Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2011 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION QUARTERLY MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, October 13, 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) Minuets, corrected minutes 6. Unfinished Business A. Corrected minutes B. Charter Amendments / Commissioner Trehus C. Meeting Rules / By Laws D. Upcoming Charter Appointments / Re -appointments / Applications E. Charter History / Commissioners Storberg, Drennen F. Charter Agreement with Karen Marty, expenses incurred 7. New Business A. Goals for 2012 B. Next meeting date, Thursday, January 12, 2012 Adjournment Caroline Dahl Christopher Lyden Kelly Gunderson Chair Vice Chair Secretary HAND DELIVERED July 29, 2011 Dear Mayor and City Council of Lino Lakes, On July 28, 2011, the Lino Lakes Charter Commission unanimously voted affirmatively to adopt two (2) separate amendments to the City Charter by ordinance, in accordance with Minn. Stat. §§ 410.12 Subd. 7. We are now moving these two amendments forward in that process, and recommend that both amendments be adopted as soon as possible for the benefit of the voters and the taxpayers in Lino Lakes. Caroline Dahl, Chairperson, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Amendment to Our Charter Chapter 1 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 and corresponding ballot wording shall be submitted to the Charter Commission for review. The City Council may not directly or indirectly use public funds to inform the public about an amendment unless the City Council provides the Charter Commission with equal funds and opportunities to inform the public about the amendment. Amendment to Our Charter Chapter 7 Section 7.13. Tax Cap. The City shall be restricted in the amount it can raise taxes each year. The maximum levy shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. §§ 275.70 to 275.74 (2010), as modified below. If the state legislature adopts new levy limits, the City shall be restricted to the lesser of the limits imposed under the laws in 2010, and the new limits. The City's levy for the year 2011 shall be used as the starting point for calculating all subsequent levy adjustments. Any unused levy authority from 2011 or prior years may not be used.. Levies imposed on a majority of the property owners in the City for a new special district or utility (such as a storm sewer improvement district, storm sewer utility, or lake improvement district) created after 2010 shall be included in the levy limit. These levies will qualify as "special levies" only if a majority of the City's voters specifically vote to authorize the creation of the special district or utility. For the purpose of determining the maximum levy, the original net tax capacity shall be used for all property which is both (a) placed in a tax increment financing district after 2010 and (b) being taxed on the basis of its original net tax capacity. WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: September 6, 2011 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Re: Charter Amendments Background On July 29 the Charter Commission submitted two amendments to the City Charter with a request that the City Council adopt the amendments by ordinance. The first amendment is to add two sections to Chapter 1, which would grant the Commission more discretionary power to amend the Charter and to control how public funds are spent to inform the public about an amendment. The second amendment restricts the Council's ability to raise taxes by instituting a "tax cap." The public hearing is scheduled for Monday, September 12. After the public hearing has been held, the ordinance would be enacted upon a unanimous vote from council members and the mayor. To inform the Council of the legal implications and the potential impacts of both amendments, staff has contacted City Attorney Joe Langel and Terri Heaton, the City's financial advisor. Mr. Langel prepared written comments which address the amendments to Chapter 1. Joe will be attending Tuesday's meeting. Ms. Heaton also provided staff a letter that points out how the "tax cap" amendment may impact the City financially. Attachments Proposed amendments submitted by Charter Commission Letter from City Attorney Joe Langel Letter from Terri Heaton, Sr. Vice President with Springsted MEMORANDUM TO: Lino Lakes City Council FROM: Joseph Langel, City Attorney DATE: August 31, 2011 RE: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter R. R Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, PA. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 410.12, subdivision 7, the Charter Commission forwarded to the Council three proposed amendments to the Charter that the Commission seeks to have approved by ordinance. The first two concern the Charter Commission's authority and the Charter amendment process, while the third seeks to limit the City's levy authority. After reviewing the proposed amendments, I have the following comments on the first two; it is my understanding that the City's financial consultants will comment on the amendment concerning the levy limit. At the outset, it bears mentioning that these amendments are unusual in that they do not address City powers or organizational .structure, which is the normal subject matter of city charters. Rather, they seek in part to expand the powers of the Charter Commission. It is questionable whether a city charter is the appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues. Regardless, as discussed below, the specific language in the proposed amendments appears to be either of no effect or runs afoul of state law. Section 1.04 Charter Commission The proposed language is as follows: 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. 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 • p (612) 339-0060 • f (612) 339-0038 • www.ratwiklaw.com Paul C. Ratwik John M.Roszak PatriciaA. Maloney* Terrence J. Foy* ScottT. Anderson Kevin J. Rupp Jay T. Squires*t Ann R. Goering Nancy E. Blumstein* Joseph J. Langel* Nfrchael J. Waldspurger* Margaret A. Skelton Amy B. Mace Brie J. Quiring Erin E. Ische Christian R. Shafer Trevor S. Helmers Matthew J. Bialick Tessa S. Kowalski Scott B. Schraut Timothy A. Sullivan * Also admitted in WI t Real Property Specialist Certified by the MN State Bar Association This language raises several issues. First, the purpose of the initial phrase, "The City shall have an ongoing Charter Commission" is unclear. Under Minnesota law, charter commissions continue to exist unless discharged. Minn. Stat. 5C 410.05. If the intent was to essentially restate that fact, then there is no purpose to it. If, by using the word "ongoing," the intent was to make the commission perpetual, then it is contrary to state law. Pursuant to Chapter 410, the commission can discharge itself or voters can do it in a referendum. Minn. Stat. e 410.05, subd. 5. Those discharge rights cannot be abrogated via the charter. Thus, the language appears to be without substance or invalid. Second, stating that the Commission has the responsibility for "maintaining and updating the Charter" basically restates the law without adding or clarifying anything. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 410 already sets forth the Commission's authority. Third, stating that it is the Commission's responsibility to inform residents of the meaning or impact of proposed amendments is problematic. Recall the issue that arose approximately two years ago when the Commission sought to inform voters by initiating a "Vote No" campaign. The legal opinion obtained at that time from outside counsel concluded that charter commissions have limited authority, and such authority does not include the production and distribution of informational materials. This proposed amendment appears to be contrary to that opinion; it seeks to establish powers that the City already determined the Commission does not and cannot have. Informing residents of issues pending before the City is the City's job (see Charter section 12.12). If charter commissions are to have that power, it needs to come from the legislature through an amendment to Chapter 410. Finally, the last sentence states that Commission members shall be appointed by the Chief Judge and shall receive no compensation. This .simply restates existing law. Minn. Stat. §' 410.05, subd. 1, 410.06. Section 1.05 Amendments to this Charter The proposed language is as follows: All proposed amendments to the Charter and corresponding ballot wording shall be submitted to the Charter Commission for review. The City Council may not directly or indirectly use public funds to inform the public about an amendment unless the City Council provides the Charter Commission with equal funds and opportunities to inform the public about the amendment. This amendment raises issues similar to the previous amendment. The first sentence, requiring that all proposed amendments be submitted to the Commission for review, is duplicative of Chapter 410. Amendments can be initiated by the Commission itself, by voters via petition, or by the City Council. Minn. Stat. § 410.12. If voters or the Council initiate, the proposed amendment must be sent to the Commission for review. Id., subds. 1, 5. This sentence, therefore, does not add to or clarify the Commission's authority. The second sentence again refers to empowering the Commission with authority to "inform the public," which is outside their statutory authority. The City Council does not have the power to give the Commission authority that the legislature did not grant, either explicitly or impliedly. Even if that were not true, the language concerning "equal funds and opportunities" is problematic given its vagueness. How would one measure "equal funds and opportunities?" Like any other law, a charter amendment ought to be clear and not subject to a variety of interpretations. Moreover, the language implies an adversarial relationship between the Council and Commission that is sought to be balanced by equal funds, apparently so each side can advocate their position. No public entity, however, is allowed to use public funds to advocate. A violation of that rule is not remedied by giving public funds to another public entity so they can violate it, too. In conclusion, the proposed amendments do not appear to further effectuate the exercise of governmental functions by the City, which is, or ought to be, the primary purpose of Charter amendments. Rather, the amendments seem to be an attempt to broaden the authority of the Commission itself. There is no statutory support for this expansion of power. If there are ongoing issues about disseminating information to the public, there are other ways of addressing those issues that could be discussed. Springsted August 31, 2011 Jeff Kar!son, City Administrator Al Rolek, Director of Finance City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Proposed Tax Cap Amendment Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Tel: 651-223-3000 Fax: 651-223-3002 www.springsted.com I have reviewed the proposed "Amendment to Our Charter for Chapters 1 and 7, dated July 29, 2011. The following comments pertain to the impact these amendments would have on the City of Lino Lakes. Charter restrictions place additional restraints on local govemments beyond those required by federal and state law, and our concern would be financial restraints that impair the City's ability to finance ongoing operations, to comply with debt obligations, and to meet capital and infrastructure maintenance needs. It appears that the Chapter 1 proposed amendment addresses the Charter Commission's role in maintaining and updating the Charter. We have no particular comment on this section as it does not directly impact the three areas of concem noted above. Chapter 7, Section 7.13, Tax Cap Amendment The proposed amendment raises several concems that should be considered by the City Council. 1) The City of Lino Lakes has minimized increases for several years in response to the recession and declining property values. The empty chair at the reception counter is one of many notable reductions. Using the 2011 actual levy as the starting point, as proposed in paragraph 2, will restrict the City to a base year levy that was developed during the recession and may not be sustainable over time, even with implicit price inflators. 2) The third paragraph includes levies for storm sewer district, storrn sewer utilities, or lake improvements as part of this levy limit. These special districts are usually funded by special assessments or fees as opposed to general tax levies. How or if a levy limit can be calculated is not clear. It is also unclear whether these districts can be added even if they do not levy or use special assessments. Public Sector Advisors City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 2 3) In paragraph 3, restricting new special levies to a vote reduces flexibility. While a referendum may seem like a cost saving measure today, the repercussions, such as added costs of delays or eliminating the ability to correct financial issues early, are not usually understood by voters. They may actually be limiting the City to a more expensive option later if they vote no. Special levies are allowed under state law. The implicit price deflator increases were considered punitive by some legislators for communities who did not have growth (historically, a fixed 3% increase or similar amount was a stated levy limit). As a compromise, the legislators softened this cap by allowing local government to special levy for specific purposes. 4) The last paragraph is not understandable. In Minnesota, cities levy a dollar levy and the tax rate is a function of dividing the levy by the tax capacity. In other states where a mill rate system is used, the tax rate (mill rate) is first set and then applied to land values to determine the amount of taxes generated. This language may make more sense for the mill rate system. Since tax capacity is not used to calculate the maximum levy, it is confusing. 