HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2004 Council MinutesCITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 9, 2004
APPROVED
• 1
2
3 CITY OF LINO LAKES
4 MINUTES
5
6
7
8 DATE : June 9, 2004
9 TIME STARTED : 5:38 p.m.
10 TIME ENDED : 10:25 p.m.
11 MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmember Dahl, Carlson, Reinert,
12 Mayor Bergeson. Councilmember Stoltz
13 arrived at 6:00 p.m.
14 MEMBERS ABSENT : None
15
16
17 Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development
18 Director, Michael Grochala; City Engineer, Jim Studenski; Economic Development
19 Assistant, Mary Alice Divine (part); Police Chief, Dave Pecchia, and City Clerk, Ann
20 Blair (part)
21
22 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION PLAN,
23 MARY DIVINE
•24
25 Economic Development Assistant Divine reviewed the background information on
26 proposed Resolution No. 04-77, related to approval of the 2004 —2005 Economic
27 Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) action plan.
28
29 EDAC Member Howard Juni was present and explained the action plan in further detail
30 for the Council, and indicated the group was seeking direction from the Council as to
31 priorities and alignment of goals. He indicated that chief among important developments
32 which were currently being planned in the City were the Legacy at Wood's Edge project,
33 the I 35E corridor, the new Town Center, Lake Drive development, and the Apollo
34 Business Park.
35
36 Mayor Bergeson commented that the City Council had a goal setting session in May, and
37 some of the projects identified as having priority in the EDAC plan were consistent with
38 the Council's goals, while others were not on the list.
39
40 Councilmember Reinert commented the action plan was a good report, overall.
41
42 Councilmember Stoltz arrived at 6:00 p.m.
43
44 The Council briefly discussed that attracting large, corporate franchises was desirable in
45 some ways, but having some small -market local franchises added uniqueness.
46
•
•
•
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 9, 2004
APPROVED
1 Mayor Bergeson noted that completion of the YMCA was a key piece, and EDA Member
2 Juni commented that the fundraising stage of this project was almost completed.
3 Councilmember Carlson inquired as to when the groundbreaking was likely to take place,
4 and EDA Member Juni indicated that fall of 2004 or spring of 2005, at the latest, was the
5 current estimate.
6
7 Councilmember Carlson inquired as to whether the Charter Commission should look at
8 the action plan at their upcoming meeting in July. She commented the report contained a
9 heavier financial emphasis than in previous year.
10
11 EDA Member Juni indicated this was a proposal, and the group recognized that having a
12 project included in the plan was no guarantee of acceptance. Councilmember Reinert
13 concurred. Councilmember Carlson noted that silence can become acceptance, so felt
14 this was an appropriate time to voice concerns.
15
16 Councilmember Carlson indicated she had some comments which applied to the entire
17 report; she had questions relating to different directions on financing, and who was
18 responsible for what in the process. For example, she noted that only the City can sell
19 City property, and this was not addressed.
20
21 EDA Member Juni stated that the EDAC plan was intended to become the Council's plan
22 - the group worked on the plan for the benefit of the City Council, as a recommending
23 body. Economic Development Assistant Divine stated the plan was similar to an
24 advisory opinion, and was therefore a recommendation to the Council — tasks had been
25 assigned in an effort to facilitate the plan.
26
27 Councilmember Stoltz felt the possible strategies proposed by the EDAC plan were a
28 good start, as a rudderless committee would lack a purpose.
29
30 Councilmember Dahl acknowledged that the plan indicated it was a recommendation, but
31 also pointed out the action requested was for approval of the plan, which implied an
32 acceptance of the plan. She also felt the plan was more encompassing than in previous
33 years.
34
35 The Council reviewed each enumerated project briefly.
36 EDA Member Juni indicated he would be available at the City Council meeting to answer
37 any additional questions.
38
39 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, June 14, 2004, 6:30 p.m.
40
41 CSAH 14 (MAIN STREET) IMPROVEMENT STUDY UPDATE, MICHAEL
42 GROCHALA
43
44 Community Development Director Grochala updated the Council on the status of the
45 CSAH 14 (Main Street) planning process, noting that staff has been working with the
46 City of Centerville and Anoka County on Phase I of the study. Phase I focuses on
47 selecting a design concept for reconstruction of the roadway between 1-35W and 1-35E.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 9, 2004
APPROVED
• 1 Public meetings were being held with area residents and business owners to solicit input
2 on the process.
3
4 Community Development Director Grochala noted that the design concept was based
5 upon anticipated traffic volumes for the roadway, the number of access points and
6 intersections provided, and the character of adjacent land use. He indicated the design
7 concept divided the roadway into three major segments, going from a two-lane roadway
8 in Segment 1, to a three -lane roadway in Segment 2, to a four -lane roadway in Segment
9 3. He indicated that following additional public meetings, Staff would present the
10 finalized design concept to the Council for approval in late June or in July.
11
12 Community Development Director Grochala noted that six alternatives had been
13 considered. Anoka County's website contained a link to a page pertaining to this project.
