Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-2012 Charter PacketReferral to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission Agenda Item STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator MEETING DATE: January 12, 2012 TOPIC: Creation of Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Related to Street Reconstruction COUNCIL REQUEST The Council respectfully requests that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on a task force. The purpose of the task force will be to address the City's ability to plan and fund public improvements and to formulate recommendations that can be proposed to the citizens of Lino Lakes, which will facilitate street reconstruction through a process that will enable the City to complete reconstruction projects in a timely and predicable manner. BACKGROUND At the December 5, 2011 work session the City Council discussed how to move forward with needed street improvements in the City. The Council directed staff to prepare a report identifying what the issues are. Staff presented its report at the Council work session on January 3, 2012, which is attached. The Council also discussed the recommendations of the Citizens Task Force, which was created in 2007 to review the charter provisions related to public improvements. The Citizens Task Force concluded that the overriding issue was the inability of the City to reconstruct streets in the most responsible, timely, and cost-effective manner. The City Council recognizes that the process for getting streets reconstructed in the City has been a contentious issue, but a topic that requires further examination. The Council agreed that another task force should be formed to explore solutions that will address some of concerns that have been raised. Toward that end, the Council decided that the task force should be composed of the following representatives: two council members, one representative from each of the City's four advisory boards, three Charter Commission members, and Kathi Gallup, former council member and chair of the Citizens Task Force in 2007. Once the task force is put together, dates and times will be scheduled for the group to meet. ATTACFIMENTS January 3, 2012 Work Session Staff Report LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION QUARTERLY MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, January 12, 2012 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance Introduction: Three new Commissioners Daryl Bartsch Jason Helgemoe Kathryn Timm 6:30 PM 3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda items 4. Open Mike / Public Comment 5. Minutes: a) January 13, 2011 (Tabled) b) July 28, 2011 (Special) c) October 13, 2011 6. Unfinished Business A. Past Minutes are completed / Chair Dahl B. Charter Amendments / Commissioner Trehus C. Karen Marty Attorney expenses incurred --no new information 7. New Business A. Memo from city administrator B. Election: Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Assistant Secretary for two year terms C. Next meeting date, Thursday, April 12, 2012 Adjournment Caroline Dahl Christopher Lyden Kelly Gunderson Chair Vice Chair Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 January 13, 2011 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION January 13, 2011 6:35 P.M. 9:30 P.M. Lyden, Gunderson, Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson (arrives at 6:40), Drennen, , Penn, Storberg, Sutherland, Trehus (arrives at 6:39), Turcotte, Williams Dahl, Minar, Zastrow None None Dean Hausladen CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Lyden called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on January 13, 2011. OPEN MIC No one spoke during the "open mic" portion of the meeting. SETTING THE AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland to strike item 6A from the agenda. There is no second to the motion. MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to table agenda item 6A. Motion passes unanimously. Commissioners Trehus and Carlson arrive at 6:40pm. MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Turcotte to accept the agenda as amended. Motion passes unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES For the minutes for the meeting of October 14, 2010, Commissioner Bretoi is not listed as present. MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to accept the October 14, 2010 minutes as amended. Motion passes with Commissioner Trehus voting no. Commissioner Gunderson explains the highlighted areas on the minutes for the July 2010 joint meeting and will be making those changes. 1 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 2 46 47 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Turcotte, to accept the minutes from the July 48 8, 2010 joint Commission/Council meeting. Motion passes unanimously. 49 50 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, to accept the minutes of the July 51 8, 2010 Commission meeting. Motion passes with Commissioner Trehus abstaining. 52 53 OLD BUSINESS 54 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Penn, to rescind the past motion to table 55 6A. Motion passes unanimously. 56 57 A. Charter Amendments/Karen Marty 58 Commissioner Trehus stated that the Commission's attorney worked on two amendments of the 59 four possible amendments the Commission is considering. 60 61 The first amendment is on Section 1.04, setting the powers the Commission in the Charter. 