Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-03 - Council Minutes Agenda Item 9.a. December 13, 2007 Agenda Prepared By: Planner Gartner CITY OF CORCORAN JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING October 3, 2007 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Corcoran City Council and Pavement Management Committee met in joint session on October 3, 2007, at city hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were the following City Council members; Mayor Guenthner, Councilor Hudok, Councilor Jacobs and Councilor Thomas. Present were the following Pavement Management Committee (PMC) members; Bill Farrar, Pat Hank, Loren Kohnen, Bob Laddusaw, Jacquie Manick and Elwyn Manthei. Also present were City Attorney Joe Langel, City Engineer Vince Vander Top and City Planner Norman Gartner. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA APPROVAL In order to promote an atmosphere for open discussion, no formal agenda was adopted for this meeting. DISCUSSION COMMENTS 1.Engineer Vander Top – Mr. Vander Top provided a brief explanation of the Transportation Area Charges history and that it had been reviewed by the former City Attorney, Jeff Carson. Mr. Carson felt it was defensible legally. Mr. Vander Top indicated that the estimated cost of improving the collector roads was $125 per lineal foot. Currently the assessment policy for public improvements is not in dispute by the City Council. Mr. Vander Top also noted that the City of Corcoran’s Public Works Department is doing more work on the roads. 2.Councilor Thomas – What can be done legally? Are Area Charges allowed? 3.Loren Kohnen (PMC) – How projects are funded should be decided first. 4.Mayor Guenthner – He is concerned about the equity of charging a fee to a remote area. Is there a fairness issue? (i.e., mixing fees generated in MUSA vs. Non-MUSA areas) 5.Councilor Thomas – Should bonding be delayed until more growth occurs? Mr. Thomas indicated that there is a lot of traffic coming from outside the community. 6.Mike Leuer (Developer) – Infrastructure fees are a hidden tax on mew residents which makes it harder for people to afford houses. Mr. Leuer feels roads should be assessed and bonded by the City. 7.Pat Hank (PMC & Planning Commission) – Mr. Leuer is paying for his own street and also paying a fee for the collector roads. 8.Engineer Vander Top – Mr. Vander Top indicated that the County Road/Collector Road improvements within the MUSA line are estimated to be $45,000,000. The City of Corcoran is paying approximately $1,000,000 on the Hennepin County Road 19 project, which uses a 80-20 cost sharing split between the county and city. Trailhaven Road would be the first street on the list of any reconstruction projects. 9.Planner Gartner – Provided and explained sample calculations he prepared for the Transportation Area Charge assuming various levels of assessment and the anticipated number of building units. There was a general consensus that there are too many options available to satisfy everyone. 10.Mayor Guenthner – The City of Corcoran can bond for a project and pass it along to the taxpayers. Bonding thus becomes one of the cash sources available. Does the City have the ability to go to the public for a bonding referendum? Agenda Item 9.a. December 13, 2007 Agenda Prepared By: Planner Gartner 11.Councilor Jacobs – Ask the public a non-binding question if they would support a bond to pay for road improvements. 12.Loren Kohnen (PMC) – He does not feel that a bond issue would be passed by the voters. 13.Engineer Vander Top – Mr. Vander Top noted that the City needs a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to identify the road needs and priorities. The Laurent project had the benefit of being able to utilize already improved roads. 14.Mayor Guenthner – Suggested preparing cashflow scenarios for three potential bond options; $1, $2 and $4 million dollars. 15.Pat Hank (PMC & PC) – He wants to see a plan that is not challengeable by the big developers, that leaves the small developers holding the bag. 16.Councilor Jacobs – He indicated that the City runs the risk of “sloppy bookkeeping”, as the area charge issue goes further in time. 17.Attorney Langel – The legal case that is most discussed on the issue of fees is called “Country Joe vs. City of Eagan”. The courts sidestepped the issue of impact fees in their decision. Basically the City is allowed to charge developers impact fees because the courts have not disallowed them. Area charges entail a risk to the City charging them since there is no statutory authority that allows them. By contrast park dedication fees are statutorily allowed. The argument is that parks are a benefit to everyone and thus therefore are justified. Roads have a similar benefit to everyone and therefore would also be justified. 18.Mayor Guenthner – Can a tiered structure be established for MUSA vs. Non-MUSA areas? 19.Engineer Vander Top – The City’s fee structure is similar to the one that Maple Grove currently uses. 20.Mayor Guenthner – Should the City roll the dice and take the risk that the fees are not challenged? He is leery of charging an area charge in the MUSA area. He would like to get the “temperature” of the community for doing a bond. Are the council members willing to ask the citizenry? 21.Councilor Thomas – Suggested that the City consider charging $3000/unit outside the MUSA area and $1000/unit inside the MUSA area. 22.Bob Laddusaw (PMC & PC) – He favored a $4000/unit charge. 23.Planner Gartner – He noted that the City assessment policy for road improvements could be different inside vs. outside the MUSA line. 24.Councilor Jacobs – He indicated that citizens have moved to the City of Corcoran to be on gravel roads which they feel are “safer” roads. 25.A general comment was made that the City of Medina paved all their roads and now they are experiencing traffic speed and volume issues. 26.Planner Gartner – Could the League of Minnesota City’s propose a law authorizing traffic impact fees especially in light of the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis? COUNCIL DIRECTION The Mayor directed (with no objection from the council members present) that the City Engineer, City th Attorney and City Planner try and prepare various bonding models for the October 25 City Council meeting. No further action was taken by the City Council. MEETING ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Agenda Item 9.a. December 13, 2007 Agenda Prepared By: Planner Gartner Minutes prepared by City Planner, Norman Gartner from his notes.