HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-2011 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
QUARTERLY MEETING
AGENDA
6:30 PM
Thursday, July 14, 2011
1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30 PM
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of agenda items
4. Open Mike / Public Comment
5. Minutes:
a. April 14, 2011 and Tabled Minutes of January 13, 2011
6. Unfinished Business
A. Charter Agreement with Karen Marty, expenses incurred
B. Charter Amendments / Commissioner Trehus
C. Meeting Rules / Commissioner Penn / By Laws
D. Charter History for inclusion on website / Commissioners Storberg, Drennen
a. Two Drafts—one included in packet
7. New Business
A. Upcoming Charter Appointments / Reappointments
a. Applications
B. Letter from City Council regarding new election laws
C. Next meeting date, Thursday, October 13, 2011
Adjournment
Caroline Dahl Christopher Lyden Kelly Gunderson
Chair Vice Chair Secretary
1
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
44
45
Charter Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 1
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS EXCUSED
MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
FINAL DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
April 14, 2011
6:35 P.M.
9:31 P.M.
Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson, Dahl, Drennen (arrives at
6:40pm), Gunderson, Lyden, Minar (arrives at 7:28 pm)
Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams
Sutherland, Zastrow
None
None
Dean Hausladen, Councilmember Rob Rafferty (arrives
at 7:25pm.)
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Dahl called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on
April 14, 2011.
SETTING THE AGENDA
Commissioner Drennen arrives at 6:40pm.
Chair Dahl added under New Business; 7D. Excelsior Charter Commission.
MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Drennen to accept the agenda as
amended. Motion passes unanimously.
OPEN MIC
No one spoke during the "open mic" portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
After finding numerous errors with the minutes for the January 13, 2011, Commissioner
Gunderson states she will review the document and correct the errors.
MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Lyden to table the minutes to
the next meeting in July 2011. Motion passes unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Charter Agreement / Karen Marty
No new information was presented.
1
Charter Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 2
46 B. Charter Amendments
47 Commissioner Trehus presented new information to the Commission. The Charter Commission's
48 attorney reviewed language for Section 1.04 amendment and found no problems. Drafting ballot
49 language is the next step for the amendment, needing to be completed by the July meeting.
50
51 Discussion of amendment continues in the possibility of submitting the amendment to the City
52 Council for passage by ordinance. Time deadlines of submitting language for ballot may preclude
53 the possibility of submitting amendment to Council.
54
55 Commissioner Gunderson asks about the possibility of adding budgetary language of the
56 Commission to the amendment.
57
58 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Carlson that the subcommittee
59 draft language that captures the concept of equivancy in expenditures in amendment for adding
60 Section 1.04 to the Charter document.
61
62 Councilmember Rafferty arrives at 7:25pm.
63
64 Commissioner Minar arrives at 7:28pm.
65
66 Chair Dahl calls the question. Motion passes unanimously.
67
68 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to refer recommended
69 re -wording of amendment for Section 1.04 to the Commission's attorney for approval and
70 construction of ballot language. Motion passes unanimously.
71
72 Commissioner Trehus moves onto discussion of the Tax Levy Cap amendment. He reviews the
73 e-mail from Ms. Marty that contains suggestions on wording the amendment, as well as a
74 summary of the 24 loopholes in the current state statute. Commissioner Trehus also included
75 separate information from the League of Minnesota Cities and Minnesota House of
76 Representatives.
77
78 MOTION by Commissioner Minar, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to send to the City Council
79 the amended ballot language regarding the proposed charter amendment limiting the city tax
80 currently imposed by state statute.
81
82 Discussion continues until Commissioner Gunderson states she will ask State Senator Roger
83 Chamberlain's office to research if there is a current bill to extend Statute 275.71. Therefore,
84 after deciding more information is needed, Commissioners Minar and Penn withdraw the motion.
85
86 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Lyden, to have subcommittee work with
87 Charter Commission's attorney Ms. Karen Marty to develop questions and answers on the Tax
88 Levy Amendment. Commissioner Trehus asks Commissioners to view the subject as voters and
89 think of questions. Motion passes with Commissioner Storberg voting no, Commissioner
90 Carlson abstains.
2
Charter Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 3
91
92 C. Rules of Order
93 Commissioner Trehus presents to the Commission a handout of proposed rules of conducting
94 meetings.
95
96 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to form a
97 subcommittee to bring back recommendations regarding rules of order of Charter Commission
98 meetings.