62 Commissioner Trehus presented to the commission is the language drafted by Ms. Marty with 63 her comments. 64 65 The second amendment Ms. Marty worked on was the "Tax Cap" amendment, setting forth \66 similar language to current state statute that limit levy increases. The state statute has a proposed 67 end date of 2012. Commissioner Trehus states that more investigation is still needed for this 68 amendment and to be planned out to best used the limited budget allowed for 2011. 69 70 Commissioner Trehus then reviewed the other amendments discussed in previous meetings. 71 72 Commissioner Gunderson asked how much of the remaining 2010 funds were used for Ms. 73 Marty on the two amendments. Commissioner Trehus stated the all the 2010 funds, $1,500, were 74 exhausted on just the two amendments. A majority of it was the "tax cap" amendment. 75 76 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to recommit the 77 "tax cap" amendment to subcommittee for further work. 78 79 Commissioner Drennen stated the subcommittee would then report at the next meeting in April. 80 81 Motion passes unanimously. 82 83 Discussion then went back to Section 1.04. Commissioner Trehus stated his belief that language 84 Ms. Marty drafted by is missing the ability of the Commission to comment on amendments 85 agreed upon by the Commission. 86 87 Commissioner Drennen believed it is not needed. Commissioner Gunderson stated that the "'88 proposed language would limit the Commission's ability to comment or respond to only negative 89 information put forward by any group or individual. 90 2 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 3 91 Commissioner Gunderson states that the amendment does not require the Commission to 92 comment on an amendment to the Charter. 93 94 Commissioner Drennen concurs with Commissioner Gunderson and states the language should 95 be changed to "any change" of the Charter. 96 97 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to refer back to 98 subcommittee the language of Section 1.04 amendment to further clarify the scope of our ability 99 to comment on amendments. 100 101 Commissioner Sutherland offers a friendly amendment to have the subcommittee also work on 102 ballot language needed for proposing Section 1.04 amendment. 103 104 Motion passes unanimously. 105 106 Commissioner Sutherland asks who is on the subcommittee. Chair Dahl, Commissioner 107 Drennen and Commissioner Trehus. 108 109 B Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest 110 11 Commissioner Gunderson states that this is an agenda item 12 113 Commissioner Sutherland stated that the Council drafted language updating the city code 114 regarding conduct and conflicts of interest for the council and all boards and recommends no 115 further action from the Commission. 116 117 Commissioner Turcotte stated the City Council recently voted on and passed the updated 118 language. 119 120 Commissioner Gunderson asked if the new language covers all boards and commissions. 121 Commissioner Sutherland stated it does. 122 123 Commissioner Sutherland requests a recess to allow Commissioner Gunderson to research the 124 new language. After reconvening at 7:42pm, Commissioner Gunderson reads the amendment to 125 the city code to the Commission. 126 127 The Commission agrees that the issue is resolved. 128 129 NEW BUSINESS 130 131 A. Charter Contract with Karen Marty, expenses incurred 132 Chair Dahl initiated this agenda item for discussion with the Commission. Because Chair Dahl '1**33 was unavoidably unable to attend the meeting, Commissioner Gunderson related to the 134 commission the conversation she had with Chair Dahl. The contract of retaining the legal 135 services of Ms. Karen Marty is between the Charter Commission. Therefore the Chair made the 3 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 4 136 executive decision to delay the letter being sent to Ms. Marty regarding the outstanding balance 137 still owed to Ms. Marty. 138 139 Commissioner Sutherland stated that an action was made at the last meeting and that the letter 140 should have been written and sent. Also suggested that the language of the contract should be 141 reviewed as she believes it may not be legal. 142 143 Commissioner Trehus stated the information of the contract was not present at the October 144 meeting, due to an innocent "slip of the mind." 145 146 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Gunderson to continue discussion on the item 147 and add to agenda for the next meeting. 148 149 Commissioner Carlson supports the decision of the Chair to delay the letter to come back to the 150 Commission for further discussion. He would like the item to stay on the agenda as old business. 151 152 Commissioner Sutherland read lines 186 —189 of the October 14, 2010 regarding the motion of 153 the letter to Ms. Marty. 154 155 Commissioner Trehus retracts his motion. ,56 57 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland to rescind the motion listed in lines 186 —189 of the 158 minutes for the October 10, 2010 meeting. 159 160 Motion passes unanimously. 161 162 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to postpone 163 indefinitely lines 179 —180 of the minutes of the October 10, 2010 meeting. 164 165 Commissioner Drennen supports the motion due to new information coming to the Commission. 166 167 Commissioner Gunderson concurs, stating the motion is viewed as "housekeeping" for the 168 Commission. 