Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2007 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Thursday June 14, 2007 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30 PM 2. Pledge of Allegiance 6:32 PM 3. Approval of Agenda 6:33 PM 4. Open Mike 6:34 PM 5. Approval of April 12, 2007 minutes 6:34 PM 6. Old Business A. Joint Charter/Citizen's Task Force meeting B. Other Citizen's Task Force meetings (Commissioners to read minutes) C. Seal coating map D. Charter Communication Plan E. Review April meeting minute format 7. New Business A. Attorney Charter Review B. July meeting date C. City Growth Rate 8. Adjourn 6:35 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:10 PM 7:20 PM 8:00 PM 8:10 PM 8:30 PM 8:35 PM 8:45 PM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Charter Commission April 12, 2007 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMNIISSION : 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. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. 1 - 2 - Charter Commission April 12, 2007 Page 2 DRAFT 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 -3- Charter Commission April 12, 2007 Page 3 DRAFT 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 106 107 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 utiti7e the services of an attorney. Motion carried (Chair Duffy opposed). 123 124 NEW BUSINESS 125 126 A. Chairperson election Charter Commission April 12, 2007 Page 4 DRAFT 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 148 149 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 170 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 4 -5- May 1, 2007 MeetinE Summary Citizens' Task Force & Charter Commission In Attendance: Charter Commission: Cori Duffy -Chair, Don Aldentaler, Rosemary Williams, Richard Williams, Rosemary Storberg, Robert Bening, Caroline Dahl, Mike Trehus, Melissa S. Maher, Irvin Zastrow, Barbara Bor Citizens' Task Force- Kathi Gallup -Chair, Jon Latcham, Cheryl Sanchez, Laura Carlson, Jamie Stern, Judi Brunner, Peter T. Brown The meeting began with introductions and a brief background on the task force. It is made up of members of the visioning committee, randomly selected from the community. It was appointed by the City Council following completion of the 2030 Vision Plan. 2030 recommended that a citizens' group review the City Charter after it was identified as a concern in a community -wide survey and in public forums associated with the visioning process. The task force is studying the charter's impact on the Council's ability to manage streets. So far, information has been received on the city's Pavement Management Report, charter cities, the process for assessing the costs of public improvements under state statutes and under the Lino Lakes Charter and financing recommendations for road maintenance and reconstruction. The meeting with the Charter Commission was a continuation of the information -gathering process. The Charter Commission responded to questions concerning the history of the charter and past referendums. Commissioners explained that the Charter was adopted in the 1980's to improve citizen representation at a time when there was a lack of confidence in city leaders. It was intended to prevent leapfrogging (haphazard development) and assessments for improvements that property owners might not want or benefit from. Commissioners said they believe such issues remain today. They do not feel the Charter prevents or stops development (i.e. arrival of Target, Kohl's). It only makes sure that development is controlled and wanted by the community. Commissioners said Section 8 of the Charter ensures that citizens always have a voice; that they can both stop and initiate a project. Commissioners were asked if they agree with opinions voiced through the Quality of Life survey and visioning process that the charter does not allow the city council to reconstruct streets when they need to be reconstructed. Commissioners responded by noting that 53% of survey respondents rated city streets as excellent or good. The percentage that thought roads were in fair condition was low. The commission doesn't feel citizens make selfish decisions regarding voting on improvements but admit the system relies on the best qualities of human nature. Under the charter, the city must hold a city-wide referendum to do street reconstruction if any public money is used. Since its adoption, three referendums have been held under the Charter. Two were road projects. One passed (East Shadow Lake Drive), one failed (West Shadow Lake Drive). Another (Shenendoah) did not get out of the petition process so was never on the ballot. A 1995 effort to amend the Charter by replacing Section 8 with Minnesota Statute 429 -6- failed by a two-thirds margin. Commissioners said the additional procedures and requirements in Section 8 are necessary because they offer citizens flexibility and control spending. Concerning the 11 miles of roads identified for reconstruction, commissioners said good communication is necessary to pass referendums that may be associated with them in the future. Cooperation between commission & council; reliable estimates; time in plan to communicate to the public. Commissioners spoke of the need for educating the public about the Charter but observed it is difficult in this busy world to get people's attention. The Charter Commission has formed a subcommittee to look into communication issues. Commissioners noted that Lino Lakes residents are very sensitive to increased taxes which has to be considered when determining how to pay for road reconstruction projects. Commissioners said they support the city being maintained and work being done that citizens need and want. In general, commissioners do not support amending the Charter. One would favor a change. -7- May 8, 2007 Meeting Summary Citizens' Task Force In Attendance: Kathi Gallup -Chair, Peter T. Brown, Laura Carlson, Jamie Stern, Jon Latcham, Judi Brunner The intent of this meeting was to prepare for the public forum on Tuesday, May 15 in the Council Chambers. It was decided to send letters to additional property owners --those living on streets that may be reconstructed according to the timeline published in the city's Pavement Management Report. 140 letters have already been sent to residents of West Shadow Lake Drive and Shenendoah neighborhoods. In the interest of education, it was decided to open the public forum with brief presentations on topics covered to date: Pavement Management Report, financing options, assessment procedures of Charter and Minnesota statutes, Charter Commission. Decided to assemble information packets to be distributed. Discussed May 15 agenda and ground rules (both attached). Decided to invite members of City Council to attend May 22 Task Force meeting. Lino Lakes Charter Review Task Force Notes from May 15th Public Forum In attendance: Citizen's Task Force: Laura Carlson -Secretary, Jamie Stem, Peter T. Brown, Jon Latcham, Kathi Gallup -Chair, Judi Brunner Presenters: Jim Studenski, City Engineer, Pavement Management Plan Steve Bubul, Attorney, Charter Section 8 vs Statutory 429 Nick Dragisich, Financial Advisor, Financing Recommendations to support the Pavement Management Plan Caroline Dahl, Charter Commission, Secretary Comments (limited to 4 minutes each) were heard from the floor in the order people signed up on the speaker list. Rose Storberg Would like to relay more information that we (Charter Commission and Task Force) discussed at previous meetings. She would like people to be aware of the situation in Mahtomedi right now The city does not have charter provisions to protect them as we do in Lino Lakes. The citizens oppose a street/water/sewer project but the city council supported it so it was passed and done. Referenced Letter to the Editor in the Quad Community Press . To read, click here: http://presspubs.com/articles/2007/05/15/letters/quad community press/walseth.txt) Rose wanted to point out that only 400 people did the survey, 2% of the current population while over 1000 voted for the charter and only 129 voted against it. Even later attempts to change the charter have failed. The original need for the charter is still present today based on her conversations with the founders of the charter. As far as why people didn't vote for the referendum (West Shadow Lake Drive) some of comments she heard was that city leaders lived on the street, it was an expensive neighborhood, why should we pay for it, etc. there was plenty of room for controversy regarding getting that street fixed. Vern Reinert Vern was one of the original drafters of the charter but wants to point out that the city was very different that it is today. He has been here 32 years and seen many changes to Lino Lakes and the communities surrounding. Back then Lino Lakes was "way out" of the cities. There was no or little tax base. There was no planning (very little) in place. In the state we were about #1 in tax rate. Lino Lakes didn't have staff or the experts that we have today. There was basically no zoning. Things were really done "shooting from the hip". This concerned the residents. When his family moved in from Wausau they were accustomed to a charter city. In that city there were 13 council members and the mayor. He saw how a charter could work for a community and was glad to help develop one for Lino Lakes. In Wausau the council, administration and commission worked very close and very well together. They worked together to get water and sewer through for growth and a plan. -9- `-- This cooperation doesn't seem to be happening in Lino Lakes now. The sewer and water back 32 years ago was only in the SW corner. At that time there was a plan was to run it up Lake Drive with no means to pay for it. There was no tax base. This concem is what led to the creation of the charter. A plan had to be put in place for the future. There was no intent to jeopardize the ability of a city council to run and manage a city. It was put in place to protect and manage development. It was not meant to halt development. Now the council and the commission are too far apart. They need to come back together and that is the responsibility of both parties. The charter needs to be tweaked and looked at based on how the city is today and not how it was at the time the charter was created_ Albert DeMotts A charter recommendation (written) was provided. He feels there are two ways to go about this issue.. He was on the charter commission back in 1984 and he wanted to check changes back then. He went through these recommendations with a lady in the League of Cities at that time. There would be an ordinance put in by City Council to change the city charter. This would add clauses to Chapter 8. However, none of the funds generated could be used for city water or sewer (this is the responsibility of landowner) or new roads (developer should pay for) nor for curb and gutter. Joe Meyer Joe lives on West Shadow Lake Drive. Referred to it as the worst road in city. There is no water, sewer, blind comers, standing water on road, the lake coming over road. The charter has failed to support this community. The first time all the improvements were suggested he had new house/water/sewer and he didn't need it but others already did. It had uneven support. Even now not everyone will vote for it but by now the majority living there will want it. He feels this system pits neighbor against neighbor. Everyone is looking out for themselves. This is not a good system. They get their community behind it but they can't others in the city to support it. An assessment won't work as the value to their property won't be increased by as much as the cost and this will go against the law. He feels that people won't vote for it if they don't directly benefit from the project. Imagine if the state worked this way? Would we vote to support roads in other cities? This charter provision will drag us back to horse and buggy days. Pat Smith Pat also lives on West Shadow Lake drive and was on the charter commission when they deliberated using statute 429 vs drafting the specific provisions in chapter 8. Even the council recommended changing charter and they have tried. The charter itself has become a very personal matter and has become leverage against the council. It has lived beyond its useful life especially in this provision. The Council has the responsibility to serve the community and they are limited in doing so. The commission and council need to get on the same page to serve the community. To save money overall we've seen the recommendations of the experts as to how to run and manage the city. We did the plans and hired the experts- follow their recommendations. Kurt Kinehorn Kurt is also a resident of West Shadow Lake Drive and he was the leader of the defeated referendum. He realized they have real problems on their street. They have a real need and it isn't being fixed. He has talked with many people on the street. Most everyone wants the street fixed. The issue is that there is a political problem. We are tying in city water and sewer. There is also the issue of dividing the properties up into smaller lots. He says there is really no leadership at all in these issues. The solutions -10- they've had to choose from are the same old ones that they have been presented for 20 years. There wasn't any citizen input on how the project was going to be done in the failed referendum attempts. Smith and Reinart are in agreement on that point. How do we get this thing done right? If we pull in both sides together we can get this done. John Sever John is also a resident of West Shadow Lake Drive. Most of the people won't vote as they don't have an issue in their community. Until over 1/2 of the roads are in need of reconstruction they won't get the attention of the voters to get the referendums passed. Chris Bretoi Chris is another resident of West Shadow Lake drive. He pointed out that the issue on this road is nothing new. When he bought in 1986 and built several years later it was an issue. He feels responsible stewardship of roads is the issue. All the issues tie together. In 2005 there was the ballot issue. He was asked to sign petition in 2005 to look at the road condition and this took on a life of its own. A feasibility report took off with full water, sewer, etc. This surprised the residents. There was just one recommendation and alternative. There was no input from the residents. It pitted east side and west side against each other. It was used as evidence that residents supported the study. This wasn't true. This effort has left him a skeptic that the process will work. Hopefully we have learned from how the referendum was attempted in 2005 so it doesn't happen again. Mike Trehns Mike also lives on West Shadow Lake drive. He pointed out that if we pull out the charter commission members, the experts and the task force, etc. there is no one else here at this session. He feels there is fear mongering here. It is obvious the council doesn't like the charter. He does not feel that road maintenance is addressed by the charter. When you look at the road cost presentations the only increase in the cost is regular inflationary rates. If it doesn't get fixed this year it will cost more due to inflation. Also, the faster you reconstruct the street the sooner it will need the next reconstruction. He lives on the street and really doesn't think the street is that bad. He has seen state highways in worse shape with much higher speed limits. It is not great but it is not horrible. He doesn't feel the charter pits neighbors against each other but the city does pit them against each other. The city should be sitting down with the neighborhoods and coming up with a