14
15 Councilmember Carlson suggested that the public meeting relating to this be added to the
16 Community Calendar.
17
18 COUNTRY LANE / MARILYN DRIVE UTILITY EXTENSION PETITION, JIM
19 STUDENSKI
20
21 The Council considered this item following the EDAC action plan, and then returned to
22 the remainder of the regular work session agenda.
23
24 City Engineer Studenski noted that the City had received a petition from five property
25 owners of five parcels on the two streets. Staff had sent a letter to residents in the area to
26 assess the interest in extending city utilities, and in the interim, 14 of 54 residents had
27 responded. All of the 14 respondents were interested in moving forward. He illustrated
28 the location of the 14 properties on a map.
29
30 City Engineer Studenski also noted that the City Attorney had sent a letter to four
31 residents of this area whose septic systems were failing, and they were thus required to
32 come into compliance. Staff requested direction from the Council as to how to proceed.
33
34 Mayor Bergeson confirmed that the "original" five parcels were not contiguous. City
35 Engineer Studenski confirmed this and noted that the area of the petition was Low
36 Density Unsewered Residential, and it is outside the Stage 1 and 2 Growth Area.
37 Country Lane is outside of the MUSA boundary.
38
39 Councilmember Reinert commented that 14 respondents out of 54 was not a bad
40 response. Councilmember Carlson disagreed, stating she felt it was a low response. She
41 inquired as to whether sending out another letter would be helpful. City Engineer
42 Stuenski indicated this had been discussed.
43
44 Councilmember Reinert felt that sending another letter was good approach, and if there
45 were not more support it might not be practical to proceed. Community Development
• 46 Director Grochala indicated the city needed a game plan, as some systems were failing,
47 and it was important to decide soon. He noted this was a public health issue.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 9, 2004
APPROVED
• 1
2 Councilmember Carlson requested a copy of the percentage rating for the City.
3
4 City Engineer Studenski recapped that another letter would be sent out, indicating the
5 deadline / timeframe and staff would come back to the Council with a follow-up on
6 responses received. They would come back with a percentage, and hold up on
7 enforcement action on the four properties until it comes back to Council.
8
9 Councilmember Stoltz commented that after the survey, if more than 50 percent, there
10 was usually a feasibility study — if less than 50 percent, then not, which was somewhat
11 arbitrary. Councilmember Reinert noted there was sometimes a fall-off in participation,
12 which should be factored in.
13
14 LAMOTTE DRIVE WATER MAIN EXTENSION (CITY OF CENTERVILLE),
15 MICHAEL GROCHALA
16
17 Community Development Director Grochala explained that the City of Centerville was
18 reconstructing LaMotte Drive right up to the city limits of Lino Lakes, and this would
19 result in extension of water main service within Centerville. This would provide an
20 opportunity for the City of Lino Lakes to request that the City of Centerville consider
21 extending the water main approximately 80 feet further (to the city limits), and Staff was
22 recommending this. The cost would be approximately $9,000, to come from the City's
• 23 Trunk Utility Area and Unit fund. This would allow for future water service to Lino
24 Lakes developments and avoid the need to reconstruct a new street within Centerville.
25
26 A Joint Powers agreement with the City of Centerville would be necessary to accomplish
27 this.
28
29 The Council concurred that this seemed to make sense and to proceed with developing
30 the joint powers agreement.
31
32 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
33
34 Police Chief Dave Pecchia updated the Council on the status of the compliance checks
35 which were scheduled for a violations hearing prior to the regular Council meeting on
36 June 14, 2004. He indicated Public Safety had been issued a grant, and that a total of
37 three compliance checks would be conducted over the next year. Staff training would be
38 offered to assist the establishments in making sure their employees were knowledgeable
39 in enforcement procedures.
40
41 Councilmember Dahl inquired as to where the City's Best Practices Grid had originally
42 come from, and Chief Pecchia indicated it was modeled after the City of Plymouth's grid.
43
44 Police Chief Pecchia noted that annual liquor license renewals would be considered at the
45 regular June 29, 2004 Council meeting.
. 46
• 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
• 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 9, 2004
APPROVED
Community Development Director Grochala briefly reviewed the Community
Development items scheduled for the June 14, 2004 City Council agenda.
RECORDING OF MINUTES, APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW OF
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
The Council discussed the preparation of Council minutes and whether or not to consider
changes as to the taking of meeting minutes.
City Administrator Heitke indicated that there were pros and cons of using a recording
service. He also indicated the Council might wish to consider cutting down on the length
of the minutes to save money, and provide more summarization of items. It was
important for minutes to be approved and processed in a timely fashion, and this was not
always happening.
The Council concurred to discuss this matter further at a future work session.
No action was taken on this item.
ADJOURN
Motion by Councilmember Reinert, seconded by Councilmember Stoltz, to adjourn the
work session meeting at 10:25 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
August 9, 2004.
Transcribed by:
Ann Blair, City Clerk
Gordon Heitke, City Administrator
5