169 170 Motion passes unanimously. 171 172 Commissioner Trehus brings back his motion to continue discussion on item and add to agenda 173 for the next commission meeting. 174 175 Commissioner Penn questions how does the Commission clarify the ability of the Commission to 176 enter into a contract or agreement. 177 /.`°' 78 Commissioner Drennen states the Commission has a right to enter into a contract for outside 179 counsel. 180 4 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 5 181 Commissioner Sutherland asked who signed the contract with Ms. Marty for the Commission. 182 183 Commissioner Gunderson stated that she believes Chair Dahl's intent was to discuss the contract 184 and inform those members who were not on the Commission at the time. She also asked if the 185 Commission voted on entering the contract. 186 187 Commissioner Carlson stated that Cori Duffy was Chair at the time of the signing of the contract. 188 The contract was discussed at many meetings and that three attorneys were considered. 189 190 Motion passes, Commissioner Sutherland abstained. 191 192 Commissioner Sutherland asked for a copy of the contract to be brought to the next meeting. 193 Commissioner Gunderson stated she will discuss that request with the Chair. 194 195 196 B. Discussion of joint council meeting tabled from October 14, 2010 197 198 Commissioner Penn asked if the agenda item includes discussion of a joint task force. 199 200 Commissioner Sutherland clarified the last agenda had further discuss points about this item. 02 Commissioner Gunderson read the section of the minutes of the October and that there was great 203 confusion of at that point of the meeting. 204 205 Commissioner Storberg stated that she made a motion and the motion failed. Commissioner 206 Gunderson stated that action was then to table the item. 207 208 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to table the agenda 209 item to the next Commission meeting. 210 211 Commissioner Turcotte asked if the discussion should be continued if the Commission does not 212 have any funds to work on it. 213 214 Commissioner Lyden referred to lines 93 — 96 of the minutes of the November 10, 2010 City 215 Council work session about the budget for the Charter Commission. 216 217 Commissioner Sutherland asked who would lead the discussion of the agenda item. She did not 218 feel there is any new information to discuss. 219 220 Commissioner Gunderson believes that Chair wanted to discuss the City Council work session 221 mentioned and make sure that each Commissioner had a chance to discuss. 222 '23 Commissioner Penn supports the apparent point of view of the Chair. 224 225 Commissioner Gunderson calls the question. 5 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 6 226 227 Motion passes with Commissioner Sutherland voting no. 228 229 C. Memo from City Council on Odd Year Election (tabled from October 10,2010) 230 231 Commissioner Gunderson stated that the Chair wanted to speak on this issue. Commissioner 232 Gunderson stated that the memo is informing the Commission of a proposal from 233 Councilmember Roeser to move the city elections to even -years, when general State and Federal 234 elections take place, in order to save the city money. 235 236 Commissioner Gunderson states the dollar figures of believed cost -savings is not listed on the 237 memo. Commissioner Turcotte said he found the estimated dollar amount of $14,000, a bi- 238 yearly expense. Commissioner Trehus stated the actual amount is about $8,800 or less. 239 240 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Gunderson for purposes of further 241 discussion only, to refer this item to committee for further review to draft language for an 242 amendment. Commissioner Sutherland states 243 244 Commissioner Trehus stated that before the item is given to a subcommittee, the Commission 245 needs to decide if it is in agreement with the proposal. ,46 .47 Commissioner Sutherland asks the Commission to vote to withdrawal the motion. 248 Commissioner Gunderson states a vote is not needed. Commissioner Sutherland stated she 249 believes it is needed. 250 251 Motion is withdrawn via unanimous vote of the Commission. 252 253 Commissioner Storberg stated her opinion of agreement of moving city elections to even -years. 254 255 Commissioner Trehus is not in support of the proposal and stated Mayor Reiner is also in 256 opposition. The attention city elections receive in odd -year elections is a service to the citizens. 257 The cost savings is not worth the effort of moving the elections. Commissioners Gunderson, 258 Carlson, Drennen concur. 259 260 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, that the 261 Commission draft a response to the City Council that the Commission concurs with the 262 sentiments stated in lines 37 — 41 from the October 4, 2010 work session of the City Council. 263 264 Motion passes unanimously. 265 266 D. Meetings per year of the Commission — By laws, Article 3, Section 1 267 1.1/4468 Commissioner Gunderson read the section of the Commission by laws of how often the 269 Commission meets each year. After that, Commissioner Gunderson discussed the possibility of 270 adding more meetings each year, having a meeting every other month. The reasons given for this 6 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 7 271 include that the past several meetings have run long, agenda items are being tabled in order to 272 end meetings late in the evening and it is believed that with 15 Commissioners, some 273 commissioners may not be getting a fair amount of time to discuss items. Commissioner 274 Gunderson asked for discussion to include the opinion of Commissioners on meeting more often. 