Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/2000 Council MinutesCOUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : September 25, 2000 TIME STARTED : 6:33 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Carlson, Dahl, O'Donnell, Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson MEMBERS ABSENT : None Staff members present: City Administrator, Linda Waite Smith; City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; City Engineer, John Powell; Community Development Director, Brian Wessel; City Planner, Jeff Smyser; Economic Development Assistant, Mary Divine; and Chief of Police, Dave Pecchia (part). SETTING THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Carlson moved to approve the Con Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unan.. ITEM MINUTES: August 14, 2000, Coun ' e Approved September 9, 2001 Speci rk Session Approved September 16, 2001 pe "ial Work Session Approved DISBURSEMENTS: September 25, 2000 (Check No. 59877 — 60066, $197,945.20) Centennial Fire District da, as presented. Council Member ACTION OPEN MIKE Approved Approved Mr. John Christenson, Superintendent for the Centennial School District, came forward and introduced himself. He stated he looks forward to working together with the City on various projects. COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Mr. Jeff Heaser, 218 Aggrate Lane, came forward and inquired about the joint Council meeting with • the City of Shoreview. The City Administrator advised a joint meeting has been scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2000, 5:30 p.m., at the Shoreview City Hall. Staff is trying to reschedule and earlier date for the November 8, 2000. Mayor Bergeson advised the joint meeting with the City of Shoreview is to discuss the proposed Hodgson Road project. No one else was present for open mike. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 2000 Community Service Award, Linda Waite Smith — Staff advis nomination committee is currently reviewing nominations. The committee's recommendati.as wil ` forwarded to the City Council. The award will be presented at the October 9, 2000, C ncilE eeting. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK There was no Finance Department report. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPOR (`p DA PECCHIA Crime Prevention Proclamation (3/5 Prevention Month was designed to h participation in local anticrime eff individuals as they help to nurt Lino Lakes. wire . ), Dave Pecchia — Staff advised Crime prevention awareness, generate support and is group, schools, faith communities, businesses, and nal responsibility and instill pride throughout the City of Staff requested the City C owledge the proclamation in the City's support of designating the month of October 2000 ` C me Prevention Month in the City of Lino Lakes. Council Member Reinert moved to approve support of Crime Prevention Month, as presented. Council Member Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER There was no Public Services Department report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, BRIAN WESSEL Consider Variance Request for Mark Pariseau, 6101 Centerville Road (3/5 Vote Required), Jeff Smyser — Staff advised this case involves a request to construct a 24 x 24 detached garage 21.5 feet from the front property line, 2.5' behind the existing home. The property has an address of 6101 2 • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Centerville Road with the home facing Co. Rd. J./Ash Street and being located 19.5 feet from the front property line. The property is Zoned Rural and located on a collector roadway requiring a front setback of 40'. The lot is considered to be a pre-existing non -conforming lot of record due to the front setback and the lot size, which is approximately 150 x 227 (10 -acre minimum required). In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic consideration • ne and when a reasonable use for that property exists under the terms of the or 4. That granting the variance requested will not privilege that would be denied by this ordi in the same district. pplicant any special ands, structures, or buildings 5. That the proposed actions will be = • ing w the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff has reviewed this request and would c here are some hardships involved in this case. The applicant has a mound type s stem • ehind the home with a slight drainage swale in front of the system. Locating the gare. • : to the setback requirement may hamper this drainage swale and place the buil o the septic system. The setback for a building from a septic system is 20', the gara" . ructed at the 40' setback line, would be approximately 6' feet from the base of the syst ere also an existing 8 x 10 storage building, on a slab, that would be located 1' from a gar. constructed according to the applicant's request. The State Uniform Building Code r �� setback between buildings. Staff has received a letter fr.' the adjoining property owner indicating no objection to the Variance request. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this request at their September 13, 2000, meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote to locate the garage 30' from the front property line based on conditions. Staff also recommended approval of the variance request based on conditions. Council Member Carlson moved to approve variance request based on the following conditions: 1. Garage shall be located 30' from the front property line. 2. Property building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction. COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 00 — 79, Authorizing Application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Program (3/5 Vote Required), Mary Alice Divine — Staff advised that as part of the City's participation in the Minnesota Livable Communities Act, funds are available to cities to promote the purposes of the Act. In 1997 the Lino Lakes City Council applied for planning funds through the Livable Communities Demonstration Account for the creation of compact, efficient, mixed use development. The City received $220,00 in funds to hire Calthorpe Associates - a firm specializing in Traditional Neighborhood Development — to complete a master plan and design standards for the Town Center. This year, a total of $6.9 million in funds will be given to communities for planning and implementation of projects that meet the goals of Livable Communities. Projects receiving consideration must meet certain criteria, including compact development, a mix of uses, diverse housing opportunities, transit improvements, and linkages to surround' eighborhoods and employment. This year the City is asking for $1.5 million in funding to be The Village. The application for funding must include a r the project is located. In order to remain eligible for funding, the City Livable Communities housing goals on an annu is separate from that process. Council Member O'Donnell asked if submitted or approving continued Livable Communities program completed application. ation of the master plan in upport from the city in which ffirm`1ts commitment to participating in This resolution of support of the application actually approving the application as it was n the program. Staff advised the participation in the to issue. The resolution is part of the funding cycle and Council Member O'Donn dere is mention of the use of the $1.5 million in the resolution. He stated that he believes t C. ' ncil has not yet determined how the funds would be utilized other than implementation and in `. structure. The resolution states the funds would be used for land , acquisition. Staff advised phase 1 of the application suggested the funds would be used for infrastructure. At the last Council work session there was a discussion regarding using the funds for land acquisition and having the developers put in the infrastructure. The City Council has not yet decided how the funds will be used. The Metropolitan Council is only interested in the fact that the funds will be used for implementation. Staff will be working with the Metropolitan Council to work out details. Council Member Carlson stated the Livable Communities Demonstration application had to be turned in by last Friday. She stated the resolution will not be approved until this evening. Staff advised the resolution is part of the application. The Metropolitan Council extended the deadline for the resolution. 4 • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Council Member Carlson stated there are two steps being taken in this action: submitting the application and adopting the resolution. Staff advised that if the resolution is not approved the City will have to withdraw the application. Council Member Carlson stated her concern is the application not the resolution. She stated there are statements in the application that the Council has not yet agreed upon. She read the statement regarding the use of funds. She stated it indicates that the City will make a financial commitment that the City has not yet decided on. Staff advised that the City has decided the money will be used for implementation of the project if the City receives the grant. Specifics of how that will work have not yet been decided. The money will be used to acquire the land. Council Member Carlson expressed concern regarding making a financial commitment to put in the infrastructure and buy the property. The Council has to make a decisi • • efore making that commitment. Staff advised no commitment is being made. The ropo Council will not give money for the project if it can't be implemented. The City will * tthe nds if it can't make the project work. Council Member Carlson referred to the summary of fi asked if the information includes the City Hall proje City Hall, YMCA and land costs and infrastruct acquisition. Mayor Bergeson asked if it is fair to say funds. If the resolution is approved project is in a more viable place. many steps that are inter -relate ation in the application. She dvised the information does include the locfunds do include a figure for the land are many more steps to go through relating to the tion is sent, funds will not be received until the there are many more steps to this process. There are ect would come to an end if the resolution is not passed. Council Member O'Don : 11 state e is very supportive of the project. He stated he agrees that $1.5 million in funding will he He stated the City needs to maintain flexibility on how it might use the $1.5 million relatin o t e project. Staff advised the Metropolitan Council has made it very clear that they are interested in implementation of the project. Council Member Reinert asked what the Council should do with the resolution. He stated the City wants flexibility but the language in the application states the $1.5 million will go