HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-14-2011 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
QUARTERLY MEETING
AGENDA
6:30 PM
Thursday, April 14, 2011
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of agenda items
4. Open Mike / Public Comment
5. Minutes:
Approve January 13, 2011 minutes
6. Unfinished Business
A. Charter Agreement with Karen Marty, expenses incurred
B. Charter Amendments / Commissioner Trehus
C. Rules of Order
Commissioner Trehus / By Laws
6:30 PM
D. Discussion, if needed, of joint council meeting tabled from October 14, 2010
7. New Business
A. 2010 Letter to the Judge
B. Legislature discussion to bring statute 410.06 up to date
C. Brief Charter History for possible inclusion on our website
D. Next meeting date, Thursday, July 14, 2011
Adjournment
Caroline Dahl Christopher Lyden Kelly Gunderson
Chair Vice Chair Secretary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
N„►, 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
\ Pi.-- 44
45
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 1
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS EXCUSED
MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
January 13, 2011
6:35 P.M.
9:30 P.M.
Lyden, Gunderson, Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson (arrives
at 6:40), Drennen, , Penn, Storberg, Sutherland, Trehus
(arrives at 6:39), Turcotte, Williams
Dahl, Minar, Zastrow
None
None
Dean Hausladen
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Lyden called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm
on January 13, 2011.
OPEN MIC
No one spoke during the "open mic" portion of the meeting.
SETTING THE AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland to strike item 6A from the agenda. There is no second to
the motion.
MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to table agenda item
6A. Motion passes unanimously.
Commissioners Trehus and Carlson arrive at 6:40pm.
MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Turcotte to accept the agenda as amended.
Motion passes unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
For the minutes for the meeting of October 14, 2010, Commissioner Bretoi is not listed as
present.
MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to accept the October
14, 2010 minutes as amended. Motion passes with Commissioner Trehus voting no.
Commissioner Gunderson explains the highlighted areas on the minutes for the July 2010 joint
meeting and will be making those changes.
1
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 2
46
47 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Turcotte, to accept the minutes from the July
48 8, 2010 joint Commission/Council meeting. Motion passes unanimously.
49
50 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, to accept the minutes of the July
51 8, 2010 Commission meeting. Motion passes with Commissioner Trehus abstaining.
52
53 OLD BUSINESS
54 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Penn, to rescind the past motion to table
55 6A. Motion passes unanimously.
56
57 A. Charter Amendments/Karen Marty
58 Commissioner Trehus stated that the Commission's attorney worked on two amendments of the
59 four possible amendments the Commission is considering.
60
61 The first amendment is on Section 1.04, setting the powers the Commission in the Charter.
62 Commissioner Trehus presented to the commission is the language drafted by Ms. Marty with
63 her comments.
64
65 The second amendment Ms. Marty worked on was the "Tax Cap" amendment, setting forth
66 similar language to current state statute that limit levy increases. The state statute has a proposed
67 end date of 2012. Commissioner Trehus states that more investigation is still needed for this
68 amendment and to be planned out to best used the limited budget allowed for 2011.
69
70 Commissioner Trehus then reviewed the other amendments discussed in previous meetings.
71
72 Commissioner Gunderson asked how much of the remaining 2010 funds were used for Ms.
73 Marty on the two amendments. Commissioner Trehus stated the all the 2010 funds, $1,500, were
74 exhausted on just the two amendments. A majority of it was the "tax cap" amendment.
75
76 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to recommit the
77 "tax cap" amendment to subcommittee for further work.
78
79 Commissioner Drennen stated the subcommittee would then report at the next meeting in April.
80
81 Motion passes unanimously.
82
83 Discussion then went back to Section 1.04. Commissioner Trehus stated his belief that language
84 Ms. Marty drafted by is missing the ability of the Commission to comment on amendments
85 agreed upon by the Commission.
86
87 Commissioner Drennen believed it is not needed. Commissioner Gunderson stated that the
88 proposed language would limit the Commission's ability to comment or respond to only negative
\.. 89 information put forward by any group or individual.
90
2
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 3
-' 91 Commissioner Gunderson states that the amendment does not require the Commission to
92 comment on an amendment to the Charter.
93
94 Commissioner Drennen concurs with Commissioner Gunderson and states the language should
95 be changed to "any change" of the Charter.
96
97 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to refer back to
98 subcommittee the language of Section 1.04 amendment to further clarify the scope of our ability
99 to comment on amendments.
100
101 Commissioner Sutherland offers a friendly amendment to have the subcommittee also work on
102 ballot language needed for proposing Section 1.04 amendment.
103
104 Motion passes unanimously.
105
106 Commissioner Sutherland asks who is on the subcommittee. Chair Dahl, Commissioner
107 Drennen and Commissioner Trehus.
108
109 B Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest
110
111 Commissioner Gunderson states that this is an agenda item
112
113 Commissioner Sutherland stated that the Council drafted language updating the city code
114 regarding conduct and conflicts of interest for the council and all boards and recommends no
115 further action from the Commission.
116
117 Commissioner Turcotte stated the City Council recently voted on and passed the updated
118 language.
119
120 Commissioner Gunderson asked if the new language covers all boards and commissions.
121 Commissioner Sutherland stated it does.
122
123 Commissioner Sutherland requests a recess to allow Commissioner Gunderson to research the
124 new language. After reconvening at 7:42pm, Commissioner Gunderson reads the amendment to
125 the city code to the Commission.
126
127 The Commission agrees that the issue is resolved.
128
129 NEW BUSINESS
130
131 A. Charter Contract with Karen Marty, expenses incurred
132 Chair Dahl initiated this agenda item for discussion with the Commission. Because Chair Dahl
133 was unavoidably unable to attend the meeting, Commissioner Gunderson related to the
134 commission the conversation she had with Chair Dahl. The contract of retaining the legal
135 services of Ms. Karen Marty is between the Charter Commission. Therefore the Chair made the
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 4
136 executive decision to delay the letter being sent to Ms. Marty regarding the outstanding balance
137 still owed to Ms. Marty.
138
139 Commissioner Sutherland stated that an action was made at the last meeting and that the letter
140 should have been written and sent. Also suggested that the language of the contract should be
141 reviewed as she believes it may not be legal.
142
143 Commissioner Trehus stated the information of the contract was not present at the October
144 meeting, due to an innocent "slip of the mind."
145
146 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Gunderson to continue discussion on the item
147 and add to agenda for the next meeting.
148
149 Commissioner Carlson supports the decision of the Chair to delay the letter to come back to the
150 Commission for further discussion. He would like the item to stay on the agenda as old business.
151
152 Commissioner Sutherland read lines 186 —189 of the October 14, 2010 regarding the motion of
153 the letter to Ms. Marty.
154
155 Commissioner Trehus retracts his motion.
156
t57 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland to rescind the motion listed in lines 186 —189 of the
158 minutes for the October 10, 2010 meeting.
159
160 Motion passes unanimously.
161
162 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to postpone
163 indefinitely lines 179 —180 of the minutes of the October 10, 2010 meeting.
164
165 Commissioner Drennen supports the motion due to new information coming to the Commission.
166
167 Commissioner Gunderson concurs, stating the motion is viewed as "housekeeping" for the
168 Commission.
169
170 Motion passes unanimously.
171
172 Commissioner Trehus brings back his motion to continue discussion on item and add to agenda
173 for the next commission meeting.
174
175 Commissioner Penn questions how does the Commission clarify the ability of the Commission to
176 enter into a contract or agreement.
177
178 Commissioner Drennen states the Commission has a right to enter into a contract for outside
x,..179 counsel.
