunn agreed with the MSA issue involved with Wear Road and pointed out it also needs sewer. He suggested being more aggressive in getting a resolution so if it is deemed to not muster funding from the general fund and has to go to a Charter amendment, it can be done either before or after the November election. He urged that this meeting not conclude before there is a clear understanding of who is doing what. Commissioner Trehus stated there are two separate issues, maintenance and road reconstruction. Mr. Ahrens reviewed the policy to sealcoat every seven years. The first sealcoat done is applied within two to three years of the road construction. Maintenance, patching and small portions of thin layers of overlay are also done. He advised that funds have not been budgeted for larger overlay projects. Council Member Bergeson explained the Council did adopt a definition of "maintenance" as recommended by the consulting engineers. Chair Montain asked if definitions are included in the Charter. Mr. Hawkins stated he is unsure of the actual definitions but suggested the word "improvement" be considered. Council Member Bergeson stated it may be possible to revise the definition. Chair Montain noted this type of definition revision would still not address the top of the chart. Council Member Bergeson concurred. Commissioner Trehus commented on the importance of assuring roadways included in future phases do not further deteriorate and inquired regarding the wisdom of spending great sums of money on the first five phases if the result is that the remainder of the roads then deteriorate to a similar condition as the first five phases. Chair Montain regarding if there would be the potential for increased costs if future phases are delayed. Council Member Lyden noted another facet is for developers to be charged an "impact fee" or other type of fee. He also asked which phase would provide the best "litmus test' and fair assessment for the Charter. Mr. Hawkins advised an impact fee cannot be charged for a "road reconstruction fund." He explained if the road improvement directly benefits the subdivision then it could be assessed. PAGE 6 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Mr. Ahrens stated he would recommend the Phase 2 area be considered first because it does not deal with utility or MSA issues. Also, this is a fairly dense area without a park. Council Member Bergeson suggested the elimination of MSA roads and unsewered roads which Mr. Ahrens' recommendation of Phase 2 accomplishes. Commissioner Scharpen asked Council Member Neal for his opinion. Council Member Neal reviewed what happened with the past West Shadow Lake Drive project where some wanted it repaired but one property owner along West Shadow Lake Drive did not want the improvement and did not want to pay for it. He stated there are some residents who would be penalized, such as owners of corner lots. Council Member Neal stated if the Council and Charter members split up and routed a petition door-to- door, they would find out what residents want. Commissioner Solfest asked Council Member Neal if he wants to leave streets as they are. Council Member Neal stated if residents support the project then it can proceed. Commissioner Bening stated it is important to assure residents understand other phases will proceed when Phase 2 is presented. It is important to inform residents that Phases 1, 3, 4, and 5 cannot be ignored. Commissioner Trehus asked if feasibility reports are needed for each upcoming project. Mr. Ahrens said this is correct and required by State Statutes. Commissioner Trehus stated he does not like the idea of having to go to ballot for each project. Council Member Bergeson stated he still holds that opinion but it may be necessary to test this process and get to a long-term solution. Council Member Neal stated the outcome will depend somewhat on how the ballot is worded. Chair Montain agreed with the importance of educating the public prior to the vote. Chair Montain stated it appears of the five phases, Phase 2 is the least complicated and could be the first phase to be considered. He noted the schedule and pointed out that since 25% of the residents have not petitioned for the improvement, a 4/5 vote of the Council would be required. Mr. Ahrens stated this is correct. Chair Montain asked if a 4/5 consensus of the Council has been reached. Council Member Kuether asserted if it gets to a vote she believes there will be a 5/5 Council vote. Chair Montain stated if this is the case, would the schedule presented tonight be followed. Council Member Kuether noted the need for an adjustment due to the PAGE 7 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 election date. Mayor Landers concurred and advised it costs a minimum of$3,000 to hold a special election. Council Member Kuether commented on the importance of not only the wording on the ballot but also the timing of the ballot. Commissioner Solfest stated it appears the Council has a determined what action is to be