275 276 Commissioner Drennen believes that if Commissioners self -police discussions, stay on topic and 277 if meetings are run more efficiently, more meetings would not be needed. Commissioner 278 Sutherland concurs and added that the Commission has the ability to call special meeting when 279 needed. 280 281 Commissioner Turcotte believes that the last three meetings are running long because of 282 discussions about Roberts Rules of Order procedures. 283 284 Commissioner Trehus concurs with Commissioner Turcotte and also states that the past three 285 meetings have been irregularly different than past history. 286 287 Commissioner Sutherland stated that she her discussion about Roberts Rules of Order lead to a 288 long debate at the last meeting. 289 290 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to call for roll call vote on whether to have more regular meetings per year. Commissioner Sutherland states that the roll .92 call motion is non -debatable and the motion to call for a roll call does not need to be passed. The 293 action is then taken. 294 295 Voting yes: Aldentaler, Gunderson. Voting no: Sutherland, Penn, Storberg, Williams, Carlson, 296 Lyden, Trehus, Drennen. No opinion: Turcotte. 297 298 Commissioner Gunderson stated for the record the roll call vote is the opinion of Commissioners 299 present, that there are Commissioners absent. 300 301 The results are 2 Yes, 8 No and 1 No opinion. 302 303 Commissioner Turcotte asked to further discuss the issue. 304 305 Commissioner Sutherland said that the call for a roll call vote kills debate on the issue. 306 Commission Trehus states that he believes that correct, but objects to the end of discussion in a 307 procedural move of one Commissioner. More research is needed on Roberts Rules of Order for 308 the Commission to all have the same knowledge. 309 310 Commissioner Penn stated she believed her seconding was for discussion. 311 312 Commissioner Storberg stated she understood that the roll call vote would end discussion. If the r`N13 majority of Commissioners were not open to the idea of more meetings, then discussion of the 314 topic should end. She also concurs with Commissioner Trehus that the Commission is currently 7 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 8 315 handling more issues than in the past. She concurs with Commissioner Sutherland that if needed, 316 special meetings could be called. 317 318 Commissioner Turcotte states that agendas for future meetings should be shortened or special 319 meetings should be called. 320 321 Vice -Chair Lyden states that Commissioner Storberg intent was to get us to the point quicker 322 323 Commissioner Trehus states that in this case, no harm was done. But he is worried that in the 324 future, discussion on an agenda item could be ended before all information is presented. 325 326 Commissioner Sutherland 327 328 Commissioner Gunderson recommends to the Vice -Chair that the meeting move on to 329 330 E. Roberts Rules of Order 331 332 Commissioner Sutherland discussed the handout on Roberts Rules of Order (RRO). Many 333 powers are given through RRO including setting a firm adjournment time for a meeting and 334 having all business not completed then moved to the agenda for the next meeting. She also points 35 out a tri -fold laminated sheet explaining procedures of RRO. She stated that in the past the )36 League of Minnesota Cities has offered classes on RRO and would hope that the Commission 337 would consider having the LMC present a class in a future meeting. Commissioner Sutherland 338 further states that it is the responsibility of all Commissioners to learn the procedures of RRO to 339 make sure meetings are run more effectively. 340 341 Commissioner Sutherland also refers to a grid of Common Motions of RRO. 342 343 Vice -Chair Lyden states that in order to use RRO, the Commission needs to be in agreement of 344 how to use them and keep it simple. 345 346 Commissioner Penn agrees that RRO should be keep simple, but also productive and not 347 suppress discussion. 348 349 Commissioner Drennen stated that RRO does have procedures to undue abuses, but also if any 350 Commissioner repeatedly abuses RRO, the Commission could have that Commissioner censored 351 or pulled off-line. He asked for an explanation of "point of information." 352 353 Commissioner Sutherland explained that "point of information" can be used at anytime and can 354 be used to interrupt debate. But it must be directed to the Chair and used with decorum. 355 Commissioner Gunderson concurs. 356 "57 Commissioner Gunderson states that are differently opinions of semantics using RRO. 358 8 Charter Commission January 13, 2011 Page 9 359 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to have the League 360 of Minnesota Cities present a class of Roberts Rules of Order to the Commission at either the 361 next Commission meeting or at a special meeting called by the Chair and two commissioners. 