to land acquisition. The Council has not agreed to that. Staff indicated they understood that direction was discussed as a possibly cleaner method for getting to the same end. Council Member Reinert stated that there is very specific language used in the application. Options are not a part of the application. COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Mayor Bergeson suggested the possibility of added the following phrase to the motion to be conveyed to the Metropolitan Council: "Money be used to help with purchase of land and/or infrastructure." Council Member Carlson stated the City has two (2) decisions to make: is the city going to be a developer and is the City going to finance the project. The City does need to move forward but is not committing to financing the project and be the developer. The motion should be amended to included that the Council has not yet decided if it will be lead developer and may not help with the funding. Mayor Bergeson suggested Resolution No. 00 — 79 be tabled until later in the evening. Staff will review the resolution and make possible changes in the language. Council Member Reinert moved to table Resolution No. 00 — 79 until later in the meeting. Council Member Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consider Otter Lake Road, Minor Subdivision (3/5 Vote Require s eff Smyser — Staff advised the City has purchased land for ponding and wetland mitigation ine C e ater Creek light industrial area. The purchased land must be divided from the 1 �er cel. Staff referred to a sketch and description that indicates the parcel to be created by the Amo ub. ' ion. The NSP power line strip is a parcel in itself, not just would be concerned about creating a parcel that is bi discussion with the City Attorney, staff has resol ponding, there is no danger of a claim to a build to a letter from Mr. Hawkins indicating su ea men a'l this were a private action, staff s way by another parcel. After . Since this is to be City land for n either side of the NSP land. Staff referred The remaining parcels to the north g enough to support development. Staff noted the Planning and Zoning Board voted •ve minor subdivision. Council Member Dahl asked pplit is present. Staff advised this is a City project. Therefore, the City is the , .plic Council Member O'Donne o used to approve the minor subdivision, as presented. Council Member Reinert seconded the motio Motion carried unanimously. Consider Central Suburban Inc. Site Plan Review (3/5 Vote Required), Jeff Smyser — Staff advised the application includes a site plan and conditional use permit. The applicant, Central Suburban, Inc., proposes to build an addition on the existing building and use the site for its land development and construction business. All site and building plans for industrial uses requires a site plan review. The existing building is a pole barn. The expansion of a pole barn in an industrial district requires a conditional use permit. Central Suburban will use the fenced yard for storage of trucks, equipment, and material such as pipe, • manholes, culverts, lumber, sand, gravel, and the like. Under the current zoning ordinance, outdoor • • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 storage also requires a CUP in the GI zone. However, the site has been sued for outdoor storage of equipment and material until recently. When an existing use that was in place when the ordinance was adopted would require a CUP under the ordinance, the City policy has been to consider that use as having a "grandfathered" CUP. Even so, for the protection of both the property owner and the City, it is a good idea to define the conditions of the grandfathered conditional use to avoid confusion in the future. The conditional use then will be recorded and there will be no question about the right to conduct the specified activities. Staff recommends that the City take the opportunity to do this now. Therefore, the CUP will cover both the building expansion and an amendment to the grandfathered outdoor storage CUP. Staff presented its analysis of the site and building plan review and conditional use permit. Staff advised the Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve the site conditions. The Board also asked staff to see if approvals of any n conditions on hours of operation. The Planning Coordinator rev Concrete has a condition on the use of back up beepers on operation. No other time restrictions were found. and CUP based on strial uses included or nearby uses. Molin on hours of plant Council Member Carlson asked how long the busine n at this site. Staff advised the site has not been used for the last few months. There pre was business on that site. Council Member Carlson expressed conce gtting a precedent for anyone else coming in that has been using a site for storage ille t m taf a vised that any use that is illegal will not be grandfathered in. Council Member O'Donnell as applicant is relocating or if this will be a second site for their business. Staff advised the b is b aking off and creating a new arm. This will be the site for the new arm and the business w ead quartered on this site. Council Member O'Donne the pole building and outdo conditions: o ed to approve the site plan and conditional use permit for expanding storage based on the findings in the staff report and the following 1. An addition to the existing pole barn building shall be allowed that is 20' x 44'. The addition shall be constructed as shown on the submitted plan, building elevations, and floor plan. 2. The exterior of the north side of the existing building and addition shall be cedar siding and cedar shingle, details as described in the August 28, 2000 letter. 