180
4
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 5
"'''''181 Commissioner Sutherland asked who signed the contract with Ms. Marty for the Commission.
182
183 Commissioner Gunderson stated that she believes Chair Dahl's intent was to discuss the contract
184 and inform those members who were not on the Commission at the time. She also asked if the
185 Commission voted on entering the contract.
186
187 Commissioner Carlson stated that Cori Duffy was Chair at the time of the signing of the contract.
188 The contract was discussed at many meetings and that three attorneys were considered.
189
190 Motion passes, Commissioner Sutherland abstained.
191
192 Commissioner Sutherland asked for a copy of the contract to be brought to the next meeting.
193 Commissioner Gunderson stated she will discuss that request with the Chair.
194
195
196 B. Discussion of joint council meeting tabled from October 14, 2010
197
198 Commissioner Penn asked if the agenda item includes discussion of a joint task force.
199
200 Commissioner Sutherland clarified the last agenda had further discuss points about this item.
201
X202 Commissioner Gunderson read the section of the minutes of the October and that there was great
203 confusion of at that point of the meeting.
204
205 Commissioner Storberg stated that she made a motion and the motion failed. Commissioner
206 Gunderson stated that action was then to table the item.
207
208 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table the agenda
209 item to the next Commission meeting.
210
211 Commissioner Turcotte asked if the discussion should be continued if the Commission does not
212 have any funds to work on it.
213
214 Commissioner Lyden referred to lines 93 — 96 of the minutes of the November 10, 2010 City
215 Council work session about the budget for the Charter Commission.
216
217 Commissioner Sutherland asked who would lead the discussion of the agenda item. She did not
218 feel there is any new information to discuss.
219
220 Commissioner Gunderson believes that Chair wanted to discuss the City Council work session
221 mentioned and make sure that each Commissioner had a chance to discuss.
222
223 Commissioner Penn supports the apparent point of view of the Chair.
224
225 Commissioner Gunderson calls the question.
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 6
x'226
227 Motion passes with Commissioner Sutherland voting no.
228
229 C. Memo from City Council on Odd Year Election (tabled from October 10,2010)
230
231 Commissioner Gunderson stated that the Chair wanted to speak on this issue. Commissioner
232 Gunderson stated that the memo is informing the Commission of a proposal from
233 Councilmember Roeser to move the city elections to even -years, when general State and Federal
234 elections take place, in order to save the city money.
235
236 Commissioner Gunderson states the dollar figures of believed cost -savings is not listed on the
237 memo. Commissioner Turcotte said he found the estimated dollar amount of $14,000, a bi-
238 yearly expense. Commissioner Trehus stated the actual amount is about $8,800 or less.
239
240 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Gunderson for purposes of further
241 discussion only, to refer this item to committee for further review to draft language for an
242 amendment. Commissioner Sutherland states
243
244 Commissioner Trehus stated that before the item is given to a subcommittee, the Commission
245 needs to decide if it is in agreement with the proposal.
246
247 Commissioner Sutherland asks the Commission to vote to withdrawal the motion.
248 Commissioner Gunderson states a vote is not needed. Commissioner Sutherland stated she
249 believes it is needed.
250
251 Motion is withdrawn via unanimous vote of the Commission.
252
253 Commissioner Storberg stated her opinion of agreement of moving city elections to even -years.
254
255 Commissioner Trehus is not in support of the proposal and stated Mayor Reiner is also in
256 opposition. The attention city elections receive in odd -year elections is a service to the citizens.
257 The cost savings is not worth the effort of moving the elections. Commissioners Gunderson,
258 Carlson, Drennen concur.
259
260 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, that the
261 Commission draft a response to the City Council that the Commission concurs with the
262 sentiments stated in lines 37 — 41 from the October 4, 2010 work session of the City Council.
263
264 Motion passes unanimously.
265
266 D. Meetings per year of the Commission — By laws, Article 3, Section 1
267
268 Commissioner Gunderson read the section of the Commission by laws of how often the
x...269 Commission meets each year. After that, Commissioner Gunderson discussed the possibility of
270 adding more meetings each year, having a meeting every other month. The reasons given for this
6
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 7
X271 include that the past several meetings have run long, agenda items are being tabled in order to
272 end meetings late in the evening and it is believed that with 15 Commissioners, some
273 commissioners may not be getting a fair amount of time to discuss items. Commissioner
274 Gunderson asked for discussion to include the opinion of Commissioners on meeting more often.
275
276 Commissioner Drennen believes that if Commissioners self -police discussions, stay on topic and
277 if meetings are run more efficiently, more meetings would not be needed. Commissioner
278 Sutherland concurs and added that the Commission has the ability to call special meeting when
279 needed.
280
281 Commissioner Turcotte believes that the last three meetings are running long because of
282 discussions about Roberts Rules of Order procedures.
283
284 Commissioner Trehus concurs with Commissioner Turcotte and also states that the past three
285 meetings have been irregularly different than past history.
286
287 Commissioner Sutherland stated that she her discussion about Roberts Rules of Order lead to a
288 long debate at the last meeting.
289
290 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to call for roll call vote
291 on whether to have more regular meetings per year. Commissioner Sutherland states that the roll
call motion is non -debatable and the motion to call for a roll call does not need to be passed. The
293 action is then taken.
294
295 Voting yes: Aldentaler, Gunderson. Voting no: Sutherland, Penn, Storberg, Williams, Carlson,
296 Lyden, Trehus, Drennen. No opinion: Turcotte.
297
298 Commissioner Gunderson stated for the record the roll call vote is the opinion of Commissioners
299 present, that there are Commissioners absent.
300
301 The results are 2 Yes, 8 No and 1 No opinion.
302
303 Commissioner Turcotte asked to further discuss the issue.
304
305 Commissioner Sutherland said that the call for a roll call vote kills debate on the issue.
306 Commission Trehus states that he believes that correct, but objects to the end of discussion in a
307 procedural move of one Commissioner. More research is needed on Roberts Rules of Order for
308 the Commission to all have the same knowledge.
309
310 Commissioner Penn stated she believed her seconding was for discussion.
311
312 Commissioner Storberg stated she understood that the roll call vote would end discussion. If the
313 majority of Commissioners were not open to the idea of more meetings, then discussion of the
#....-314 topic should end. She also concurs with Commissioner Trehus that the Commission is currently
7
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 8
'315 handling more issues than in the past. She concurs with Commissioner Sutherland that if needed,
316 special meetings could be called.
317
318 Commissioner Turcotte states that agendas for future meetings should be shortened or special
319 meetings should be called.
320
321 Vice -Chair Lyden states that Commissioner Storberg intent was to get us to the point quicker
322
323 Commissioner Trehus states that in this case, no harm was done. But he is worried that in the
324 future, discussion on an agenda item could be ended before all information is presented.
325
326 Commissioner Sutherland
327
328 Commissioner Gunderson recommends to the Vice -Chair that the meeting move on to
329
330 E. Roberts Rules of Order
331
332 Commissioner Sutherland discussed the handout on Roberts Rules of Order (RRO). Many
333 powers are given through RRO including setting a firm adjournment time for a meeting and
334 having all business not completed then moved to the agenda for the next meeting. She also points
335 out a tri -fold laminated sheet explaining procedures of RRO. She stated that in the past the
`,,536 League of Minnesota Cities has offered classes on RRO and would hope that the Commission
337 would consider having the LMC present a class in a future meeting. Commissioner Sutherland
338 further states that it is the responsibility of all Commissioners to learn the procedures of RRO to
339 make sure meetings are run more effectively.