99
100 The subcommittee would consist of Commissioners Gunderson, Penn, Trehus and Carlson.
101
102 Motion passes unanimously.
103
104 D. Discussion, if needed, of Joint Council meeting (tabled from October 2010)
105 Discussion began with review of tabling the discussion from more than one meeting.
106
107 Chair Dahl stated that she had not received any requests of late from the City Council to meet
108 with the Commission. Commissioner Drennen stated that it appeared that there is no need at
109 present time for a joint meeting. If there is a need or desire to have a joint meeting, either body
110 can make that request.
111
12 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Minar to close agenda item.
113 Motion passes unanimously.
114
115 NEW BUSINESS
116
117 A. 2010 Letter to Judge
118 Chair Dahl reviewed the letter she wrote to the Chief Judge of the 10th Judicial District,
119 summarizing the Charter Commission's activity in 2010.
120
121 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to accept the letter, as
122 amended to list two amendments worked on in 2010. Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson
123 voting no.
124
125 Commissioner Trehus will send amendment language to the Chair.
126
127 B. Legislature discussion to bring statute 410.06 up to date
128 Chair Dahl stated she spoke with State Senator Roger Chamberlain, along with Commissioner
129 Lyden regarding the state statute setting minimums for funding Charter Commission. Senator
130 Chamberlain stated to Chair Dahl that he will discuss the statute with his colleagues. Chair Dahl
131 stated that the $1,500 set when statute became law —1961 - would equal $11,000 today due to
132 inflation.
'133
134 Commissioner Gunderson stated that because 2011 is a budget year, nothing may happen this
135 year and the issue could be brought up again in 2012. Gunderson suggested that the Commission
3
Charter Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 4
136 draft a letter to Senator Chamberlain's and Representative Runbeck's offices requesting help in
137 updating the statute.
138
139 Commissioner Williams asked if it is known if any other Charter Commissions are requesting
140 additional funds from their Councils. Chair Dahl sent an e-mail to various Commissions and got
141 back various responses; some Commissions have not needed to additional funds, some
142 Commissions have made requests for funds and received approvals.
143
144 Chair Dahl described how Columbia Heights asked Senator Ann Rest to introduce legislation to
145 raise the minimum amount set to fund Charter Commissions. Legislation was passed but later
146 vetoed by Governor Pawlenty.
147
148 Commissioner Drennen suggested getting involvement from other Charter Commissions.
149
150 C. Brief Charter History for possible inclusion on Charter website
151 Commissioner Storberg handed out a brief history she wrote of the Charter Commission.
152
153 MOTION by Commissioner Minar, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi to accept the written
154 historical document on the Charter Commission as is.
155
156 Commissioner Drennen states although he agrees with the concept, he requested the document be
157 fact -checked and rewritten.
158
159 Commissioner Minar and Bretoi withdraw the motion.
160
161 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to add a "History of the
162 Charter" to the Charter Commission website and bring the language to the next Commission
163 meeting.
164 Commissioner Aldentaler departs the meeting at 9:25pm.
165
166 Motion passes unanimously.
167
168 D. Excelsior Charter Commission
169 Chair Dahl received a call from a member of the Excelsior City Charter Commission, who also
170 called the chairs of the Fridley and Mounds View. The purpose of the call from the Excelsior
171 Commissioner was to discuss a petition brought forward from a citizen of Excelsior to create a
172 Tax Levy cap and a 5 year financial plan. This Commissioner requested information from our
173 Commission of what we are doing regarding the levy.
174
175 Commissioner Bretoi thanked all Commissioners for their recent hard work.
176
177
178 E. Next meeting date: Thursday, July 14, 2011
179
180
4
Charter Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 5
81 ADJOURN
182 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to adjourn the
183 meeting at 9:31pm. Motion carried unanimously.
184
185 Respectfully Submitted,
186
187 Kelly Gunderson
188 Secretary
5
Referral to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission
Agenda Item _
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: July 14, 2011
TOPIC: Charter Amendments Relating to Elections
BACKGROUND
The city council received the attached staff report at their work session on May 2,
2011. The report outlines two areas of the city charter that contain schedules related
to elections and that are impacted by recently enacted federal and state law changes
to the elections schedule.
The council respectfully requests that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission review the
amendments and consider a recommendation to adopt the amendments by ordinance
(under the provisions of State Statute 410.12, Subdivision 7).
