HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/04/2006 Council Minutes• 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
42
43
44
• 45
46
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
APPROVED
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
JANUARY 4, 2006
: January 4, 2006
. 5:35 p.m.
. 10:10 p.m.
: Councilmember Carlson, O'Donnell,
Reinert, and Mayor Bergeson
: Stoltz
Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development
Director, Michael Grochala; City Engineer, Jim Studenski (part); Chief of Police, Dave
Pecchia (part); Community Development Coordinator, Mary Alice Divine (part); and City
Planner, Jeff Smyser (part); and City Clerk, Julianne Bartell
STORM WATER UTILITY
Community Development Director Grochala advised incorporated into the Pavement
Management Policies, adopted by the City Council in 2005, was the provision to pursue
the establishment of a Storm Water Utility. The intent of the Storm Utility is to create a
dedicated funding source for storm water related components of the street reconstruction
program. The utility can also be used to fund water quality improvement projects and to
maintain compliance with mandatory programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs.
Community Development Director Grochala stated Short, Elliot, Hedrickson (SEH), Inc.,
has submitted a proposal to complete the feasibility study not to exceed a cost of $18,000.
The report will review the basis behind a Storm Water Utility and its advantages, review
of existing storm water utility rates in communities of similar size and propose a utility
system methodology and rate structure to meet the City's anticipated storm water
program costs. In addition to the written report, the proposal also includes two Public
Education/Awareness meetings as well as preparation of an information brochure.
Community Development Director Grochala stated SEH has an extensive background in
working with municipalities to create storm water utilities. Additionally, one of the key
components of developing the utility is the use of the City's existing Geographic
Information System (GIS) data. SEH has worked extensively with the City's data and
this familiarity will stream line the evaluation process and result in a cost savings for the
City.
Mr. Ron Leaf, SEH, reviewed the process for the project noting the key elements of a
storm water utility feasibility study. He stated SEH has done many of these studies and is
very familiar with them.
1
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
1
2 Mr. Leaf explained the tasks related to the project including the feasibility study and
3 public education and awareness. The main components of the study could be completed
4 this year and provide a plan to implement by January 2007.
5
6 Mr. Andy Lamberson, SEH, distributed an Executive Summary in terms of the Storm
7 Water Program Costs completed for the City of Barron. He reviewed the revenue
8 forecast noting the revenue is based on usage.
9
10 Mr. Lamberson indicated he prefers a utility based on user pay as opposed to a higher
11 property tax that pays for storm water costs. He stated creating a utility also lowers costs
12 to the City.
13
14 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, January 9, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
15
16 LEGACY STREETSCAPE DESIGN
17
18 Community Development Director Grochala stated plans are being prepared for approval
19 of the Legacy Streetscape Design. He stated the City is anticipating going out for bids on
20 the project in early February 2006.
21
22 Mr. Bob Morely, SEH, stated they will be reviewing the plans this evening and would
23 like Council input on the proposal.
24
25 Mr. Bob Cost, Landscape Architect, SEH, advised the design to date is based on previous
26 work that has been done on the project. He reviewed the proposed landscape plan in
27 detail and provided recommendations in terms of maintenance of the landscaping. He
28 also reviewed the park area and water area in terms of the landscaping plan. He noted the
29 park area is the focal point of the project.
30
31 Mr. Ken Tallen, SEH, reviewed the proposed lighting plan indicating the main goal is to
32 adequately light the area at night.
33
34 Mr. Morley advised the bid would include installation and maintenance of the lighting
35 system.
36
37 HARDWOOD CREEK DEVELOPMENT
38
39 City Planner Smyser advised the City received an application from Village of Hardwood
40 Creek, LLC, to amend the Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment
41 requires a formal vote. The application also includes a general concept plan for planned
42 unit development. The concept plan review is informal and does not require a vote. It is
43 important to note that approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment does not grant or
44 imply any right to an approval of the PUD application that likely will follow.
45
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
1 City Planner Smyser stated the 2004 growth management policy (Ordinance 24-04) was
2 prepared to implement the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The growth management
3 policy requires that several issues be addressed if the City is to accommodate this
4 application. This project application is the first one that requires an amendment to the
5 Comprehensive Plan as directed by the growth management ordinance. Review of the
6 relevant parts of the Comprehensive Plan resulted in recommendations to add or change
7 several passages. The amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would involve a number of
8 elements.
9
10 City Planner Smyser stated the application does not include a planned unit development
11 or preliminary plat. It does not include the detailed information normally part of such
12 applications. Because of this, staff cannot analyze the project to see if it would qualify
13 for the exemptions to certain growth management limits as a conservation development.
