Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/2003 Council Minutes• • APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES MINUTES DATE : January 13, 2003 TIME STARTED : 6:58 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:38 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson, Dahl, O'Donnell, Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson MEMBERS ABSENT : None Staff members present: City Administrator, Linda Waite Smith; City Clerk, Ann Blair; Community Development Director, Michael Grochala; Finance Director, Al Rolek (part); City Engineer, Jim Studenski; City Planner, Jeff Smyser; City Police Chief, Dave Pecchia (part); City Police Sergeant, Kurt Rausch, (part); and City Attorney, Bill Hawkins. SETTING THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as submitted. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ITEM ACTION A. CONSIDERATION OF EXPENDITURES: i) January 13, 2003 (Check No. 67016 — 67210, $623,182.87) Approved ii) Centennial Fire District (Check No. 13571 — 13597, $9,938.35) Approved B. Consider Approval of Resolution 03-01, Approving Application for Circle -Lex Lion's Club to Conduct Off-site Gambling, Resolution 03-02, Approving Request for One -day Temporary Consumption and Display Permit (set-up) and Approving Application for Temporary 3.2 Beer License. C. Consider Resolution No. 03-07, Authorizing Amendment and Restatement of the City of Lino Lakes Health Care & Dependent Day Care Expense Reimbursement Plan • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED OPEN MIKE No one was present for Open Mike. FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK Consideration Resolution No. 03-09 Approving the Five -Year Financial Plan, Al Rolek — Finance Director Rolek advised that the Lino Lakes City Charter Section 7.05 requires the annual preparation of a Five -Year Financial Plan. He noted this plan has been reviewed by the City Council at several work sessions, and a public hearing was held on December 9, 2002. The City Council now needs to take final action on the Five -Year Financial Plan for 2003-2007. Staff recommends the Council approve Resolution No. 03-09 adopting the Five -Year Financial Plan for 2003-2007. Councilmember Carlson asked if the plan is figured including 2001 forward, what would the increase be. Finance Director Rolek stated that would be a six-year period and the increase would be about 47%. Councilmember Carlson reviewed a section on Page 15, the 2004 Street Reconstruction Project that may need to be put on a referendum. She reviewed the streets that are included and stated that roads, sewer, and water for Hookah Street north of Birch was also discussed. She asked if, looking at the estimated project cost, that amount is only for the area of Hookah Street and Arrowhead Drive. Finance Director Rolek stated he assumes that is correct since that is how it was presented in the plan. Councilmember Carlson noted it could make a significant increase to add more. Finance Director Rolek stated that is correct. Community Development Director Grochala stated if you look back in the table included at the end of the document, the streets actually comprised in that number are listed. He stated that through the planning process and neighborhood meetings it is possible that staff could be informed of other roads in those general vicinities that need to be added. So, the potential exists to add more and the estimates are based on extrapolated figures from a 1996 report from BRW. Councilmember Carlson stated that the cost could be at least doubled by adding West Shadow Lake Drive. Community Development Director Grochala stated that West Shadow Lake Drive is included as a separate project in 2005. Councilmember Carlson asked when a survey will be done to find out what amount the citizens will support in road reconstruction. Finance Director Rolek stated he assumes all of the preparations will be made, data assembled, and neighborhood meetings held when the costs will be presented. Mayor Bergeson stated that should be an action initiated by the Council. 2 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Councilmember Carlson stated she was in agreement with Mayor Bergeson about doing a survey the last time and asked that this discussion be scheduled for the next work session to assure the referendums are not defeated. Mayor Bergeson stated the Council will have to take some action on what will be placed on the referendum. Councilmember Dahl stated there will have to be some cutting and noted Page 7, D1. She asked why something wasn't done with the percentages where it jumps to 7.61% and then goes down in 2006. Finance Director Rolek stated this was presented to the Council several times and the staff was not directed to make any cuts. City Administrator Waite Smith stated that staff is trying to identify potential cuts in case there are cuts in State aid but, at this point, those potential cuts in State aid are not yet known. Thus, staff does not know how to adjust that number. Finance Director Rolek stated that once the cuts are known, staff has the ability to make adjustments to this plan, as needed. Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-09, Adopting the Five -Year Financial Plan for 2003-2007. Mayor Bergeson seconded the motion. Councilmember Carlson stated she will vote against the motion because increases of 7.61 % for 2004 and 7.26% for 2005 are too much when the State is experiencing a $4.56 billion deficit. She made reference to comments made by John Gunyou, former State Commissioner of Finance, who projected it will more likely be significantly greater based on what the State is already committed to spend. She stated it is not known how much the State aids will be cut and this plan depends on levy limits expiring. She stated if 2001 was included it would have been a 41.47% increase and there are things not stated in the plan that will be spent. She reviewed the cost of several City projects including "The Village" which was proposed at $14 million. Councilmember Carlson stated she realizes that would not be an expenditure for the City since it would be included in a TIF district but the City will not be collecting taxes on it either. She stated this is significant spending in the next few years, the same years the State deficit runs. She stated she respects everyone's vote but that is how she will have to vote. She stated there are two other road proposals covered by MSA funding that are not part of the general fund. She stated it is the general fund budget that she is objecting to because she needs to look at it from the experience of the people she is representing. Councilmember Carlson commented on the current state of the economy and impacts to Lino Lakes residents. She stated that under these times she cannot support 7.61% and 7.26% over 2004 and 2005 and had hoped the Council could compromise. She stated this is a democracy and she is happy with her vote and respects those of a different opinion. Councilmember Reinert asked Councilmember Carlson what level of increase, if any, she would agree to. 3 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Councilmember Carlson stated the Council raised that question at a work session and she said it was not that she could supply a percentage but that we need to look at where we could be making cuts and the tough choices. She stated she asked for the items that staff was discussing that could be cut. The Friday update included a list of five things, such as no out of town conferences. Councilmember Carlson commented that these are the kind of cuts that John Gunyou refers to as "nibbling around the edges" and not addressing the real cuts that will be needed. Councilmember Carlson stated she mentioned the contingency funds and yes, during uncertain times they would be good to have. She stated the City does not waste money, but in her opinion, lost thousands of dollars when the funds were released for a road project. She stated the City did not get a complete and final accounting of that item or for moving the pool which was put in the