taken and asked what the Charter Commission can do to assist the process. Mr. Hawkins advised the wording of the ballot is regulated by the Charter. Council Member Bergeson inquired regarding the standing of the Charter Commission. Chair Montain stated he believes roads are a very important issue but appears to have been ignored with regard to reconstruction. He stated the Charter contains a means to address this. Mr. Hawkins stated if one-third of the cost is to be assessed, $1 million will still be needed to be generated and funded now. He explained how the ballot will need to be worded and asked if those present believe that such a referendum will be successful. If not successful, the funds will still need to be generated. With regard to the impact to residents and their support, Mr. Schumacher asked if it is realistic to go through this process or if it is totally unfeasible. He advised Mr. Ahrens has prepared information regarding this tax impact. Mr. Ahrens explained that to raise $100,000 per year, based on the present tax base, a home valued at $100,000 would pay an additional $15.73 per year and a home valued at $200,000 would pay an additional $40.31. To generate $1 million a year, a home valued at $100,000 would pay $160.00 and a home valued at $200,000 would pay $410.00. Council Member Bergeson stated that when the Council reviewed the City's budget, they considered raising taxes by $50,000 and $100,000 for other issues and neither the previous Council or this Council was willing to raise taxes. However, this project talks about several times that amount. He stated he supports placing this issue on the ballot to let residents make that determination. Commissioner Dunn stated the City generates increased revenues every year without a levy increase and if fixed costs can be contained or reduced, a portion of that additional revenue ($3/4 million last year) could be allocated to roadway improvement. He asserted the money is there but it depends on where the Council places the priority. Commissioner Dunn stated there are a lot of ways to get funds rather than a large referendum before the residents, and it is the responsibility of staff and the Council to look into that detail. Council Member Lyden stated the amount spent on street PAGE 8 F JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 maintenance, as a percentage of the overall budget, has actually deceased even though the needs have increased. Commissioner Bening said it does not matter if the Charter is changed or if the project is funded by the City, the money still needs to be raised and it comes down to the issue of facing the public and asking for the money. Commissioner Trehus suggested it is not very "up front" to go to the pubic and request money for only one project but, on the other hand, to advise the public of all the projects may "freak them out." He suggested a comprehensive plan be considered that prorates the costs. Commissioner Trehus stated there needs to be one plan which addresses funding for all phases. Council Member Kuether stated her assumption is that the rationale is to test the Charter to prove whether or not it will work. Chair Montain stated all appear to agree this would be the first phase of a multiple- phase road improvement project. Council Member Lyden stated that the determining factor of whether the Charter "works" cannot be based on whether or not you get what you want. Chair Montain asked about a plan and schedule and stated it appears the first phase should be work identified in Phase 2 with the schedule revised to match the General Election. He stated the Charter Commission has been supportive of the Council in its road reconstruction efforts. Chair Montain polled other Charter Commissioners for their input. Commissioner Trehus commented on the study prepared by Commissioner Dunn. Commissioner Dunn stated 15 Charter cities were researched regarding how they funded road improvements and it was found all had a mechanism to fund road improvements with the blessing of the residents. He reported on a comment received that the Lino Lakes Charter stifles development. He advised another community established a revolving bond program to address the need for road reconstruction. Commissioner Dunn stated it appears the Lino Lakes Charter was uniquely created and worded so he would like to talk with the originators regarding their intent. Council Member Bergeson commented on placing a multi-year plan on the ballot. He stated while he agrees with that concept, he is unsure what would be placed on years two, three, and four since it would include roads that have no sewer. He noted the need to address utilities along with reconstruction. Mr. Hawkins said if general fund monies are to be used, the authority is still needed. He reviewed options for wording the ballot and the need to determine whether a specific project should be identified. PAGE 9 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Council Member Kuether suggested the referendum be worded