340
341 Commissioner Sutherland also refers to a grid of Common Motions of RRO.
342
343 Vice -Chair Lyden states that in order to use RRO, the Commission needs to be in agreement of
344 how to use them and keep it simple.
345
346 Commissioner Penn agrees that RRO should be keep simple, but also productive and not
347 suppress discussion.
348
349 Commissioner Drennen stated that RRO does have procedures to undue abuses, but also if any
350 Commissioner repeatedly abuses RRO, the Commission could have that Commissioner censored
351 or pulled off-line. He asked for an explanation of "point of information."
352
353 Commissioner Sutherland explained that "point of information" can be used at anytime and can
354 be used to interrupt debate. But it must be directed to the Chair and used with decorum.
355 Commissioner Gunderson concurs.
356
357 Commissioner Gunderson states that are differently opinions of semantics using RRO.
�r358
Charter Commission
January 13, 2011
Page 9
359 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to have the League
360 of Minnesota Cities present a class of Roberts Rules of Order to the Commission at either the
361 next Commission meeting or at a special meeting called by the Chair and two commissioners.
362
363 Commissioner Trehus asked if there was a cost associated with that class, and offers a friendly
364 amendment that it
365
366 Commissioner Gunderson accepts the friendly amendment and offered to investigate what is
367 offered by the LMC for RRO training and at what cost.
368
369 Commissioner Sutherland declares that acceptance of friendly amendment needs to be voted on
370 by the Commission. Commissioner Gunderson states that she believes it does not need a vote if
371 the motion -maker accepts the amendment and state that motion "as amended."
372
373 The amendment to the motion is passed unanimously.
374
375 The motion passes with Commissioner Storberg voting no.
376
377 F. Next meeting date: Thursday, April 14, 2011
378
379 It is clarified that the July meeting of the Charter Commission does not interfere with the
Independence holiday.
381
382 Commissioner Gunderson stated that she would ask the City Clerk to provide us with new
383 calendars for 2011 Charter Commission meetings as well as City Council work sessions and
384 meetings.
385
386
387 ADJOURN
388 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to adjourn the
389 meeting at 9:30pm. Motion carried unanimously.
390
391 Respectfully Submitted,
392
393 Kelly Gunderson
394 Secretary
9
From: "Karen E. Marty" <kmarty@martylawfirm.com>
To: "Caroline Dahl" <denali2010@q.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 5:50:16 PM
Subject: Re: Tax Cap Amendment 2nd email
Caroline,
You have asked two questions. Let me answer the second one first. Why did I recommend
using the state law rather than crafting something from another charter to include in Lino Lakes'
Charter? I did this because I thought it had a better chance of passage, and a better chance of
staying intact in the long run. Look at the Comments I sent along with the draft tax cap
language.
The other question relates to whether the state law is too full of loopholes to really cap taxes. I
spent some time going over the state tax cap law (Minn. Stat. Sec.275.71) and the loopholes
(Minn. Stat. Sec. 275.70, subd. 5). The concern you raised appears related to Sec. 275.70, subd.
5(8), which allows a city to correct past "errors" in its levies, up to the levy limit for that year. If
desired, I can modify the wording in the proposed tax cap amendment to exclude that levy
item.
I also have summarized the other 24 loopholes in subd. 5 for you to look at, if you like. They
list various items that may be added to the tax levy without regard to the levy limits. They
include the following: taxes levied to pay bonds (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4), extra property taxes
approved by the voters (5), disasters (7), matching funds needed for state or federal grants or
programs (6), repayment of required spending for a state or federal capital project that was not
locally initiated (13), police and fire costs (21), various pensions (10 and 15), court, jail, and
prosecution -related items (11, 14, and 23), for a storm sewer or lake improvement district (12
and 16), for condemning dilapidated residences (19), to correct "errors" in past years to the
extent this does not exceed the levy limits (8), for some very limited items (17 - up to $1 per
person for society for prevention of cruelty to animals, 22 - to offset unallotment, 18 and 20 — for
counties only, 24 - I -35W bridge collapse, 25 - to offset reductions in state money related to
homestead credits), and taxes abated under Minn. Stat. § 469.1815 (9).
Like the charters I reviewed, this laundry list of exemptions is troubling, but no list is going to be
perfect. If we spend a lot of effort creating a local list, it might become a political battle and
never get implemented. That is why I recommended a simple amendment, to avoid such a
battle. However, this decision is up to the Charter Commission. You know the City much better
than I ever will. Let me know what I can do to assist you in moving forward.
Karen E. Marty
MARTY LAW FIRM, LLC
3601 Minnesota Drive, Suite 800
Bloomington, MN 55435
** Note: Bolding and underlining emphasis was added by the Commissioner Subcommittee **
�.. NOTE: BELOW IS THE PROPOSED CHARTER VERBIAGE ETC. FROM KAREN
MARTY, DECEMBER 2010:
Tax Cap Amendment
Section 7.13. Levy Limitations. The levy limitations imposed on the City by Minn. Stat.
Sections 275.70 through 275.77 (2010) shall remain in effect even if the statutes are
amended or repealed. The references in Minn. Stat. Sec. 275.71 to taxes levied in specific
years shall be interpreted to refer to taxes levied in the year this amendment passes and
each subsequent year.
Comments:
There are a number of ways to impose a tax cap. Mounds View and Fridley adopted
detailed charter provisions, attempting to classify each fee or charge as included or
excluded from the limit. Probably as a result, those provisions of their charters have been
amended repeatedly. Lino Lakes could follow their model, but would have to figure out
precisely which taxes and fees to include in the levy limits, and which to exclude. Those
decisions would almost certainly become political, and take a great deal of time to
complete. Instead of opening the floodgates that way, the language proposed above
simply adopts the provisions currently in effect in state law. The City is already living
with these limits. These state laws do allow the voters to approve increases, and so
provide an option for the City to increase its levy. These state laws also contain provision
which will allow the City to deal with emergencies, thus providing the necessary safety
net. The language proposed above will keep these same limitations in place indefinitely.
Draft Ballot Language:
Should the City Charter be amended to permanently adopt the levy limits that are
currently imposed by state law?
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
Levy Limits: Update, Talking Points, and Basic Mechanics
Updated July 2010
New and Critical information
1. The Governor continues to express his ongoing support for levy limits as a way to protect
homeowners and proposed permanently extending current law levy limits in his
supplemental budget. In that proposal, however, he advocated for new limits on authority
to levy back for aid and credit cuts. The Senate tax bill and the House property tax
committee bill both contain language to create a new minimum for the inflationary
adjustment for levy limits.
2. According to current law, levy limits on cities with populations over 2,500 are in place for
taxes payable in 2011.
3. The maximum levy increase is generally equal to THE LESSER of 3.9 percent OR the
change in the implicit price deflator for state and local government—the inflation measure.
In recent years, the IPD has grown extremely slowly. For payable 2010, cities covered by
levy limits were only allowed to increase their levies by 0.83%.
4. Levy limit cities will be able to levy back for 2010 LGA and MVHC reimbursement that
was unalloted or cut in the supplemental budget in their 2011 levies. Cities will also be
allowed to levy for their 2011 MVHC reimbursement losses with their 2011 levy.
Talking Points/Budgeting Challenges
1. The likely allowable increase under levy limits for 2011 will be extremely small.
2. Cities continue to face cost pressures for things like health care and pension benefits for
employees, energy, and fuel costs. The housing slowdown and foreclosure crisis have hurt
city property tax bases and added enforcement costs. Levy limits make it harder to deal
with these fiscal realities.