5) -Tax increment is an economic development tool that allows the City to incent development where it may not otherwise occur. If the intent of the last paragraph is to limit the use of this tool, the City may be tying its hands when competing with other cities for development. Ultimately, this could result in missed opportunities to lower taxes for each taxpayer by increasing the overall tax base to which levies are spread. The tax increment market value becomes part of the City's tax base when the tax increment district expires. The proposers of this amendment are presumably trying to protect the citizens from higher taxes than necessary. In the end, these provisions may have the opposite effect. Why is that? • Credit ratings are based on an issuer's ability to repay bonds. The higher the credit rating, the lower the interest costs will be on debt. For future debt issues, if the rating agencies perceive that the added restrictions imposed make Lino Lakes a greater credit risk, they may lower the credit rating. On a $2 million bond issue with a 15 -year term and assuming the new rating falls from the City's current Aa2 rating to the single "A" category rating (50 basis point differential); this may translate into an extra cost of $70,000 over the life of this bond issue. Each bond issue going forward would have a similar penalty until the rating was improved. Financial flexibility is the key to maintaining and improving credit ratings. The City of Lino Lakes would be impairing their financial flexibility with this amendment. • Maintenance of infrastructure and facilities are a 'pay today" or 'pay more tomorrow" proposition. Restrictions on the City Council's ability to levy and special assess for projects means that voters have to choose to increase their taxes today instead of tomorrow. It is easy for them to vote no—especially if they plan to move out of Lino Lakes or do not see the citywide benefit of maintaining transportation systems that a City Council may see. As a result, the repairs are delayed and the needed repairs become more severe (Le. reconstruction rather than sealcoat) while the cost of pothole repair, car damage, and safety issues continue to be incurred. Overall, this is much more expensive than a systematic plan to maintain capital at the most cost-effective time rather than when a referendum passes. City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 3 • The administration of these amendments means the City has to incur the costs of elections to pay for new utilities or service districts. The result is: (a) the cost to administer the election including ballot language, notices, hearings, and election facilitation is bome one or more times; (b) the language is unclear and confusing, which means time will be spent interpreting the language and explaining how it fits with state law; (c) staff will spend time explaining the citywide impact, resulting in additional costs for mailings and newspaper brochures, without which the voter will be uninformed; d) at a time when cities are streamlining processes, this would be adding processes for situations that are already authorized in state law. • Losing the City's competitive edge is a concem. An effective way to lower taxes and fees is to spread them further by retaining existing members of the community and to attract new residents and employers who provide excellent salaries and benefits. All of this leads to economic vitality for the community and financial health. Infrastructure condition, safety, amenities, convenience, education systems, overall appearance and community support are business considerations. The proposed Charter amendments seem to look inward only rather than looking forward, while neighboring cities are sizing up their competition and preparing to be more attractive for development. In conclusion, the proposed amendment in Section 7 is difficult to understand, as written. Adopting part of state law and modifying it has proven difficult in the past as it creates new terminology and interpretations than are not always defensible, should there be a challenge. The proposed amendment would need to be modified before it could be administered. An attorney familiar with state levy laws may be a good resource. Overall, I encourage the City of Lino Lakes to think about where the community should be in the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years by considering the following questions: 1. Does this type of amendment align with plans for the future direction of the City? 2. Does it provide the flexibility to compete? 3. Does it ensure bondholders and rating agencies that Lino Lakes is a well-managed City poised to be successful in the long-term and able to pay obligations? 4. Will the City of Lino Lakes struggle even more to provide services during the economic downtum if this amendment passes? This amendment is well intended, but financially it is not sound policy and it will not reduce costs long-term. Please let me know if you would like to discuss further or if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tem Y. Heaton, Senior Vice President Client Representative CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 6, 2011 APPROVED 91 there should be some discussion with the property owner about the nuisance concerns at 92 the property — those things that can be addressed outside of the use. Mr. Montain 93 indicated that he would get together with staff to work on those immediate concerns. 94 95 3. Charter Amendments — Administrator Karlson noted that the city received two 96 charter amendment proposals from the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. In order to 97 provide information to the council on these proposals, the city attorney has reviewed the 98 Chapter 1 amendment and the city's financial advisor, Ms. Terri Heaton of Springsted, 99 has reviewed the Chapter 7 amendment that relates to a tax cap. Their respective written too reports are included in the council packet. 101 102 City Attorney Langel reviewed his written report, noting that the council is being asked to 103 allow certain changes to the city charter (by a unanimous vote). Overall, he explained 104 that city charters are typically very straightforward documents. The proposed amendment 105 to Chapter 1 addresses how the Charter Commission may operate and not the city as 106 charters more appropriately do. He questions if that is appropriate. Further he explained 107 that charter commissions have only the powers granted to them by state statute; the 108 amendment appears to be an attempt to add authority and he questions if that authority 109 even exists. He noted that the proposed amendments do not appear to further effectuate 110 the exercise of governmental functions by the city which should be the primary purpose 111 of charter amendments. 112 113 Administrator Karlson reviewed Ms. Heaton's report on the Chapter 7 amendment, 114 noting that the report indicates that overall the concern is that certain restrictions may 115 impact the city's ability to meet financial obligations.. There is concern about the lack of 116 flexibility and the inability to allow corrections to meet economic demands. And one of 117 the biggest concerns is how the levy limit would be calculated since the language is 118 difficult to interpret. Ms. Heaton's memo also addresses questions about possible impact 119 on the city's credit rating. 