wrong position. There was also not a complete and final accounting for the money expended for mold repair that should not have to be expended in this three-year-old building. However, it is not known if it was a design or building problem. She stated these funds may not come from the general fund budget but as she looks at how Lino Lakes is set up, it all comes from the taxpayer or those paying the fees. Councilmember Reinert noted this plan is a projection and guideline, not a mandate. He stated he did not hear a specific direction that staff could have taken as far as making reductions. He stated he is confused because when this was first reviewed there was a 51% increase over five years and then there were discussions about a 35% increase which was a specific direction. As far as leadership to take this downward from the original projections, Councilmember Reinert noted that the Council directed staff to go to 35% and that was done. He stated he is open to more specific direction for staff to follow to get to a point that is palatable to more Councilmembers, however, that direction has not yet been given. Councilmember Reinert stated that in subsequent meetings neither he nor staff heard more direction or leadership downward from that point. He stated staff needs specific direction on where it should go from here. He emphasized that this is a projection and guideline, not set in stone and to continually not vote for this and just say you want to check out things and give no specific direction downward, he has a hard time with that. He stated that maybe there is not a clear understanding that this is a projection and wished that leadership or direction had been given by those who do not support this plan. He stated this could have been worked out if direction had been given. Councilmember Reinert stated that by the time this plan is updated again, many things will have changed. He stated he supports the document which reflects staff direction previously given. Councilmember Dahl stated that as she reviewed this plan over the weekend, she came to realize she has a different role in this. When the budget came through she voted against a 4.04% increase and always likes to be consistent. She stated she does change her position if fellow Councilmembers give opinions that seem to make sense to her. Councilmember Dahl stated that she understands this is just a projection but from her past experience the projections set the stage for future budgets. Councilmember Dahl stated things in this document can be changed easier than in the budget but it still sets the stage for everything. She stated a jump from 4.04% to 7.61% is high and the Council needs to be more conservative than this plan is. She stated she does not like the 7.61% increase and noted it has been mentioned that a road referendum can be considered. 4 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Councilmember Dahl stated she is pleased that the five-year plan is done, but she does not like some of the pieces. She stated she is not sure what should happen with the contingency fund. She stated that when Council direction was given to go to 35% and staff came back with 30% it was extremely bare bones so it was raised to 35% but when it was agreed to, the Council had not yet seen it and asked staff to return with something at 35%. She said that may have been a mistake and she is torn since she is also on the Charter Commission which requires a five year plan. She stated that to the best of her knowledge, the City has not had one. She again stated she is glad the five-year plan is done since it has taken a long time but there are things she does not agree with that are contained in the plan. She stated if it was 4.04%, because of the uncertainty and being more conservative, it would show the City is trying to "tighten their belt" before going back to the voters. Councilmember Reinert noted that increases for the City in past years have been 10% plus and this year it is a 4.04% increase which is more conservative and brings it into line. However, you have to keep in mind that there as a 16% increase in revenue. He suggested that if the Council is raising the budget, based on this plan, by 7% and there is a 16% increase in revenue, it is moving in the right direction. Councilmember Reinert stated with a City that is growing and has growing needs, the Council has to accommodate some of that growth in the infrastructure and running it. He stated that based on a 16% increase in revenue, he does not think it is out of line to consider a 7% increase which is still a bare -bones increase. He stated that an argument can be made that people are not making more than a 3% cost of living increase but he has not heard what would be acceptable below 7%. He stated it is not an "apples to apples" comparison when you try to compare a City budget to what is going on at home. Councilmember Carlson stated the five-year plan shows a 4.04% increase in revenue and the budget ended up at 4.12% so the numbers may actually be a little higher. She stated we ended up with a 4.12% increase not because we worked together to cut that amount down but because the State set the levy and the City levied all that it could. So, the State did the work for the City. Councilmember Carlson stated that she has not added onto her house for the last five years but her property value went up 11% this year so you can say there are rising property values but that does not mean the person in the home who has to pay on a higher property value has improved the house in any way, they are just getting taxed more on the same house. She stated she voted for the 4% increase at the last meeting because it is a growing City but she knows what other cities are doing to make cuts and she has been expressing concerns since the beginning. She stated she had made copies of the consumer price index and said she would make her decision based on what the State has to show when they come out with the budget projections in December. She stated that Lino Lakes has been fortunate that their funding has not been cut. She stated she voted to support the budget and respects other's votes and opinions. Councilmember Carlson stated that she expects, as a representative of the public, that they are concerned about keeping taxes down and she wants her opinion respected too. Mayor Bergeson stated he thinks one of the hallmarks of this Council is its inability to make a decision and move ahead, and this is a classic example of that. He stated the original proposal was quite a bit higher and staff was directed to reduce that. The overall increase was 35% and staff was directed to prepare a budget to that number. Mayor Bergeson stated that Finance Director Rolek and City staff did an excellent job in doing that by July 2, six months ago. He stated that the Council has brought this back time and again, staff has asked if there was more direction or another number to 5 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED address, and Council provided no additional direction except to express displeasure about some of the numbers. Mayor Bergeson stated the Council has been fooling around with this plan for six months, it is required by the Charter, and cannot wait to get additional costs on repairs to the City Hall or what the State will do. He stated this is a responsible plan and to quote 7% is misleading since it is a combination of growth of the City and inflation. He noted the original plan that was presented, which included both inflation and growth of City services and City staff proportional to the City really resulted in numbers of 10% or 11%. Staff was asked to cut back and got to a number of 7% which he thinks is realistic. Mayor Bergeson stated the Council needs to move ahead and when the City gets answers to some of the questions, the Council may have to revise this plan. He stated he is pleased with the work staff has done since they have followed the direction of the Council and the Council must now "get off the dime," make a decision, and move ahead. Councilmember Dahl asked when this will be