Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2012 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION QUARTERLY MEETING AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, July 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 / Plaque • Jim Drennen 4 years service 5. Minutes: a) July 8, 2010 Joint meeting Charter Commission / Council July 8, 2010 Charter Commission regular meeting --discussion on acquiring corrected minutes / audio b) October 14, 2010 c) January 12, 2012 d) April 12, 2012 e) May 31, 2012 6:30 PM 6. Unfinished Business A. Karen Marty Attorney expenses incurred --no new information B. Charter Amendments on ballot this fall C. Council response to Tax Exempt Zones by Ordinance—No response D. Council proposed Charter amendment to Chapter 8 public improvements 1. Email by Julie from Council for Charter budget stating no support for Charter budget for review of Council proposed Charter amendment. a) Discussion on lack of and/or use of Charter Commission funds 2. FYI audio of Council work session July 2, 2012 on Charter budget request for money to review Council proposed Charter amendment to Chapter 8 3. Continued Discussion on Commission's concerns/ideas on Council proposed Charter amendment (on white board facilitated by Commissioner Sutherland, May 31, 2012) 7. New Business A. Next meeting date, Thursday, October 11, 2012 \Adjournment Christopher Lyden Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn Chair Vice Chair Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,..�21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 1 DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING CHARTER COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS UNEXCUSED CITY COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT: July 8, 2010 6:38 P.M. 9:58 P.M. Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Carlson, Drennen, Minar, Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams MEMBERS EXCUSED Aldentaler, Bretoi, Sutherland, Zastrow None Mayor Reinert, Gallup, O'Donnell, Rafferty, Roeser Acting City Administrator Dan Tesch, Community Development Director Michael Grochala Bob Bennett, Nicholas Backus(Quad Press Newspaper) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl called to order the joint meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission and City Council at 6:38pm on July 8, 2010. Roll Call was taken and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. OPEN MIKE No one spoke during the period for open mike Chair Dahl noted that she would like the meeting to be respectful. OLD BUSINESS A. Charter Commission Budget Chair. Dahl 'distributed copies o Charter Commission budgets,' stating t1 the required $1,500 per year. a.t authorize uddttzunc acing above Mayor Reinert summarized the last conversations between the Commission and Council about establishing a procedure to request and authorize additional funds if needed. 1 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 2 46 Chair Dahl stated that the Commission's attorney has estimated that to work on three 47 amendments would be approximately $5,000 and that was presented to the City Council, before 48 the two newer Council members were on the Council. 49 50 Commissioner Lyden noted the historical budget information before the group that indicates the 51 regular need for more than $1,500 per year. He suggests that $6,000 to $8,000 per year would 52 allow the commission to function as it should. He also related the additional requested funds 53 compared to the entirety of the City budget. Commissioner Lyden also noted that all expenses 54 incurred by the Commission are currently subject to Council approval. 55 56 Council member Roeser suggested the Commission be consistent with City budget procedures 57 58 59 Council member Rafferty stated that the council must be stewards of the city budget and be 60 especially: in the current economic situation. He states that the CityCouncil is 5% over budget] 61 the Police department rs over budget by 2 and Charter Commission is over budget bv.27% 62 He concurs with' Council member Roeser would like to see line -item budget to understand how 63 money is being spent.; 64 65 Commissioner Gunderson clarifies .the 27% over budget referenced' by Council rnerxrber Ra rt 0,-. 66 for the Charter Commission .ism' 2009 and not the :current year's budget. Commissioner 67 Gunderson states that in 2009 the Charter Commission was given $2,200 in their budget and 68 had expenses of $2,800 due to the audit :ofthe Commission that was directed by the City Council. 69 70 Commissioner Drennen stated he finds it entirely reasonable to ask the Commission to prepare a 71 line -item budget and a procedure for budget requests. 72 73 Commissioner Carlson stated that the Council spent a substantial amount toward the audit of the 74 Commission and there was a need for the Commission to request additional monies for legal 75 advice regarding the audit. Any procedures for funding would need to include provisions for 76 responses in those circumstances. 77 78 Commissioner Trehus commented that the audit was conducted by an attorney, not an auditor. 79 The attorney hired by the City hadprevious involvement with a controversial charter issue in the 80 City of Eagan. Therefore he questions the motive of the audit. Regarding the budget, 81 historically the Commission has received in the area of $5,000 per year regularly and many times 82 money was returned to the general fund. The Commission provides a vital check and balance 83 approach to city government, is 84 85 86 Commissioner Storberg asks if it is possible to establish an annual budget figure and rollover 87 unused funds to be better prepared for less and more active years. She further stated that over 30 '"N, 88 years. she .haswitnessed the volunteers of `the Commission have worked hard even though they 89 are not paid 90 and present their budget in a line -item fashion. o fe vera en1 and her receive adequate city funding. sc'/Nlrate en, ore, should 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 91 Council member O'Donnell stated that the Council is about to enter the budget process for 2011 92 and would welcome a budget proposal using line -item procedure from the Charter Commission. 93 94 Chair Dahl noted that there is currently a "lock" on the 2010 charter budget so that they are not 95 allowed to expend any funds. Neither council members nor the acting city administrator were 96 aware of the situation. Chair Dahl will review the minutes to confirm. 97 98 Commissioner Drennen noted there are some old concerns that have come up and that's to be 99 expected but he for one is interested in keeping the conversation going and continuing to have 100 joint meetings. 101 102 Mayor Reine he me i 103 104 Council member Roeser states that as part of the process for establishinga procedure for budget 105 requests, a "cause and effects' stipulation also be part oftheprocedure to handle situations 106 where the Commission incorrectly spends dollars, what a penalty would be and that it should 107 come from the Commission rather than the Council 108 109 Commissioneer Trehus asked for a timely to submit a budget proposal to the Council until 110 member O'Donnell stated the deadline>would be August 1 ' or very early August: X11 rfstates the Council would vele ome anal r eting th the Commission. 12 B. Unpaid bill from Attorney Marty 113 Commissioner Gunderson explained the current status of the commission's account with their 114 attorney, Karen Marty, is that most of the outstanding balance is owed in conjunction with the 115 commission's response to the city's audit and that when the commission was told to spend no 116 more money (August 2009) there were no additional expenses incurred. The charges on the bill 117 were at one time separated according to what was for framing and amending and that portion was 118 paid at the end of 2009. The remaining balance is $1,463.05. The commission is looking for a 119 resolution on this bill; the attorney did put in the work and she would have the option of coming 120 to the city for payment. She believes that the statute allows the city to pay if the council deems it 121 necessary. 122 123 Mayor Reinert recalled that the council has paid some of the Marty bills and he was supportive of 124 paying the bills so that the council and the commission could move to working together. The city 125 attorney has since opined, however, that it is illegal for the council to pay this bill. 126 127 Commissioner Carlson suggested that it would be helpful to see some legal precedence on that 128 opinion. 129 130 Cornet ssioner Gunderson asked the Mayo r if itis his °pint n that i. f in the future, the City is 131 petitioned ,to have the'omission au ted again. that the Commission would be prohibit from 132 having legal representation or seek legal advice;' "he Mayor stated: he did otk ow the answer X133 to that situation. Co 34 3 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 4 _35 Mayor Reinert agreed to have the attorney look at the question again and provide some legal 136 precedent. 137 138 Chair Dahl pointed out that the commission will have difficulty moving ahead until this bill is 139 paid and would appreciate a legal review and another opinion. 140 141 C. Code of Conduct/Conflict of Interest 142 Commissioner Gunderson explained that the Commission at one time decided to review the code 143 of conduct language in the city code especially in light of their desire to have a code for the 144 Commission. In reviewing the language, the Commission felt it needed some revision. Using 145 examples of codes of conduct from other cities in Minnesota, the Commission began to draft 146 revised language. Before completing a draft, the Commission seeks to get input from the 147 Council. 148 149 Mayor Reinert noted that the passing of laws, policies, and ordinances are generally done to solve 150 a problem or to pave the way to improvement. There is a code of conduct in the City's code and 151 as well a council produced code from 2006 and he doesn't see an issue with what's in place or 152 issues in the area of conduct. 153 154 Commissioner Dahl explained that there didn't seem to be any language on conflict of interest x.455 and as well they have found in doing research that some codes seem to cover better the Boards 56 and Commissions. 157 158 Commissioner Drennen noted that the language of the current code of conduct does not include 159 the words "conflict of interest" or deal with gifts and favors, therefore stronger language was 160 sought. 161 162 Mayor Reinert suggested that if the language isn't complete, then perhaps an update is possible. 163 164 Council Member O'Donnell suggested that bringing the codes of conduct together is a fine idea 165 but in the interest of maintaining the original intent of the code that the council adopted which 166 was to focus on how the council interacts within its body and with staff and he wouldn't want to 167 see that intent lost with any revisions. 168 169 Commissioner Lyden remarked that a change in the enforcement process may be warranted; the 170 body policing itself doesn't always work well. 171 172 D. Tax Cap Amendment 173 Commissioner Trehus noted the information provided in the packet that indicates that the 174 increases in the city levy have outgrown the population increases. Lino Lakes is a little different 175 in that there is no budgeting for road improvements, therefore he has added an estimated cost for 176 those improvements into his figures. A number of cities in the region have enacted measures to '\77 cap tax increases. Commissioner Trehus feels a cap is strongly needed with the pending end of 78 the state levy limits at the end of 2011. When looking at the adopted levy for 2008-2010, 179 Commissioner Trehus complimented last year's council for decreasing the 2010 levy. He also 4 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 5 80 stated that the commissionbrought up thispossi le amendment for discussion at previous 181 182 183 Council member Rafferty distributed a recent Letter to the Editor written by Commissioner 184 Trehus on the subject of the tax levy. He asked to use the letter as grounds for gaining more 185 information and he has noted that on the back of the handout. He has spoken with staff for 186 additional information on some of the elements — population, city budget ten years back, 187 comparison of dollars and cents over the years, and particular impacts on the budget over those 188 years. It's important to take a historical view of the information with clarity on what the budget 189 has had to support over the period in question. 