3. City officials are frustrated by levy limits for many reasons. They take away local control
from city officials. An across-the-board levy limit ignores unique local circumstances.
Levy limits replace local accountability with the state's judgment about the appropriate
level of local taxation and local services.
4. Local elected officials are in the best position to judge what the city property tax levy
should be and whether or not it should grow or shrink over time. A one -size fits all
solution in the form of levy limits is not good policy.
5. Local officials are very cognizant of the strain that the economic downturn has placed on
families and businesses in their communities. Regardless of levy limits, city councils are
not eager to ask their property tax payers to bear a greater tax burden.
Mechanics of calculating the limit
1. The levy limit is a certain percentage over the city's previous year levy and local
government aid (LGA). In this way, levy limits are actually more of a revenue restriction
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST
ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044
PHONE: (651) 2811200 FAX: (651) 281-1299
TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
Page 2
that applies to the sum of the city's property tax levy and LGA. The levy limit law states
that the allowable increase is the lesser of 3.9 percent OR the change in the implicit price
deflator (IPD) for state and local governments, a measure of inflation. The IPD measures
changes in the price of goods and services that local governments typically purchase.
2. Cities that choose to levy less than the limit will not be penalized in subsequent years.
Unused levy authority from one year rolls over to the following year.
3. The levy limit law includes more than 20 "special" levies for specific purposes that are not
covered by levy limits, such as debt service levies. In many cases, if a city declares a
special levy for 2011, an amount equal to the levy for that purpose must be subtracted from
the city's 2010 property tax levy before the levy limit is calculated. Then the full amount of
the 2011 levy for that purpose can be levied above the city's levy limit.
4. Under current law, there is an interaction between LGA and levy limits. Cities that will
receive an LGA increase in 2011 will have their levy limit reduced by the amount of the
LGA increase. The reverse also holds true. Cities that lose LGA will receive additional
levy authority under levy limits to replace the loss of LGA.
Reasons levies might exceed the limit
1. City levy increases can exceed the limit percentage for two reasons:
a. There are small adjustments above the limit percentage for the annual growth in
households and annual growth in taxable market value as a result of new
commercial/industrial construction.
b. Cities may also levy one or more special levies (e.g., debt levies) above and beyond
the levy limit.
2. Local governments, including cities, certify their preliminary levies by Sept. 15. These
figures are used to calculate proposed tax statements for the Truth in Taxation process. An
individual homeowner's property tax bill may increase more than the final levy limit
percentage for several reasons:
a. The home's value increased faster than the overall value of all property in the city,
or the home's value decreased more slowly than the value of all property in the city.
b. The total tax bill also reflects the proposed tax levies of the county, school district,
and/or any special districts, each of which makes its own levy decisions. Counties
are subject to the same levy limits as cities.
c. The city levied for one or more of the special levies that are allowed above and
beyond the limit.
d. The city gained additional levy authority from the household and
commercial/industrial adjustments.
Resources on property taxes
LMC Resources on levy limits and property taxes
Governing and Managing section of web site: www.lmc.org
Other resources on why property taxes change
Association of MN Counties web site: www.amc.org
LEAGUE OF
MINNESOTA
CITIES
CONNECTING & INNOVATING
SINCE 1913
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Updated 7/27/2010
• Again for 2011 levy limits will only be in effect for cities over 2,500 population. Under current
law, levy limits expire after 2011.
• The language on levy limits is contained in Chapter 275 of Minnesota statutes.
• Slight changes to the levy limit law were made during the 2010 session: HF3729 and Chapter 215.
• The final inflationary increase percentage for 2011 levy limits is 1.6784%.
• The Dept. of Revenue will be certifying levy limits by Sept. 1, 2010. Cities must indicate to the
Dept. using the PT280 form which special levies they are intending to use by Sept. 30, 2010.
Step 1: Start with your city's adiusted levy limit base for pay 2010 (note that starting with the adjusted
levy limit from last year means that any unused levy authority is retained going forward for your
city). You can arrive at this figure by adding your maximum allowable levy (the limited piece)
for payable 2010 to your certified 2010 LGA, 2010 taconite aid (if applicable), 2010 wind energy
production tax (if applicable) and your 2010 utility valuation transition aid (if applicable). This
is your city's levy limit base.
Step 2: Multiply your levy limit base by 1.6784% (the levy limit law says the inflationary increase is the
lesser of 3.9% OR the change in the implicit price deflator (IPD) for local governments). The
2010 legislature clarified that the change cannot be less than zero percent.
Step 3: Multiply the result of Step 2 by 1 plus one-half of the percentage increase, if any, in the number
of households in your city over the last year.
Step 4: Multiply the result of Step 3 by 1 plus one-half of the percentage increase in the total taxable
market value for all kinds of property as a result of new construction of just commercial and
industrial (CI) property. (This adjustment only applies, in other words, if your total taxable
market value increased AND you had new CI construction). The result is your adiusted levy
limit base for pay 2011.
Step 5: From your adiusted levy limit base for 2011, subtract your 2011 certified LGA (if applicable),
your 2011 taconite aid (if applicable), your 2011 wind energy production tax
(if applicable), and your 2011 utility valuation transition aid (if applicable). The 2010 Legislature
confirmed and clarified that certified aid amounts are to be used in the calculation. At this point,
2011 LGA amounts are estimates only (see spreadsheet on LMC website). Certified aid amounts
for 2011 will be announced by DOR by the end of July 2010.
The result is your 2011 levy limit. See the following pages for detailed information on special levies for
pay 2011.
145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST
ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044
PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAX (651) 281-1299
TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG
League of Minnesota Cities
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Page 2
Special Levies for 2011
There are several special levies allowed beyond this levy limit. Below is a list of the most frequently used
"special levies." Those marked with an "*" are special levies that cities can use for the first time for
payable 2011. For a complete list of special levies, see MS 275.70, subd 5.
• *Levies to recover 2010 LGA cuts in ratified unallotments
• *Levies to recover 2010 MVHC reimbursement cuts in ratified unallotments
• *Levies to recover 2010 LGA cuts in supplemental budget passed by 2010 legislature
• *Levies to recover 2010 MVHC reimbursement cuts in supplemental budget
• *Levies to recover 2011 MVHC reimbursement cuts in supplemental budget
• Levies for bonds and most certificates of indebtedness.
• Voter approved levies.
• Levies to pay for federal or state matching requirements.
• Levies for natural disaster recovery.
• Levies for property tax abatements.
• Levies for increases in PERA employer contributions.
• Levies to repay a federal or state loan for a transportation or capital project.
• Levy increases to fund police and firefighter relief associations.
• Levies related to foreclosure costs
• Levies for police and firefighter wage and benefit costs.
Example of how to estimate the levy limit
Information needed for calculation:
✓ Pay 2010 adjusted levy limit base = $900,000 = levy limit base for pay 2011
✓ Percent change in number of households over last year = 2%
✓ Percent change in total market value of all property types as a result of new construction of
commercial/industrial property= 0%
✓ 2011 estimated LGA= $3,250
✓ 2011 taconite aid= $0
✓ 2011 wind energy production tax= $0
✓ 2011 utility transition aid = $0
Calculation:
Step 1: $900,000
Step 2: $900,000 x 1.68%= $915,120
Step 3: $915,120 x (1+half of 2%) _ $915,120 x 1.01 = $924,271
Step 4: $924,271 x (1+0) = $924,271 x 1 = $924,271 (adjusted levy limit base for pay 2011)
Step 5: $924,271 — $3,250 — 0 — 0 - 0 = $921,021 (2011 levy limit)
For more information about levy limits, contact the following League of Minnesota Cities staff:
Gary Carlson Jennifer O'Rourke Rachel Walker
Director of Intergovernmental Relations Intergovernmental Relations Policy Analysis Manager
(651) 281-1255 or (800) 925-1122 Representative (651) 281-1236 or (800) 925-1122
gcarlson(a`lmc.org (651) 281-1261 or (800) 925-1122 rwalker@lmc.org
iorourke(1mc.org
League of Minnesota Cities
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Page 3
FAQ: 2011 Special Levies
Q: Are there special levies that we should consider for the first time?