reviewed in 2003. Finance Director Rolek stated that review will begin concurrently with the 2004 budget preparation. Then the 2004-2008 financial plan will be reviewed. Councilmember Dahl asked if this plan sets the stage for next year's budget. Finance Director Rolek stated this plan includes projections of what staff, at this point in time, feels will be needed to conduct business and deliver services at the same levels as in the past. He explained that as with any budget, staff always re-evaluates what the situation is, the economics, what has transpired at the State Legislature, factors of growth, and those type of issues. He stated that staff may or may not come up with the same numbers as in the Five -Year plan, but his projection would be that they will not -- since there will be additional information then that may alter the budget proposal for 2004. Since that information is not yet available, there is no way to prepare for it at this time. Councilmember Dahl asked, hypothetically, if it would stay the same or go down drastically due to what will be heard from the State or if it will more likely go up. Finance Director Rolek stated this plan must maintain some flexibility and the numbers may go down. He stated he has known the projections to remain the same at times in the past but, again, the information is not yet available to make assumptions at this point. Councilmember Dahl stated she likes the diversity of the Council and also the diversity in the answers because through that diversity the Council finds a lot of things she would not have come up with on her own. She stated the Council makes big decisions that affect the entire City and she takes that very seriously, as do all Councilmembers. She stated that she listens to each Councilmember and if they want to take more time on something, she never says anything since they are respectful of her concerns and questions. Councilmember Dahl stated she respectfully disagrees with some of what Mayor Bergeson said but each has their own opinion. Councilmember Reinert stated the budget for next year will be whatever the Council wants it to be, 10% or 2%. This year it started at 11% and ended up a little over 4% because that is what the Council wanted. He stated this plan only provides a guideline for staff to manage and he supports giving staff that guideline and then during the budget discussions it can be discussed what needs to be changed. Motion carried 3 yeas (O'Donnell, Reinert, and Bergeson) - 2 nays (Dahl and Carlson). 6 • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Resolution No. 03-09 can be found in the City Clerk's office. ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH Consideration of First Meeting of the Year Appointments, Dan Tesch — Mayor Bergeson noted that each year the City Council is required to make a number of appointments at its first meeting of the year. He noted that some are committee appointments while others relate to contracts for services. He recommended that if anyone on the Council would like to change their assignment, that item be tabled to the next work session when it can be discussed. Mayor Bergeson asked if there was discussion related to Councilmember assignments that should be deferred to a work session. Councilmember Carlson stated she would like Councilmember assignments deferred to a work session. She asked the Council to also consider the assignment of members to various City Boards and that it be formalized, if needed. Mayor Bergeson stated those assignments will be deferred to the next Council work session. He noted the staff recommendations for the contractual arrangements between the City and various agencies and that staff recommends no changes except that one bank was added to the list of legal depositories. • Councilmember Reinert moved to approve the following appointments: • Legal Newspaper Minute Taking Service Employment Legal Service Labor Services Fiscal Agent Assessor Legal Depositories Quad Community Press TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Barna, Guzy & Steffan Ldt. Labor Relations Association Springsted, Inc. Anoka County Wells Fargo, Community National Bank, First Bank, NA, US Bank, Merrill Lynch, Dain Rauscher, Prudential Bache, Lino Lakes State Bank, LMC 4M Fund, Solomon, Smith, Barney, others as needed. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAVE PECCHIA Consideration of Resolution No. 03-08, Authorizing DNR Grant for Snowmobile Enforcement, Sergeant Rausch — Police Sergeant Rausch explained that the Lino Lakes Police Department has been selected to receive grant funds in the amount of $1,500 designated for overtime projects and/or equipment supporting enforcement of snowmobile rules and regulations. He stated that due to the lack 7 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED of snow, they will probably consider using this grant for equipment. Sergeant Rausch requested the City Council accept this grant on behalf of the City of Lino Lakes and the Lino Lakes Police Department. Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-08, Accepting Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Grant for Snowmobile Equipment and/or Overtime Funding Projects Enforcement. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 03-08 can be found in the City Clerk's office. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT, RICK DEGARDNER There were no Public Services Department Reports to consider. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT, MIKE GROCHALA Public Hearing, Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 02-03, Vacating Park Land, Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition, Tanda Gretz — Community Development Director Grochala explained that Public Services Director Rick DeGardner is asking for the vacation of a City trail easement. The trail easement, for access into the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes, was originally shown on the final plat of Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition as located to the east of Lot 5, Block 1. However, the trail was actually constructed by the developer in a different location than that indicated on the final plat, and now exists to the west of Lot 5, Block 1. Community Development Director Grochala explained that as a result of the above situation, the City has acquired easements for trail purposes from the owners of the properties on which the trail is now sited, and the trail has thus now been both constructed and secured. What is left to accomplish, however, is to vacate the original easement as shown on the final plat. City Attorney Bill Hawkins has advised staff on this matter, suggesting that the existing park corridor be vacated, with each of the two adjacent property owners receiving one-half of the park corridor land, which would amount to a 10 -foot strip of land along their side property line. The approval of this trail easement vacation will conclude and finalize this outstanding issue. Community Development Director Grochala advised of the need to correct the legal description contained in the draft ordinance and stated staff recommends approval of the vacation. Mayor Bergeson opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Dahl moved to close the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 8 • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Councilmember O'Donnell moved to approve FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 02-03, Approving the Vacation of a Trail Easement, Located at Timberwolf Trail, Pheasant Hills Preserve 9th Addition. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Councilmember Dahl yea. Councilmember Carlson voted yea. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of Resolution No. 03-03, Authorizing Application for the Conveyance of Tax Forfeited Property, Mary Alice Divine — Community Development Director Grochala advised that this parcel of property in Lino Lakes went tax forfeit in 1994. The City obtained title to the property for public open space by notifying Anoka County pursuant to M.S.A. 282.01 Subd. 1 a. However, after five years in public ownership, the City must verify the property is still being used for public purposes. A Notice of Verification was not mailed to the State, so the property reverted back to tax forfeit classification. The parcel continues to be used as public open space. This recommended action will reinstate the land as public property owned by the City of Lino Lakes. Staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 03-03 Authorizing Application for Title of Tax Forfeit Property. Mayor Bergeson asked if this will cost anything for the City. Community Development Director Grochala stated that it will not. Councilmember Reinert asked who currently owns the land. Community Development Director Grochala stated it is currently owned by the State. Councilmember Dahl moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-03, Authorizing Application for Title of Tax Forfeit Property. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. Councilmember Carlson stated that it seems like this is a piece of lakeshore that should have been held by the City but a notice was not sent to the State and the City missed an opportunity. Community Development Director Grochala stated it was a missed opportunity and the proposed action is a way to clean that up. He explained that this happened during a time when the City did not have a City Clerk. Upon being advised of this, City staff met with Anoka County staff to determine how the City can get back the property. In addition, a process was worked out to better track tax forfeited properties. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 03-03 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 01-03, Establishing Growth Management Provisions, Jeff Smyser — City Planner Smyser advised that the Growth Management Ordinance, Ordinance 01-03, is the first part of the package of ordinances that will implement the new Comprehensive Plan. The Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance are the other two main 9 • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED pieces of the package. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing on Ordinance 01-03 on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. Staff has provided a copy of the Planning and Zoning Board staff report on the ordinance. City Planner Smyser explained that it is important to get the Growth Management Ordinance adopted prior to the expiration of the moratorium on residential development. The moratorium expires on February 22, 2003. City Planner Smyser noted the Council has seen this before and asked for Council direction whether a full staff presentation should be made. Councilmember Carlson stated that generally on significant issues such as this, it is reviewed at length. Mayor Bergeson asked if anyone in the audience had comments on this item. No one indicated a desire to make comment on the Growth Management Ordinance. City Planner Smyser explained that the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002 includes important policies relating to the management of growth in the City. Now that the Comprehensive Plan is in place, we must adopt the means of implementing it. The Growth Management Ordinance establishes the means by which the City will regulate the amount of growth. It will work with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, which generally regulate the type of growth. There is some overlap, however. Staff stated the fundamental growth management elements of the Comprehensive Plan are: a) The target for annual growth of 147 new homes per year. b) The future land use map that lays out locational and timing limits on new growth: Stage 1 (pre -2010) and Stage 2 (2010-2020). c) A specified number of MUSA reserve acres for accommodating new growth in each of the staged growth areas. These three elements form the foundation of the Growth Management Ordinance. City Planner Smyser advised that Section 1 of the ordinance lists findings. The findings accomplish a number of things. They connect the ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan, and they list facts and justifications that form the basis of the regulations created by the ordinance. Section 2 is the regulatory part of the ordinance. City Planner Smyser pointed out the findings as contained in Section 1 of the draft ordinance. He then presented the provisions established by the Growth Management Policy as follows: 1. Promoting development within the existing MUSA is preferable to expanding the developing area of the City by granting MUSA reserve acres. This preference is intended to promote the cost- effective use of public investment by maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure. 10 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED 2. New growth prior to year 2010 shall occur only in a Stage 1 growth area. However, a Stage 1 growth area does not grant rights to MUSA reserve acres and development approval. 3. Premature development shall not be allowed. This applies to all development proposals, inside the existing MUSA as well as those needing MUSA reserve. The development is premature if it does not meet the conditions established in Section 1002-6 of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1000 of the City Code). 4. The 374.7 acres of MUSA reserve for Stage 1 (pre -2010) shall be designated for new residential, commercial and industrial development as follows and as shown in Attachment A: a. Residential: A total of 300.7 MUSA reserve acres is designated for residential development. The annual target is to allocate no more than 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the MUSA reserve acres allocated for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the MUSA reserve target will necessitate reducing MUSA allocation for future years. b. Commercial/Industrial: A total of 74 MUSA reserve acres is designated for C/I development. These C/I MUSA acres can be granted at any time prior to year 2010. There is no annual limit for C/I MUSA. 5. The goal for new growth in the City is an average of 147 new housing units per year. This includes all residential growth: both within the existing MUSA and in areas that would need MUSA reserve. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the number of lots approved for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the new growth target will necessitate reducing the number of lots available for future years. 6. No single development project should be awarded an entire year's number of new housing units. This requirement is intended to: a. avoid or minimize potential monopoly price effects b. promote timely development: one project often will not be able to build all 147 in one year c. promote housing diversity d. avoid inefficient concentration of infrastructure expansion that could impede financial return on investments elsewhere in the City e. distribute and minimize potential negative impacts of development f. promote fairness by distributing growth among several projects while observing the goal for new growth 7. An amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units/year) or residential MUSA reserve allocation (acres/year) would be exceeded by more than 20%. The City Council shall consider such an amendment only if the specific development project will promote a clearly identified public purpose. The public purpose may include but is not limited to: 11 • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high-density, and mixed-use developments in locations designated for them in the Comprehensive Plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without exceeding the target c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without exceeding the target d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without exceeding the target 8. Use of Stage 2 MUSA reserve acres prior to year 2010 shall require amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. All preliminary plats and residential development greater than 50 lots/units must have, as condition of approval, a phasing plan that establishes: a. a schedule for final platting a specified number of lots/units on an annual basis b. specifies the location of and number of lots/units in each phase (final plat). • 10. The target for the maximum number of lots in each phase is 50. 