Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1981 Council Minutes90 October 15, 1981 The Special Meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order at 8:15 P.M. by Mayor Gourley with all members present. PROPOSED CHARTER Mayor Gourley asked Mrs. Liljedahl for her report from the League of Minnesota Cities. Mr. Weible noted that they do not have a written report as such - just a copy of the proposed charter with Mr. Peskar's handwritten notes in the margin. Mrs. Liljedahl said she had dropped off a copy at the office this afternoon. Mayor Gourley pointed out that the Council members had just arrived and have had no time to read and consider Mr. Peskar's remarks. He asked that someone from the group go through the remarks and discuss the. Mr. Weible did this, pointing out the areas that Mr. Peskar disagreed with or questioned. Mr. Peskar also pointed out the areas that are already covered by State Law and are not necessary. The areas of inconsistency, redundancy, repteitive language, points covered by State Law, unnecessary sections - all had been marked by Mr. Peskar. Mayor Gourley asked if the Commission had taken any action on Mr. Peskar's comments and Mr. Weible said, No. From the remarks made by Mr. Weible, it would appear thatthe Commission chose to ignore Mr. Peskar's remarks and propsoed that the Charter be published as is. Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Locher if he had any comments and Mr. Locher said that on page 5, there is an inconsistency with State Law. (This deals with the workding in the heading of Ordinances). Other portions that would be in conflict with State Statutes are hard to point out and most would need to be cleared in Court. He felt the assessment requirements are cumbersome - the five year budgetary requirement is very tight - 5.07 has some muddy areas - (subject matter of the petition shall be placed on the ballot) doesn't say wjp os tp cp,2pse tje sinject matter - Mr. Locher felt it might be wiser to include the entire subject matter. 1 1 Sec. 7.11 - terms 'certificates of indebtedness' should be 'anticipated certificates'. Agreed with Mr. Peskar on the base for petitions - the figures in this charter hop all over the place - they should be consistent. Sec. 7.07 - dealing with the spending of funds not authorized by budget Resolution is in violation with State Statutes. 4.05 - Subd. 5. - the first sentence in in conflict with the section - this deals with appointments. The Clerk questioned the portion that deals with the percentage of persons signing petitions for untility improvements - what is the base? one person per parcel? one person for each parcel they own? two property owners per parcel? how? Mrs. Liljedahl felt it was intended to mean one signature for each 1 1 1 1 October 15, 1981 land owner. The Clerk felt this should be clarified. 91 The Clerk asked, if the petition is to be computed on the ansis of the percentage of property owners, is the assessments to be levied in the same manner? Mrs. Liljedahl said that would be a Council decision. Mrs. Elsenpeter agreed there is an inconsistency in the manner in which the petition is allowed and the manner in which the assessment are levied. She felt it would be unfair to have the assessments based on a different formula than the manner in which it was petitioned. Mrs. Elsenpeter had a concern with the Franchising Section. She asked why this section was included? why was this important? Mr. Kulaszewicz pointed out that this basically follows the Mounds View:: charter. Mrs. Elsenpeter said the one thing she did like was the provisions to provide for a means of communications throughout the City. Mrs. Elsenpeter asked if the Charter Commission would ocnsider allowing a vote on some section individually? Mr. Kulaszewicz said the one point that botheres him is the initiative and referendum - he flet that this is something that the people in this City must understand. Also, recall. Is the City gonna use the referendum? Mr. Kulaszewicz felt this is a major area for abuse. Mr. Jaworski asked if there had been any special advertisements in the paper on the meetings? Mr. Weible said notices had been placed in both the Circulating Pines and the Forest Lake Times. Mr. Jaworski said he had talked to people on the East side of the City and they do not even know that a Charter Commission exists no what it is supposed to do. Mr. Jaworski felt that it was very unfortunate that this Commission is pushing this thing through and asking for a vote at the November 3, 1981 election wen there are so many people who do not even know what a Charter Commission is. Mr. Kulaszewiczasked if they had done any research as to the length of time it took Mounds View to pass the Charter? No one had and Mr. Kulaszewicz said that it took quite a long time and only passed by a very small majority. Mr. McLean wondered if the communications will be covered and how much can be done in the short time before the election. Mr. McLean felt that if this is approved by this Council to be put on the ballot, that in a sense gives this document the stamp of approval by this Council. He also felt there is problems in the comments as pointed out by Mr. Locher, Mr. Peskar and some of the Council members and he sensed an unwillingness by Charter Commission members to even attempt to clean up the language. Mr. Jaworski aske Mr. Weible why the upcoming election is the magic number for the Charter? Why does it have to be put on the ballot in three weeks? Mr. Weible said, to save money. Mr. Jaworski said he would rather spend the money on a special election and have an informed public. He also felt that there is not time before the election to inform the people properly. 12 October 15, 1981 Mr. Weible said the obly leverage the Commission has is that this draft has been presented to the Council in time to be published before the election and to force the Council to put it on this ballot. Mr. Weible said that if the Council would establish a date for a special election, then they would consent to clean up the language. Mrs. Elsenpeter suggested that in order to inform the people of the con- tents of this Charter that special informational meetings be scheduled to inform them what this Charter contains. There was discussion on the problems of setting a special election before the first of the year. Mayor Gourley moved to authorize the Commission to recall the Charter. Seconded by Mr. Jaworski. Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed to discuss 81TS -1 in a closed session. The meeting will reconvene in approximately 20 minutes. The meeting reconvened and Mayor Gourley asked Mr. Locher to report on the Judge's decision. Mr. Locher reported that basically the Judge decided that all things done by the Council were done in a propert and legal manner with the exception of needing a 4/5's vote by going off Highway #49 and proceeding North on 4th Avenue. Since this Resolution ordering the project was done by a 2 /3rd's majority it is not valid. Mr. Locher reported there are several options; 1) do nothing. In this case the City would lose the bond issue and be liable for all expenses incurred to this point; 2) call for a vote and see if a 4 /5th's vote can be obtained; 3) the City can appeal to the Supreme Court; 4) pull the pro- ject down to the area that would be directly on Highway #49. Mr. Locher pointed outthe problems of having all the expenses already in- curred and losing interest at the rate of $500/$600 per day on the bond issue. Mayor Gourley said the consensus of the Council in the closed session was that this matter would not be pursued to the Supreme Court. The alternate of calling for a 4 /5ths vote - the motion would have to be made by someone who voted with the majority. The 3rd alternative would be to approve a project that lies totally within the petitioned area. Mr. Wayne Long, of OSM, reported that he and presented a report to the City Administrator stating that the project from the center line of Sec. 30, North on Highway #49 to I35W was feasible and the estimated costs of the project would be $1.6 Million Dollars. Mr. Steve Mattson, of Juran & Moody, reported that the Bond amount would need to be reduced to the 1.6 Million and this would be allowed. He said the underwriters are not too happy about the situation, but could accept it. Mayor Gourley asked, if this project was approved, when could the City expect to receive the funds and Mr. Mattson said, within a week. Mayor Gourley asked if there were any questions from the Council for October 15, 1981 either of these gentelmen and there was none. 93 Mayor Gourley asked if there was a motion from Council on the reduced project. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to deny this project. Seconded by Mr. McLean. On a roll call vote; Kulaszewicz, Aye; Jaworski, No; McLean, Aye' Elsenpeter, No; Gourley, No. Motion failed. Mrs. Elsenpeter moved to authorize the shortened project as presented by Mr. Long. Seconded by Mayor Gourley. Mrs. Elsenpeter felt that it was very important to approve this project and take delivery of the bonds in order to invest and have funds to pay the expenses already incurred. She felt this is in the best interest of the City. She also felt that this project is of the utmost importance to the City. On the roll call vote; Kulaszewicz, no; Jaworski, Yes; McLean, No; Elsenpeter, Yes; Gourley, Yes. Motion carried. Mayor Gourley said it is necessary for a Resolution to authorize the Bond Councsel to only issue 1.6 Million Dollars in bonds and to prepare the necessary Resolution. Mr. Jaworski so moved. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. on the roll call vote; Kulaszewicz, No; Jaworski, Yes; McLean, No; Elsenpeter, Yes; Gourley, Yes. Motion carried. Mayor Gourley had prepared a Resolution containing the above information. The Resolution would be 81 -36. Mr. McLean asked if this motion rescinds the previous Resolution ordering the project? Mr. Locher said the Judge's ruling was that the Resolution was invalid and therefore no action is necessary by this Council. Mayor Gourley moved to adopt Resolution 81 -37. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Mr. Jaworski asked if this allows the project to proceed from where it is at this point or does the work have to start over and he was told that the work would continue from the point at where it is now. The motion carried on a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. McLean moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Elsenpeter. Aye. RESOLUTION 81 -37 CITY OF LINO LAKES EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, was duly held in the City Hall in the City of Lino Lakes on Thursday, October 15, 1981. commencing at 7:30 P.M. o'clock .M., C.S.T. The following Council members were present: F. Kenneth Gourley, Marilyn Elsenpeter, John McLean, Ronald Jaworski, and Richard Kulaszewicz and the 94 October 15, 1981 following were absent: None The following Resolution was persented by Councilmember Elsenpeter, who moved its adoption. RESOLUTION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWER AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECITIFICATIONS FOR THE SEWER WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council has received a petition stating: We the undersigned petition the City of Lino Lakes, for Sanitary Sewer on Highway #49, from Rice Creek North to its end at Minnesota Correctional Facility, also from Highway #49 North to 77th Street along Lake Drive. and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the said petitioned project size shall be reduced, as authorized by M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 1, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. That the improvement of Highway #49, in the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota, from the South line of the North Half of Section 30, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, to its intersection with and termination at the Southerly right -of -way line of Interstate No. 35W, by the installation of Sanitary Sewer thereon, is hereby ordered. 2. Orr - Schelen - Meyeron 8 Associates, Inc. are hereby designated as the Enginrre for this improvement. That firm shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember F. Kenneth Gourley, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; Ronald Jaworski, Marilyn Elsenpeter, F. Kenneth Gourley and the following voted against the same; Richard Kulaszewicz, and John McLean whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and dopted. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 15th day of October, 1981 F. Kenneth Gourley, Mayor Edna L. Sarner, Clerk - Treasurer 1