Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2008 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday January 17, 2008 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30 PM 2. New Members Sworn In: (3) 6:32 PM • Jim Drennen, Term Ending 12/2011 • Chris Lyden, Term Ending 12/2011 • Steve Minar, Term Ending 12/2011 A. Introduce new members to Charter Commission 6:36 PM New commissioners give two -minute introduction 3. Pledge of Allegiance 6:42 PM 4. Approval of Agenda 6:43 PM 5. Open Mike 6:45 PM 6. Approval of Minutes, November 29, 2007 and January 11, 2007 6:46 PM 7. Old Business A. Discussion of Charter's Amendment at. Council Work Session 7:00 PM B. Communication Plan 7:15 PM C. Quarterly Finance Report 2007, 2008 and 5 -Year Plan Updates, City Administrator (read only) 8. New Business A. Annual Report, Chair 7:35 PM B. Letter to Judge Regarding Status, Commissioner Montain 7:40 PM C. Election of Officers 7:45 PM D. Set Agenda April 10, 2008 7:50 PM Adjourn 8:00 PM Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : January 11, 2007 . 6:34 P.M. : 10:13 P.M. : Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus, Vacha, Bening, Duffy, Storberg, Warren, Bor (arrived at 6:45 p.m.), Rosemary Williams, Richard Williams, and Carlson : Handrick, Montain, and Zastrow : None : None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Warren called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:34 p.m. on January 11, 2007. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The following items were added to the agenda: • Item 5C, CD's of Charter Minutes • Item 8C, Chair Comments • Item 8D, Terms of Charter Members • Item 8E, Legal Council The agenda was approved as amended. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 13, 2007 -Commissioner Carlson referred to sentence extending from line 73 to line 75 and after listening to the tape corrected the sentence to read "...can of worms if the judge is told now he is limited to one Council Member to the Commission." Commissioner Trehus referred to line 83 and requested that sentence be deleted. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Duffy, to approve the July 13, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 2 DRAFT October 12, 2007 -Commissioner Trehus referred to line 44 and corrected the sentence to read, "Commissioner Trehus stated he had invited the Commission, Community Development..." Commissioner Trehus referred to line 46, correcting the sentence, "because of staff attending a meeting..." Commissioner Storberg referred to line 150 correcting the sentence by adding "for discussion," after the word "seconded." MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the October 12, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CD's of Minutes Commissioner Dahl stated that she offered to supply a CD with the meeting minutes in a PFD format to any Commissioner at no charge, in addition to a copy for the closet. Commissioner Duffy noted that for a copy of the packet and minutes the cost was $7.00. Chair Warren indicated the PDF format could not be changed, and it was a great service she was offering. Commissioner Trehus stated he would like a copy of the CD. OLD BUSINESS A. Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion (Staff) Chair Warren tabled this item because there was no staff present. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment Chair Warren stated that the Commission issued an invitation to address the Charter Amendment with Council and City Staff. After several phone calls, there were concerns about the meaning of the response. The City Administrator noted the specific staff could not supply the depth for the project to go forward. The State and Charter requirement details needed to be understood by the Council and Commission. He recommended a training session for the Commission, staff and Council. Commissioner Trehus noted he disagreed with points a -d in the material the City Administrator gave for denying access to information. Commissioner Bening indicated he believed it was an acceptable response, and was in favor of a joint meeting. If Council wanted a change, they could propose it. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 3 DRAFT Commissioner Bor stated that it was not the position of City Staff to provide the information to assess if an amendment was necessary. Chair Warren responded he was speaking for Council and Staff. She believed they should work with the Commission, even if the request for specific City staff was ineffective. A joint meeting might help define what could and could not be done. Commissioner Trehus expressed concern they should allow access to City staff, and should not direct the Commission to training. He believed it was hindering the process. Commissioner Bening asked for clarification. Commissioner Trehus answered that the Commission requested information and was denied. The people holding the neighborhood surveys knew the issues. Commissioner Duffy indicated the intent of the Commission was to see if there was a viable alternative. She directed the Commission to a note from William Hawkins and Associates dated April 12, 2005 and addressed to the City Administrator referring to Minnesota Statute 410. Chair Warren noted the possibility that the Commission might not be inviting enough people or the right people. She wanted to involve the people who would move it forward. She recommended the item also be discussed at the next meeting. At the July meeting, the Commission would draft an amendment and have it ready for the vote. Commissioner Bor questioned if the letter gave any assurance that something could be in place. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any progress had been made since the last meeting. She believed it should be initiated to benefit the roads and recommended tabling the issue to allow Council and Staff to approach the Commission. Commissioner Vacha agreed that the issue should be tabled. Commissioner Carlson concurred, stating that Council should be motivating the Commission to act. Chair Warren stated that Council could make an amendment that might not serve the community. Commissioner Trehus responded he did not believe that Council was trying to work with the Commission. If the Commission did not go forth with the issue, the amendment concern did not automatically rest. He noted the City Administrator indicated that Council would decide. He was willing to go to a training session. Commissioner Storberg reminded the Commission of the stadium example. MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Rosemary Williams, to table any further discussion on road construction to be opened at the time of the Commission's choice. Motion carried unanimously. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 4 DRAFT Commissioner Bor noted the group expressed concern about requesting and obtaining information. The situation could continue as it had in the recent past. Commissioner Dahl added that it confused her that the staff people in question were not the appropriate individuals to speak with. If the Commission was not aware that an attorney was necessary as well, staff should have noted to include him. Chair Warren decided to delay the vote on this issue until after the Commission addressed the Mounds View Ballot Amendment. (See page 9 for vote.) A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment The Commission and Mounds View Charter Commission representatives introduced themselves. Jonathan Thomas is the Chair and Barbara Thomas is the Secretary of the Mounds View Charter Commission. Commissioner Dahl stated she went to their Charter Commission meeting to meet them and noted their meeting was on cable. She found them very gracious and brought them to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. Chair Warren greeted them and thanked them for coming. Mr. Thomas stated he has been the chair for the Mounds View Charter Commission for eight years. There was an original request to rewrite budgeting and taxation. The other request addressed TIF, however in their view it covered too much. They submitted eleven amendments, where two were rejected and the rest ignored by Council. The reason given was that it was in the wrong format, so Council was able to ignore them. They sought advice from an attorney because they wanted to draft a template structure. The content was if a vote was unanimous, then the amendment would be adopted, if not it would go to a majority vote. He referred to the subdivision, including a timing issue. They were told not to respond. As chair, he requested the City Attorney address the problems in the memo. In the end, two formats were drafted. Five amendments were drafted in the last three years, four of which were ordinances. All were adopted. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the number of Commissioners. Mr. Thomas answered there were 15 members, but currently only seven. Commissioner Storberg questioned if the Charter had been "watered down." Mr. Thomas responded it had been strengthened. Commissioner Storberg stated there was strong opposition to being a Charter city. Mr. Thomas answered there had been attempts to remove half of the Charter by a small group of the people on their Charter Commission. He was asked to be on the Commission as a negotiator. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 5 DRAFT Commissioner Storberg inquired if they received funding from Council. Mr. Thomas responded that Council could add to it, but the only money they spent was for the packet. Commissioner Storberg questioned if their Council allowed access to the City Attorney. Mr. Thomas stated they allowed access to the City Attorney one or two times per year. In the joint meetings, the City Attorney was present on behalf of the Council. Chair Warren inquired if Council made recommendations to the Charter. Mr. Thomas responded that they did make recommendations to the Charter; however, only a few requests required their input. Their Charter Commission also did research and discussion. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification concerning the budget in dealing with Council conflicts. Mr. Thomas stated they were working to restrict taxation, which was ignored. Fridley had worked on their Charter so that taxes would not be increased by more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus questioned if they had worked with Council. Mr. Thomas explained that there were four meetings with Council, presenting drafts and discussing them. He indicated that staff was helpful. Commissioner Trehus inquired about the reason Council would want limitations. Mr. Thomas stated the Charter could limit the less conservative Council members. Commissioner Trehus asked if the issue was written in the paper, or on cable. Mr. Thomas responded they had used both and the press called him several times a week at certain times. Commissioner Trehus questioned who had decided on the mechanics of the process. Mr. Thomas answered that he did the research on the balloting process. Ms. Thomas added that the clerk issue was different from the amendment side. Mr. Thomas explained that the clerk supplied information on timing and sent copies of documents to people. The entire Commission was involved. He distributed copies of the document. Once completed, they were converted to City Council resolutions. The form needed to be drafted by a legal firm to be voted on. He had requested to see the draft in the process and commented on it before the vote, because it needed clarification. He indicated that now they were in good standing because there was a continual interface. The agendas for joint meetings were created to foster common ground. When an amendment was put on the ballot the City requested it to be complete between the budgeting year, so "Effective on," was beginning the new budget year. Chair Warren noted that it appeared that they had significant access to the League of Minnesota Cities. However when the Charter Commission approaches them, they seem Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 6 DRAFT to want to dialogue with Council but not the Commission. Mr. Thomas answered he went to visit them. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any mailings were distributed. Mr. Thomas responded that there were no mailings; however, a statement was made and were replayed several times a week. As a result, 78% of the voters were in favor of the amendment, which was more than voted for the mayor. Ms. Thomas stated Council was financially very supportive of the limitations. It was an eight-year process to have it come together. Mr. Thomas stated taxes were not raised more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification. Mr. Thomas answered the lesser of the consumer price index, and was explained in three pages. It was the most difficult part in the Charter, but it was not the most important accomplishment. The most important accomplishment was the rest of chapter 7 that was clarified so that anyone could understand the process. Chair Warren inquired if they ever had difficulty with accessing City staff. Mr. Thomas admitted the tension was high when he began on the Commission. With the election of a new mayor, there was a fresh start. It took time to change the environment. Ms. Thomas stated at that time there was a new mayor and new City Attorney. Mr. Thomas added that some Commissioners would work with the mayor, but they were outnumbered. Ms. Thomas noted that the term for mayor was only two years. Mr. Thomas indicated there were originally 15 members on the Charter Commission, now there were only six members because many resigned. Commissioner Dahl inquired if the success rate was attributed to televising the meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that the impact of the meetings being televised was very small because less than 50% of the residents had cable. Commissioner Dahl questioned the guests concerning the impact of web streaming. The Charter Commission was not on the web as yet. Mr. Thomas responded it was on during the recent past, but they were in the process. He explained that five years ago they had joint meetings with Council to identify concerns that they could agree on. It was apparent that staff had concerns dating back 15 years that had not been addressed. Those were the first the Commission worked on. The second category was to identify things to be done, and define a process to go to voters for the decision. The third category was the concerns that were too much work, such as the system of taxation, upgrading chapter 7, chapter 5 referendums and recall. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 7 DRAFT Commissioner Trehus indicated that they had two members exercise a recall. Ms. Thomas clarified the difference between the repeal of an ordinance and recall. Recall was if an elected official was convicted of criminal activity it would be considered malfeasance, but the judge would require them to relinquish their position. Mr. Thomas explained that the court defines the terms as criminal behavior. It was clarified in their Charter in a footnote that was submitted to Commission guidelines that were drafted, and copies of the amendment were distributed. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the relationship between Council and Charter Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that her being a Council member and Commissioner was helpful because she knew the timing and scheduling in the City. Commissioner Storberg asked for clarification on the frequency of their meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that they used to meet once a year. Now they meet much more frequently, at times once per week. Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had concerns and requests about the Charter, but the Commission did not address those concerns. Chair Warren noted it would be understandable for Council to not want to be limited. Mr. Thomas stated that there were Charter cities and statutory cities where the City had considerable power. In a Charter city, a Council member could pull out something from the Charter and explain it. He believed a statutory city was a disadvantage. In a Charter city, a Council member could state that the Charter was their authority. Chair Warren mentioned that Council and Commission have more ownership of the Charter. Mr. Thomas added that it was a living document, and in his opinion the best form of government. The copy of Mounds View Charter did not have section 7.03. All the rest was adopted. He admitted it was difficult to get a legal copy to the public. Ms. Thomas clarified that it was difficult to know how to submit to ballot. Mr. Thomas referred to Minnesota Public Meeting Law, where it was required to be maintained on record at city hall, but not necessary to post on line. Any member of the public can address or petition for an amendment. The issue must be addressed by the Commission. The only example of term limits was for Council and mayor. It was not constitutional law, but it was in the Charter. There were other cities that had that provision in their Charters. Commissioner Bening noted that state statute had been changed. Chair Warren inquired about other goals their Commission had. Mr. Thomas responded there was a concern as to the classification of the items from the ballot or ordinance. If the issue was a substantive change to the powers of the Council and Charter it had to go Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 8 DRAFT to public vote. If the change was to explain and describe, it could be changed by an ordinance. Commissioner Trehus stated that if a provision was ignored, the Commission could not take the City to court, but an individual citizen could. Commissioner Bor inquired about the process in dealing with the outstanding issues. Mr. Thomas indicated he made a list from the notes brought from staff to the Commission. The Commission submitted eleven items and all were rejected. Then there were 25 items where some were concepts or a single word. They met every month, and some were joint meetings with Council. After a couple of months, they prioritized the items with 12-13 items in category A. Chapter 5 concerns could not go to ballot because it was not explained enough. Pictures were needed to explain it clearly and concisely. Chair Warren mentioned that a flow chart would be helpful for the road construction concern. Mr. Thomas continued that there were five appendices discussing items such as adopting a ballot issue and a timeline for adopting a ballot issue. The diagrams were necessary because of the timeline and extensive textual language necessary. He checked to make sure if it went to ballot, there was the technical capabilities available to handle diagrams. After receiving help it was now in the ordinance process. The attorney's comments stated there could be no conflict between dialogue and diagram, because the text would be legal if there was a conflict. The second was that the text should follow the diagram. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the reason for not putting the timeline in the Charter. Mr. Thomas indicated it would work to put it in the Charter, but he would prefer to put it in the by-laws. In their City, no one agreed on the Commission, and the Council could not explain it. Mounds View chose to put it in the by-laws. Commissioner Bening questioned if they used subcommittees over the years. Mr. Thomas responded that usually all was done by the entire Commission. When there were 13 members, they used them. A lot of research was done by individual Commissioners or through meetings or e-mails with staff. If a subcommittee is larger than a quorum, it must be made public. Chair Warren thanked the visitors, indicating their input was appreciated. Mr. Thomas stated he would e-mail the final draft of chapter 5. Ms. Thomas mentioned they were building a new list, so they were in a similar position as the Lino Lakes's Commission. Mounds View is at 13,000 population, and would be fully developed in about 20 years. Among them, there were 8,300 registered voters. She indicated they were willing to assist the Commission if needed. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 9 DRAFT Mr. Thomas indicated that Northfield Charter Commission recommended joint meetings with Council. Ms. Thomas added that they should visit staff at City Hall during working hours, and invite them to a meeting. Ms. Thomas stated that usually the Council, not the mayor was the communicator with the Commission. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment - continued Chair Warren reopened up the discussion. Commissioner Duffy expressed concern that staff was making it difficult to communicate with the Commission. She noted that the City Attorney had addressed the Commission. It was her main concern. Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission might want to make a statement that they had requested information and were denied. He indicated he would welcome a joint training for the Commission and Council. Commissioner Duffy noted that nothing changed until the attorney changed. Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Aldentaler, Dahl, Duffy, and Trehus) vote. Commissioner Bor stated she wanted to work with what the Commission had. She believed an offer should be made with a statement open to dialogue and training. Chair Warren stated that Council did not see the Charter as an advantage to them. With the negative dialogue after each meeting, there needed to be another means to address the issues if Council wanted to repeal the Charter. Commissioner Vacha indicated he believed that the issue was team building. He gave the example where a Commissioner went to staff up to two times per week before they came to a meeting. C. Annual Report - Paulette Warren, Chair Chair Warren stated a recap of the minutes was unnecessary because the Commission could change it. Commissioner Trehus stated that "accessible" was misspelled. Commissioner Duffy inquired about the reason for sending it to Washington County. Commissioner Trehus responded it was the newly drawn judicial district. In addition, the date needed verification. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 10 DRAFT MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the Annual Report correcting the misspelled word and inserting the correct information in the date. Motion carried unanimously. ON-GOING REPORTS A. Five Year Plan This item was tabled to the next Charter Commission Meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment This item was discussed earlier in the meeting. B. Annual Report By-laws Commissioner Duffy stated she was confused as to when the annual report was due. Commissioner Trehus responded chronologically it was December 31 of the following year. Commissioner Duffy indicated she read the by-laws and summarized the actions of the Commission. In practice, it was usually at the first meeting in January. Commissioner Trehus commented that the 2006 report would be submitted by October 2007. Previously, he had sent the report to the judge late one year and early another. It should be stated, "no later then the October meeting." Commissioner Bening inquired if a subcommittee could address the by-laws. Commissioner Dahl received the report from Chair Warren to send to the judge in accordance with the by-laws. Commissioner Bor requested the Charter and By-laws be addressed at the next meeting. C. Chair Comments Chair Warren stated she was resigning. She provided some recommendations. First, they needed to dialogue with staff and Council so all will know the benefits of the Charter. Second, to adopt some of the ideas from the visitors, prioritize the items to work on, find points of agreement that Council wants. Then the Commission should address the items of disagreement, but ones that can still be addressed cooperatively. Finally, the items of contention should be tabled until trust is built. The next chair should identify what works and what does not and then find out how the Commission could assist. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 11 D. Terms of Charter Members DRAFT Commissioner Duffy noted she reviewed the list, and members serve until they are replaced. She did not have an updated list. Chair Warren indicated that Bening had the list. Commissioner Carlson stated he had a hard copy of the list. Commissioner Trehus stated that they should add four years to each of the dates because of reappointment. E. Legal Council Commissioner Trehus stated that he believed they needed their own attorney. They needed to know the budget, because there was grey area on the statutory limit. He recommended a subcommittee to address the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to form a subcommittee to address the Commission's need of legal Council. Commissioner Bor stated that a good chair was just lost. She believed that if the Commission pursued obtaining its own legal Council, it would be seen as a defensive move. Chair Warren indicated that Mounds View hired their own counsel, and the advice was incorrect, so there was continued frustration. Commissioner Bor asked for clarification on the goal of hiring its own legal Council, and she expressed concern about approving a subcommittee action. Commissioner Trehus inquired if the City could say that staff would not come to a meeting. He stated the Commission should have access to an attorney. To put forth an amendment, it would behoove the Commission to have it reviewed by a lawyer. Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Bening, Carlson, Vacha, and Bor) vote. Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl formed the subcommittee. SET AGENDA — Chair Warren set the following agenda for the April 10, 2007 Charter Commission Meeting: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Open Mike Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 12 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 11, 2007 6. New Chair DRAFT 7. Old Business A. By-laws and Charter Compatibility -everyone B. Budget 8. On -Going Reports A. Five Year Plan 9. New Business 10. Set Agenda for July 2007 Meeting Chair Warren recommended that the Commissioners have direct communication with the City Administrator not the staff member in light of the recommendations for relationship building. Chair Trehus requested the 2005 and 2006 administrative expenditures in case there was a legal opinion. In addition if there were any statements concerning the Charter, they would also be helpful. Commissioner Dahl stated that $200 was used for printing. The agenda was approved. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Bor seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT . November 29, 2007 6:38 P.M. 9:45 P.M. Duffy, Dahl, Trehus, Bor, Richard Williams, Aldentaler, Storberg, Vacha, Bening, and Carlson Rosemary Williams, Zastrow, Handrick, Stockman Maher Montain None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Duffy called the special meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:38 p.m. on November 29, 2007. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Dahl stated that in Commissioner Zastrow's absence, he requested two additions to the agenda to include a vote by the Commission against the City Council's proposed Charter amendment, and to include a discussion by the Commission with respect to a brochure or flyer promoting the Charter Commission's proposed amendment. Commissioner Dahl stated she told Commissioner Zastrow that perhaps it would be best to wait on the brochure or flyer until after the City Council makes its decision regarding the amendment. Commissioner Vacha stated he felt the Commission should discuss this under New Business. Commissioner Bening requested that the Commission further discuss Section 8.09, subdivision 1, with respect to the 12% requirement for a petition. He stated he also would like to discuss a flyer that he saw recently regarding the West Shadow Lake Street Road Referendum. Commissioner Bor stated that since this is her last meeting with the Charter Commission, she would like to make a few comments at the end of the meeting. Chair Duffy stated she did not expect to see Ms. Marty at the meeting this evening. Ms. Marty stated she did not get the email indicating she did not need to attend this evening. Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 2 DRAFT 46 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt it was important to have legal counsel present. 47 48 Chair Duffy stated that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission discussed not having 49 Ms. Marty present this evening and to ask her to attend the City Council work session on 50 Monday, December 3rd. She stated she called all the Commissioners after the November 15th 51 meeting and the majority felt that counsel did not need to attend this evening. 52 53 Commissioner Trehus stated he did not receive a phone call and voiced his objection to Chair 54 Duffy. 