plan that the residents want and the city will support. The city is not trying hard to come up with a solution. Their plan would have destroyed the character of the neighborhood. The charter is all we have to fall back on to prevent projects from happening that the citizens don't want. In the failed attempts, he said the city didn't observe the 60 day period in the referendum. It was clear that in the second attempt that only some of the residents supported the plan. In his opinion, if they get a process together so they are organized and supported, projects will get through. Robert Bening Robert has been a resident since Jan of 1974. He is a charter commission member but is speaking on his own behalf. He lives on the other Shadow Lake Drive that got the referendum passed. He has seen many changes since the charter was originated. He felt the city didn't do enough to support the change in the charter. He voted for the referendum on his street and this proves it works. The next referendum -11- �-- he voted against. He paid over a 20% assessment when his road was done but the next project was more like 11% share and doesn't feel this was equitable. The next referendum attempt had the percentage share higher and then he did support. There should be road standards and all streets should meet this. Even though some trees may have to come down, etc. we need good streets that meet standards. If the charter has to be changed to get the streets in good order that is what it will take. Mav 22 Meeting Summary Citizen's Task Force In Attendance: Kathi Gallup -Chair, Peter T. Brown, Laura Carlson, Jamie Stern, Jon Latcham, Judi Brunner, Cheryl Sanchez Due to scheduling conflicts, the meeting with Lino Lakes city council was postponed. Task force members reviewed comments received at the May 15 public forum; discussed questions to raise before staff and council. Decided to invite staff to May 24 meeting, if possible for them to attend. Determined additional meeting dates: June 5, 12, 14 & 19 Decided to invite council members to June 5 task force meeeting -13- May 24 Meeting Summary Citizen's Task Force Meeting canceled; staff and council will be invited to June 5 task force meeting. League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St, Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 Fax (651) 281-1299 • TDD: (651) 281-1290 www.lmnc.org May 10, 2007 Citizen Task Force City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Re: Uniqueness of the special assessments referendum in Lino Lakes' charter Dear Citizen Task Force: Following my visit to Lino Lakes to present information on charters, I received a question from a member of the Citizen Task. Force, as well as the administrator, Gordon Heitke. The question was, do any other charter cities in Minnesota have a similar pension s'ion requmng a referendum on special assessments as found in the Lino Lakes Charter. The answer is that no other charter city in Minnesota has a charter provision requiring a referendum an special assessments. Section 8.04, isitn 2 ofthe Lino Lakes charter reads, in part~ [W}hen less than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paidfor wpm vby special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding source otherthan the City general fund, fl e. Council shall within one hundred twenty (120) days alter the conclusion of the public hearing submit the e, . o e sed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the city.:... If a majority of those voting > on said improvement and associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local improvement as proposed. (emphasis added.) Comparing this charter provision with the corresponding special assessment and local improvement provisions of other charter cities, I have found no other city which has a similar mandatory referendum in its charter. The closest charter to Lino Lakes in this respect is foundin Mounds View. In Mounds View, the charter outlines a similar procedure for council to follow, yet its analogous subdivision 2 reads, in part: [W]hen less than 100 percent of the estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special assessment, within the sixty day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a petition may be filed with Council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Mayor in the last regular election, protesting against AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -15- *Lino Lakes Citizen Task Force* Page 2 May 9, 2007 either the improvement, or the assessment formula or both In this event, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed. Therefore, while Mounds View's charter allows a proposed improvement to be stopped by the possibility of a petition, Lino Lakes is uniquely required to submit the proposal to an election. *** Since I read through the local improvement charter provisions for 107 cities, I wanted to share what I found. The amount of space in charters dedicated to local improvements and special assessments varies quite a bit Many charters have little more than two brief pram*. The entire local improvement provision in the charter for Cl wtfiPld is "As per state law." At the same time, Brainerd's charter has 12 pages on local improvements and special assessments, and South St. Paul has in incredible 58 pages in their charter devoted to the topic. However, at least 85% of all charters appear similar to Chapter 8 of the Gaylord city charter. For your convenience, I have included a copy of that section of Gaylord's charter with this letter. The following are trends and variations I have seen among those cities with provisions like Gaylord's. • In virtually all of these charters, the city is given blanket power to carry out any and all improvements not prohibited by law ("The council shall have the power to make any and every type of public improvement not forbidden by the laws of this state -and to levy special assessments..."). • Many charters contain no more than two sections similar to sections 71 and 72 in the example. However, the overwhelming majority contain sections similar to sections 71 through 74 in the example. • In some instances, the council is compelled by the charter to create a comprehensive ordinance which lays out the improvement/assessment process, and in some instances the city can create a comprehensive ordinance if they like. • In many charters, any resulting "cora`said to supersede state law for the city.' But in as many cases, the rel hatIrticretket as to whether they follow the ordinance or Minnesota Statutes. Some vhattecaarcallent on that point.2 • Some charters refer to and adopt only those parts of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 that address hearings and notice, and provide the rest of the process for the city in charter or Regardless, to be valid, any such comprehensive ordinance must meet some minimum requirements regarding notice and time limits outlined in Minn. Stat. § 429.021, subd. 3. 2 Where the charter is silent on this point, the city may proceed under either the statutes or its ordinance (Minn. Stat § 429.111). - 1 6 - *Lino Lakes Citizen Task Force* Page 3 May 9, 2007 ordinance. Often, as in the case of Gaylord, the charter provides state law ("applicable law") into be used only in absence of a comprehensive ordinance. An important qualification to this information is that a charter city could have an ordinance requiring a referendum on a public improvement/special assessment. However, I did not consult the ordinances of any charter city. If a charter city had such an ordinance, and it was found unmanageable, the Ordinance would most likely be easier to change than a similar charter provision. But, I must stress that in charter cities where ordinances are formed or amended by initiative and referendum, it's possible that a city could be just as stymied by ordinances as it could by charter " -;ons. We have not seen this, but it is theoretically possible. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Edward S. Cadman Research Attorney enc. cc: Gordon Hei#ke Lino Lakes City Administrator -17- League of Minnesota Cities 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 • (800) 925-1122 Fax (651) 281-1299 • TDD: (651) 2811290 wvwr.imnc.org Gaylord City Charter excerpt Chapter 8 Public Improvements and Special Assessments Section 69. THE CITY PLAN. The city council shall adopt a complete plan for the future physical development of the city. Such plan may be altered from time to time. It may include provisions for zoning, for the platting and development of new areas, for the plarming and location of public works of art, public buildings, parks, playgrounds, harbors, bridges, transportation lines, and other public facilities, and for the laying out, grading and improving of streets and public places, as well as for all other matters which may seem essential to such a plan. Section 70. ENFORCEMENT OF CITYPLAN. The council shall have all necessary power to enforce complete adherence by all persons to the plan adopted as provided above. Section 71. POWER TO IVIA CE EVIPROVEMENTS AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS. The city shall have thewer to make Pany y and every type of public improvement not forbidden by the laws of this state raid to leve special assessments ;to pay all or any part of the cost of such improvements as are of a local character. The amounts assessed to benefited property tom for such local improvements may equal the cost of the improvement, including all costs.and. expenses connected therewith, with interest, until paid, but shall in no case exceed the benefits to the property. Section 72. ASSES'SMVIENTS FOR SERVICES. The council may provide by ordinance that the cost of printing, snow, or rubbish removal, or of any other service to streets, sidewalks, or other public property, or the costs of any services to other property undertaken by the city may be assessed against the property benefited and collected in like manner as are special assessments. Section 73. LOCAL IIVIPROVEMENTS REGULATIONS, After this charter takes effect local improvements commenced prior thereto shall be completed and assessment may be levied and securities issued for the financing thereof as prescribed by the law (or charter provisions) applicable thereto. The coumcii may prepare and adopt a comprehensive ordinance prescribing the procedure which shall be followed thereafter in making all local improvements and levying assessments therefor. Such ordinance shall supersede all other provisions of the law on the same subject and may be amended only by an affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of the council. In the absence of such ordinance all local improvements may be made and assessments levied therefor as prescribed by any applicable law. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER _18_ *Lino Lakes Citizen Task Force* Page 5 May 9, 2007 Section 74. PUBLIC WORKS: HOW PERFORMED. Public works, including all local improvements, may be constructed, extended, repaired, and maintained either directly by day labor or by contract. The city shall require contractors to give bonds for the protection of the city and all persons furnishing labor and materials pursuant to the laws of the state. -19- SEALCOAT PROJECTS LOCATION MAP simislowim 2004 2005 2006 2007 DRAFT MAY 2007 N TKDA ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS cyb-vvi, rwe/o 53-4--?& c3 /67 SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN CHAPTER 8 OF CITY CHARTER AND MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 429 Stephen J. Bubul Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Citizen's Charter Review Task Force May 15, 2007 1. Initiation of a project and hearing process. Charter: Can be initiated by: Petition signed by 25% of benefited owners, in which case Council must pass resolution (majority vote) to schedule public hearing with two weeks published and mailed notice. City Council, by resolution approved by 4/5 vote to schedule public hearing (same notice requirements as above). Statute: Can be initiated by: Petition from 100% of abutting owners, requesting that 100% of cost be assessed, in which case no hearing is required and the council can order the project by majority vote. Petition from 35% of the abutting owners, in which case council must hold public hearing (two publications) and ten days mailed notice. Council may order the project by majority vote. Petition from less than 35% of owners, or by council with no petition, in which case council must hold public hearing (same notice requirements as above). Council must approve the project by 4/5 vote. 2. Conditions to ordering project. Charter: Waiting Period. 60 -day waiting period after public hearing. Project may not be ordered if petition against the project is filed in that time period. If initiated by petition, the objecting petition requires signatures by at least the same number who initiated; if initiated by Council, requires majority of owners to be assessed. However, in each case an objecting petition can be overcome by a counter -petition also filed within the 60 -day period. If a project is initiated by 100% petition, the 60 -day waiting period can be reduced to 10 days if 100% of the owners file a second petition waiving 50 of the 60 days. Referendum. Whether initiated by petition or council, the project must go to the voters if less than 100% of the cost is to be paid by special assessments "or any outside funding sources other than the general fund." Statute: No further procedures or conditions after the public hearing or receipt of 100% petition. 3. Issuance of bonds. Charter: Bonds may be issued in accordance with state law, including Chapter 429 and 475, as described below. Statute: Bonds may be issued under Chapter 429 without referendum if at least 20% of the cost of the improvement to the City is assessed against benefited property. However, under the charter, an election is required to order the project if any part of the project is paid from taxes or general fund revenues. Therefor, -Chapter 429 d.s (with .;:election), -a -r pa it -ire Lino Lakes only if the entirecost-is assessed: Bonds may also be issued for street reconstruction under Chapter 475, with unanimous vote of the council after public hearing and subject to reverse referendum: if a petition signed by voters equal to at least 5% of the votes cast in the last general election is filed within 30 days after the hearing, an election is required. This provision is available under the charter as well, provided that if part of the street reconstruction cost is paid from assessments, the charter requires an election to order the project. Therefore, street reconstruction bonds (subject to reverse referendum) are available in Lino Lakes only if no assessments are levied for the street reconstruction project. 2 wab 40/0, CHARTERED 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com MEMORANDUM TO: Gordon Heitke FROM: Stephen Bubul DATE: June 4, 2007 RE: Charter Questions You asked me to respond to several questions raised by statements made by a charter commission member. 1. Are repairs "improvements." The answer is yes, if the repairs are specially assessed. Chapter 8 of the City Charter allows the City to make "any type of public improvement not forbidden by law." It goes on to define "local improvement" as a "public improvement financed wholly or partly from special assessments." So, any improvement that may be legally financed through special assessments, and in fact is financed with special assessments, is a local improvement under the Charter. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 governs the type of improvements that may be specially assessed; the Charter governs only the process for approving a project. Section 429.021, subd. 1 provides a list of improvements a city is authorized to undertake under Chapter 429 that may be specially assessed, including the authority: (1) to acquire, open and widen any street, and to improve the same by constructing, reconstructing, and maintaining sidewalks, pavement, gutters, curbs, and vehicle parking strips of any material, or by grading, oiling, or otherwise improving the same, including the beautification thereof and including storm sewers or other street drainage and connections from sewer, water or similar mains to curb lines. (emphasis added) That language is very broad, and clearly includes activities (e.g "maintaining pavement") that could reasonably be called "repairs." 2. Is a project to grade and resurface a road an improvement under Section 429.021 subd. 1(1)? Yes, for the reasons stated above. 3. Is it accurate to say that, under Chapter 429 and the Charter, an improvement can only be assessed if the improvement increases the value of the property being assessed? Yes. The test for all assessments is whether the market value of the assessed property is increased by at least the principal amount of the assessment. 4. Could a city specially assess properties for the cost of replacing street lamps and covers? Yes, under Section 429.021, Subdivision 1 (4), which authorizes a city "maintain" street lights and street lighting systems. In practice, it may be difficult to prove the increase in market value for that type of work. However, it is difficult to make blanket statements, and each project must be evaluated based on all the facts. In practice, assessments for this type of work are not common, but that is different from concluding that they impossible or illegal in all circumstances. 5. Could the owners along a road be specially assessed for the cost of replacing the driving surface of the road? Yes; see answer to Question -No. 1. Again, how -much of the -costs- could. be assessed is a separate question, and will depend on the facts of each case. 6. Does installing brighter street lights, adding curbs, installing a different road surface, or adding sewer and water turn a simple "repair" into an "improvement." No. Chapter 429 does not require that the "improvement" result in a change in the existing infrastructure. Changes and "add-ons" may increase the amount of assessment, as increase in market value might be easier to prove. But as noted above, maintenance costs might also increase the market value of benefited property. 7. If a new road is installed to serve a new development, does the City Charter call for the benefited owners to pay for that improvement? The charter itself doesn't require than any improvement be specially assessed. It simply states if an improvement is assessed, the procedures in Chapter 8 must be followed. A city might decide to finance a new road from other sources (state aid for example). It is 2 true, however, that the most conventional method to fmance a new road is special assessments for all or a portion of the cost. At the same time, it is also true that reconstruction projects (including those that do not add new features) are conventionally financed in part with special assessments and in part with other sources (such as a tax levy). The amount of assessments depend on city policy and on how much benefit (measured by increase in market value) is enjoyed by the abutting properties. Again, that is a question that must be analyzed for each project. 3 Council Agenda -4- 5/14/2007 SUMMARY MINUTES ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 07-65, approving a Development Agreement, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by Reinert, seconded by O'Donnell, to approve Resolution 07-65 as presented, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote Consideration of Resolution No. 07-59, approving a Final Plat for a two -lot residential subdivision at 554 Lois Lane, Paul Bengtson Action Taken: Motion by Reinert, seconded by Carlson, to approve Resolution 07-59 as presented, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote E) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-64, approving a Final Plat for Pg 65-67 Holiday Station stores Lino Lakes First Addition, Paul Bengtson Action Taken: Motion by Stoltz, seconded by O'Donnell, to approve Resolution 07-64 as presented, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote F) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-69, Approve Plans and Pg 68 Specifications and Authorize Ad for Bids, 2007 Surface Water Management Projects, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by Carlson, seconded by O'Donnell, to approve Resolution 07-69 as presented, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote 2009 Street & Utility Improvement Project, Pg 69-73 i. Consideration of Resolution No. 07-66 Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, West Shadow Lake Drive Street & Utility Improvements, Jim Studenski ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 07-67, Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, Shenandoah Area Street & Utility Improvements, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by O'Donnell, seconded by Stoltz to approve Resolutions 07-66 and 07-67 as presented, was adopted by a voice vote; Mayor Bergeson abstained from voting Consider approval of April 23, 2007 Council Work Session Pg 29-30 Minutes Action Taken: Motion by Carlson, seconded by Stoltz to approve the minutes with corrections, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote AGENDA ITEM 6Ei & 6Eii STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jim Studenski, City Engineer CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 14, 2007 TOPIC: 2009 Street & Utility Improvement Project Consideration of Resolution No. 07-66 Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, West Shadow Lake Drive Street & Utility Improvements. ii. Consideration of Resolution No. 07-67, Authorizing Preparation of Feasibility Study, Shenandoah Area Street & Utility Improvements. ACTION REQUIRED: 4/5 Vote BACKGROUND The City of Lino Lakes currently has over 96 miles of local streets that need to be maintained. In 1996, the city completed a pavement management study to more efficiently monitor and allocate resources for ongoing maintenance of streets. Included within the study was a plan that identified a phased reconstruction schedule for streets that were deteriorating beyond the scope of general maintenance. The City began implementation of the phasing plan in 1998 with the reconstruction of streets located in the Lakes Addition development. In 2003 the City completed the feasibility studies for phase 2 of the plan which included the streets within the Shenandoah area and West Shadow Lake Drive, north of Birch Street. These improvements were incorporated into the proposed 2004/2005 Street Improvement Project. As established in the City Charter, in cases were improvements are proposed to be specially assessed against benefiting properties and where Tess than 100% of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources other than the City general fund, the proposed project must be submitted to the voters of the City for approval. The 2004/2005 Street Improvement project was submitted to the voters in the 2003 general election and failed. Following the 2003 election TKDA, the City's Engineer, completed an updated Pavement Management Report, which includes condition ratings of each city street to prioritize rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of roadways. The 2007 Street Improvement project was submitted to the voters in the 2005 general election and failed again. Based on the City's Pavement Management Program the streets within the Shenandoah Area and West Shadow Lake Drive, Sandpiper Drive, and Shadow Court continue to warrant consideration for reconstruction. As such, staff is proposing to have the existing feasibility studies for these projects updated for possible consideration by the voters in the 2007 general election. TKDA has prepared a proposal to update the existing feasibilities studies for the proposed improvements, including sanitary sewer and water main improvements. TKDA is proposing to complete the work for a not to exceed fee of $7,500 ($4,500 for West Shadow Lake Drive & $3,000 for the Shenandoah area). The scope of work includes three council meetings, three neighborhood meetings for each project area and determination of proposed individual lot assessments. Additional services outside of the proposed scope of work will require amendment of the agreement. Project Timeline To meet both Charter requirements and State Law requirements for ballot questions staff the process schedule is dictated as follows: Order Preparation of Feasibility Reports May 14, 2007 Receive Feasibility Reports/Call Public Hearing June 11, 2007 Hold Neighborhood Meetings June/July Public Hearing July 9, 2007 60 Day Petitioning Process ends September. 