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Ordinance amending the City Charter
Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7
WS — Item 10
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item #10
Date: May 2, 2011
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Jean Viger, Deputy City Clerk
Re: Charter Amendments relating to Elections
Background
The United States Congress adopted legislation in 2009 requiring a period of 45 days for
absentee ballot voting to allow the time necessary for military and overseas voting. As a
result the Minnesota State Legislature adopted and the governor signed into law
legislation that adjusts state election law to accommodate the extended absentee balloting
period and other election administrative changes. These law changes have an impact on
the city's election calendar including when the city can receive filings for office and, in
the case of special improvement consideration, how long the city has to submit questions
to Anoka County for inclusion on the ballot. Since the City of Lino Lakes election
regulations are included in the city charter, staff is presenting the following suggestions
for amendments to the charter to concur with state and federal level changes.
1. Filing for Office. With the change in the absentee voting period, the filing period
reflected in Charter Section 4.02 is no longer appropriate. The filing period must occur at
least soon enough to allow the city to meet the deadline for getting names on the ballot.
The following changes to the City Charter would bring the city into conformance with
state law.
Section 4.02. Filing for Office. No earlier than eighty four (84) days and not
later than seventy (70) days bBefore any municipal election, any resident of the City
qualified under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying a
filing fee to the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means otherwise
permitted by state law, have his/her name placed on the municipal election ballot. The
fling period shall be as established by Minnesota State law. (Amended 1/25/88)
(Amended 05/27/2003)
2. Special Improvements. The Lino Lakes City Charter contains provisions relative to
public improvements and special assessments (Chapter 8). Language within that section
of the charter is also impacted by the above -referenced election law changes. Under
current charter language, there would not be sufficient time to meet the deadline for
submission of ballot language and meet the charter requirements of: a) a public hearing;
b) the passing of 60 days before further action; and c) submission to the voters within 120
days of the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time to satisfy both the Charter
requirements and the ballot notice requirements, it is suggested that the 120 day period be
increased to 160 days.
Also the city attorney has pointed out that the language in this section is not clear in
dictating when a special election must be held (if a general election isn't already
scheduled within the 120 or 160 day period) and that state law wouldn't allow the city to
hold a special election in the 19 weeks before a state primary election nor within 40 days
after a state general election. The language proposed would also clarify those points.
The following are the proposed changes to Section 8.04 of the Charter:
Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when less
than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to
be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources
other than the City general fund, the Council shall within one hundred twenty sixty -0204
160 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, submit the proposed local
improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no general election
is scheduled during such one hundred twenty sixty} (160) day period, the Council
shall schedule a special election within said period unless otherwise prohibited by law, in
which event the special election shall be held as soon as reasonably practicable. by
which said improvement and its associated assessment formula can be submitted to the
City's voters. If a majority of those voting on said improvement and associated
assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local
improvement as proposed.
Charter Amendment Procedure. The charter amendment process is governed by state
statute, which provides more than one method by which a home rule charter can be
amended:
Petition — a petition meeting the requirements of state law can be submitted by
citizens and the question would be brought to the voters;
Amendment proposed by the council — the council may propose an
amendment by ordinance and, after review by the charter commission, may
present it to the voters;
Upon receiving a recommendation from the charter commission, the council
may enact a charter amendment by ordinance with an affirmative vote of all
council members (with a post approval waiting period of 90 days).
Requested Council Direction
It is requested that the council confirm that these amendments should be forwarded to the
Lino Lakes Charter Commission for their review. The next regular Charter Commission
meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2011.
1st Reading:
Publication:
2nd Reading:
Effective:
Council Member
moved for adoption of the following ordinance:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. -11
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER RELATING TO
ELECTIONS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The City Council of Lino Lakes ordains that the Lino Lakes Home Rule Charter
be amended as follows (deleted text struck through added text underlined):
Section 1 Amendment of City Charter, Section 4.02.
Section 4.02. Nominations and Elections, Filing for Office. No earlier than eighty four
(84) days and not later than seventy (70) days bBefore any municipal election, any
resident of the City qualified under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit
and by paying a filing fee to the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means
otherwise permitted by state law, have his/her name placed on the municipal election
ballot. The filing period shall be as established by Minnesota State law.(Amended
1/25/88) (Amended 05/27/2003)
Section 2 Amendment of City Charter, Section 8.04, Subdivision 2.