120 121 A council member suggested that it is the council's job to decide what is needed for the 122 city and the proposal could be limiting as far as what happens when the economy turns 123 around; it could even leave a situation where the city may tax more than it needs. 124 125 The mayor noted that the city's chosen form of government is to elect officials who dig 126 into details and make decisions. He has been told by a charter commissioner that the 127 amendments were drafted by their attorney. The council should be receiving information 128 about the need for these amendments from the commission as well as from the city 129 attorney and financial analyst. The council should be open to the commission's 130 explanation. Without being able to understand the amendments, however, how can the 131 council act upon them? 132 133 City Attorney Langel noted that the council does not have authority to change the 134 language of the amendments; any change would have to be resubmitted. 135 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 6, 2011 APPROVED 136 The council requested that the Charter Commission Chair and Vice chair be invited to 137 attend the public hearing on the amendments. 138 139 4. Discuss Current Conservation Water Rate Structure — The mayor noted that he 140 requested a discussion about the City's water rate structure. He recalled that the council 141 previously received a study on water rates, was asked to change the rate structure and did 142 so. However the impetus of the change was to impact use and he doesn't believe that has 143 happened. He still has a concern; Lino Lakes is a family oriented community and the new 144 rate structure seems to punish families. He suggests that a plan that encourages water 145 conservation is a better way to address the situation. 146 147 City Engineer Wedel explained that in 2008 the Minnesota Department of Natural 148 Resources required a tiered rate structure in order for the City to keep its authority to 149 continue with new wells. The idea at that time wasn't to penalize families but to get at 150 the "big irrigators". There is benefit to the city in conservation because infrastructure 151 costs can be avoided (much infrastructure is built to serve peak times). Is the new tiered 152 rate structure working? He suggested that it is difficult to say since this has been a year 153 of lots of rain and the economy is down. He provided a chart indicating rate variations in 154 other cities — he doesn't think the City is out of line with other communities. Tim 155 Hillesheim, Utilities Supervisor for the City, explained that he doesn't think that families 156 are punished by the rates because 95% of the city's residential water users consume 157 30,000 or less (remaining in the lower rate). He added that the city has not been able to ''`e 158 see the result of the rate change because the past two summers have been wet. Mr. 159 Wedel remarked that the city could certainly review the rate structure in 2012 if that's the 160 council's desire. Public Service Director DeGardner distributed additional information 161 indicating that over 99% of Lino Lakes' families fall within the first two tiers (lowest) of 162 the rate structure in the winter and that 82% of Lino Lakes families fall within the first 163 two tiers in the summer. The city is doing what it can to keep from having to add more 164 very expensive infrastructure that will in fact raise rates. 165 166 The mayor thanked staff for the discussion. He'd like to take a look at the rate structure 167 again in 2012 to ensure fairness. 168 169 5. Comprehensive Plan Update — Community Development Director Grochala 170 recalled that in May of 2011 the council gave preliminary approval to the 2030 171 Comprehensive Plan and it was approved by the Metropolitan Council with authorization 172 to put the Plan into effect. At this point it is back to the council for final Plan approval. 173 He has attempted, in his staff report, to identify the major changes to the Plan over the 174 past few years, including decreasing the amount of units forecast in the next twenty years, 175 reduction of the affordable housing goal, and modifications to the utility staging plan by 176 dividing the staging areas into five year phases. In addition the council modified the Plan 177 to reintroduce an annual average new housing growth benchmark, limit city financial 178 assistance to meet regional housing goals, modify residential development densities and �..� 179 reduce net residential density proposed. When the Plan is approved as final by the 180 council, staff will begin the process of updating the city's official controls such as the COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 46 47 Centennial Fire District (Check No. 4946- 48 4972, $33,321.14) Approved 49 50 August 22, 2011 Council Work Session 51 Minutes Approved 52 53 August 22, 2011 City Council Meeting 54 Minutes Approved 55 56 August 22, 2011 Special Budget Work Session 57 Minutes Approved 58 59 August 15, 2011 Special Budget Work Session 60 Minutes Approved 61 62 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT, AL ROLEK 63 64 2A) Resolution No. 11-89, Adopting Preliminary 2011/2012 Property Tax Levy — Finance 65 Director Rolek reported that it is time for the City to consider a maximum levy amount for the coming 66 year, as is required by state statute. Mr. Rolek noted that the amount of the maximum preliminary 67 levy is $8,227,259, a decrease of 5 percent over the past year. This levy amount may be decreased by '\ 68 the council for the final budget adoption but it may not be increased. A public hearing on the levy is 69 scheduled for December. 70 71 The Mayor congratulated the council for their work on this budget. They worked essentially all year 72 and the result is a decreased budget achieved through review of the organization, a change in 73 engineering services and some outsourcing of services. He believes the council has accomplished 74 what the citizens want. 75 76 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 11-89 as presented. Council Member 77 Gallup seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote. 78 79 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT, DAN TESCH 80 81 3A) Amendments to Lino Lakes City Charter: Public hearing and consideration of 1st Reading 82 of two ordinances — Administrator Karlson noted that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission has 83 submitted two ordinances for consideration by the City Council. State statute includes a process and 84 timeframe under which the amendments must be considered. The schedule was reviewed and it was 85 noted that an affirmative vote of all council members is required for an amendment to pass. 86 87 Mayor Reinert opened the public hearing. He noted that the council has not had the opportunity to 88 hear from the Charter Commission on the amendments and would much appreciate getting some 89 clarification from the commission now. 90 2 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 91 Mike Trehus, Lino Lakes Charter Commission member, addressed the council. He confirmed that he 92 would offer an explanation of the amendments and then reserve the opportunity to rebut what he 93 understands he will be hearing from the city as far as a critique of the amendments. 