11. The City will maintain an inventory of approved phasing plans indicating the number of units/lots scheduled for final plat approval in future years. 12. The City will not approve a new project's preliminary plat if, according to the phasing plan inventory (final platting schedule), a new project could not final plat its first phase within one year of preliminary plat approval without exceeding the MUSA or new growth goals. 13. An approved phasing plan is a commitment by the City to approve final plats and grant MUSA reserve acres according to the phasing plan. MUSA reserve is actually granted at the same time as final plat approval. The phasing plan does not in any way eliminate the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, and other official controls, as may be amended. 14. MUSA reserve acreage to be granted shall be the acres of buildable area only. 15. Allocating or granting MUSA reserve within the Stage 1 growth area in accordance with a phasing plan for the project is an action that implements the Comprehensive Plan: it is not an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Allocating MUSA reserve shall require the same majority vote by the City Council as is required for a rezoning. 16. This growth management policy shall not apply to the area of "The Village," in the southeast • quadrant of the I-35W/Lake Drive interchange. 12 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED 17. The City shall review this growth management policy on an annual basis. City Planner Smyser noted the tables that are included in the meeting information that describe various scenarios of platting schedules. He stated he thinks this will work, but may be tough since it regulates private property so some will not be happy with it. Mayor Bergeson asked staff to review the calendar and schedule of implementation with the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Smyser stated there are three pieces to the implementation plan: the Growth Management Policy, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the new Zoning Ordinance. The Growth Management Ordinance is scheduled for first reading tonight and second reading on January 27, 2003. First reading of the Subdivision Ordinance is scheduled on January 27, 2003 and the second reading is scheduled on February 20, 2003. In the interim, there will be a special Planning and Zoning Board meeting on January 22, 2003 to open the public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance. That will be continued to the regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting of February 12, 2003. It is hoped that a recommendation will be made at that meeting. The City Council will hold first reading of the Zoning Ordinance on February 24, 2003 and second reading on March 10, 2003. City Planner Smyser stated the most important piece is the Growth Management Policy since it establishes in ordinance form the 147 households per year and how to allocate MUSA. City Planner Smyser noted the moratorium on residential subdivision platting and rezoning expires on February 22, 2003. He noted the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance will not be in effect by then but according to the review schedule, no plat will be approved prior to their taking effect. He stated that developers will know that the new ordinances is what governs. Mayor Bergeson commented on the need to take timely action to assure the moratorium does not expire without these ordinances being in place. Councilmember Reinert asked about being 20% above or below the target and how it would reduce the amount going forward. He asked if it is by Council decision year by year and if that language will be enough or create too much exposure for the City. He also asked if additional language should be included since it appears the Council could be at a number above 20% every year. City Planner Smyser explained the intent is that the City would indicate that 147 times 7 years is how many can be approved by year end 2009. So, if the number is over, then the maximum has been increased. He explained that this is the policy that would be established by the City Council so it would be up to the Council to enforce their own policy. However, in the future a City Council could change this policy and that cannot be prevented. Councilmember Reinert stated he is worried about a scenario where in the fifth year only 125 homes are allowed to correct prior year overages and questioned whether that is defensible. City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that it is defensible as long as the City does not exceed the overall target over that period of time. He advised that justifications will need to be included as to why an increase was considered and the Council cannot be arbitrary in its decision. 13 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Councilmember Reinert stated that only allowing 147 times 7 years is the reason that will be cited. City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that having that standard set can be cited as justification and is defensible. Councilmember Reinert noted that some arbitrary decisions may be made related to correcting years that went over and as to when the Council decides to make that correction. Mayor Bergeson stated that one of the keys to make it defensible is to have a long-term view and not try to adjust the number currently. So, if in year 2005 and there is consensus it is too far ahead, the Council will have to make a decision to implement adjustments in the following years (2006, 2007 and 2008). City Attorney Hawkins stated that he has talked about this point with Councilmember Reinert. He stated this ordinance is breaking new ground when placing a limitation on the number of areas to be developed. He stated the Council is trying to exercise the authority found in the enabling language to regulate growth and he thinks it can be defended. However, he is unaware of another community that has tried to limit growth in this manner so Lino Lakes may be a test case. Councilmember Reinert asked if a court action would result in destroying the Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Smyser stated that he did not think so, however, a court action may result in certain sections having to be changed. Councilmember Carlson referenced Provision #14 indicating: "MUSA reserve acreage to be granted shall be the acres of buildability area only." However, staff said everything not wetland is considered buildable area. She asked if all hydric soils will be buildable. City Planner Smyser explained that in the development application, the only thing that will matter is the area that has been delineated as wetland. If it is delineated as wetland, it is not buildable. If not delineated as wetland, for purposes of allocating MUSA and calculating density, it will be considered buildable. He explained that with a steeply sloped topography, that would not be buildable, but that is not a usual situation within Lino Lakes. City Planner Smyser stated the intent is to get the same definition across-the-board and on individual sites, because of the slopes, it may not be physically buildable but the same calculations will be used for MUSA allocation and density. Thus, hydric soils become irrelevant. Councilmember Carlson referenced Provision #15 indicating: "Allocating or granting MUSA reserve within the Stage 1 growth area in accordance with a phasing plan for the project is an action that implements the Comprehensive Plan: it is not an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Allocating MUSA reserve shall require the same majority vote by the City Council as is required for a rezoning." She asked if allocating MUSA reserve requires the same Council majority vote as required for a rezoning. City Planner Smyser explained that State Statutes require a simple majority for rezoning unless it is rezoned from a Residential zone to a Commercial/Industrial zone. In that case, it would require a super majority of 4/5ths vote. He noted there will not be many such rezoning cases in Lino Lakes. 