55 56 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the agenda as 57 amended. Motion carried unanimously. 58 59 OPEN MIKE 60 61 Chair Duffy introduced Chris Lyden and stated Mr. Lyden will be joining the Charter 62 Commission in 2008. 63 64 Mr. Lyden stated he looks forward to working with the Charter Commission and added the 65 integrity of the Charter is the people's rights. 66 67 The Commissioners welcomed Mr. Lyden to the Charter Commission. 68 69 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 15, 2007 70 71 Commissioner Bor requested linel 83 be amended to strike the last seven words, to read 72 "maintenance and to outline how maintenance is funded." 73 74 Commissioner Richard Williams requested line 202 be stricken. 75 76 Commissioner Trehus requested lines 127 and 128 be amended to read "that a majority of the 77 Commissioner's don't agree with, it might not get passed by the Charter Commission." 78 79 Chair Duffy requested line 311 be amended to read "paid for by property owners, adding if road 80 improvements or reconstruction were done without a...". 81 82 Commissioner Trehus stated there appeared to be some confusion about the draft meeting 83 minutes because some of the line numbers on his draft of the minutes did not match with the line 84 numbers for revisions requested by other Commissioners. 85 86 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to approve the November 87 15, 2007, Charter Commission meeting minutes, as contained in the Charter Commission 88 meeting packet, and as amended. Motion carried. Commissioner Trehus voted nay. 89 Commissioner Bening abstained. Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 3 DRAFT 90 91 OLD BUSINESS - REVIEW DRAFT AMENDMENT FROM ATTORNEY 92 93 The Charter Commission reviewed Version #3 of the draft amendment prepared by Ms. Marty. 94 95 Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements 96 97 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.01. 98 99 Section 8.02. Relation to State Law 100 101 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.02. 102 103 Section 8.03. Power to Impose Special Assessments 104 105 Ms. Marty noted that street maintenance and sanitary sewer connections were added to this 106 section. 107 108 Commissioner Trehus asked if water should be included here. 109 110 Ms. Marty replied the Commission earlier stated it did not want water included here. 111 112 Commissioner Trehus asked if state law requires when a property is sold, you are required to 113 hook up to city utilities if available. 114 115 Ms. Marty replied it is not state law, but lenders require it. 116 117 Commissioner Bor stated the City's ordinances also require it. 118 119 Commissioner Carlson arrived at 7:08 p.m. 120 121 Section 8.04. How to Initiate Public Improvements for Which Special Assessments May Be 122 Imposed 123 124 Chair Duffy requested subd. 3 and subd. 4 be amended to replace the word "may" with the word 125 "shall" to read "the City Council shall...". 126 127 Chair Duffy requested the last sentence in subd. 5 also be amended to replace the word "may" 128 with the word "shall" to read "the City Council shall adopt a resolution...". 129 130 Commissioner Trehus stated he respectfully disagreed with Chair Duffy and felt it should remain 131 "may." 132 133 Chair Duffy agreed and stated it should be left "may." 3 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 4 DRAFT 134 Commissioner Bening stated he felt it was up to the discretion of the City Council if only 25% of 135 the owners are requesting public improvements. 136 137 Ms. Marty stated by using the word "shall," the Commission is requiring the City Council to 138 order a feasibility study if they get a petition; by using the word "may," the City Council can 139 choose not to order a feasibility study. 140 141 Commissioner Carlson felt it was appropriate to leave the word "may" in this section. 142 143 Commissioners Bor and Bening concurred. 144 145 Ms. Marty explained if the word "shall" is used in these subdivisions, and there is a petition that 146 gets submitted, the City will be required to do a feasibility study; there may be instances when 147 this is not practical. She felt it would be better to leave this to the Council's discretion. 148 149 Chair Duffy asked what would compel the City Council to order a feasibility study if, for 150 instance, all the property owners came to an agreement that they wanted their road fixed and 151 wanted a feasibility study done, but were only able to get a petition signed by less than 100%. 152 153 Ms. Marty stated it is important to remember the Charter is a concept document and it is not 154 possible to refine it to the point of defining who will have their petition considered and who will '' 155 not. 156 157 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.04. 158 159 Section 8.05. Feasibility Study 160 161 Commissioner Bening stated he would like to replace Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09 162 with something that is not so detailed and costly; he stated he drafted a proposal for the 163 Commission's consideration if there was interest. 164 165 Commissioner Bor stated her preference would be to review the remainder of Version #3 as 166 prepared by counsel and then entertain Commissioner Bening's proposal. 167 168 Commissioner Vacha concurred. 169 170 Commissioner Trehus asked about the use of the word "recommended" and what constitutes a 171 recommendation. 172 173 Ms. Marty replied that "recommended" public improvements provide an opportunity for staff to 174 say these are public improvements they recommend. 175 176 Commissioner Trehus asked whether using "recommended" public improvement gives the City a 177 chance to put their slant on what is being petitioned for. Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 5 DRAFT 178 Ms. Marty replied it does not. She added if a petition is for certain improvements, the feasibility 179 study will need to cover those, e.g., if the petition wants a road from Point A to Point B, staff 180 may say the road should go to Point C; it is expected that staff may modify the improvements 181 requested in the petition because staff will have information on some of the details of what is 182 needed and what is not needed that quite often a neighborhood won't have. 183 184 Commissioner Trehus stated the wishes of the citizens may be tweaked by staff and asked how 185 much they can be tweaked. 186 187 Ms. Marty replied once the staff work is done, the citizens get control again after that. 188 189 Commissioner Trehus stated the option that was petitioned for is no longer under consideration if 190 it has been changed into something else by the City and now the citizens would have to stop it. 191 192 Ms. Marty stated it is important to remember this is not about writing regulations and the Charter 193 document represents a policy statement, not a detailed operating manual on how to do things or 194 what to include in a feasibility study. 195 196 Commissioner Trehus asked whether state law requires that notice be sent to property owners 197 that a feasibility study is being conducted. 198 .•■""\ 199 Ms. Marty replied there is no requirement in state law; however, the City must send notice 200 whenever there is a public hearing on whether to order the work. She added the City Council can 201 order a feasibility study on anything at any time. 202 203 Commissioner Bening stated there are minimum standards that the City must adhere to with 204 respect to the roads. 205 206 Commissioner Storberg asked how this section will apply to storm water drainage and the 207 question of how improvements to the storm water facilities are assessed. 208 209 Ms. Marty replied the only way this relates to that is if you are paying a special assessment for 210 storm water management; the assessment has to be done under these procedures and it is capped 211 at the benefit you receive. She added any fees the City might impose for water running off land 212 would not be covered by the Charter. 213 214 Commissioner Trehus stated in subd. 2, one of the alternatives is to do only the street and asked 215 for clarification of this section. 216 217 Ms. Marty replied a court would go further back in the provision to find guidance; when one of 218 the alternatives includes just the street, it would not have curb, gutter, lights, etc. 219 220 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.05. 221 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 6 DRAFT 222 Section 8.06. Public Hearing 223 224 Commissioner Bening expressed concern that the last sentence regarding the notice of public 225 hearing is by itself and felt it was the Commission's intent that notice be sent by certified mail to 226 only the property owners benefiting from the project. 227 228 Ms. Marty stated that notice is never sent to everybody, only to the affected property owners. 229 230 Commissioner Bening suggested amending this section to delete the last sentence and amending 231 the third sentence to read "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public 232 hearing that is sent to the owner of a lot shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the 233 information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that lot." 234 235 Commissioner Dahl stated the notice should only be sent to the affected property owners. 236 237 Commissioner Trehus noted that the terms property owner and affected property owner were 238 previously used and Section 8.06 refers to "lot." 239 240 Ms. Marty stated "lot" is a concept defined in Section 8.04, subd. 4. She agreed that Section 8.06 241. should use the term affected property owner. 242 "asN 243 It was the consensus of the Commission to strike the last sentence of Section 8.06 and to amend 244 the third sentence of Section 8.06 to read: "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice 245 of the public hearing that is sent to the affected property owner shall be sent by certified mail, 246 and shall include the information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that affected property 247 owner." 248 249 Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences 250 251 Commissioner Trehus stated that there are different ways that preferences can be indicated and 252 recorded and asked if there is any way to state that when preferences are sent in, that they not get 253 lost and also to state that the preferences are public information. 254 255 Ms. Marty replied that requiring that nothing be lost is a lofty goal and it is important to remain 256 realistic about this, adding it is not possible to write regulations in the charter. She stated the 257 other issue raised by Commissioner Trehus is having secret ballots. This section requires that 258 they be signed by property owners. She stated if there is a question and the ordinances adopted 259 allow those preferences to be private, then the question would have to go to a judge in camera 260 and the judge would double check the legitimacy of the counting. She stated she did not know 261 how that could be applied to this provision. 262 263 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission discussed this earlier and he recalled the consensus 264 was to go with petitions because it was easier if the language in the Charter says petitions and 265 there won't be concerns about a secret ballot or a concern about names getting lost. Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 7 DRAFT 266 Ms. Marty stated there appears to be a conflict in what is being talked about. She indicated the 267 early concern by the Commission was that a petition was used for more than one thing. She 268 stated since the preferences can vary by person because we are allowing that here, it is a property 269 owner by property owner thing. She added having a petition actually makes it more likely that 270 people's wishes will not be followed because it makes it more cumbersome; this gives people the 271 chance to send a quick note stating "this is what I want." 272 273 Commissioner Vacha stated the Commission came to an agreement on this issue. He stated if the 274 Commission is going to change this, it needs to be done by a majority vote. 275 276 Commissioner Bor concurred and stated the Commission needs to remain cognizant of its budget 277 and respect Ms. Marty's time. She stated the Commission is going to require legal counsel going 278 forward and felt it would be best to move forward with Version #3. 279 280 Commissioner Trehus asked is residents are required to indicate their preference from the 281 preferences determined by staff. 282 283 Ms. Marty replied in the affirmative. 284 285 Commissioner Trehus suggested revising the first sentence of subd. 2 to read: "Property owners 286 who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a 287 preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a 288 different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 289 290 It was the consensus of the Commission to revise the first sentence of Section 8.07, subd. 2, to 291 read: "Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be 292 considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the 293 petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 294 295 Section 8.08 City Council Action 296 297 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern that this does not address one of the Commission's 298 earlier bullet points that said 25% or more can initiate a project and 25% can also end the project 299 unless a greater petition comes forth. He added a project could be approved with a small minority 300 of people in favor of it. He stated it is possible to get a petition to go on the ballot potentially 301 without a referendum. He provided a hypothetical situation in which 25% of the residents 302 indicate their preference for a road, curb, sewer, water, and bike path, and because this is the 303 largest number of property owners who signed the petition, this 25% wins. He stated there is no 304 recourse for those people who would have preferred, for example, no bike path. 305 306 Chair Duffy stated they get a second waiting period pursuant to Section 8.08, subd. 2. 307 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 8 DRAFT 308 Commissioner Trehus stated his understanding was that the Commission wanted a better process 309 for projects and neighborhood involvement; this provision allows them to petition for a 310 referendum. 