94 95 Mr. Trehus first explained that a charter commission is a group of volunteer city residents that work 96 with a small budget. The charge of the group is to frame and amend the city charter, based on their 97 view of city operations. The commission doesn't have power to directly amend the charter and can 98 only propose amendments to the city council or the voters. The Lino Lakes Charter Commission is 99 proposing amendments to the council now mainly because this year's Minnesota Legislature did not 100 include in their budget actions any tax cap for cities. That being the case, the commission decided it 101 would be a good time to suggest that a tax cap be added to the city charter. He noted that taxes are 102 high in Lino Lakes and he showed a chart comparing the City's taxes to other cities. The other 103 amendment proposed clarifies and speaks to the duties of the Commission. 104 105 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Section 1.04. Mr. Trehus explained that while some 106 of the added language may be duplicative to what's currently in state law, the commission feels it 107 should be in place within the Charter in case there are law changes in the future. It is meant to be 108 reaffirming. He will be demonstrating the need as he moves further into his presentation. 109 110 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Section 1.05. Mr. Trehus explained that the courts 111 have decided that any public money spent on a referendum issue belongs to both sides of the issue. 112 That has not been the case in Lino Lakes. This would be a no cost option that doesn't change any 113 power for the Commission. He noted the history of the city council trying to get the word out on an 114 amendment on the ballot and that the city advocated but didn't allow the Commission to get the word 115 out on the other side of the matter. 116 117 Mayor Reinert read the proposed amendment to Chapter 7.13. Mr. Trehus presented a chart 118 indicating tax levy increases in Lino Lakes over the past ten years and comparing the levy amounts to 119 population growth and he explained that the primary purpose of the tax cap is to prevent this type of 120 tax growth. He noted that the current city council has worked to reduce the city's levy and that is 121 appropriate, but it's important not to return to the past ways of rampant growth of taxes. He noted 122 several cities that have tax caps in place. A council member noted that the information being 123 presented ends at 2009 however that is when democracy took its course and the council make up 124 changed, trends reversed and taxes were reduced; the presentation ignores that more recent relevant 125 information that may indicate that a tax cap isn't needed. Mr. Trehus acknowledged that the 126 amendment goal is trying to limit taxes from rampant growth; the statement regarding the election 127 would be an opinion; he added that the current council in perpetuity wouldn't be a problem but there 128 could be change in the future. Mr. Trehus noted that the tax cap proposed is good one that is tried and 129 true and working in other cities. A council member asked for a comparison of population for the tax 130 levy comparisons and when a chart was shown he noted that many are not in the range of Lino Lakes; 131 another council member added that the comparative figures are not from the current decade. Mr. 132 Trehus noted that he has compared current information, focusing on cities that are growing like Lino 133 Lakes, and he continues to have a goal of reducing the cost of government and he added thateven if 134 the council doesn't intend to allow taxes to run rampant again, they have nothing to lose by enacting 135 this tax cap. A council member noted that the finance director has opined that there could be an 3 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 136 implication on bond ratings, raising capital, etc. The mayor suggested that there are two questions: 137 does the city want a tax cap and, if so, how that is done. Mr. Trehus further reviewed the proposed 138 tax cap amendment, noting that it allows for consideration for growth, not incenting or punishing that 139 type of thing. The proposed amendment also addresses special levies and tax increment financing. 140 141 Mr. Trehus was asked to drill down deeper on the Chapter 1 amendments. Section 1.04 reiterates 142 state statute and firms it up by putting it into the Charter and stipulates further that one of the duties of 143 the Commission is to inform residents of the meaning or impact of a proposed charter amendment. 144 Section 1.05 requires that ballot wording be reviewed by the Commission. It adds a funding 145 requirement for information given on amendments so that both sides will be treated fairly and equally; 146 in the past, there has been a problem and the new language would avoid similar problems in the 147 future. He noted specific elements of a past referendum and information given and how the process 148 failed to provide enough appropriate and clear information. The Charter Commission thought that 149 should not be allowed to happen again. 150 151 Caroline Dahl, 1101 Holly Court, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Chair, first noted that the 152 Commission was not invited to attend the council's recent work session discussion on the 153 amendments and they wouldn't normally attend unless asked. She shared a note from a commissioner 154 clarifying that last year's budget cut was very small (.4 of 1 percent). Also the last two years the city 155 has been under a tax cap but that it will expire as it was not renewed by the State Legislature. The 156 reason that the tax cap and other amendments are being proposed isn't necessarily for this council but 157 for the future. State law has been known to change and it makes sense to have the language in the 158 Charter. 159 160 Rosemary Storberg, 6978 Lake Drive, Charter Commissioner, noted that three of the current council 161 members were sitting in 2008 and she would ask them why the newsletter on the amendment wasn't 162 handled differently? The mayor noted that he recalls that it was suggested that the Commission 163 submit a page for the newsletter but that there was disagreement on content so the Commission never 164 officially submitted anything. Ms. Storberg added that the Commission should have the same 165 opportunity to provide information to the public. Also she said she's heard the warning about harm 166 to the city's bond rating before (when the charter was originally approved) but it never panned out. 167 The bottom line is that the City Charter is a document that is needed and wanted by the residents of 168 this city. 169 170 Tim Henderson, 6987 West Shadow Lake Drive, noted that he admires everyone involved in this 171 discussion and for their service. What he would like to see for the charter amendments is a citizen 172 vote; that would be the optimum. He urges caution in not handcuffing future city leaders as 173 consideration is given to the amendments. 