3. Open outdoor storage shall be allowed, including semi -trucks, trailers, construction trucks and equipment, materials such as pipe, concrete manholes and culverts, casting, COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 form lumber, sand, gravel, pumps, fuel & tool trailers, fiberglass pools and spas, and other items and materials used with excavation and trucking operations. 4. Open outdoor storage on the site shall not include construction rubble or debris or demolition debris. The intent is that the material that is stored on this site is intended to be installed on other sites. 5. The fence along the north side of the storage yard may be moved to be flush with the front of the building. 6. The fence shall be repaired and ivy shall be plated along the entire west fence for screening. 7. The site landscaping shall be, at a minimum, as shown on the submitted survey. 8. The applicant must obtain permits from the County r any' ork in the right of way. 9. The parking lot shall be paved as shown on t an. If parking becomes an issue of concern for the public safety, the p e kin of shall be enlarged. 10. The site shall connect to City sewer d all assessments paid. 11 The existing septic system must prop y abandoned. 12. The well may be retain • J • ation only, at the discretion of the landowner. If the well is not to be main . �a ation, it must be properly abandoned. 13. Proper building ust be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction cput in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. 14. No trash s 15. Approval of site plan and conditional use permit is not an implied approval of signage. Any signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. Council Member Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consider Deer Meadow Site Plan Review (407 Main Street), (3/5 Vote Required), Jeff Smyser — Staff advised the application includes a site and building plan review for a small addition to the existing building at the Deer Meadows Golf Range. Staff presented its analysis of the site and building plan review. Staff advised the Planning and Zoning Board voted to approve the site plan based on conditions. Staff recommended approval of the site plan also based on conditions. 8 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Council Member Carlson moved to approve site plan and conditional use permit based on the findings in the report and the following conditions: 1. Approval of the site plan is not an implied approval of signage. Any signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 2. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed. 3. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of the project. Council Member Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 00 — 64, Adopt Assessment Roll, Twilight Acres 1St and 2nd Additions (3/5 Vote Required), John Powell — Staff reviewed a summary of recent action ding this matter noting the tion public hearing has been continued several times to gather addition Resident Poll #2 was sent out to 32 residents in the neighbor e od m°= n responses have been received (Council Members have received copies of eachsp �e). . sed on the responses, the residents are generally opposed to the amount of the as ess encs the project. An "acceptable" assessment amount would be limited to the increase i f their property that is consistent with State Statute. However, based on the appraisal r by City, these assessments are insufficient to cover the expected costs for the ' .sect a urrently proposed. City staff has evaluated an alternative would minimize removal and restora would be much lower; but the ben installing both sanitary sewer and costs would be smaller t pursuing the use of Com ! unity wou d provide sanitary sewer service only and dway. The estimated cost for this alternative operty would also be lower than that provided by ain. However, the difference between the estimated benefit all with the original project. City staff recommends opment Block Grant (CDBG) funds to cover the shortfall. In order to conclude the pr ss elated to the original project, staff recommended the City Council not adopt the proposed asses ent roll. However, to demonstrate the City's commitment to respond to the resident's needs, staff is requesting the resolution also include directing City staff to do the following: initiate a new project, focus only on sanitary sewer service, and pursue CDBG funding for the expected assessment shortfall. Resolution No. 00 — 64 includes these items. Council Member Reinert clarified that by adopting Resolution No. 00 — 64, the Council is not adopting the assessment roll. Mayor Bergeson advised a yea vote for the resolution is not adopting the assessment roll. The City will continue to work on revisions of the project. Council Member Dahl moved to close the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 9 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Council Member Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 00 — 64, as presented. Council Member Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 00 — 64 can be found in the City Clerk's office. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 14 — 00, Adopting a Franchise Agreement with Reliant Energy Minnegasco — Mayor Bergeson advised the public hearing will be continued to take additional comments. Another Council developed the idea of a franchise fee approximately four (4) years ago. The previous Council directed staff to work on the agreement. The current City Council will determine whether or not to approve the proposed agreement. The City Administrator advised a Home Rule Charter governs t that charter states that property taxes, which is the City's m local improvements such as road reconstruction unless a r fund the projects. o Lakes. Chapter 8 of venue, cannot be used for held and the voters agree to For several years the Charter Commission has urs = + City`ouncil to identify revenue sources other than property taxes for reconstruction of 1 One potential source of revenue is franc s imosed on utility companies that do business in a city. State Statues, Chapter 216b.36utility company that uses city rights of way to conduct business can be required t' -`. pe 't or franchise agreement from the City. In exchange, the law allows cities to charge revenue or to help defray increased city costs that result from utility companies using is o way. In Lino Lakes, three (3) ut � ide natural gas service: Circle Pines Utilities, NSP and Minnegasco. All three (3) liti = s have franchise agreements with the City, usually for a period of 20 years. The franchise agreement with Circle Pines includes a 7% franchise fee on gross revenues earned in Lino Lakes by Circle Pines Utilities. The franchise agreements with NSP and Minnegasco were finalized before the one with Circle Pines Utilities. Those agreements did not include any franchise fees. When the Minnegasco agreement expired and the City Council directed staff to negotiate a new agreement that would include a franchise fee of some type in order to take advantage of this potential non -property tax revenue source. Staff considered several factors in making a recommendation to the City Council. Staff acknowledged the fact that Minnegasco pays $75,000 per year in property taxes and Circle Pines 10 • • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Utilities pays none. Staff also considered that a fee that is a percentage of the customer's bill fluctuates a great deal. For example, there are predictions that natural gas prices will skyrocket this winter. A percentage franchise fee would bring in more revenue in a situation like this, but it would be especially burdensome to people and hard to budget for. An alternative that made more sense was a meter fee that would be the same for all customers in a particular classification every month. To establish a monthly fee amount, staff analyzed the number of customers and their average bills. Staff concluded that an average, a 3% monthly fee would be about $1.50 for a residential customer. Staff used the same formula to determine the proposed fees for other customer classifications: a fee that amounts to about 3% of the average bill for those customers. Meter fees in the proposed amounts would raise between $60,00 and $65,000 a year. Staff felt budgeting is easier if customers know their fee will be $1 hand, over the period of the franchise agreement, the value of $ staff is recommending that the 2001 fee be increase by 3% i provided handouts that show the fee amounts each year u residential customers will be paying $2.08 per month istea It is the City Council's intent that as franchise a the same period so the City can negotiate simil year and setting different terms for the nextre Council's original intent that franchise f The City Council has instructed th reconstruction. A number of c conferred with the Chair of t Both indicated there is n reconstruction. onth. On the other th erodes. Therefore, year after. Staff has ise agreement expires in 2012, is exp e, the City will make them all cover r all rather than setting terms for one this down the road. It was also the City ed in all renegotiated agreements. chise fees collected will be dedicated to road asked whether that is in conflict with The Charter. Staff er mmission and the City Attorney for opinions about that. Charter that prohibits use of franchise fees for road A number of callers express concern that a franchise fee is just another type of tax. The City Council is aware of that and is making every attempt to ensure that people subject to the proposed fee have an opportunity to provide input. Staff sent letters to every Lino Lakes customer of Reliant Energy Minnegasco in August. Staff allowed a month before holding any public hearings, then scheduled two (2) — the first one tonight and the second on October 9, 2000. Staff has kept track of phone calls and letters of everyone who has contacted the City about the fee and forwarded them to the City Council Members. If the meter fee is approved, there must be two (2) readings of the ordinance. Those are scheduled for October 9 and October 23, 2000. Then the ordinance must be published. It would actually go into effect January 1, 2001. COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 The City's franchise agreement with Minnegasco, now known as Reliant Energy Minnegasco, expired several years ago. In 1999 the City Council directed staff to work towards making all the City's franchise agreements more consistent in terms of effective dates. Staff negotiated a new agreement, which was reviewed by franchise attorney James Strommen. The agreement is based largely on a model ordinance currently being updated for the League of Minnesota Cities by Mr. Strommen and others. It expires on March 31, 2012, the same date the Circle Pines Utilities franchise agreement ends. The agreement is contained in Ordinance No. 14 — 00, which requires a pubic hearing and two (2) readings. The public hearing is scheduled this evening. The first reading and continuation of the public hearing are scheduled for October 9, 200. The second reading is scheduled for October 23, 2000. Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 15 — 00, Establishing a Meter Fee for Customers of Reliant Energy Minnegasco — Staff advised the City's franchising agreement Reliant Energy Minnegasco expired several years ago. That agreement did not im i se a ichise fee. In 1999 the City Council directed staff to negotiate a new agreement and in ,.d= ;ran se fee with the intent of treating all franchisees in the City consistently. The new agr me ha en submitted to the City Council as proposed Ordinance No. 14 — 00. In conjuncts ._ than greement, Ordinance No. 15 — 00 establishes a meter fee equivalent to approximately , % a the rage customer bill in each category of customers. Revenue from the meter fee dicated to road reconstruction. In August, letters were sent to more than 3,400 them of the proposed fee and ways they co Administrator received and documented to the meter fee. Ordinances require two (2) rea 00 is schedule this evening. October 9, 200. The sec • d rea of Reliant Energy Minnegasco informing dback on the proposal. The City Council review, 26 phone calls from people opposed ublic hearing. The public hearing for Ordinance No. 15 — ing and the continued public hearing is scheduled for scheduled for October 23, 2000. Mayor Bergeson opened th.ub is hearing at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Mike Carter, 745 Vicky Lane, came forward and stated he does not mind paying taxes for value added. He stated that a few years ago the City decided to require permits to pump septics. Part of the permit fee was for inspections. The sewer permit fee contributed nothing to the situation in Twilight Acres. He stated he has a hard time believing this tax will go to benefit roadways in Lino Lakes. Mr. Keith Winegar, 6503 White Oak Road, inquired about the revenue projections from the fee and costs of administration. The City Administrator advised the expected revenues will be approximately $60,000 - $65,000 per year. The entire revenue from the fee will go to road reconstruction. 12 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 • Mr. Winegar stated the County will turn their administration costs over to the residents. He inquired about other services that are franchised. Staff advised electric and cable services are franchised. Mr. Winegar stated he does not understand why a tax on gas service will go to roads. He stated the City is taking advantage of a loophole and finding ways to tax the residents. If the City needs money for roads the funding should come from roads. He inquired about the number of calls received for and against the fee. Staff advised 26 calls from residents opposed to the fee were received. The City sent out 3,400 letters. Mr. Winegar stated there is a clear message being sent with the calls opposed to the fee. He stated he does not see a connection between gas fees and roads and the fee does. make sense. Mr. Warren Ahlers, 6426 Polka Drive, came forward and stated the gas company and the City. The City should not be involv Staff advised State Statute requires truth in advertising Th franchise fee is for. Mr. Ahlers stated he has never heard of resident getting into the gas business. The City Co 21 should be working for the residents. Th fee should be between a fee from the residents. pany wants it clear what the franchise fee. It sounds like the City is keep the residents costs down. The Council say that it needs money for road reconstruction. Mayor Bergeson advised the reside •` irc"Fines do pay a franchise fee to the City of Lino Lakes. Their fee is buried in the bill oT ear about what the fee is for. Mr. Ahlers stated the fee r form of tax to residents. Mr. Gerald Clausen, 6109 Ad in Lake Road, stated he has been a gas customer since the gas lines were put in. A fee was char d then and it was called a real estate tax. He referred to the letter sent out by the City noting there are two (2) different types of fees, a meter fee and franchise fee. He referred to his gas bill regarding miscellaneous fees. When the City charges the gas company for something, it will come back to the residents. He stated the City indicated his meter fee will be $18.00 per year. He stated he calculated the fee to be $114.00 per year. Mayor Bergeson advised the fee will be limited to $1.50 per month for the next year. Mr. Clausen stated if the City is charging a meter fee, it is charging him a usage fee. He stated it is not right. He asked how the City is encouraging competition through the fee. He stated there is no competition. He stated the City should get on the electric customers if the City is trying to be consistent and equitable. The fee is not fair to gas customers. He stated he is against road COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 reconstruction because it turns a drag strip into a raceway. He stated the City is taking advantage of