6, 2007 Referendum Question at City Council September 10, 2007 Submit Question to Anoka County September 13, 2007 Election November 6, 2007 Funding The feasibility studies are proposed to be funded, on an interim basis, from the City's general fund engineering budget.. If the project is accepted by the benefiting property owners and approved by the voters these costs will be recovered through assessments and voter approved tax levy. In the event that the project is not approved, the City will 2 not be able to recover these costs. RECOMMENDATION The proposal to order the feasibility studies is intended to the update the previously completed studies. Upon recent of the updated studies in June, the council will have the opportunity to consider moving forward with the projects by calling a public hearing. As noted at the May 7, City Council works session, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) has recommended that the City continue to pursue reconstruction projects on an annual basis. Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 07-66 and No. 07-67. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 07-66 2. Resolution No. 07-67 3 Council Member O'Donnell moved for adoption of the following resolution: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 07-66 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve West Shadow Lake Drive from Birch Street to the north dead end, Sandpiper Drive from West Shadow Lake Drive to the cul-de-sac, and Shadow Court from West Shadow Lake Drive to the cul-de-sac by sanitary sewer and water installation, trail and street reconstruction, and WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota States, Chapter 429, and Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost- effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improv- • ent an the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. ATTEST: �! i . ALA II mi ell, Acting Mayor n eBartell, C.C-r Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 14th day of May, 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Stoltz and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: O'Donnell, Stoltz, Carlson, Reinert The following voted against same: none Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Member O'Donnell moved for adoption of the following Resolution: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 07-67 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SHENANDOAH AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Arrowhead Drive from Ware Road to 550 feet east, Hokah Drive from Totem Trail to Birch Street including the bubble cul-de-sac, Totem Trail from Arrowhead Drive to Birch Street, Rice Court from Totem Trail to the cul-de-sac and Sioux Lane from Hokah Drive to approximately 150 feet west by water installation and street reconstruction, and WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota States, Chapter 429, and Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost- effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other impro, - ent, an• the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. , - ®ov' ell, Acting Mayor ATTEST: • artell, City C - rk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 14th day of May, 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Stoltz and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: O'Donnell, Stoltz, Carlson, Reinert The following voted against same: none WIE41r. svn a..C,VhZ.e 0:4 . Whereupon sal resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Agenda A) None -2- REVISED Conditional offer of employment for vacant Police Officer position Action Taken: Motion by Carlson, seconded by Stoltz, to approve a conditional offer of employment to Heather Meyer, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote None A) Consideration of Resolution No. 07 87, Granting a Storage and Excavation, (Birch and 124' Avenue), 6/11/2007 Pg 19e B) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-83, Approving Grading Pg 33-52 Only Development Agreement, The Preserve, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by Reinert, seconded by O'Donnell, to table the matter of Resolution No. 07-83, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote C) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-84, Accepting Feasibility Pg 52a -b Study and Calling for Hearing on Improvements, West Shadow Lake Drive Area, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by Stoltz, seconded by Reinert, to approve Resolution No. 07-84, was adopted by a voice vote; Mayor Bergeson abstained D) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-85, Accepting Feasibility Pg 52c -d Study and Calling for Hearing on Improvements, Shenandoah Area, Jim Studenski Action Taken: Motion by Reinert, seconded by Carlson, to approve Resolution No. 07-85, was adopted by a voice vote; Mayor Bergeson abstained E) Consideration of Resolution No. 07-86, Approving Plans Pg 53-55 and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Lino Park Grading, Jim Studenski. Action Taken: Motion by Carlson, seconded by Stoltz, to approve Resolution No. 07-86, was adopted by a unanimous voice vote AGENDA ITEM 6C STAFF ORIGINATOR: James E. Studenski, City. Engineer COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 11, 2007 TOPIC: Resolution No. 07-84, Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, West Shadow Lake Drive Street, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvement Project VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND: The City of Uno Lakes currently has approximately 100 miles of local streets. On May 14, 2007 City Council authorized the revision of West Shadow Lake Drive Feasibility study. As the City of Uno Lakes ages, the need for reconstruction of local streets becomes a greater priority. Streets that are in poor condition or have storm drainage problems substantially increase city maintenance costs. The West Shadow Lake Drive Area Improvement project will be funded by a combination of special assessments, Trunk Unit Funds, and general tax levies. The feasibility study, ordered by the City Council, has been completed. The next step in the process will be to accept the feasibility study and hold a Public Hearing on July 9th for the proposed improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving Resolution No. 07-84, Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, West Shadow Lake Drive Street, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Watermain improvement Project. Council Member Gtril t, moved for adoption of the following resolution: CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 07-84 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBUC HEARING — WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE STREET, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions of the Council adopted May 14, 2007, a study has been prepared by the City Engineer, with reference to West Shadow Lake Drive Street Improvement project for West Shadow Lake Drive from Birch Street to Northern Terminus, Shadow Court, and Sandpiper Drive by constructing street, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, trail, watermain, and this report was -received by the Council on June 11, June 11, 2007, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota States, Chapter 429, and Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA: 1. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement and he is directed to call for a public hearing for the West Shadow Lake Drive Street, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvement project. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $5,583,000.00. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 9th day of July, 2007 in the Council chambers of the City Hall at 6:30 p.m..and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. i(/ l n e Bartell, City ergeson, Mayor Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 11th day of June, 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing -resolution pas duly seconded by Council Member Reinertand upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Stoltz, Reinert, O'Donnell, Carlson The following voted against same: none (mayor Bergeson abstainer Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. --5 z�- AGENDA ITEM 6D STAFF ORIGINATOR: James E. Studenski, City Engineer COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 11, 2007 TOPIC: Resolution No. 07-85, Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Shenandoah Area Street, Storm Sewer, and Watermain Improvement Project VOTE REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND: The City of Lino Lakes currently has approximately 100 of local streets. On May 14, 2007 City Council authorized the revision of Shenandoah Area Feasibility study. As the City of Lino Lakes ages, the need for reconstruction of local streets becomes a greater priority. Streets that are in poor condition or have storm drainage problems substantially increase city maintenance costs. The Shenandoah Area Improvement project will be funded by a combination of special assessments, Trunk Unit Funds, and general tax levies. The feasibility study, ordered by the City Council, has been completed. The next step in the process will be to accept the feasibility study and hold a Public Hearing on July 9th for the proposed improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving Resolution No. 07-85 Accepting Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Shenandoah Area Street, Storm Sewer, and Watermain improvement Project. Council Member Reinert moved for adoption of the following resoiution: CITY OF UNO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 07- 85 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBUC HEARING — SHENANDOAH STREET, STORM SEWER, AND WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolutions of the Council adopted May 14, 2007, a study has been prepared by the City Engineer, with reference to Shenandoah Area improvement Project for Rice Court from Totem Trail to cul-de-sac, Hokah Court from Hokah Drive to cul-de-sac, Hokah Drive from Totem Trail to Birch Street, Totem Trail from Arrowhead Drive to Birch Street, Arrowhead Drive from Ware Road to 550 feet East of Totem Trail by constructing street, storm sewer, watermain, and this report was received by the Council on June 11, 2007, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, WHEREAS, the City proposes to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota States, Chapter 429, and Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA.. 1. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this improvement and he is directed to call for a public hearing for the Shenandoah Area Street, Storm Sewer, and Watermain Improvement project. 2. The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $2,156,635.00. 3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 9t day of July, 2007 in the Council chambers of the City Hall at 6:30 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and publish ecj notice of such baring and improvement as required by law. an e Bartell, Citi Clerk n J. Bergeson, Mayor Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 11th day of June, 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Memberr)5OII and uponlvote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Reinert, _ Carlson, Stoltz, O'Donnell The ffollowinayoted a ainst same: none ayor Btrgeson abstained() Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. S-zol Citizen's Charter Review Task Force Meeting Tuesday, June 5, 2007 6:30 p.m. Community Room Lino Lakes City Hall The Citizen's Task Force remains in the discovery phase of its review of the Lino Lakes Charter. As part of the process, we have received input from the Charter Commission and the public. The purpose of this meeting is to seek input from staff, city council members and technical advisors. Agenda 1. Welcome 2. Recap of Task Force process to date 3. Dialog with city staff and technical advisors 4. Dialog with city council members 5. Adjourn June 5, 2007 Meeting Summary In Attendance: City Staff Gordon Heitke-City Administrator, Jim Studenski-City Engineer, Michael Grochala-Director of Community Development Consultant: Steve Bubul - Bond Counsel Citizens' Task Force: Kathi Gallup, Jon Latcham, Cheryl Sanchez, Laura Carlson, Jamie Stem, Judi Brunner, Peter T. Brown Council member: Jeff Reinert Charter Commission member: Robert Bening One issue brought up was the perception of inconsistency in street standards -what is the standard? Question raised to City and Street Planners - Basic standard is 32' wide with curb and gutter. This gives a stronger street as it won't deteriorate as quickly. If you don't work the curb and gutter you need a larger ditch and grading that is more objectionable to residents. It is also difficult to manage driveways with this approach. Even at this width, one side will need to be no parking so emergency vehicles can get through. The narrowest that would even be considered is 30'. This width street cannot be a collector street. Above that, additional needs are considered for bike traffic and trail connections. Clarifying question raised to when the Charter Section 8 kicks in: Steve Bubul: It is not the project but the financing plan that triggers Chapter 8. It kicks in whenever it is financed with special assessments. When you levy assessments you have to prove that the amount assessed is supported by an increase in property value. City can reconstruct streets without special assessment but it is an expensive option. Peter to city to tell them one possibility we have discussed - One approach would be to establish a fund and pay for the streets without special assessments. This is recognized as less efficient but it would get streets reconstructed. Put this to the voters so that they have a choice -change the charter or finance the reconstruction through less efficient methods. Rely on Levy instead. Any issues or drawbacks with this? Bubul: Levy limits happen whenever legislature kicks them in so be aware that this may make this approach inconsistent. City could start with a project and then a limit is set and it would need to back off. We also discussed that sometimes residents may agree to a street now but not water and sewer. If they later want water and sewer, is there an option to run it down the side of the street so the street isn't torn up? Michael: Option of putting in water/sewer afterwards down the side. There are issues with keeping the sewer line the right distance from existing wells, etc. It has to be 50' from wells and this means the middle of the street typically. Special arrangements have been made in some areas but this approach won't consistently work. If the residents petitioned against sewer/water but still got the street and the city used other funds to run the sewer and water lines they could just have a deferred assessment such that when they connect they will be assessed the cost of the a standard lot in that area -basically for a 90' lot even if their lot is larger. If they later sub -divide and more lots are eventually laid out these new lots would also be assessed. After all is said and done the city will recapture/assess all the costs that were laid out initially. From Peter - How could we convince the public to vote to reduce the power of section 8. From Council member Reinert - We have to look at what are we changing it to? How do you sell it to the residents? It has to be recognized that even if replacing streets regularly we have to remember that if streets last 40- 60 years and we have 100 miles that means we have 1-2 miles to reconstruct annually on average. We've only reconstructed one in the last 20 years! We have to get going on this. Many of our streets are pretty new but we will have a period in time where a large amount of streets will need to be reconstructed. Safety question raised by Cheryl: At what point is a street so bad that the state or city would shut it down? Basically it can never come to this. From a liability standpoint signs are posted and they are advised to keep the referendum on the ballot to protect themselves. Brainstorming: People may be willing to change the charter but need assurance that the "heart of the charter" is still in place. Large property owners are still concerned about the possibility of a large assessment. Reinert: Maybe a systematic method of putting on the ballot each time the option to fund a fund or to change the referendum could be considered. If people see this coming up in front of them every time and the opportunity to change to a more efficient financing method each time, they may learn over time to just change the charter and be done with it. After the initial feasibility study the assessment cost that is quoted cannot be exceeded. It is difficult to come up with a figure to put in the study when the dollars aren't actually spent for several years. It must be realized that everything goes into the study as it can't be exceeded. It has to be passed before the final budgets and meetings are put in place. Once the referendum is passed then is the time to finalize the plan. Referendum only approves the financing. The plan/project still isn't approved until after the referendum when the city council approves the plan. It is a leap of faith that is there for people to agree with the referendum (pass it) and trust that when the final plan comes in all the adjustments will be there to satisfy the residents. Maximum amount that can be assessed is determined by the increase in property value. With that amount limited you will end up with varying percentages assessed. This varying percent leads to the perception of inequality between the proposals. Michael indicated that right in feasibility study it has been considered to lay out that the open issues will be addressed in the final plan. This could give the assurance to the affected that more input will be considered and finalized before it is all said and done. Council member brought up the issue of the expense of the feasibility studies. If feasibility study project is done and completed the cost rolls into the project. If the project doesn't happen, the city eats the cost and has expended a ton of time into it as well. How can the city recapture any of these costs? If the expense doesn't increase the property value, it still can't be assessed. Question from Laura C - Should anything else be addressed in a charter change other than just Street Reconstruction? Michael feels that this is the main issue that should be addressed. Stephen feels there is some tidying up that should be done. Commission member warned that it would be unlikely to get the unanimous agreement on changes even if under legal advisement. Recommended to just stick to the issue at hand. Mr. Bubul distributed a memo (included) outlining his legal opinion on several points raised by a Charter Commission member and given to the Citizen's Task Force questioning whether a repair is an improvement. Citizen's Task Force Meeting Summary Tuesday, June 12, 2007 In attendance: Task Force: Peter Brown, John Latcham, Kathi Gallup, Judi Brunner, Laura Carlson City Council: Mayor John Bergeson, Jeff Reinert, Jeff O'Donnell, Donna Carlson View of issue by Mayor Bergeson- Our toolkit is limited by section 8 Council member Reinert- How can we work with the tools we have to make a difference? How can we work within our current laws? Council member O'Donnell- What is the city's responsibility to the citizens? About 5.5 +2.1 mil in new projects will be on the referendum again this next election. At some point in time these projects will continue to mount and create a huge burden on the city. We are pushing the problem down the road and that isn't responsible. Judi - As a group we don't feel that scrapping section 8 will be feasible. People are still going to want to have a say on the project and keep the petition process in place. Jamie - Even if we remove referendum does that fix all our charter issues? Likely not. Remove referendum piece on ballot as well as the $7.6 in spending? This is too much for one ballot and may confuse the issue. The street items should not be on the ballot. The city has been advised to keep the streets on the ballot as a liability issue but if we have an item on the ballot to fix the system (which will fix the streets) that should be even more evidence that there is an issue and the city wants it resolved. Council member Reinert - We could be accused of being irresponsible if we don't fix the roads or if we finance them wrongly. We won't be accused of being irresponsible if we start to establish a fund to use to fix the roads. This may be seen as a more expensive route but if we leave and haven't done anything how can they feel that they have done their job? Note: Source of fund would be property tax levy Peter - We will likely recommend a change to the charter in our recommendation. What can be done to "sell" this change? It was pointed out that the Charter Commission felt that one reason for the failure of the referendums was that not enough education/communication was provided. An educated electorate is required for this system to work. Why wasn't more communication/education delivered? From Mayor Bergeson - There are legal issues politicking a program. We can only provide information. This needs to be worked out closely with legal counsel. Council member Carlson - The referendums were also quite different -she is on the road that was redone. Neighborhood opposition for the West Shadow was an issue as it was perceived that not everyone even on that street approved of the project. There was also the perception that the assessed amounts were not equitable between projects. Question put to council "If our group comes with the recommendation to change the charter or to establish a road reconstruction fund, will the council actually do it?" Brainstorm Could the ballot have options- two questions? Remove referendum Establish road reconstruction fund Judi- The council needs to have a resolution that if the charter isn't changed a fund is started. This needs to be voted on prior to elections. This amount has to be substantial enough that it is reasonable to see that roads will be reconstructed in our lifetime. If the fund is established it will be definitely noted by the tax payer and perhaps in this election (or future) to the point that the ballot will actually say, "by voting yes, your taxes will go down."