190 191 Mayor Reinert noted that tax caps can look like a great idea on the surface but can sometimes end 192 up choking a city. For instance a cap could prevent an investment in maintaining roads that pays 193 off in the long run. He identifies himself as a fiscal conservative and understands a tax cap can 194 look like a great idea but the whole picture is important. The electorate can remove officials who 195 are not taxing appropriately. He doesn't see a problem to solve with tax cap right now. 196 197 Commissioner Minar noted that he has seen city employee salary information that indicates there 198 is a problem; the salaries are too high and there are people who would do the jobs for less. 199 Public employees should not be making more than their private sector counterparts. Regarding ,.,?foo road maintenance, it can be funded properly within a reasonably reduced budget. 01 202 Council member O'Donnell suggested that staff could be hired at a lower salary but the full 203 picture includes consideration of what staff brings to the city, i.e. the city's high bond rating 204 saves the city lots of money. Regarding a tax levy cap amendment, he has some concerns about 205 some entities could be more concerned about spending an alloted amount rather than spending on 206 needs. That being said, he does not have a problem seeing it considered if that is a goal of the 207 commission and it is best for the citizens. 208 209 Commissioner Gunderson suggested that the commission's goal isn't necessarily to go out with a 210 referendum on the question. The goal is to make sure there is a tax levy cap when the state 211 statute requirement expires to protect the taxpayers of the city. 212 213 There was discussion between the council and commissioners about the city's obligations, debt 214 service and tax increment financing to the Legacy at Woods Edge area and the possibility of an 215 impact on city taxes. 216 217 A five minute recess is taken and the me ing is reconvened at 8:55pm, 218 219 Chair Dahl thanked the council for input on this item indicated that the commission will keep the 220 matter (tax cap) on their agenda. 221 joint meeting and the Commission is looking to continue that discussion, 22 23 224 5 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 6 .25 NEW BUSINESS 226 227 A. Road Improvements — How do we get there? (Council initiated agenda item) 228 1 a. Joint Subcommittee (Council initiated agenda item) 229 230 Mayor Reinert asked if the commission feels that there is a problem with current process for 231 reconstructing roads. He noted that there has been one road reconstructed in the last twenty years 232 but information would seem to indicate that while it's not an emergency, more work is needed. 233 There have been failed referendums. He is interested in hearing the commission's viewpoint and 234 any suggestions. 235 236 Commissioner Turcotte noted that he has reviewed the city's Pavement Management Plan (PMP) 237 and would like an explanation of the city's maintenance program. Mayor Reinert commented that 238 the PMP has only been fully funded in the past 5 years. 239 240 Community Development Director Grochala explained the city's current program of sealcoating 241 and overlay, noting that there are streets in the city that are past the point where either of those 242 processes would be helpful. 243 244 Council Member O'Donnell noted that it is good that the city has a pavement management plan 245 but bad that it hasn't been fully funded in the past, although full funding is in place again 46 recently. In regard to the work that was done in the past by the citizens task force and the 247 Charter Commission to address the matter of reconstructing the city's roads, he'd like to leverage 248 that work because it was beginning to bring the council and the commission together toward a 249 solution. Can that language be explored again? 250 251 Commissioner Drennen noted that he feels the crux of the issue is how does the city get to the 252 issue of citizens paying for streets that don't benefit them because that seems like taxation 253 without representation. 254 255 Commissioner Trehus added that it isn't accurate to always refer to the projects as "road 256 reconstruction" because in many cases the proposed projects include other improvements. He is 257 also concerned that the lack of sewer and water utilities can affect a roadway's rating in the 258 pavement management plan. 259 260 Mayor Reinert asked for input on the idea of forming a subcommittee to work on a proposal, 261 including using the work that has already been done on the subject. 262 263 Commissioner Lyden suggested that the solution could be to fund necessary road reconstruction 264 by making city budget cuts. 265 266 Mayor Reinert suggested that he is confident there is a better way to do things and he thinks a r•••.267 subcommittee is a good way to look for that information. \68 6 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 7 ,69 Council Member Roeser noted that he is very committed to reducing the cost of government and 270 to keeping taxes down. There needs to be a way to handle road work and the concept of bringing 271 a couple :afpiple from the Commission and Council together, using the information already on 272 the table, seems appropriate to him 273 274 Commissioner Gunderson asked Mr. Grochala :- f the passage of a referendum would :be needed 275 to install stoplights at Lake Drive and Main Street Mr. Grochcila said technically, yes. = Mr. 276 Grochala went on to explain different scenarios of funding road reconstruction or improvement. 277 278 Commissioner Gunderson pointed out that in discussing the history of the matter it should be 279 noted that the only road project to go to referendum, West Shadow Lake Road, is somewhat 280 unique because that road is not a thoroughfare and project entails the addition of utilities such as 281 water and sewer. Therefore, is it not possible that the intent of the chapter of the Charter that 282 requires a referendum for road reconstruction is working because it has only been tested on one 283 specific road that is not equal to a majority of roads in the city. The Mayor suggested that most 284 of the roads in town fit that description however. 285 286 Council member:Raeserfurther suggests that c 287 288 Commissioner Carlson remarked the Commission already gave the council a good proposal and "..489 the Council rejected it. Then ballot question to lake Chapter 8 out of the Charter was rejected by 90 the citizens. That puts all involved in a bind of how to go forward 291 292 Commissioner Drennen said he feels it is appropriate to look forward on the matter and he hopes 293 that the commission will be discussing if and who for a subcommittee at their regular meeting. 294 295 Mayor Reinert suggests that if a committee is formed it should have 2 Council members, to avoid 296 the denitiori of a council meeting and 4 Charter Commissioners.' 297 298 Chair Dahl remarked that the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not the charter works 299 because it does. She doesn't support a subcommittee at this time because some charter members 300 are absent, the concept wasn't commission initiated, and the idea needs to be fully discussed. 301 The charter commission is doing other good work for the citizens in the meantime. 302 303 Commissioner 304 a past due bill 305 306 Commissioner Storberg suggested the Council review the Task Force ame dmen and the 307 Charter Commission's amendment and then make a recommendation of what the Council feels is 308 appropriate. 309 310 The Mayor concluded that it doesn't appear as if the commission feels there is a problem to be N3 11 solved so that answers his initial question. 12 aff involved with any p ble °arrmmittee.' ed that he feels the .Corrmrnission cannot ,go forward with any work with ng as well as not having a commitment on a budget going forward 7 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 8 13 Commissioner Drennen suggested that he feels that the commission's message is that they are 314 open to the idea of a subcommittee and would like to discuss it further. 315 316 Commissioner Minar thanked the councilmembers and the Mayor for 317 ttt r ddi 318 ADJOURN 319 MOTION by Commissioner Minar, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to adjourn at 9:58 p.m. 320 Motion passes unanimously. 321 322 323 Respectfully Submitted, 324 325 Kelly Gunderson 326 Secretary 8 ng the meeting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 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 July 8, 2010 10:02 P.M. 10:45 P.M. Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Carlson, Drennen, Minar Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams Aldentaler, Bretoi, Sutherland, Zastrow None None Bob Bennett CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl reconvened the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission 10:02 pm on July 8, 2010. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Minar, seconded by Commissioner Williams, to approve the minutes for January 14, 2010 and June 3, 2010. Motion passes unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A. Possible 2' joint meeting with City Council Commissioner Turcotte stated he believes that forming a subcommittee with the council would be reducing voting power of the Commission. Chair Dahl stated she is not in favor of voting on a joint committee because there are three commissioners absent from the meeting and it would not be fair to vote without their input. Commissioner Drennen stated there is already a proposal from the Commission available to work off for a subcommittee. Second, if 4 Commissioners are on a Subcommittee, they still would need to bring back to the entirity of the Commission any work done in the Subcommittee. 1 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 2 46 Commissioner Gunderson states the agenda item is for a possible 2nd joint meeting. She then 47 asked if the Commission would like to amend the agenda to discuss the formation of a joint 48 commission -council subcommittee and then discuss inviting the council back for a 2nd joint 49 meeting. 50 51 Chair Dahl suggested the agenda item be tabled to the October meeting due to the absence of the 52 commissioners. 53 54 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Carlson, to table agenda item 3A, Possible 55 2nd Joint meeting with Council to the October meeting. Motion passes with Commissioner 56 Lyden abstaining. 57 58 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to add agenda item 59 3B to discuss forming a subcommittee with the City Council on addressing the issue of road 60 reconstruction. 61 62 Commissioner Penn is against the motion because of the absence of 3 Commissioners and of the 63 late hour of the meeting. 64 65 Commissioner Gunderson clarifies her motion is for discussion purposes only. The Commission could then discuss adding the issue to the October meeting agenda or plan a special meeting 67 before October to discuss a subcommittee. 68 69 Commissioner Penn calls the question. 70 71 Motion fails with Commissioners Drennen, Turcotte, Minar, Gunderson voting yes. 72 Commissioners Storberg, Williams, Carlson, Penn, Dahl, Lyden, Trehus voting no. 73 74 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Penn, to discuss the request line item budget 75 and procedure to request additional funds above budget for the commission. 76 77 Commissioner Carlson states that the meeting agenda doesn't contain approval of the agenda. 78 Chair Dahl admits the omission due to the meeting with the council changed the format and will 79 note for future meetings. 80 81 Motion passes with Commissioners Storberg and Carlson voting no. 82 83 Commissioner Penn asks if a subcommittee is needed. 84 85 Commissioner Drennen states the commission would use past years budgets of the commission 86 and create line items of frame and amend, attorney fees, etc. 87 /"'N88 Commissioner Penn asked if we should do anything different than in the past. Commissioner 89 Drennen stated the past procedure was that the Commission made the budget request for the year 90 as one number and the Council gave the money to the commission. Now the Commission would 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 91 need to forecast a budget with detailed line items for attorney fees, secretarial services, office 92 supplies, printing, advertisments, etc. 93 94 Commissioner Drennen also stated that we need to come up with a procedure for asking for 95 additional funds if needed in the throughout the year. 96 97 MOTION by Commissioner Lyden, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to form a 98 subcommittee to create the line item requests and procedure to request additional funds above 99 budget, chaired by Commissioner Drennen, to include Chair Dahl and Commissioners 100 Gunderson and Penn. Motion passes unanimously. 