A: Yes. There are several special levies that cities can take advantage of for the first time. These
are special levies to allow cities to recoup the amounts of LGA and/or MVHC reimbursement that
were unalloted by the Governor AND the amounts of LGA and/or MVHC reimbursement that
were cut by the Legislature in the supplemental budget bill of 2010
Q: If we used a special levy in 2010, do we have to use it again in 2011?
A: Technically, the answer is no. However, the Department of Revenue makes adjustments to
your levy limit base once you start using a special levy (i.e. your base is reduced). If you opt to
stop using a special levy, the Department will NOT restore your base. Therefore, it is in the city's
best interest to continue to use a special levy once it starts.
Q: Do we have to use special levies?
A: No. They are optional, keeping in mind the answer above. If your city is going to use one or
more special levies for the first time in 2011, there may be special calculations you need to do in
order to estimate your levy limit base (see below).
Q: If we use special levies for the first time for pay 2011, what information do we need to
provide to DOR?
A: For most of the allowed special levies, the Dept. of Revenue needs baseline data. When you
decide to start using a given special levy, the Department will use the information provided by
cities on the property tax levy report. This report was due to the Department in December of 2009.
If you are concerned that your city's report was incomplete or inaccurate for any reason, you need
to contact the Department in order to work with them on calculating an accurate baseline.
Cities will need to submit form PT280 by September 30th to the Dept. of Revenue. That form
indicates which special levies a city intends to use.
Q: Do we need to submit any forms to the Dept. of Revenue?
A: Yes. Cities will need to submit form PT280 by September 30th to the Dept. of Revenue. That
form indicates which special levies a city intends to use.
Q: Should we use special levies?
A: It depends. The use of special levies is optional. Keep in mind that the inflationary increase
on the limited levy is just 1.67% (note that this figure will be finalized in early July using the data
available at that time and may change slightly). If you are going to see an increase of less than the
inflationary increase PLUS the other 2 percentage adjustments for household growth and
commercial -industrial growth in a category of spending that could be a special levy, it may be of
more benefit to NOT treat that category as a special levy. This way, you retain those dollars in the
calculation of your levy limit base.
League of Minnesota Cities
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Page 4
Q: Where does the household data come from for calculating levy limits?
A: The state demographer and Metropolitan Council will certify population and household counts
to the Dept. of Revenue by July 15.
Q: Where does the commercial/industrial new construction data come from?
A: Data on new construction of C/I property is available from the 2009 Fall Mini Tax Abstract
from the Dept. of Revenue. Total taxable market value for all property types in a city will be
available on the 2010 Abstract of Tax Lists in July.
Q: How is new construction within TIF districts or within JOBZ areas handled in the levy
limit calculations?
A: Levy authority is adjusted for a portion of the percentage increase in total taxable market value
as a result of new construction of commercial/industrial property. New construction of C/I
property within TIF and JOBZ areas will count in the calculation of this adjustment.
Select Special Levies Allowed for Taxes Payable 2011
A table listing several of the special levies allowed in the levy limit law is below. For each of
these special levies, the table makes note of whether or not cities that are using the special levy for
the first time must back out the entire 2010 levy amount for a given special levy in order to
calculate the levy limit base. The table also includes additional information on some of the more
complex special levies. DOR will issue highly detailed instructions on special levies when it sends
out the PT280 forms.
Special Levy
If city will use this special
levy FOR THE FIRST
TIME in 2011, does city
need to subtract entire
2010 amount from levy
limit base calculation?
Notes
Unalloted (ratified) 2010 LGA or
MVHC cuts
No.
Supplemental cuts to 2010 LGA
or MVHC
No.
Cuts to 2011 MVHC
No.
Costs attributable to police/fire
wages and benefits
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
If you contract with another city or county
for police services, you need to ask the
provider for documentation as to the
portion of contract costs that go to cover
wage/benefits. Then, you need to
determine the amount of levy you have
used/will use to cover that part of the
contract cost.
Levies for bonds and most
certificates of indebtedness
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
If a city issued an emergency debt
certificate to recover from aid and credit
cuts rather than using the special levy for a
similar purpose, it must use this special
levy to pay the certificate back, not the aid or
credit cut special levy
League of Minnesota Cities
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Page 5
Special Levy
If city will use this
special levy FOR THE
FIRST TIME in 2011,
does city need to
subtract entire 2010
amount from levy limit
base calculation?
Notes
Levies approved via voter
referendum
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
Levies to fund matching
requirements for federal or state
grants
Yes—the special levy is for
the change since 2001 only.
To the extent that matching
requirement exceeds requirement in
2001 or it is a new requirement that
didn't exist prior to 2002
Levies to pay expenses incurred
in preparing or repairing the
effects of natural disaster
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
There is also a separate application to
DOR Commissioner.
Levies for property tax
abatements
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
Levies for increases in PERA
employer contribution rates or
for locally administered plans
effective after 6/30/01
YES—the special levy is
for the change since 2001
only.
Cities cannot use a special levy for
PERA rate increases if they are
accounting for those rate increases as
part of the police/fire wages and
benefits special levy and vice versa.
No double counting is allowed.
Levies to repay state or federal
loan used to fund spending on
transportation or other capital
project
YES.
The special levy is the
the
entire amount—not just
change.
Levies to fund police and
firefighter relief associations.
YES.
The special levy is the
entire amount—not just the
change.
Levies to pay costs incurred for
securing, maintaining, or
demolishing foreclosed or
abandoned residential properties
YES.
Requires separate application to DOR
commissioner. City must meet
threshold: foreclosure rate of at least
1.4% in 2007 OR foreclosure rate in
2007 in city or zip code area of city
that is at least 50% higher than average
metro foreclosure rate. Foreclosure
rate is number of foreclosures in sheriff
sales records divided by number of
households in 2007.
