HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-31-2012 MinutesCharter Commission
May 31, 2012
Page 1
�-�►, 1 FINAL
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
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
Charter Commission
May 31, 2012
Page 2
--.� 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
111 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
-135 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
156 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
177 have the city-wide referendum requirement.
- 178
179
4
Charter Commission
May 31, 2012
Page 5
-180 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
201 and the Commission would propose that the percentage be 5%
x•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,
222
223 Margaret (Marg) Penn
224 Charter Commissioner/Secretary
5