101 102 B. Housekeeping items 103 104 Chair Dahl states that in years past, a plaque would be made to thank an outgoing commissioners 105 for their service. Chair Dahl would like to clarify that plaques be giving to commissioners after 106 they complete at least 4 years of service. Commissioner Carlson agrees with Chair Dahl's 107 proposal. 108 109 Commissioner Storberg states she is impressed by the commissioners of their professional work 110 on the commission. ,•111 12 MOTION by Chair Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to change Article 1 of the bylaws to 113 change the name of the commission to state "Lino Lakes Charter Commission." Motion passes 114 with Commissioner Minar voting no. 115 116 117 ADJOURN 118 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to adjourn the meeting 119 at 10:45pm. Motion carried unanimously. 120 121 122 123 Respectfully Submitted, 124 125 Kelly Gunderson 126 Secretary 3 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 Charter Commission October 14, 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 October 14, 2010 6:35 P.M. 11:12 P.M. Dahl, Lyden, Gunderson, Carlson (arrives at 6:38), Drennen, Minar (arrives at 7:25), Penn, Storberg, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams (departs at 10:35) Aldentaler, Zastrow None Jeff Carlson, City Administrator (part) Dean Hausladen CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl called to order the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:35 pm on October 14, 2010. OPEN MIKE Chair Dahl invited the new City Administrator Jeff Carlson to address the Commission. Mr. Carlson spoke on his background and took questions from Commissioners on topics including the preliminary budget, status of the proposed auto racetrack, restructuring of city staff and other upcoming challenges for the city. SETTING THE AGENDA Commissioner Gunderson requests that item 7B Discussion of Upcoming Referendum be added to the agenda. MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Carlson to approve the amended agenda. Motion passes unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Dahl stated that minutes from the July 2010 will be voted on at the next meeting in January. OLD BUSINESS A. Roberts Rules of Order Commissioner Carlson clarified the procedure for "calling a question" during a meeting, according to Robert's Rules of Order. Two-thirds of commissioners' approval is required to call a question which ends discussion on a motion and brings forward a vote on the motion itself. 1 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 2 45 Commissioner Lyden as Vice -Chair is designated to help the Chair keep track of who would like 46 to be recognized to speak and in what order. 47 48 B. Possible Charter Amendments 49 Commissioner Trehus discussed two possible amendments that the charter has been previously 50 considering as well as adding Section 1.04 and amending Sections 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07. 51 52 Chair Dahl suggests that Commission decides what ballot questions to go forward with so that 53 the $1,500 allotted for the 2010 budget is used before the end of the year. 54 55 Commissioner Gunderson asked the Chair if the Commission's attorney will continue to work 56 with the Commission even though there is still an outstanding balance owed to her from 2009. 57 Chair Dahl stated that she recently requested an estimate from Ms. Karen Marty, attorney, for her 58 services for the possible amendments being considered. Ms. Marty replied with those estimates, 59 therefore, ifs the Chair's opinion that Ms. Marty will continue to work with the Commission in 60 the future. 61 62 Commissioner Minar arrives at 7:25pm. 63 64 Commissioner Trehus reiterated that the $1,500 allotted to the Commission cannot go toward the ,.� 65 outstanding bill to the attorney. Commissioner Trehus asked about the presentation to the City '66 Council on the Commission's 2010 budget increase request, with the line -item specifics 67 requested by the council. 68 69 Commissioner Drennen spoke on the submission to the City Council of the 2011 budget request 70 for the Commission. In that request, three ballot questions were projected. Commissioner 71 Drennen has not heard back from anyone with the City regarding the submission. Chair Dahl 72 stated that there was a City Council work session scheduled for the next week regarding the 73 budget for 2011. 74 75 Chair Dahl stated that the estimates from Ms. Marty were $2000 to work on the Tax Cap 76 amendment and smaller amounts for other amendment questions. Ms. Marty also stated that her 77 services needed for more than one amendment could be tied together for a better billing rate. 78 79 Commissioner Lyden asked the City Administrator, Mr. Jeff Carlson, if the Commission's budget 80 request was included in the preliminary budget for 2011. Mr. Carlson said he believed it was 81 not, but it could be brought to the City Council at the budget work session the next week. Chair 82 Dahl stated the budget request was submitted to the City Clerk and Acting City Administrator in 83 August. 84 85 Commissioner Trehus spoke on his handout with two drafts for adding Section 1.04. In Draft 1, 86 it is agreed upon to strike "not to exceed the monetary limitation set by the Minnesota 87 Legislature.' 88 2 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 3 89 Commissioner Gunderson asked Commissioner Trehus if it his opinion if the Commission 90 should work on all three amendments now. Commissioner Trehus suggested the Commission 91 rank the amendments and work on what they feel is most important now in 2010, with any 92 leftover budget money as well as future money going toward the other amendments. 93 94 Commissioner Trehus spoke on the amendments on Sections 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07 of the Charter, 95 as well as a funding loophole amendment regarding Section 8.04. 96 97 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Penn, to prioritize the four 98 drafts sections, in order to send them to the Commission's attorney. 99 10o After discussion that the three draft amendments of 3.09, 5.01 and 5.07 is possibly one question 101 and the motion does not include sending the Tax Cap amendment, Commissioner Sutherland 102 withdraws the motion. 103 104 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to discuss prioritizing 105 the possible amendments listed on the agenda. 106 107 After further discussion of an amendment for 8.04 that is not on the agenda, Commissioner 108 Gunderson withdraws her seconding of the motion. Commissioner Bretoi then seconds the 09 motion. '10 111 Commissioner Sutherland request calls for division of the question to separate the Section 8.04 112 amendment. 113 114 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes unanimously. 115 116 Motion passes unanimously. 117 118 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Minar to divide the question 119 as: 120 1. Addition on Section 1.04 121 2. Sections 3.09, 5.01, 5.07 amendments 122 3. Tax Cap amendment 123 excluding amendment of Section 8.04, which is not on the agenda. 124 125 After discussion, Commissioner Gunderson calls the question, which passes unanimously. 126 127 Motion fails with Commissioners Sutherland, Minar, Gunderson voting yes; Commissioners 128 Lyden, Drennen, Turcotte, Trehus, Bretoi, Dahl voting no. Commissioners Carlson, Penn, 129 Storberg, Williams abstain. 130 r"•, 1 31 The Commissioners then each gave their opinions on what order they want the possible 32 amendments to be worked. 133 3 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 4 34 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to prioritize 135 amendments for Section 1.04 as most important (1), then (2) "Tax Cap" amendment, next (3) 136 "Funding loophole" amendment and finally (4) amendments to Sections 3.09, 5.01, 5.07 to 137 present for review by the attorney. 138 139 Commissioner Gunderson asked for clarification from Chair Dahl on "loopholes" amendments. 140 Chair Dahl decided to allow discussion on the "loopholes" 141 amendment. 142 143 Commissioner Trehus recommended that a subcommittee draft a letter to the Commission's 144 attorney asking her to work on the amendments in the order voted by the Commission, until the 145 budget for 2010 is used completely. 146 147 Commissioners Gunderson, Drennen and Sutherland offer a friendly amendment to add "using 148 up to the remainder of our 2010 budget" after the work "attorney" in the motion. 149 150 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 151 152 Commissioner Sutherland refers the slate of the letter to the attorney to a subcommittee of 153 Commissioners Trehus, Drennen and Chair Dahl. ^154 `55 C. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest 156 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to table this 157 agenda item to the January 2011 Commission meeting. 158 159 After discussion, Commissioner Trehus calls the question, which passes unanimously. 160 161 Motion passes with Commissioners Carlson and Dahl voting no. Commissioner Bretoi abstains. 162 163 D. Budget 164 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to limit discussion 165 to one opportunity per speaker for a limit of three minutes. 166 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes unanimously. 167 Motion passes with Commissioners Drennen, Trehus, Dahl voting no and Commissioner Bretoi 168 abstains. 169 170 Chair Dahl summarizes the $1,500 bill from Ms. Karen Marty that is in arrears as well as the 171 memo from the City Attorney, Mr. Langel, on why the City should not pay the bill. 172 173 Chair Dahl also states that she has not received a response from the City regarding the submitted 174 budget request. 175 176 Commissioner Gunderson encourages all Commissioners to attend the Council budget work 77 session the next week. 178 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 5 79 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, to postpone indefinitely any 180 discussion of the bill in arrears to Ms. Karen Marty. 181 182 Commissioner Gunderson suggests sending a letter to Ms. Marty 183 184 Motion passes with Commissioners Gunderson and Carlson voting no and Chair Dahl abstaining. 185 186 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Drennen, that the Commission draft a letter 187 to Karen Marty in regards to our motion to postpone indefinitely any discussion as it relates to 188 the bill in arrears regarding the city audit of the Commission, providing a copy of said letter to 189 the City Council. 190 191 Chair Dahl asks if two Commissioners can bring back the issue for discussion. Commissioner 192 Sutherland states that this would close the issue. 193 194 Commissioner Minar calls the question, which passes unanimously. 195 196 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 197 198 Commissioner Drennen volunteers to write the letter and copy the Commissioners. ^199 '00 Commission requests Chair Dahl send all Commissioners a copy of what was sent to the Council 201 on budget items letter and line items. 202 203 Chair Dahl will request the City add the Commission to the work session on Thursday, October 204 21st. Commissioner Gunderson requests the Chair send all Commissioners information of the 205 work session. 206 207 E. Discussion of Joint Meeting 208 Commissioners discussed the outcomes of the joint meeting with the City Council and possibility 209 of a second joint meeting. 210 211 Commission Drennen requested to clarify that Chapter 8 of the Charter was not specifically 212 discussed at the meeting, road construction was discussed. 213 214 Commissioner Williams departs at 10:23pm. 215 216 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg to set up a joint meeting with the City Council. Because 217 there was no seconding of the motion, the motion went no further. 218 219 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to delete wording 220 item E. A. of the agenda "to change Chapter 8" and item E.A.A.i. deleting "changing or ^N\ 21 amending Chapter 8". .22 223 Motion passes with Commissioner Carlson voting no. 5 Charter Commission October 14, 2010 Page 6 ,24 Chair Dahl plays a recording of the portion from July 2010 work session. 225 226 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Carlson for purposes of discussion, that the 227 Commission declines the Council's request for a second joint meeting. 228 229 After discussion, Commissioners Sutherland and Carlson withdraw the motion. 230 231 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Minar to table agenda item 232 6.E to the January meeting. 