the citizens of the City. Mr. Bill Trudeau, 410 62nd Street, stated the fee is a tax no matter what the City calls it. He stated he is bothered by the way the City is taking his right away to choose which roads will be reconstructed. Citizens should run the roads themselves. Mr. Mark Husnik, 535 77th Street, asked if this type of fee is imposed by other cities. Staff advised Minneapolis and St. Paul have a franchise fee for electric and gas. Mr. Husnik asked how the City normally pays for road improvements. Mayor Bergeson advised the Charter prohibits general fund dollars going to road reconstruction. He stated a referendum is needed for major road reconstruction or the property owners must request the project and be willing to pay 51% of the costs. Mr. Husnik asked how new roads are built. Mayor Bergeson advised developers build new roads. Th i en es the roads over and maintains them. Mr. Husnik stated $1.50 per month is not a lot of the fee is just another tax no matter what it is c him. He stated a few years back the City h number of garbage haulers. He asked if does not see a lot of roadways within Mayor Bergeson advised the C are in varying shape. Some r but i"adds up to be a lot. Everyone knows tated a fee attached to a meter really bothers ith roads aging prematurely because of the has anything to do with that problem. He noted he eed repair. Mr. Husnik stated he reali the number of garbage haulers. The roads within the City eed major repairs. y needs money. He inquired about other ways to obtain money. The City Administrator advid the City is in an unusual position because the Charter prevents the use of general funds for road repair. The City Attorney advised he is aware of one other city that has a Charter. Mr. John Humenanski, 989 Lois Lane, stated he objects to the fee for several reasons. It is the City's responsibility to make a case for road repairs or at least be honest about the fee. It is not fair for the City to single out one utility company for the fee. The fee makes the utility company a tax collector The fee is really of costs of doing business tax. He stated he hopes the fee will not be approved. The City should indicate to the residents that it needs road repairs. The fee takes the decision making process away from the property owners hands. 14 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Mr. John Varone, 7782 Lake Drive, stated he lives on a County Road. He stated there is an assessment when County roads are redone. He asked if the fee will result in a double fee for those property owners living on a County road. The City Engineer advised he is unaware of an assessment for road projects on County roads. Occasionally the County will ask the City to assess for a portion of the project. Mr. Varone stated there were a lot of people that complained about the assessments when Main Street was redone. The City Engineer advised he can not speak directly about that project. He indicated he will research the assessment issue. Mr. Varone stated he is retired and lives on a fixed income. The fee doesn't sound like much but the cost of everything goes up every year. He noted taxes are up, electric - groceries, hospital bills and Medicare. He stated many retired people may end up having t ell t homes. He asked the Council to take that into consideration when considering the fee Mayor Bergeson advised the public hearing will continue Council Member Dahl moved to continue the public Council Member Reinert seconded the motion. Mayor Bergeson called for a short recess at Mayor Bergeson reconvened the mee Resolution No. 00 — 79, Auth Program (3/5 Vote Require and include the followina.clarific uncil meeting. the October 9, 2000, Council meeting. unanimously. plication for the Livable Communities Demonstration ce Divine — Staff advised the City can pass the resolution 1. WHEREAS, e e ty is continuing to review the optimal arrangement between landowners developers for the implementation of the Village Development: 2. WHEREAS, the city will enter into a contract with the Metropolitan Council only after performing its due diligence to ensure landowner and developer agreements are fiscally prudent and will result in meeting the city's and the Metropolitan Council's goals for the Village Development. Staff advised the clarifications can be made with a separate letter or be included in the resolution. Mayor Bergeson asked if the wording in the resolution is what was received from the Metropolitan Council. Staff advised the working of the resolution is what was received from the Metropolitan Council and is part of the application. 15 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Mayor Bergeson expressed concern regarding sending up red flags if a different resolution is sent. He stated he would prefer to send a clarifying letter with the original resolution. Council Member Reinert asked if the Metropolitan Council wrote the language in the resolution and in the application. Staff advised the Metropolitan Council wrote the language in the resolution only. Mayor Bergeson stated the options include sending the resolution as is, change the wording in the resolution, or send the resolution with a clarifying letter. Council Member O'Donnell stated he believes the problem is not with the resolution. The application needs clarity. He asked if the City could send a letter with the resolution clarifying the City's position regarding the application. Council