Section 8.02, Public Improvements and Special Assessments, Special Assessment
Procedure. Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this
section, when less than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed
improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside
funding sources other than the City general fund, the Council shall within one hundred
twenty sixty—(4-20) 160 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, submit the
proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no
general election is scheduled during such one hundred twenty sixty (120) (160) day
period, the Council shall schedule a special election within said period unless otherwise
prohibited by law, in which event the special election shall be held as soon as reasonably
practicable. - - -- ' • - - -- - .
submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those voting on said improvement and
associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local
improvement as proposed.
Section 3 In Effect According to City Charter
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its passage and publication
according to the Lino Lakes City Charter.
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2011.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council
Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted.
410.12, 2010 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2
2010 Minnesota Statutes
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 17 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)
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
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=410.12 5/4/2011
410.12, 2010 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2
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 finding 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 governing 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 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. The petition must be signed by registered
voters equal in number to at least five percent of the registered voters in the city or 2,000, whichever is less. 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; 2008 c 331 s 7; 2010 c 184 s 43
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=410.12 5/4/2011
1. Chapter One Amendment. I suggest revising this as follows:
Section 1.04. Charter Commission. The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission with
responsibility for maintaining and updating the Charter, and for informing residents of the meaning or
impact of proposed Charter amendments. Members of the Charter Commission shall be appointed by
the Chief Judge of the local district court, and shall receive no compensation.
Section 1.05. Amendments to this Charter. All proposed amendments to the Charter shall be submitted
to the Charter Commission for review. If the City Council proposes a charter amendment and the
Charter Commission opposes some or all of that amendment, the City Council may not directly or
indirectly use public funds to inform the public about the amendment unless the City Council provides
the Charter Commission with equal funds and opportunities to inform the public about the amendment.
2. Tax Cap Amendment.
Draft ballot language
"Should the City Charter be amended to permanently adopt the levy limits that are currently imposed only by
state law?"
1
ARTICLE III - MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet on the second Thursday of
January, April, July and October of each year. When the business of the Commission cannot
be appropriately handled at the quarterly meetings or business from a special meeting is not
completed and necessitates additional meetings, the Commission shall establish, by
resolution, a schedule of regular meetings. All meetings shall be held in the Lino Lakes City
hall unless meeting notices state otherwise. All meetings shall comply with the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705).
Section 2. Special Meetings. The Chair or any two (2) members of the Commission may call
a special meeting to transact any business stated in the meeting notice in accordance with
state law. Notice of the special meeting shall state the time, date, place and business to be
conducted at the special meeting. Notices may be delivered or mailed to the member's
designated mailing address at least three (3) working days prior to the special meeting. The
business to be considered at special meetings shall be limited to that stated in the meeting
notice
Section 3. Quorum. The powers of the Commission shall be vested in the members thereof
in office from item to item. A majority of qualified and acting members shall constitute a
quorum for the purpose of conducting the Commission's business and exercising its powers
and for all other purposes, but a smaller number of members may adjourn from time to time.
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. The meetings
Section 5. Meeting Procedure. 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.
Meeting agendas are prepared by the Chair and Secretary and approved by the Commission, and
are subject to change by motion and voting, as described below, at the beginning of each regular
meeting. (Special meeting agendas cannot, under Minnesota law, be modified once the advance
public notice has been made.)
Commissioners and other attendees speak when called upon by the Chair, and once granted the
floor should not be interrupted.
Question and discussion periods begin with the Chair asking for a show of hands, and then
calling upon each one until all have been called upon. The Chair shall then ask again if anyone
still wishes to speak or ask a question, then repeat the process, with anyone who was not
included in the previous round(s) coming before those who were. The Chair determines how
many times this process is repeated.
The meetings are governed by the agenda, and the agenda constitutes the Commission's
agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the Chair in
the following basic format:
First, the Chair should clearly announce the agenda item number and should clearly state
what the agenda item subject is. The Chair should then announce the format (which
follows) that will be followed in considering the agenda item.
Second, following that agenda format, the Chair should invite the appropriate person or
persons to report on the item, including any recommendation that they might have. The
appropriate person or persons may be the Chair, a member of the Commission, a staff
person, or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda item.
Third, the Chair should ask members of the Commission if they have any technical
questions of clarification. At this point, members of the Commission may ask clarifying
questions to the person or persons who reported on the item, and that person or persons
should be given time to respond.
Fourth, the Chair should invite public comments, or if appropriate at a formal meeting,
should open the public meeting for public input. If numerous members of the public
indicate a desire to speak to the subject, the Chair may limit the time of public speakers.