362 363 Commissioner Trehus asked if there was a cost associated with that class, and offers a friendly 364 amendment that it 365 366 Commissioner Gunderson accepts the friendly amendment and offered to investigate what is 367 offered by the LMC for RRO training and at what cost. 368 369 Commissioner Sutherland declares that acceptance of friendly amendment needs to be voted on 370 by the Commission. Commissioner Gunderson states that she believes it does not need a vote if 371 the motion -maker accepts the amendment and state that motion "as amended." 372 373 The amendment to the motion is passed unanimously. 374 375 The motion passes with Commissioner Storberg voting no. 376 377 F. Next meeting date: Thursday, April 14, 2011 378 It is clarified that the July meeting of the Charter Commission does not interfere with the -80 Independence holiday. 381 382 Commissioner Gunderson stated that she would ask the City Clerk to provide us with new 383 calendars for 2011 Charter Commission meetings as well as City Council work sessions and 384 meetings. 385 386 387 ADJOURN 388 MOTION by Commissioner Drennen, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to adjourn the 389 meeting at 9:30pm. Motion carried unanimously. 390 391 Respectfully Submitted, 392 393 Kelly Gunderson 394 Secretary 9 Charter Commission July 28, 2011 Page 1 1 DRAFT 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES 3 CHARTER COMMISSION 4 Special Meeting 5 6 DATE July 28, 2011 7 TIME STARTED 6:40 P.M. 8 TIME ENDED 9:28 P.M. 9 MEMBERS PRESENT Dahl, Gunderson, Penn, Storberg, Sutherland (departs 10 at 8:45p), Trehus, Turcotte, Williams (arrives at 7:05), 11 Zastrow 12 MEMBERS EXCUSED Aldentaler, Bretoi, Drennen, Lyden, Minar, Carlson 13 14 MEMBERS UNEXCUSED None 15 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT None 16 OTHERS PRESENT: None 17 18 19 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 20 Chair Dahl called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:40 pm on July ,..\21 28, 2011. 22 23 OPEN MIC 24 No one spoke during the "open mic" portion of the meeting. 25 26 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 28 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Penn to table the minutes of the 29 January 13, 2011 minutes to the next regular meeting in October 2011. Motion passes with 30 Commissioner Sutherland voting no. 31 32 OLD BUSINESS 33 34 A. Charter Amendments 35 Commissioner Trehus presented approved final language for the additions of Section 1.04 and 36 Section 1.05 to the City Charter, for submission to the City Council for passage. 37 38 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Trehus, to strike the last sentence in 39 proposed amendment Section 1.04 regarding expenses of Charter Commission. 40 41 (Commissioner Williams arrives at 7:05pm) 42 /'N 43 Discussion continues regarding the stipulation of charter expenses in the language within the 44 amendment would help or hurt the chances of passage by the City Council. 45 1 Charter Commission July 28, 2011 Page 2 46 Motion passes to strike the language with Commissioners Williams and Penn voting no. 47 48 Commissioner Trehus presents final approved language for Section 7.13 of Taxation in regards 49 to the limitation of tax levy. 50 51 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to send two Charter 52 amendments, additions of Section 1.04 and 1.05, and Section 7.13 to the City Council for 53 passage by ordinance. 54 55 Commissioner Storberg asked what City Council meeting these amendments would be presented 56 and Commissioner Trehus explained the process of publishing legal notices and public hearings 57 for introducing the amendments to the public. 58 59 Motion passes unanimously. 60 61 B. Charter Appointments 62 63 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, the Commission 64 recommend to City Clerk that the last sentence in the ad for openings for the Charter 65 Commission be changed to include name and phone number of the Commission Chair. X66 67 Motion passes unanimously. 68 69 (Commissioner Sutherland departs at 8:45p) 70 71 The Commission agrees that the deadline to submit applications is October 31, 2011. 72 73 C. New Election Laws 74 75 Chair Dahl will call the League of Minnesota Cities for all updates on statues affecting Charter 76 Commissions. 77 78 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow to table agenda items D 79 & E to the October 2011 meeting. Motion passes unanimously. 80 81 82 D. Next Meeting 83 84 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to cancel the August 4, 85 2011 special meeting of the Charter Commission. Motion passses unanimously. 86 87 �-\ 88 E. Next meeting date: Thursday, October 13, 2011 89 90 2 Charter Commission July 28, 2011 Page 3 91 ADJOURN 92 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to adjourn the 93 meeting at 9:28pm. Motion carried unanimously. 94 95 Respectfully Submitted, 96 97 Kelly Gunderson 98 Secretary 3 rte, Charter Commission October 13, 2011 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE: October 13, 2011 TIME STARTED: 6:39 P.M. TIME ENDED 9:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson, Dahl, Lyden, Minar (arrives at 7:40 pm), Penn, Storberg, Sutherland, Trehus, Williams, Zastrow EXCUSED: Gunderson, Turcotte MEMBERS UNEXCUSED: Drennan STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Dale Stoesz, Candidate for City Council; Ivy Cavegn, Candidate for Mayor of Lino Lakes CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:39 pm October 13, 2011. SETTING THE AGENDA There were no additions of deletions OPEN MIC Dale Stoesz indicated he is a candidate for City Council and was attending the meeting of the Charter Commission as part of his process of self- education on city governance. Commissioners had a chance to question Mr. Stoesz regarding his knowledge of the work of the Commission. RECORDING OF THE MINUTES In the absence of the Secretary, Chair Dahl asked for a motion to have Commissioner Penn take the minutes until the end of the year. She indicated there were still several sets of minutes that were outstanding and that she has asked Commissioner Gunderson to complete all of them in as timely a manner as possible. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland that Commissioner Penn take minutes only for this meeting. Motion passes unanimously. Chair Dahl expressed her concerns about getting the past minutes completed and indicated she had made numerous attempts to secure a commitment from Commissioner Gunderson on a completion date. MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Lyden that Commissioner Lyden be asked to get all of Commissioner Gunderson's notes so that the Commission can make any necessary corrections to past minutes. Motion passes unanimously. Charter Commission October 13, 2011 Page 2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Approval of Minutes — July 14, 2011 meeting Chair Dahl stated the importance of capturing in the minutes comprehensive detail of conversations with city officials or any members of City Council. She was of the opinion that the minutes as submitted did not provide the necessary level of detail and provided the content she believed had been omitted. MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland to table the July 14, 2011 minutes until they can be corrected to reflect more details of the conversation with the City Clerk. Motion passes unanimously. Charter Amendments submitted to City Council Commissioner Trehus recounted the results of the City council meeting of September 12, 2011 where the Council considered the two amendments that had been submitted to them for review and adoption. Those were Amendments to Chapter 1, sections 1.04 and 1.05 and Chapter 7 section 7.13, the proposal for a tax cap. He indicated the Council did not vote on either one and the net affect is that there will be no adoption this year. In spite of opinions of experts retained by the Council he believes that the language is acceptable as prepared. Commissioner Sutherland offered a recommendation that the %\ Commission's attorney be asked to review the comments from the City attorneys to see if she would make any changes to the language. Commissioner Minar arrives at 7:40. MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow that the Commission's attorney Karen Marty be asked to review the comments from the City attorney in 2012 for potential revisions to the language. Motion passes unanimously. Commissioner Penn asked if Ms. Marty would have foreseen the reaction from the City attorney. Commissioner Trehus indicated that Ms. Marty's language was adequate. Commissioner Dahl stated that the City's attorneys are working for the Council and not for the Charter and that it might be advisable to have the Commission's attorney review the language. Commissioner Storberg questioned the need for a review by the Commission's attorney. Chair Dahl stated that it would be beneficial to ensure the language was a tight as possible before being placed on the ballot in 2012. Chair Dahl also indicated that she had been contacted by a City Clerk from another city which could not be named asking to be provided with the tax cap language drafted by the Charter Commission. At this point in the meeting, Ivy Cavegn, candidate for Mayor of Lino Lakes entered the meeting. Commissioners had an opportunity to hear her perspectives on the Charter form of government. r� Charter Commission October 13, 2011 Page 3 Meeting Rules/Bylaws An informational item only. Chair Dahl indicated she wanted to ensure that all commissioners had a correct set. Upcoming Charter Appointments/Re-appointments/Applications Commissioner Carlson asked about the process to be followed for the submission of applications and whether it is in alignment with the process that was voted on at the July 14th meeting. Commissioner Trehus asked whether the Chair had received any applications as yet and Chair Dahl indicated she had received one. Commissioner Minar stated that he would not be reapplying as he believes in term limits for elected officials. Chair Dahl she will be writing the letter that accompanies the submission of applications to the Judge. Charter History Commissioner Storberg revised her draft and since Commissioner Sutherland was not familiar with it she asked for time to read and review it. Commissioner Sutherland made some revisions which she read to the Commissioners. Her perspective is that for the web site the language should be as factual and neutral as possible f-1 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi that a sub committee of Commissioners Sutherland, Drennan and Storberg review the draft and capture content that would be important to the City's web site. A friendly amendment was proposed that once the draft has been reviewed and approved by the Chair it should be loaded onto the web site as soon as possible. Motion passes unanimously. Charter Agreement with Karen Marty There was no new information to report. NEW BUSINESS Goals for 2012 Chair Dahl proposed as goals the intention to raise the limit on Charter Commission funding and the