14 • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED City Planner Smyser suggested the same majority vote be required as for a final plat since that will clear up any question. Councilmember Carlson stated she would like that less since it seems to be a change in past practice. City Planner Smyser stated the City has been operating in an undefined area for several years and this would clear that up. He noted that the project would have already been reviewed, approved, and a contract in place with the developer saying the final plat will be approved according to the described schedule, but a final plat would still needs to be approved. He stated it says a 4/5ths vote is needed to grant MUSA but the other decisions only require a 3/5ths vote and it does not make sense to set the City up for a situation where the plat has been preliminarily approved and a contract entered into but then the MUSA allocation is a different majority vote. That would set the City up for a situation where they may breach the contract. City Planner Smyser explained that the proposed language assures that would not occur. Councilmember Carlson stated she appreciates that explanation but it dos not address her question about what the State statutes say about allocating MUSA. She stated she understands this is a new area where MUSA is not awarded until the final plat. She used the example of the project north of Behm's Farm that needs about 80 acres of MUSA. Normally, the Council would look at the rezone, MUSA allocation, and plat approval. She asked if the Council will now just look at a portion of the MUSA for the first phase. City Planner Smyser stated the Council will address the entire project and the preliminary plat approval would approve all phases and agree to grant MUSA for all of the phases according to that schedule. Councilmember Carlson stated it then appears that is being done in the same regard as has been done in the past. City Planner Smyser explained that the statutes require a 3/5ths vote unless the rezoning is from Residential to Commercial/Industrial. In that event you need a 4/5ths vote. The statutes say to amend a Comprehensive Plan requires a 4/5ths vote. He stated there is nothing in State statutes that says anything about voting to allocate MUSA. This ordinance would clear up that "gray area." Mayor Bergeson suggested that between now and the next meeting the City Attorney be asked to provide an opinion in terms of these issues. City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that everything done by the Council is by majority vote unless otherwise directed by the State Statutes, unless it is deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Carlson referenced Provision #16 that indicates: "This Growth Management Policy shall not apply to the area of "The Village," in the southeast quadrant of the I-35W/Lake Drive interchange." She stated this came up because of discussion at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting and she has the same concerns that Councilmember Reinert indicated to assure that it stands up legally. She stated she understands that building 400 units and a number of attached townhomes 15 • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED and apartments is the issue but her concern began at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting with the discussion of how the ordinances will stand up in court. She stated that some public comments expressed at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting were also a concern. She reviewed the comment made by a realtor who found it interesting that the City Council and City Planner know the new policy precludes any large project to the point that "The Village" is excluded and that is unfortunate because something exciting may be possible up there." Councilmember Carlson stated she is concerned that some developers are looking at the City as making one exception on this property but not on their property. She stated the Comprehensive Plan contains nothing that said "The Village" should be exempted. She suggested there may be a way to include it by spreading out the number of units over the 7,575 housing units which is the number in the Comprehensive Plan for the 2020. She stated that position may be defensible and asked if exempting "The Village" weakens the City's legal position to defend. City Attorney Hawkins agreed that including exceptions does weaken the legal position. He suggested the City include more justification for the exemption and tie it into criteria related to public good such as low-income housing. Community Development Director Grochala stated his agreement that it be further explored. He noted that Provision #7 addresses amendments to the Comprehensive Plan needed to exceed the 20% growth total and conditions that are contained. He stated the intent was not to exclude opportunity at "The Village," that possibility is available if the right project comes along. He noted that "The Village" has been included in the Comprehensive Plan and the City will pursue the mixed-use village. He explained that this gives the opportunity to a future developer to amend the Comprehensive Plan to further their project. Councilmember Reinert stated it is included in the Comprehensive Plan and asked if it is included as an exception. City Planner Smyser stated it is not an exception in the Comprehensive Plan. He commented that "The Village" is special and the City will have to design a policy that allows it to happen instead of prevents it from happening. He noted that if a developer comes in with a project they think is also special, they have the option to request the City amend the Comprehensive Plan to include it as another special project, just as "The Village" is included as a special project. Councilmember Reinert asked if "The Village" should be included in the Comprehensive Plan to give this ordinance more "backbone." City Attorney Hawkins stated his opinion that with Provision #7 the criteria to consider another project should be the same criteria as applied to "The Village" and why it is applicable. Then if someone challenges it, the City can show that the same criteria was used to justify the exception of "The Village." Councilmember Reinert asked City Attorney Hawkins to provide additional language to better identify those issues. He noted that tonight the consideration is first reading but he is concerned whether these areas can all be addressed and approved during second reading in just one more meeting. • City Planner Smyser reviewed the schedule calendar and stated that a delay of two weeks may or may not impact that. He suggested the Council consider first reading tonight and then staff will work with 16 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED the City Attorney to include the language needed to justify the exception of "The Village." A copy of the ordinance showing the changes can be considered at the next meeting. Mayor Bergeson stated this is good discussion and areas of concern need to be raised now so staff can begin work on them. Councilmember Carlson stated concern that the goal be defensible, especially if exceptions are added. She asked if that would not make it more difficult to defend. She noted this is not in the Comprehensive Plan and another option is to spread the units over the life of the Comprehensive Plan but not go beyond the 7,575 housing units. Councilmember Carlson stated she realizes the pressure the City is under for more growth and that the City may need to look at that. She noted this Growth Management Plan is to be reviewed on an annual basis but if it goes into effect it needs to be done based on what is included in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Reinert suggested that the additional language be included prior to consideration of second reading. He noted that including the units but