At the conclusion of the public comments, the Chair should announce that public input
has concluded (or the public hearing as the case may be is closed).
Fifth, the Chair should invite a motion. The Chair should announce the name of the
member of the Commission who makes the motion.
Sixth, the Chair should determine if any member of the Commission wishes to second
the motion. The Chair should announce the name of the member of the Commission
who seconds the motion. If there is no second, the motion fails.
Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the Chair should make sure everyone
understands the motion. This is done in one of three ways: (1) The Chair can ask the
maker of the motion to repeat it. (2) The Chair can repeat the motion. (3) The Chair can
ask the secretary or the clerk of the Commission to repeat the motion.
Eighth, the Chair should now invite discussion of the motion by the Commission. If
there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion has ended, the Chair should
announce that the Commission will vote on the motion. If there has been no discussion
or very brief discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed immediately and
there is no need to repeat the motion. If there has been substantial discussion, then it is
normally best to make sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it.
/`h
Ninth, the Chair takes a vote. If members of the Commission do not vote, then they
"abstain". Unless a super -majority is required (as delineated later in these rules), a
simple majority determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.
Tenth, the Chair should announce the result of the vote and should announce what action
(if any) the Commission has taken. In announcing the result the Chair should indicate
the names of the members of the Commission, if any, who voted in the minority on the
motion.
Motions in General
Motions are made in a simple two-step process. First, the Chair should recognize the
member of the Commission. Second, the member of the Commission makes a motion.
The Chair usually initiates the motion by either (1) inviting the members of the
Commission to make a motion,(2) suggesting a motion to the members of the
Commission, or (3) making the motion. (The Chair has every right as a member of the
Commission to make a motion, but should normally do so only if the Chair wishes to
make a motion on an item but is convinced that no other member of the Commission is
willing to step forward to do so at a particular time.)
The Three Basic Motions
There are three motions that are the most common and recur often at meetings:
The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward a decision for the
Commission's consideration. A basic motion might be: "I move that we create a 5 --
member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser."
The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic motion that is before the
Commission, they would move to amend it. A motion to amend might be: "I move that
we amend the motion to have a 10 -member committee." A motion to amend takes the
basic motion which is before the Commission and seeks to change it in some way.
The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do away with the basic motion
that is before the Commission, and put a new motion before the Commission, they
would move a substitute motion. A substitute motion might be: "I move a substitute
motion that we cancel the annual fundraiser this year."
"Motions to amend" and "substitute motions" are often confused. But they are quite
different, and their effect (if passed) is quite different. A motion to amend seeks to retain
the basic motion on the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to
throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and different motion for it.
The decision as to whether a motion is really a "motion to amend" or a "substitute
motion" is left to the chair. So that if a member makes what that member calls a "motion
to amend", but the Chair determines that it is really a "substitute motion", then the
Chair's designation governs.
Multiple Motions Before the Commission
There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time. The Chair can reject a
fourth motion until the Chair has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has
resolved them.
When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions and seconds) at the
same time, voting should begin on the most recent motion that is made. So, for example,
assume the first motion is a basic "motion to have a 5 -member committee to plan and
put on our annual fundraiser." During the discussion of this motion, a member might
make a second motion to "amend the main motion to have a 10 -member committee, not
a 5 -member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser." And perhaps, during
that discussion, a member makes yet a third motion as a "substitute motion that we not
have an annual fundraiser this year." The proper procedure would be as follows:
After discussion and debate, the Chair would deal with the third (the most recent)
motion on the floor, the substitute motion. If the substitute motion passed, it would be a
substitute for the basic motion and would eliminate it. The first motion would be moot,
as would the second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the action on
the agenda item would be completed on the passage by the Commission of the third
motion (the substitute motion). No vote would be taken on the first or second motions.
If the substitute motion failed, the Chair would now deal with the second (now, the most
recent motion on the floor the motion to amend. The discussion and debate would
focus strictly on the amendment (should the committee by 5 members or 10 members).
If the motion to amend passed, the Chair would now move to consider the main motion
(the first motion) as amended. If the motion to amend failed, the Chair would now move
to consider the main motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended.
Debate
The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion and debate. Accordingly,
basic motions, motions to amend, and substitute motions are all eligible, each in their
turn, for full discussion before and by the Commission. The debate can continue as long
as members of the Commission wish to discuss an item, subject to the decision of the
Chair that it is time to move on and take action.
