Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2012 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION QUARTERLY MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, April 12, 2012 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda items 4. Open Mike / Public Comments In Appreciation Certificates / Plaques ❖ Harry Carlson 12 years ❖ Jim Drennen 4 years ❖ Steve Minar 4 years 6:30 PM 5. Opening Remarks Chair Lyden 6. Minutes: a) April 8, 2010 with corrections b) January 12, 2012 7. Unfinished Business A. Karen Marty Attorney expenses incurred --no new information B. Charter Amendments 8. New Business A. 2011 Annual Letter to Judge B. History of 2008 Charter Amendment C. Proposed Charter Amendment by Council D. Next meeting date, Thursday, July 12, 2012 Adjournment Christopher Lyden Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn Chair Vice Chair Secretary CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING APPROVED FINAL DATE : April 8, 2010 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Carlson, Dahl, Lyden, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams, Minar, Sutherland, Drennen and Aldentaler MEMBERS EXCUSED : Penn, Bretoi, Gunderson and Zastrow MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl called the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:35p.m. on April 8, 2010. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes were made to the agenda OPEN MIKE No one addressed meeting APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Trehus asked if changes to the minutes be shown in the context of the revised minutes and that we would then approve the minutes as a complete Draft with changes in place. Secretary Gunderson will be asked if this can be done. MOTION TO TABLE by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to table the minutes of January 14, 2010. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS Presentation of Plaque for Commissioner Maher Commissioner Maher was not present at the meeting, we have not receive a response from her. 2 6. A Mayor Reinert's response to Section 3.01 of the Lino Lakes Charter Mayor Reinert addressed the Commission regarding Section 3.01 of the Lino Lakes Charter and citizen's right to speak on agenda items at public council meetings. Reinert was asked to the meeting to explain why a person attending the January 11, 2010 council meeting was not allowed to speak and why he said they would be taking no public comment. Mayor Reinert explained that he knew the person who asked to speak, that he was a Union Rep. and that he was not a resident of Lino Lakes. Reinert said he should have explained at that time that the person was not allowed to speak because he was not a Lino Lakes resident and that Lino Lakes residents would be allowed to speak on agenda items Comm. Drennen asked Mayor Reinert if he had contacted the PRESS to clarify why the person was not allowed to speak? Mayor Reinert said no clarification had been made. Comm.Lyden is concerned that residents living on Lino Lakes borders would not be allowed to address issues that would have an effect on them due to happenings in Lino Lakes. Mayor Reinert said that due to the sensitivity of the topic with this particular situation, with a Union Rep., he felt it was not the best way to resolve this situation. With border issues, such as the Vikings or Airport he may handle the situation same way, with only residents allowed to speak. Comm. Lyden said he is concerned that the Mayor is determining what the person is going to say even before they speak. Mayor Reinert stated the person was not allowed to speak because he is not a resident. Comm. Sutherland addressed the issue that our charter does not have exclusive language that the definition of the word citizen is meant to be only residents of Lino Lakes Comm. Trehus suggested that the in the charter the word citizen would probably be a citizen of just Lino Lakes. Comm. Dahl stated the person should have been allowed to talk and that the right to speak at public meetings should not be restricted to Lino Lakes citizens only. Comm. Drennen had three issues he would like to address. What is the definition of the word citizen in our charter? He is also concerned that the Mayor exercised his prerogative because he knew what the person might say and that the Mayor does not use his position of authority to censor speaking. Mayor Reinert assured that there will be no censorship of Lino Lakes citizens. Comm. Carlson stated that he was satisfied with the Mayors explanation of the issue and that it had addressed his concerns. Due to the question of the term citizen in our charter, we will make a formal request to determine if citizen is meant to be inclusive of Lino Lakes residents only. 6. B Attorney Bills Chair Dahl and Comm. Trehus asked Mayor Reinert to address the on going issue of the council taking the position that they will not pay our attorney's bill. Mayor Reinert said he is only one of the five persons on the council that decides the issue. He would like to address the issue at a joint meeting. The City attorney would be asked to address this. Also, the council has been directed by their attorney that it would not be legal to authorize payment of this bill. Comm Sutherland said that the position taken by the city is that they will pay for frame and amend only. Most of our attorney's bill is due to our need to respond to the audit initiated by the city council. We cannot even include a professsional secretarial service because that would not be included in frame and amend. Mayor Reinert said we could address our issue with the League of MN Cities. Commissioner's comments were that this could be a biased source of information, as they are being funded by the city. The League may just comment back to our city attorney. Mayor Reinert 3 stated that the issue would be put on the agenda for the next work session. Comm. Sutherland stated that even the amount that had been agreed to have been paid has not yet been paid. In our out standing bill, $107.30, was in agreement to be paid and has not. The $1,570.35, is due to our need to respond to the audit initiated by the city council. Mayor Reinert said the $107.30 portion of the bill would be paid. Mayor Reinert was informed that the Five Year Plan, as per Section 7.05 of the Lino Lakes Charter, for years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 has not been passed. Mayor Reinert will also try to set the schedule so as to have the joint meeting of the council and commission at our regularly scheduled July 8th 2010 meeting. Having concluded his response to the commission, Mayor Reinert left the meeting at this point. The commission thanked him for being present. 6. C Budget, Five year plan, and Dougherty bill to Lino Lakes for council authorized audit of the Charter Commission. Five Year Plan has not been adopted. The Commission read the copies of the bills presented by Dougherty's law firm to the city of Lino Lakes for the council requested Investigation / Audit of the Charter Commission. As per the bills sent the city has paid $9,289.00 to the Dougherty firm for their charter investigation 6. D Annual letter to the Judge for 2009 Commission liked the draft letter as amended, with an explanation of the council ordered audit, and that the council had not adopted the Five Year Plan beginning in 2009, as per Section 7.05 of the charter. Motion to approve the letter with amendments was made by Commissioner Trehus and seconded by Commissioner Minar. Motion Passed. 6. E Code of conduct Report Commissioner Sutherland would like to know where the Commission stands on this issue before more time is spent on a new code. The response from the commission was mostly favorable. It was suggested that it would be put on the agenda for our joint meeting in July, that the code would include the council, city staff, and boards, and that a conflict of interest section be prominent in the code. Motion was made by Commissioner Sutherland and seconded by Commissioner Drennen that we include the code of conduct in our July 8th joint meeting. Motion passed with Commissioner Storberg voting no. 6. F Tax Cap Amendment Commissioner Trehus said that if we plan to have this (the tax cap amendment) on Fall ballot we are going to have to get this started. Commissioner Sutherland stated we should get this on the agenda with the council. Commissioner Minar agreed now would be the time to get started. Commissioner Sutherland said that if this were presented to the council now they would probably agree to share. Commissioner Carlson suggested that we could also present this as an amendment by ordinance. There were also suggestions that it go right to a referendum, timing being an issue. It was decided we will look at the three options from other cities; this will be 4 discussed at a special meeting in June so we would be able to present this at the joint meeting in July. June 3rd at 6:30 is the date and time set for the special meeting to discuss the amendment. 6. G 2010 Goal Setting. Suggestions were, tax cap, code of conduct, and a better use of Roberts Rules of Order. We would also set 2011 goal setting as an Oct. agenda item. NEW BUSINESS 7. A Joint meeting with council A joint meeting date has been set for our regular July 8th meeting. Items for discussion will be the charter budget and unpaid bills from attorney Marty, Code of Conduct / Conflict of Interest, and a tax cap amendment. A motion was made by Commissioner Storberg and seconded by Commissioner Lyden to send a thank you letter to Mayor Reinert for attending our meeting. Motion carried. ADJOURN MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Trehus. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, Harry Carlson, Acting Secretary Lino Lakes Charter Commission 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 July 8, 2010 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION January 12, 2012 6:35 p.m. 8:35 p.m. Bretoi (left at 7:25 p.m.)Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams, Aldentaler, Bartsch, Helgemoe, Sutherland, Timm Zastrow None None Council Members Dale Stoesz and Rob Rafferty; citizen Dean Hausladen CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl reconvened the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on Jan. 12, 2012. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS Chair Dahl asked the three new commissioners to introduce themselves to the other Commissioners. Commissioner Kathryn Timm has lived in Lino Lakes since 1999 and is an attorney in the Civil Division of the Anoka City Attorney's office. Commissioner Jason Helgeme has lived in the city since 1989 and is a Commercial Banker for Western Bank in Mounds View. Commissioner Daryl is the owner of a medical device distribution company and has lived in the city for 30 years. OPEN MIC/PUBLIC COMMENT No one present opted to speak for the open mike. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda was accepted as presented without additions APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to approve the amended minutes for January 13, 2011, July 28, 2011 and October 13, 2011. Motion passes with three abstentions. Chair Dahl noted that all previously unfinished minutes were now finished and will be forwarded to the City Clerk. 1 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 2 46 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 47 48 Charter Amendments. Commissioner Trehus reviewed the background on the two 49 amendments submitted to City Council on July 28, 2011. Since neither amendment request 50 received council support, at the Oct. 13, 2011 meeting Commissioners voted to have the 51 Commission's attorney review the opinions that had been obtained by the Council's legal 52 experts. Ms. Marty's response had not been obtained until Jan. 12 and was distributed at the 53 meeting. Her position differs significantly from the opinions obtained by the council in that she 54 recommends that the amendments proceed as originally drafted. Commissioner Trehus noted an 55 additional review may be required to determine how changes in State law affect the charter. 56 57 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, requesting Chair 58 Dahl to write to Ms. Marty asking for an estimate of the fees required to review the draft ballot 59 language. Upon receipt of the estimate, the Chair is further directed to write to the Council 60 requesting another review. 61 Motion passes unanimously. 62 Commissioner Storberg requested clarification as to whether Ms. Marty disagrees with the 63 opinion rendered by the City attorney Joseph Langel. Commissioner Gunderson asked whether 64 there is a firm or a single attorney representing the City. 65 As Council Member Rafferty was in attendance he clarified that Mr. Langel is under contract 66 with the City. Commissioner Storberg asked Council Member Rafferty why the City changes 67 attorneys when new attorneys may have to start from scratch in gaining knowledge and 68 background about the issues about which they are providing Council. Council Member Rafferty 69 indicated that decisions about engaging outside counsel were made to be mindful of economics. 70 Commissioner Trehus recommended that the Commissioners vote at this meeting to have the 71 amendments placed on the ballot for the November 2012 election. 72 MOTION by Commissioner Lyden, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to have both 73 amendments with the existing ballot language place on the ballot. 74 Motion caries. Opposed: Commissioner Timm. Abstaining: Commissioners Helgemoe and Penn 75 76 77 NEW BUSINESS 78 Memo from the City Administrator 79 The memo indicated that at its December 5, 2011 work session the council discussed how to 80 move forward with needed street improvements in the City. At the Jan. 3. 2012 work session the 81 Council proposed creating a task force to review Charter Provisions related to Street 82 Reconstruction. The task force would be composed of two Council members; one representative 83 from each of the City's four advisory boards; three Charter Commission members, and Kathi 84 Gallup, former Council member and chair of the 2007 Citizens Task Force. The memo requested 85 that the Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on the task force. 86 Commissioner Sutherland noted that it could be difficult to identify three members who could 87 represent the body of the Commission 88 89 Commissioner Bretoi departed at 7:25 90 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 ti 91 Commissioner Trehus stated that he believes the over-riding intent of the Council's proposal is to 92 get the Charter changed. 93 Commissioner Storberg offered to provide some perspective for new Commissioners, stating that 94 the Charter does not stop the repair of existing roads. The Charter covers only the construction 95 of new roads. She also questioned the need for a task force. 96 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the issue of a task force was raised at the July 2010 joint 97 Commission -City Council meeting. She further commented that they have been several 98 opportunities to change Chapter 8 and that citizens have rejected that changes each time. 99 100 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to have Chair 101 Dahldraft a response thanking the Council for their request to participate and that the 102 Commission is respectfully declining. 103 Several Commissioners spoke against the motion. 104 Commissioner Penn indicated she would be voting against it because refusal to participate 105 furthers the perception of the Commission as obstructionistic. 106 Commissioner Gunderson noted that there is considerable likelihood that the Council will 107 proceed with the task force without Commission involvement. 108 109 Commissioner Trehus stated that there is a process for proposing amendments to the Charter. 110 The Task Force would be acting in strictly advisory capacity and would not be able to create 1111 amendments. He also noted that there have been multiple attempts to remove Chapter 8 and that 112 multiple projects proposed by the City have been defeated by the residents. He also expressed 113 concern that the Council may have "stacked the deck" in its favor with its choice of members. 114 Commissioner Turcotte indicated that his perspective is that the Task Force is not a road issue 115 but a sewer and water issue. 116 Commissioner Lyden noted that when the issue was being raised for a vote by citizens in 2008 117 the City published a pamphlet to present their perspective. He had requested that the 118 Commission be allowed to have equal space to provide its point of view and was refued. He also 119 noted that the Council has a budget for road repair. 120 Commissioner Bartsch questioned why the City can't move ahead with decisions regarding road 121 repair. He noted he resides in a subdivision where roads have not been repaired for 30 years. 122 Commissioner Helgemoe commented that as a business owner having good infrastructure in the 123 City is important to the ability to attract new business. He also questioned where he could go to 124 get more information on the process for approving road repairs. 125 Commissioner Gunderson noted that Mr. Grochala of the City provided her with criteria and 126 where general funds will be required. 127 Commissioner Gunderson called the question. 128 Motion was passed with Commissioners Aldentaler, Bartsch, Dahl, Lyden, Sutherland, Trehus, 129 and Turcotte voting in favor; Commissioners Gunderson, Helgemoe, Penn, Storberg, Timm and 130 Williams voting against. 131 '•••., 132 Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary t 133 Chair Dahl commented that she has served as Chair for 3 1/2 years and appreciates the support she 134 has received. She laso noted that she would be interested in the role of Vice Chair. 135 She proposed Commissioner Lyden for the position of Chair. Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 4 136 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to elect 137 Commissioner Lyden the position of Chair. 138 Motion carries unanimously. 139 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Storberg to elect 140 Commissioner Dahl to the position of Vice Chair. Motion carries unanimously. 141 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to elect 142 Commissioner Penn to the position of Secretary. Motion carries unanimously 143 144 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to add an 145 additional item to the agenda to provide an opportunity for the two Council members present to 146 share their perspectives. Motion carries unanimously 147 Council Member Stoesz noted that his primary reason for attending was to educate himself on 148 ways that the Commission and Council could work together and that he was disappointed that the 149 Commissioners chose to reject the offer to participate in the task force. 150 Council Member Rafferty noted that was attending as a citizen. He has been on the Council for 151 only two years and does not believe he has done anything that would harm his relationship with 152 the Commssion. 153 Commissioner Sutherland thanked the Council member for their attendance. 154 155 Commissioner Helgmoe asked if current Commissioners could introduce themselves to the 156 Newly appointed Commissioner and this was done. 157 158 ADJOURN 159 160 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by CommissionerTrehus, to adjourn the 161 meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 162 163 164 165 Respectfully Submitted, 166 167 Marg Penn 168 Secretary 4 rt 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 r! 42 N 43 44 45 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: FINAL DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION January 12, 2012 6:35 p.m. 8:35 p.m. Bretoi (left at 7:25 p.m.)Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams, Aldentaler, Bartsch, Helgemoe, Sutherland, Timm Zastrow None None Council Members Dale Stoesz and Rob Rafferty; citizen Dean Hausladen CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl reconvened the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on Jan. 12, 2012. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONERS Chair Dahl asked the three new commissioners to introduce themselves to the other Commissioners. Commissioner Kathryn Timm has lived in Lino Lakes since 1999 and is an attorney in the Civil Division of the Anoka City Attorney's office. Commissioner Jason Helgeme has lived in the city since 1989 and is a Commercial Banker for Western Bank in Mounds View. Commissioner Daryl is the owner of a medical device distribution company and has lived in the city for 30 years. OPEN MIC/PUBLIC COMMENT No one present opted to speak for the open mike. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Agenda was accepted as presented without additions APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to approve the amended minutes for January 13, 2011, July 28, 2011 and October 13, 2011. Motion passes with three abstentions. Chair Dahl noted that all previously unfinished minutes were now finished and will be forwarded to the City Clerk. 