HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2007 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 12, 2007
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. New Commissioner Swearing-In/Welcome
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Open Mike
6. Approval of Minutes
t,.... -K. -January 11, 2007
6:30 PM
6:31 PM
6:32 PM
6:33 PM
6:35 PM
6:45 PM
7. Old Bess 6:55 PM
. By Laws with Charter Compatibility
1.) Annual Review
a.) Article 2 Section 2 & Section 4: annual report timelines
B. Budget 7:10 PM
Reports from Gordon Heitke, City Administrator (read only)
1.) Charter budget for 2005-2006
2.) Actual Charter monies spent to date
3.) Quarterly update in Charter packet.
C. Five Year Plan 7:20 PM
1.) Sub -Committee final report:
Commissioners: Trehus, Vacha, Montain and Dahl.
D. Updated Charter Commissioner Terms
1.) Notification of expiring terms
2.) Commissioner re-application to Chair by October
E. Taxpayer Bill of Rights
1.) Mounds View Charter Amendment
a.) Charter Discussion
7:25 PM
7:30 PM
F. Sub -committee Attorneys report (Dahl &Trehus) 8:10 PM
8. New Business
A. Chairperson election
B. Vice -chair election
8:20 PM
C. Concerns on Charter Changes 8:25 PM
D. 2030 Charter Advisory Panel 9:05 PM
9. Set Agenda for July 12, 2007 9:30 PM
10. Adjournment 9:35 PM
Charter Commission
April 12, 2007
Page 2
42 APPROVAL OF MINUTES/v_ e,
43 cjyoCG� (-zf
44
45
46
47
48
49 Chair Duffy noted on Line 374, she did not make those comments. She believed Commissio er
ti tll
50 Dahl made those comments.1
(�,,
52 �'1-'r v,ir ,
53
54
55
56
57 B. Format of Minutes — Commissioner Trehus stated the City Council and other Boards
58 have gone to more abbreviated form of minutes and he recommended the Charter Commission
59 also do this. He recommended the agenda item and the action taken to be recorded only.
60
61
62 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bor, to approve abbreviated
63 Minutes.
64
65 Commissioner Bening requested certain discussions be put in the Minutes if requested by a
66 Commissioner.
67
68 Commissioner Dahl requested they try this to see if it would work, but if the majority did not like
69 this new format, it could be changed back.
70
71 Commissioner Vacha requested an amendment they take tonight's meeting with the new format
72 and then they revisit this at the next meeting. Commissioner Trehus agreed to the amendment.
73
74 Amended Motion carried unanimously.
75
76 OLD BUSINESS
77
78 A. By Laws with Charter Compatibility
79 1. Annual Review
80 a.) Article 2 Section 2 & Section 4: annual report timelines
81
82
83 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Stockman Maher, to change
84 Article 2, Section 2, where it starts - Each year ... delete "at the October" and insert "on or before
85 the April". Motion carried unanimously.
7 Commissioner Bening noted on Page 10, Line 378 there was no motion
a ove the vote. He recommended they delete that line. Commissioner Trehus stated on Page 2,
line 73, there was also a Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion and there was a vote to table
this.
y_ Conunissioner Dabliable to .the near
barter Commission meeting minutes for further
2
1I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 1
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
MEMBERS EXCUSED
MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
: January 11, 2007
. 6:34 P.M.
: 10:13 P.M.
: Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus, Vacha, Bening,
Duffy, Storberg, Warren, Bor (arrived at 6:45
p.m.), Rosemary Williams, Richard Williams,
and Carlson
: Handrick, Montain, and Zastrow
: None
: None
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Warren called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order
at 6:34 p.m. on January 11, 2007.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The following items were added to the agenda:
• Item 5C, CD's of Charter Minutes
• Item 8C, Chair Comments
• Item 8D, Terms of Charter Members
• Item 8E, Legal Council
The agenda was approved as amended.
OPEN MIKE
No one was present for open mike.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 13, 2007 -Commissioner Carlson referred to sentence extending from line 73 to line
75 and after listening to the tape corrected the sentence to read "...can of worms if the
judge is told now he is limited to one Council Member to the Commission."
Commissioner Trehus referred to line 83 and requested that sentence be deleted.
MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Duffy, to approve the
July 13, 2006 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 2
DRAFT
46
47 October 12, 2007 -Commissioner Trehus referred to line 44 and corrected the sentence to
48 read, "Commissioner Trehus stated he had invited the Commission, Community
49 Development..."
50
51 Commissioner Trehus referred to line 46, correcting the sentence, "because of staff
52 attending a meeting..."
53
54 Commissioner Storberg referred to line 150 correcting the sentence by adding "for
55 discussion," after the word "seconded."
56
57 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the
58 October 12, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
59
60 CD's of Minutes
61
62 Commissioner Dahl stated that she offered to supply a CD with the meeting minutes in a
63 PFD format to any Commissioner at no charge, in addition to a copy for the closet.
64 Commissioner Duffy noted that for a copy of the packet and minutes the cost was $7.00.
65
66 Chair Warren indicated the PDF format could not be changed, and it was a great service
67 she was offering.
68
69 Commissioner Trehus stated he would like a copy of the CD.
70
71 OLD BUSINESS
72
73 A. Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion (Staff)
74
75 Chair Warren tabled this item because there was no staff present.
76
77
78 Chair Warren stated that the Commission issued an invitation to address the Charter
79 Amendment with Council and City Staff. After several phone calls, there were concerns
80 about the meaning of the response. The City Administrator noted the specific staff could
81 not supply the depth for the project to go forward. The State and Charter requirement
82 details needed to be understood by the Council and Commission. He recommended a
83 training session for the Commission, staff and Council.
84
85 Commissioner Trehus noted he disagreed with points a -d in the material the City
86 Administrator gave for denying access to information. Commissioner Bening indicated
87 he believed it was an acceptable response, and was in favor of a joint meeting. If Council
88 wanted a change, they could propose it.
89
90
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 3
DRAFT
'' 91 Commissioner Bor stated that it was not the position of City Staff to provide the
92 information to assess if an amendment was necessary. Chair Warren responded he was
93 speaking for Council and Staff. She believed they should work with the Commission,
94 even if the request for specific City staff was ineffective. A joint meeting might help
95 define what could and could not be done.
96
97 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern they should allow access to City staff, and
98 should not direct the Commission to training. He believed it was hindering the process.
99
100 Commissioner Bening asked for clarification. Commissioner Trehus answered that the
101 Commission requested information and was denied. The people holding the
102 neighborhood surveys knew the issues.
103
104 Commissioner Duffy indicated the intent of the Commission was to see if there was a
105 viable alternative. She directed the Commission to a note from William Hawkins and
106 Associates dated April 12, 2005 and addressed to the City Administrator referring to
107 Minnesota Statute 410.
108
109 Chair Warren noted the possibility that the Commission might not be inviting enough
110 people or the right people. She wanted to involve the people who would move it forward.
111 She recommended the item also be discussed at the next meeting. At the July meeting,
112 the Commission would draft an amendment and have it ready for the vote.
113
114 Commissioner Bor questioned if the letter gave any assurance that something could be in
115 place.
116
117 Commissioner Storberg inquired if any progress had been made since the last meeting.
118 She believed it should be initiated to benefit the roads and recommended tabling the issue
119 to allow Council and Staff to approach the Commission.
120
121 Commissioner Vacha agreed that the issue should be tabled. Commissioner Carlson
122 concurred, stating that Council should be motivating the Commission to act.
123
124 Chair Warren stated that Council could make an amendment that might not serve the
125 community. Commissioner Trehus responded he did not believe that Council was trying
126 to work with the Commission. If the Commission did not go forth with the issue, the
127 amendment concern did not automatically rest. He noted the City Administrator
128 indicated that Council would decide. He was willing to go to a training session.
129
130 Commissioner Storberg reminded the Commission of the stadium example.
131
132 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Rosemary Williams,
133 to table any further discussion on road construction to be opened at the time of the
134 Commission's choice. Motion carried unanimously.
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
180
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 4
DRAFT
Commissioner Bor noted the group expressed concern about requesting and obtaining
information. The situation could continue as it had in the recent past.
Commissioner Dahl added that it confused her that the staff people in question were not
the appropriate individuals to speak with. If the Commission was not aware that an
attorney was necessary as well, staff should have noted to include him.
Chair Warren decided to delay the vote on this issue until after the Commission
addressed the Mounds View Ballot Amendment. (See page 9 for vote.)
B. Outcome of Citv Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment
A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment
The Commission and Mounds View Charter Commission representatives introduced
themselves. Jonathan Thomas is the Chair and Barbara Thomas is the Secretary of the
Mounds View Charter Commission.
Commissioner Dahl stated she went to their Charter Commission meeting to meet them
and noted their meeting was on cable. She found them very gracious and brought them to
the Lino Lakes Charter Commission. Chair Warren greeted them and thanked them for
coming.
Mr. Thomas stated he has been the chair for the Mounds View Charter Commission for
eight years. There was an original request to rewrite budgeting and taxation. The other
request addressed TIF, however in their view it covered too much. They submitted
eleven amendments, where two were rejected and the rest ignored by Council. The
reason given was that it was in the wrong format, so Council was able to ignore them.
They sought advice from an attorney because they wanted to draft a template structure.
The content was if a vote was unanimous, then the amendment would be adopted, if not it
would go to a majority vote. He referred to the subdivision, including a timing issue.
They were told not to respond. As chair, he requested the City Attorney address the
problems in the memo. In the end, two formats were drafted. Five amendments were
drafted in the last three years, four of which were ordinances. All were adopted.
Commissioner Storberg inquired about the number of Commissioners. Mr. Thomas
answered there were 15 members, but currently only seven.
Commissioner Storberg questioned if the Charter had been "watered down." Mr. Thomas
responded it had been strengthened.
Commissioner Storberg stated there was strong opposition to being a Charter city. Mr.
Thomas answered there had been attempts to remove half of the Charter by a small group
of the people on their Charter Commission. He was asked to be on the Commission as a
negotiator.
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 5
DRAFT
181
182 Commissioner Storberg inquired if they received funding from Council. Mr. Thomas
183 responded that Council could add to it, but the only money they spent was for the packet.
184
185 Commissioner Storberg questioned if their Council allowed access to the City Attorney.
186 Mr. Thomas stated they allowed access to the City Attorney one or two times per year.
187 In the joint meetings, the City Attorney was present on behalf of the Council.
188
189 Chair Warren inquired if Council made recommendations to the Charter. Mr. Thomas
190 responded that they did make recommendations to the Charter; however, only a few
191 requests required their input. Their Charter Commission also did research and
192 discussion.
193
194 Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification concerning the budget in dealing with
195 Council conflicts. Mr. Thomas stated they were working to restrict taxation, which was
196 ignored. Fridley had worked on their Charter so that taxes would not be increased by
197 more than 5% per year.
198
199 Commissioner Trehus questioned if they had worked with Council. Mr. Thomas
200 explained that there were four meetings with Council, presenting drafts and discussing
201 them. He indicated that staff was helpful.
202
203 Commissioner Trehus inquired about the reason Council would want limitations. Mr.
204 Thomas stated the Charter could limit the less conservative Council members.
205
206 Commissioner Trehus asked if the issue was written in the paper, or on cable. Mr.
207 Thomas responded they had used both and the press called him several times a week at
208 certain times.