League of Minnesota Cities
How to estimate your 2011 levy limit
Page 6
Examples of how to estimate your city's levy limit
Example 1: City has small debt levy (also had for pay 2010)
Information needed for calculation:
✓ 2010 adjusted levy limit base = levy limit base for pay 2011 = $900,000
✓ Percent change in number of households over last year = 2%
✓ Percent change in total market value of all property types as a result of new construction of C/I =
0%
✓ 2011 estimated LGA= $3,250
✓ 2011 taconite aid= $0
✓ 2011 wind energy production tax= $0
✓ 2011 utility transition aid = $0
Calculation:
Step 1: $900,000
Step 2: $900,000 x 1.68%= $915,120
Step 3: $915,120 x (1+half of 2%) = $915,120 x 1.01 = $924,271
Step 4: $924,271 x (1+0) = $924,271 x 1 = $924,271 (adjusted levy limit base for pay 2011)
Step 5: $924,271 - $3,250 - 0 - 0 - 0 = $921,021 (2011 levy limit)
Example 2: City uses police/fire wage and benefit cost special levy (for 1st time in pay 2011)
Information needed for calculation:
✓ 2010 adjusted levy limit base = pay 2011 levy limit base = $125,000
✓ 2010 levy for police/fire wage and benefit costs = $35,000
(treat as if it would have been a special levy)
✓ Percent change in number of households over last year = 3%
✓ Percent change in total market value of all property types as a result of new construction of C/I =
1%
✓ 2011 estimated LGA= $3,250
✓ 2011 taconite aid= $0
✓ 2011 wind energy production tax= $0
✓ 2011 utility transition aid = $0
Calculation:
Step 1: $125,000
Step 2: $125,000 - $35,000 = $90,000
Step 3: $90,000 x 1.68% = $91,512
Step 4: $91,512 x (1+half of 3%) = $91,512 x 1.015 = $92,885
Step 5: $92,885 x (l+half of 1%) = $92,885 x 1.005 = $93,349 (adjusted levy limit base)
Step 6: $93,349 - $3,250 - 0 - 0 - 0 = $90,099 (2011 levy limit)
HOUSE RESEARCH
Short Subjects
Pat Dalton
General levy limits
are imposed for
taxes payable in
2009-2011
Levy limits are
intended to ensure
that state aid
reduces property
taxes and limits the
growth rate of
property taxes
Levy limits have
expired several
times and been
reenacted
State aids are used
to calculate limits
Updated: August 2008
Levy Limits
The general levy limits under Minnesota Statutes, sections 275.70 to 275.74,
restrict the amount of property taxes cities with a population of 2,500 or more and
all counties may impose for general fund expenditures. Levy limits were reenacted
during the 2008 legislative session and are in effect for taxes payable in 2009
through 2011.
Levy limits are adopted to keep the growth in property taxes low and to help
ensure that cities and counties use increased state aid payments to reduce property
taxes and not for higher local spending. Because of this, general purpose state aids
are included in calculating the limit. When a local government's state aid
increases, its maximum allowed levy decreases. Conversely, if a local
government's aid decreases, its allowed levy increases. If a local government
receives no state aid, the limit applies only to its property tax levy.
Although the purpose of levy limits is to limit growth in property taxes, some
opponents argue that they may actually increase taxes by encouraging cities and
counties to levy up to the maximum allowed.
In recent years, the
legislature has generally
imposed levy limits as
part of property tax
reforms, or when state
aid reductions may have
led to higher property
taxes. They were re-
imposed for Pay 2009-
2011 to limit rising
property taxes and
ensure that aid increases
are passed on as
property tax reductions.
The table shows the
years in which levy limits were
Chronolo
y of Levy Limits
Taxes
payable
years
Limits
Apply?
Instigating Event
1972-1992
Yes
Enactment of 1971 property tax
reform
1993-1997
No
Enactment of Truth -in -Taxation
notices as a replacement
1998-2000
Yes
"Compression" of class rates
2001
No
Allowed to expire
2002-2003
Yes
2001 property tax reform
2004
Yes
2003 and 2004 aid reductions
2005-2008
No
Allowed to expire
2009-2011
Yes
Previous county and city levy
increases
imposed.
As noted above, state general-purpose aids are used to calculate levy limits. The
aids included in the levy limit base are (1) taconite aid; (2) county program aid, for
counties only; and (3) local government aid (LGA), for cities only. The
combination of levy plus aid is known as the levy limit base.
.••,1 The allowed growth
in the levy limit
base for Pay 2009-
2011 is less than
usual
Local governments
may levy "outside of
limits" for certain
purposes
Local governments
may go to voters for
authority to exceed
limits
In recent history, the levy limit base has usually been adjusted for inflation, new
households, and new commercial and industrial property. For Pay 2009-2011,
stricter limits were imposed. A local government's levy limit base (levy plus aids)
is increased for growth for the three factors but limited as follows:
• The rate of inflation, as measured by the implicit price deflator (IPD) for
state and local government purchases, but only to a maximum of 3.9 percent
• Only one-half of the percent growth number of households in the local
jurisdiction, as estimated by the state demographer or the Metropolitan
Council, rather than the usual 100 percent of the growth rate
• One-half of the increase in the total market value in the jurisdiction due to
new commercial/industrial development
The levy limits do not apply to "special levies." Special levies can be imposed for
whatever amount the city or county needs outside of levy limits for specified
purposes. For taxes payable in 2009 these purposes include:
• debt for capital purchases and projects;
• state and federal required matching grants;
• preparation for and recovery from natural disasters;
• certain abatements;
• increases in public employee retirement association (PERA) rates after June
30, 2001;
• required jail operation costs;
• operation of lake improvement districts;
• repayment of a state or federal loan related to highway or capital projects;
and
• for an animal humane society.
For Pay 2009-2011 the special levy for pension plan rates was expanded to all
local government pension plans and five new special levies were added, which
include:
• to cover increased costs related to reductions in federal health and human
service program grants;
• to cover city costs in cities with high foreclosure rates;
• for Minneapolis to cover unreimbursed costs related to the I -35W bridge
collapse;
• for salaries and benefits for police, fire, and sheriff personnel; and
• to recoup any LGA or county program aid losses if the governor unallots
moneys from these programs due to a future budget crisis.
When levy limits are in effect, a local government may certify a levy higher than
its levy limit if approved by the voters at a referendum. A vote to exceed the limit
may be for any amount, and the tax is spread on tax capacity. Unless approved by
a referendum, the final levy may not exceed the limited amount plus the amounts
levied for authorized special levies.
For more information: Contact legislative analyst Pat Dalton at 651-296-7434. Statutes governing levy
limits are Minnesota Statutes, sections 275.70 to 275.74.
The Research Department of the Minnesota House of Representatives is a nonpartisan office providing legislative,
legal, and information services to the entire House.
House Research Department 1600 State Office Building 1 St. Paul, MN 55155 1 651-296-6753 1 www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm
MINNESOTA. REVENUE
Minnesota Statutes § 275.70 to 275.74 provide overall levy limitations for county governments
and for cities over 2,500 in population ("levy -limit" cities) for the taxes payable years 2009
through 2011. This letter contains very important information for understanding and complying
with these limits and is the only copy of this letter being sent to your city or county. Therefore, it
is imperative for you to forward this letter, or provide copies, to the appropriate officials in your
county or city.
This letter serves to review information about the overall process by which levy limits will be
administered.
■ Understanding the Administration of Levy Limits
The Levy Limitation
Minnesota Statute §§ 275.70 to 275.74, provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law
or municipal charter to the contrary which authorize ad valorem taxes in excess of the limits
established by these provisions, the provisions of these sections apply to local governmental
units for all purposes other than those for which special levies and special assessments are made.
This means that previously passed laws permitting certain levies in excess of any limitations are
indeed NOT allowed to supersede these limits.
Generally speaking, the levy limit for levies adopted in 2010 for taxes payable in 2011 is equal
to a county's or city's adjusted levy limit base amount from the prior year reduced by the sum of
the county's or city's payable 2011 property tax aids and estimated wind energy production
taxes. This means increases in certified aids or wind energy production taxes will reduce the
levy limit while decreases in certified aids or wind energy production taxes will increase the levy
limit.
The adjusted levy limit base used to determine the levy limit for 2010 levies payable in 2011 is a
county's or city's levy limit base for taxes payable 2010 increased by:
(1) the lesser of 3.9 percent or the rate of inflation (which is 1.6784 percent),
(2) half (50%) of the percentage increase in the number of households, if any, in the county or
city, and
(3) half (50%) of the percentage increase in the taxable market value of the county or city that is
due to new construction of commercial and industrial property.
The Timing and Process
After the Department received updated household count information from the State
Demographer and Metropolitan Council on July 15, 2010, and aids were certified by August 1,
2010, the Department began reviewing the data and calculating the levy limits for each county
and "levy limit" city. The Department is required to certify these limits to the local
governmental units by September 1, 2010.