311 312 Commissioner Vacha suggested that the Commission review Commissioner Bening's proposed 313 amendments to Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09 at this time. 314 315 Commissioner Bor respectfully disagreed and stated that the Commission agreed to proceed with 316 its review of Version #3 and asked Chair Duffy to table Commissioner Trehus's concerns. 317 318 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt there was a very simple solution that provides a means for 319 getting a project the neighbors can live with, i.e., a ranked ballot where people indicate their 320 preference. 321 322 Chair Duffy tabled Commissioner Trehus's suggested amendment. 323 324 Section 8.09 Taxpayer Referendum 325 326 Commissioner Bening expressed concern about the use of a percentage of the number of votes 327 cast: for mayor in the last mayoral election to trigger a referendum. He stated that one year, there 328 may be 4,000 voters in the mayoral election and the following year there may be 2,000 voters, 329 resulting in the percentage going up or down. He stated that people might say one time they 330 needed 500 signatures while the following year they only needed 100 signatures, which raises an 331 issue of equality under the law. 332 333 Ms. Marty stated the 12% requirement is the result of significant discussion by the Commission. 334 She stated the question ought to be what is the point of having signatures on a petition at all? 335 She opined there can be several reasons to require a petition. One is to make sure somebody isn't 336 holding up something that everybody wants. Another is that a petition is a representative sample 337 of the community that wants something. She stated in this situation, the Commission seems 338 highly disposed to keep that control with the taxpayers. She indicated if that is the real concern, 339 then the number of signatures required on the petition should be kept very low; if the idea is to 340 have a representative sample, then a percentage is appropriate and that number should be high 341 enough to make sure there is community support. 342 343 Commissioner Aldentaler felt the number should be kept low. 344 345 Commissioner Storberg stated it appears that the Charter Commission is uncomfortable with the 346 percentage requirement in this section and asked whether it might be appropriate to have the 347 Commission vote again on the issue. 348 349 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Chair Duffy, to reconsider the percentage 350 requirement to trigger a referendum in Section 8.09, subdivision 1. 351 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 9 DRAFT 352 Further Discussion 353 354 Commissioner Bening asked if the percentage could be tied to the number of registered voters, 355 which represents a more stable figure. 356 357 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt the Commission first needs to decide if it wants an automatic 358 referendum. 359 360 Chair Duffy asked if the Commissioners are interested in having what Ms. Marty described as an 361 easier way for people to petition rather than the 12% requirement, or whether it wants a more 362 representative sample of the people within the city. She felt that would help the Commission 363 decide what the number should be. 364 365 Commissioner Bening stated he would like to see a higher percentage. 366 367 Commissioner Trehus reiterated that the Commission first needs to decide if it wants to limit the 368 automatic referendum or go with the automatic referendum. He stated this question was never 369 posed to the Commission. He added the Commission was split five to five on this issue at its 370 November 15th meeting. 371 372 Commissioner Storberg stated her motion is intended to determine if the Commission wants to 373 change what has already been voted on. 374 375 Chair Duffy stated if the Commission intends to reconsider the percentage required under 376 subdivision 1 of Section 8.09, then it needs to discuss what that number should be. 377 378 The Charter Commission recessed at 8:18 p.m. 379 380 The Charter Commission reconvened at 8:23 p.m. 381 382 Chair Duffy tabled Commissioner Storberg's motion and requested input on Commissioner 383 Bening's proposed amendments to Sections 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, 8.08, and 8.09. 384 385 Ms. Marty stated she has read Commissioner Bening's proposed amendments and stated she sees 386 issues that have been discussed already. She suggested that Commissioner Bening's proposed 387 amendments be discussed by the Commission after she leaves the meeting. 388 389 Chair Duffy stated the motion on the table is whether the Commission desires to reconsider the 390 percentage required under Section 8.09, subdivision 1, to trigger a referendum. 391 392 Commissioner Dahl asked Commissioner Storberg if she wants the percentage to be lower. 393 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 10 DRAFT 394 Commissioner Storberg replied she would like to see if the Commission wants to reconsider the 395 percentage in general. She stated it appears this is a sticking point and she would like to see 396 where the other Commissioners stand on the subject. 397 398 Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl voted in favor. Commissioner Bening and 399 Commissioner Bor abstained. The remainder of the Charter Commission members voted nay. 400 401 Motion failed. 402 403 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus that the automatic referendum currently under the Charter be 404 put to a vote of the Commission members and that the Charter Commission hold discussion prior 405 to the vote. 406 407 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt it was important for the Commission to further discuss this 408 matter primarily because there was a split vote on the issue at the last meeting. 409 410 Commissioner Dahl seconded the motion by Commissioner Trehus. 411 412 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern about restricting the rights of voters to a referendum. 413 414 Commissioner Carlson stated he felt the City has a problem with its roads and it must be 415 addressed. He stated he is proposing that the Charter allow more freedom for staff and the 416 Council. He added that the residents are going to vote on the Charter amendment and if they 417 don't like the amendment that comes forward, they have the option to vote it down. 418 419 Commissioner Bening proposed getting rid of the referendum. 420 421 Chair Duffy stated this has been the main issue since the Charter Commission began its work in 422 July. She stated her notes from the July 19th meeting reflect that she asked everyone if they were 423 comfortable getting rid of the Charter blanket referendum and at that time, everyone stated they 424 were comfortable, as long as there is a means in place for the residents to be heard and for the 425 residents to be able to indicate their preferences. 426 427 Commissioner Bor called the question. 428 429 Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl voted in favor. Commissioners Vacha, 430 Aldentaler, Bening, Bor, Carlson, Storberg, and Richard Williams, and Chair Duffy voted nay. 431 432 Motion failed. 433 434 Commissioner Bening requested Ms. Marty's legal opinion regarding the percentage 435 requirements changing from year to year given the number of votes cast for mayor in the last 436 mayoral election. 437 10 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 11 DRAFT 438 Ms. Marty stated this does not create a problem from a legal point of view. 439 440 Chair Duffy requested clarification regarding subd. 5 where it states that the City Council "may" 441 approve the public improvements by resolution at any time during the next year and asked if the 442 word "shall" should be inserted in place of "may." 443 444 Ms. Marty suggested revising subd. 5 to clarify the first sentence to read: "When proposed public 445 improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the 446 public improvements." 447 448 It was the consensus of the Commission to amend the first sentence of Section 8.09, subd. 5, to 449 read: "When proposed public improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall 450 adopt a resolution approving the public improvements." 451 452 Section 8.10 Specified Commercial Areas 453 454 It was the consensus of the Commission that no changes were required in Section 8.10. 455 456 Further Discussion Regarding Indication of Preferences 457 458 Chair Duffy requested the Charter Commission revisit Commissioner Trehus's ballot issue and '^ 459 asked if this results in instant run-off voting. 460 461 Commissioner Trehus replied it could be, with perhaps a different method of tabulating votes. He 462 presented proposed language for the Commission's review which asked the question "do you 463 want a ranked ballot" and to rank in order of preference what residents want, followed by an 464 instant run-off. He stated by doing a ranked ballot, you eliminate the possibility of a minority 465 getting a project approved. He felt this was the only way that you can get a project that 466 everybody can live with. He added then you will not need the petitioning for a referendum by 467 neighbors that can't live with the project. He stated if the taxpayers want to petition, they have 468 that option. He felt this provides for a really good process in the neighborhood and it is easy to 469 implement. 470 471 Chair Duffy asked how this would be implemented. 472 473 Commissioner Trehus replied it would use instant run-off methodology and felt that Ms. Marty 474 could draft appropriate language. 475 476 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus to include language with respect to ranked ballots in the 477 neighborhood process as opposed to the language currently contained in the amendment. 478 479 Hearing no second to the motion, the motion failed. 480 11 rN, Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 12 DRAFT 481 Commissioner Storberg stated the purpose of the public hearing is to gain citizen input and it 482 provides an opportunity for citizens to object to a project. 483 484 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt the current language does not provide the best option for 485 residents. 486 487 Chair Duffy stated that they are not able to guarantee that every right in every last situation that 488 might come before the City Council is covered under the Charter. 489 490 Commissioner Trehus requested further discussion of a scenario in which the minority wins on a 491 proposed project. 492 493 Chair Duffy called for a point of order and stated the review of the draft amendment has been 494 completed. 495 496 SUBMITTING AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION 497 498 Commissioner Bor stated it will be important to make a clear and concise presentation to the 499 Council at the work session on December 3ra 500 501 Commissioner Trehus requested clarification of the reason for bringing Ms. Marty to the work .0.0` 502 session on December 3ra 503 504 Chair Duffy stated when the proposed amendment is presented to the City Council, there may be 505 legal questions from the Council that Ms. Marty can answer on behalf of the Charter 506 Commission. 507 508 Commissioner Bor noted that the Charter Commission is proposing that this amendment 509 supersede the advisory commission's proposed amendment. 510 511 Commissioner Trehus stated the timeline shows the amendment will be presented on the 2008 512 general election ballot. He felt if there were questions, there would be ample opportunity to 513 address any questions before the 2008 election. 514 515 Chair Duffy stated the City Council will be given an opportunity to review the Charter 516 amendment over the weekend; it is hoped this will provide for a good dialogue on Monday 517 evening of what the Charter Commission's amendment has to say, with Ms. Marty present. 518 519 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to have only Chair 520 Duffy and Ms. Marty speak at the December 3rd City Council work session meeting. 521 522 Commissioner Dahl stated this is a public meeting. 523 12 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 13 DRAFT 524 Ms. Marty stated when you attend a City Council work session, typically the Council will have 525 read through the packet, they will know the issue, they have the task force's draft amendment and 526 now they have the Charter Commission draft amendment. She stated when the Council holds a 527 work session, they are going to want to know why they should look at this document, what it 528 does for them and the citizens, and they will likely be confused about some of it. She stated she 529 felt the best way is for there to be an initial speaker who explains why the Charter Commission 530 felt compelled to revise the Charter and further explains what the proposed amendment does for 531 the city and its residents. She recommended that following the initial speaker, two or three 532 others could address specific areas of the proposed amendment to further explain the various 533 sections of the document and answer any questions. She stated she will attend to answer any 534 legal questions that may come up at the meeting. 535 536 Commissioner Trehus stated he felt Ms. Marty should be the initial speaker. 537 538 Ms. Marty respectfully disagreed, stating that it would be more beneficial to have a 539 Commissioner speak to the Council. 540 541 Commissioner Bor asked Ms. Marty to prepare a short outline containing her recommendations 542 for presenting the amendment to the City Council with succinct talking points. She reiterated the 543 importance of honoring the process and to select people who are neutral and have the highest 544 potential to be heard by the City Council. 545 546 Commissioner Carlson stated he felt Chair Duffy should take the lead at the Council work 547 session. 548 549 Commissioner Bening called the question. 550 551 Commissioner Dahl requested a friendly amendment to the motion to state that all members of 552 the Charter Commission should try to attend the December 3rd City Council work session 553 meeting. 554 555 Commissioner Vacha stated an amendment to the motion is not necessary. 556 557 Commissioner Carlson stated he is not opposed to other people speaking at the work session; he 558 would like to have Chair Duffy take the lead at the meeting. 559 560 Motion carried unanimously. 561 562 MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve Version #3 563 of the draft Charter amendment, with the minor revisions as agreed upon earlier, for presentation 564 to the City Council on December 3, 2007. 