233 234 Commissioner Sutherland calls the question, which passes with Commissioner Trehus 235 abstaining. 236 237 Motion passes with Commissioner Storberg voting no and Commissioner Trehus abstains. 238 239 NEW BUSINESS 240 241 A. Memo from City Council on odd year elections 242 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland to request of the 243 City to provide a cost breakdown of 2009 and proposed 2011 election costs. The motion is 244 amended by Commissioner Sutherland to add 2007 to the request. , 45 246 Commissioner Minar states a potential conflict of interest because he is an election judge, paid 247 by the City and therefore abstained from the vote. 248 249 Motion passes unanimously. 250 251 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Lyden, to table item 7A to 252 the January meeting. 253 254 Motion passes with Commissioner Minar abstaining. 255 256 B. Discussion of upcoming referendum 257 Commissioner Gunderson gives an overview of the upcoming city referendum regarding the 258 reconstruction and addition of stoplights at the intersections of Lake Drive & Main Street and 259 Birch Street & Ware Road. 260 261 ADJOURN 262 MOTION by Commissioner Penn, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to adjourn the meeting at 263 11:12pm. Motion carried unanimously. 264 265 Respectfully Submitted, 266 267 Kelly Gunderson 268 Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Charter Commission 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 : Citizen Dean Hausladen; Council Members Dale Stoesz, Rob Rafferty and Mayor Reinert CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl convened 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 Helgemoe has lived in the city since 1989 and is a Commercial Banker for Western Bank in Mounds View. Commissioner Daryl Bartsch 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 NEW BUSINESS 77 Memo from the City Administrator 78 The memo indicated that at its December 5, 2011 work session the council discussed how to 79 move forward with needed street improvements in the City. At the Jan. 3. 2012 work session the 80 Council proposed creating a task force to review Charter Provisions related to Street 81 Reconstruction. The task force would be composed of two Council members; one representative 82 from each of the City's four advisory boards; three Charter Commission members, and Kathi 83 Gallup, former Council member and chair of the 2007 Citizens Task Force. The memo requested 84 that the Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on the task force. 85 Commissioner Sutherland noted that it could be difficult to identify three members who could 86 represent the body of the Commission 87 N, 88 Commissioner Bretoi departed at 7:25 89 2 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 3 90 Commissioner Trehus stated that he believes the over-riding intent of the Council's proposal is to 91 get the Charter changed. 92 Commissioner Storberg offered to provide some perspective for new Commissioners, stating that 93 the Charter does not stop the repair of existing roads. The Charter covers only the construction 94 of new roads. She also questioned the need for a task force. 95 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the issue of a task force was raised at the July 2010 joint 96 Commission -City Council meeting. She further commented that they have been several 97 opportunities to change Chapter 8 and that citizens have rejected that changes each time. 98 99 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to have Chair 100 Dahldraft a response thanking the Council for their request to participate and that the 101 Commission is respectfully declining. 102 Several Commissioners spoke against the motion. 103 Commissioner Penn indicated she would be voting against it because refusal to participate 104 furthers the perception of the Commission as obstructionistic. 105 Commissioner Gunderson noted that there is considerable likelihood that the Council will 106 precede with the task force without Commission involvement. 107 108 Commissioner Trehus stated that there is a process for proposing amendments to the Charter. 109 The Task Force would be acting in strictly advisory capacity and would not be able to create 110 amendments. He also noted that there have been multiple attempts to remove Chapter 8 and that '"-N11 multiple projects proposed by the City have been defeated by the residents. He also expressed 112 concern that the Council may have "stacked the deck" in its favor with its choice of members. 113 Commissioner Turcotte indicated that his perspective is that the Task Force is not a road issue 114 but a sewer and water issue. 115 Commissioner Lyden noted that when the issue was being raised for a vote by citizens in 2008 116 the City published a pamphlet to present their perspective. He had requested that the 117 Commission be allowed to have equal space to provide its point of view and was refused. He 118 also noted that the Council has a budget for road repair. 119 Commissioner Bartsch questioned why the City can't move ahead with decisions regarding road 120 repair. He noted he resides in a subdivision where roads have not been repaired for 30 years. 121 Commissioner Helgemoe commented that as a business owner having good infrastructure in the 122 city is important to the ability to attract new business. He also questioned where he could go to 123 get more information on the process for approving road repairs. 124 Commissioner Gunderson noted that Mr. Grochala of the City provided her with criteria and 125 where general funds will be required. 126 Commissioner Gunderson called the question. 127 Motion was passed with Commissioners Aldentaler, Bartsch, Dahl, Lyden, Sutherland, Trehus, 128 and Turcotte voting in favor; Commissioners Gunderson, Helgemoe, Penn, Storberg, Timm and 129 Williams voting against. 130 131 Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary 132 Chair Dahl commented that she has served as Chair for 3 %2 years and appreciates the support she 133 has received. She also noted that she would be interested in the role of Vice Chair. 134 She proposed Commissioner Lyden for the position of Chair. 3 Charter Commission July 8, 2010 Page 4 35 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to elect 136 Commissioner Lyden the position of Chair. 137 Motion carries unanimously. 138 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Storberg to elect 139 Commissioner Dahl to the position of Vice Chair. Motion carries unanimously. 140 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to elect 141 Commissioner Penn to the position of Secretary. Motion carries unanimously 142 143 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to add an 144 additional item to the agenda to provide an opportunity for the two Council members present to 145 share their perspectives. Motion carries unanimously 146 Council Member Stoesz noted that his primary reason for attending was to educate himself on 147 ways that the Commission and Council could work together and that he was disappointed that the 148 Commissioners chose to reject the offer to participate in the task force. 149 Council Member Rafferty noted that was attending as a citizen. He has been on the Council for 150 only two years and does not believe he has done anything that would harm his relationship with 151 the Commission. 152 Commissioner Sutherland thanked the Council members for their attendance. 153 154 Commissioner Helgmoe asked if current Commissioners could introduce themselves to the 155 newly appointed Commissioner and this was done. '56 157 ADJOURN 158 159 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by CommissionerTrehus, to adjourn the 160 meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 161 162 Respectfully Submitted, 163 164 Marg Penn, 165 Charter Commission Member/Secretary 166 4 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 ,yam 42 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT April 12, 2012 6:36 P.M. 9:35 P.M. Aldentaler, Bartsch, Bretoi, Dahl, Gunderson, Helgemoe, Lyden, Penn, Storberg, Sutherland, Timm,Trehus, Turcotte, Williams Zastrow None Jeff Karlson, City Administrator Councilmember Roeser (part); Councilmember Rafferty; Mayor Reinert (part); Citizen Tim Henderson (part) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Lyden called the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:36 p.m. SETTING THE AGENDA Commissioner Trehus asked to have one item added to Unfinished Business, Item 7C Update on the joint Commission/Council Task force and Commissioner Bretoi asked to have Item 7D Charter tax exempt zones (an item from the July 2008 meeting) added. OPEN MIC — Public Comments City Council Member Roeser commented on the Tax Cap propopsal. He indicated he has a background in Accounting and Finance as well as in Property Tax. His perspective on the tax cap is that it is a levy lock which could have longer term implications for the cost of borrowing money resulting in negative outcomes for taxpayers. He also indicated this action could scare development away from the city. He "implored" the Commission to reconsider placing the amendment on the ballot in the fall. Tim Henderson who was a candidate for City Council in the last election and who represents unionized city workers said he was attending as a neutral body. He has attended council meetings in other cities that are working to find a solution to fund road construction. Some of these cities are coming up with a franchise fee where road construction costs are assessed on a percentage basis. He offered an example of a fee that was $60 per household, which if assessed to the 6400 households in Lino Lakes would yield $384,000. 1 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 2 DRAFT 43 Commissioner Bartsch asked if the fees go into the city budget — the response was yes. Mr. 44 Henderson indicated that cities are charging a range of fees ranging between $5 and $10 per 45 household. He stated that he was concerned about having to vote on all road construction and 46 that a guaranteed fee that is allocated entirely for roads might be a way to fund the necessary 47 repairs. 48 49 Appreciation Certificates 50 Certificates were presented to Harry Carlson for 12 years of service to the City as a 51 Commissioner and to Steve Minar for 4 years of service by Vice Chair Dahl. 52 53 OPENING REMARKS — Chair Chris Lyden 54 55 Commissioner Lyden indicated he wanted to offer some "rules of engagement" for the work of 56 the Commission. He noted that he has some hearing loss and asked commissioners to speak 57 loudly so he could hear them. His philosophy is that when things go right the credit goes to the 58 whole Commission and when things do not go right the resposibility will fall to the Chair. He 59 suggested that commissioners "check their ego at the door" and that for the privliege of serving 60 the citizens the proper attitude is humility. He asked that commissioners behave with respect 61 toward one -another and that we do not have the right to tell another commissioner that their 62 perspective is wrong. Each commissioner has the obligation to define his/her premise in the 63 most positive way possible in an effort to influence other commissioners. 64 As commissioners we should strive to uphold the highest standards of integrity. He believes it 65 might be helpful to have pictures as well as some biographical information on the web site so 66 that citizens can approach commissioners if they encounter us in public settings. 67 Meeting procedures — Chair Lyden asked that all comments be directed to the Chair and that all 68 side conversations be eliminated. He also wants to ensure that the Commission is following the 69 approved Roberts rules procedures when calling the question. 70 71 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 72 73 a) April 8, 2010 with corrections. These have been appproved previously. Commissioner 74 Trehus indicated he had some corrections. Vice Chair Dahl asked Commissioner Trehus to 75 submit his comments and corrections and they could be reviewed at the next meeting. 76 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland to table review the 77 minutes at the next meeting of the Commission. 78 Motion passes with Commissioners Gunderson, Helgemoe, and Gunderson abstaining. 79 80 b) January 12, 2012 minutes — these minutes were not distributed in the preparation packets 81 and thus were not available for review. 82 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded By Commissioner Turcotte to table the minutes 83 for review at the next meeting of the Commission. ,.LN 84 Motion passes with Commissioner Sutherland abstaining. 