174 175 There being no further speakers, the public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m. 176 177 City Attorney Langel reviewed his written memorandum regarding the proposed amendments. The 178 basic issues with the Chapter 1 amendments are that they are mainly duplicative to state law. The ---� 179 Commission has made the argument that the state law could change however even if that occurs, it 180 raises the question that a charter cannot contravene state law so putting the language into the charter 4 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 181 wouldn't necessarily guarantee that it will remain valid. So it begs the question of why should you x-\182 add the language? The Commission's authority is narrow and is laid out in statute. Another issue 183 raised is about creating authority for the Commission to get into the public information area, a job that 184 is given to the city council by state statute. He questions if a charter commission can create authority 185 for itself. Charters are generally speaking constitutions designed to decide how a city operates and 186 not how the Commission operates. Mr. Langel noted that he also has a concern about the amendment 187 dealing with granting use of public funds. The language implies that the council cannot do what it is 188 responsible for doing unless it provides equal funding to the Commission. While the Commission 189 representative has indicated that that language is intended to get the two bodies to work together, Mr. 190 Langel fears it would have the opposite effect in keeping the work from getting done. The language 191 also seems to imply that there are always two sides to an amendment; the fact is that neither side 192 cannot advocate. If there is an issue about the past and a goal to prevent it to happen again, the 193 answer wouldn't seem to be a charter amendment but a rather to find a process whereby the groups 194 will work together. The mayor confirmed that the Commission has had the opportunity to review 195 Mr. Langel's written comments. 196 197 Terri Heaton, Springsted, financial advisor to the City, indicated that she would be reviewing her 198 written comments regarding the proposed Chapter 7 charter amendment. As financial advisor to the 199 city, it is her job to consider the city's ongoing ability to finance its operations and meet debt 200 obligations as well as meet ongoing capital needs. She has looked at the proposed levy limit language 201 (to continue a levy limit for this city) using 2010 rates. Currently, the city has reacted to the reduction 202 in its tax base by reducing its levy. The current state limit would actually allow the city to levy higher ---.,203 than it is proposing. By locking into a low year, the city may put itself in a different position than 204 other cities in how it can respond when the economy comes back. Another portion of the proposed 205 amendment deals with special levies and she noted that many are not funded from tax base and 206 melding them into a tax cap as the proposed amendment seems to do is unclear. Another item 207 includes restriction of special levies to a vote process and she sees that could limit the city's 208 flexibility, an item that is a key area that credit agencies look at. She noted that she sees credit 209 agencies comparing cities more for rating purposes these days, looking at flexibilities for instance, 210 and they are changing ratings much more than in the past. The city should also consider the 211 systematic replacement of infrastructure and maintaining the ability to do replacement at the most 212 effective time. Ms. Heaton also expressed that the amendment is confusing in that it uses the term 213 "net tax capacity" but Minnesota cities do not use mil rates so that term doesn't make sense with 214 current law. There was discussion about tax increment financing and that it is a tool that is being 215 used by many cities and very effectively for development. A city's tax base grows when the tax 216 increment capture period ends. Regarding the proposed amendment, it would allow the city to use tax 217 increment but without the same advantages as other cities in that the increment is pulled away from 218 the development. She pointed out that the council should consider the possibility of a negative impact 219 on the bond rating, that sending more matters to voters is costly in terms of special elections and that 220 the city's long term sustainability could be challenged by tying hands to a rate at an economically low 221 time. When the mayor asked if there is a "good" way to do a tax cap, Ms. Heaton responded that 222 citizens should be confident that they are getting the best value for their tax dollar and there are ways 223 for the council to know that. 224 5 COUNCIL MINUTES September 12, 2011 APPROVED 225 The council reviewed the proposed amendments to Section 1.04 and 1.05. City attorney Langel noted X226 that the only new language (different from existing state law) relates to informing residents. A 227 council member noted that adding language to the charter would mean that the city may end up 228 needing to amend the charter if state law changes. The city attorney suggested that it is never a good 229 idea to regurgitate state law in a document such as the City Charter. City Attorney Langel pointed 230 out that, while charter amendments always get reviewed by the charter commission, ballot language 231 doesn't so that would be a new concept. 232 233 The mayor recalled that within the past year the city council and the charter commission held a joint 234 meeting and there was great hope for progress through that process. At that meeting, a suggestion 235 was brought forward to set up a joint side group made up of council members and charter 236 commissioners and, if that had happened and was functioning, that could have meant a better 237 understanding of these amendments coming forward. Unfortunately at that joint meeting there was an 238 explosion of emotion and the good idea didn't happen. He still believes that it could happen and that 239 it would result in some good accomplishments. 240 241 i. Ordinance No. 17-11, Amending the City Charter by adding a new Section 1.04 and 1.05 242 243 The mayor called for a motion on Item 3Ai, First Reading of Ordinance No. 17-11. The item failed 244 for lack of a motion. 245 246 ii. Ordinance No. 18-11, Amending the City Charter by adding a new Section 7.13 regarding ""`x.247 tax cap 248 249 The mayor read the proposed amendment and noted that he is not opposed to the idea of a tax cap but 250 he sees there are issues with the language proposed. It concerns him that the proposal would actually 251 allow the council to add a $1 million to the tax levy this year. The down economy has been difficult 252 for the tax situation but the council has acted to keep taxes down. In the area of special taxing 253 districts, he sees that there are situations where it occurs through an outside request; having a vote on 254 everything reminds him of California and that isn't Lino Lakes. The city has a representative republic 255 form of government whereby people are voted into office to make decisions on behalf of the public. 