1 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 2 46 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 47 48 Charter Amendments. Commissioner Trehus reviewed the background on the two 49 amendments submitted to City Council on July 28, 2011. Since neither amendment request 50 received council support, at the Oct. 13, 2011 meeting Commissioners voted to have the 51 Commission's attorney review the opinions that had been obtained by the Council's legal 52 experts. Ms. Marty's response had not been obtained until Jan. 12 and was distributed at the 53 meeting. Her position differs significantly from the opinions obtained by the council in that she 54 recommends that the amendments proceed as originally drafted. Commissioner Trehus noted an 55 additional review may be required to determine how changes in State law affect the charter. 56 57 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, requesting Chair 58 Dahl to write to Ms. Marty asking for an estimate of the fees required to review the draft ballot 59 language. Upon receipt of the estimate, the Chair is further directed to write to the Council 60 requesting another review. 61 Motion passes unanimously. 62 Commissioner Storberg requested clarification as to whether Ms. Marty disagrees with the 63 opinion rendered by the City attorney Joseph Langel. Commissioner Gunderson asked whether 64 there is a firm or a single attorney representing the City. 65 As Council Member Rafferty was in attendance he clarified that Mr. Langel is under contract 66 with the City. Commissioner Storberg asked Council Member Rafferty why the City changes 67 attorneys when new attorneys may have to start from scratch in gaining knowledge and 68 background about the issues about which they are providing Council. Council Member Rafferty 69 indicated that decisions about engaging outside counsel were made to be mindful of economics. 70 Commissioner Trehus recommended that the Commissioners vote at this meeting to have the 71 amendments placed on the ballot for the November 2012 election. 72 MOTION by Commissioner Lyden, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to have both 73 amendments with the existing ballot language place on the ballot. 74 Motion caries. Opposed: Commissioner Timm. Abstaining: Commissioners Helgemoe and Penn 75 76 77 NEW BUSINESS 78 Memo from the City Administrator 79 The memo indicated that at its December 5, 2011 work session the council discussed how to 80 move forward with needed street improvements in the City. At the Jan. 3. 2012 work session the 81 Council proposed creating a task force to review Charter Provisions related to Street 82 Reconstruction. The task force would be composed of two Council members; one representative 83 from each of the City's four advisory boards; three Charter Commission members, and Kathi 84 Gallup, former Council member and chair of the 2007 Citizens Task Force. The memo requested 85 that the Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on the task force. 86 Commissioner Sutherland noted that it could be difficult to identify three members who could 87 represent the body of the Commission 88 89 Commissioner Bretoi departed at 7:25 90 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 91 Commissioner Trehus stated that he believes the over-riding intent of the Council's proposal is to 92 get the Charter changed. 93 Commissioner Storberg offered to provide some perspective for new Commissioners, stating that 94 the Charter does not stop the repair of existing roads. The Charter covers only the construction 95 of new roads. She also questioned the need for a task force. 96 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the issue of a task force was raised at the July 2010 joint 97 Commission -City Council meeting. She further commented that they have been several 98 opportunities to change Chapter 8 and that citizens have rejected that changes each time. 99 100 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to have Chair 101 Dahldraft a response thanking the Council for their request to participate and that the 102 Commission is respectfully declining. 103 Several Commissioners spoke against the motion. 104 Commissioner Penn indicated she would be voting against it because refusal to participate 105 furthers the perception of the Commission as obstructionistic. 106 Commissioner Gunderson noted that there is considerable likelihood that the Council will 107 proceed with the task force without Commission involvement. 108 109 Commissioner Trehus stated that there is a process for proposing amendments to the Charter. 110 The Task Force would be acting in strictly advisory capacity and would not be able to create 111 amendments. He also noted that there have been multiple attempts to remove Chapter 8 and that • 112 multiple projects proposed by the City have been defeated by the residents. He also expressed 113 concern that the Council may have "stacked the deck" in its favor with its choice of members. 114 Commissioner Turcotte indicated that his perspective is that the Task Force is not a road issue 115 but a sewer and water issue. 116 Commissioner Lyden noted that when the issue was being raised for a vote by citizens in 2008 117 the City published a pamphlet to present their perspective. He had requested that the 118 Commission be allowed to have equal space to provide its point of view and was refued. He also 119 noted that the Council has a budget for road repair. 120 Commissioner Bartsch questioned why the City can't move ahead with decisions regarding road 121 repair. He noted he resides in a subdivision where roads have not been repaired for 30 years. 122 Commissioner Helgemoe commented that as a business owner having good infrastructure in the 123 City is important to the ability to attract new business. He also questioned where he could go to 124 get more information on the process for approving road repairs. 125 Commissioner Gunderson noted that Mr. Grochala of the City provided her with criteria and 126 where general funds will be required. 127 Commissioner Gunderson called the question. 128 Motion was passed with Commissioners Aldentaler, Bartsch, Dahl, Lyden, Sutherland, Trehus, 129 and Turcotte voting in favor; Commissioners Gunderson, Helgemoe, Penn, Storberg, Timm and 130 Williams voting against. 131 ''"N 132 Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary \. 133 Chair Dahl commented that she has served as Chair for 3 %2 years and appreciates the support she 134 has received. She laso noted that she would be interested in the role of Vice Chair. 135 She proposed Commissioner Lyden for the position of Chair. Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 4 136 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to elect 137 Commissioner Lyden the position of Chair. 138 Motion carries unanimously. 139 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Storberg to elect 140 Commissioner Dahl to the position of Vice Chair. Motion carries unanimously. 141 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to elect 142 Commissioner Penn to the position of Secretary. Motion carries unanimously 143 144 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to add an 145 additional item to the agenda to provide an opportunity for the two Council members present to 146 share their perspectives. Motion carries unanimously 147 Council Member Stoesz noted that his primary reason for attending was to educate himself on 148 ways that the Commission and Council could work together and that he was disappointed that the 149 Commissioners chose to reject the offer to participate in the task force. 150 Council Member Rafferty noted that was attending as a citizen. He has been on the Council for 151 only two years and does not believe he has done anything that would harm his relationship with 152 the Commssion. 153 Commissioner Sutherland thanked the Council member for their attendance. 154 155 Commissioner Helgmoe asked if current Commissioners could introduce themselves to the 156 Newly appointed Commissioner and this was done. 157 158 ADJOURN 159 160 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by CommissionerTrehus, to adjourn the 161 meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 162 163 164 165 Respectfully Submitted, 166 167 Marg Penn 168 Secretary 4 Caroline Dahl, Chairperson, Lino Lakes Charter Commission 1101 Holly Court East Lino Lakes, MN 55038 April 12, 2012 The Honorable Judge John C. Hoffman Chief Judge, Tenth Judicial District 14949 62nd Street North P.O. Box 3802 Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Honorable Judge Hoffman, As required by state law, please find the following 2011 annual report for the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. This report seeks to outline major activities and concerns of the Commission as discussed in Charter meetings. 2011 Annual Report, Approved by the Lino Lakes Charter Commission, April 12, 2012 Membership We had full membership for 2011 with 8 terms expiring December 31, 2011. The commissioners ,•.. appointed with terms now expiring in 2015 are as follows: Donald Aldentaler, Daryl Bartsch, Jason Helgemoe, Christopher Lyden, Rosemary Storberg, Connie Sutherland, Kathryn Timm, Irvin Zastrow. These Commissioners were sworn in for the January 12, 2012 meeting. New officers of the Charter Commission were installed at the January 12, 2012 as per Commission By- laws. They include Chair Christopher Lyden, Vice Chair Caroline Dahl and Secretary Margaret Penn. Meetings Full meetings of the Charter Commission were held on: January 13, 2011 April 14, 2011 July 14, 2011 October 14, 2011 An additional Special meeting was held on: July 28, 2011. Minutes A Charter Commissioner now records the minutes for the regular and special meetings held throughout the year. Charter Business The Charter voted and passed on two amendments. Page 1 of 3 Amendment pertaining to 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 pertaining to 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. The Charter was not given the correct date by staff to get these amendments on the ballot in 2011. The only alternative available to the Commission at that point was to submit them to council to be passed by ordinance. At the Public Hearing the council did not initiate a motion. For lack of a motion the amendments did not pass. Commission / Council Joint Meeting The Charter Commission and the City Council met on July 14, 2011 to discuss the Attorney bill in arrears and to update the Charter budget to a realistic amount