to create a pool that can be used from then on. She stated her support to develop a comprehensive plan. Commissioner Solfest asked if the Charter needs to be amended if the project is not specified. Mr. Hawkins read the portion of the Charter which addresses this issue and advised he will need to do further research. Commissioner Sullivan stated under the current Charter, roads can be budgeted. Mayor Landers explained the Charter needs to be amended so those funds can be used for road reconstruction. Commissioner Sullivan stated he has asked previously if there are funds available for roads and how Lino Lakes got to this point. Chair Montain explained the Charter was worded to eliminate problems caused by "leap-frog" development and assessing properties that lie in between to a point where the property is assessed away from the owner. Commissioner Trehus asked if the Charter is costing the City dollars. He asserted residents are already paying high taxes and inquired why funds are not available and on hand for roads. Mr. Schumacher explained that 12 to 15 years ago, Lino Lakes was number 1 (with regard to tax rank) but now it is 56 or in the middle and paying an average tax rate. He explained another consideration is that Lino Lakes has a high value housing stock which means paying more in taxes. Mr. Schumacher reiterated that Lino Lakes is currently in the middle of the seven county tax range and residents are not paying high taxes. Commissioner Trehus asserted this drop in ranking resulted from raising home valuations. He asked if less money is being received from developers and asserted other cities maintain their roadways without "sticking it to the tax payers." Mr. Schumacher explained the difference in comparing Lino Lakes to well-established communities versus growing communities and suggested the comparison must be equitable. He advised Lino Lakes is in a good financial position. Commissioner Solfest noted this issue has not been addressed for the past 15 years. Mayor Landers agreed and commented on the need to address it now. Commissioner Trehus asked about the amount of excess funds. Council Member Bergeson explained that additional funds were received without a levy increase due to the number of new homes, development, and increased valuation. Discussion ensued regarding the need to hold a carry-over of funds to pay City costs until tax dollars are received. Mr. Schumacher noted the City's costs increase each year, thus the need to increase the level of reserve. Chair Montain recapped tonight's discussion to consider Phase 2 as the first phase, suggested ballot wording by Mr. Hawkins, and schedule suggested by Mr. Ahrens with PAGE 10 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 the revision to better match the General Election which will result in a cost savings. He asked if the Council will initiate the Phase 2 project. Council Member Kuether stated she has no problem with that. Mayor Landers suggested this topic be scheduled at the next workshop. Chair Montain stated if the Council needs help with educating the public, the Charter Commission has indicated support to assist in that manner. Council Member Kuether suggested a public forum be scheduled prior to the General Election. Chair Montain said this needs to be determined by the Council. Council Member Bergeson stated his support to hold a public informational meeting as a joint meeting of both the Council and Charter Commission. Commissioner Scharpen thanked the Council Members for meeting with the Charter Commission. Chair Montain asked that the Council proceed with this schedule and advise the Charter Commission prior to the next Charter Commission meeting in April. He extended the Charter Commission's appreciation to the Council for meeting with them jointly. Commissioner Dunn cautioned those in attendance about the danger of rumors and quoting out of context figures. FIVE (5) YEAR PLAN Chair Montain commented on the need for a Five Year Plan and that he was told this was part of the natural budgeting process. He explained that he and Commissioner Sullivan were given the impression that the Five Year Plan was being updated. However, now it has been determined that the Five Year Plan was dropped because there have been new and other issues brought up. Chair Montain emphasized the Charter calls for a Five Year Plan with annual updates. Mr. Schumacher inquired regarding the purpose of the Five Year Plan. Chair Montain stated it is to provide direction for long-term planning, rather than going from crisis to crisis. Mr. Schumacher advised the most significant portion of the Five Year Plan is to eliminate "peaks and valleys" in funding and the critical parts are the street plan and the utility plan. Chair Montain restated the need to have a Five Year Plan. Mr. Schumacher explained the portions of the Plan which are available and those that are missing with the CIP. He stated staff will provide the Charter Commission with the information that is available. PAGE 11 