565 566 Further Discussion 567 13 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 14 DRAFT 568 Commissioner Bening stated he felt there was too much micromanaging in some areas of the 569 amendment. He stated he was not in agreement with the changes proposed by Commissioner 570 Trehus and indicated he felt the procedure for having to petition for a referendum was unwieldy. 571 He stated his objection to using the mayoral election as a basis for the percentage to trigger a 572 referendum and preferred to use a number that was more constant. He stated with all due respect, 573 he would be voting no. 574 575 Motion carried. Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Bening voted nay. 576 577 Ms. Marty provided further guidance to the Commission regarding the December 3rd work 578 session meeting. She noted that state law gives the Commission the power to propose an 579 amendment to the Charter that would be placed on the 2008 ballot. She added state law requires 580 that any amendment be adopted by 51% of the votes cast. 581 582 Chair Duffy stated the Commission has now approved its draft amendment to be presented to the 583 City Council; she asked if the Commission should vote on the Council's amendment. 584 585 Ms. Marty replied it is not necessary. 586 587 Commissioner Dahl suggested that the agenda item suggested by Commissioner Zastrow 588 regarding a brochure or flyer be tabled. 589 590 Ms. Marty left the meeting at 9:33 p.m. 591 592 NEW BUSINESS 593 594 Commissioner Bening stated he would like to postpone discussion about the flyer that he saw 595 recently regarding the West Shadow Lake Street Road Referendum. 596 597 Commissioner Bening announced that he will be undergoing triple bypass surgery on Tuesday, 598 December 4, 2007. The Charter Commission expressed their best wishes to Commissioner 599 Bening for a successful outcome. 600 601 Commissioner Bor expressed her appreciation to the Charter Commission and stated it was a 602 privilege to serve on the Commission. 603 604 Chair Duffy presented a plaque to Commissioner Bor expressing the Charter Commission's 605 appreciation to her for her time and service on the Commission. 606 607 Chair Duffy also presented plaques to Commissioners Handrick and Rosemary Williams in their 608 absence. 609 610 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to adjourn the special 611 meeting at 9:45 p.m. 14 Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 15 DRAFT 612 Chair Duffy expressed her thanks to all of the Commissioners for their time and commitment 613 during the last several months. She stated she felt the Commission's proposed amendment is a 614 good alternative and is hopeful the Council will accept it. 615 616 Commissioner Trehus called for a point of order. He stated Item 7A was not discussed and asked 617 if the January 10, 2008 meeting could be moved to January 17, 2008. 618 619 SET AGENDA — JANUARY 2008 620 621 It was the consensus of the Commission to move the January 2008 meeting to Thursday, 622 January 17, 2008. 623 624 Commissioner Bening called the question. 625 626 Motion carried unanimously. 627 628 Respectfully submitted, 629 630 Barbara Hughes 631 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 15 Date: To: From: Re: WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item #7 January 7, 2008 City Council Julie Bartell, City Clerk Gordon Heitke, Administrator Charter Amendment Process WS — Item 7 ij-i / Wo8 C6cuac:r { cfel -- review c f Ck&rte peprosal War* ce5:51 Background After receiving the report and recommendations of the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Local Improvements in July 2007, the council acted to refer the attached proposed amendment to Chapter VIII of the City Charter (Public Improvements and Special Assessments) to the Charter Commission. This referral follows the process established by state statute for amendments proposed by council (Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subd. 5). The Charter Commission elected to draft a substitute amendment and submitted such to the city clerk on November 30, 2007. The council received the Charter Commission's substitute amendment at a work session on December 3 and subsequently officially received the document at the council meeting on December 10, 2007. Review Process and Timeline The process for charter amendments is governed by state statute. Amendments may be initiated by the voters (by petition), the council (by ordinance) or the charter commission (by petition or referral to the city council). At this time, the council officially has two proposed amendments before them and state statute establishes the council's options: To the ballot - Under Subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statutes 410.12, the council may submit to the people (at a general or special election) the amendment originally proposed by the council or the substitute amendment proposed by the charter commission. The council is responsible for fixing the form of the ballot or, in other words, approving the ballot language. If either of the amendments is sent to the ballot, they would require for approval 51 percent of the votes cast to be in favor of adoption. By council action - Subdivision 7 of Minnesota Statutes 410.12 establishes an alternative process for charter amendments by ordinance. This section allows a city council to enact a charter amendment that it has received from the charter commission after an established public hearing process and with an affirmative vote of all council members. The amendment would then be subject to a 90 day "waiting period" during which a petition requesting a referendum on the matter may be submitted by the voters. This option would apply only to the charter amendment proposed by the charter commission. The council is not obligated to act on the amendments but if they so desire, the amendment must be in the form of an ordinance and the city charter requirement for two readings would apply. If the council is interested in putting an amendment on the fall 2008 ballot, the key dates are as follows: September 8 September 11 November 4 December 4 Requested Council Direction Last regular council meeting for council to fix ballot language Anoka County Elections deadline to receive amendment language for ballot Election day — 51% approval required for passage (if approved by voters) amendment becomes effective The following is a proposed general schedule and process to accomplish a review of the Charter Commission's substitute amendment. The process and timeline is designed to provide the Council an opportunity ity to pursue all options, including the lengthiest option of proposing a new amendment different from the Council's original amendment and the Charter Commission's substitute amendment, and providing the Charter Commission the statutory 60 review period and an additional 90 days (should they exercise that option). January 7 Work Session Week of January 21 (January 21 is a legal holiday) February 4 Work Session February 18 March 3 Work Session March 17 Initiate technical review of the Charter Commission's substitute amendment by bond counsel, financial advisors and city staff Optional work session, if needed Review, discuss technical review report and recommendations, provide further direction Optional work session, if needed Review, discuss any additional directed work Optional work session, if needed 2 March 24 Regular Meeting First reading of ordinance, if a new amendment is proposed April — September Charter Commission review, if a new amendment is proposed September 8 Regular Meeting Second reading of ordinance, if a new amendment is proposed. Last regular council meeting for council to fix ballot language Attachment(s) 1. Ordinance No. 07-07 Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments; 2. Charter Commission substitute amendment to Chapter 8. 3. Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 3 1° Reading: July 9, 2007 Publication: 2n° Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 07-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER B OF THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PUBUC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed: Section 8.01. Power to Make lmprovoments and Levy A_..a crr ri . Tho City may mako any type of public improvements Rot forbicidon by 13w and low local character. The total arf.�csments for any local improver i nt may not oxrrcd the cart of the improvement, including al! cow and--eperces -conned therewith, wkh- erterort. too aoebrment shall cm -cad the banofrts to the proporty. cxcluciv3iy undor iho provioions of this Charter. osso:rmont -districts, public hearings,-appc3is f a- collection of a,secsments, contained in this Charter. percent (25%) in number of the benofified property owneFc (A beReftted import/ owner can only sign once regardioss -of the number of benofitted pameis owned and a nature and scope of propoeed irRproverRer t including the nuFnber of benefitted -property improvement petting forth therein the time, place and purpose of ouch hoaring. Such thc City no less than two (2) weei-.s prior to the date of said hearing, and iR -additioa notice, or any defects in thc notice, chall not invalidate tho proceedings. ah on tho proposed improvement If within such zixty (50) day -period, in a petitioning the Council. f •tin.i..:.�•2 ®or.� Lse+n ret a proa..iebr Su i s f .� S_b.�. _ �..... �.....�.... _........ _...... r. _ ....,..� .s of ��bd� ..ion 4 0. this, s,. acxn, w427, -" is than one hundred (100%) porcont of the eotimatod coot of the pnDpocad improvement is to bo paid for by :pedal ane ci ents, connection charges,or any ocrthide funding sources other than the City gonorel fund, tho Council chat! whin one (1) time only. (1) year aftor tha public hcaring on said improvement that tho cost of City cervices to stFeets,-sidewa , or mor public ar e pFapsrfy Section Z. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.01 to read as follows: Section 8.01. Local improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements' means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition onto once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments b pay all or any cart of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for ariv local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the improvement including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the benefit b the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.02 to read as follows: Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and the such objections with the city clerk Prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the Presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting b be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 dans prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shat[ publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Such 'published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial .mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners Who filed obiections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and rnav consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the 'plans or financing for such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 3.5 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Whin five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written obiections regarding the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk Prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. Subdivision 4. If timely objections are not filed by the required number of Property owners under Subdivision 2 of this Section, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section do not apply b the subiect local improvements, and all subsequent procedures for approval of and levying of special assessments for those local improvements shall be. in accordance with state law, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1, clause (f), a resolution ordering the local improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the hearing by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement and when there has been no such Petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 8.0-73. Local improvement Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. — - _ = - = = - _ - - - - - = ' In the geographic areas of the City described in Subdivision 2, the construction of bcal improvements, the levy of special assessment for the financing of those improvements must be conducted in accordance with procedures specified in state law. Subdivision 2. Subdivision 1 applies b land within three (3) geographic areas, each not exceeding 430 acres, legally described as folbws: AREA NO. 1 - Trunk Highway #49 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid .-� Highway #23 intersection (Lake Drive) -All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN.. 30-31-22-210D01 -That part of Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17, Auditors Subdivision No. 151 tying south and east of State Trunk Highway #49 (Hodgson Road) right-of-way AREA NO. 2 - interstate 135E and County Road 242 (Main Street) Interchange - Northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 - That part of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 tying north of Cedar Street - East one half (112) of the southwest one quarter (114) of Section 24 - East one half (112) of the northwest one quarter (1/4) of Sectbn 24 AREA NO. 3 Interstate 135W and Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive) Interchange - North one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 18 - That part of the south one half (112) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 18 tying north of the interstate 135W right-of-way - That part of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive) right-of-way - Alt of the northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 with the exception of that part of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of said northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 as follows: beginning at a point at the intersection of the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4) with the east right-of-way line of Trunk Highway #49; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way line 938.14 feet (+ or -) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 (+ or -) feet to east line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4); thence south along said east line 588.5 (+ or -) feet b the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or -) to the point of beginning. - The north 720 feet of that part of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 tying west of the Anoka County Park property - That part of the north one half (112) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 tying west of the Anoka County Park property - That part of the north one half (112) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 tying west of the Anoka County Park property - The south one half (1/2) of southeast one quarter (114) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 - The southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 - The east 330 feet (+ or -) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 Subcfiucion 3. Whon construction of local iFni3Fovamonte, tl4e iew of =glacial unless the ownor, 3t hiathor option, in tho ftturo olocts b cannoct to or use tho •improvcmonts ronctructod by the City. Any notices of hearing m3ilod b �Jct< cinglc proporty. John Bergeson, Mayor Attest Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The Lino Lakes Charter Commission has completed its review of Ordinance 07-07, proposing amendments to Charter Chapter VIII, Public Improvements and Special Assessments. We understand the concerns being raised by the City Council. Rather than simply approve or reject the Council proposed amendment, we have prepared a substitute amendment that we believe strikes a better balance between the concerns of the City Council and the concerns shared by many Lino Lakes residents. We also recognized the opportunity to clean up confusing language, clarify procedures, and generallyrnak. Chapter VIII of the Charter more readable and useful to everyone. Attached is the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The most significant provisions are as follows: 1. A referendum is no longer required for a road reconstruction project. When a project would be paid for out of the general revenue fund, taxpayers may petition for a referendum. This preserves the rights of the taxpayers to stop projects, while also requiring that enough taxpayers sign a petition.. 2. Special assessment projects may be initiated in three ways. One, if all the property owners agree to pay all of the cost of the project, as in the existing Charter, the City Council may approve the project just as described in state law. Two, if more than 25% of the property owners (but less than 100%) petition for a project, the City Council may order a feasibility study by a 3/5 majority. Three, the City Council itself may initiate a project by a 4/5 -majority vote. 3. After the feasibility study is done, notices are sent to the affected property owners with enough detail to let them know how the public improvements will change the look and use of property around them, and an estimate of their special assessment. 4. The feasibility study will need to include alternatives, so that the residents and the City Council can see what it would cost to do some, rather than all, of the project. Those alternatives also would be included in the information sent to the affected property owners. 5. Property owners would be given a chance to indicate which alternative they prefer. Rather than building or rejecting an entire project, this will give the City the flexibility to do special assessment projects approved by the neighborhoods. The Charter Commission respectfully recommends that the City Council place this amendment on the ballot in November of 2008. Respectfully submitted, 0A1,1/44 ,-dc:Tho Cori M. Duffy Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements. Subdivision 1. Power. The City may make any type of public improvements not forbidden by law. Subd. 2. Local nature of improvements. All public improvements funded in part through either general revenue or special assessments shall be primarily designed to give a direct benefit to property currently occupied by residents or businesses in the City. Public improvements primarily designed to open up new areas of the City for development may not be funded in part through general revenue or through special assessments (except as provided in Section 8.04, Subd. 3 below). Section 8.02. Relation to State Law. Except as otherwise specified in this Charter, the City shall follow the procedures set forth in state law relating to local improvements and special assessments. Section 8.03. Power to Impose Special Assessments. Subdivision 1. Need a special benefit. The City may impose special assessments to pay for all or a part of the cost of the public improvements when the public improvement provides a special benefit to adjacent or nearby properties, except as provided in Subd. 2 below. Subd. 2. Street maintenance. The City shall not impose special assessments for maintenance of its streets. Maintenance includes overlays, sealcoating, and other improvements to care for the street surface between the date the street was constructed and the date the street will be reconstructed. Subd. 3. Sanitary sewer connections. When public improvements include sanitary sewers, the City shall not require an adjacent or nearby property to connect to those sewers if the property is served by a properly working private sewage disposal system (e.g., a septic system). The property may be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system when either the private sewage disposal system fails, or the property is conveyed to a new owner, whichever occurs first. Subd. 4. Uniformity and maximum. Special assessments shall be imposed uniformly on similar properties. The special assessment on each property shall not exceed the benefit to that property. Section 8.04. How to Initiate Public Improvements for Which Special Assessments may be Imposed. Subdivision 1. Policy. The City desires to protect existing residents and businesses from having to pay special assessments for public improvements they do not want. Therefore, the process for initiating public improvements is restrictive. Sub& 2. Three ways to initiate public improvements. Special assessments may not be imposed for public improvements unless the public improvements are initiated in one of the ways described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 below. Subd. 3. Petition signed by 100%. The owners of 100% of the property proposed to be specially assessed for public improvements may present a petition to the City Council. The petition shall generally describe the public improvements to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The petition must be accompanied by an agreement that these owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the public improvements. Upon receipt of such a petition and agreement, the City Council may adopt a resolution to initiate these public improvements by a simple majority vote. These public improvements need not comply with Section 8.01, Subd. 2 above. Aside from the requirements of this subdivision, state law shall govern these public improvements. Subd. 4. Petition signed by 25% or more. The owners of more than 25%, but less than 100%, of the property proposed to be specially assessed for the public improvements may present a petition to the City Council. The petition shall generally describe the public improvements to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The City Council may adopt a resolution ordering a feasibility study for these public improvements by a majority vote of all members of the City CounciL In determining whether sufficient signatures are present on the petition, the following four rules shall be followed: (1) The signers must own at least 25% of the total number of lots proposed to be specially assessed. For unplatted property, each existing parcel of land shall be considered one lot. The owner of a small lot gets one vote, the same as the owner of a large lot. (2) If more than one person owns a particular lot, only one signature will be counted for that lot. (3) If more than one lot is owned by a person, that person's signature will be counted only once. (4) If multiple owners of a lot also own an additional lot or lots, only one signature will be counted for all the owners and all their lots. This is intended to keep any one owner from dominating the process. -2- Sub& 5. No petition. The City Council may initiate public improvements without a signed petition. The resolution shall generally describe the public improvement to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The City Council may adopt a resolution ordering a feasibility study for these public improvements by the affirmative vote of four-fifths all members of the City Council. Section 8.05. Feasibility Study. Subdivision 1. Contents. Once public improvements have been initiated under Section 8.04, Sub& 4 or Subd. 5, the City Council shall direct staff to do a feasibility study. In addition to any requirements under state law, the feasibility study shall contain the following information: (1) a list of the recommended public improvements; (2) changes in the appearance or use of property, such as trees to be removed, easements acquired, and new or changed storm water facilities; (3) the projected cost for the recommended public improvements; (4) a list of the properties proposed to be specially assessed for the recommended public improvements; and (5) an estimated special assessment per lot for the recommended public improvements. Sub& 2. Alternatives. if more than a single public improvement (e.g., street lights) is proposed, the feasibility study shall include information on alternatives, such as doing individual improvements or doing different combinations of the improvements (e.g., just streets, streets and street lights, streets and curb and gutter, streets and sanitary sewers, etc.). If one of the public improvements is reconstruction or other work to improve an existing street, one alternative must be to do only the street The feasibility study shall contain the information listed in Subd. 1 above for each of the alternative combinations. Section 8.06. Public Hearing. Upon being notified that staff has completed its feasibility study, the City Council shall adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the proposed public improvements. The hearing shall be scheduled for a date at least two weeks away. In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public hearing that is sent to the property owner shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the information described in Section 8.05. Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences. Subdivision 1. Waiting period. After the public hearing, there shall be a period of at least 60 days prior to the next City Council action on the proposed public improvements. Property owners proposed to be specially assessed are given this 60 -day period so that they may indicate their preference regarding the proposed public improvements. Each indication of preference -3- shall be in writing, signed by the property owner, and state whether the property owner prefers all, a specific one of the alternative combinations, or none of the recommended public improvements. Subd. 2. Preferences counted. Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 - day waiting period. The restrictions on who may sign a petition, described in Section 8.04, Subd. 4 above, also apply to determine who may indicate a preference. If multiple owners of a lot or lots indicate different preferences, no preferences shall be counted for that lot or lots. Subd. 3. Utilities in streets. Some utilities typically are installed during street improvements, which usually costs less than constructing the streets and utilities separately. If property owners prefer an alternative which results in a street being improved without utilities recommended by staff, then the utilities may not be installed in that street within five years after completion of the street, unless the installation of utilities and any related street repair will be paid for without using any of the City's general revenue. Section 8.08. City Council Action. Subdivision 1. Approval of preferred alternative. At the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the 60 -day period ends, the City Council shall approve the alternative which was preferred by the largest number of property owners. If the largest number of property owners indicated a preference that none of the recommended public improvements be constructed, then the City Council shall not approve any of the proposed public improvements. Subd. 2. Second waiting period. If the preferred alternative is to have some or all of the public improvements constructed, then there shall be a period of at least 60 days between the clay the City Council approves the preferred alternative and the date of the next City Council action on the proposed public improvements. Taxpayers are given this 60 -day period so that they may petition for a referendum as provided in Section 8.09 below. Section 8.09. Taxpayer Referendum Subdivision 1. Petition. When a proposed public improvement is to be funded in part through general revenue, the taxpayers of the City may petition for a referendum on the public improvements. Any registered voter may sign the petition for a referendum. To trigger a referendum, the number of valid signatures on the petition must equal or exceed 12% of the number of votes cast for mayor in the last mayoral election. Subd. 2. Timing. Prior to the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the end of the 60 -day period described in Section 8.08, Subd. 2, the taxpayers must submit their petition for a referendum to the City. If the petition is not submitted prior to that meeting, or does not have sufficient valid signatures, no referendum is required.. If the petition is timely submitted, with sufficient valid signatures, the City Council shall order the public improvements to be placed on the ballot at the next general or special election. Subd. 3. Voting. The ballot shaft ask voters if they want to use general tax dollars to pay for a portion of the described public improvements. The actual ballot language shall give a general description of the public improvements proposed to be constructed. Subd. 4. Public improvements rejected. If a majority of those voting on the issue are opposed, the City Council shall not proceed with the proposed public improvements. The City Council may not initiate the same or substantially similar public improvements within the next 12 months. Subd. 5. Public improvements approved. When