256 He wishes the council would have had the opportunity to work with the commission on the matter. 257 258 A council member noted that there has been good information offered in a lot of areas. He's been on 259 the council for ten years and understands that the budget process is complicated and he pointed out 260 that it impacts him as a property taxpayer also. The citizens have a good form of representation and it 261 is called the election. He knows that people will come to the voting booth and decide if they are 262 getting the value they want from their tax dollar. 263 264 Other council members concurred that the voting process works and that an automatic taxing system 265 isn't needed. They expressed the desire to continue working with the Charter Commission in a joint 266 fashion. 267 268 The mayor called for a motion on Item 3Aii, First Reading of Ordinance No. 18-11. The item failed 269 for lack of a motion. 6 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 Ordinances 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 seventy (70) days and not later than fixty six (56) 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) 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 NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 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 seventy (70) days and not later than fifty six (56) 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 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. 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 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_(120) 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 qty sixty (-1-24) (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. submittedte- eCity'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 2 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 i 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 10/7/2011 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2011 APPROVED 179 The council concurred to accept the report and request that the Planning and Zoning 180 Board pay particular attention to zoning as they review the zoning ordinances that could 181 helpful in light of improving the underuse of properties. The council recommended that 182 the report be available for strategic planning. Staff should return for more discussion on 183 options that move ahead with the recommendations. 184 185 7. On -Street Parking Regulations — Community Development Director Grochala 186 explained that he is responding to a resident's concern about a dump truck parking on a 187 residential street. At this time the city doesn't have any regulations on street parking that 188 would deal with this type of issue. Is the council interested in developing more 189 restrictions? 190 191 A council member noted that it can become a safety issue (due to blocking the street) and 192 it seems as if some other cities are dealing with the problem. The Police Chief said he 193 checked the location and doesn't feel the street is too narrow for emergency vehicles; he 194 wonders if a restriction on commercial vehicles may be more appropriate. Mr. Grochala 195 suggested that "commercial vehicles" may be too general; discussions with the city 196 attorney came back to size limitations. Staff will review options and report back. 197 198 8. Anoka County Fiber Project - Administrator Karlson noted that the council 199 requested additional information on this recently discussed county wide fiber connectivity 200 project. The council is receiving a chart comparing our current provider with the services 201 proposed through the new project. 202 203 9. Candidate Website Links — City Clerk Bartell noted that the council recently 204 discussed the subject of voter information and it was suggested that staff review the 205 possibility of placing candidate web site links on the city's web site for local elections. 206 The council is receiving some examples of what other cities are doing in this area and 207 staff is seeking council direction on what policy this city would like to follow in the area. 208 209 Council members concurred that they would like to provide web site links for the coming 210 elections; staff will work further on a policy to guide the web use, including a disclaimer 211 for content, and such elements as timing. 212 213 10. Charter Amendments relating to Elections — City Clerk Bartell noted recent 214 changes in the election calendar (state and federal) and staff' s effort to review this city's 215 election regulations to ensure they are appropriate within the new schedule. Since the city 216 charter contains election provisions, it was reviewed and staff did identify a couple of 217 areas where changes are recommended. A calendar was distributed and Clerk Bartell 218 explained that a key date is when the city must submit its ballot language to the county 219 for ballot printing. Based on the current charter provisions, the period designed for 220 candidate filing would extend past that date of ballot submission to the county. Therefore 221 staff is recommending a change that simply indicates that the city will follow state law for 222 the filing period, thus covering any future changes also. Community Development 223 Director Grochala noted that City Charter Chapter 8 also has a timeline that is Julie Bartell denali2010@q.com Jeff Karlson Subject: Election Related Charter Amendments (August 1, 2011) Caroline, I reported back to the city council at their work session this evening on the proposed charter amendments related to elections (staff report is attached). As you recall, these amendments were reviewed by the Charter Commission at your meeting on July 14, 2011 and the Commission acted to request that the city pay reasonable fees for the charter commission attorney to review the amendments (beyond the $1,500 annual budget). The council requested tonight that I send a message back to the Commission. The Council suggested that city staff should be given an opportunity to answer any outstanding questions about the amendments and, if questions do remain, they encourage the Commission to utilize their existing budget for review costs. Please let me know if I can provide any assistance. Julie Bartell City Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway -�v Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651-982-2406 651-982-2499 fax julle. bartell(&ci. lino -lakes. mn. us 1 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 1, 2011 APPROVED 44 2. Issue Tracker Demonstration, Jason Wedel — City Engineer Wedel gave a 45 demonstration of the Issue Tracker system that his firm offers as part of their services to 46 the city. The computer program will assist the city in tracking its issues and projects. 47 Information can be continually updated and allows for citywide tracking of data. He wills 48 end a link to the council members so they can review the program. 49 3. 