85 2 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 3 DRAFT 86 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 87 88 Attorney Karen Marty expenses incurred — no new information. 89 90 Charter Amendments 91 Based on the Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration notice (January 2012) 92 Commissioner Trehus (?) believes there is a potential for the City Council to block Commission 93 amendments from going to ballot. Since there are potential legal questions involved, he believes 94 the Commission should seek advice from its attorney. 95 Commissioner Bartsch questioned whether Commissioner Trehus anticpated legal maneuvering. 96 CommissionerTrehus referenced recent articles in the Quad Press by Nicholas Bacchus that 97 suggested there could be attempts to block the legislation going to ballot. 98 Commissioner Bartsch clarified that he considers it important to seek a legal opinion which could 99 guide the actions of the Commission. 100 Chair Lyden noted that as directed at the last Commission meeting he requested from the attorney 101 the fees she would charge for reviewing the ballot language for two amanedments and was given 102 a $300 charge. 103 Commissioner Helgemoe asked what is the remaining budget for legal fees. Commissioner 104 Lyden indicates it is $720.00 105 '06 Update on Task Force. Commissioner Trehus noted that since the discussion at the January 107 2012 meeting where the motion to participate on the joint task force was defeated there have 108 been a number of subsequent actions. He continues to question why the Council was asking for a 109 task force and why the commission was given only three seats. He expressed his perspective that 110 the outcome was predetermined. 111 Since Mayor Reinert was in attendance at the meeting, Commissioner Storberg asked if the 112 usual rules could be suspended to ask for the the Mayor's perspective. 113 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Penn to suspend the regular 114 process of calling a special meeting so that the commissioners could have a discussion with the 115 Council members present at the meeting. 116 Commissioner Sutherland commented that it was perhaps premature to have a discussion and 117 that the Commission can ask for a joint meeting. 118 Motion was defeated. 119 120 Charter Exempt Zones. Commissioner Bretoi stated that he was concerned about information 121 in the Quad Press regarding tax exempt zones. In July 2008 the Commission had proposed the 122 issue be handled by ordinance since both the Council and the Commission were in agreement. 123 Commissioner Dahl indcated that at that time a decision was made not to proceed with the 124 changes but that it has been resurected. Commissioner Bretoi questioned why the issue has to go 125 to ballot since there as aleady a record of agreement that it could be handled by ordinance. 126 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Timm that the Chair ,..127 communicate formally to the Council to have the charter exempt zones be implemented by 128 ordinance. 3 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 4 DRAFT 129 Commissioner Sutherland asked if the langauge (from the July 17, 2008 minutes) could be made 130 available to all commission members. 131 The mover and seconder agreed to withdraw their motion until the pertiment minutes could be 132 provided to other commissioners. 133 134 135 NEW BUSINESS 136 137 2011 Annual Letter to the Judge 138 Commissioner Timm proposed a couple of changes. She suggested that Vice Chair Dahl add the 139 number of years she served as Chair to the letter since Judge Hoffman is new and that the word 140 "Judge" be removed from his title in the address portion of the letter. 141 In the Minutes section, Commissioner Gunderson suggested adding since 2010 a Charter 142 Commissioner takes the minutes of the meeting which were previously taken by a legal secretary. 143 Under Charter Business additional text was added: The Commission voted and passed two 144 amendments to be adopted by ordinance by City Council (as opposed to a public vote). These 145 proposals were not supported by the City Council. 146 Under Commission Activity Commissioner Sutherland offered some editorial changes. She 147 changed the word passed when referring to the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest to 148 proposed. ' 49 A fourth bullet was added as follows: Council referred a proposal to amend the Charter in 150 response to the Federal Mandate granting more time for absentee ballots. However, the Council 151 refused to fund review of the matter by the Commission's attorney so no action has been taken. 152 MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi that the Vice Chair 153 send the letter as amended to the His Honor, Judge Hoffman. 154 The motion passes unanimously. 155 156 History of the 2008 Charter Amendment 157 The City Council notified the Commission in a letter dated March 13, 2012 that the Council has 158 been considering an amendment to The City Charter, Chapter 8 regarding Public Improvements 159 and Special Amendments. The amendment is based on the charter amendment proposal prepared 160 in 2007 by the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public 161 Improvements (the "Task Force Amendment"). With a number of modifications made by 162 Council a new Charter amendment ordinance has been prepared (the "2012 Council 163 Amendment"). On March 12, 2012 the City Council approved the 1st reading of the Amendment, 164 amending Chapter 8 of the City Charter Regarding Public Improvements and Special 165 Assessments. Council has requested that the Commission review the 2012 Council Amendment 166 and respond to the Council within 60 days of the receipt of the letter. The Council understands 167 the Charter Commission may extend the time for review by an additional 90 days (within the 60- 168 day period) if the Commission files with the Council a resolution determining that additional 169 time is needed. 170 Chair Lyden indicated that to meet the time frame there is likely to be a need for an additional 171 meeting within a month. The Council will have a second reading on August 13 as the language 4 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 5 DRAFT 172 has to be submitted for placement on the November ballot by August 24th. Chair Lyden has 173 asked the Community Development Director Michael Grochala to prepare materials that would 174 permit a productive discussion of the issues. Commissioner Storberg asks for clarification on 175 what would be the expected outcome of the review of the additional material requested by Chair 176 Lyden. Chair Lyden commented that as a visual learner, it would help him to have "visual aids" 177 to gain a better understanding of the proposal. 178 Commissioner Storberg provided her interpretation of the Council's proposal which was as 179 follows: 180 "Actually a rehash of the Task Force amendment proposed in 2007 181 While the task force version does simplify the petition and counter petition language of Section 182 8.04, Subdivision 1, it does so by making it more difficult for the citizens to voice their 183 objections to a project and petition against it. A synopsis of notable changes follows: 184 In 8.03, Subdivision 2 of the present Charter a citizen vote on use of general funds is mandatory. 185 However, in the new version Section 8.02 Subdivision 5 requires a petition of 12% of registered 186 voters to put the question on the ballot, the same formula required for any initiative or 187 referendum under the charter. And the petitioners have only 30 days to it. Remember, in 8.04 188 Subdivision 1 it was 60 days to get a petition from a majority of the affected property owners not 189 12% of the voting residents in just 30 days. 190 A new wrinkle: In the new Section 8 (8.02 Subdivision 4) the last sentence seems to suggest that 191 the council has given itself authority to initiate a project regardless of petitions by a 4/5 majority x1.92 vote. To quote Subdivision 4, "when there has been no such petition (not less than 35% of the 193 owners) the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council". 194 This sounds like an open invitation to initiate projects whenever and wherever the council deems 195 appropriate without fear of any opposition. 196 Under the old Charter Section 8, Subdivision 4 prohibits bringing up the same project for a year 197 if it is voted down by the citizens. In the new Section 8, Subdivision 6 refers to Statute 475.58, 198 Subdivision la, which cuts the wait down to 6 months and makes it one year after the project is 199 voted down twice." 200 There was discussion among the Commissioners regarding the need for a special meeting with 201 Commissioner Turcotte as well as Commissioner Bartsch asked why the Commission could not 202 take the matter up at its regular meeting in July. Vice Chair Dahl indicated that should the 203 Commission decide to draft its own amendment considerable additional time would be required. 204 Commissioner Gunderson noted that the Chair has the authority to call a special meeting at his 205 discretion. 206 Commissioner Trehus indicated that the Commission should have its attorney review the 207 proposed amendment. 208 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson that the Chair and 209 Vice Chair obtain an estimate from the Commission's attorney for the fees required to review the 210 Council's proposed amendment as well as possible attendance at meetings, and then request the 211 additional funding from the City Council. 212 AMENDED by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Timm to make the ,213 request for 8 hours. 5 Charter Commission Meeting April 12, 2011 Page 6 DRAFT 214 Commissioner Sutherland commented on the importance of making the request for funds very 215 specific. 216 The amended passed with 11 in favor and 3 voting against it. 217 The motion passes unanimously. 218 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, that the Chair 219 send a request to the City Council for additional time to review their proposed amendment. 220 The motion passes unanimously. 221 222 Additional Agenda Item: Discussion of Tax Exempt Zones 223 224 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Bartsch, that the Chair formally 225 communicate to the City Council that the Commission is in favor of removing tax exempt zones 226 by ordinance. 227 Commissioner Gunderson noted that what the Council is proposing has not been sent to the 228 County for placement on the ballot and that it is not a "done deal" — they are asking for the 229 Commission's opinion. 230 MOTION (as amended) by Commissioner Bartsch, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland: 231 As it relates specifically to the Charter exempt zones the Commission Chair will submit a letter 232 to the Council requesting that this issue be handled consistent with the July 17, 2008 proposal. 233 The motion passes with 3 nays and 1 abstention. 34 235 The next regularly scheduled meeting is July 12th, 2012. 236 237 ADJOURN 238 239 MOTION by Commissioner Timm, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to adjourn the meeting 240 at 9:35 p.m. 241 242 243 Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. 244 245 Respectfully Submitted, 246 247 248 Margaret (Marg) Penn 249 Charter Commission Member/Secretary 250 6 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 1 July 8, 2010January 12, 2012 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 : Citizen Dean Hausladen; Council Members Dale Stoesz, Rob Rafferty and Mayor Reinert CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Dahl convened 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 Helgemoe has lived in the city since 1989 and is a Commercial Banker for Western Bank in Mounds View. Commissioner Daryl Bartsch 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 1 July 8, 2010January 12, 2012 Page 2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Charter Amendments. Commissioner Trehus discussed the referral to the Commission from City Council and staff regarding election timing changes in State law. He noted that an earlier request by the Commission to Council for funding for attorney's fees to review the proposal had been rejected, but felt that a second request was a prophate. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, requesting Chair Dahl to write to Ms. Marty asking for an estimate of the fees required to review the draft amendment language from City Staff. Upon receipt of the estimate, the Chair is further directed to write to the Council requesting the necessary funds. Motion passes unanimously. Commissioner Trehus reviewed the background on the Tax Cap amendment proposal and the Chapter 1 proposal to clarify the role of the Charter Commission. These amendments have been in development for over two years of very hard work by the Charter Commission, its subcommittee, and its attorney., and have been discussed with the City Council in joint meetings during that period. The two amendments were submitted to City Council on July 28, 2011 to be adopted by ordinance, which requires a unanimous vote of the Council following the Commission's recommendation. Since nNeither amendment request received council support®; aAt the Oct. 13, 2011 meeting, Commissioners voted to have the Commission's attorney review the opinions that had been obtained by the Council's legal experts attorney and financial consultant. The review was to take place after 1/1/12 so that funding to pay for the review would be available. Ms. Marty's response had not been obtained until Jan. 12, and was distributed at the meeting. Her position differs significantly from the opinions obtained by the council in that she recommends that the amendments proceed as originally drafted. Commissioner Storberg requested clarification as to whether Ms. Marty disagrees with the opinion rendered by the City attorney Joseph Langel. Commissioner Gunderson asked whether there is a firm or a single attorney representing the City. As Council Member Rafferty was in attendance he clarified that Mr. Langel is under contract with the City. Commissioner Storberg asked Council Member Rafferty why the City changes attorneys when new attorneys may have to start from scratch in gaining knowledge and background about the issues about which they are providing Council. Council Member Rafferty indicated that decisions about engaging outside counsel were made to be mindful of economics. 2 ,-1 d1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 �' 12 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Charter Commission July 8, 2010January 12, 2012 Page 3 Getting back on topic, Commissioner Trehus stated that both amendments have been through a peer review process, and recommended that the Commissioners vote at this meeting to have the amendments placed on the ballot for the November 2012 election. MOTION by Commissioner Lyden, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to have both amendments with the existing and their ballot language placed on the ballot. Motion caries. Opposed: Commissioner Timm. Abstaining: Commissioners Helgemoe and Penn Commissioner Trehus reviewed several other amendments that the Charter Commission is in the process of developing. NEW BUSINESS Memo from the City Administrator The memo indicated that at its December 5, 2011 work session the council discussed how to move forward with needed street improvements in the City. At the Jan. 3. 2012 work session the Council proposed creating a task force to review Charter Provisions related to Street Reconstruction. The task force would be composed of two Council members; one representative from each of the City's four advisory boards; three Charter Commission members, and Kathi Gallup, former Council member and chair of the 2007 Citizens Task Force. The memo requested that the Charter Commission consider appointing three members to participate on the task force. Commissioner Sutherland noted that it could be difficult to identify three members who could represent the body of the Commission Commissioner Bretoi departed at 7:25 Commissioner Trehus read from the memo, which stated that he believes the over riding intent purpose of the Council's prepesal-Task Force is to get the Charter changed. He noted that the focus was apparently not on reconstructing roads. Commissioner Storberg offered to provide some perspective for new Commissioners, stating that the Charter does not stop the repair of existing roads. The Charter covers only the construction of new roads. She also questioned the need for a task force. Commissioner Gunderson noted that the issue of a task force was raised at the July 2010 joint Commission -City Council meeting. She further commented that they have been several opportunities to change Chapter 8 and that citizens have rejected that changes each time. MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to have the Chair Dahldraft a response thanking the Council for their request to participate and that the Commission is respectfully declining. Several Commissioners spoke against the motion. Commissioner Penn indicated she would be voting against it because refusal to participate furthers the perception of the Commission as obstructionistic. Commissioner Gunderson noted that there is considerable likelihood that the Council will precede procede with the task force without Commission involvement. 3 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Charter Commission 1 July 8, 2010January 12, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Trehus stated that there is a process for proposing amendments to the Charter. The Task Force would be acting in strictly advisory capacity and would not be able to create amendments. He also noted that there have been multiple attempts to remove Chapter 8 and that multiple projects proposed by the City have been defeated by the residents. He also expressed concern that the Council may have "stacked the deck" in its favor with its choice of members and advisors, and by appointing:7 members versus the 3 allotted to the Commission. Commissioner Turcotte indicated that the Task Force is not being proposed due to a road issue but a sewer and water issue. Commissioner Lyden noted that when the issue was being raised for a vote by citizens in 2008 the City published a pamphlet to present their perspective. He had requested that the Commission be allowed to have equal space to provide its point of view and was refused. He also noted that the Council has a budget for road repair. Commissioner Bartsch questioned why the City can't move ahead with decisions regarding road repair. He noted he resides in a subdivision where roads have not been repaired for 30 years. Commissioner Helgemoe commented that as a business owner having good infrastructure in the city is important to the ability to attract new business. He also questioned where he could go to get more information on the process for approving road repairs. Commissioner Gunderson noted that Mr. Grochala of the City provided her with criteria and where general funds will be required. Commissioner Gunderson called the question. Motion was passed with Commissioners Aldentaler, Bartsch, Dahl, Lyden, Sutherland, Trehus, and Turcotte voting in favor; Commissioners Gunderson, Helgemoe, Penn, Storberg, Timm and Williams voting against. Election of Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary Chair Dahl commented that she has served as Chair for 3 1/2 years and appreciates the support she has received. She also noted that she would be interested in the role of Vice Chair. She proposed Commissioner Lyden for the position of Chair. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to elect Commissioner Lyden the position of Chair. Motion carries unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Storberg to elect Commissioner Dahl to the position of Vice Chair. Motion carries unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to elect Commissioner Penn to the position of Secretary. Motion carries unanimously MOTION by Commissioner Storberg seconded by Commissioner Gunderson to add an additional item to the agenda to provide an opportunity for the two Council members present to share their perspectives. Motion carries unanimously Council Member Stoesz noted that his primary reason for attending was to educate himself on ways that the Commission and Council could work together and that he was disappointed that the Commissioners chose to reject the offer to participate in the task force. Council Member Rafferty noted that was attending as a citizen. He has been on the Council for only two years and does not believe he has done anything that would harm his relationship with the Commission. 4 . Charter Commission 1 July 8, 2010January 12, 2012 Page 5 _80 Commissioner Sutherland thanked the Council members for their attendance. 181 182 Commissioner Helgmoe asked if current Commissioners could introduce themselves to the 183 newly appointed Commissioner and this was done. 184 185 ADJOURN 186 187 MOTION by Commissioner Gunderson, seconded by CommissionerTrehus, to adjourn the 188 meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 189 190 Respectfully Submitted, 191 192 Marg Penn, 193 Charter Commission Member/Secretary 194 Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 1 1 DRAFT 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES 3 CHARTER COMMISSION 4 5 6 7 DATE : May 31, 2012 8 TIME STARTED : 6:36 p.m. 9 TIME ENDED : 9:56 p.m. 10 MEMBERS PRESENT : Aldentaler, Bartsch, Bretoi, Dahl, Gunderson, 11 Helgemoe, Lyden, Penn, Storberg, Sutherland, Timm, 12 Turcotte, Williams 13 MEMBERS EXCUSED :Trehus, Zatrow 14 MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : None 15 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : Michael Grochala; Jason Weddell; Steven Bubel, City 16 Bond Attorney 17 OTHERS PRESENT: : Council Members Rafferty and Stoesz (Part), Mayor 18 Reinert (Part) 19 20 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21 '4h\ 22 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 23 24 Chair Lyden called to order the special meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission at 6:36 25 pm on May 31, 2012. 26 27 OPEN MIC 28 No comments were offered for open mike 29 The planned presentation of the Certificate of Appreciation to Jim Drennan was postponed as 30 Mr. Drennan was unable to attend the meeting. 31 32 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 33 34 As this was a special meeting minutes from prior meetings were not reviewed. 35 36 UPDATE ON EXEMPT ZONES ORDINANCE 37 38 Chair Lyden indicated he had not received a formal response from the City Council. 39 Commissioner Bretoi commented that what the Commission sent to the Council was a formal 40 request and that the Commission should expect a formal response. 41 Mr. Grochala provided an explanation of tax exempt zones. Essentially the City is following 42 Chapter 429 of State Code related to public improvements which contains an opt -out provision 43 for single family home owners. This provision creates challenges for the City when it needs to 44 issue bonds for the improvements. There is a requirement to tax exempt zones which creates a 1 Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 2 r-` 45 higher interest rate and the bonds have to be sold on a taxable basis. The City's proposal would 46 eliminate tax exempt zones. 47 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi and seconded by Commissioner Gunderson that the Chair 48 requests a formal response from the Lino Lakes City Council providing a full explanation of their 49 rationale for including exempt zones as part of the amendment rather than having it changed by 50 ordinance. 51 Motion passed with Commissioner Timm voting no and Commissioner Sutherland abstaining. 52 53 Commissioner Gunderson noted that while Mr. Grochala was offering the Council's thoughts to 54 the Commissioners she did not want to tie him to representing them and that it would be 55 beneficial to hear directly from the Council. 56 Mr. Grochala responded that back in 1992 there was a purpose for tax exempt zones because they 57 would allow for specific treatment of areas that needed to be treated differently which would be 58 consistent with Chapter 429. He noted that under the existing charter there was merit in keeping 59 them in place. 60 Commissioner Bretoi questioned why what had appeared to be agreed to by the City Council and 61 the Commission was not moved forward 62 Mr. Grochala agreed that the City did approach the Commission about removing the exempt 63 zones. In 2008 a task force was struck to develop a Charter Amendment as part of a 64 comprehensive reworking of Chapter 8 of the City Charter. He cited the memo in the meeting 65 packed (July 18, 2008 memo from the Chair of the Commission, Ms. Duffy to the Mayor, Mr. ^66 Bergeson) that contained partial but not complete agreement with the City's position. He 67 referred to three photographs that were distributed at the meeting and noted that the three zones 68 are zoned commercial. He stated that the intent of the City is to do infrastructure projects that are 69 consistent with Chapter 429. 70 Commissioner Helgemoe asked what the percentage cost difference is for the higher interest rate. 71 Mr. Bubel indicated a one to two percent additional cost but it depends on the size of the bond 72 issue. 