as had been the precedent. It was to no avail. The 1500.00 budget was enacted in 1961 (State Statute) and has not been updated to reflect inflation. Page 2 of 3 Commission Concern Chair Dahl, made a booklet to inform Senator Chamberlain of the need to have the amount of the commission's budget increased from the $1.500.00 that was set by State Statute in 1961. We asked for his support to re-enact the State Amendment that was passed by both the house and Senate in 2007 and vetoed by Governor Pawlenty, to increase the commission's budget to $5,000.00. Commission Activity • Three of the many items we did this past year was that the commission implemented in our Bylaws "The Rules of Order" for conducting business at our meetings. • As a Commission we also passed a "Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest" and asked council to accept both and council did vote and implement the Conflict of Interest. • The Commission concurred with the Council that having off year elections is to give necessary attention to local questions. Therefore the Commission did not pursue odd year elections. Charter Expenditures Due to a shortage of funds from the city council, the Charter attorney fees remain unpaid from as far back as the first half of 2009. Five Year Financial Plan 2010 and 2011 History of the Five Year Plan Under the Charter, the Five Year Plan requires annual updating. As per Mr. Roleck, Finance Director: "The City Council put off the 5 -year plan discussion in May. pending the completion of an organizational study and the hiring report on the 5 -year plan at the March work session and anticipate a review ofa draft at the :4pril work session". (2010) of a City Administrator. The Administrator was hired in August and organizational study is currently, underway. They will receive a progress In the years' 2010 and 2011 the Five Year Financial was not updated. As per Mr. Roleck, Finance Director (email to Charter Chair Dahl) dated November 14, 2011 "The City Council received a draft of the 2012-2016 Five Year Financial Plan and had an initial review at their November 7 work session. The Council asked that the plan cone bcick to them for further review at their January, 2012 work session". Respectfully Submitted, Caroline Dahl Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Page 3 of 3 The Lino Lakes Charter Commission has completed its review of Ordinance 07-07, proposing amendments to Charter Chapter VIII, Public Improvements and Special Assessments. We understand the concerns being raised by the City Council. Rather than simply approve or reject the Council proposed amendment, we have prepared a substitute amendment that we believe strikes a better balance between the concerns of the City Council and the concerns shared by many Lino Lakes residents. We also recognized theopportunity to clean up confusing language, clarify procedures, and generally make Chapter VIII of the Charter more readable and useful to everyone. Attached is the substitute amendment proposed by the Charter Commission. The most significant provisions are as follows: 1. A referendum is no longer required for road reconstruction project. When a project would be paid for out of the general revenue fund, taxpayers may petition for a referendum. This preserves the rights of the taxpayers to stop projects, while also requiring that enough taxpayers sign a petition. Special assessment projects may be initiated in three ways. One, if all the property owners agree to pay all of the cost of the project, as in the existing Charter, the City Council may approve the project just as described ni state law. Two, if more than 25% of the property owners (but less than 100%) petition for a project, the City Council may order a feasibility study by a 3i5 majority. Three, the City Council itself may initiate a project by a 415 -majority vote. After the feasibility study is done, notices are sent to the affected property owners with enough detail to let them know` how the public improvements will change the look and use of property around them, and an estimate of their special assessment. The feasibility study will need to include alternatives, so that the residents and the City Council can see what it would cost to do some, rather than all, of the project. Those alternatives also would be included in the information sent to the affected property owners. Property owners would be given a chance to indicate which alternative they prefer. Rather than building or rejecting an entire project, this will give the City the flexibility to do special assessment projects approved by the neighborhoods. The Charter Commission respectfully recommends that the City Council place this amendment on the ballot in November of 2008. Respectfully submitted, Cori M. Duffy Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8 RECOMMENDED BY THE CHARIER COMtv1ISSION Section 8.01. Power to Make .Improvements. Subdivision 1. Power, The City may make any type of public improvements not forbidden by law. Subd. 2. Local nature of improvements. All public improvements funded in part through either general revenue or special assessments shall be primarily designed to give a direct benefit to property currently occupied by residents or businesses in the City. Public improvements primarily designed to open up new areas of the City for development may not be funded in part through general revenue or through special assessments (except as provided in Section 8.04, Subd. 3 below). Section 8.02. Relation to State Law. Except as otherwise specified in this Charter, the City shall follow the procedures set forth in state law relating to local improvements and special assessments. Section 8.03. Power to Impose Special Assessments. Subdivision 1. Need a special benefit. The City may impose special assessments to pay for all or a part of the cost of the public improvements when the public improvement provides a special benefit to adjacent or nearby properties, except as provided in Subd. 2 below. Subd. 2. Street maintenance. The City shall not impose special assessments for maintenance of its streets. Maintenance includes overlays, sealcoating, :and other improvements to care for the street surface between the date the street was constructed and the date the street will be reconstructed. Subd. 3. Sanitary sewer connections. When public improvements include sanitary sewers, the City shall not require an adjacent or nearby property to connect to those sewers if the property is served by a properly working private sewage disposal system (e.g., a septic system). The property may be required to connect to the sanitazy sewer system when either the private sewage disposal system fails, or the property is conveyed to a new owner, whichever occurs first. Subd. 4. Uniformity and maximum. Special assessments shall be imposed uniformly on similar properties. The special assessment on each property shall not exceed the benefit to that property. Section 8.04. How to Initiate Public Improvements for Which Special Assessments may be Imposed. Subdivision l . Policy. The City desires to protect existing residents and businesses from having to pay special assessments for public improvements they do not want. Therefore, the process for initiating public improvements is restrictive. Subd. 2. Three ways to initiate public improvements. Special assessments may not be imposed for public improvements unless the public improvements are initiated in one of the ways described in subdivisions 3, 4, and 5 below. Subd. 3. Petition signed by 100%. The owners of 100% of the property proposed to be specially assessed for public improvements may present a petition to the City Council. The petition shall generally describe the public improvements to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The petition must be accompanied by anagreement that these owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the public improvements. Upon receipt of such a petition and agreement, the City Council may adopt a resolution to initiate these public improvements by a simple majority vote. These public improvements need not comply with Section 8.01, Subd. 2 above. Aside from the requirements of this subdivision, state law shall govern these public improvements. Subd. 4. Petition signed by 25% or more. The owners of more than 25%, but less than 100%, of the property proposed to be specially assessed for the public improvements may present a petition to the City Council. The petition shall generally describe the public improvements to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The City Council may adopt a resolution ordering a feasibility study for these public improvements by a majority vote of all members of the City Council. In determining whether sufficient signatures are present on the petition; the following four rules shall be followed: (1) The signers must own at least 25% of the total number of lots proposed to be specially assessed. For unplatted property, each existing parcel of land shall be considered one lot. The owner of a small lot gets one vote, the same as the owner of a large lot. (2) If more than one person owns a particular lot, only one signature will be counted for that lot. (3) If more than one lot is owned by a person, that person's signature will be counted only once. (4) If multiple owners of a lot also own an additional lot or lots, only one signature will be counted for all the owners and all their lots. This is intended to keep any one owner from dominating the process. Subd. 5. No petition. The City Council may initiate public improvements without a signed petition. The resolution shall generally describe the public improvement to be studied, and specifically identify the property proposed to be specially assessed. The City Council may adopt a resolution ordering a feasibility study for these public improvements by the affirmative vote of four-fifths all members of the City Council. Section 8.05. Feasibility Study. Subdivision I. Contents. Once public improvements have been initiated under Section 8.04, Subd. 4 or Subd. 5, the City Council shall direct staff to do a feasibility study. In_ addition to any requirements under state law, the feasibility study shall contain the following information: (1) a list of the recommended public improvements; (2) changes in the appearance or use of property, such as trees to be removed, easements acquired, and new or changed storm water facilities; (3) the projected cost for the recommended public improvements; (4) a list of the properties proposed to be specially assessed for the recommended public improvements and (5) an estimated special assessment per lot for the recommended public improvements. Subd. 2. Alternatives. If more than a single public improvement (e.g., street lights) is proposed, the feasibility study shall include information on alternatives, such as doing individual improvements or doing different combinations of the improvements (e.g., just streets, streets and street lights, streets and curb and gutter, streets and sanitary sewers, etc). If one of the public improvements is reconstruction or other work to improve an existing street, one alternative must be to do only the street. The feasibility study shall contain the information listed in Subd. 1 above for each of the alternative combinations. Section 8.06. Public Hearing. Upon being notified that staff has completed its feasibility study, the City Council shall adopt a resolution scheduling a public hearing on the proposed public improvements. The hearing shall be scheduled for a date at least two weeks away. In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public hearing that is sent to the property owner shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the information described in Section 8.05. Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences. Subdivision 1. Waiting period. After the public hearing, there shall be a period of at least 60 days prior to the next City Council action on the proposed public improvements. Property owners proposed to be specially assessed are given this 60 -day period so that they may indicate their preference regarding the proposed public improvements. Each indication of preference -3- shall be in ruing, signed by the property owner. and state whether the property owner prefers all, a specific one of the alternative combinations, or none of the recommended public improvements. Subd. 2. Preferences counted. Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 day waiting period. The restrictions on who rnay sign a petition, described in Section 8.04, Subd. 4 above, also apply to determine who may indicate a preference. If multiple owners of a lot or lots indicate different preferences, no preferences shall be counted for that lot or lots. Subd. 3. Utilities in streets. Some utilities typically are installed during street improvements, which usually costs less than constructing the streets and utilities separately. If property owners prefer an alternative which results in a sheet being improved without utilities recommended by staff, then the utilities may not be installed in that street within five years after completion of the street, unless the installation of utilities and any related street repair will be paid for without using any of the City's general revenue. Section 8.08`. City Council. Action. Subdivision 1. Approval of preferred alternative. At the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the 60 -day period ends, the City Council shall approve the alternative which was preferred by the largest number of property owners. If the largest number of property owners indicated a preference that none of the recommended public improvements be constructed, then the City Council shall not approve any of the proposed public improvements. Subd. 2. Second waiting period. If the preferred alternative is to have some or all of the public improvements constructed, then there shall be a period of at least 60 days between the day the City Council approves the preferred alternative and the date of the next City Council action on the proposed public improvements. Taxpayers are given this 60 -day period so that they may petition for a referendum as provided in Section 8.09 below. Section 8.09. Taxpayer Referendum. Subdivision 1. Petition. When a proposed public improvement is to be funded in part through general revenue, the taxpayers of the City may petition for a referendum on the public improvements. Any registered voter may sign the petition for a referendum. To trigger a referendum, the number of valid signatures on the petition must equal or exceed' 12% of the number of votes cast for mayor in the last mayoral election. Subd. 2. Timing. Prior to the first regular City Council meeting occurring after the end of the 60 -day period described in Section 8.08, Subd. 2, the taxpayers must submit their petition for a referendum to the City. If the petition is not submitted prior to that meeting, or does not have sufficient valid signatures, no referendum is required. If the petition is timely submitted, with sufficient valid signatures, the City Council shall order the public improvements to be placed on the ballot at the next general or special election. Subd. 3. Voting. The ballot shall ask voters if they want to use general tax dollars to pay for a portion of the described public improvements. The actual ballot language shall give a general description of the public improvements proposed to be constructed. Subd. 4. Public improvements rejected. If a majority of those voting on the issue are opposed, the City Council shall not proceed with the proposed public improvements. The City Council may not initiate the same or substantially similar public improvements within the next 12 months. Subd. 5. Public improvements approved.. Whenproposed public improvements are allowed under Subd. 3, the City Council shall adopt a resolution approving the public improvements. If, after bads are received on the public improvements, the proposed contract exceeds the estimates described in Section 8.05 above by more than ten (10%) percent, the City Council may not award the contract for the proposed improvement. The City Council may rebid the public improvements once. Section 8.10. Specified Commercial Area, Subdivision 1. Not as restricted. The area described in Subd. 2 below is not subject to the restrictions set forth in Sections 8.04 through 8.09 above. However, certain single family residences are protected in this area as indicated in Subd. 3 below. Subd. 2. Area description. This is an area generally known as the intersection of Interstate 35W and Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive). More specifically, this area is described as follows: - the north one half ('h) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 18; and - that part of the south one half (tai) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 18 lying north of the Interstate 35W right-of-way; and - that part of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Trunk. Highway #49 (Lake Drive) right-of-way; and - all of the northwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17, except that part of the southeast quarter (1/4) of said northwest quarter (1/4) of Section 17 described as follows: beginning at a -5- point at the intersection of the south line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (114) with the east right-of-way line of Trunk Highway ##49; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way line 938.14 feet (+ or -) ; thence southeasterly 672.39 feet (+ or -) to east line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (1/4); thence south along said east line 588.5 feet (+ or -) to the south line of said southeast quarter (1/4) of the northwest quarter (1/4); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or -) to the point of beginning; and - the north 720 feet of that part of the southwest quarter (1/4) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property; and - that part of the north one half ('/2) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property; and - the south one half ('h) of southeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of Section 8; and - the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southwest quarter (1/4) of Section 8; and - the east 330 feet (+ or -) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of the southeast quarter (1/4) of the southwest quarter (114) of Section 8. Subd. 3. Single family residences protected. Special assessments shall not be imposed on a single family residence if the residence meets all three of the following criteria: (1) The residence is located within the area described in Subd. 2 above; an (2) At least 80% of the residence is used exclusively as the owner's residence, and not for a business; and (3)' The residence has been owner -occupied since at least September 30, 1993. If the residence was empty between owners, this still counts as owner occupied. Subd. 4. Notice and objection. When public improvements are proposed which would result in special assessments on a single family residence located in the area described in Subd. 2 above, the City shall send a certified letter to the owner of the residence prior to the first public hearing on the proposed public improvements. In addition to the requirements in state law, the letter shall inform the owner that the owner will not be specially assessed if (a) the owner's residence meets the three criteria in Subd. 3 above (which shall be listed in the letter), and (b) the owner gives the City Clerk a written statement, prior to the close of the public hearing, that the owner objects to being specially assessed. Subd. 5. Effect of objection. The City shall not assess an owner who submits a signed written statement objecting to being specially assessed, as described in Subd. 4, unless the City can prove that the single family residence does not meet the criteria in Subd. 3 above. Subd. 6. Later connection_ If the public improvements include utilities and the owner connects to one or more of those utilities within five years after the completion of construction of the improvements, then the owner shall be considered to have consented to being specially assessed for the public improvements. The City may impose the special assessments at that time, in the amount that would have been imposed had the owner been specially assessed when the public improvements were constructed. -7- 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. Apr 10 12 04:52p Caroline Dahl 2..1.41 j 1 VV Vvt11at1 CenturyLink Webmail 651-484-4781 p.1 Page 1 of2 denali2010@q.con t Font Size - RE: PMP/Budgeted Street Maintenance From : Alan Rolek <alan.rolek@ci.lino-Iakes.mn.us> Subject : RE: PMP/Budgeted Street Maintenance To :'Caroline Dahl' <denali2010@q.com> Mon, Apr 02, 2012 01:33 PM Hi Caroline - Sorry this took a while - I was out on Friday. Any amounts unspent in a given year are carried over for future maintenance projects. From: Caroline Dahl [mailto:denaii2010@q.