80th Avenue — Zoning Complaint Update — Community Development Director 50 Grochala recalled that a concern was brought forward to the council about and operation 51 believed to be in violation of the city code at 2122 80th Street. Staff has investigated the 52 situation and discussed site operations with the property and business owner. There are 53 ongoing concerns about the situation in the area of identifying the property use, the 54 amount of junk located on the property and the oversized vehicles that are located on the 55 property. Staff is working with the city attorney to answer outstanding questions, will 56 continue enforcement as appropriate, and will continue to report to the council as new 57 information becomes available. 58 4. Election related Charter Amendments — City Clerk Bartell recalled that the 59 council had previously received information on two areas of the City Charter that are 60 problematic in relation to recently passed state election law that changes dates for certain 61 election activities such as absentee voting. Specifically in the area of filing period dates, 62 the language currently in the City Charter would dictate a filing period open past the time 63 when names can be submitted to the county for inclusion on the ballot. Also, the Charter 64 section on public improvements contains language that is impacted by pre-election dates 65 (submission of ballot language). Staff brought the matter to the Lino Lakes Charter 66 Commission for their consideration of moving technical changes forward for 67 consideration as amendments by ordinance (not to the ballot). The Commission has 68 forwarded a response that they are interested in considering the amendments but would 69 need the city to authorize reasonable funding above their regular budget for their attorney 70 to provide a review to them of the proposed amendments. 71 The Council suggested that city staff should be given an opportunity to answer any 72 outstanding questions about the amendments and, if questions do remain, they encourage 73 the Commission to utilize their existing budget for review costs. 74 75 The city administrator noted that the Charter Commission has delivered some other 76 charter amendments that they propose be adopted by ordinance. As required by state 77 statute, a public hearing is being scheduled at the council meeting of September 12 for 78 those amendments. 79 5. Weekly Progress Report — The city administrator reviewed the report. 80 Regular Council Agenda - The agenda was reviewed. 81 82 Item 6A, Oppidan proposal for a Grocery Store Development Near Hodgson Road 83 and County Road J — City Planner Smyser noted that the city has received a concept AR'T'ICLE 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 conductedat 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 mess all members et -the Commission arepresent end vote -unanimously -to eendust 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 end 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 l beceendueted armee '-s files of Order, Revised-, -latest edition Section 5. MenefgMeeting 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 Chau and Secretary and gpproved12y the Commission, and are subject to change by motion and voting, as described below, at the beginning of each regular meetingf5pecial meeting a ,endas 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. Ninth, the Chau takes a vote. If members of the Commission do not vote, then they "abstain" Unless a steer -majority is required (as delineated later in these rules), a simple majoritg determines whether the motion passes or is defeated. 1 enth, the Chau 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 recogn»e 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 brit 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 withthe 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" ora "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 ggverns Multiple Motions Before the Commission There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time, The Chau can reject a fourth motion until the Chaii has dealt with the three that are on the floor and has resolved them until uur 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 (oi to bring it back to the Commission) r uires a simple majorin vote. A motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion is to say: "1 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-Maiority 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 fa super -majority) to pass: Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says "I call the question" or "1 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 minoriq 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 aparticular purpose The Motion to Reconsider There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of explanation all la itself: the motion to reconsider. A tenet of parliamentary procedure is finality. 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. 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 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 ifproperly 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 #2 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 projects was on Lake Drive that would rally the citizens over the costs of the assessments not only for the benefited land owners but tax levies for the citizens in Lino Lakes. At a public hearing for this project approximately 600 people tried to attend the public hearing but because of city hall being too small it was moved to St. Joseph's Church. Even though approximately 800 people, as reported by the Circulating Pines Newspaper were against the project and only a couple of dozen were for it, the city council still passed it. Faced with this project and discovering that a City Council has absolute power to approve any project they deem necessary regardless of citizen input decided to form an incorporated group called Citizens for Responsive Government to fight the development. This group hired an attorney and successfully fought to stop the project, and to this day in 2011, it hasn't been done. Also they researched the possibility of having a Charter Government in Lino Lakes to give the citizens a vote in future assessable projects. On August 7, 1981, according to state law, district court judge James Knutsen established the commission and appointed the commission members when a group of city residents petitioned the court for the group's formation. The commission has the power to draft a city charter, a framing document that works as a constitution under which the city would operate. After the charter was drafted, a signed petition was given to City Hall to have its approval put on the ballot. A special election was held on the 12th of January in 1982, and the Charter was overwhelmingly passed by an 87% 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 20,216 in 2011. There still is a need to protect property owners from projects that might not be good for their 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. Charter Government for Lino Lakes in 2011 works for citizens as it did in 1982. It gives the people the power of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall and the ability to vote on special improvements in Lino Lakes.