Member Reinert stated clarity is also needed regarding the design standards and density. The Council has indicated they are comfortable with 16-18 units per acre. senior housing included 24 units per acre. Council Member Dahl stated a special meeting was held reg had reservation about the application. She referred to the minutes and read her concerns regarding the applicatio program and both times voted no. She stated she wo Member Reinert is correct regarding density figu ication. She advised she Special Work Session she has voted twice on this pport this item. She noted that Council Staff advised 24 units per acre does refer to ber;° the design standards. Staff understands that the number has been reduced. Mayor Bergeson stated it is unfortu Staff had an obligation per the up to that point. Staff did th submitted. The City can arify p Metropolitan Council and at City is in this situation with the application deadline. direction to capture the essence of the Council's discussion od in a difficult situation. The application has been it if necessary. Staff will clarify informally with the d the Council Member's concerns. Staff requested the Council : ify if the funding should be used for acquisition or infrastructure, Council Member Carlson stated she sees the resolution as separate from the application. The problem is the two (2) of them going in at the same time and appearing to be interconnected. It is a good idea to deal with them separately. A vote should be taken on participating in the program. She stated she has concerns with the application because of the financial aspects of it. She stated that neither developer is willing to commit to a partnership with the City. She expressed concern that the City is at a point where it does not want to stop progress of The Village. However, the City is making promises that the City does not know if it can keep. The City needs to know about the financial implications before the zoning restrictions are put in place. She suggested the Council vote on participation in the program with the understanding that a letter will be prepared, reviewed and approved by the Council regarding the Demonstrations application. She stated she needs facts on financing before a letter is written. 16 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Mayor Bergeson moved to approve Resolution No. 00 — 79, as presented, and forward to the Metropolitan Council on the condition that staff and the City Council will review the application and send a clarifying letter regarding the application. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Council Member Reinert asked if the City should write a letter or resubmit the application. Mayor Bergeson stated that a resubmission of the application would end the project. Staff advised they do not believe the Metropolitan Council will allow resubmission of the application. Motion carried with Council Member Dahl voting no. Staff advised that Council approval of the clarifying letter will come before the Council at the next Council meeting. Council Member Carlson stated financial information is needed be r can be drafted. Mayor Bergeson inquired about when the application will be Metropolitan Council will be reviewing and setting up int be made in November and a vote taken in December 21 0 0. sent with the resolution. aff advised the ober 2000. A decision will ommended the clarifying letter be Council Member Carlson suggested the Counci bond information. Staff advised there are purchase. Information will be brought t the City's financial consultant regarding he City can look at regarding the land ouncil work session. The City Administrator advised thy, e rector can be present at the October 4, 2000, Council work session. If necessary, Je will also be present. Council Member Carlsosked �� • uncil direction regarding Mr. Shannon being present at the Council work session. Mayor Bergeson stated the ance Director should contact Mr. Shannon if he feels it is necessary. Council Member Carlson stated both Mr. and Shannon and the Finance Director should be present. Council Member Reinert agreed that both Mr. Shannon and the Finance Director should be present. He stated the more information that is available the better. Mayor Bergeson stated the City should direct that request through the Finance Director. COMMUNITY CALENDAR SEPTEMBER 25 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 2000: City Council Meeting, Monday, September 25, 2000, 6:30 p.m. 17 COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 Environmental Board Meeting, Wednesday, September 27, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with the City of Shoreview, Monday, October 2, 2000, 5:30 p.m., Shoreview City Hall Park Board Meeting, Monday, October 2, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Council Work Session, Wednesday, October 4, 2000, 5:30 p.m. EDAC, Thursday, October 5, 2000, 7:00 a.m. Fall Recycling Day, Saturday, October 7, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. City Council Meeting, Monday, October 9, 2000, 6:30 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business, Council Member Dahl mov'to 'o t 8:45 p.m. Council Member O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried These minutes were considered and approved at the uncil Meeting, October 9, 2000. ,Veita,3dat4GtelICC Ry-Chel Gaustad, City Clerk Transcribed by: Kim Points TimeSaver Off Site Secre 18 John ergeson, ayor