There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate on motions. The
exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the Commission to move on. The
following motions are not debatable (that is, when the following motions are made and
seconded, the Chair must immediately call for a vote of the Commission without debate
on the motion):
A motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Commission to immediately
adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It requires a simple majority vote.
A motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the Commission to immediately take
a recess. Normally, the Chair determines the length of the recess which may be a few
minutes or an hour. It requires a simple majority vote.
A motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the Commission to
adjourn the meeting at the specific time set in the motion. For example, the motion
might be: "I move we adjourn this meeting at midnight." It requires a simple maiority
vote.
A motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of the agenda item to be
halted and the agenda item to be placed on "hold". The motion can contain a specific
time in which the item can come back to the Commission: "I move we table this item
until our regular meeting in October." Or the motion can contain no specific time for the
return of the item, in which case a motion to take the item off the table and bring it back
to the Commission will have to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item
(or to bring it back to the Commission) requires a simple majority vote.
A motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say: "I call the
question." When a member of the Commission makes such a motion, the member is
really saying: "I've had enough debate. Let's get on with the vote". When such a motion
is made, the Chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote on the motion to limit
debate. The motion to limit debate requires a 2/3 vote of the Commission. Note: that a
motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For example: "I move we limit debate
on this agenda item to 15 minutes." Even in this format, the motion to limit debate
requires a 2/3 vote of the Commission. A similar motion is a motion to object to
consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable, and if passed, precludes the
Commission from even considering an item on the agenda. It also requires a 2/3 vote.
Majority and Super -Majority Votes
A tie vote means the motion fails. So in a 15 -member Commission, a vote of 7-7 with
one abstention means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is7-7, the
motion still fails.
All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few exceptions. The exceptions
come up when the Commission is taking an action which, effectively, cuts off the ability
of a minority of the Commission to take an action or discuss and item. These
extraordinary motions require a 2/3 majority (a super -majority) to pass:
Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says "I call the question" or "I move to limit
debate", it all amounts to an attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an
item, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.
Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the Commission (like the
Chair) nominations are in order either from a nominating committee or from the floor of
the Commission. A motion to close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the
minority to nominate officers, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.
Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally, such a motion is
unnecessary since the objectionable item can be tabled, or defeated straight up.
However, when members of a Commission do not even want an item on the agenda to
be considered, then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires a 2/3
vote to pass.
Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but requires a 2/3 vote to pass. If
the Commission has its own rules of order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the
Commission to suspend the rules for a particular purpose.
The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all by itself: the
motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentaryprocedure is fmality. After vigorous
discussion, debate, perhaps disagreement and a vote, there must be some closure to the
issue. And so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only to a re -
opener if a proper motion to reconsider is made.
A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass, but there are two special rules
that apply only to the motion to reconsider. First, is timing. A motion to reconsider must
be made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon or at the very next meeting
of the Commission. A motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The
Commission, however, can always vote to suspend the rules and by a 2/3 majority, can
allow a motion to reconsider to be made at another time) Second, a motion to reconsider
can only be made by certain members of the Commission. Accordingly, a motion to
reconsider can only be made by a member who voted in the majority on the original
motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or she can make the motion to
reconsider (any other member of the Commission may second the motion). If a member
who voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it must be ruled out of
order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If a member of the minority could make a
motion to reconsider, then the item could be brought back to the Commission again and
again. That would defeat the purpose of finality.
If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is back before the
Commission, and a new original motion is then in order. The matter can be discussed
and debated as if it were on the floor for the first time.
Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the members of the
Commission and the members of the public can attend to business efficiently, fairly and
with full participation. At the same time, it is up to the Chair and the members of the
Commission to maintain common courtesy and decorum. It is always best for only one
person at a time to have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first
recognized by the Chair before proceeding to speak.
The Chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an agenda item focuses on
the item and the policy in question, not the personalities of the members of the
Commission. Debate on policy is healthy, debate on personalities is not. The Chair has
the right to cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude. The Chair
should also cut off discussion that is off -topic.
Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open. In the interest of time, the
Chair may, however, limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the
Commission.
Can a member of the Commission interrupt the speaker? The general rule is "no." There
are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be interrupted for the following reasons:
Privilege. The proper interruption would be: "point of privilege." The Chair would then
ask the interrupter to "state your point." Appropriate points of privilege relate to
anything that would interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example, the
room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might interfere with a person's ability
to hear.