14 In addition, there are some limits from which the City cannot grant exemptions.
15 Therefore, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is needed to address growth issues as well
16 as change the land use designation for the site.
17
18 City Planner Smyser reviewed the three parts of the plan amendment directly relating to
19 the application: changing the land use, adding MUSA, and addressing the growth
20 management issues. Because the Comprehensive Plan is a citywide document, the City
21 needs to ensure that amendments to the document support future planning needs in this
22 area and elsewhere in the City. He reviewed the proposed land use map change.
• 23
24 City Planner Smyser stated it is important to note that approval of this Comprehensive
25 Plan Amendment does not grant or imply any right to an approval of the PUD application
26 that will follow. Design specifics, including road alignments, will be part of a full PUD
27 review.
28
29 City Planner Smyser added the deadline for City action was scheduled to be December
30 13, 2005. However, the applicant requested that the action be postponed to the January 9,
31 2006 meeting. The City Council must take action on the application unless the applicant
32 grants an extension.
33
34 City Planner Smyser reviewed the text amendments in detail that will be added to the
35 Comprehensive Plan. He noted the changes are site specific. He stated the proposed
36 Comprehensive Plan Amendments were sent to surrounding communities to allow for the
37 opportunity to comment. He distributed a copy of the responses received by the cities of
38 Blaine, North Oaks and Centerville.
39
40 The Council discussed possible language changes to the proposed Comprehensive Plan
41 Amendment. It was noted that staff would provide an update on possible language
42 changes in the Friday packets.
43
• 44 This item will appear on the regular Council agenda Monday, January 9, 2006, 6:30 p.m.
45
•
•
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
1 COMMUNITY SURVEY UPDATE
2
3 City Administrator Heitke advised at the November 28, 2005 special work session, the
4 Council reviewed and approved the questions for the community survey. On December
5 19, 2005, the Council approved having Decision Resources, Inc. add to the survey to
6 determine public opinion on Anoka County holding a referendum prior to the
7 implementation of a county -wide sales tax to partially fund a sports stadium. Decision
8 Resources Ltd. (DRL) has drafted questions to ascertain public opinion on that issue.
9 City Administrator Heitke advised this week, staff from the Anoka County Library
10 System inquired as to whether it would be possible to survey the public's interest in
11 having a county library as part of the Legacy at Wood's Edge Project. Since this question
12 is very similar to the one contained in the 1996 survey related to having a YMCA in the
13 town center project, DRL offered to draft the question for consideration.
14
15 City Administrator Heitke reviewed the draft questions regarding the proposed stadium
16 and a library in the Town Center at the Lake Drive and Interstate 35-W interchange area.
17 Staff is seeking Council acceptance of additional questions, enabling DRL to finalize the
18 survey.
19
20 Councilmember Carlson expressed concern that the proposed stadium question does not
21 address the referendum question. She distributed two alternative questions, one prepared
22 by her and another prepared by Mr. Dan Dobson of St. Paul. Councilmember Carlson
23 stated that her question makes the referendum issue more clear and coincides with the
24 Reinert Resolution.
25
26 Mr. Ron Holch addressed the Council and stated that the survey had been described as
27 being "scientific" in the newspaper, but the proposed question isn't scientific because it is
28 not quantifiable.
29
30 Councilmember Reinert stated that it's obvious that this process is going to be attacked
31 and suggested that all the Council can do is forward the results of this discussion to
32 Decision Resources and see what they come up with, however, it will delay the survey
33 and results.
34
35 Councilmember Carlson stated that the County Commissioner in Lino Lakes was quite
36 surprised by the wording of the question.
37
38 Mayor Bergeson stated he is concerned that survey questions that the Council hasn't even
39 acted on are being passed out. He is concerned that there is clearly an effort underway to
40 prepare people for the survey by letting them know what the questions might be and
41 coaching them on answers, and_the longer the City waits to conduct the survey the less
42 accurate it is going to be. He stated he is in agreement with the stadium question as
43 proposed by Decision Resources, Inc.
44
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
1 City Administrator Heitke stated staff would capture from the tape what has been said
2 and send it to Decision Resources, Inc. so they can respond to the concerns about the
3 proposed question.
4
5 Ms. Barbara Bor, resident of Lino Lakes, came forward and read a letter she drafted
6 regarding the library question. She noted the letter would be sent to all of the County
7 Commissioners. The letter outlined the benefits of having a public library within the
8 City. She also indicated her family may donate land for the project. She asked that the
9 library question on the survey not be area specific.
10
11 Council directed staff to take the library question back to the Library Board with
12 comments regarding the question being area specific.