209
210 Commissioner Trehus questioned who had decided on the mechanics of the process. Mr.
211 Thomas answered that he did the research on the balloting process.
212
213 Ms. Thomas added that the clerk issue was different from the amendment side. Mr.
214 Thomas explained that the clerk supplied information on timing and sent copies of
215 documents to people. The entire Commission was involved. He distributed copies of the
216 document. Once completed, they were converted to City Council resolutions. The form
217 needed to be drafted by a legal firm to be voted on. He had requested to see the draft in
218 the process and commented on it before the vote, because it needed clarification. He
219 indicated that now they were in good standing because there was a continual interface.
220 The agendas for joint meetings were created to foster common ground. When an
221 amendment was put on the ballot the City requested it to be complete between the
222 budgeting year, so "Effective on," was beginning the new budget year.
223
224 Chair Warren noted that it appeared that they had significant access to the League of
225 Minnesota Cities. However when the Charter Commission approaches them, they seem
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 6
DRAFT
226 to want to dialogue with Council but not the Commission. Mr. Thomas answered he
227 went to visit them.
228
229 Commissioner Storberg inquired if any mailings were distributed. Mr. Thomas
230 1 responded that there were no mailings; however, a statement was made and was replayed
231 several times a week. As a result, 78% of the voters were in favor of the amendment,
232 which was more than voted for the mayor.
233
234 Ms. Thomas stated Council was financially very supportive of the limitations. It was an
235 eight-year process to have it come together. Mr. Thomas stated taxes were not raised
236 more than 5% per year.
237
238 Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification. Mr. Thomas answered the lesser of the
239 consumer price index, and was explained in three pages. It was the most difficult part in
240 the Charter, but it was not the most important accomplishment. The most important
241 accomplishment was the rest of chapter 7 that was clarified so that anyone could
242 understand the process.
243
244 Chair Warren inquired if they ever had difficulty with accessing City staff. Mr. Thomas
245 admitted the tension was high when he began on the Commission. With the election of a
246 new mayor, there was a fresh start. It took time to change the environment.
247
248 Ms. Thomas stated at that time there was a new mayor and new City Attorney. Mr.
249 Thomas added that some Commissioners would work with the mayor, but they were
250 outnumbered.
251
252 Ms. Thomas noted that the term for mayor was only two years. Mr. Thomas indicated
253 there were originally 15 members on the Charter Commission, now there were only six
254 members because many resigned.
255
256 Commissioner Dahl inquired if the success rate was attributed to televising the meetings.
257 Mr. Thomas answered that the impact of the meetings being televised was very small
258 because less than 50% of the residents had cable.
259
260 Commissioner Dahl questioned the guests concerning the impact of web streaming. The
261 Charter Commission was not on the web as yet. Mr. Thomas responded it was on during
262 the recent past, but they were in the process. He explained that five years ago they had
263 joint meetings with Council to identify concerns that they could agree on. It was
264 apparent that staff had concerns dating back 15 years that had not been addressed. Those
265 were the first the Commission worked on. The second category was to identify things to
266 be done, and define a process to go to voters for the decision. The third category was the
267 concerns that were too much work, such as the system of taxation, upgrading chapter 7,
268 chapter 5 referendums and recall.
269
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 7
DRAFT
270 Commissioner Trehus indicated that they had two members exercise a recall. Ms.
271 Thomas clarified the difference between the repeal of an ordinance and recall. Recall
272 was if an elected official was convicted of criminal activity it would be considered
273 malfeasance, but the judge would require them to relinquish their position.
274
275 Mr. Thomas explained that the court defines the terms as criminal behavior. It was
276 clarified in their Charter in a footnote that was submitted to Commission guidelines that
277 were drafted, and copies of the amendment were distributed.
278
279 Commissioner Storberg inquired about the relationship between Council and Charter
280 Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that her being a Council member and Commissioner
281 was helpful because she knew the timing and scheduling in the City.
282
283 Commissioner Storberg asked for clarification on the frequency of their meetings. Mr.
284 Thomas answered that they used to meet once a year. Now they meet much more
285 frequently, at times once per week.
286
287 Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had concerns and requests about the Charter, but the
288 Commission did not address those concerns.
289
290 Chair Warren noted it would be understandable for Council to not want to be limited.
291
292 Mr. Thomas stated that there were Charter cities and statutory cities where the City had
293 considerable power. In a Charter city, a Council member could pull out something from
294 the Charter and explain it. He believed a statutory city was a disadvantage. In a Charter
295 city, a Council member could state that the Charter was their authority.
296
297 Chair Warren mentioned that Council and Commission have more ownership of the
298 Charter. Mr. Thomas added that it was a living document, and in his opinion the best
299 form of government. The copy of Mounds View Charter did not have section 7.03. All
300 the rest was adopted. He admitted it was difficult to get a legal copy to the public.
301
302 Ms. Thomas clarified that it was difficult to know how to submit to ballot. Mr. Thomas
303 referred to Minnesota Public Meeting Law, where it was required to be maintained on
304 record at city hall, but not necessary to post on line. Any member of the public can
305 address or petition for an amendment. The issue must be addressed by the Commission.
306 The only example of term limits was for Council and mayor. It was not constitutional
307 law, but it was in the Charter. There were other cities that had that provision in their
308 Charters.
309
310 Commissioner Bening noted that state statute had been changed.
311
312 Chair Warren inquired about other goals their Commission had. Mr. Thomas responded
313 there was a concern as to the classification of the items from the ballot or ordinance. If
314 the issue was a substantive change to the powers of the Council and Charter it had to go
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 8
DRAFT
315 to public vote. If the change was to explain and describe, it could be changed by an
316 ordinance.
317
318 Commissioner Trehus stated that if a provision was ignored, the Commission could not
319 take the City to court, but an individual citizen could.
320
321 Commissioner Bor inquired about the process in dealing with the outstanding issues. Mr.
322 Thomas indicated he made a list from the notes brought from staff to the Commission.
323 The Commission submitted eleven items and all were rejected. Then there were 25 items
324 where some were concepts or a single word. They met every month, and some were joint
325 meetings with Council. After a couple of months, they prioritized the items with 12-13
326 items in category A. Chapter 5 concerns could not go to ballot because it was not
327 explained enough. Pictures were needed to explain it clearly and concisely.
328
329 Chair Warren mentioned that a flow chart would be helpful for the road construction
330 concern.
331
332 Mr. Thomas continued that there were five appendices discussing items such as adopting
333 a ballot issue and a timeline for adopting a ballot issue. The diagrams were necessary
334 because of the timeline and extensive textual language necessary. He checked to make
335 sure if it went to ballot, there was the technical capabilities available to handle diagrams.
336 After receiving help it was now in the ordinance process. The attorney's comments
337 stated there could be no conflict between dialogue and diagram, because the text would
338 be legal if there was a conflict. The second was that the text should follow the diagram.
339
340 Commissioner Carlson inquired about the reason for not putting the timeline in the
341 Charter. Mr. Thomas indicated it would work to put it in the Charter, but he would prefer
342 to put it in the by-laws. In their City, no one agreed on the Commission, and the Council
343 could not explain it. Mounds View chose to put it in the by-laws.
344
345 Commissioner Bening questioned if they used subcommittees over the years. Mr.
346 Thomas responded that usually all was done by the entire Commission. When there were
347 13 members, they used them. A lot of research was done by individual Commissioners
348 or through meetings or e-mails with staff. If a subcommittee is larger than a quorum, it
349 must be made public.
350
351 Chair Warren thanked the visitors, indicating their input was appreciated. Mr. Thomas
352 stated he would e-mail the final draft of chapter 5.
353
354 Ms. Thomas mentioned they were building a new list, so they were in a similar position
355 as the Lino Lakes's Commission. Mounds View is at 13,000 population, and would be
356 fully developed in about 20 years. Among them, there were 8,300 registered voters. She
357 indicated they were willing to assist the Commission if needed.
358
n 359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 9
DRAFT
Mr. Thomas indicated that Northfield Charter Commission recommended joint meetings
with Council. Ms. Thomas added that they should visit staff at City Hall during working
hours, and invite them to a meeting.
Ms. Thomas stated that usually the Council, not the mayor was the communicator with
the Commission.
A. Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion (Staff)
C▪ hair Warren reopened/he discussion.
Commissioner Duffy expressed concern that staff was making it difficult to communicate
with the Commission. She noted that the City Attorney had addressed the Commission.
It was her main concern. Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission might want to
make a statement that they had requested information and were denied. He indicated he
would welcome a joint training for the Commission and Council.
Commissioner Duffy noted that nothing changed until the attorney changed.
Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Aldentaler, Dahl, Duffy, and Trehus) vote.
Commissioner Bor stated she wanted to work with what the Commission had. She
believed an offer should be made with a statement open to dialogue and training.
Chair Warren stated that Council did not see the Charter as an advantage to them. With
the negative dialogue after each meeting, there needed to be another means to address the
issues if Council wanted to repeal the Charter.
Commissioner Vacha indicated he believed that the issue was team building. He gave the
example where a Commissioner went to staff up to two times per week before they came
to a meeting.
C. Annual Report - Paulette Warren, Chair
Chair Warren stated a recap of the minutes was unnecessary because the Commission
could change it.
Commissioner Trehus stated that "accessible" was misspelled.
Commissioner Duffy inquired about the reason for sending it to Washington County.
Commissioner Trehus responded it was the newly drawn judicial district. In addition, the
date needed verification.
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 10
DRAFT
402 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the
403 Annual Report correcting the misspelled word and inserting the correct information in the
404 date. Motion carried unanimously.
405
406 ON-GOING REPORTS
407
408 A. Five Year Plan
409
410 This item was tabled to the next Charter Commission Meeting.
411
412 NEW BUSINESS
413
414 A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment
415
416 This item was discussed earlier in the meeting.
417
418 B. Annual Report By-laws
419
420 Commissioner Duffy stated she was confused as to when the annual report was due.
421 Commissioner Trehus responded chronologically it was December 31 of the following
422 year.
423
424 Commissioner Duffy indicated she read the by-laws and summarized the actions of the
425 Commission. In practice, it was usually at the first meeting in January.
426
427 Commissioner Trehus commented that the 2006 report would be submitted by October
428 2007. Previously, he had sent the report to the judge late one year and early another. It
429 should be stated, "no later then the October meeting."
430
431 Commissioner Bening inquired if a subcommittee could address the by-laws.
432
433 Commissioner Dahl received the report from Chair Warren to send to the judge in
434 accordance with the by-laws.
435
436 Commissioner Bor requested the Charter and By-laws be addressed at the next meeting.
437
438 C. Chair Comments
439
440 Chair Warren stated she was resigning. She provided some recommendations. First, they
441 needed to dialogue with staff and Council so all will know the benefits of the Charter.
442 Second, to adopt some of the ideas from the visitors, prioritize the items to work on, find
443 points of agreement that Council wants. Then the Commission should address the items
444 of disagreement, but ones that can still be addressed cooperatively. Finally, the items of
445 contention should be tabled until trust is built. The next chair should identify what works
446 and what does not and then find out how the Commission could assist.
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 11
DRAFT
447
448 D. Terms of Charter Members
449
450 Commissioner Duffy noted she reviewed the list, and members serve until they are
451 replaced. She did not have an updated list. Chair Warren indicated that Bening had the
452 list.