intention to meet with legislators in February. Commissioner Storrberg noted that waiting until February would be too late in the legislative session and that the Commission needed to be prepared in January to set up the meeting. Chair Dahl asked if there were any other commissioners who would be available to meet with Legislators. Commissioners Lyden and Trehus indicated they would be interested and available Additional goals proposed by Chair Dahl were a review of exempt zones and transparency in government. The later topic generated discussion about the process used to manage the discussion during the Sept. 12th City Council meeting and whether the Council can mandate the process. Chair Dahl indicated that the Bylaws allow the Council to determine the rules for discussion. i-� Charter Commission October 13, 2011 Page 4 Next Meeting Date The next meeting date is January 13, 2012. ADJORN MOTION by Commissioner Minae, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow to adjorn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Motion passes unanimously. Respectfully submitted. Marg Penn Acting Secretary Proposed Amendments to the City Charter 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. Tax Cap Amendment 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 2012 shall be used as the starting point for calculating all subsequent levy adjustments. ^\ Any unused levy authority from 2012 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 2011 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 2011 and (b) being taxed on the basis of its original net tax capacity. 2011 TAX COMPARISION AMONG SIMILAR DEVELOPING METRO COMMUNITIES ** 2011 cert. levy 2010 pop. expend/pop % vs. avg. chg-levy chg-pop chg:exp/pop Andover $10,717,442 30,598 $350.27 -6.58% -0.4761% -2.2366% 1.8007% Blaine $17,041,834 57,186 $298.01 -20.52% -13.4803% -1.4374% -12.2185% Centerville $2,268,815 3,792 $598.32 59.58% 1.6634% -2.2932% 4.0494% Chaska $4,880,352 23,770 $205.32 -45.24% 0.0000% -1.6834% 1.7122% Cottage grove $12,241,250 34,589 $353.91 -5.61% 0.7096% 0.2522% 0.4563% Dayton $2,895,527 4,671 $619.89 65.33% -10.4972% -7.9062% -2.8135% Farmington $10,103,956 21,086 $479.18 27.80% 5.3993% 11.2189% -5.2326% Forest lake $6,895,554 18,375 $375.27 0.09% -1.9225% 5.0240% -6.6142% Hugo $4,838,779 13,332 $362.94 -3.20% -7.2554% 1.4612% -8.5911% Lake elmo $2,789,557 8,069 $345.71 -7.80% 1.6845% -3.0867% 4.9232% Lino Lakes $8,660,077 20,216 $428.38 14.25% -0.4101% -0.4383% 0.0284% Prior lake $9,008,763 22,796 $395.19 5.40% 0.1609% -2.3098% 2.5292% Rosemount $10,818,697 21,874 $494.59 31.91% -1.6219% 1.6403% -3.2095% St. pawl park $1,655,427 5,279 $313.59 -16.36% 10.7061% 1.1109% 9.4898% Victoria $4,106,550 7,345 $559.09 49.12% -4.7708% 9.1869% -12.7833% Waconia $4,937,620 10,697 $461.59 23.11% 6.6597% 5.0476% 1.5346% 16 -city totals $113,860,200 303,675 $374.94 0.00% -2.4081% 0.5004% -2.8940% ** Source: League of Minnesota Cities, Metropolitan Council 94.44.4„. G.k.ta.k. e-0,444444.44544,- 1—(2-.111— MEMORANDUM TO: Lino Lakes City Council FROM: Joseph Langel, City Attorney DATE: August 31, 2011 RE: Proposed Amendments to the City Charter R Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. 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 Colnlnission 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 Patricia A_ Maloney* Terrence J. Foy* Scour. Anderson Kevin J. Rupp Jay T. Squires*t Aon R. Goering Nancy E. Blumstein* Joseph J. Langer' Michael J. Waldsputger* Margaret A. Skelton Amy B. Mace Brie J. Quiring Erin E. Ische Christian R. Shafer Trevor S. Helmets Matthew J. Bialick 'Ihssa S. Kowalski Scott B. Schmitt Timothy A. Sullivan * Also admiued 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. § 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, subcL 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 2 by the City Council. Minn. Stat. e 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. 3 Springsted August 31, 2011 Jeff Karison, City Administrator Al Rolek, Director of Finance City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Proposed Tax Cap Amendment mt. t-ti—(z- Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Tei: 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 concem 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 districts, storm 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 (i.e. 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 Referral to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission .-� Agenda Item STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson, City Administrator MEETING DATE: January 12, 2012 TOPIC: Creation of Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Related to Street Reconstruction COUNCIL REQUEST The Council respectfully requests that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on a task force. The purpose of the task force will be to address the City's ability to plan and fund public improvements and to formulate recommendations that can be proposed to the citizens of Lino Lakes, which will facilitate street reconstruction through a process that will enable the City to complete reconstruction projects in a timely and predicable manner. BACKGROUND At the December 5, 2011 work session the City Council discussed how to move forward with needed street improvements in the City. The Council directed staff to prepare a report identifying what the issues are. Staff presented its