13
14 City Administrator Heitke distributed an email from the Chair of the Environmental
15 Board requesting that they or the Environmental Board's staff review and have input on
16 the survey questions. The Council agreed that other advisory boards were not involved in
17 the survey and that the Council had already approved the survey.
18
19 Community Development Director Grochala advised there are several questions on the
20 survey that relate to environmental issues.
21
22 City Administrator Heitke reiterated the fact that in early discussions, Decision Resources
23 had inquired about whether there were any big issues that might come up that could sway
24 the results of the survey and they like to time surveys to avoid this. He stated that
25 Decision Resources was aware of the guest editorial in the Pioneer Press and he did send
26 articles from the newspaper regarding the survey, growth issues, stadium issue, and the
27 letter to the editor on growth and suggesting how to respond to the survey. Decision
28 Resources knows that the City does not want to delay the survey, so they may add a
29 qualifying statement to the survey report that the results may have been affected by pre -
30 survey publicity. City Administrator Heitke added that people have been requesting
31 copies of the survey and since it is public data, he has to provide it.
32
33 Mayor Bergeson called for a short break at 8:56 p.m.
34
35 Mayor Bergeson reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m.
36
37 2006 ORGANIZATIONAL ACTIONS
38
39 Council Appointments — Mayor Bergeson advised the Council needs to finalize the
40 recommended appointments.
41 The Council reviewed the appointments and made the following changes:
42
43 Acting Mayor Councilmember O'Donnell
44 Centennial Fire Steering Councilmember Carlson and Reinert
45 County Corrections Program Councilmember Stoltz
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
• 1 Joint Law Enforcement Committee Councilmember Reinert
2
3 Councilmember O'Donnell suggested the Council eliminate Council liaisons and
4 schedule regular meetings with each City Board. The Council agreed.
5
6 Advisory Board Appointments — City Administrator Heitke suggested the Council
7 extend the application period for City Advisory Boards and advertise the positions again.
8
9 The Council agreed to advertise the Advisory Board openings again and extend the
10 application period for a few weeks. It is anticipated that interviews would be conducted
11 in February.
12
13 Schedule of Meetings — City Administrator Heitke advised a proposed schedule of 2006
14 meetings was included in the Council packets. He stated the only change to the meetings
15 is the accelerated schedule in December.
16
17 The Council directed staff to also change the November 22 meeting to November 21,
18 2006.
19
20 Councilmember O'Donnell suggested the Council discuss on a future agenda ways to be
21 more efficient. Suggestions made included changing the meeting nights, having work
22 sessions prior to regular Council meetings and having staff items first on the work session
• 23 agendas.
24
25 Council directed staff to place this item on a future Council work session for discussion.
26
27 COLUMBUS TOWNSHIP UPDATE
28
29 City Administrator Heitke provided the background on this issue noting it has been
30 discussed at past meetings. He stated Columbus Township was available for the meeting
31 tonight but the City of Forest Lake was not. He distributed state statute information
32 regarding this issue.
33
34 City Administrator Heitke stated staff is still very cautious about passing a resolution
35 relating to the incorporation of Columbus Township. He stated he did speak with the
36 City Attorney regarding this issue. The City Attorney advised if the City approves the
37 resolution, the City should be prepared to testify in court in regard to that action.
38
39 The Council directed staff to record the City Attorney's comments on paper for the
40 record. Council also directed staff to cancel the meeting with the City of Forest Lake and
41 Columbus Township.
42
•
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 4, 2006
APPROVED
41 1 2006 COUNCIL RETREAT
2
3 City Administrator Heitke advised information for the 2006 LMC Elected Officials
4 Conference was included in the Council packets. He asked that Councilmember's contact
5 Jean Viger to register for the LMC conference.
6
7 City Administrator Heitke stated the Council has committed to holding annual retreats for
8 the purpose of engaging in team building, goal setting, etc. Staff needs direction for
9 scheduling the 2006 Council retreat. If Mr. Neu is to be retained as the facilitator, the
10 City has attempted to minimize travel costs by scheduling the retreat at times that Mr.
11 Neu is in Minnesota for other meetings. Suggested dates to accomplish that would be
12 February 15-16 or February 20-21.
13
14 The Council directed staff to try to schedule the Council retreat for February 20-21,
15 during the day. February 21 would only be necessary if the agenda calls for an additional
16 day.
17
18 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
19
20 There were no changes to the regular agenda.
21
22 The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
• 23
24 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
25 January 23, 2006.
26
27
28
30 Juli .; e Bartell, Qity Clerk John erge ±' , Mayor
31
32
33
34
35
1
Transcribed by:
Kim Points
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
7