453
454 Commissioner Carlson stated he had a hard copy of the list. Commissioner Trehus stated
455 that they should add four years to each of the dates because of reappointment.
456
457 E. Legal Council
458
459 Commissioner Trehus stated that he believed they needed their own attorney. They
460 needed to know the budget, because there was grey area on the statutory limit. He
461 recommended a subcommittee to address the issue.
462
463 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to form a
464 subcommittee to address the Commission's need of legal Council.
465
466 Commissioner Bor stated that a good chair was just lost. She believed that if the
467 Commission pursued obtaining its own legal Council, it would be seen as a defensive
468 move. Chair Warren indicated that Mounds View hired their own counsel, and the advice
469 was incorrect, so there was continued frustration.
470
471 Commissioner Bor asked for clarification on the goal of hiring its own legal Council, and
472 she expressed concern about approving a subcommittee action.
473
474 Commissioner Trehus inquired if the City could say that staff would not come to a
475 meeting. He stated the Commission should have access to an attorney. To put forth an
476 amendment, it would behoove the Commission to have it reviewed by a lawyer.
477
478 Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Bening, Carlson, Vacha, and Bor) vote.
479
480 Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl formed the subcommittee.
481
482 SET AGENDA — Chair Warren set the following agenda for the April 10, 2007 Charter
483 Commission Meeting:
484
485 1. Call to Order and Roll Call
486
487 2. Pledge of Allegiance
488
489 3. Approval of Agenda
490
491 4. Open Mike
Charter Commission
January 11, 2007
Page 12
DRAFT
492
493 5. Approval of Minutes
494 A. January 11, 2007
495
496 6. New Chair
497
498 7. Old Business
499 A. By-laws and Charter Compatibility -everyone
500 B. Budget
501
502 8. On -Going Reports
503 A. Five Year Plan
504
505 9. New Business
506
507 10. Set Agenda for July 2007 Meeting
508
509 Chair Warren recommended that the Commissioners have direct communication with the
510 City Administrator not the staff member in light of the recommendations for relationship
511 building.
512
513 Chair Trehus requested the 2005 and 2006 administrative expenditures in case there was
514 a legal opinion. In addition if there were any statements concerning the Charter, they
515 would also be helpful.
516
517 Commissioner Dahl stated that $200 was used for printing.
518
519 The agenda was approved.
520
521 ADJOURN
522
523 MOTION by Commissioner Bor seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to adjourn the
524 meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
525
526
527 Respectfully Submitted,
528
529 Brigette Blesi
530 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
531
LINO LAKES CHARTER COMVIISSION
BY-LAWS
Amended January S, 2004
ARTICLE I - THE COMMISSION
Section 1. Name of Commission. The name of the Commission is the
"Charter Commission of Lino Lakes, Minnesota".
Section 2. Purpose. The purpose of the Commission is to serve as custodians
of the Lino Lakes City Charter in accordance with state laws, these by-laws and rules of
the Charter Commission.
Section 3. Office of Commission. The offices of the Commission are at the
Lino Lakes City Hall for purposes of official commission business.
Section 4. Members. The commission is composed of 15 members.
Members terms are for four (4) years starting January 1 and members shall serve their
terms until their successors are appointed and have qualified, subject to state law.
ARTICLE II - OFFICERS
Section 1. Officers. The officers of the Commission are the Chair, Vice -
Chair and Secretary.
Section 2. Chair. The Chair shall call the regular meetings of the
Commission, prepare, the agenda, preside at all meetings, oversee the implementation of
the decisions of the Commission and act as the primary liaison with City staff. The Chair
retains all the rights and responsibilities held as a member of the Commission including
the right to vote. Each year at the October meeting, the Chair shall submit to the
Commission for its approval, an annual report summarizing the activities and
accomplishments of the Commission for the preceding calendar year. The annual report
to the Commission may contain the Chair's recommendation for Commission activities
for the ensuing year.
Section 3. Vice -Chair. The Vice -Chair shall perform(the duties of the Chair
during the Chair's temporary absence, and shall perform such duties during the vacancy
of that office until the Commission elects a new Chair.
Section 4. Secretary. The Secretary shall maintain the records, record the
minutes and votes at each meeting, and submit approved minutes and relevant materials
to the City Clerk for the purpose of maintaining a permanent record for public review.
On or before December 31st of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the Chief Judge
of the District Court, the City Clerk and the Commission members, the Chair's approved
PAGE 1
LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
annual report. The Commission may designate by majority voice vote an Assistant
Secretary from the Charter Commission membership whose duties shall be to assist the
Secretary, and to perform the duties of Secretary in the event of the absence or vacation
of office by the Secretary until such time as the Commission elects a new Secretary.
Section 5. Compensation; Expenses. The members of the Commission shall
receive no compensation, but the Commission may employ an attorney and other
peryonnel to assist in amending or revising the City Charter, and the reasonable
compensation and cost of the printing of such Charter, when directed by the Commission
shall be paid by the City. The amount of reasonable and necessary Commission expenses
shall be paid by the City, which expenses cannot exceed $1,500.00 in any one (1) year
unless the City Council authorized additional expenses pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 410.06, as amended.
Section 6. Additional Duties. The officers of the Commission shall perform
such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Commission
or its by-laws or rules.
Section 7. Elections. The Chair, Vice -Chair and Secretary shall be elected
from among the members of the Commission at the first meeting after January 1 in even -
numbered years and shall hold office for two (2) years or until their successors are
elected and qualified. The Chair shall conduct the election. Officers shall be declared
elected and qualified by a simple majority vote of those present and voting. Newly
elected officers shall take office at the close of the meeting in which the election is held.
No officer shall be eligible to hold more than two (2) consecutive terms in the same
office. In filling vacancies for unexpired terms, an officer who has served more than half
of a term is considered to have served a full term in that office.
Section 8. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of Chair, Vice -Chair or
Secretary, including a vacancy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.05, shall be
filled by a special election by the Commission at its next meeting with the elected
successor serving the unexpired term of office.
Section 9. Appointments. At least four (4) months prior to the expiration of
any seat on the Commission, the Chair shall notify the City Clerk the names of the
incumbents and their expiration of office date so that the Clerk may publicize the
availability of openings on the Commission together with a summary of the application
process. The Chair shall also notify the affected incumbents. Should a member not finish
his or her term on the commission, the Chair shall notify the City Clerk of that opening
immediately to allow for prompt filling of that position. Following notification of the
City Clerk, the Chair shall follow the appointment process for any openings on the
Commission and shall ensure that the proper and timely notification be given to the new
and/or returning members following their appointment to the Commission.
Section 10. Resignations. Persons resigning shall submit a written resignation
to the commission on or before the next scheduled meeting.
PAGE 2
Date: 04/03/2007
Account# / Title
Time: 16:04:42
City of Lino Lakes
FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report
Operator: ajr Page: 1
Calendar Period: 01/2004 To: 12/2004
Fiscal Period: 01/2004 To: 12/2004
Budget Thru: 12/2004
Original Net Budget Expended PTD Expended YTD % Unexpended Bal
101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI
101-405-4300-000 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL
Tr Date Type
Journal Receipt
0.00
0.00
Check#/Date Vendor
0.00
0.00
0.00
628.00
Description
0.00 0
628.00 0
Amount
02/09/04 INV -IN
05/10/04 INV -IN
08/09/04 INV -IN
12/31/04 PST-je
3709
3911
4082
4446
70326 02/09/04
70950 05/10/04
71677 08/09/04
1
101-405-4300-999 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL
101-405-4301-000 GENERAL CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt
TIMESAVER
TIMESAVER
TIMESAVER
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
0.00
500.00
Check#/Date Vendor
SECRETARIAL JAN 8
SECRETARIAL APR B
SECRETARIAL JULY 8
Record costs fo labor and
Detail Total:
0.00
500.00
0.00
1,532.31
Description
0.00 0
1,532.31 306
163.00
108.50
190.00
166.50
628.00
Amount
05/10/04 INV -IN
06/28/04 INV -IN
3911 70911 05/10/04 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN, INC.
4013 71305 06/28/04 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN, INC.
405-4322-000 GENERAL CHARTER POSTAGE
0.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
0.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
REVIEW CHARTER
Detail Total:
34.71
Description
0.00
628.00 -
0.00
1,032.31 -
902.31
630.00
1,532.31
34.71 0
Amount
12/31/04 PST-je 4432 5
101-405-4330-000 GENERAL CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO 0.00
101-405-4340-000 GENERAL CHARTER ADVERTISING 0.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
0.00
0.00
Postage to mail Pvmt Mgmt
Detail Total:
0.00
26.60
Description
0.00 0
26.60 0
34.71
34.71
Amount
04/12/04 INV -IN 3856 70718 04/12/04 PRESS PUBLICATIONS, INC.
101-405-4343-000 GENERAL CHARTER NEWSLETTER
450.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
450.00
ADVERTISING
Detail Total:
151.61
Description
151.61 34
26.60
26.60
Amount
12/13/04 INV -IN 4319 72592 12/13/04 C. P. OFFICE PRODUCTS
101-405-4344-000 GENERAL CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN
101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
-15-
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Detail Total:
0.00
0.00 0
151.61
151.61
34.71-
0.00
26.60-
298.39
0.00
0.00 0.00 0 0.00
Date: 04/03/2007
Account# / Title
Time: 16:04:24
City of Lino Lakes
FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report
Calendar Period: 01/2005 To: 12/2005
Fiscal Period: 01/2005 To: 12/2005
Budget Thru: 12/2005
Original Net Budget
Operator: ajr
Page: 1
Expended PTD Expended YTD % Unexpended Bal
101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI 0.00
101-405-4300-000 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 700.00
6-14*(2: 4Z. ho /K )
Tr Date Type Journal
Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
0.00
700.00
0.00
781.00
Description
0.00
0
781.00 112
Amount
02/14/05 INV -IN
06/13/05 INV -IN
08/22/05 INV -IN
11/14/05 INV -IN
4437
4684
4863
4983
73129
74015
74616
75359
02/14/05
06/13/05
08/22/05
11/14/05
TIMESAVER
TIMESAVER
TIMESAVER
TIMESAVER
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
101-405-4300-999 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 0.00
101-405-4301-000 GENERAL CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT 500.00
Tr Date Type
Journal Receipt
Check#/Date Vendor
SECRETARIAL
SECRETARIAL
SECRETARIAL
SECRETARIAL
0.00
500.00
JAN 13
APRIL 14
AUG 4
OCT 13/CHARTER
Detail Total:
0.00
864.00
Description
0.00
0
864.00 173
195.25
139.75
167.50
278.50
781.00
Amount
06/13/05 INV -IN
12/19/05 INV -IN
4684 73954 06/13/05 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN, INC.
5059 75577 12/19/05 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN, INC.
101-405-4322-000 GENERAL CHARTER POSTAGE
101-405-4330-000 GENERAL CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO
101-405-4340-000 GENERAL CHARTER ADVERTISING
0.00
0.00
200.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
0.00
0.00
200.00
CHARTER REVIEW/YMCA
LEEGACY/CHARTER REVIEW
Detail Total:
0.00
0.00
157.35
Description
0.00
0.00
157.35
0
0
79
90.00
774.00
864.00
Amount
03/28/05 INV -IN 4545 73401 03/28/05 PRESS PUBLICATIONS, INC.