73 Commissioner Bartsch indicated his understanding was that the Commission and Council were 74 in agreement to eliminate the tax exempt zones and wondered why the Council wants to amend 75 Chapter 8. 76 Mr. Grochala said the Council is looking at a bigger issue which is the financing of any public 77 improvements and is the city going to continue to use special assessments to do public 78 improvements. Under 429 it is possible to level special assessments. 79 Special assessments can be levied if they lead to the improvement of the affected properties. It is 80 difficult to completely justify the benefit with street improvements and therefore generally has 81 had to go to ballot for approval by all voters. 82 83 COMMISSION REQUEST FOR $1400 FOR LEGAL REVIEW ON COUNCIL 84 PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS 85 Chair Lyden said that he had not received a formal response. He referenced the audio clip from a 86 Council meeting provided to Commissioners in advance of the meeting, noting that it seemed to 87 be an indication from the Council that the Commission would not be given additional funds. 88 [The position of the Council members was that the Commission had its full $1500 budget 89 available and there were therefore adequate funds to cover the review]. Chair Lyden noted that 2 Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 3 90 the complete budget was not available because there was a $303.00 outstanding invoice and that 91 the Commission requires its full budget for review of any amendments that it would consider 92 during the remainder of the year. 93 Commissioner Timm offered that since City officials were present they could perhaps provide 94 answers to the Commission's questions about the request for funding. 95 Commissioner Turcotte asked if the City's attorney, Mr. Bubel is a specialist in charter cities and 96 he indicates he is not but that he deals with many cities in Minnesota on similar issues. 97 Commissioner Sutherland commented that the Commission was told to spend money strictly for 98 framing and amending; in this instance, the Commission is not framing and amending, it is 99 reviewing proposed language coming from the Council. 100 Commissioner Gunderson stated that the Council is proposing amending the Charter and has 101 asked the Commission for input and that this type of review falls into the category of frame and 102 amend. 103 In response to Commissioner Gunderson's question regarding the time frame for a response Mr. 104 Bubel commented that the City Council is not under any obligation to respond to the 105 Commission's request for funds. 106 Commissioner Storberg commented that the City can use its attorney at their discretion and that 107 the attorney is working for the City rather than as an independent neutral party. There are 108 therefore, advantages to obtaining another legal opinion as the Commission is seeking to do. 109 Council Member Rafferty offered that at the time the request was considered the information that 110 Council had indicated that the full budget of $1500 was available. The invoice for $303.05 had ^N 11 not been presented. 112 Chair Lyden reiterated that the Commission is likely to have other amendments to put forward 113 for consideration and that it will need the full budget. 114 115 MOTION— moved by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi that the 116 Commission present its entire budget for the year that includes spend on the $1400 required to 117 review this amendment as well as future amendments so that the Council has a picture of its 118 budget and how the request fits in with the review of the proposed Council amendments as well 119 as the funds required for drafting other amendments. 120 Motion passed unanimously. 121 122 PRESENTATION BY CITY STAFF ON COUNCIL PROPOSED CHARTER 123 AMENDMENT 124 Mr. Bubel reviewed the document Synopsis of Improvement Procedures: Proposed Charter 125 Amendment Comparison which compares Minn. State Chapter 429 with the Existing Charter and 126 showing the Amendment proposals. He commented that Chapter 429 covers any public 127 improvements paid for in whole or in part by special assessment. He walked the Commissioners 128 through the sections of the Synopsis of the Proposed Charter Amendments. 129 Sectionl.Scope/applicability — Ch. 429 governs only public improvements paid in whole or in 130 part with special assessments. Most of the occurrences involve improvements that at least in part 131 involve special assessments. ,.132 Section 2. Allocation of special assessments — the benefits of the special assessment has to be 133 comparable to an increase in market value and the properties assessed get equal value. Properties 134 can argue that market value was not increased. 3 Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 4 r"\ 35 Section 3. Process by 100% petition — Council is proposing changing the existing charter to be 136 consistent with the process outlined in Ch. 429 137 Section 4 Process by less than 100% petition —If 50% of abutting owners file an objection 138 before or after the hearing a special meeting will be held at least 45 days later ( a change from the 139 current 60 days) There is nothing comparable to this in Chapter 429. After the second meeting 140 if more than 50% of abutting owners file the petition against within 30 days of council ordering 141 the project, the project cannot proceed. 142 5 Referendum — could possibly be a referendum ordered on selling bonds but if have at least 143 20% cost of the project cost covered by special assessment the City can sell bonds without a 144 further referendum. If less than 20% likely to need a referendum unless there is some exception 145 in the law. Under the current Charter the City has to hold a City-wide referendum if anything less 146 than 100% of the project is going to come from City general funds. The proposed change would 147 be to have a reverse referendum — rather than a mandatory referendum. Is a petition signed by 148 12% of the votes cast in the last general election is filed within 30 days after the project is 149 ordered a referendum will be required. The reverse referendum only kicks in if any part of the 150 project is to be funded by property taxes, 151 Commissioner Sutherland raised a question as to the mechanism for notifying the rest of the Lino 152 public in advance of the referendum. Mr. Bubel indicated that there would be published notices 153 of all of the meetings but every property owner would not receive a letter in the mail describing 154 the Council action. 155 Commissioner Gunderson asked how payment for a project by property taxes or the general fund '"56 would be differentiated. She also inquired how a general citizen would know if a project was 157 being paid for out of the general fund or through a special levy. Mr. Bubel acknowledged that 158 not all aspects of this process had been thought through and that it would be important to make 159 clear to citizens when get to final decision point there was a potential for a referendum. 160 Section 6 Reconsideration — adopt language from MN Statutes Chap 475 that is current bond 161 code that applies any time there are bond elections in Minnesota. The thinking is adopting a rule 162 that is used in other kind of election law 163 Commissioner Bretoi offered his perspective that it would be helpful in the development of a 164 feasibility study if the City worked with a neighborhood upfront to get input about its needs and 165 preferences rather than coming with a "Cadillac" version of proposed improvements. 166 Section 7 Cost increase — the Charter has a unique provision that states that bids cannot exceed 167 estimates by greater than 10%. Mr. Bubel stated there wasn't a comparable provision in 429 so it 168 would be eliminated in the proposed amendment. 169 Commissioner Sutherland asked what the rationale was for not including the provision. Mr. 170 Weddell indicated that most engineering companies will inflate their bids somewhat in order to 171 ensure that the project will go through. There can be a two year lag between the time that a 172 design is originally submitted and building actually begins. Due to the long time frame, the final 173 bid could be greater than 10% and under the existing charter the project would have to be killed 174 and started from scratch. 175 8. Special Areas - Council's proposal is to remove the special areas. 176 All but two cities are under 429 except Lino Lakes and Moundsview. Moundsview does not X177 have the city-wide referendum requirement. 178 179 4 Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 5 80 DISCUSSION OF THE PRESENTATION 181 The Chair asked Commissioner Sutherland to facilitate the discussion. She noted that the 182 majority of the Commission's issues appear to be around Section 4, 5 and 6. She proposed that 183 the primary objective be to go through the proposals to determine where the Commissioners may 184 have questions or where further clarification from the Commission's attorney may be needed. 185 The questions raised were as follows: 186 In Section 3 Process by 100% Petition: What is the difference between abutting versus 187 benefitting? Chapter 429 speaks about abutting property owners and 100% of costs assessed and 188 the Charter speaks to initiation by 100% of benefitted property owners There was a question 189 pertaining to assessment and who is assessed. 190 Section 4 Process by less than 100% Petition — the same question regarding abutting versus 191 benefitting was raised and initiating versus opposing. The question about whether one property 192 owner in a neighborhood of 10 can bring forward a project. The Commission recommends there 193 be a requirement of 50% to petition for improvements. 194 In Section 5 Referendum — there appears to be a clear need for wider communication and 195 notification to the public so they are informed about the reason for the referendum. Another 196 question pertained to the term ad valorem and whether it would be defined in the feasibility 197 study. There as a question related to what is the trigger for the 30 days of public notice and when 198 does it occur? Commissioners have concerns about whether 30 days is enough time to get public 199 response and would propose the time frame be 60 days. Additionally there was a question about 200 why the Council is proposing 12% of all of the votes cast. This seems like a very high threshold X01 and the Commission would propose that the percentage be 5% 202 In Section 6 Reconsideration — one commissioner had a question as the date the statute was 203 implemented and how often it has been changed [Commissioner Timm was able to look find the 204 information through the interne. The statute was enacted in 1995 and with the exception of 205 some minor amendments in 2009 has been quite stable.] 206 In Section 7 Cost increases — a question was raised about the wisdom of having a cost increase 207 cap. If there is one what should it be? 208 In Section 8 Special areas - (needs clarification — "regardless of amendment" and why preclude 209 as ordinance) 210 211 RESOLUTION NO. 12 — 01— 90 day extension 212 MOTION by Commissioner Turcotte, seconded by Commissioner Timm to ratify the Chair's 213 request for an extension to consider the proposed Section 8 Charter amendment. Motion passes. 