The Department will also provide the PT Form 280 and its instructions, which is the process by
which counties and levy -limit cities claim the use of special levies. This form is due to the
Department on or before September 30, 2009.
The Property Tax Levy Report, which is authorized by M.S. § 275.62 and submitted each year by
December 30 of the levy year, requires the identification of the special levies that are defined in
the levy limit laws and serves as a starting point for determining the appropriate 2011 special
levies. Because the use of special levies is optional, the special levies that are used for the first
time may not match those that were included in the levy limit base, which will cause adjustments
to the levy limit. The Department is to certify the allowed special levies and any levy limit
adjustments to the local units of government on or before December 10, 2010.
The following summarizes the deadlines and actions required under the overall levy limitation
law for levy year 2010, taxes payable 2011:
Deadlines in the Law Action Required
On or Before September 1,
2010
On or Before September 30,
2010
On or Before December 10,
2010
On or Before 5 Business Days
After December 20
(December 28 in 2010)
Special Levies
The Department of Revenue certifies the payable 2011 overall
levy limitation to each county government and to each city over
2,500 population (levy limit city).
The counties and levy -limit cities send their completed Payable
2011 PT Forms 280 to the Department of Revenue, claiming
their special levies for payable 2011.
The Department of Revenue certifies the allowed special levies
for payable 2011 to the counties and the levy -limit cities. The
Department's decision is final. No changes in allowed special
levies will be made after this date except for special levies
corresponding with recertified levies due to late unallotments
under M.S. 275.07, subd. 6.
The Department of Revenue certifies to the county auditor the
sum of the payable 2011 levy limitation and allowed special
levies for the county government and for each levy limit city
within the county. The county auditor, for the purpose of
determining tax rates for the taxes payable year 2011, must use
the lesser of: (1) the county's or levy limit city's final certified
levy for the taxes payable year 2011 or (2) the sum of its levy
limitation and allowed special levies for the taxes payable year
2011.
2
Under the overall levy limitation law, all special levy claims must be pre -approved by the
Department of Revenue. To accomplish this, the Payable 2011 PT Form 280 must be completed
and submitted to the Department of Revenue on or before September 30, 2010. The Department
of Revenue will review the special levy claims and report back to the county or levy limit city by
December 10, 2010 the amount of the approved special levies. The Department's decision on
special levies approved (whether in the amount claimed or at a reduced level) or denied is final.
No county or levy limit city will be allowed to levy more than the sum of its levy limitation and
approved special levies.
The Department of Revenue will also certify to the county auditors, on or before December 28,
2010, the sum of the levy limit and the approved special levies for the county and for each levy
limit city within the county. If a final levy certified to the county auditor exceeds the sum of the
levy limitation plus approved special levies, the county auditor must reduce the certified final
levy to the sum of the levy limitation plus approved special levies.
Please note that all special levies relate to the amount of property taxes levied for the costs that
may be described. For example, the special levy for the wages and benefits for sheriff, police,
and fire personnel is not equal to the total wages and benefits of those personnel, but only the
share of those wages and benefits for which a levy is made. For more details on the special
levies please refer to the instructions for the PT Form 280 when those are made available.
Levy Authority
Please note that the levy limits apply to counties and levy -limit cities, but not to special taxing
districts. At times, the levies for a housing and redevelopment authority (HRA), or an economic
development authority (EDA), or other "districts" may truly be levies of the county or city for
the benefit of those districts, and in other situations those levies may be the levies of those
authorities as a special taxing district. Please refer to M.S. § 275.066 to identify special taxing
districts, and please give close attention to the statutes under which levies are authorized to
determine if the levies should be included in the levy of county or city, or separated as a special
taxing district. These distinctions should already be made each year when certifying levies to the
county auditor.
Consolidations, Annexations, Transfers of Functions
The overall levy limitation law provides for special levy limit adjustments for consolidations,
annexations, and transfers of governmental functions that are effective on or before June 30 of
the levy year. Specifically, these include the following adjustments:
• If all of the area included in two or more local governmental units are consolidated or
merged into one single governmental unit, the levy limit base of the resulting
governmental unit in the first levy year that the consolidation is effective is equal to the
highest tax rate of any of the merging governmental units for the previous levy year
multiplied by the total net tax capacity of the merging governmental units for the
previous levy year, minus the sum of their special levies for the previous levy year.
• If a city increases its tax base through a partial annexation of another governmental unit,
and the annexed area contains a population of 50 or more persons, the levy limit base of
the city for the first levy year in which the annexation is effective (before the adjusted
3
levy limit base calculations) is to be increased by the ratio of the net tax capacity of the
city after the annexation compared to its net tax capacity prior to the annexation.
• If a city, as the result of an annexation agreement has different tax rates in various parts
of the city due to different service levels, the city may petition the Department of
Revenue for an adjustment to its levy limit. The Department of Revenue is to adjust the
levy limit to reflect scheduled increases in tax rates related to increasing service levels in
areas currently receiving less city services.
• If a function or service is transferred from one local governmental unit to another, the
levy limits of the two local governmental units are to be adjusted by the Department of
Revenue in such manner as to fairly and equitably reflect the reduced or increased
property tax burden resulting from the transfer. The aggregate of the adjusted levy
limitations must not exceed the aggregate of the levy limitations prior to the adjustment.
What this means is that the two adjustments are equal and opposite, and that the two local
governmental units must agree on the amount of the adjustment before any adjustment
will be made.
If your county or levy limit city believes that it qualifies for any of these special levy limit
adjustments, please contact the Department of Revenue to find out what information must be
provided by your county or city to the Department of Revenue in order for the Department to
make the appropriate an adjustment.
Elections for Additional Levies
Notwithstanding the overall levy limits, but subject to other law or charter provisions
establishing other levy limitations, a county or a levy limit city may choose to go to the voters at
a general or a special election for approval to levy an additional levy. In order to be effective for
levy year 2010, taxes payable 2011, a referendum held under this provision in 20010 would have
to be held at a general or special election held on or before November 2, 2010, (the first Tuesday
after the first Monday in November). A referendum held after this date in 2010 could not be
levied until levy year 2011, taxes payable 2012. Notice of the election must be given in the
manner required by law. The notice of the election must state the purpose and the maximum
yearly amount of the additional levy.
Generally, these additional levies shall be levied on net tax capacity rather than on referendum
market value. If your county or levy -limit city has a new net tax capacity -based referendum
levy, it is to be added to your county's or city's levy limit base since it is an authorized additional
levy rather than a special levy authorized outside of your county's or city's overall levy
limitation. If your county or city intends to seek an additional levy at a referendum, the
Department of Revenue should be notified by September 30, 2010, and any additional levies
approved by the voters in 2010 at a referendum held on or before November 3, 2010, must be
reported to the Department of Revenue on or before November 30, 2010.
4
To: The Lino Lakes Charter Commission
From: Commissioner Mike Trehus
Date: April 14, 2011
Subj: By -Law Change Proposal
Dear Commissioners,
Due to the recent lengthy debates over how our meetings are to be conducted, I would like to
propose a change to our by-laws.
Background
On page 3 of our by-laws under Section 4 it states "The meetings will be conducted in accordance
with Robert's Rules of Order, Revised, latest edition." The obvious intent here is to provide for
orderly and efficient meetings. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way.