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:34 PM To: Alan Rolek Subject: Re: PMP/Budgeted Street Maintenance Importance: High I would appreciate it if you would email me the chart of what the city "actual money" spent in each year. Thanks Caroline Street Maint - PMP Budgeted Actual 2005 230,000 236,358 214,386 2006 347,500 300,000 299,634 2007 365,500 365,000 343,155 2008 385,000 385,000 350,805 2009 402,500 385,000 338,782 2010 422,500 422,500 386,980 2011 445,000 445,000 420,389 2012 467,500 467,250 NA From: Caroline Dahl [mailto:denaii2010@q.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:34 PM To: Alan Rolek Subject: Re: PMP/Budgeted Street Maintenance Importance: High I would appreciate it if you would email me the chart of what the city "actual money" spent in each year. Thanks Caroline WS — Item 12 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 12 Date: February 6, 2012 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: Charter Task Force Back6round As you already know, the Charter Commission declined the Council's invitation to participate on a task force to address the City's ability to facilitate street reconstruction projects. The Council now needs to decide how it wishes to proceed without the Charter Commission's cooperation. Attached is a letter from Charter Chair Chris Lyden, which states that the Charter Commission will only consider a proposed amendment through a formal process that involves the whole Commission, as specified in Minnesota Statutes 410.12. A summary of MN Statutes 410.12 is enclosed for your review. Attachments Letter from Chris Lyden, Charter Commission Chair Summary of Procedures for Amending the City Charter Lino Lakes Charter Commission Christopher Lyden, Charter Chair 6275 Holly Drive West Lino Lakes, MN 55038 City of Lino Lakes Mayor Reinert and City Council Jeff Karlson, City Administrator 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 HAND DELIVERED January 30, 2012 Response to Council Request Creation of Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Related to Street Reconstruction Dear Mr. Karlson, Mayor and City Council: The Lino Lakes Charter Commission recognizes the integrity of the processes in which our government carries out its due diligence in a legitimate, proper, transparent, and unfettered means for the people of Lino lakes. Please be advised that the proper process regarding amendments to the City Charter is set forth under Minnesota law, specifically Minnesota Statutes Chapter 410.12. As always, the Charter Commission will be more than happy to give a complete and competent review by the entire Commission of any and all proposals submitted through the formal and proper channels. Please note the dates and times of the scheduled Charter Commission meetings so that any further communication can be given due consideration by our entire Commission in a timely manner. We look forward to working with you. Christopher Lyden Charter Chair. Lino Lakes Charter Commission CC: Julie Bartell, City Clerk CiTY CHARTER AMENDMENTS - MN STATUTES 410.12 January 2012 Proposals to amend a charter can be made by: • Council recommendation • Citizen petition • Charter Commission recommendation Charter amendments can be approved by: • Election • Ordinance For 2012 election year, proposals to amend a charter must be submitted no later than July 10, 2012. County Auditor must be notified of title and Language of all questions to be placed on the November 6, 2012 ballot no later than 5 pm , August 17, 2012. Actions/Approvals must be planned accordingly. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT BY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: • Council adopts ordinance proposing the amendment • Council submits ordinance to Charter Commission for review • Charter Commission has 60 days for review (may be extended by the commission an additional 90 days by filing a resolution determining that additional time is necessary with the City Clerk) • Charter Commission either approves, rejects, or suggests substitute amendment • Charter Commission notifies Council of their action • Council may drop amendment OR adopt resolution calling for election to approve: o Proposed amendment as it was originally proposed OR o The Charter Commission's substitute amendment • If a resolution calling for election is adopted, Language of the ballot question is determined by the Council. The question must identify the amendment clearly and distinguish the question from other questions on the same ballot. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT BY CiTIZEN PETITION: • Citizens circulate petition stating the proposed amendment to the charter o Petitions must be uniform in character and must state the proposed amendment to the charter in full o if amendment is larger than 1,000 words, a true and correct copy must be filed with the City Clerk, and the petition will contain a summary (between 50 and 300 words) setting forth the "substance and nature" of the proposed amendment. o When a summary is used, that summary (along with a copy of the proposed amendment) must be first submitted to the Charter Commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission has 10 days to return the summary with any modifications necessary to fairly comply with these requirements. • Petition must be submitted at least 17 weeks prior to the general election and must be reviewed by the City Clerk for sufficiency. • If determined to be sufficient, the commission must submit the petition to popular vote. o Amendment goes to the City Clerk, who notifies the Council. o Council places amendment on ballot for voter approval o NOTE: Council may not refuse to submit or change the amendment as long as it is constitutional. A City Council does not need to submit an unconstitutional charter amendment or an amendment that violates state or federal law to the voters. • Language of the ballot question is determined by the Council. The question must identify the amendment clearly and distinguish the question from other questions on the same ballot. Page 1 Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration - January 2012 PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT BY CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Charter Commission Recommendation for Approval of Amendment by Ordinance: • Charter Commission makes recommendation to Council by filing notice with City Clerk • Within 1 month of filing notice with the City Clerk the Council must publish notice of a public hearing of the proposal • Notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment • Public hearing must be held between 2 weeks and 1 month after notice is published • Council must vote on amendment within 1 month of public hearing • Amendment approved only if Council vote is unanimous • Ordinance amending charter published in same manner as other ordinances of the City • Ordinance becomes effective 90 days after passage and publication, unless a later date is provided for in the ordinance • Within 60 days after passage and publication, a petition signed by registered voters equal in number to at least 5 percent of the registered voters in the City or 2,000, whichever is less, may be submitted to force a referendum on the amendment. • If voters file a proper petition, the City must handle the amendment like any other charter amendment, except the Council may submit the ordinance at a general or special election that occurs within 60 days after filing the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. • If ordinance is submitted by the Council to the voters, Language of the ballot question is determined by the Council. The question must identify the amendment clearly and distinguish the question from other questions on the same ballot. Charter Commission Recommendation for Approval of Amendment by Election: • Charter Commission makes recommendation to Council by filing notice with City Clerk • Proposal must be submitted to Council at least 17 weeks prior to the general election • Council must provide for election as long as amendment is constitutional and does not violate state or federal law • Language of the ballot question is determined by the Council. The question must identify the amendment clearly and distinguish the question from other questions on the same ballot. This summary of MN Statute is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Persons seeking amendment of their City charter are advised to work cooperatively with their City staff and to seek appropriate legal counsel. Page 2 Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration - January 2012 WS — Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item 1 Date: March 5, 2012 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala Re: City Charter Amendment Background At the February 27, 2012 special council meeting, the council discussed a proposed amendment to the City Charter regarding the public improvement process. The amendment is based on the proposal prepared by the Citizen Charter Task Force in 2007 and considered by the council in March of 2008. Consideration of an amendment, based on the task force proposal, is scheduled for the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting. Following the February 27 discussion, staff worked with the City's legal consultant to draft a revision that includes a reverse referendum component. A similar option was previously n included in the Charter Commission's 2008 amendment proposal. Rather than require an election outright, as is the case under the current charter requirements, the language allows for residents to petition for an election on the improvement. The petition would require the signatures of 12% of the voters from the last general municipal election. The reverse referendum provisions are contained in Section 8.02, Subdivisions 5 and 6 of the draft ordinance. The following is a brief summary of the major elements of the ordinance: 1. Section 8.01, Subd. 1 defines local improvements as any public improvement financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Projects that are not financed using special assessments are not subject to charter provisions and follow state law. 2. Section 8.01, Subd. 3 states that the amount of special assessments shall not exceed the cost of the local improvement and shall not exceed the benefit to the property. 3. Section 8.02, Subd. 1 specifies that local improvements will follow state requirements except as specified in this charter section. Procedural steps following state law include but are not limited to the following: • Initiation of the improvement by either petition or city council • Preparation of a report on improvements (feasibility study) • Calling for a public hearing • Published and mailed notice of the public hearing • Public hearing on improvements. 