Order. The proper interruption would be: "point of order." Again, the Chair would ask
the interrupter to "state your point." Appropriate points of order relate to anything that
would not be considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if the Chair
moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate without allowing that discussion or
debate.
Appeal. If the Chair makes a ruling that a member of the Commission disagrees with,
that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If the motion is seconded, and after
debate, if it passes by a simple majority vote, then the ruling of the Chair is deemed
reversed.
Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of saying, "Let's return to the
agenda." If a member believes that the Commission has drifted from the agreed-upon
agenda, such a call may be made. It does not require a vote, and when the Chair
discovers that the agenda has not been followed, the Chair simply reminds the
Commission to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the Chair fails to do
so, the Chair's determination may be appealed.
Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion, the maker of the motion
on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the
floor. The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the Chair may ask the
person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make the motion, and any other
member may make the motion if properly recognized.
(Adapted from Rosenberg's Rules, Robert's Rules).
Section 6. Committees. The Commission may establish and appoint committees. Each
committee must designate a Chair.
Section 7. Discharge of Members. Any member who has failed to attend two (2)
consecutive meetings without being excused by the Commission shall be discharged
according to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.05, Subdivision 2, as
amended.
\Rough Draft of (2) Charter History:
Charter History
In the 70's and 80's Lino Lakes experienced a development spurt that saw many projects approved over the
objections of local residents. One of those was a Lake Drive sewer project that would have brought about
special assessments to the benefitted land and homeowners in amounts greater than their property values. At a
public hearing for this project over 600 people tried to attend the meeting but because of city hall being too
small it was moved to St. Joseph's Church. Even though over 800 people were against the project and about 25
were for it, the city council still passed it. Faced with this project, 600 citizens formed an incorporated group
called Citizens for Responsive Government. This group hired an attorney and successfully fought to stop the
project, and to this day in 2011, this project has not been necessary. After this project was stopped, the citizens
discovered that a City Council has absolute power to approve any project they deem necessary regardless of
citizen input. Due to the possibility this could happen again in Lino Lakes, Citizens for Responsive
Government decided to research the possibility of a Charter Government in Lino Lakes to give the citizens a
vote in future assessable projects. After this research was obtained, a signed petition was given to City Hall to
have this question put on the ballot.
A special election was held on the 12th of January in 1982, and the Charter was overwhelmingly passed by an
'80% margin. To this day every attempt to delete Sec. 8 of the Charter (property and municipal improvements)
of its power has failed by 70 — 80 percent of the voters. Because of the hard work of the volunteer charter
commissioners and citizens for almost 30 years, we still have the right to vote on certain improvement projects
in Lino Lakes.
The city has grown from 2,000 in 1982 to over 20,000 in 2011. There is now more than ever a need to protect
property owners from projects that might not be good for a neighborhood as well as giving them a voice to have
projects put in that they might need in the future. This particular Charter in Lino Lakes is the voice of the
people that can be heard BETWEEN election days.... Since it could take up to 4 years to change local council
members and the mayor, a lot of future projects can go through without any votes from the affected property
owners before this charter was enacted.
In 2011, this is what the Charter government still does for the people of Lino Lakes. It gives the people the
power of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in addition to the ability to vote on special improvements in Lino
Lakes.
Charter Commission Membership
Terms expiring at the end of 2011
Donald Aldentaler
Harold Carlson
James Drennen
Christopher Lyden
Stephen Minar
Rosemary Storberg
Connie Sutherland
Irvin Zastrow
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Application for Appointment to the Charter Commission
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name: **Phone: ( )
*Address:
** Email address
Number of years as a resident of Lino Lakes:
* If appointed, residential address becomes public information
** If appointed, state law requires applicants to designate either a telephone number or email address as
public; please indicate your preference for public contact
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
List any civic, service organizations, professional or community activities you have been
or are currently involved in:
List any special strengths, abilities, or experience you would bring to this commission:
State why you would like to serve on the Charter Commission:
Are you currently a member of the Charter Commission? Yes No
Note: City Council members cannot serve on the Charter Commission
Signed: Date:
You may attach additional information if you desire. Applications will be sent to the
appointing judge for consideration. When appointments are made by the judge, applicants
will be notified. Thank you for your interest in serving on the Charter Commission.
Please return completed application to:
Chairman Caroline Dahl, 1101 Holly Court East, Lino Lakes, MN 55038