10/24/05 INV -IN 4956 75182 10/24/05 PRESS PUBLICATIONS, INC.
101-405-4343-000 GENERAL CHARTER NEWSLETTER
101-405-4344-000 GENERAL CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN
101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA
GRAND TOTAL
450.00
0.00
0.00
1,850.00
450.00
0.00
0.00
1,850.00
-16-
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING/CHARTER
Detail Total:
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,802.35
0.00 0
0.00 0
0.00 0
1,802.35 97
102.15
55.20
157.35
0.00
81.00-
0.00
364.00-
0.00
42.65
450.00
0.00
0.00
47.65
Date: 04/04/2007 Time: 15:48:47
Account# / Title
City of Lino Lakes Operator: ajr Page: 1
FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report
Calendar Period: 01/2006 To: 12/2006
Fiscal Period: 01/2006 To: 12/2006
Budget Thru: 12/2006
Original Net Budget Expended PTD Expended YTD % Unexpended Bal
101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI 0.00
101-405-4300-000 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 0.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
Description
0.00 0 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
Amount
01/31/06 PST -JE 5218 1 LABOR/PRINTING-5 YR PLAN, 125.00
02/13/06 INV -IN 5155 75981 02/13/06 TIMESAVER OFF-SITE SECRETARIAL JAN 12/CHARTER COMMISSION 258.00
06/30/06 PST-je 5522 1 Correct JE 01-16(1) 125.00-
06/30/06 PST-je 5522 2 Correct ch#75981 Jan Meet 258.00-
07/31/06 PST-je 5624 1 Recode ch 76608 Minutes f 204.82
12/31/06 PST-je 6218 1 Correct JE 07-13(1) 204.82-
101-405-4300-999 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 1,175.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
1,175.00 1,018.32
Description
1,018.32 87 156.68
Amount
06/30/06 PST-je 5522 1 Correct JE 01-16(1) 125.00
06/30/06 PST-je 5522 2 Correct ch#75981 Jan Meet 258.00
/�08/2�8/06 INV -IN 5641 77572 08/28/06 TIMESAVER OFF-SITE SECRETARIAL JULY 13/CHARTER COMMISSIO 229.50
43/06 INV -IN 5811 78277 11/13/06 TIMESAVER OFF-SITE SECRETARIAL OCT 12 201.00
31/06 PST-je 6218 1 Correct JE 07-13(1) 204.82
Detail Total: 1,018.32
101-405-4301-000 GENERAL CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT 500.00
500.00 1,027.00
1,027.00 205 527.00 -
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor Description Amount
12/31/06 PST -JE 6229 1 reclass legal fees - char 1,027.00
Detail Total: 1,027.00
101-405-4322-000 GENERAL CHARTER POSTAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
101-405-4330-000 GENERAL CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
101-405-4340-000 GENERAL CHARTER ADVERTISING 200.00 200.00 35.75 35.75 18 164.25
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
Description
Amount
04/10/06 INV -IN 5313 76366 04/10/06 PRESS PUBLICATIONS, INC. NOTICE OF CHARTER SCHEDUL
12/18/06 INV -IN 5897 78982 12/18/06 PRESS PUBLICATIONS, INC. CHARTER MEETINGS
Detail Total:
21.45
14.30
35.75
101-405-4343-000 GENERAL CHARTER NEWSLETTER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
101-405-4344-000 GENERAL CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
GRAND TOTAL 1,875.00 1,875.00 2,081.07 2,081.07 111 206.07-
-17-
Date: 04/03/2007 Time: 16:03:47 City of Lino Lakes
FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report
Account# / Title
Calendar Period: 01/2007 To: 03/2007
Fiscal Period: 01/2007 To: 03/2007
Budget Thru: 12/2007
Original Net Budget Expended PTD Expended YTD % Unexpended Bal
Operator: ajr Page: 1
101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI 0.00
101-405-4300-000 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
0.00 0 0.00
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor Description Amount
02/12/07 INV -IN 6018 79406 02/12/07 TIMESAVER OFF-SITE SECRETARIAL JAN 11/CHARTER
03/31/07 PST-je 6219 1 Correct code on ch #79406
101-405-4300-999 GENERAL CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 1,500.00
Chfifierell ',d r ris7j
Tr Date Type Journal Receipt Check#/Date Vendor
1,500.00 295.10
Description
295.10
295.10-
295.10 20 1,204.90
Amount
03/31/07 PST-je 6219 1 Correct code on ch #79406 295.10
Detail Total: 295.10
101-405-4301-000 GENERAL CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT
101-405-4322-000 GENERAL CHARTER POSTAGE
101-405-4330-000 GENERAL CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO
101-405-4340-000 GENERAL CHARPr:R ADVERTISING
101-405-4343-000 GENERAL CHARTER NEWSLETTER
101-405-4344-000 GENERAL CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN
101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA
GRAND TOTAL
500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 0 500.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
200.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 0 200.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.��
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00
2,200.00 2,200.00 295.10 295.10 13 1,904.90
Memorandum
Date: April 2, 2007
To: Charter Commission
From: Gordon Heitke
Re: Quarterly Update
Five Year Financial Plan
Activity related to updating the Five Year Financial Plan will occur in conjunction with
the 2008 budget preparation process, with adoption occurring in December, 2007.
Public Improvement Petitions
The City has not received any new petitions for public improvements.
Street Reconstruction
The City Council will in the near future be discussing whether to place any street
reconstruction projects on the ballot in November 2007.
/IQ t - k dt-a-t-4-z--
-Nvul a-12_0 07
CITIZEN'S TASK FORCE INFORMATION
(Presented to Lino Lakes Charter Commission — April 12, 2007)
1) Letter explaining the formation of the task force;
2) Task force membership and meeting dates;
4) Meeting summaries (March 27, 28 and 29 and April 10);
5) League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Memo;
6) Chart comparing Chapter 8 of the City Charter w/State Statute 429;
7) Pavement Management Plan Financing Report;
8) Understanding Charter Cities document;
9) Quality of Life Survey — Page 12 — Upkeep & Maintenance;
10) 2030 Visioning — Roads & Transportation section
Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions
Pertaining to Local Improvements
A citizen's task force is currently conducting an independent review of the Lino Lakes City
Charter to determine whether existing charter provisions are allowing for the responsible
stewardship of the city's roads. The city has prepared a pavement management program that
establishes policies and a plan to maintain the overall pavement condition of the city's street
system in the most timely and cost-effective manner. The Pavement Management Report,
available on the city website, identifies 11 miles of the city's 85 miles of pavement, as needing
reconstruction. However, the City Council does not have the ability to approve the reconstruction
of these roads because of a provision in the charter.
In addition to state laws that govern the construction and financing of public improvements, the
charter includes some local requirements, which based on preliminary research, may be unique to
the 854 cities in Minnesota. These additional requirements limit the city council's ability to
reconstruct streets at the end of their useful life when normal maintenance practices are no longer
effective.
The formation of the citizen's task force was prompted by public opinion expressed through the
recent community -wide survey and visioning process. The 2030 Vision Plan recommended that a
citizen -led task force be organized to identify options for a change to the charter. The City
Council appointed the visioning committee, made up of randomly selected residents, to study the
City Charter. Nine members agreed to join the Citizens Task Force reviewing charter provisions
pertaining to local improvements, including roads.
It is expected that the task force's findings and recommendations will be presented to the City
Council in June. The task force's membership, meeting schedule, meeting summaries and
information presented at past meetings can be viewed at this site.
Citizen's Task Force
2007
Members:
• Peter Brown
• Judi Brunner
• Kathi Gallup
• Stephanie Johnson
• Grant Ross
• Cheryl Sanchez
• Jon Latham
• Laura Carlson
• Jamie Stern
Citizen Task Force 2007 Meeting Dates
Meetings are held from 6:30-9:00 p.m. at Lino Lakes City Hall
Wednesday April 25
Council Workroom Citizen Task Force
Tuesday
May 1
Community Room
Task Force and Charter Commission
Tuesday
May 8
Council Workroom
Citizen Task Force
Tuesday
May 15
Community Room
Task Force — Public Forum
Tuesday
May 22
Council Workroom
Citizen Task Force
Thursday
May 24
Council Workroom
Citizen Task Force
MARCH 27 AND 28 MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting Objectives and Agenda
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Citizens' Charter Review
Task Force
March 27, and 28
1. March 27 and 28
a. Objectives:
(1) Review charge from City Council (Feb. 12 — Resolution No. 07-
30)
(2) Define an initial approach — process to complete assigned task:
review the City Charter (Focus — Section 8 of Charter)
(3) Overview of Public Improvements and Pavement Management
Plans (Presentation by City Engineer)
b. Agenda: 6:30 — 9:00 p.m.
6:30 — 7:45
7:45 — 9:00
Charge to task force and developing an initial
approach
Presentation by City Engineer
MARCH 29 MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting Objectives and Agenda
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Citizens' Charter Review
Task Force
March 29, 2007
a. Objectives:
(1) Develop an understanding of Charter Cities.
(a) Overview of Statutory and Charter Cities
(b) Statutory Role and authority of Charter Commissions
(c) Interrelationship of state statutes and Charter provisions
(d) Role of Charter Commissions in taking/promoting Charter
related ballot questions.
(2) Comparative review of Minnesota Statute 429 and the provisions
of Section 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter pertaining to public
infrastructure improvements.
(3)
Financial analysis and implications of infrastructure improvement
and pavement management policies as formed by the Lino Lakes
City Charter.
b. Agenda
6:00 p.m. Understanding Charter Cities
Ed Cadman, Research Attorney
League of Minnesota Cities
7:00 p.m. Comparative Review of Minnesota Statute 429 and
provisions of Section 8 of the City Charter.
Stephen J. Bubul, Attorney
Attorney; Bond Counsel
Kennedy & Gaven
8:30 p.m. Financial Analysis of Pavement Management Policies as
formed in Lino Lakes City Charter.
Terri Heaton
Public Financial Advisor
Springsted and Associates
9:00 a.m. Adjourn
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Citizens City Charter Task Force Meeting
April 10, 2007, 6:30- 9:00 p.m.
Lino Lakes City Hall
City Council Work Room
1. Welcome and introductions
2 Agenda topics:
a. Review and clarification of Task Force's charge from City Council
b. Assessment of and desired follow up to the March 27, 28 and 29 information meetings
c. Defining the activities, processes and schedules the Task Forces wishes to establish to
complete its charge
d. Conduct of future Task Force meetings:
(1) Ground rules/procedures for conducting the Task Force's business.
(2) Structure of the public input process
(3) Public notification of Task Force meetings
(4) Minutes
(5) Other items presented by Task Force members
(6) FOCUS: The studied review of the City's ability under current Lino Lakes City
Charter provisions to maintain and eventually reconstruct in the most responsible,
timely and cost-effective manner its vital public improvement and infrastructure
assets. Make its findings and recommendations to the City Council.
e. Proposed schedule of Task Force activities and meetings
f. Communications and outreach processes to keep the community involved in and informed
about Task Force activities.
g. Other items raised by Task Force members
3. Agenda for next meeting
Meeting Summary
Citizens Task Force to Review Charter Provisions
Pertaining To Local Improvements
April 10, 2007
The Task Force assessed the information presented at the March 27-29
meetings. The group clarified whether they are addressing only roads or public
improvements in general in the review of Chapter 8 of the City Charter and
Minnesota Laws Chapter 429. It was discussed what happens when
neighborhoods needing roads reconstructed also need city water and sewer
service and how a change in the charter would impact those situations.