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Council Member Kuether stated another important issue is the street light plan. Chair Montain stated he understands there are other important issues but the items proposed for 1997 are not of a high cost or major CIPs. He suggested one way to address the Five Year Plan is to present at least what is known for 1997. He noted it is not planned to spend much on road reconstruction in 1997 so it should have been possible to present at least what is known for 1997. Chair Montain extended the Charter Commission's assistance to complete the Five Year Plan. Commissioner Solfest stated he personally is more concerned about the roadway construction issues and supports completing the Five Year Plan as a "background project." Chair Montain concurred but noted the importance of giving thought to long-range planning issues and stated it is possible to present at least what is known for 1997. He noted the Plan is updated annually as other situations come to light. Council Member Kuether suggested this issue be placed on the next Council workshop agenda so the Council can answer when a Five Year Plan will be in place. Commissioner Dunn reviewed page 16 of the Charter which clearly identified what is required of the Council and staff. He suggested the Council indicate which of those responsibilities are needed and which are not. Then it can be determined if a change is needed so the Charter can be an accurate document. Mr. Schumacher suggested the last Five Year Plan be reviewed to determine how useful it was in assisting the Council to make decisions. He suggested about 65% of it was not touched since it is speculation. Council Member Bergeson suggested a distinction be made on how a Five Year Plan works and noted that the oldest year is usually dropped when the new year is added. He stated the City does have a plan that shows the current year as part of a Five Year Plan. Chair Montain stated he hopes that by the next Charter Commission meeting, they will be presented with an update on the Five Year Plan. He agreed there may be a need to update the Charter to better address responsibilities. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Montain reviewed the copy of the article which will be included in the Spring Newsletter. He advised that staff wants the Charter to review it and if there are no revisions, this is how it will appear. He suggested a review of the general intent. PAGE 12 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 Commissioner Rehbein suggested the term "watchdog" could be better worded and suggested a wording change to present a more positive reference with regard to working with the Council. Chair Montain stated rewriting the article may result in the article not being published until the following newsletter. Commissioner Trehus took exception to the slogan as well as the term "watchdog." Commissioner Sullivan suggested a motion be offered regarding the term "watchdog." MOTION by Rehbein, seconded by Sullivan, to revise the third paragraph to state: "The Charter Commission was established as a group to work with the City Council to adhere to the provisions of the Charter, along with keeping the Charter functional as it responds to the changing needs of our City." Commissioner Trehus offered revised wording for consideration as follows: "The Charter Commission was established to assure the Charter continues to serve our community." Chair Montain clarified the Charter indicates the Charter Commission works with Council. In response to Chair Montain's request for a vote by a show of hands, eight indicated support of the motion and three indicated support for the wording suggested by Trehus. It was determined the wording contained in the motion will stand. Commissioner Trehus suggested the title be eliminated. Commissioner Dahl suggested the title state "Charter Awareness." MOTION by Dahl, seconded by Trehus, to entitle the article "Charter Awareness." The motion carried 11 to 0. MOTION by Dunn, seconded by Bening, to revise the first paragraph as follows: "The Lino Lakes Charter Commission which is made up of 15 volunteer members appointed by an Anoka County Judge has agreed to undertake the effort to inform our citizens regarding the needs and workings of our Charter." The motion carried 11 to 0. Commissioner Dahl stated she will retype the newsletter article to assure it accurately reflects these revisions. Commissioner Dunn noted receipt of the list of survey questions and advised the analysis should be available shortly. Chair Montain noted the information which was distributed regarding the impact to City streets from garbage trucks. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 13 JOINT CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 1997 MOTION by Sullivan, seconded by Bening, to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Clerk-Treasurer Mayor Charter Commission Chairman Carla Wirth Recorder TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial PAGE 14