4. Section 8.02, Subd. 2 allows for a written objection to the improvements from 50% of the abutting property owners to be filed with the city prior to or at the improvement hearing. If no objection is received, the council may order the project as specified under state requirements. If an objection is received the council shall call a special meeting (2nd public hearing) to be held at least 45 days after the improvement hearing. 5. Section 8.02, Subd. 3 allows the city council to order the improvement following the special meeting (2n1 public hearing), but requires the effective date of the resolution to be at least 30 days after adoption. In such case, the City is required to mail a summary of the resolution to affected owners within 5 days of adoption. Prior to the effective date of the resolution, if 50% of the affected property owners sign written objections to the resolution then the resolution does not become effective and the improvement is not ordered. 6. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from property taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of ordering the improvement and be signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election this number would be 517 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 7. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58 will apply. These requirements stipulate that the same ballot measure cannot be resubmitted to the voters within a period of 180 days. If it fails a second time, it may not be resubmitted within a period of one year. 8. The ordinance also repeals Section 8.07 of the Charter regarding the exempt zones. Establishment of an annual street reconstruction program will require the expenditure of property taxes to fund the improvements. As discussed in previous meetings, the most financially prudent and equitable way to distribute the costs of street reconstruction is through a combination of special assessments to benefiting property owners and ad valorem taxes paid by all city taxpayers. This financial strategy has been difficult to implement, due in part, to the procedural requirements currently existing within the City Charter. The proposed amendment provides the City Council with more control over the procedural process while improving the City Council/neighborhood involvement. The amendment continues to provide a neighborhood option to veto the project. Additionally, and possibly most important, is the continued opportunity to hold a city wide vote on a project. However, the vote would need to be initiated via a citizen petition process rather than automatically held as currently required. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction to place the proposed Charter amendment ordinance on the council agenda for a first reading on March 12, 2012. Attachments 1. Draft Ordinance No. 05-12 (changes from Citizen Task Force highlighted) P46 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: March 12, 2012 TOPIC: Consider 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 05-12 Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City Council is considering the amendment of Chapter 8 of the City Charter as it relates to Public Improvements and Special Assessments. State law specifies the procedure for amendment of the charter by council recommendation. Council consideration and approval of the first reading of Ordinance No. 05-12 is the first step in the process which includes review by the Charter Commission and ultimately consideration by the voters in the November election. BACKGROUND The City Council has been discussing a proposed amendment to the City Charter regarding the public improvement process for several years. The current amendment is based on the proposal, prepared in 2007, by the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements (the "Task Force Amendment"). The Task Force Amendment was modified by the council in 2008 to delete Section 8.07 relating to charter "exempt" areas. Following the February 27, 2012 council discussion, staff worked with the City's legal consultant to draft a revision that includes a reverse referendum component. A similar option was previously included in the Charter Commission's 2008 amendment proposal. Rather than require an election outright, as is the case under the current charter requirements, the language allows for residents to petition for an election on the improvement. The petition would require the signatures of 12% of the voters from the last general municipal election. The reverse referendum provisions are contained in Section 8.02, Subdivisions 5 and 6 of the draft ordinance. The following is a brief summary of the major elements of the ordinance: 1. Section 8.01, Subd. 1 defines local improvements as any public improvement financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Projects that are not financed using special assessments are not subject to charter provisions and follow state law. 2. Section 8.01, Subd. 3 states that the amount of special assessments shall not exceed the cost of the local improvement and shall not exceed the benefit to the property. 3. Section 8.02, Subd. 1 specifies that local improvements will follow state requirements except as specified in this charter section. Procedural steps following state law include but are not limited to the following: • Initiation of the improvement by either petition or city council • Preparation of a report on improvements (feasibility study) • Calling for a public hearing • Published and mailed notice of the public hearing • Public hearing on improvements. 4. Section 8.02, Subd. 2 allows for a written objection to the improvements from 50% of the abutting property owners to be filed with the city prior to or at the improvement hearing. If no objection is received, the council may order the project as specified under state requirements. If an objection is received the council shall call a special meeting (2nd public hearing) to be held at least 45 days after the improvement hearing. 5. Section 8.02, Subd. 3 allows the city council to order the improvement following the special meeting (2nd public hearing), but requires the effective date of the resolution to be at least 30 days after adoption. In such case, the City is required to mail a summary of the resolution to affected owners within 5 days of adoption. Prior to the effective date of the resolution, if 50% of the affected property owners sign written objections to the resolution then the resolution does not become effective and the improvement is not ordered. 6. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from property taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of ordering the improvement and be signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election this number would be 517 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 7. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58 will apply. These requirements stipulate that the same ballot measure cannot be resubmitted to the voters within a period of 180 days. If it fails a second time, it may not be resubmitted within a period of one year. 8. The ordinance also repeals Section 8.07 of the Charter regarding the exempt zones. �-� RECOMMENDATION Establishment of an annual street reconstruction program will require the expenditure of property taxes to fund the improvements. As discussed in previous meetings, the most financially prudent and equitable way to distribute the costs of street reconstruction is through a combination of special assessments to benefiting property owners and ad valorem taxes paid by all city taxpayers. This financial strategy has been difficult to implement, due in part, to the procedural requirements currently existing within the City Charter. The proposed amendment provides the City Council with more control over the procedural process while improving the City Council/neighborhood involvement. The amendment continues to provide a neighborhood option to veto the project. Additionally, and possibly most important, is the continued opportunity to hold a city wide vote on a project. However, the vote would need to be initiated via a citizen petition process rather than automatically held as currently required. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the first reading of Ordinance No. 05-12 and refer the ordinance to the Chair of the Charter Commission for review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 05-12 CITY.' ""OF RNOLKES Christopher Lyden, Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 6275 Holly Drive W Lino Lakes, MN 55038 RE: Proposed City Charter Amendment SENT VIA U.S. MAIL and DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER March 13, 2012 Dear Chair Lyden, The Lino Lakes City Council has been considering a proposed amendment to the City Charter, Chapter 8 regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The amendment is based on the charter amendment proposal prepared in 2007 by the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements (the "Task Force Amendment"). Historically the Task Force Amendment was referred to the Charter Commission in 2007 and in response the Charter Commission submitted a substitute amendment to Chapter 8 (the "Charter Commission Amendment"). After careful review, the council determined to submit neither the Task Force Amendment nor the Charter Commission proposed amendment to the voters. Rather on March 24, 2008 the Council approved the first reading of a new ordinance amending Chapter 8 (the "2008 Council Amendment") and referred it to the Commission for required review. The only difference between the Task Force Amendment and the 2008 Council Amendment is that the latter repeals Section 8.07 of the City Charter that establishes certain rules for certain geographical areas of the city commonly known as the "exempt zones". Before the Charter Commission review period on this amendment ended, a citizen generated petition was submitted calling for an amendment to Chapter 8. Once the petition was certified it was required, under state statute, to go to the voters and thus the Council decided to send only that one question forward. As previously noted, the Council has currently been reviewing the Task Force Amendment. Through deliberations, the council has determined that the following additions to the Task Force Amendment are appropriate: 1. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from property taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of the City Council ordering the improvement and be signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election this number would be 517 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499 2. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58, subd. la will apply. These requirements stipulate that the same ballot measure cannot be resubmitted to the voters within a period of 180 days. If it fails a second time, it may not be resubmitted within a period of one year. 3. Minor technical clarifications as follows: Section 8.01, Subd. 3, Line 4, added the word "local" before improvement. Section 8.02, Subd. 3, added last sentence. Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 3, added the word "thereafter" before apply. Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 6, added phrase "and Subdivisions 5 and 6." With these additions, a new charter amendment ordinance has been prepared (the "2012 Council Amendment"). On March 12, 2012 the Lino Lakes City Council approved the 1St reading of the 2012 Council Amendment, Ordinance No. 05-12 Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The Council hereby submits this amendment for review and comment by the Charter Commission in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 5. It is requested that the Charter Commission review the 2012 Council Amendment and respond to the Council within 60 days after the date of this letter. The Council understands that the Charter Commission may extend the time for review by an additional 90 days if (within the initial 60 -day period) the Commission files with the Council a resolution determining that additional time is needed. The Council appreciates your efforts, and looks forward to receiving your input on this amendment. Sincerely, Juli Bartell City Clerk Cc: Caroline Dahl, Charter Commission Vice Chair Enclosure: Ordinance No. 05-12 lst Reading: March 12, 2012 Publication: 2°d Reading: Effective: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 05-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed: Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Assessments. the benefits to the property. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions, Except as Provided in Section 8.07. Local improvements (the term "local improvement" shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments) shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. (Amended 11/23/93, Ordinance No. 93 19) Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Regulations. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after this Charter goes into effect and before local improvements can be acted determination of assessments and assessment districts, public hearings, app- s from a collection of assessments, penalties for delinquency in making payments, financing of said assessments, ordinance(s) shall also provide for installment payments and notices to be given thereof, appellate procedure, reassessment, if necessary, and all other matters appropriate to the subject of local improvements and assessments. After the adoption of such ordinance(s) providing for local forth in such ordinance(s) and as otherwise contained in this Charter. Section 8.01. Special Assessment Procedure. Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefitted property shall be instituted by either, (1) a petition of at least twenty five percent (25%) in number of the benefitted property owners (A benefitted property owner can only sign The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of proposed improvement including the shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof. Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed shall be published twice, at least one week apart, in the official newspaper of the City no lest benefitted property owner at his/her last known address at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of proceedings. At such hearing the City shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any proposed to be assessed for such improvement, or when the improvement has been petitioned Council before such petition is presented to the Council. Subdivision 2. 110. ef Subdivisien 1 ef this section, when less conclusion of the public hearing, submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no election is scheduled during such one hundred twenty its associated assessment formula can be submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those not proceed with the local improvement as proposed. Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing but may rebid the project for one (1) time only. Subdivision 4. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing after the public hearing on said improvement. cost of City services to streets, sidewalks, or other public or private property may be assessed 8.03 of this chapter. is petitioned for by one hundred (100%) percent of the benefitted property owners, such property proposed project. (Amended) Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.01 to read as follows: Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel; and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the local improvement, including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.02 to read as follows: Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who filed objections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and may consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such local improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written objections regarding the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. If the required number of owners do not file a timely objection under this subdivision, the local improvement may proceed after the effective date of the resolution. except as otherwise provided in Subdivisions 5 and 6. Subdivision 4. If timely objections are not filed by the required number of property owners under Subdivision 2 of this Section, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section do not thereafter apply to the subject local improvements, and all subsequent procedures for approval of and levying of special assessments for those local improvements shall be in accordance with state law, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision and Subdivisions 5 and 6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1, clause (f). a resolution ordering the local improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the hearing by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. Subdivision 5. If any portion of the cost of a local improvement is to be paid from ad valorem taxes, the ordering of the local improvement shall be suspended for 30 days after the effective date of the resolution ordering the local improvement under subdivision 3 (if no timely objection was filed by the required number of owners) or under subdivision 4. If a petition requesting a vote on the local improvement signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election is filed with the City Clerk by the end of that 30 -day period, then the City may proceed with the local improvement, and may issue general obligation bonds to finance the local improvement, only after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question at a general or special election. The ballot shall generally describe the proposed local improvement, the estimated principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance the local improvement, and the estimated percentage of total debt service on the bonds expected to be paid from ad valorem taxes. Subdivision 6. If the voters do not approve a local improvement and issuance of bonds therefore at an election required by subdivision 5, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58. subd. la shall apply. ::.�.Q� •avri0�Z7in=■•n1111.0•wi.a••. /•c...120 MM. 9; ��.i�4 i1JyZUW" subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one (1) year after the public hearing on said improvement, unless it is determined by the Council that a sooner Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter is hereby repealed: Section 8.07. Local Improvement; Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Subdivision 3, i In the geographic areas of the City described in Subdivision 2, the construction of local improvements, the levy of special procedures specified in state law. Subdivision 2. Subdivision 1 applies to land within three (3) geographic areas, each not exceeding 130 acres, legally described as follows: AREA NO. 1 Trunk Highway t119 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid Highway 1123 Intersection (Lake Drive) All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN. 30 31 22 210001 That part of Lots 11, 15, 16 and 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 151 lying south and east of _. AREA NO. 2 Interstate I35E and County Road 242 (Main Street) Interchange Northeast one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 That part of the southeast one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 lying north of Cedar Street East one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 East one half (1/2) of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 24 AREA NO. 3 Interstate 135W and Trunk Highway 1119 (Lake Drive) Interchange North one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 18 That part of the south one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 18 lying north of the Interstate I35 W right of way That part of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of Trunk Highway 1119 (Lake Drive) right of way All of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 17 with the exception of that part of the (+ or ) feet to the south line of said southcast one quarter (1/1) of the northwest one quarter (1/4); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or ) to the point of beginning. The north 720 feet of that part of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of the north ast one west of the Anoka County Park property lying west of the Anoka County Park property (1/1) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 8 Subdivision 3. When construction of local improvements, the levy of special assessments be filed with the City at or before the first public hearing to be held on the project. After the family, owner occupied units shall include notice of the property owner's right to object to the L, owner occupied residential unit no longer exists on the parcel of real property. Jeff Reinert, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: and