staying with the 7,575 housing units would be reducing the 147 to below 120 a year. Mayor Bergeson noted that staff has talked about establishing criteria and someone else may say they have a worthwhile project that promotes the community and other things but since it is not specifically laid out, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and he thinks it would also require a review of the 7,575 housing units. So, if there is a big project that has equal merits to this, there are still a lot of things that would have to happen before it can be approved. In addition, there is no right on the part of the developer to have the City amend the Comprehensive Plan and change goal numbers. The Council would have to feel it was in the best interest of the City to change the Comprehensive Plan. So even if it is theoretically possible, the developer does not have the right to demand multiple Comprehensive Plan amendments to accommodate a project. Councilmember Reinert stated the best approach is to get more specific language from the City Attorney, discuss it at length at the next work session, and try to include the right words to make "The Village" unique enough so the City is not faced with someone else wanting to duplicate the same scenario of a project. Councilmember Reinert moved to approve FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 01-03, Ordinance Creating a Growth Management Policy. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Councilmember Carlson stated she will vote against the motion tonight but may vote in support of it in two weeks. She stated she wants to know that it is legal and that exceeding the 7,575 housing units does not place the City in an indefensible position She stated this is a unique project; however, there are other areas in the City where mixed use and high density are being considered and there is a 362.5 acre site on the east side where a developer is working on a proposal that was presented at a past work session. Councilmember Carlson stated the City has to be very careful and until she sees language saying it is legal and can be defended, she is uncomfortable with voting yes this evening. 17 • • • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED Mayor Bergeson stated he has been the most uncomfortable with the limit of 147 homes and 7,575 housing units. However, that is the community consensus. He stated he thinks that the responsible thing to do at this point is to put into place the ordinances that support that community decision. He stated he applauds staff for their thoughtful work on this matter. He stated he did not think it was possible to even put anything on paper to address this in a reasonable manner but staff has done that. He stated he does not know what will happen down the road since this is "uncharted waters" and the City may or may not be able to sustain this City decision. However, the responsible thing is to put into place the City's best effort until they find out otherwise. He stated there has been a lot of discussion and no better suggestion has come forward than the draft ordinance. He stated he supports the ordinance even though he is less supportive of the rate of 147 homes per year. Councilmember Reinert voted yea. Councilmember Dahl voted yea. Councilmember Carlson voted nay. Councilmember O'Donnell voted yea. Mayor Reinert voted yea. Motion carried unanimously. 62"d Street and Elm Street Improvements i) Consideration of Resolution No. 03-05, Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 62"d Street Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements, Jim Studenski City Engineer Studenski explained that due to the continued development and growth of the area increasing the traffic on this roadway and the deteriorating condition of 62nd Street between Ware Road and Red Maple Lane, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for street and storm sewer reconstruction. The City has allowed 60 days to elapse following the public hearing before any further action is taken on the sanitary sewer and watermain portion of the proposed project as required by the City Charter. City Engineer Studenski reviewed that the City has received petitions from the residents addressing several issues, copies of which have been provided for Council review. The summary of the petitions is as follows: 16 of 18 residents oppose road assessments. 15 of 18 residents oppose storm sewer assessments. 10 of 17 residents request sanitary sewer and water are installed. Additionally, the residents requested design considerations of a 28 -foot roadway (13 of 19), parking not be allowed (14 of 19), elimination of the walking path (13 of 19), saving of trees, and utility extension onto Red Maple Lane. City Engineer Studenski explained that in accordance with the City Charter, if a majority of the owners petition against such improvement, then "the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited." Since MSA funding doesn't cover 100% of the street and storm 18 COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED • sewer costs, the proposed assessment of $72,000 would be an additional cost to the Surface Water • • Management fund or require a referendum. City Engineer Studenski noted that a majority of the residents have petitioned for sanitary sewer and watermain and in accordance with the City Charter, would be assessed for the improvements. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. Councilmember Carlson noted the deteriorating condition of 62nd Street between Ware Road and Red Maple Lane and that 13 of 19 residents requested design considerations of utility extensions onto Red Maple Lane. She stated that it was discussed at a work session that this may stop at West Shadow Lake Drive. City Engineer Studenski stated the residents who opposed were at the easterly extension and staff would, through plans and specifications, review how and what benefit would be taken on by the City if that were to be shortened up. At this point, it appears that by shortening it, the project would still be able to address the concerns of residents. But, staff wants to set it up so the City does not incur the additional cost of utilities or road at the east end. Councilmember Carlson asked about the referendum for Red Maple Lane. City Engineer Studenski stated that could be dropped off and all reconstructions go through a referendum. He explained that if it goes through a referendum, the City could apply for MSA with the remainder going to the referendum. Councilmember Carlson noted that those who petitioned would be assessed for improvements and asked what happens if the costs are greater than the benefiting value of the improvement. City Engineer Studenski explained the process to authorize plans and specifications and go out for bids. Once the bids are received, a public hearing will be held on the assessments. At that point, the schedule will allow time if there are any challenges to those assessments. If issues are brought up at that point, the Council would have the ability to not award the contract. City Engineer Studenski stated that extra time frame is included in the schedule to eliminate any challenging of the project after the project is awarded. Councilmember O'Donnell noted the staff report says the proposed assessment would come from the Surface Water Management Fund or a referendum and asked how that will be decided. City Engineer Studenski stated it is a Council decision. Councilmember O'Donnell asked about a possible Comprehensive Plan change and what that would involve. Community Development Director Grochala stated the property is located south of 62nd Street and designated as Low Density, Unsewered Residential as a land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan says that sewer and water cannot be extended to those properties unless by petition and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to Low Density, Sewered, MUSA needs to be allocated, and the growth area changed. That would require going through not only the Planning Commission and Council to approve the land use amendment but also the Metropolitan Council. In discussion with the property owners, it was implied that the Comprehensive Plan amendment would occur concurrently with the project. 