report at the Council work session on January 3, 2012, which is attached. The Council also discussed the recommendations of the Citizens Task Force, which was created in 2007 to review the charter provisions related to public improvements. The Citizens Task Force concluded that the overriding issue was the inability of the City to reconstruct streets in the most responsible, timely, and cost-effective manner. The City Council recognizes that the process for getting streets reconstructed in the City has been a contentious issue, but a topic that requires further examination. The Council agreed that another task force should be formed to explore solutions that will address some of concerns that have been raised. Toward that end, the Council decided that the task force should be composed of the following representatives: two council members, one representative from each of the City's four advisory boards, three Charter Commission members, and Kathi Gallup, former council member and chair of the Citizens Task Force in 2007. Once the task force is put together, dates and times will be scheduled for the group to meet. ATTACHMENTS January 3, 2012 Work Session Staff Report WS — Item 3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 3 Date: January 3, 2012 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: Street Reconstruction Issues Background At the December 5th, 2011 work session the city council requested a list of issues regarding street reconstruction. The reconstruction of city streets has been a highly debated topic for the past two decades based, in part, on the city wide election requirements contained in the City Charter and the continued degradation of public infrastructure. The City began using a computer software package to develop pavement condition ratings in 1991. In 1995 the city developed street maintenance guidelines in response to a failed charter amendment which sought to remove the city wide election requirements but provide limitations on special assessments. In 1996 the city commissioned a street reconstruction study and report. The study proposed a 5 phase street improvement program to address deteriorating street conditions. In 1998 the Lakes Addition area (phase 2) was reconstructed following a voter approved referendum. Following the defeat of a referendum in 2003, to reconstruct West Shadow Lake Drive and streets within the Shenandoah subdivision, the council commissioned preparation of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP). This study established a comprehensive plan for road maintenance and reconstruction including an evaluation of funding options and policies to implement the PMP. As a result of the study, funding, through property tax levy, was significantly increased for special maintenance activities including seal coating and pavement overlays. However, the road reconstruction component has remained unfunded following referenda defeats in 2005 and 2007. In 2007 the city council appointed a citizen committee to review the charter provisions pertaining to public improvements. The Citizen Task Force drafted a proposed charter amendment that included the deletion of the city wide election while retaining a neighborhood "Veto" process. This amendment was not submitted to voters however, due to both a competing amendment proposed by the charter commission and an amendment submitted by citizen petition. The petition amendment proposed changing the charter improvement requirements to mirror state law. As required by law the petition amendment was placed on the 2008 ballot for voter consideration. To avoid voter confusion no other amendment was forwarded by the council. The petition amendment was defeated in the election. The Citizen Task Force report to the council best defines the overriding issue: • The lack of authority and the inability of the City to reconstruct streets in the most responsible, timely and cost-effective manner The following is a list of issues, broken into three categories; Process; Financing; and Design, that shape the arguments both for and against street reconstruction and proposed changes to the City Charter. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but captures the varied components of this complex policy discussion. Process Issues • Lack of clear, consistent, interpretation regarding charter requirements, by all parties. • Election requirement eliminates the city's ability to predictably complete reconstruction projects. • Improvement process in charter does not currently conform to timelines established by recent legislative changes in State Election requirements. Financing Issues • Delays in reconstruction lead to increasing program costs due to inflation. • Lack of clear understanding of financing methods and their impact on property taxes. • Financing methods affect improvement process. • Funding upfront costs i.e., feasibility studies, with no assurance that projects will proceed and funds recovered. • Public perception that existing property taxes already pay for street reconstruction. Design Issues • Lack of acceptance that streets need to be reconstructed. • Differing opinions on City standard street design i.e., urban vs. rural; street widths. • Inclusion of public sewer and/or water in reconstruction projects in areas not currently served. • Plan development process and procedure is not clear to the public. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction regarding next steps.