The Task Force discussed future meetings and who the group needs to hear
from. The need to hear from the Charter Commission, affected homeowners,
and the general public was identified. A schedule for future meetings was set.
It was determined that May 1 would be the meeting at which the Charter
Commission would be invited. Chairperson Gallup was instructed to send a
letter of invitation to the Charter Commission.
May 15 was established as the date to conduct a public forum to hear from the
general public. Homeowners affected by recent proposed road reconstruction
projects will be encouraged to attend in order for the Task Force to hear their
concerns and opinions.
Task Force member Laura Carlson will take minutes at all future meetings.
The next meeting will be held April 25.
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
TO: Gordon Heitke, Administrator, City of Lino Lakes
FROM: Chris Smith, Risk Management Attorney, LMCIT
CC: Tracie Chamberlin, Loss Control Manager, LMCIT
DATE: March 28, 2007
RE: Street Reconstruction
This e-mail is to follow-up on our phone conversation last week. As I understand the issue, under
the city's home rule charter, the city must hold a referendum to do street reconstruction, if any city
funds are to be used. In other words, unless the city specially assesses 100% of the cost against
the property owners, the city must hold an election. As a practical matter, this charter provision
has greatly limited the city's ability to do street reconstruction, as the ballot issue rarely receives
public approval. In light of this fact, you were seeking information on what steps the city can take
to help ensure that it does not get sued because city streets are in poor condition.
The first step is to have a street maintenance policy or pavement management program which
you said the city has. The city has already rated the condition of all city streets and has
developed criteria for street repairs and reconstruction. The most important thing the city can do
is to follow that policy. If the policy sets up unrealistic standards that the city cannot meet, then
the city should amend its policy. Having a policy and following that policy will entitle the city to
discretionary immunity for most claims related to the condition of the city's streets. I have
attached the following LMCIT memos which discuss these issues further: What to Include in a
Street Maintenance Policy and Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Policies?
If you have streets that are in need of reconstruction, then pursuant to your city's charter and your
policy, the city should hold a referendum on the issue. How often must you hold an election? I
suggest that this question should be answered by your street maintenance policy (if it is not
answered by your city's charter). My suggestion would be to hold an election once a year.
Although the city could hold more frequent elections, there is also a significant cost factor to
holding elections. The cost is an appropriate item for the council to consider when deciding how
frequently to hold street referenda.
As a side note, I think it would be appropriate for the city's Charter Commission to at least
consider removing or amending the referendum requirement for street reconstruction. As a
practical matter, it really seems to limit the city's ability to reconstruct its streets, and in the long
run may actually increase the costs to the city to maintains its streets. Simply trying to maintain
the street for years may end up costing more than reconstructing the streets at an appropriate
time.
Although one might argue that the city can always assess 100% of the costs to the property
owner, that presents another problem. The amount of any special assessment cannot exceed
the benefit to the property. In other words, if you assess a property owner $10,000 for a new
street, you need to show that the value of the property increased by at least $10,000. It is often
hard, if not impossible, to show this increase in market value, and may be subject to expensive
litigation. Thus, the city could be stuck in a situation where it cannot legally assess the entire cost
and cannot get public approval, effectively making street reconstruction impossible.
Because street referenda usually fail in your city, it seems likely that some streets are likely to be
in poor condition. That raises an issue of what the city should do to warn of dangerous streets.
Again, that question should be answered by your policy. It is probably not possible to warn of
every condition. And if you tried to do so, a motorist might sue the city for failing to place a
warning device. First, I suggest that a warning should be placed anywhere there is a hidden
condition from the motorist. And second, the city based on available resources (i.e., money and
employees), should establish in their policy what streets or conditions will receive warnings,
perhaps only the streets rated as poor in you pavement management plan. In addition, the city
may wish to pay special attention to areas involving complaints or accidents. The city's policy
should have procedures for responding to notice of complaints and accidents. If the city
ultimately decides that no action is necessary, the city should at least document the situation to
show that it followed its policy.
I hope that the above information adequately answers your questions. If you need additional
information, please let me know.
Christopher Smith
Risk Management Attorney
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust
(651) 281-1269
csmith(a�lmnc.orq
COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES FOR SPECIALLY ASSESSED IMPROVEMENTS
UNDER THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, CHAPTER 8 AND MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
Applicability
All "local improvements" shall be carried out
under provisions of the Charter. The term "local
improvements" means "a public improvement
financed partly or wholly from special
assessments."
When any portion of the cost of any "improvement" is
defrayed with special assessments, the procedures under
Chapter 429 must be followed unless the council
determines to proceed under charter provisions. The
term "improvement" means the list of improvements
described in Section 429.021. The most common
examples are construction and reconstruction of streets,
sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water improvements.
Initiation
A. By Petition:
A local improvement may be initiated by a petition
signed by at least 25% "in number of the benefited
owners," followed by a city council resolution
approved by majority vote stating the nature and
scope of the improvement, the number of benefited
property owners, and providing a means to obtain a
cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the
improvement both in unit price and in total.
B. By Resolution:
A local improvement may be initiated by
resolution adopted by 4/5 of city council,
containing the same statement described above.
A. By Petition:
An improvement may be initiated by a petition signed by
100% owners of property abutting the streets named,
requesting council to construct improvement and assess
the entire cost against their property. Note: A petition
may be signed by less than 100% of the owners, or may
seek assessment for less than 100% of cost, but in those
cases the process is the same as improvements initiated
by council resolution, below.
B. By Resolution:
An improvement may be initiated by council resolution
approved by majority vote, requesting an engineer's
report advising in preliminary way whether the
improvement is necessary, cost-effective and feasible.
The report must also include the estimated cost of the
improvement as recommended.
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
Notice of Public
Hearings
After both petition and resolution:
Upon receipt of cost estimate, the council must
pass a resolution (by majority vote) setting the date
for a public hearing, specifying the time, place and
purpose of the hearing. The resolution must be
published twice, a week apart, and at least two
weeks before hearing. A copy of the resolution,
including estimated unit prices and total price,
must also be mailed to each benefited owner at
his/her last known address, at least two weeks
before the hearing.
A. After 100% Petition:
No public hearing required. Council must pass
resolution by majority vote determining whether the
petition is signed by the required percentage of property
owners. If that resolution is published, any appeal must
be served on city clerk within 30 days after date of
publication.
B. After resolution:
After receipt of feasibility report, the improvement
public hearing is scheduled (usually done by resolution
but may be set by staff). Notice of improvement hearing
must be published twice, a week apart, with the second
publication at least three days before the hearing. The
notice must state the time and place of hearing, the
general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost,
and area proposed area to be assessed. The notice must
also be mailed to the owner of each parcel proposed to be
assessed, including a statement that "a reasonable
estimate of the impact of the assessment will be available
at the hearing." For purposes of mailed notice, owners
are those shown on county property tax records.
Public Hearing
After both petition and resolution:
At public hearing, council must present a "special
assessment formula and an analysis of the
assessment income expected to offset the proposed
improvement cost."
After resolution only:
At the public hearing, 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.
2
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
Ordering the
A. After petition:
A. After 100% petition:
improvement
No council action may be taken for 60 days after
The improvement may be ordered by Council resolution
the hearing (except as described below for 100%
(majority vote) any time after finding the petition
petitions). Within that 60-day period, a petition
against the improvement may be filed by owners
proposed to be assessed at least equal to the
number of those who petitioned for the
improvement. If such a petition is filed, the
council shall not make the improvement unless,
within the same 60-day period, a counter-petition
is filed asking that the improvement be made,
signed by owners proposed to be assessed at least
equal in number to those who signed the petition
against the improvement. Any person whose name
appears on a petition to the Council for a local
improvement may withdraw his or her name before
the petition is presented to the council.
adequate (usually done at the same meeting).
If the improvement is not rejected by petition as
described above (and not subject to election as
described below), the council may by resolution
"proceed on the improvement" at any time
between 60 days and one year after the conclusion
of the public hearing. The Charter is silent on the
voting requirement for the resolution to "proceed;"
presumably majority vote.
Exception for 100% petition: If the improvement
was initiated by a petition signed by 100% of the
benefited property owners, those owners may file
another petition (after receipt of the public hearing
notice described above), waiving 50 of the 60 days
3
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
of waiting period between the hearing and council
action. In other words, if 100% of the owners file
both an initiating petition and a subsequent waiver
petition, the council may order the improvement
10 days after the public hearing.
B. After resolution:
B. After resolution:
No council action may be taken for 60 days after
The improvement may be ordered by Council resolution
the hearing. Within that 60-day period, a petition
at any time within 6 months after date of public hearing.
against the improvement may be filed by a
May be approved by majority vote if the improvement
majority of the owners proposed to be assessed. If
was initiated by petition signed by owners of at least
such a petition is filed, the council shall not make
35% in frontage of real property abutting streets named
the improvement unless, within the same 60-day
in the petition; must be approved by 4/5 vote in all other
period, a counter-petition is filed asking that the
improvement be made, signed by property owners
proposed to be assessed at least equal in number to
those who signed the petition against the
improvement. Any person whose name appears on
a petition to the Council for a local improvement
may withdraw his or her name before the petition
is presented to the council.
cases.
If the improvement is not rejected by petition as
described above (and not subject to election as
described below), and if the "public record of the
proposed improvement contains all of the evidence
on which the council shall base their decision," the
council may by resolution "proceed on the
improvement" at any time between 60 days and
one year after the conclusion of the public hearing
(presumably by majority vote).
4
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
Referendum
After petition or resolution:
If less than 100% of the cost of the improvement is
to be paid for by special assessments, connection
charges, "or any outside funding sources other than
the City general fund," the Council shall submit
the proposed improvement "and its assessment
formula" to the voters within 120 days after
conclusion of the public hearing. If a majority of
those voting on the question are opposed, the
Council shall not proceed with the improvement.
There is no referendum requirement to order an
improvement under Chapter 429.
Re -ordering after
disallowance.
After petition or resolution:
When an improvement is "disallowed" under the
Charter, the Council shall not vote on the same
improvement within one year after the public
hearing on that improvement.
There is no "disallowance" concept in Chapter 429.
Entering contracts
After petition or resolution:
Contracts shall be entered within one year after
adoption of the resolution ordering the
improvement, unless a different time limit is
specifically stated in the resolution. The Charter does
not contain this provision, but Chapter 429 imposes this
requirement even where the charter is silent.
If bids exceed the cost estimated by engineer at the
time of the public hearing by more than 10%, the
council may not award the contract. Council may
re -bid the improvement one time only.
After petition or resolution:
Contracts shall be entered within one year after adoption
of the resolution ordering the improvement, unless a
different time limit is specifically stated in the resolution.
A. After petition:
There is no express provision limiting the contract
amount, except that valid waivers of special assessment
appeal rights must state a maximum amount. As a
5
ACTION
CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER
MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 429
practical matter, contracts cannot exceed the amount
agreed upon by petitioners, but the petitioners may
amend their agreed-upon amount at will.