proposed public improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the public improvements. If, after bids are received on the public improvements, the proposed contract exceeds the estimates described in Section 8.05 above by more than ten (10%) percent, the City Council may not award the contract for the proposed improvement. The City Council may rebid the public improvements once. Section 8.10. Specified Commercial Area. Subdivision 1. Not as restricted. The area described in Subd. 2 below is not subject to the restrictions set forth in Sections 8.04 through 8.09 above. However, certain single family residences are protected in this area as indicated in Subd. 3 below. Sub& 2. Area description This is an area generally known as the intersection of Interstate 35W and Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive). More specifically, this area is described as follows: - the north one half (Y2) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 18; and - that part of the south one half (1/Z) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 18 lying north of the Interstate 35W right-of-way, and - that part of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive) right-of-way; and - all of the northwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17, except that part of the southeast quarter (1/4) of said northwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17 described as follows: beginning at a -5- point at the intersection of the south line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (1/4) with the east right-of-way line of Trunk Highway #49; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way line 938.14 feet (+ or -) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 feet (+ or -) to east line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (1/4); thence south along said east line 588.5 feet (+ or -) to the south line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (1/4); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or -) to the point of beginning; and - the north 720 feet of that part of the southwest quarter (1/4) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property; and - that part of the north one half (1!2) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property; and - the south one half (1/2) of southeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of Section 8; and - the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 8; and - the east 330 feet (+ or -) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 8. Subd. 3. Single family residences protected. Special assessments shall not be imposed on a single family residence if the residence meets all three of the following criteria: (1) The residence is located within the area described in Subd. 2 above; and (2) At least 80% of the residence is used exclusively as the owner's residence, and not for a business; and (3) The residence has been owner -occupied since at least September 30, 1993. If the residence was empty between owners, this still counts as owner occupied. Subd. 4. Notice and objection. When public improvements are proposed which would result in special assessments on a single family residence located in the area described in Subd. 2 above, the City shall send a certified letter to the owner of the residence prior to the first public hearing on the proposed public improvements. In addition to the requirements in state law, the letter shall inform the owner that the owner will not be specially assessed if (a) the owner's residence meets the three criteria in Subd 3 above (which shall be listed in the letter), and (b) the owner gives the City Clerk a written statement, prior to the close of the public hearing, that the owner objects to being specially assessed -6- Sub& 5. Effect of objection.. The City shall not assess an owner who submits a signed written statement objecting to being specially assessed, as described in Sub& 4, unless the City can prove that the single family residence does not meet the criteria in Sub& 3 above. Sub& 6. Later connection. If the public improvements include utilities and the owner connects to one or more of those utilities within five years after the completion of construction of the improvements, then the owner shall be considered to have consented to being specially assessed for the public improvements. The City may impose the special assessments at that time, in the amount that would have been imposed had the owner been specially assessed when the public improvements were constructed. -7- T1 v. 1L, 1 Y1J1111L+JVLC1 ULaLLLLL.J LVV / rage 1 or .s Legislature Home i Links to the World 1 Help 1 Advanced House j Senate i Joint Departments and Commissions i Bill Search and Status i Statutes, Laws, and Rules Minnesota Statutes Table of Chapters Chapter 410 Table of Contents 410.12, Minnesota Statutes 2007 Copyright © 2007 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. 410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1. Proposals. The charter commission may propose amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city. Proposed charter amendments must be submitted at least 12 weeks before the general election. Only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. All petitions circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words, a true and correct copy of the same may be filed with the city clerk, and the petition shall then contain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words setting forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment. Such summary shall contain a statement of the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed and an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall within ten -days after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such modifications in statement as it may deem necessary in order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth. Subd. la. Alternative methods of charter amendment. A home rule charter may be amended only by following one of the alternative methods of amendment provided in subdivisions 1 to 7. Subd. 2. Petitions. The signatures to such petition need not all be appended to one paper, but to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof as provided by this section. A petition must contain each petitioner's signature in ink or indelible pencil and must indicate after the signature the place of residence by street and number, or other description sufficient to identify the place. There shall appear on each petition the names and addresses of five electors of the city, and on each paper the names and addresses of the same five electors, who, as a committee of the petitioners, shall be regarded as responsible for the circulation and filing of the petition. The affidavit attached to each petition shall be as follows: State of ) County of ) ss. being duly sworn, deposes and says that the affiant, and the affiant only, personally circulated the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appended thereto were made in the affiant's presence, and that the affiant believes them to be the genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. Signed (Signature of Circulator) http ://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub .php?pubtype=S TAT_CHAP_SEC&year=current&sec-Li on=410.12&im... 1 /2/2008 -r1 V.1[.., 1r 111111✓at" LLI U1.41.1.4.1.3rJ GVV ! Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public (or other officer) authorized to administer oaths The foregoing affidavit shall be strictly construed and any affiant convicted of swearing falsely as regards any particular thereof shall be punishable in accordance with existing law. Subd. 3. May be assembled as one petition. All petition papers for a proposed amendment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instrument. Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested and whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk shall declare any petition paper entirely invalid which is not attested by the circulator thereof as required in this section. Upon completing an examination of the petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of the examination to the council. If the city clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient the city clerk shall set forth in a certificate the particulars in which it is defective and shall at once notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings. A petition may be amended at any time within ten days after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing a supplementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in case of an original petition. The city clerk shall within five days after such amendment is filed, make examination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to be insufficient, the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition. The fmding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of the original; charter. The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the goveming body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment. Subd. 5. Amendments proposed by council. The council of any city having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission. Within 60 days thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the expiration of such period the commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment, the charter commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The commission shall promptly notify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's action, the council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in subdivision 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substitute amendment proposed by the charter commission. The amendment shall become effective only when approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved it shall be filed in the same manner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the charter commission from proposing charter amendments in the manner provided by subdivision 1. Subd. 6. Amendments, cities of the fourth class. The council of a city of the fourth class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by ordinance without submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by at Least a four-fifths vote rage z of .5 http ://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHA.P_SEC&year=current&section=410.12&im... 1/2/2008 1 CLg'G ..J 01 .) of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. The council shall submit the proposed amendment to the people in the manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three months after the passage of the ordinance. The amendment becomes effective only when approved by the voters as provided in subdivision 4. If so approved, it shall be filed in the same manner as other amendments. Subd. 7. Amendment by ordinance. Upon recommendation of the charter commission the city council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Within one month of receiving a recommendation to amend the charter by ordinance, the city must publish notice of a public hearing on the proposal and the notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment. The city council must hold the public hearing on the proposed charter amendment at least two weeks but not more than one month after the notice is published. Within one month of the public hearing, the city council must vote on the proposed charter amendment ordinance. The ordinance is enacted if it receives an affirmative vote of all members of the city council and is approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. Such petition shall be signed by qualified voters equal in number to two percent of the total number of votes cast in the city at the last state general election or 2,000, whichever is less. If the city has a system of permanent registration of voters, only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the -council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters. History: (1286) RL s 756; 1907 c 199 s 1; 1911 c 343 s 1; 1939 c 292 s 1; 1943 c 227 s 1; 1949 c 122 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 3,4; 1961 c 608 s 5,6; 1969 c 1027 s 3; 1973 c 503 s 1-4; 1986 c 444; 1998 c 254 art 1 s 107; 1999 c 132 s 42; 2005 c 93 s 1 Please direct all comments concerning issues or legislation to your House Member or State Senator. For Legislative Staff or for directions to the Capitol, visit the Contact Us page. General questions or comments. http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=current&section=410.12&im... 1 /2/2008 Memorandum Date: January 11, 2008 To: Charter Commission From: Gordon Heitke Re: Quarterly Update Five Year Financial Plan Following completion of the 2008 preliminary annual budget, the City Council worked on the Five Year Financial Plan in November and December, completing the final draft in December. The City Council took action on December 17 to extend the December adoption date until January 28, in order to ensure adequate time for their review and the public hearing. The hearing for the plan will be held Monday, January 14, with adoption occurring on January 28. Public Improvement Petitions The City received a petition for the installation of water and sewer services from the West Oaks neighborhood in October. The petition was from 28 (47%) properties. The City surveyed the both the West Oaks and adjacent Otter Bay neighborhoods to measure the public's support for paying for the costs of the feasibility study, utilities and street replacement. The result of the survey was that only 11% of the residents of both areas responded that they were willing to be assessed for these project costs and there was no concentrated pattern of support. The City is informing them that no action will be taken at this time to proceed with the project due to the lack of support. Street Reconstruction Project The ballot question regarding the reconstruction of West Shadow Lake Drive failed with 1606 no votes, 696 yes votes, and 35 blank ballots. Charter Financial Report The 2007 expenditure report for charter administration is attached. As noted, there may be outstanding charges that have been incurred, but not yet received and accounted for. Date: 01/11/2008 Time: 12:28:43 City of Lino Lakes FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report Account# / Title Operator: ajr Page: 1 Calendar Period: 01/2007 To: 12/2007 Fiscal Period: 01/2007 To: 12/2007 Budget Thru: 12/2007 Original Net Budget Expended PTD Expended YTD % Unexpended Bal 101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-4300-000 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-4300-999 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 1,500.00 6,750.00 4,254.37 4,254.37 63 2,495.63 101-405-4301-000 GENERAL CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0 500.00 101-405-4322-000 GENERAL CHARTER POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-4330-000 GENERAL CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-4340-000 GENERAL CHARTER ADVERTISING 200.00 200.00 158.90 158.90 79 41.10 101-405-4343-000 GENERAL CHARTER NEWSLETTER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-4344-000 GENERAL CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 2,200.00 7,450.00 4,413.27 4,413.27 59 3,036.73 '`/ 6: Qli �A�G� cit-t�el 5-1--f "i b k.k. CGS a r te. Co w rn s s o.v 1-1-7—ZOOS' LEGAL MEMORANDUM Note: This Memorandum contains legal advice between an attorney and client, and should not be distributed to or shared with any third parties. TO: CHAIR OF THE LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION FROM: KAREN E. MARTY, ATTORNEY AT LAW DATE: January 11, 2008 Question: If the city council ignores the statutory timeline for submitting a charter amendment to the voters, does it face liability? What may a charter commission do to assure that the charter amendment is timely submitted to the voters? The statute does not specify a penalty, and there are no cases on point. Generally, when a charter amendment is presented to a city, and a city fails to submit it to the voters, the presenter then files a mandamus lawsuit, to force the city official to place the matter on the next general election (or, if the deadlines for the general election have passed or are too far away, to call a special election to decide the matter). There does not appear to be a specific penalty imposed on any city official who fails to properly schedule an election. Does the Charter Commission want this matter addressed soon? If so, it should bring the statutory deadlines to the attention of the city officials. A tactful way of doing this would be to send the city clerk a letter: Thank you for sending me a copy of the Work Session Staff Report regarding the Charter Amendment Process. I am pleased to see that the City Council will be considering this matter in the near future. However, I am confused by the dates listed. Under Minn. Stat. Sec. 410.12, Subd. 5, once the Charter Commission has reviewed a proposed amendment submitted by the City Council, the City Council is to hold an election on either its proposed amendment or the substitute amendment "in the same manner as provided in subdivision 4". Under Minn. Stat. Sec. 410.12, Subd. 4, "Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter." Election provisions for an original charter are specified in Minn. Stat. Sec. 410.10, Subd. 1, which states: "Upon delivery of such draft, the council or other governing body of the city shall cause the proposed • charter to be submitted at the next general election thereafter occurring in the city within six months after the delivery of such draft, and if there is no general city election occurring in the city within six months after the delivery of such draft, then the council or other governing body of the city shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted at a special election to be held within 90 days after the delivery of such draft." The Charter Commission delivered its draft to the City Clerk on November 30, 2007, and the City Council officially "received" the draft on December 10, 2007. No general election is scheduled for the next six months. As I read the statutes, a special election must be called, to take place within 90 days. (As an alternative, the City Council can adopt the Charter Commission's proposed amendment by ordinance.) Please double- check the dates and let me know which process the City will be following. If the Charter Commission would just as soon have this matter postponed until November, send a different letter to the city clerk. This letter is to reaffirm the November date and set the stage for later claiming that the Commission relied on the City's assurances that it was going to place the matter on the general election ballot (and not call a special election). The letter need only say: Thank you for sending me a copy of the Work Session Staff Report regarding the Charter Amendment Process. I am pleased to see that the City Council will be considering this matter in the near future. As always, the Charter Commission would be happy to meet with the City Council to explain its draft, and assist in getting the best possible charter for the citizens of Lino Lakes. Since the City Council will be placing this on the November general election ballot, we do have time for discussion and, if appropriate, revision of the draft amendment to the Charter. We look forward to working with the City Council to either prepare an acceptable ordinance or prepare this matter for the November ballot. Regardless of which letter you send, I recommend that you address it to the City Clerk, and copy the Mayor and Members of the City Council. That is simple courtesy, standard protocol, and in this case, a good way of making sure the right people get the information. Let me know if you have further questions. / 4 • i s4.,.,4 bu covo m µ 1- I'- Ogo 3-Ct ow c 'H'eci U Crfy Co t.uw c r ( MI. 1 imk-c— i —2008 3DMc. JJ Jan. 14, 2008 Lino Lakes City Council and Staff Request to consider an alternate to amending chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter that has been provided by The Citizen's Task Force and another by the City Charter Commission. The Task Force's version is very hard to read and understand and does not provide a method for the Citizens of Lino Lakes to stop a public improvement that is partial funded by special assessments and the rest from the City's general fund. Except for Sections 8.05 thru 8.09 the Charter Commission's version is easy to understand and follow. Sections 8.05 thru 8.09 are unworkable because of micro managing, unwieldy combinations of improvements, a method by which a minority could force improvements on the majority, adding excessive costs to a project and provides for an unrealistic method for Citizens to stop a public improvement. By replacing sections 8.05 thru 8.09, with the attached replacement sections, the Charter Commission's version becomes a very acceptable method to what we have now. It would allow for a Citizen generated petition to stop a project if the number of valid signatures exceeds 19% of the number of registered voters in the last City election. I would appreciate the Council and the staff, consider this request during discussions on changes to chapter 8 of the City Charter. Robert Bening 6788 E. Shadow Lake Drive Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 651-429-3434 Jan. 14, 2008 Section 8.05. Feasibility Study. Once public improvements have been initiated under Section 8.04, Subd. 4 or Subd. 5, the City Council shall direct staff to do a feasibility study. In addition to any requirements under state law, the feasibility study shall contain the following information: (1) a list of the recommended public improvements; (2) the projected cost for the recommended public improvements; (3) a list of the properties proposed to be specially assessed for the recommended public improvements; and (4) an estimated special assessment per lot for the recommended public improvements. Section 8.06. Public Hearing. Upon being notified that staff has completed its feasibility study, the City Council shall adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the proposed public improvements. The hearing shall be scheduled for a date at least two weeks away. In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public hearing that is sent to the property owner shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the information described in Section 8.05. Section 8.07. Property Owners Petition. Subdivision 1. Waiting period. After the public hearing, there shall be a period of at least 30 days prior to the next City Council action on the proposed public improvements. Property owners proposed to be specially assessed are given this 30 -day period so that they may petition against the public improvements. The restrictions on who may sign a petition, described in Section 8.04, Subd. 4 above, also apply to this petition. Subd. 2. Utilities in streets. Some utilities typically are installed during street improvements, which usually costs less than constructing the streets and utilities separately. If a street is being improved without utilities recommended by staff, then the utilities may not be installed in that street within fifteen years after completion of the street, unless the installation of utilities and any related street repair will be paid for without using any of the City's general revenue. Section 8.08. City Council Action. Subdivision 1. Petition against improvements. If a petition against the improvements is signed by over 50% of the property owners and is presented to the City Clerk before or at the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the 30 -day period ends, the City Council shall not approve the proposed public improvements. Subd. 2. Second waiting period. If the property owners do not present to the City Clerk a valid petition against the public improvements, then there shall be a second waiting period of 60 -days to allow for the generation of a petition from all the tax payers of the City. Page 1 of 2 Jan. 14, 2008 Section 8.09. Taxpayer Petition. Subdivision 1. Petition. When a proposed public improvement is to be funded in part through the City general fund, the taxpayers of the City may petition to stop the public improvements. Any registered voter of the City may sign the petition. The number of valid signatures on the petition must exceed 19% of the number of registered voters in the last City election to stop the public improvement. Subd. 2. Timing. Prior to the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the end of the 60 -day period described in Section 8.08, Subd. 2, the taxpayers must submit their petition to the City. If the petition is not submitted prior to that meeting, or does not have sufficient valid signatures, the public improvements are allowed. If the petition is timely submitted, with sufficient valid signatures, the City Council shall not proceed with the proposed public improvements. The City Council may not initiate the same or substantially similar public improvements within the next12 months. Subd. 3. Public improvements approved. When proposed public improvements are allowed under Subd. 2, the City Council may approve the public improvements by resolution at any time during the next year. If, after bids are received on the public improvements, the proposed contract exceeds the estimates described in Section 8.05 above by more than ten (10%) percent, the City Council may not award the contract for the proposed improvement. The City Council may rebid the public improvements once. Robert Bening 6788 E. Shadow Lake Drive Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Page 2 of 2 narter, cnanges How to amend or not to amend; that is the question It's a contentious issue. Should the city be able to go ahead with road projects that many don't want to pay for? • Is the quality of roads more important than the squabbling over who benefits from and who pays what for a particular project? LINO LAKES ; — Road construction, or the lack. thereof, inthe city of Lino Lakes has been 'a pain in every resident's rear for several years::' It's a contentious issue. Should the city be able to go ahead with road projects that many don't want to pay for? Is the quality of roads more important than the. squabbling over who 'bene- fits from and who pays what for a particular project? Or do homeowners have the right to put the kibosh on projects they don't want to pay for? Residents and city staff have voiced varying opinions, but only one thing remains clear: the issue isn't going away. So some have taken a sec- ond approach to redoing roads — amending the city charter. Because' of some unique mandates of the charter, roadconstruction must be approved. by a majority of the city's popu- lation. If that '.clause is removed, from the charter, the . city would be able to proceed with road projects, possibly • sans voter input. Suit the exact details of amendment are still up in;ythe air: "After the Citizen 'askForce 'Put forth" a' ver,. ion last, summer, the possi le change was' sent to the barter Ctiiihnissioti, which .r seedif concerns and if .a majority still objects to the project, if will be put to rest. The ` Charter Commission's amendment proposes a petition process instead of a referendum. If taxpayers want a project to be voted on by the residents, they can petition to get it put on the ballot. Under this. amendment, affected prop- erty owners will have two months to review construc- tion options presented in a feasibility study and inform city staff which option they prefer. The city council will approve the plan which was the preferred option for the majority of property own- ers, after the 60-daywaiting period ends: Essentially both plans put the power to kill a road project' • in the 'hands of affected'•property owners,, but the Charter Commission's afnennt altowstaxpayers to havedfiiethe ,ortunity to, vote to pre vent a<project if it,ls paid^ for out of 'the general revL mile .fund, whereas -the task, force's:.. proposal allows for 10 +input from the. general opulation. According allt1p, the rwoma ask fort e's amen me et; calls frit a i�eighbo' hood veto, 416)1.1 current method of a l ally erendu Uiicier, that cii`o tin tanCes owners direotl aected=t the project :would have the final decision. not voters across : the, city. p, Affected property owners ,will , have the opportunity. ` to" voice concerns, the project may be amendedµto 'reflect those pi St ri b �c. f �C. Ir11 C cervi y 't Lt o mrr h, t Lierq C[Acx �Fer Corn AA f1 l -- f 1---O(Y ' Elie city council member, q� r „-percent of tespondents� favored .changing= the City Charter in: the results Of the 006 Equality of life survey, However, about �0 { per cent .of residents =voted iti opposlton }rt0=it the, West d ow Lake Dri.ve'.4street4 econstructiofl ' project 1n " the, November 2007 election. ; '" got even 50 percent of resi- detits' in precinct four, 'the .'. •area^ in which the construe tion would have.taken place;, cast their support for the 1project.