Commissioners are volunteers who bring a wide variety in backgrounds, training, skills, and
public service experience to the Commission, yet this single sentence is the only guidance we
have. As a volunteer committee with limited available time and money, it is not a simple matter
for the Commission to provide its members with a thorough education in "Robert's Rules" (RR),
particularly in a large group setting with constant member turnover. As a result, members are left
to their own devices to learn how meetings are conducted and how to participate in the
deliberations. This is not necessarily an undesirable situation. In fact our City Council has a
similar provision regarding RR, but observation of their meetings shows that they are
predominately efficient, orderly, and respectful while only employing the barest essentials of RR.
Moreover, their meetings seldom if ever involve debate over what does or doesn't comply with
RR.
Rationale
I think we can all agree that:
• In order to have discussion where all members are on equal ground, every Commissioner
should have equal knowledge of meeting rules;
• RR is too complex to be intensely and equally understood by a volunteer group of our
size, makeup, and turnover;
• Anything less than complete understanding by all Commissioners can result in
misinterpretations and debates over RR, taking time away from the actual issues;
• We cannot afford to have a neutral parliamentarian or referee attend meetings to clarify
disagreements over what RR says;
• Commission meetings should not be bogged down by debates over meeting rules, we
need to instead debate the issues at hand.
Proposal
We simply remove the sentence on RR (above) from our by-laws, and in its place insert a short
and simple distillation of RR that everyone can understand and easily refer to. I have taken the
liberty of writing a draft for this purpose. Please note that I have used the Microsoft feature of
"Track Changes" to show what I propose to be added or taken away from our current by-laws.
Note: A good reference can be found at http://www.robertsrules.org/
DRAFT OF PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE
Section 4. Order of Business. The Commission shall use the following order of business at its
meetings:
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Reports of the Chair
4. Reports of Committees
5. Unfinished Business
6. New Business
7. Adjournment
All resolutions shall be recorded in the minutes of the Commission meetings.
be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order. Revised. latest edition.
Section 5. Manner of Debate and Voting. With the exception of approving minutes and
adjourning meetings. each item on the agenda that may require a vote of the commission shall be
considered via a process of presentation, questions, discussion, and action, in this order.
Presentation
The Chair may be the presenter. Alternatively, the Chair or the Commission may designate a
presenter or presenters from within or outside the Commission.
Questions
When the presentation is complete, the Chair shall allow for questions of the presenters in the
manner described below, and/or the Chair may direct that questions be answered by attendees
other than the presenters.
Discussion
Once questioning is complete, the Chair shall allow discussion by the Commission. No member
except the Chair may interrupt a speaker, or speak until the Chair grants them the floor. To
obtain the floor, a member must raise his/her hand when the person speaking has finished and
state "Mr./Madam Chair." No member may speak twice to the same issue until everyone else
wishing to speak has spoken to it once. Discussion must be relevant to the agenda item, or the
Chair may re -direct or terminate the speaker's turn.
Action
The Chair shall determine when it is appropriate for motions to be made, may disallow a motion,
and may tell the Commission when he/she will accept a motion. Alternatively, a member having
the floor may request permission from the Chair to make a motion. Once a motion has been
made, it must be seconded by another Commissioner or it is invalid. The Chair may allow
discussion following a motion pertaining to the scope and meaning of the motion. When a
commissioner wishes to modify or enhance a motion, he/she may offer a `Friendly Amendment."
The friendly amendment may be accepted or rejected by the motion -maker and the seconder,
Once discussion of the motion is complete, the Chair shall call for a vote. Alternatively, a
member having the floor may ask the Chair to call for a vote.
The voting on all questions coming before the Commission shall be recorded in the minutes,
which shall state what was done and not what was said. The votes on resolutions, unless
unanimous, shall state the number of "ayes" and "nays" and "abstentions." When a quorum is in
attendance, action may be taken by the Commission upon a vote of the majority of the members
present unless another provision of these by-laws specifically states otherwise.
Caroline Dahl, Chairperson,
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
1101 Holly Court East
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
April 14, 2011
The Honorable Timothy Bloomquist
Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District
Kanabec County Courthouse
18 North Vine Street
Mora, MN 55051
Dear Judge Bloomquist:
As required by state law, please find the following 2010 annual report for the Lino Lakes Charter
Commission. This report seeks to outline major activities and concerns of the Commission as discussed
in Charter meetings.
2010 Annual Report, Approved by the Lino Lakes Charter Commission, April 14, 2011
Contact Information
New law for contact information to be made public, City Clerk, Julie Bartell; Email address or phone
number required for public to contact you
Membership
Melissa Stockman -Maher resigned January 15, 2010 and Don Aldentaler was appointed to complete that
term ending December 31, 2011. Don Aldentaler was sworn in for the April 8, 2010 meeting.
Seven terms expired on December 31, 2009. The Commissioners appointed with terms now expiring in
2013 are as follows: Chris Bretoi, Kelly Gunderson, Mike Trehus, Shawn Turcotte, Richard Williams,
Margaret Penn and Caroline Dahl. These Commissioners were sworn in for the January 14, 2010 meeting.
New officers of the Charter Commission were installed at the January 14, 2010 as per Commission By-
laws. They include Chair Caroline Dahl, Vice Chair Christopher Lyden and
Secretary Kelly Gunderson.
Meetings
Full meetings of the Charter Commission were held on: January 14, 2010; April 8, 2010;
July 8, 2010 and October 14, 2010. Additional Special meetings were held on: June 3, 2010
Minutes
In an effort to save money, the Charter Commission Secretary now records the minutes for the regular and
special meetings held throughout the year.
Charter Business
The Charter Commission has studied possible amendments to our existing Charter.
Commission / Council Joint Meeting
The Charter Commission made a request to the City Council for a joint meeting in July. It was to discuss
the Attorney bill in arrears and update the Charter budget for a realistic amount as had been in previous
years. It was to no avail. The 1500.00 budget was enacted in 1961(State Statute) and has not been
updated to reflect inflation.
Charter Expenditures
The Charter has an Attorney's bill outstanding and that the Council will not pay it.
Five Year Financial Plan
Under the Charter, the Five Year Plan requires annual updating. As per Mr. Rolek, Finance Director,
"The City Council put off the 5 -year plan discussion in May, 2010 pending the completion of an
organizational study and the hiring of a City Administrator. The Administrator was hired in August and
org study is currently underway. They will receive a progress report on the 5 -year plan at the March work
session and anticipate a review of a draft at the April work session".
Respectfully Submitted,
Caroline Dahl
Chairperson, Lino Lakes Charter Commission
r -r Lino Lakes Charter started when a Lake Drive sewer project brought on special
assessments to the homeowners in amounts greater than their house values.
This happened many times in the 60's and 70's. After this project came along the
people of Lino Lakes finally had enough so 800 citizens formed a group called
Citizens for Responsive Government. This group hired an attorney and
successfully fought to stop the project. Thirty years later this project is still not
needed for that area. After this was stopped, Citizens for Responsive Government
became an organization dedicated to researching a Charter government for Lino
Lakes to prevent a recurrence of these runaway projects. A special election was
held in February of 1982, with over 80% voting for the charter, and to this day
every attempt to amend section 8, which covers improvement projects in their
own neighborhood, has been defeated by at least 70% to 80% only because of the
hard work of the volunteer charter commissioners all these years working to
inform the citizens of Lino Lakes of their rights.
Now that the city has grown from 2,000 in 1982 to over 20,000 today there is still a
need to protect property owners of projects they might not need and also to have
projects put in they might need. This particular Charter in Lino Lakes is the voice
of the people than can be heard between ELECTION DAYS Since it could take
up to 4 years to change local councils and mayor, a lot of these projects went
through without any votes from the benefitted property owners before the
charter.
Commissioner Rose Storberg