B. After resolution:
The resolution ordering the improvement "may reduce,
but may not increase the extent of the improvement as
stated in the notice of hearing." This language does not
expressly deal with cost increases after the improvement
is ordered. Before the hearing, the council may take any
steps to provide helpful information in determining the
desirability and feasibility of the improvement, including
among other things, the preparation of plans and
specifications and the advertisement of bids.
After work has commenced on an improvement pursuant
to a contract awarded on a unit price basis, the council
may, without re-bidding, authorize changes in the
contract to add additional units at the same unit price if
the additional cost does not exceed 25% of the original
contract price.
Issuance of bonds
Under Section 7.10 of the Charter, the City may
City may issue bonds to finance improvements at any
sell obligations in accordance with state law.
time after the improvement is ordered (whether after
Voter approval is required "except in the case of
petition or resolution). No election is required if at least
obligations for which an election is not required by
20% of the cost of the improvement to the city is to be
this Charter or by state law." Therefore,
Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475 govern
issuance of bonds for local improvements.
assessed against benefited property. Under Chapter 475,
City may also issue bonds for street reconstruction,
without assessments or with less than 20% assessed,
subject to reverse referendum.
6
Public Sector 4.dvisors.
Springsted
Pavement Management Report
Financing Plan
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Financing Plan Highlights
Citizens' Charter Review
Task Force
Public Sectdi Advisors
Presenter:
Tem Heaton, Senior Vice President
March 29,2007
Springsted
1
Background
• TKDA hired during 2004 to complete an overall pavement
management analysis including:
— An evaluation of the condition of the current streets and
— The costs to maintain / reconstruct them in order to maximize the
useful life of these investments
• The outcome was a Pavement Management Report
("PMR")
Setur
Springsted
Purpose of PMR Financing Plan
• Determine a financing plan that is sustainable over the long-
term
• Allocate the costs of the PMR in a fair and equitable manner
— Spread evenly all taxpayers
— Specific costs to certain property owners
— Spread based on utility usage
• Identify non -tax revenues to finance the PMR
• Maximize use of appropriate external financing sources
• Minimize the utilization of City property taxes
Public ::¢cr Auv._o�s
Springsted
2
Two Primary Cost Components
• Maintenance
- Costs related to the seaicoating and overlay of streets whose
pavement life can be extended through on-going maintenance
• Reconstruction
- Costs related to those streets that have outlived their useful life so
that pavement is in need of removal and replacement;
Public Sector Advil
Springsted
Total Estimated Cost of the Plan
Year
Maintenance
Reconstruct
Total
2005
$ 230,000
$ 0
$ 230,000
2006
347,500
0
347,500
2007
365,000
1,435,000
1,800,000
2008
385,000
2,750,000
3,135,000
2009
402,500
3,035,000
3,437,500
2010
422,500
3,485,000
3,907,500
2011
445,000
1,577,500
2,022,500
2012
467,500
1,655,000
2,122,500
2013
490,000
1,737,500
2,227,500
2014
515,000
1,825,000
2,340,000
Total Estimated Cost
$4,070,000
$17,500,000
$21,570,000
Public Sitct')r Adviso,s
Springsted
3
Financial Tools Considered
• Tax Levy on a pay-as-you-go basis
• General Obligation bonds repaid from property taxes
• General Obligation bonds repaid from special assessments
• General Obligation Street Reconstruction bonds repaid from
tax levies
• Storm Water Utility to finance the portion related to storm
water
rutdic Sector Ativ;ro._
Springsted
Additional Financial Tools Considered
• Tax Increment / Tax Abatement
• Special Service District
• Economic Development Authority
• Capital Projects funds
• Storm Water Improvement District
• State and Federal Transportation Grants
• Anoka County
• Municipal State Aids (MSA)
Public Secto» Advisors
Springsted
4
Recommended Financing Sources
• Maintenance Portion of PMR
— Annual property tax levy for the maintenance portion of the PMR
• Ongoing costs with ongoing revenues
• Not capital in nature -not appropriate to bond
• $230,000 estimated for 2005 with an average annual cost of $407,000
Public Sector Advice's
Springsted
Recommended Financing Sources
• Reconstruction Portion of PMR
— General Obligation Improvement Bonds
• Repaid by special assessments for reconstruction projects where the
existing street width is inadequate
• No less than 20% of the costs must be assessed to benefiting properties
(not to exceed the special benefit to their properties)
• Remaining amount would be repaid from a property tax levy
Public Sectr:- Advlsors
Springsted
5
Recommended Financing Sources
• Reconstruction Portion of PMR
— General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds for reconstruction
projects where the existing street width is contemplated as a safety
improvement and where the assessment is less than 20% of project
costs
• Benefiting properties would be assessed an amount equal to the special
benefit they receive
• Remaining amount could be repaid from a property tax levy
• Referendum is still required if assessments exceed $0 and a portion is paid
by levy
• If no assessments, unanimous vote by City Council required and subject to
reverse referendum
Public. sector A;IviF.ors
Springsted
Recommended Financing Sources
• Reconstruction Portion of PMR
— Storm water utility to pay for those costs of the PMR related to
storm water (not implemented as of 3-29-07)
— Tax Increment Financing, Tax Abatement, EDA Levy and HRA
Levy (HRA levy is subject to many limitations)
• Use is consistent with the City's statutory authority
• Rational nexus between the use of these funding tools and a development or
redevelopment project
Public Sectur Arvisors
Springsted
6
Recommended Financing Sources
• Reconstruction Portion of PMR
— M.S.A. should be used to cover additional costs to reconstruct
those streets designated as part of the City's M.S.A. system
— Pursue cost sharing opportunities with Anoka County
— Pursue State and Federal Grants
Public Seto: Ad
Springsted
Recommendations Assumed the Following
• Annual property tax levies for maintenance costs of the
PMR (sealcoating and overlays)
• The City specially assess benefiting properties 20% of
the costs of reconstruction projects
• The City establishes a storm water utility to pay for the
storm water related costs of reconstruction projects (not
established as of 3-29-07)
Public Sector Ada :ors
Springsted
7
Total Funding Sources 2005-2014
Maintenance and Reconstruction
Property taxes for maintenance
Storm Water Utility
G.O. Improvement Bonds:
Principal repaid from Special Assessments
Principal repaid from property tax levy
$4,077,038
$4,200,000
$3,500,000
$9,800,000
Puttic Sector Ad
Springsted
Projected G.O. Improvement Bonds
Year
Total Bond
Issue Amount
Gross
Average Annual
Debt Service
Less Special
Assessments
(20%)
Net Levy
2005
--
-
-
2006
--
-
-
2007
1,090,000*
103,000
24,300
78,700
2008
2,090,000
299,750
70,830
228,920
2009
2,305,000
516,750
122,145
394,605
2010
2,650,000
766,750
181,145
585,605
2011
1,200,000
880,750
207,860
672,890
2012
1,260,000
999,500
235,910
763,590
2013
1,320,000
1,123,900
265,295
858,605
2014
1,385,000
1,254,420
296,130
958,290
*Bonding not anticipated in 2007, although recommended in 2005
Pubiit Sects! Atl¢Sc,.->
Springsted
8
Projected Tax Rate Impacts
Year
Total
Levy
Projected
Tax Capacity
(5% Gnm99
Tax Rate
brad
Pinjected
Tax Capacity
(7.5% Growth)
Tax Rate
hnpact
Prqjected
Tax Capacity
(10% Growth)
Tax Rate
Int
2005
236,538
15,468,021
1.529%
15,468,021
1.529%
15,468,021
1.529%
2006
347,500
16,241,422
2.140%
16,628,123
2.090%
17,014,03
2.042%
2007
444,29)
17,053,493
2.605%
17,875,732
2.485%
18,716,305
2.373%
2008
613,920
17,906,168
3.429%
19,215,874
3.195%
20,587,936
2.982%
2039
797,105
18,931,476
4.240%
20,657,065
3.859%
22,646,730
3.520%
2010
1,008,105
19,741,550
5.107%
22335,345
4.540%
24,911,403
4.047%
2311
1,117,890
20,728,628
5393%
23,871,820
4.623%
27,402,543
4.080%
2012
1231,0*)
21,765,(
5.656%
25,662,207
4.797%
30,142,797
4.08491
2013
1,348,605
22,853,312
5.901%
27,586,872
4.889%
33,357,077
4.067%
2014
1,473,290
23,995,977
6.140%
29,655 :.:.:
4.968%
36,472784
4.039%
Public S,ctor
Springsted
7.000%
6.000%
5.000%
4.000%
3.000%
2.000%
1.080%
0.000%
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
PMP Financing Plan - Projected Tax Rate Impacts
-
_--.--!--
1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2010 2011
2012 2013
2014
-4-Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth)
-dr-Projected Tax Rale Impact (10% Growth)
-M- Projected Ta
Rate Impact (7.5% Growth)
Public Sector- Adviw,s
Springsted
9
Projected Property Tax Impacts -
$228,400 Residential Homestead
Year
Projected
Tax Rate Impact
(5% Growth)
Annual
Impact
Pmjeded
Tax Rate Impact
(7.5% Growth)
Arnaud
Impact
Pritected
Tax Rate Impact
(10% Growth)
Annual
Impact
2005
1.529%
$ 34.93
1529%
$ 34.93
1329%
$ 34.93
2006
2.140%
$ 48.87
2.090%
$ 47.73
2.042%
$ 46.65
2007
2.605%
$ 59A9
1485%
$ 56.76
2.373%
$ 5421
2008
3.429%
$ 7831
3.195%
$ 72.97
2982%
$ 6&11
2009
4240%
$ 96.83
3.859%
$ 88.13
3.520%
$ 80.39
2010
5.107%
$ 116.63
4.540%
$ 103.69
4.047%
$ 92.43
2011
5.393%
$ 123.18
4.683%
$ 106.96
4.080%
$ 93.18
2012
5.656%
$ 129.19
4.797%
$ 109.57
4.(E4%
$ 93.28
2013
5.901%
$ 134.78
4.889%
$ 111.66
4.067%
$ 92.90
2014
6.140%
$ 14023
4.968%
$ 113.47
4.039%
$ 92.26
Public. Sector Advisors
Springsted
$160.00
$100.00
5120.00
5100.00
530.00
$60.00
140.00
520.00
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota PMP Financing Plan
Property Tax Impacts On A Home Valued At $228,400
2005 2006 2007 2001 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010
-0-Annual Impact 5% Growth -0- Annual Impact 7.5% Growth -M-Annual Impact 10% Growth
PU)iiCCL Advsors
Springsted
10
Storm Water Utility
• Impact of utility fee not projected because it has yet to be
established and put into place
oviic. Seco= A. s'o
Springsted
Impact of City Charter Requirements on
PMR Financial Recommendations
• Charter requires each PMR reconstruction project funded
by our recommended sources would need to be
approved by a vote of the citizens unless a tax levy is not
required
• Creates an additional requirement the City of Lino Lakes
must follow if the PMR is to be implemented — limits
ability to ensure implementation of PMR
• Unique charter requirement that we have not found in
previous similar studies
Sean: Adv:_,....
