Loading...
4.a 2 Log House Landing summary and comments from Andy PrattCOMMENTS FROM NDY PRATT REGARDING PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PREVIOUS LOG HOUSE LANDING DECISION BY THE COUNCIL Initial Discussion — LHL Improvement Protect Advisory Committee Recommendation Accepted • At the January 20, 2015 City Council meeting the Log House Landing Improvement Project Advisory Committee presented its recommendation to the Council, which consisted of a one- laned paved road 13' in width from Quinnell Avenue to the landing, slanted to the south with curb and gutter on that side, two asphalt pullouts, and a parking lane along the north side of the road with a pervious surface. The Council accepted this recommendation on a 4-1 vote (Schneider dissenting), with an amendment stating the north parking area was to be asphalt and the project be contingent on funding from the DNR and the Watershed. • Even at the next meeting, the discussion turned to perhaps providing some different driving surfaces on the reconstructed road, to keep the road close to a rustic state. A motion to table the project for a year was voted down 2-3. More clarity was sought on funding levels so no additional votes were taken. Prosect Put on Hold — Bound Aggregate to be Studied The Watershed clarified at the Council's February 17, 2015 meeting that it would participate 25% in the project, up to a max of $85,000. The Council then voted to "repurpose" the State Park Road Account Grant (in the amount of $200,000) to Quinnell Avenue road improvements, thereby putting the LHL Project "on hold" pending the outcome of the Watershed study about whether a new gravel surface on the road will present too much erosion into the River. At the May 6, 2015 work session, the Council unanimously voted to make a decision on the project after it received a report on the desirability of bound aggregate from the LHL Improvement Project Advisory Committee. That report was expected to be delivered July 1. (A declaration was made during the meeting that a plan to pave the road was studied and agreed upon months ago). There is no indication in the minutes that it ever was delivered. Shift to Boat Landing Proiect —Too Expensive At this time, the discussion about the reconstruction of the road to the landing seems to have stalled, and discussion was re-routed to doing a boat landing project, whether with planks or a stabilized ramp. An understanding emerged between the City and the Watershed that each entity would contribute up to $20,000 on this project, and an Army Corps permit would be applied for. The preliminary cost of $33,587 for the boat landing project was agreed upon at the December 15, 2015 Council meeting. The National Park Service had expressed a financial commitment of $15,000 for this work. Plans and specifications were then drawn up, discussed, and amended over the Spring and Summer of 2016. One bid was received, for an astronomical amount of $147,855.50, and this was rejected by the Council at its August 3, 2016 meeting, with an understanding to try again in Spring 2017. Re -thinking of Project The discussion has since shifted to a potential rethinking of the entire LHL project, to consider four options for the area: (i) continue with improvements to the ramp, I presume as voted on back in January 2015; (ii) restrict use of the ramp to be non -motorized; (iii) close the site COMMENTS FROM NDY PRATT REGARDING PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PREVIOUS LOG HOUSE LANDING DECISION BY THE COUNCIL completely; or (iv) leave the site as -is with no improvements. A public comment meeting on these issues has been scheduled for April 25, 2017. At the March 21 Council meeting, there was some discussion about what, if anything, should be said about the public meeting in the City's Spring newsletter. City staff and my office were then tasked with the mission to research what prior votes were for this project and what that may mean for future actions. There has been some discussion on whether it is possible for the Council to go back and re -consider the LHL project as a whole, given that the LHL Improvement Committee's recommendation was favored by the Council back in 2015, but was delayed pending the results of future study of the application of bound aggregate. Specifically, does a reconsideration of the Project consist of a disallowable "motion to reconsider," as that term is known under Robert's Rules of Order? I'm not a stickler on Robert's Rules, because I think a Council has wide discretion on what it should be able to discuss, and a Council (or future councils) should not be forever bound by a decision made at one point in time. Technically, under Robert's Rules, a motion to reconsider must be made by the prevailing side, on the same day in which the original motion was made. Obviously, that technical following of Robert's Rules is not possible here, as that time has passed. However, it has been pointed out that Chisago County followed the reconsideration process on reversing its Board's vote to allow an Islamic cemetery, which initially was denied 3-2 but was brought back up again (after Robert's Rules was suspended) and was passed on a 4-0 vote. The City Council should discuss at the April work session what it is hoping to get out of the April public meeting, and whether there is support for a total reconfiguration of the project. I would recommend holding off on a vote of this caliber until after the April 25 public comment session. Also, if Robert's Rules continues to be an issue, the rules may be suspended by a 2/3 vote of the Council (in this case, 4 out of 5 votes). Perhaps that's what Chisago County did with its suspension of the rules, as recommended by its attorney. I will be present at your work session next week to discuss this issue further, as after giving out this background I think it would be helpful to have Council discussion on this. The Robert's Rules reconsideration issue is not crystal clear either, and I would like other Councilmembers' thoughts on that subject as well.