19 COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED • Mayor Bergeson asked if the same process would be followed to serve a single home with a failed • system. Community Development Director Grochala answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Reinert stated it has not been discussed whether that is the desire of the Council. Councilmember O'Donnell stated it is a concern that needs to be discussed but maybe not to delay this action. He suggested this be considered tonight, a discussion occur at the next work session, and Council receive an explanation of the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember O'Donnell moved to adopt Resolution 03-05, Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications — 62nd Street Reconstruction of Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Project. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Mayor Bergeson stated since information about petitions was raised, it is his personal opinion that when the Council is making decisions about priorities on street improvements, due to the limited amount of MSA, that improvements must be made in a logical order. He stated it is his opinion that where there is an improvement and residents do not want to pay for it, that should reduce its priority. In an area where the property owners want to pay their fair share, that project should go to the top of the list. With regard to whether residents are wiling to pay, Councilmember Carlson stated her concern that residents along 62nd Street did not chose to have the road repaired, the City made that decision for them when it placed the additional traffic on it from a length of West Shadow Lake Drive. Mayor Bergeson acknowledged that as being a factor as well as the issue of safety. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 03-05 can be found in the City Clerk's office. ii) Consideration of Resolution No. 03-04, Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Elm Street Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Improvements, Jim Studenski City Engineer Studenski advised that due to the deteriorating condition of Elm Street between Sunset Road and Grey Heron Drive, the City Council authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for street and storm sewer reconstruction. The City has allowed 60 days to elapse following the Public Hearing before any further action is taken on the sanitary sewer and watermain portion of the proposed project as required by the City Charter. City Engineer Studenski advised that the City has received very few petitions from the residents addressing their concerns. The summary of the petitions is as follows: • 1 -in favor, 1 -opposed to sanitary sewer and water. 1 -in favor, 1 -opposed to street and storm sewer. 20 • COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED City Engineer Studenski reviewed that the City has proposed the project in accordance with the City Charter and has received little opposition. Street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain would, in accordance with the City Charter, be assessed to the benefiting properties. It is staff's recommendation to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution 03-04, Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications — Elm Street Reconstruction of Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Project. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. At the request of Mayor Bergeson, City Engineer Studenski reviewed the anticipated time schedule and stated it will be presented to the Council at an upcoming work session. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 03-04 can be found in the City Clerk's office. Consideration of Resolution No. 03-06, Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Black Duck Lift Station, Michael Grochala — Community Development Director Grochala noted the existing Black Duck Lift Station is located on the west side of Black Duck Drive, south of Lantern Lane. A new lift station is proposed to replace the existing lift station, which was constructed in 1970. In 1994, the City prepared plans and specifications to construct a new lift station and rejected the bids due to the high contract prices received. The City also initiated a project in 1998 to replace this lift station but terminated the process due again to estimated costs and funding constraints. Bids were also received and subsequently rejected due to high costs in August of 2002. The low bid received at that time was $368,473. Community Development Director Grochala explained that the wastewater flow volumes that enter the existing lift station have continually increased and the lift station needs to be replaced in order to operate in a safe and efficient manner consistent with current design standards. The pumps in the station have to operate much more frequently each hour than desired. The station also has very little storage, which causes the sanitary sewer to be surcharged. Community Development Director Grochala advised that staff is recommending that the plans and specification be approved and that authorization be granted for advertisement of bids. Councilmember Reinert moved to adopt Resolution No. 03-06, Approving the Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids — Black Duck Lift Station. Councilmember Dahl seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 03-06 can be found in the City Clerk's office. 21 COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2003 APPROVED • UNFINISHED BUSINESS Consideration of Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2002 City Council Meeting Councilmember Carlson requested a correction to Page 16, last line, to indicate: "...variance andla ordinance a consideration cannot be just a matter of cost." Councilmember Dahl moved to approve the October 28, 2002 City Council Meeting Minutes, as amended. Councilmember Carlson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. COMMUNITY CALENDAR JANUARY 14, 2003 THROUGH JANUARY 27, 2003: Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Special Environmental Board Meeting Monday, January 20, 2003, City Hall Closed in Observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 5:30 p.m., Council Work Session Wednesday, January 22, 2003, 6:30 p.m., Special Planning and Zoning Board Meeting • Monday, January 27, 2003, 6:30 p.m., City Council Meeting • Councilmember Carlson stated her understanding that the Environmental Board would be reviewing the Growth Management Ordinance. She noted they have stated concern with regard to environmental issues related to growth. City Planner Smyser explained that staff felt the rate of growth did not involve environmental issues so it was not scheduled to be reviewed by the Environmental Board. Community Development Director Grochala stated it was his understanding that the Planning Commission would go forward with the public hearing on the Growth Management Ordinance which is what occurred. Councilmember Carlson requested that the Environmental Board be allowed to review the ordinance at their special meeting on Wednesday, January 15, 2003. Mayor Bergeson stated if that is the desire of the Council, that can be decided. He stated that it is staff's opinion that there is nothing within their range of responsibilities and he is concerned that a lot of comments not be returned that slows progress. A majority consensus of the Council was reached to direct staff to present the Growth Management Ordinance to the Environmental Board. 22 COUNCIL MINUTES APPROVED • ADJOURN JANUARY 13, 2003 There being no further business, Councilmember Dahl moved to adjourn at 9:38 p.m. Councilmember O'Donnell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. These minutes were considered and approved at the regular Council Meeting, March 10, 2003. Ann Blairrity Clerk Transcribed by: Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • 23