; Springsted
11
Impact of City Charter Requirements on
PMR Financial Recommendations
• Where exceptions are made, allowing certain properties
to be specially assessed (within specific geographical
areas) without referendum, bonds become taxable
because they provide a private benefit to those property
owners not available to the rest of the City
• Taxable bonds result in interest rates of 160 basis points
higher than tax-exempt bonds
— For example, 4.00% becomes 5.6% if the bonds are taxable
— On $3 million bond issue, this costs an extra $465,645, assuming
15 year payback
Pubii: Se;
Springsted
Impact of City Charter Requirements on
PMR Financial Recommendations
• Funding sources recommended provide a method of
financing widely used by most other cities in Minnesota
• Implementing the PMR is in the City's best interest
— Increasing pavement maintenance and reconstruction spending to
amounts we have recommended projected to result in net savings
of $11 million over the next ten years
Public _ect9, Ad
Springsted
12
Financial Exposure related to
Referendum Process
• Cost of annual referendums
• Deferring Costs until referendums pass increases costs
— 6.5% annual inflation
— Wear & tear ongoing
• Costs of signage to protect citizens and limit exposure
• Lawsuit exposure
— Policy and steps to protect City
— Costs of defense
— Insurance premiums
Public Sector Advisors
Springsted
Credit Rating Considerations
Moody's S & P Fitch
Highest
Lowest
(Investment Grade)
Aaa
AAA AAA
Aal
Aa2
Aaa
AA+ AAi
AA AA
AA- AA -
Al A+ A
A2 A A
A3 A- A -
Baal BBB+ BBB+
Baa2 BBB BBB
Baa3 BBB- BBB-
r'u Sc ° ector dvisors
Springsted
13
Factors Affecting Credit
➢ Debt Management
➢ Management and Leadership
> Financial Performance
➢ Tax Base
> Economic Development/Growth
• Socio-economic factors
➢ Innovations
• Long -Term Vision and Planning
Public ceit.o; A:R=ic,,,_
Springsted
What Moody's Says About Lino Lakes
• The Aa3 assignment reflects the city's rapid tax base
growth and favorable location near the Twin Cities,
sound financial operations and healthy and growing
reserves, and average debt burden that is expected to
remain manageable
• Rapid tax base growth
• Valuation growth will be driven by the city's existing
plans for development including the Legacy at the
Woods
Pubic Sects Advisors
Springsted
14
What Moody's Says About Lino Lakes
• City's tax base is primarily residential (81%) and
relatively diverse, with the top ten taxpayers comprising
just 7% of market value
• Per capita income and median family income levels are at
110% and 139% of the state average, respectively
• Moody's expects the city's financial health to remain
sound, supported by healthy and growing reserves.
• Moody's believes the city's debt levels to be affordable,
due to continued full valuation of growth and satisfactory
amortization.
Public Sed r Acivisp_.
Springsted
city of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base
15.000%
10.000%
0.000%
2005 2006 2007 2000 3009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
t Amoral property Tax levy Only
Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bads For Reconstruction (no special amessmenk)
-lr- Ammml Tax Levy For Ma'hnenance, G.O. Improvement Back For Reconstruction (inn special assessments)
t Annual Tax levy Far Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bads For Reconstruction and Stam Water Utility
Springsted
15
25.000%
20.000%
15.000%
10.000%
5.000%
0.000%
thy of lino Lakes, Minnesota
Comparison of Financing Alternative At 7.5% Growth In Tax Base
2005 2006 21107 2001 20119 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
- Annual Property Tax Levy Only
kmual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction (no special assessments)
- dr- Mmual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction fmc. special assessments)
-0- Annual fax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Stowe Water Why
Sed.or Ad,fiF•tys
Springsted
25.000%
20.000%
15.000%
10.000%
SOW%
0.000%
CIty of 11no Lakes, 116nm:seta
Comparison of Fmancing Alternative At 10% Growth In Tax Base
2 3 4 5 67 11 9 11
- II-Annual Property Tax Levy Only
Annual Tax Levy For Maintenance, G.O. Bonds Far Ileconsiruction (no special asessments)
-dr- Annual Tax Levy For Mainteamice, G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruclion (inc. special assesonents)
4 -Annual Tax levy For Maintenance, G.O. Immosement Bonds For Reconstmetion and Storm Water Uffsty
Sectvf Advisors
Springsted
16
Conclusions
• The PMR, if implemented, would save $11,000,000 over the next 10
years, according to TKDA
—Example:
• West Shadow Drive $2,375,700 in 2005; 52,750,000 in 2008
• Separate maintenance costs from reconstruction costs and
identify appropriate sources of funding for each (completed)
• The financing plan recommended provides widely used municipal
financing practices for implementing a PMR
—Sustainable over the long term*
*Note: PMR Financing Plan will be sustainable only if referendums are successful
S, tqr Ado;zo
Springsted
17
Edward Cadman
Research Attorney
League of Minnesota Cities
March 29, 2007
• How many cities are there in
Minnesota?
Overview
• What is a Charter City?
• What are the differences between statutory and
Charter cities?
• How does a Charter relate to state law?
• What are Advantages/disadvantages of a
Charter?
• How did we get Charter?
■ What is the Charter Commission?
• How does a Charter get amended?
City Government in Minnesota
■ Not created by, but
subject to the Federal
Constitution
• Created by the
Minnesota
Constitution
• Created by State
Statute
Two Types of Cities
• Statutory Cities
• Home Rule Charter
Cities
• Only 107 (12.5%)
of all MN cities are
Charter Cities!
1
Authority for City Type
• Statutory Cities are
authorized and
empowered by
oMN Statutes,
Chapter 412.
• Charter Cities are
authorized by
o MN Constitution,
Article XII, section
4 and
❑ MN Statutes,
Chapter 410
General Powers of A Statutory City
to Provide Services
i1
t
7
•
■ Police
• Fire
• Sanitation
• Street
• Utilities
• Zoning
• Parks
• Recreation
■ And Many More!
Home Rule Charter Cities
• Ideally, Charter provides
only fundamentals of
organization of city
(simplicity and brevity) +
a "broad grant of
authority" to council
• Then council is free to
exercise broad authority
by ordinance
Powers of a City
• Statutory cities can
only adopt
ordinances when
authorized by state
law to do so.
• Home rule charter
cities can adopt
ordinances on all
appropriate
subjects unless
prohibited by law.
Examples of Statutory Cities
• Centerville (Pop. 3644, Anoka County)
• Hugo (Pop. 8760, Washington County)
• Forest Lake (Pop. 16800, Washington Cty)
• Andover (Pop. 29262, Anoka County)
• Oak Grove (Pop. 7455, Anoka County)
• North Oaks (Pop. 4200, Ramsey County)
Forms of Charter Government
• Weak Mayor -
Council
• Strong Mayor -
Council
• Council -Manager
• Commission
2
Common Charter Provisions
• Ward System
• Initiative and
Referendum
• Comprehensive grant
of power or "all
powers" clause
• Size of Council,
quorum
• Charter Commission
Structure
Charter in Relation to State Law
• On a given issue, what if
❑State law is silent, but Charter addresses the
issue
oCharter is silent, but State law addresses the
subject
❑Charter and State law have different
provisions on same subject (conflict)
State law silent, Charter isn't
• Could the State delegate the authority
expressly?
o Preemption?
• If so, Charter provision likely valid
Examples of Charter Cities
• Lino Lakes (Pop. 18725, Anoka County)
• Ham Lake (Pop. 14508, Anoka County)
• Blaine (Pop. 51002, Anoka/Ramsey Cty)
• Coon Rapids (Pop. 62243, Anoka County)
• White Bear Lake (Pop. 24922,
Ramsey/Washington County)
• Two Harbors (Pop. 3675, Lake County)
Charter is silent, State law isn't
• If a charter is silent on a matter that is addressed
for statutory cities,
• and no law prohibits the charter from addressing
the matter,
• and no law states that a charter prevails over
general law on the matter,
• THEN the charter city can apply the general law
on the matter
3
Charter differs from State law
• General rule: State law wins to the extent
the charter provision is in conflict with
State's policy
• City attorney should advise whether a
conflict exists
oA.G. opinions or case law?
o Detectible policy that applies for all cities?
Powers of a city
• Statutory cities can
only adopt
ordinances when
authorized by state
law to do so.
• Home rule charter
cities can adopt
ordinances on all
appropriate
subjects unless
prohibited by law.
Disadvantages
• Costly
• Applicability of statutes, court
rulings and AG Opinions Tess
clear
• Skillful drafting harder with
fewer resources
• Amendments/abandonment
time-consuming, complicated,
difficult to pass
Do Charter Cities have to follow...
• Statutory City law (Minn. Stat. Ch 412)
• Planning & Zoning law (Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351-
.365)
• Special assessments law (M.S. Ch. 429)
• Criminal code (M.S. Ch. 609)
• Charter law (M.S. Ch. 410.04-.33)
• Clean Indoor Air Act (M.S. §§ 144.411-.417)
Advantages
• Local solution for local issues
• Encourages an informed
electorate
• As simple or complex as city
needs
• May provide for initiative,
referendum, recall, and election
of council by wards
How did we get a Charter?
• City residents or local clubs expressed
interest in a Charter
• Cf. Judge of district court appointed
Charter Commission
• Draft submitted to clerk, council
• Charter voted on by public
in an election
4
The Charter Commission
• A permanent body
• Usually appointed by a district court
• Must meet at least once per year
• Failure to meet does not end existence
• Have between 7 and 15 members
Appointment of Charter
Commission Members
• Chief Judge usually appoints
❑Listens to information
oConsiders suggestions from charter
commission or council, or citizen petitioners
• Appointees have 30 days
to file acceptance and
oaths with court clerk
Changing A Charter Through
Amendment
• 5 ways to propose
modifications to a
Charter
• Generally
modifications
submitted to voters
• Amendment needs
51 % favorable vote
Charter Commission Members
• Must be qualified voters of the city
• May hold offices, such as councilmember;
but not judicial
• Limit on successive terms?
o"Upon the expiration of each term, the chief
judge shall appoint new commission
members." Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd 2
Charter Commission Functions
• Study the local charter and government
• Draft a proposed charter
• Convene either at their direction, or
direction of council or
voters to
o Consider proposed
charter amendments,
or
o Propose charter
amendments
Abandoning a Charter
• Abandonment process is
identical to Amendment
process
• 51 % of voters must
approve abandonment
• Proposal for
abandonment must state
statutory govt form that
will replace Charter
5
Questions?
Call the League of
Minnesota Cities
Edward Cadman
Research Attorney
651-281-1229
or League Website
www.lmnc.org
6
)
UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE
2005 City of Lino Lakes Residential Survey
Good 68%
Excellent 15%
Decision Resources, Ltd.
Unsure 7%
Poor 1%
Only Fair 9%
Roads and Transportation
Roads, transportation and related infrastructure are vital ingredients to a community's
quality of land use and the life that one experiences when traveling within and through
the community. Traffic issues and congestion are major concerns expressed by citizens
in the Quality of Life Survey. Citizens participating in the Quality of Life Survey and
community forums also expressed concern with the condition of city streets and the
current City Charter provisions. These provisions are seen as inhibiting the council's
ability to develop and implement street improvement and reconstruction plans and
policies for the responsible stewardship of a vital community infrastructure asset: streets.
2030 Vision
Lino Lakes has a well-planned and maintained system of connecting and collector streets
augmented by convenient public transportation options.
Rationale: Citizens identified the lack of road connectivity as a major concern and they
expect this issue to be resolved through good community and infrastructure planning.
Strategies:
• Include within the Comprehensive Plan a 20 -year transportation component (Roads
and Transportation Master Plan) that will identify and plan for needed public
transportation options and street construction, upgrading, and related funding
requirements.
• Ensure by 2030 that main east/west corridors (examples: Main Street, new 35E/35W,
Birch and Ash Streets) are of good quality and allow for potential, required expansion
and upgrades, i.e., widening, expanded capacity and turn lanes.
• Identify and prepare appropriate plans, official controls, zoning and subdivisions
ordinances and regulations, and official maps for land use around identified potential
future interchanges. (An example might be exit ramps from 35E at Birch Street if
warranted).
• Plan for, within the transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan, improved
and required north -south connectivity.
Rationale: Increased traffic on our roads increases the risk and likelihood of accidents.
16
Strategies:
• Identify potential traffic safety problem areas and adopt plans to lessen risks as traffic
volume increases along these problem stretches and intersections.
Rationale: The safety and convenience of using our streets and roads should not
decrease as traffic volume increases.
Strategies:
• Plan, within the 20 year traffic component of the Comprehensive Plan, for an
expanded and improved road system to accommodate projected increases in traffic
volume accompanying predicted/planned growth and development.
• Encourage high-density housing along our traffic corridors; e.g., County Road J, East
end of Birch and Main Street. Add needed stop lights and turn lanes. Increase
connecting and collecting roads — plan ahead for them.
• Ensure, as areas are developed, that development bears the cost of this reconstruction
to the fullest extent possible.
Rationale: Properly maintained streets maintain the quality of life of the citizens. If a
street is allowed to deteriorate to a "poor" condition, the street must be reconstructed.
Current City Charter provisions frustrate the city's ability to be responsible stewards of
its streets.
Strategies:
• Adopt, fund and steadfastly implement a Comprehensive Pavement Management Plan
for the maintenance and reconstruction, to an optimum level, of the city's streets in a
responsible and cost-effective manner.
• Recognize that proper maintenance is less expensive in the long run than
reconstruction after a street has been allowed to degrade. Once a street has been
allowed to degrade to "poor", maintenance is no longer effective, and the city's
ability to reconstruct the street is severely limited.
• Change the City Charter, as favored by 60% of the respondents in the Quality of Life
Survey, so city council can plan for and fund (budget) street construction and
maintenance in a responsible manner. This effort should be initiated by a citizen's
group or task force that identifies options and advocates that the city council, the
charter commission, and the community support a charter change proposal on the
ballot.
17
• Recognize the likelihood that some city dollars will need to be spent on street
reconstruction as citizens living on the affected streets may/can not bear the full cost
of reconstruction.
Rationale: Reducing traffic volume reduces the maintenance cost and increases the
safety of our streets and roads. Alternative transportation options need to be developed.
Strategies:
• Develop mass transit options. The 95th Avenue lot in Blaine satisfies some of the
current demand as a connection to 35W but there are no plans for 35E.
• Plan for and develop park and ride opportunities that are adjacent to our east/west
connectors.
• Recognize, as affordable and life -cycle housing develops, the need for mass transit
will increase and should be planned for on our east/west connectors.
• Find ways to minimize unnecessary heavy vehicle traffic such as garbage haulers.
• Appreciate mass transit is not likely to be self funding, but the city can seek to
influence mass transit funding sources.
Rationale: More access to our open spaces will showcase our unique environment of
wetlands and lead to better appreciation and understanding of their beauty. Current and
future residents want access to regional parks. More and better trails will help offset
feeling overcrowded as we progress to higher density housing and a larger overall
population in our city.
Strategies:
• Recognize the need and plan for:
o off-street parking
o trail connections and loops
o access for bikers, walkers and runners
o better access to lakes
o improved canoe access points
o canoe launch sites to be developed wherever feasible. (Example: south end
of Rice Lake)
18
• Require developers to link to existing trails and extend them. City should develop
more and better lake access; there may be state or county programs or department
grants to help offset these costs.
Note: A Power Point presentation containing specific suggested road and related
infrastructure improvements has been forwarded to the consultants assisting the
city in the creation of the Comprehensive Plan.
19
Chapter 8 is titled "Public Improvements and Special Assessments". There is no
reference to public repairs and restoration in this chapter and none was made since
repairs are not improvements and are not regulated by chapter 8. There seems to
be much discussion about financing public works projects that involve only repairs
to existing infrastructure if that infrastructure happens to be a public road. Look
carefully at Chapter 8 and you will find a glaring omission of these repair projects.
And for a good reason, they are not improvements.
In Section 8.02 the charter defines an improvement, and I quote "the term local
improvement shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from
special assessments". A project to grade and resurface a road is not an
improvement if the form or function of the road is not changed.
Both section 8 and state Statute 429 are very specific about what can be assessed as
an improvement, it only happens if the project increases the value of the properties
in the project. Let's try an obvious example: Suppose that the street lighting on,
say, Second Avenue needed most of the lamps and covers replaced. Would the
properties along that street be assessed for the repairs? Not if the fixtures were the
same as the originals. Road repairs are no different.. If the driving surface of the
road needed replacing could the homeowners along the road be charged for the
repairs if there was no improvement but just a return to the original condition?
According to Section 8 and state Statute 429, No. Financing for these repairs will
have to come from the city treasury or some matching highway repair funds if they
are available. However, try to put in some brighter street lights, curbing, a
different road surface or sewer and water and you turn a simple repair into an
improvement. Or if there is a new road needed to serve a new development. Then
the charter kicks in and the property owners benefited by the improvement pay for
it, as the charter intended.
Cha 4r 8 Ae-e_S5 '40 6 -ems
i3 -E- ►t7 e -f c i-; o f c
/ 5�
/ /2-/�7
6€-.79,er
Julie Bartell
calendar@presspubs.com
c: Editor@readthecitizen.com
`'Subject: Community invitation
I'm requesting that the following announcement be placed in the community notes section of your next publication. I
appreciate your assistance in getting this information to your readers.
The Lino Lakes Charter Commission invites residents of Lino Lakes to their upcoming meeting on Thursday,
April 12 at 6:30 p.m. in the community room at Lino Lakes City Hall. Discussion will include potential changes
to the Charter, the document that governs how the City functions.
Julie Bartell
City Clerk
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651-982-2406
651-982-2499 fax
julie.bartell@cilino-lakes.mn.us
1
Charter Commission
April 12, 2007
Page 1
1 n
2
3
4
5 DATE
6 TIME STARTED
7 TIME ENDED
8 MEMBERS PRESENT
9
10
11 MEMBERS EXCUSED
12 MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
13 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
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 OPEN MIKE
39
40 No one was present for open mike.
41
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
: April 12, 2007
. 6:35 P.M.
. 9:50 P.M.
: Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus, Handrick (excused at 7:18
p.m.), Vacha, Bening, Duffy, Bor, Richard Williams,
Rosemary Williams, Storberg, and Carlson
: Montain
: Zastrow
: City Clerk, Julianne Bartell (part)
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Duffy called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:35
p.m. on April 12, 2007.
OATH OF OFFICE
Julianne Bartell swore in new Charter Commission member Melissa Stockman Maher.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Duffy removed item 7E from the agenda.
Commissioner Trehus requested the following addition under Item 6B: Discussion on the
Minutes format.
MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to adopt the amended
agenda. Motion carried unanimously.
1
Charter Commission
April 12, 2007
Page 2
42 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
43
44 A. April 12, 2007 — Commissioner Bening noted on Page 10, Line 378 there was no motion
45 above the vote. He recommended they delete that line. Commissioner Trehus stated on Page 2,
46 line 73, there was also a Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion and there was a vote to table
47 this.
48
49 Chair Duffy noted on Line 374, she did not make those comments. She believed Commissioner
50 Dahl made those comments.
51
52
53 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to table to the next
54 meeting the approval the January 11, 2007, Charter Commission meeting minutes for further
55 review. Motion carried unanimously.
56
57 B. Format of Minutes — Commissioner Trehus stated the City Council and other Boards
58 have gone to more abbreviated form of minutes and he recommended the Charter Commission
59 also do this. He recommended the agenda item and the action taken to be recorded only.
60
61
62 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bor, to approve abbreviated
^63 Minutes.
64
65 Commissioner Bening requested certain discussions be put in the Minutes if requested by a
66 Commissioner.
67
68 Commissioner Dahl requested they try this to see if it would work, but if the majority did not like
69 this new format, it could be changed back.
70
71 Commissioner Vacha requested an amendment they take tonight's meeting with the new format
72 and then they revisit this at the next meeting. Commissioner Trehus agreed to the amendment.
73
74 Amended Motion carried unanimously.
75
76 OLD BUSINESS
77
78 A. By Laws with Charter Compatibility
79 1. Annual Review
80 a.) Article 2 Section 2 & Section 4: annual report timelines
81
82
83 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Stockman Maher, to change
84 Article 2, Section 2, where it starts - Each year ... delete "at the October" and insert "on or before
85 the April". Motion carried unanimously.
2
Charter Commission
April 12, 2007
Page 3
86
87 Commissioner Handrick was excused from the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
88
89 B. Budget
90 Reports from Gordon Heitke, City Administrator (read only)
91 1.) Charter budget for 2005-2006
92 2.) Actual Charter monies spent to date
93 3.) Quarterly update in Charter packet
94
95 The Commissioners reviewed and discussed the budget. No action was taken.
96
97 C. Five Year Plan
98 1.) Sub -Committee final report:
99 Commissioners: Trehus, Vacha, Montain and Dahl
100
101 Updates were given. No action was taken.
102
103 D. Update Charter Commissioner Terms
104 1. Notification of expiring terms
105 2. Commissioner re-application to Chair by October
106
07 Updates were given. No action was taken.
108
109 E. Taxpayer Bill of Rights
110 1. Mounds View Charter Amendment
111 a.) Charter Discussion
112
113 Removed from the Agenda.
114
115 F. Sub -Committee Attorney Report (Dahl & Trehus)
116
117 Updates were given and the Commissioners discussed the report.
118
119
120 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to keep the subcommittee
121 active and keep the Charter apprised of the options of which attorneys are available should they
122 need to utilize the services of an attorney. Motion carried (Chair Duffy opposed).
123
124 NEW BUSINESS
125
126 A. Chairperson election
3
Charter Commission
April 12, 2007
Page 4
127
128
129 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Stockman Maher, to approve
130 Commissioner Duffy as the Chairperson. Motion carried (Commissioner Duffy abstained).
131
132 B. Vice -chair election
133
134
135 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve
136 Commissioner Vacha as Vice -chair. Motion carried (Commissioner Vacha abstained).
137
138 C. Concerns on Charter Changes
139
140 The Commissioners discussed possible Charter changes and participation in the Citizens Task
141 Force committee.
142
143
144 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to participate in the Council
145 assigned Citizens Task Force. Motion carried unanimously.
146
147 D. 2030 Charter Advisory Panel
' 48
149 Discussed as part of the Charter Changes
150
151
152 SET JULY 12, 2007 MEETING AGENDA
153
154 Chair Duffy set the following agenda for the July 2007 Charter Commission Meeting:
155
156
157 MOTION by Commissioner Bening, seconded by Commissioner Stockman Maher, to set the
158 July 12, 2007 meeting agenda at the Special April 30 meeting. Motion carried unanimously
159
160
161 ADJOURN
162
163 MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to adjourn the meeting at
164 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
165
166
167 Respectfully Submitted,
168
,—.,169 Kathy Altman
.70 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
4