214 Abstaining: Commissioner Bretoi 215 216 ADJOURN 217 218 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to adjourn the meeting 219 at 9:56 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 220 221 Respectfully Submitted, 223 Margaret (Marg) Penn 224 Charter Commissioner/Secretary 5 Julie Bartell From: Caroline Dahl <denali2010@q.com> '--"ant: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:03 AM o: Julie Bartell Cc: lillydogcute; denali2010 Subject: Charter Letter to Mayor and Council regarding Exempt Zones Importance: High Dear Julie, Chair Lyden asked me to forward this letter to you for the Mayor and Council. Please make copies and or email the below letter. Cordially, Caroline Dahl, Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission June 22, 2012 Dear Mayor and Council, the Charter Commission is requesting a formal response, full explanation from the Lino Lakes City Council providing their rationale for including exempt zones as part of the proposed Council Charter amendment rather than having it changed by ordinance. Sincerely, Christopher Lyden, Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 1 Julie Bartell From: Caroline Dahl <denali2010@q.com> ' 'ent: Monday, June 25, 2012 12:45 PM o: Julie Bartell Cc: lillydogcute; denali2010 Subject: Charter Letter to Council and Mayor Legal Review of Council Proposed Charter Amendment Attachments: Charter Letter to Council and Mayor regarding legal review and estimate for the rest of year 2012.docx Importance: High (June25, 2012) Dear Julie, As per direction from Chair Lyden, the letter attached is regarding the legal review and estimate for the rest of 2012 Charter Commission budget as directed by the Commission. Chair Lyden is also requesting (at the discretion of the Council) to have this added to this evening's agenda, June 25, 2012. Thank you for your help in this matter. Cordially, Caroline Dahl Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 1 Lino Lakes Charter Commission Chair Christopher Lyden 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 June 24, 2012 Dear Mayor and Council, The scope of the remaining 2012 Charter's budget with the approximate balance of the Charter's budget $1200.00 to be used as follows: 1. $300.00 or more for questions on Council proposed ballot language for Charter's two amendments on the ballot this fall. 2. The remaining dollars to be used for questions relating to framing and amending the Charter Commission amendments. In view of the short time still allotted and based on the previous years 2007 and 2008 costs for reviewing Council proposed amendments the Commission is requesting the Council for the amount of $7,000 which includes the initial amount of $1400. If the Charter Commission does not use the full amount the remainder goes back into the general fund. It is imperative the Charter Commission receives the initial payment of $1400 (for 8 hours of work) to start the review of the Council's proposed Charter amendment. The failure to provide the Charter Commission the initial $1400 with the additional amount of $5600 for the legal review of the City Council's proposed Charter amendment will be considered a serious obstruction of the Charter Commission's ability to perform its duty in a timely manner as set forth in the state statute. Sincerely, Christopher Lyden Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission Julie Bartell From: Julie Bartell r'`ent: Monday, July 02, 2012 9:10 PM a: 'Caroline Dahl' Cc: Jeff Karlson Subject: RE: Charter Letter to Council and Mayor Legal Review of Council Proposed Charter Amendment (July 2, 2012) Dear Caroline, At their work session this evening, the City Council reviewed the Charter Commission's letter regarding legal review and estimated budget needs for the remainder of 2012. The Council requested that l forward a message that there is no support indicated by the City Council to provide additional funds to the Charter Commission at this time. The council is aware that the commission has funds remaining in their 2012 budget. Please ensure that this message is forwarded to Chair Lyden. Thank you. Julie Bartell ''City Clerk amity of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes. MN 55014 651-982-2406 651-982-2499 fax ju/ie.barte// ci./ino-lakes.mn. us From: Caroline Dahl [mailto:denali2010Ca�q.coml Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 12:45 PM To: Julie Bartell Cc: lillydogcute; denali2010 Subject: Charter Letter to Council and Mayor Legal Review of Council Proposed Charter Amendment Importance: High (June25, 2012) Dear Julie, As per direction from Chair Lyden, the letter attached is regarding the legal review and estimate for the rest of 2012 Charter Commission budget as directed by the Commission. Chair Lyden is also requesting (at the discretion of the Council) to have this added to this evening's agenda, June 25, 2012. Thank you for your help in this matter. Cordially, Caroline Dahl 1 Jul 09 12 12:11p Caroline Dahl 651-484-4781 p.1 Charter Commission 1995 - 2009 Adopted Amended Actual Year Budget Budget Spent 1995 4250 4250 5389 1996 4250 4250 363 1997 5000 5000 2044 1998 6710 6710 890 1999 6700 6700 988 2000 5000 5000 1053 2001 2400 2400 836 2002 3600 3600 594 2003 2500 2500 1318 2004 950 950 2373 2005 1850 1850 1802 2006 1875 1875 2082 2007 2200 7450 8810 2008 5700 5700 5867 2009 2200 2200 2803 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 429.031 429.031 PRELIIVIINARY PLANS, HEARINGS. Subdivision 1. Preparation of plans, notice of hearing. (a) Before the municipality awards a contract for an improvement or orders it made by day labor, or before the municipality may assess any portion of the cost of an improvement to be made under a cooperative agreement with the state or another political subdivision for sharing the cost of making the improvement, the council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement following two publications in the newspaper of a notice stating the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the area proposed to be assessed. The two publications must be a week apart, and the hearing must be at least three days after the second publication. Not less than ten days before the hearing, notice of the hearing must also be mailed to the owner of each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed and must contain a statement that a reasonable estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available at the hearing, but failure to give mailed notice or any defects in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, owners are those shown as owners on the records of the county auditor or, in any county where tax statements are mailed by the county treasurer, on the records of the county treasurer; but other appropriate records may be used for this purpose. For properties that are tax exempt or subject to taxation on a gross earnings basis and are not listed on the records of the county auditor or the county treasurer, the owners may be ascertained by any practicable means, and mailed notice must be given them as provided in this subdivision. (b) Before the adoption of a resolution ordering the improvement, the council shall secure from the city engineer or some other competent person of its selection a report advising it in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement. The report must also include the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. A reasonable estimate of the total amount to be assessed, and a description of the methodology used to calculate individual assessments for affected parcels, must be available at the hearing. No error or omission in the report invalidates the proceeding unless it materially prejudices the interests of an owner. (c) If the report is not prepared by an employee of a municipality, the compensation for preparing the report under this subdivision must be based on the following factors: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the experience and knowledge of the preparer; (3) the complexity and novelty of the problems involved; and (4) the extent of the responsibilities assumed. (d) The compensation must not be based primarily on a percentage of the estimated cost of the improvement. (e) The council may also take other steps prior to the hearing, including, among other things, the preparation of plans and specifications and the advertisement for bids that will in its judgment provide helpful information in determining the desirability and feasibility of the improvement. (f) The hearing may be adjourned from time to time, and a resolution ordering the 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 improvement has been petitioned for by the owners of not less than 35 percent in frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 429.031 in the petition as the location of the improvement. When there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council; provided that if the mayor of the municipality is a member of the council but has no vote or votes only in case of a tie, the mayor is not deemed to be a member for the purpose of determining a four-fifths majority vote. (g) The resolution ordering the improvement may reduce, but not increase, the extent of the improvement as stated in the notice of hearing. Subd. 2. Approval by park board or utilities commission. A resolution ordering a park improvement may be adopted only by a four-fifths vote of the council and shall also be approved by the park board, if there is one; provided, that if the mayor of the municipality is a member of the council but has no vote or votes only in case of a tie, the mayor shall not be deemed to be a member for the purpose of determining such four-fifths majority vote. A resolution ordering an improvement of the water, sewer, steam heating, street lighting or other facility over which a utilities commission has jurisdiction shall also be approved by the utilities commission. Subd. 3. Petition by all owners. Whenever all owners of real property abutting upon any street named as the location of any improvement shall petition the council to construct the improvement and to assess the entire cost against their property, the council may, without a public hearing, adopt a resolution determining such fact and ordering the improvement. The validity of the resolution shall not be questioned by any taxpayer or property owner or the municipality unless an action for that purpose is commenced within 30 days after adoption of the resolution as provided in section 429.036. Nothing herein prevents any property owner from questioning the amount or validity of the special assessment against the owner's property pursuant to section 429.081. In the case of a petition for the municipality to own and install a fire protection system, a pedestrian skyway system, or on-site water contaminant improvements, the petition must contain or be accompanied by an undertaking satisfactory to the city by the petitioner that the petitioner will grant the municipality the necessary property interest in the building to permit the city to enter upon the property and the building to construct, maintain, and operate the fire protection system, pedestrian skyway system, or on-site water contaminant improvements. In the case of a petition for the installation of a privately owned fire protection system, a privately owned pedestrian skyway system, or privately owned on-site water contaminant improvements, the petition shall contain the plans and specifications for the improvement, the estimated cost of the improvement and a statement indicating whether the city or the owner will contract for the construction of the improvement. If the owner is contracting for the construction of the improvement, the city shall not approve the petition until it has reviewed and approved the plans, specifications, and cost estimates contained in the petition. The construction cost financed under section 429.091 shall not exceed the amount of the cost estimate contained in the petition. In the case of a petition for the installation of a fire protection system, a pedestrian skyway system, or on-site water contaminant improvements, the petitioner may request abandonment of the improvement at any time after it has been ordered pursuant to subdivision 1 and before contracts have been awarded for the construction of the improvement under section 429.041, subdivision 2. If such a request is received, the city council shall abandon the proceedings but in such case the petitioner shall reimburse the city for any and all expenses incurred by the city in connection with the improvement. Copyright C 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 3 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2011 429.031 History: 1953 c 398 s 3; 1955 c 811 s 1; 1957 c 430 s 1; 1961 c 525 s 1,2; 1963 c 771 s 1; 1965 c 877 s 2; 1967 c 57 s 1,2; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1984 c 548 s 5; 1984 c 582 s 4; 1984 c 591 s 3; 1984 c 633 s 3; 1986 c 444; 1994 c 614 s 6; 1996 c 402 s 1; 2000 c 490 art 5 s 32 Copyright © 2011 by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Julie Bartell ,4o: object: Jeff Karlson FW: Charter Letter to Mayor and Council regarding Exempt Zones Importance: High Jeff - I am forwarding the following to you. Please direct how it will be forwarded to the council. Julie From: Caroline Dahl imailto:denali2010(aq.coml Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:03 AM To: Julie Bartell Cc: lillydogcute; denali2010 Subject: Charter Letter to Mayor and Council regarding Exempt Zones Importance: High Dear Julie, Chair Lyden asked me to forward this letter to you for the Mayor and Council. Please make copies and or email the below letter. Cordially, ,.'f aroline Dahl, Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission June 22, 2012 Dear Mayor and Council, The Charter Commission is requesting a formal response, full explanation from the Lino Lakes City Council providing their rationale for including exempt zones as part of the proposed Council Charter amendment rather than having it changed by ordinance. Sincerely, Christopher Lyden, Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission i