Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-2007 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, July 19, 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 January 11, 2007 and June 14, 2007 minutes 6:35 PM 6. Old Business A. Review meeting minute format 6:45 PM B. Response to Kennedy & Graven memo 6:55 PM C. Charter Communication Plan 7:10 PM D. Section 8 Sub -committee report 7:25 PM E. Quarterly update on all budget items spent on Charter related business 7:45 PM F. Re-application for City Charter due by October meeting 7:50 PM G. On -Going Reports, Gordon Heitke, City Administrator, read only All new items that have come forward relating to Charter Business 7. New Business A. Charter Task Force Recommendations B. Copies of Task Force Recommendations for Commissioners with e-mail 8. Adjourn 7:55 PM 7:55 PM 8:30 PM 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 October 12, 2007 -Commissioner Trehus referred to line 44 and corrected the sentence to read, "Commissioner Trehus stated he had invited the Commission, Community Development..." Commissioner Trehus referred to line 46, correcting the sentence, "because of staff attending a meeting..." Commissioner Storberg referred to line 150 correcting the sentence by adding "for discussion," after the word "seconded." MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the October 12, 2007 meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CD's of Minutes Commissioner Dahl stated that she offered to supply a CD with the meeting minutes in a PFD format to any Commissioner at no charge, in addition to a copy for the closet. Commissioner Duffy noted that for a copy of the packet and minutes the cost was $7.00. Chair Warren indicated the PDF format could not be changed, and it was a great service she was offering. Commissioner Trehus stated he would like a copy of the CD. OLD BUSINESS A. Road Reconstruction and Staff Discussion (Staff) Chair Warren tabled this item because there was no staff present. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment Chair Warren stated that the Commission issued an invitation to address the Charter Amendment with Council and City Staff. After several phone calls, there were concerns about the meaning of the response. The City Administrator noted the specific staff could not supply the depth for the project to go forward. The State and Charter requirement details needed to be understood by the Council and Commission. He recommended a training session for the Commission, staff and Council. Commissioner Trehus noted he disagreed with points a -d in the material the City Administrator gave for denying access to information. Commissioner Bening indicated he believed it was an acceptable response, and was in favor of a joint meeting. If Council wanted a change, they could propose it. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 3 DRAFT Commissioner Bor stated that it was not the position of City Staff to provide the information to assess if an amendment was necessary. Chair Warren responded he was speaking for Council and Staff. She believed they should work with the Commission, even if the request for specific City staff was ineffective. A joint meeting might help define what could and could not be done. Commissioner Trehus expressed concern they should allow access to City staff, and should not direct the Commission to training. He believed it was hindering the process. Commissioner Bening asked for clarification. Commissioner Trehus answered that the Commission requested information and was denied. The people holding the neighborhood surveys knew the issues. Commissioner Duffy indicated the intent of the Commission was to see if there was a viable alternative. She directed the Commission to a note from William Hawkins and Associates dated April 12, 2005 and addressed to the City Administrator referring to Minnesota Statute 410. Chair Warren noted the possibility that the Commission might not be inviting enough people or the right people. She wanted to involve the people who would move it forward. She recommended the item also be discussed at the next meeting. At the July meeting, the Commission would draft an amendment and have it ready for the vote. Commissioner Bor questioned if the letter gave any assurance that something could be in place. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any progress had been made since the last meeting. She believed it should be initiated to benefit the roads and recommended tabling the issue to allow Council and Staff to approach the Commission. Commissioner Vacha agreed that the issue should be tabled. Commissioner Carlson concurred, stating that Council should be motivating the Commission to act. Chair Warren stated that Council could make an amendment that might not serve the community. Commissioner Trehus responded he did not believe that Council was trying to work with the Commission. If the Commission did not go forth with the issue, the amendment concern did not automatically rest. He noted the City Administrator indicated that Council would decide. He was willing to go to a training session. Commissioner Storberg reminded the Commission of the stadium example. MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Rosemary Williams, to table any further discussion on road construction to be opened at the time of the Commission's choice. Motion carried unanimously. 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.) 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 Commissioner Storberg inquired if they received funding from Council. Mr. Thomas responded that Council could add to it, but the only money they spent was for the packet. Commissioner Storberg questioned if their Council allowed access to the City Attorney. Mr. Thomas stated they allowed access to the City Attorney one or two times per year. In the joint meetings, the City Attorney was present on behalf of the Council. Chair Warren inquired if Council made recommendations to the Charter. Mr. Thomas responded that they did make recommendations to the Charter; however, only a few requests required their input. Their Charter Commission also did research and discussion. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification concerning the budget in dealing with Council conflicts. Mr. Thomas stated they were working to restrict taxation, which was ignored. Fridley had worked on their Charter so that taxes would not be increased by more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus questioned if they had worked with Council. Mr. Thomas explained that there were four meetings with Council, presenting drafts and discussing them. He indicated that staff was helpful. Commissioner Trehus inquired about the reason Council would want limitations. Mr. Thomas stated the Charter could limit the less conservative Council members. Commissioner Trehus asked if the issue was written in the paper, or on cable. Mr. Thomas responded they had used both and the press called him several times a week at certain times. Commissioner Trehus questioned who had decided on the mechanics of the process. Mr. Thomas answered that he did the research on the balloting process. Ms. Thomas added that the clerk issue was different from the amendment side. Mr. Thomas explained that the clerk supplied information on timing and sent copies of documents to people. The entire Commission was involved. He distributed copies of the document. Once completed, they were converted to City Council resolutions. The form needed to be drafted by a legal firm to be voted on. He had requested to see the draft in the process and commented on it before the vote, because it needed clarification. He indicated that now they were in good standing because there was a continual interface. The agendas for joint meetings were created to foster common ground. When an amendment was put on the ballot the City requested it to be complete between the budgeting year, so "Effective on," was beginning the new budget year. Chair Warren noted that it appeared that they had significant access to the League of Minnesota Cities. However when the Charter Commission approaches them, they seem Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 6 DRAFT to want to dialogue with Council but not the Commission. Mr. Thomas answered he went to visit them. Commissioner Storberg inquired if any mailings were distributed. Mr. Thomas responded that there were no mailings; however, a statement was made and were replayed several times a week. As a result, 78% of the voters were in favor of the amendment, which was more than voted for the mayor. Ms. Thomas stated Council was financially very supportive of the limitations. It was an eight-year process to have it come together. Mr. Thomas stated taxes were not raised more than 5% per year. Commissioner Trehus asked for clarification. Mr. Thomas answered the lesser of the consumer price index, and was explained in three pages. It was the most difficult part in the Charter, but it was not the most important accomplishment. The most important accomplishment was the rest of chapter 7 that was clarified so that anyone could understand the process. Chair Warren inquired if they ever had difficulty with accessing City staff. Mr. Thomas admitted the tension was high when he began on the Commission. With the election of a new mayor, there was a fresh start. It took time to change the environment. Ms. Thomas stated at that time there was a new mayor and new City Attorney. Mr. Thomas added that some Commissioners would work with the mayor, but they were outnumbered. Ms. Thomas noted that the term for mayor was only two years. Mr. Thomas indicated there were originally 15 members on the Charter Commission, now there were only six members because many resigned. Commissioner Dahl inquired if the success rate was attributed to televising the meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that the impact of the meetings being televised was very small because less than 50% of the residents had cable. Commissioner Dahl questioned the guests concerning the impact of web streaming. The Charter Commission was not on the web as yet. Mr. Thomas responded it was on during the recent past, but they were in the process. He explained that five years ago they had joint meetings with Council to identify concerns that they could agree on. It was apparent that staff had concerns dating back 15 years that had not been addressed. Those were the first the Commission worked on. The second category was to identify things to be done, and define a process to go to voters for the decision. The third category was the concerns that were too much work, such as the system of taxation, upgrading chapter 7, chapter 5 referendums and recall. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 7 DRAFT Commissioner Trehus indicated that they had two members exercise a recall. Ms. Thomas clarified the difference between the repeal of an ordinance and recall. Recall was if an elected official was convicted of criminal activity it would be considered malfeasance, but the judge would require them to relinquish their position. Mr. Thomas explained that the court defines the terms as criminal behavior. It was clarified in their Charter in a footnote that was submitted to Commission guidelines that were drafted, and copies of the amendment were distributed. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the relationship between Council and Charter Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that her being a Council member and Commissioner was helpful because she knew the timing and scheduling in the City. Commissioner Storberg asked for clarification on the frequency of their meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that they used to meet once a year. Now they meet much more frequently, at times once per week. Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had concerns and requests about the Charter, but the Commission did not address those concerns. Chair Warren noted it would be understandable for Council to not want to be limited. Mr. Thomas stated that there were Charter cities and statutory cities where the City had considerable power. In a Charter city, a Council member could pull out something from the Charter and explain it. He believed a statutory city was a disadvantage. In a Charter city, a Council member could state that the Charter was their authority. Chair Warren mentioned that Council and Commission have more ownership of the Charter. Mr. Thomas added that it was a living document, and in his opinion the best form of government. The copy of Mounds View Charter did not have section 7.03. All the rest was adopted. He admitted it was difficult to get a legal copy to the public. Ms. Thomas clarified that it was difficult to know how to submit to ballot. Mr. Thomas referred to Minnesota Public Meeting Law, where it was required to be maintained on record at city hall, but not necessary to post on line. Any member of the public can address or petition for an amendment. The issue must be addressed by the Commission. The only example of term limits was for Council and mayor. It was not constitutional law, but it was in the Charter. There were other cities that had that provision in their Charters. Commissioner Bening noted that state statute had been changed. Chair Warren inquired about other goals their Commission had. Mr. Thomas responded there was a concern as to the classification of the items from the ballot or ordinance. If 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 to public vote. If the change was to explain and describe, it could be changed by an ordinance. Commissioner Trehus stated that if a provision was ignored, the Commission could not take the City to court, but an individual citizen could. Commissioner Bor inquired about the process in dealing with the outstanding issues. Mr. Thomas indicated he made a list from the notes brought from staff to the Commission. The Commission submitted eleven items and all were rejected. Then there were 25 items where some were concepts or a single word. They met every month, and some were joint meetings with Council. After a couple of months, they prioritized the items with 12-13 items in category A. Chapter 5 concerns could not go to ballot because it was not explained enough. Pictures were needed to explain it clearly and concisely. Chair Warren mentioned that a flow chart would be helpful for the road construction concern. Mr. Thomas continued that there were five appendices discussing items such as adopting a ballot issue and a timeline for adopting a ballot issue. The diagrams were necessary because of the timeline and extensive textual language necessary. He checked to make sure if it went to ballot, there was the technical capabilities available to handle diagrams. After receiving help it was now in the ordinance process. The attorney's comments stated there could be no conflict between dialogue and diagram, because the text would be legal if there was a conflict. The second was that the text should follow the diagram. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the reason for not putting the timeline in the Charter. Mr. Thomas indicated it would work to put it in the Charter, but he would prefer to put it in the by-laws. In their City, no one agreed on the Commission, and the Council could not explain it. Mounds View chose to put it in the by-laws. Commissioner Bening questioned if they used subcommittees over the years. Mr. Thomas responded that usually all was done by the entire Commission. When there were 13 members, they used them. A lot of research was done by individual Commissioners or through meetings or e-mails with staff. If a subcommittee is larger than a quorum, it must be made public. Chair Warren thanked the visitors, indicating their input was appreciated. Mr. Thomas stated he would e-mail the final draft of chapter 5. Ms. Thomas mentioned they were building a new list, so they were in a similar position as the Lino Lakes's Commission. Mounds View is at 13,000 population, and would be fully developed in about 20 years. Among them, there were 8,300 registered voters. She indicated they were willing to assist the Commission if needed. 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. B. Outcome of City Staff and City Council actions with Charter Amendment - continued Chair Warren reopened up the 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 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to approve the Annual Report correcting the misspelled word and inserting the correct information in the date. Motion carried unanimously. ON-GOING REPORTS A. Five Year Plan This item was tabled to the next Charter Commission Meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. Mounds View Ballot Amendment This item was discussed earlier in the meeting. B. Annual Report By-laws Commissioner Duffy stated she was confused as to when the annual report was due. Commissioner Trehus responded chronologically it was December 31 of the following year. Commissioner Duffy indicated she read the by-laws and summarized the actions of the Commission. In practice, it was usually at the first meeting in January. Commissioner Trehus commented that the 2006 report would be submitted by October 2007. Previously, he had sent the report to the judge late one year and early another. It should be stated, "no later then the October meeting." Commissioner Bening inquired if a subcommittee could address the by-laws. Commissioner Dahl received the report from Chair Warren to send to the judge in accordance with the by-laws. Commissioner Bor requested the Charter and By-laws be addressed at the next meeting. C. Chair Comments Chair Warren stated she was resigning. She provided some recommendations. First, they needed to dialogue with staff and Council so all will know the benefits of the Charter. Second, to adopt some of the ideas from the visitors, prioritize the items to work on, find points of agreement that Council wants. Then the Commission should address the items of disagreement, but ones that can still be addressed cooperatively. Finally, the items of contention should be tabled until trust is built. The next chair should identify what works and what does not and then fmd out how the Commission could assist. Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 11 D. Terms of Charter Members DRAFT Commissioner Duffy noted she reviewed the list, and members serve until they are replaced. She did not have an updated list. Chair Warren indicated that Bening had the list. Commissioner Carlson stated he had a hard copy of the list. Commissioner Trehus stated that they should add four years to each of the dates because of reappointment. E. Legal Council Commissioner Trehus stated that he believed they needed their own attorney. They needed to know the budget, because there was grey area on the statutory limit. He recommended a subcommittee to address the issue. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to form a subcommittee to address the Commission's need of legal Council. Commissioner Bor stated that a good chair was just lost. She believed that if the Commission pursued obtaining its own legal Council, it would be seen as a defensive move. Chair Warren indicated that Mounds View hired their own counsel, and the advice was incorrect, so there was continued frustration. Commissioner Bor asked for clarification on the goal of hiring its own legal Council, and she expressed concern about approving a subcommittee action. Commissioner Trehus inquired if the City could say that staff would not come to a meeting. He stated the Commission should have access to an attorney. To put forth an amendment, it would behoove the Commission to have it reviewed by a lawyer. Motion carried on 8 -ayes, 4 -nays (Bening, Carlson, Vacha, and Bor) vote. Commissioner Trehus and Commissioner Dahl formed the subcommittee. SET AGENDA — Chair Warren set the following agenda for the April 10, 2007 Charter Commission Meeting: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Open Mike Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 12 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 11, 2007 6. New Chair DRAFT 7. Old Business A. By-laws and Charter Compatibility -everyone B. Budget 8. On -Going Reports A. Five Year Plan 9. New Business 10. Set Agenda for July 2007 Meeting Chair Warren recommended that the Commissioners have direct communication with the City Administrator not the staff member in light of the recommendations for relationship building. Chair Trehus requested the 2005 and 2006 administrative expenditures in case there was a legal opinion. In addition if there were any statements concerning the Charter, they would also be helpful. Commissioner Dahl stated that $200 was used for printing. The agenda was approved. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Bor seconded by Commissioner Vacha, to adjourn the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Charter Commission June 14, 2007 Page 1 1 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 p.m. on June 14, 2007. 19 20 rt 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 OPEN MIKE 35 36 No one was present for open mike. 37 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 39 40 41 motion. 42 n 43 DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION June 14, 2007 6:38 P.M. 9:45 P.M. Trehus, Handrick, Vacha, Bening, Dahl Duffy, Richard Williams, Rosemary Williams, Storberg, Zastrow, Maher and Carlson Aldentaler, Bor and Montain None Julie Bartell, City Clerk (part) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Duffy called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:38 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Duffy requested to add item 7D — June 4, 2007 Kennedy & Graven Memorandum MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to add item 7D to the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Trehus requested to move item 6E ahead of item 6A. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to consider item 6E ahead of item 6A. Motion carried unanimously. A. April 12, 2007 — Chair Duffy noted Line 122 and indicated that she did not oppose the 44 Chair Duffy noted Line 154 and requested the line be removed. 1 Charter Commission June 14, 2007 Page 2 DRAFT 45 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Chair Duffy, to approve the April 12, 2007, 46 Charter Commission meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 47 48 OLD BUSINESS 49 50 A. Review April Meeting Minute Format — Commissioner Dahl stated that she would like 51 to see a brief summary of discussion and conclusions in the meeting minutes. 52 53 MOTION by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Handrick, to use a short 54 paragraph format on discussion and results in the meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 55 56 B. Joint Charter/Citizen's Task Force Meeting — Meeting minutes were discussed and 57 Commissioner Trehus noted that comments appeared to be missing or incorrect including his 58 own. Commissioner Dahl suggested that Commissioner Trehus contact the secretary to state his 59 concerns. 60 61 Commissioner Storberg asked why Commissioner Bening was asked to give his opinion at the 62 meeting and said it was his opinion only and then a petition was done for her only. Chair Duffy 63 stated that the petition was done since she asked Commissioner Storberg not to hand out the 64 memo. The Commission discussed the reasoning behind Commissioner Storberg's actions and 65 the ramifications. 66 67 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Stockman Maher, to table the 68 conversation until a future meeting. 69 70 Commissioner Stockman Maher withdrew her second. Commissioner Trehus withdrew his 71 motion. 72 73 Commissioner Hendricks stated that the Charter should be changed and suggested looking at the 74 language used by Mounds View. Commissioner Rosemary Williams stated that changes made to 75 the Charter will only weaken it. Commissioner Vacha stated that every charter is designed 76 specifically to its own city and the distinction between maintenance and improvements needs to 77 be clarified. 78 79 MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded by Commissioner Handrick, to create a 80 subcommittee to define maintenance over improvements as stated in Section 8 of the Charter. 81 Motion carried unanimously. 82 83 Commissioners Carlson, Vacha, and Zastrow volunteered to be on the subcommittee. 84 85 C. Other Citizen's Task Force Meetings — Chair Duffy stated that the portion of the June 86 12, 2007 meeting minutes regarding Section 8 are very illuminating and bode well for the 87 Charter. Trehus noted that there was also talk of creating a road construction fund in the 88 minutes. 2 Charter Commission June 14, 2007 Page 3 DRAFT 89 90 Chair Duffy stated that the May 14, 2007 City Council meeting minutes show a timeline for 91 ballot questions regarding Shenandoah and West Shadow Lake Drive. She explained that 92 Council is moving forward as if it will be on the ballot this fall. She stated that she believes there 93 will be only one question on the ballot but is not certain which one it will be. 94 95 D. Seal Coating Map — Chair Duffy explained the map and stated that Hawthorne Road has 96 been completed. Commissioner Carlson noted that some work has been completed at East 97 Shadow Lake Drive as well. Commissioner Bening commented that the map does not include 98 streets that were done previously. 99 100 E. Charter Communication Plan — The Commission discussed the words and phrasing of 101 the letter, in particular, the word "attack" and adding the word "solely" into the sentence 102 regarding the City Council's authority to approve road reconstruction projects. Commissioner 103 Trehus stated that he revised the letter by making it flow better. He did not make any substantial 104 changes to the previous version. Commissioner Carlson pointed out that the letter should not be 105 overly negative in an effort to prevent people from turning against the Charter. 106 107 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to approve the letter 108 subject to possible minor alterations as decided upon by officers of the Commission, and .09 submission for publication to the Editorial Section in both newspapers and the City Newsletter. 110 111 Commissioner Zastrow withdrew his second. Commissioner Trehus withdrew his motion. 112 113 Commissioner Carlson volunteered to be on the Communication Subcommittee. 114 115 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to table approval of 116 the letter until the July meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 117 118 Commissioner Trehus suggested putting articles in the City Newsletter with quotes from the 119 Charter as well as City Officials. Commissioner Storberg suggested setting a date in October to 120 have an open forum where citizens can ask questions of the Charter. 121 122 NEW BUSINESS 123 124 A. Attorney Charter Review — Chair Duffy stated that there is a discrepancy between the 125 intent of Section 8 and what is actually happening. She stated that the difference between 126 maintenance and improvements needs to be clarified. She explained that she received two quotes 127 from Attorneys to review Section 8 of the City Charter. One quote was for $300 and the other 128 was for $3,500. 129 130 B. July Meeting Date ^l31 3 Charter Commission June 14, 2007 Page 4 DRAFT 132 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to move the July 12, 133 2007 Lino Lakes Charter Commission Meeting to July 19, 2007. Motion carried unanimously. 134 135 C. City Growth Rate — Commissioner Trehus stated that a city survey shows that citizens 136 are most concerned about the increasing growth rate in Lino Lakes. He explained that there is a 137 Growth Rate Statute that puts a limit on the rate at which the City can grow and the City Council 138 has gone against the ordinance by creating a Growth Management Ordinance. He stated that the 139 City Council is working on a comprehensive plan to cover their tracks slated for the end of the 140 year. He suggested the Charter Commission put a question on the ballot regarding Council's 141 ability to change the growth rate rules without voter's approval. The Commission decided that 142 with the timeframe, putting a question on the ballot is not feasible. 143 144 D. Kennedy & Graven Memorandum — Commissioner Stockman Maher stated that the 145 memorandum does not answer the questions constructively and skews the information. She also 146 commented on not knowing who the "Commission Member" is referring to. Commissioner 147 Storberg suggested replying to the memo to better inform the public since the memorandum is 148 public information. 149 150 MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to have 151 Commissioner Stockman Maher draft a response to the Kennedy & Graven memorandum and 152 forward it to the Task Force. Motion failed 6 — 5 —1. (Voting against: Chair Duffy, 153 Commissioners Bening, Trehus, Richard Williams, and Rosemary Williams. Abstain: 154 Commissioner Stockman Maher) 155 156 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to have Commissioner 157 Stockman Maher draft a response to the Kennedy & Graven Memorandum addressed to the 158 Charter Chair and have the Officers review it prior to Chair Duffy forwarding it to the Task 159 Force. 160 161 A friendly Amendment was offered and accepted by both Commissioners Trehus and Carlson to 162 remove the wording: "and have the Officers review it." 163 164 Motion carried unanimously. 165 166 ADJOURN 167 168 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to adjourn the meeting 169 at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 170 171 172 Respectfully Submitted, 173 174 Amanda Wylie 175 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 4 Date: 07/12/2007 Time: 16:19:33 Account# / Title City of Lino Lakes Operator: ajr Page: 1 FM Reports - Period Expenditure Report Calendar Period: 01/2007 To: 06/2007 Fiscal Period: 01/2007 To: 06/2007 Budget Thru: 12/2007 Original Net Budget Expended PTD Expended YTD 8 Unexpended Bal 101-405-4200-000 GENERAL CHARTER OFFICE SUPPLI SUPPLIES Total 101-405-4300-000 GENERAL 101-405-4300-999 GENERAL 101-405-4301-000 GENERAL 101-405-4322-000 GENERAL 101-405-4330-000 GENERAL 101-405-4340-000 GENERAL 101-405-4343-000 GENERAL 101-405-4344-000 GENERAL OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 CHARTER PROFESSIONAL 0.00 CHARTER PROFESSIONAL -0001,500.00 CHARTER MUNICIPAL ATT /N`T'R 500.00 CHARTER POSTAGE 0.00 CHARTER TRAVEL/TUITIO 0.00 CHARTER ADVERTISING 200.00 CHARTER NEWSLETTER 0.00 CHARTER LEGAL PRINTIN 0.00 Total 2,200.00 101-405-5000-000 GENERAL CHARTER CAPITAL OUTLA CAPITAL OUTLAY Total CHARTER Total GRAND TOTAL 0.00 1,500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 0.00 2,200.00 0.00 560.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.80 0.00 0.00 575.65 0.00 560.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.80 0.00 0.00 575.65 O 0.00 37 939.15 O 500.00 O 0.00 0 0.00 7 185.20 0 0.00 O 0.00 26 1,624.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 2,200.00 2,200.00 2,200.00 2,200.00 575.65 575.65 575.65 26 1,624.35 575.65 26 1,624.35 Memorandum Date: July 16, 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 and adoption process, with adoption occurring in December, 2007. Departments have begun developing their 2008 annual budgets, which will be compiled into an agency budget for review and discussion with the City Council August 22, 2007. Following the adoption of the preliminary budget and levy in September, preparation on the Five Year Financial Plan update will take place with adoption occurring in December. Public Improvement Petitions The City has not received any new petitions for public improvements. Street Reconstruction Feasibility studies have been updated for the West Shadow Lake Drive and Shenandoah Area proposed street reconstruction projects. Neighborhood meetings and public hearings have been conducted. The process is in the sixty day period following the public hearing to allow for opposition petitions to be brought forth. Following this period, the City Council will be discussing whether to place any street reconstruction projects on the ballot in November 2007. Memorandum To: Caroline Dahl From: Gordon Heitke and Al Rolek Date: July 16, 2007 Re: Charter Commission information request Cc: Charter Commissioners Per your email request of July 15, the expenses paid to date for the City Council's Charter Task Force is $16,567, which includes the costs for legal fees, professional services and consulting staff services. As far as city staff involvement, it was intermittent and did not consume blocks of 3-4 hours at a time. Michael and Gordon were asked to be present for a portion of a couple of meetings which might have been approximately one hour of time each meeting. Outside of that, shorter periods of time was spent on assessment policy questions, etc. for Steve Bubul, liability questions with LMCIT, charter requirements and other data requests from Carl Neu. Staff does not document the internal time expended for non -billable council -assigned projects such as this. Because this is a City Council task force, the costs associated with it are charged to the City Council's department budget. It is anticipated that additional unbilled costs for the task force will be in the $800 — $1,500 range. In terms of future expenditures, none are planned at this time. With the completion of the report, we believe the consulting duties for the task force have been completed and additional costs will not be incurred. While it is unknown whether there will be a question on the ballot, if there is one, we envision the attorney reviewing the ballot language. Regarding any costs associated with communications, this is another unknown as the Council will decide whether there will be any outside costs related to a communication program, if there is a ballot question. June 29, 2007 City Council, Charter Commission and Citizens of Lino Lakes Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Members of the City Council, Charter Commission and Citizens of Lino Lakes, Last February the City Council gave the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Local Improvements the task of studying the City Charter's impact on the Council's ability to manage streets and consider the need for an amendment. Attached you will find a detailed report of our review and a recommendation. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Lino Lakes in this manner. Sincerely, Kathi Gallup Chairperson, Citizen's Task Force The City ofLino Lakes Report of the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements July 2007 Lino Lakes, Minnesota Contents Background 1 Task Force Process ......1 Report .3 Recommendation .....9 Observations 12 Appendix A: Resolution Appendix B: Pavement Management Report Financing Plan Appendix C: Pavement Management Policies Appendix D: Projected Tax Impacts Appendix E: League of MN Cities Letter Appendix F: Risk Management Memo Background In a 2006 Quality of Life Survey, 60% of respondents favored changing the Lino Lakes City Charter so that the City Council can plan and fund the reconstruction of streets in a responsible manner. The sentiment was echoed throughout the 2030 visioning process (September 2006 -February 2007) in a public forum and in visioning issue team discussions, resulting in a 2030 Vision Plan recommendation to change the charter. The 2030 Plan also stated that a citizen's group should initiate the effort. Citizen's Task Force Created by City Council In February 2007 the Lino Lakes City Council adopted Resolution No. 07-30 (see Appendix A) appointing the 2030 Visioning Committee to form a task force from its members. The 2030 group was made up of citizens randomly selected from the community. Seven interested members of the Visioning Committee formed the Citizen's Task Force, which was charged with studying the charter's impact on the Council's ability to manage streets and consider the need for an amendment. Over the past four months, the task force met 14 times. Detailed information on the Task Force is available at www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us. Task Force Process The Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Local Improvements began meeting in March with a series of presentations that provided background information on the City's Pavement Management Plan, financing recommendations to fund projects in the plan, a comparison of statutory and charter cities, and the process for assessing the costs of public improvements under state statutes and under Lino Lakes' charter. In an effort to hear from all stakeholders in this issue, joint meetings were held with members of the Charter Commission, City administrators, and members of the City Council. Public comment was taken at a public forum and through the city's website. The Issue and Its Significance At issue are the city's authority and apparent inability to reconstruct its streets—a vital public improvement and infrastructure asset—in the most responsible, timely and cost- effective manner. Lino Lakes has 84 miles of paved roads valued at $90 million—a significant asset that is in the city's best interest to preserve in order to provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the city attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to property owners and taxpayers. In its Pavement Management Plan, the city has outlined a schedule for the reconstruction of roads rated "problem" (see Figure 1) and a financing plan that would pay for the reconstruction at the lowest cost overall (see Appendix B), yet the city has not been able to fully execute the plan because of provisions in Section 8 of the Charter. Current charter provisions for referendum force a citywide election for each localized street reconstruction project rather than having issues be resolved by affected property owners and the City Council. Referendums failed in 2003 and 2005. Figure 1. Pavement Management Recommendations PROPOSED FUNDING 15% INFLATION) Paan Year Reconstruction 2005 (1) $0 2006(2) $0 2007 (3) 51,435,000 2008 (4) 52,750,000 2009 (5) 53,035,000 2010(6) $3.485,000 2011 (7) 51,577.500 2012 (8) 51 655,000 2013(9) $1,737,500 2014 (10) 51.825,000 Maintenance 10 -YR PAVEMENT ANALYSIS SCENARIOS PROJECTED 10 -YEAR ROAD CONDITIONS Sealcoat -Total OC10-40 7 OCI 40.01 -70 OCI 70.01 -. 100 ,1,7, FUNDS 28% 32% 40% $347,500 CURRENT 28% 17% 85% 2008 (4) PROPOSED 5% 14%. 81% 5220.000 PREStNT CONDITIONS 1314 24% 83% Plan Year Overlay Sealcoat -Total 2005(1) $140.000 590,000 5230,000 2006 (2) $190.000 5157,500 $347,500 2007 (3) 5200.000 S165,000 5365,000 2008 (4) 5210.000 5175.000 5385,000 2009 (5) 5220.000 5182,500 5402,500 2010 (6) 5230.000 5192.500 5422,500 2011 (7) 5242.500 5202,500 8445,000 2012 (8) 5255,000 8212,500 5467,500 2013(9) 5267.500 5222,500 5490,000 2014 (10) 5280,000 5235,000 $515,000 OCI 0-40 Problem -Reconstruction OCI 40.01-70 Marginal -Overlay OCI 70.1-100 Adequate-Sealcoat Figure 2. 10 -Year Cost Comparison (Money Spent to Reconstruct Roads in Need) Proposed Pavement Management Plan 2 Current Practice Why This Issue Needs to be Resolved This issue needs to be resolved because of: 1. Financial reasons o Increased costs to the city and taxpayers o Problem continues to compound because streets continue to deteriorate because of lack of reconstruction o Wasted feasibility studies 2. Safety and liability concerns 3. Public support for changing the charter 1. Financial Reasons Increased Costs to the City and Taxpayers As a result of the failed referendums, the projected timely reconstruction of streets hasn't begun, forsaking a potential savings of $11 million (see Figure 2). This backlog of reconstruction projects cannot be ignored. Inflation drives up the cost of reconstruction every year due to higher costs for labor and construction materials. An example of the cost of deferring reconstruction is West Shadow Lake Drive. According to the city's Pavement Management Report, "The estimated cost of reconstruction in 2005 was $2,375,700. It is estimated the 2008 costs would be $2,750,000 due to increases in construction costs." (Source: Pavement Management Report, 2004, Page 12) Problem Continues to Compound Roads have a life span. Even with proper maintenance, they eventually wear out and need to be rebuilt. In Lino Lakes, 11 miles of roads are at that critical stage. The city's Pavement Management Report shows that streets will continue to deteriorate. As a result, the number of miles requiring reconstruction will increase. If streets already identified as needing reconstruction aren't completed and removed from the list, the number of projects and expenses will grow, compounding the problem. Over time, the financial burden could become so great that the city would never be able to manage it. Citizens should be concerned that the city can't, with any predictability, complete reconstruction projects in a timely manner using the most cost-effective financing available. Wasted Feasibility Studies Every proposed reconstruction project requires a feasibility study. The cost of the study varies depending upon existing conditions, existing information and the size of the project. Studies are good for 5-10 years though if voters turn down a project, it may need to be updated. The chart below shows the cost of studies and updates for upcoming projects. Project Cost of Initial Feasibility Study Cost to Update Shenandoah $30,000 $3,000 West Shadow Lake Drive $55,000 $4,500 Source: Lino Lakes City Engineer Affected property owners absorb feasibility costs if a project moves forward. If voted down, money required for the study is wasted. 3 2. Safety and Liability Concerns Streets that are in poor condition may be dangerous creating a public safety hazard that could result in costly litigation for the city. 3. Public Support for Changing the Charter In the 2006 Quality of Life Survey, residents favored a charter change to deal with road reconstruction by a margin of 60% to 20%. Concerning street conditions, 72% rated the overall condition of city streets as excellent or good in 1996. Ten years later, the excellent or good rating dropped to 53%. Pertinent information and data garnered from research and input from city staff, Council, experts, Charter Commission and the Community • Pavement Management Plan Lino Lakes now has a comprehensive plan for road maintenance and reconstruction. The Pavement Management Report (available at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us) documents the condition of each street and provides a 10 -year maintenance and reconstruction schedule. The Pavement Management Report, along with the city's pavement management policies (see Appendix C) and financing recommendations (see Appendix A) make up the city's Pavement Management Plan. The PMP shows that when roads are maintained and reconstructed at the right time, the city saves money in the long run. The city is funding maintenance (seal coat and overlay) through an annual property tax levy so that portion of the Pavement Management Plan is on target. The reconstruction portion (removal and replacement) is stalled because, under provisions of Section 8 the City Charter that force a citywide vote, the recommended financing formula is subject to referendum. Two referenda have been unsuccessful, compounding the problem and furthering Council's inability to follow the PMP. • Financing methods available for improvements The charter provision only requires referendum if special assessments are used to fund part of a road reconstruction project. There are other methods of financing available to the city but these methods are more costly and would increase dramatically the burden on taxpayers. This should be a concern to the taxpayer because if City Charter restrictions are not removed, more expensive financing methods may be the only option for the Council. Figure 3 on the following page illustrates alternative financing methods, including funding a public improvement through an annual property tax levy only. It would be one way to avoid a citywide election but it is a more expensive option. Note the sharp increase in property taxes; compared to the small, gradual increases in the financing alternative presented in the Pavement Management Plan. Also, an action by the Legislature to enact levy limits may reduce the Council's ability to use property tax levies as a financing mechanism. 4 Figure 3. Comparison of Financing Alternatives City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base 25.000Y. 20.000% 15.000'/. 10.000% ::::.. — 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 4—Annual Property Tax Levy Only #F Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction (no special assessments) - — Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction (inc. special assessments) —0—Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storni Water Utility 17 5p`ingstEd Another option that would avoid a citywide vote would be to specially assess 100% of the cost of a reconstruction project against the property owners who benefit. That option presents two problems. It would be too expensive for property owners and the city would need to show that the value of the property increased by the amount of the assessment. That is difficult to do and may be subject to expensive litigation. The recommended financing plan as presented in the Lino Lakes Pavement Management Plan is the most cost-effective and tax -friendly financing method available. It takes into account Lino Lakes citizens' sensitivity to increased taxes by spreading costs evenly among all taxpayers, assigning specific costs to the property owners who would benefit the most, and minimizing the use of city property taxes. Figure 4 on the following page shows the projected annual tax increase that the PMP's financing plan would have on a $228,000 house. For tax impacts on additional home values, see Appendix D. Figure 4. Projected Property Tax Impacts Projected Property Tax Impacts $228,400 Residential Homestead Year Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) Animal Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact (73%Growth) Annual Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact (10%Growth) Annual Impact 2005 1.529% $ 34.93 1.529% $ 34.93 1.529% $ 34.93 2006 2.140% $ 48.87 2.090% $ 47.73 2.042% $ 46.65 2007 2.605% $ 59.49 2.485% $ 56.76 2.373% $ 5421 2008 3.429% $ 7831 3.195% $ 72.97 2.982% $ 68.11 2009 4.240% $ 96.83 3.859% $ 88.13 3.520'/0 $ 8039 2010 5.107% $ 116.63 4.540% $ 103.69 4.047% $ 92.43 2011 5393% $ 123.18 4.683% $ 106.96 4.080% $ 93.18 2012 5.656% $ 129.19 4.797°A $ 109.57 4.084% $ 93.28 2013 5.901% $ 134.78 4.:4:9% $ 111.66 4.067% $ 92.90 2014 6.140% $ 140.23 4.968% $ 113.47 4.039'/0 $ 92.26 14 Eprirtasted • Unique Charter Of the 854 cities in Minnesota, 107 are charter cities. Only two have provisions that hobble a City Council's ability to reconstruct streets. According to analysis by the League of MN Cities, "...no other charter city in Minnesota has a charter provision requiring a referendum on special assessments." Ed Cadman, Research Attorney, League of MN Cities Comparing Lino Lakes' charter (Section 8.04, subdivision 2) with corresponding special assessment and local improvement provisions of other charter cities, Mr. Cadman adds, "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 found in Mounds View..." Mounds View's charter does not require a referendum but it is similar to Lino Lakes' charter regarding petitions (see Appendix E). 6 • Charter Commission In a joint meeting between the Charter Commission and the Citizen's Task Force, Commissioners expressed strong support for the charter and its provisions, which can force a citywide referendum on a specific reconstruction project. They further said the charter's intention when adopted was to improve citizen representation at a time when Lino Lakes was developing quickly. They said citizens were frustrated by unreasonable and unwanted assessments and lacked confidence in the city's leadership. Provisions in Section 8 were meant to guarantee that citizens would have a voice in public improvement projects. In a communication dated June 22, 2007, the Charter Commission made its position clear that it is opposed to any changes pertaining to referenda inhibiting the Council's ability to reconstruct streets. In our opinion, these historical perspectives voiced by the Charter Commission no longer reflect current reality in the City of Lino Lakes. • Public Comment Most of the comments from the public at the May 15 public forum came from property owners living along West Shadow Lake Drive. Most spoke in favor of amending Section 8 of the Charter. They cited safety and environmental issues that can't get resolved. Several also expressed frustration that public improvements that a neighborhood needs and wants can't get past citywide voters. A strong statement of support for a charter change came from Vern Reinert, former mayor and one of the original drafters of the Lino Lakes City Charter who said times have changed and the charter needs to be revised. This is another portion of his statement from the May 15 public forum: "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. The sewer and water back 32 years ago was only in the SW comer. 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 concern 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." Vern Reinert, Former mayor 7 • Citizen Surveys Based upon a professionally -conducted and statistically -valued Quality of Life Survey: 1. Nearly 50% of residents have concerns about the overall condition of the city streets 2. 66% express awareness of current Charter provisions 3. 60% strongly favor or favor changes to the Charter (2030 Visioning Plan, Appendix C, p. 7) Moreover, the city has become more sophisticated in its planning process and public confidence is expressed in its City Council and administration by the following: 1. 72% feel city moving in right direction 2. Mayor and council overall job rating approval is 59% with 21% expressing disapproval 3. City employees received overall a 63% job rating approval with only 16% expressing fair to poor performance (2030 Visioning Plan, Appendix C, p.4) As former Mayor Reinert said, conditions have changed. Citizens believe the city is moving in the right direction by a ratio of three -to -one and have high ratings for the performance of the mayor, council and city employees. The alleged lack of confidence in city leadership and administration no longer prevails. • Safety & Liability Because of the poor condition of some of Lino Lakes' streets, the city has sought advice on what steps it should take to warn of dangerous streets in order to protect itself from expensive litigation.. Step #1 is to have a Pavement Management Program, which the city has. It may also need to consider warning signs. Also, a risk management attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust advised that, if the charter is not amended, that the city keep referenda on the ballot to demonstrate the Council's commitment to road reconstruction. (See Appendix F or G). Options Available to Community, City Council and Charter Commission 1. Do nothing 2. Finance through methods other than special assessment 3. Amend the charter 8 Objective Criteria Used to Evaluate Each Option The Citizen's Task Force evaluated options in terms of the degree to which they resolve the issue in a responsible manner, giving the city the ability to allow reasonable public input into the reconstruction process while at the same time allowing the City Council to exercise its fiduciary and stewardship duties to preserve the public's investment in infrastructure so that it is safe and well-managed. 1. Do nothing is not an option. The status quo does not deal with the problem. The city has adopted policies that provide for the management of the city's infrastructure in the most responsible and cost-effective manner possible, yet it is unable to fully implement its policies because of provisions in Section 8 that force local improvement projects to a citywide vote. As a result, streets in poor condition remain in poor condition threatening: o Safe and efficient travel o Property values o The City's attractiveness and desirability In addition, the city is unable to access widely used funding resources, which impacts the City's ability to minimize costs to property owners and taxpayers. 2. Financing through other methods, while available to the Council, is not fiscally prudent. 3. The Citizen's Task Force supports amending the charter. The current requirement for a citywide vote on each specific localized reconstruction project only frustrates the ability of the Council and property owners to work out their differences. Recommendation of Citizen's Task Force It is the conclusion of the Citizen's Task Force that provisions of Section 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter do limit the City Council's authority and ability to reconstruct roads in the most responsible, timely and cost-effective manner. Wording of Section 8 must be changed to allow the city to move forward with its Pavement Management Plan and its recommended financing formula. Also, any process pertaining to reconstruction or public improvements should allow opportunities for reasonable public input and a constructive dialogue between affected property owners and City Council/City administration. We recommend that Section 8 be amended to remove the citywide referenda. Instead, we offer an alternative that would still give citizens—those directly affected by the project— the final say as to whether or not an improvement project is allowed. We propose the opportunity for a neighborhood veto. Property owners directly affected by the project rather than voters across the city would be able to turn down a project. We do not feel that this recommendation takes away the voice of Lino Lakes' citizens. In fact, we believe it will protect and even strengthen the voice of citizens directly affected 9 by an improvement project, while at the same time giving the City Council a chance to do what it needs to do be a responsible steward of our city's assets. It is the recommendation of the Citizen's Task Force that the provisions of Chapter 8 be amended to read: ALTERNATIVE CHARTER LANGUAGE Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel; and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners 10 who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who filed objections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and may consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written objections regarding the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. Subdivision 4. If timely objections are not filed by the required number of property owners under Subdivision 2 of this Section, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section do not apply to the subject local improvements, and all subsequent procedures for approval of and levying of special assessments for those local improvements shall be in accordance with state law, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statues, Section 429.031, subdivision 1, clause (f), a resolution ordering the local improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the hearing by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. Crash Course In simpler terms: Either the City Council or citizens initiate an improvement project At the Council's discretion, a feasibility study is ordered 11 An improvement (public) hearing is scheduled; notice is mailed to affected property owners and published in newspaper If more than 50% of affected property owners file a written letter of objection either before or at the hearing, a special meeting is scheduled no sooner than 45 days later. At this special meeting, property owners and city staff sit down to take additional testimony, hear concerns, work out differences and revise project, if necessary. Previous objections become void. Council has up to six months to approve or decline project, which may be revised If approved, within 5 days, a summary of resolution is mailed to affected property owners Property owners have 30 days to file written objection (either letter or petition) If more than 50% of affected property owners object, they may veto the project. It does not go forward. If no objections or not enough objections, Council orders the project and process moves into the special assessment process Task Force Observations during the Conduct of its Activities • Communication and Education Good government requires an informed citizenry. It is recommended that the city expand its communications efforts with citizens when specific reconstruction and public improvement projects involving assessments are proposed. • Information As noted in an earlier survey and public comment received by the Task Force, an obstacle in gaining citizen approval of a City Charter change to deal with street reconstruction was information. An aggressive effort will be required to inform the citizenry of the issue. • Cooperation Opinions were expressed that there needs to be greater cooperative efforts among members of the Council, administration, Charter Commission and community when issues such as street reconstruction and public improvement are considered. • Waiting Period Rejection of a project does not absolve the city from dealing with it. It just postpones the inevitable. If rejected by the 50 percent provision in the recommended charter amendment, there should be policy defining when a road project can be brought up for review again. Our suggestion is 3-5 years 12 to take advantage of a project's current feasibility study unless safety, environmental or legal issues are raised that would necessitate earlier consideration. Legislative and public policy could also affect the length of the waiting period. • Road Reconstruction Fund In the event that the recommended amendment is not approved, the City Council may have to address the need to establish a reserve fund dedicated to road reconstruction paid for by increasing property taxes. This is not the preferred alternative as it is not the most cost-effective approach however it might be necessary. Delaying a road reconstruction project is not a responsible option as the problem only compounds so the Council must exercise due diligence to avoid a crisis situation. Final Comments We appreciate the opportunity to review this issue and make comment. The overriding message—it's time for a change. The amendment we propose is in the best interest of the city. APPENDIX A Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES ITEM 8G RESOLUTION NO. 07-30 RESOLUTION APPOINTING VISIONING COMMITTEE TO STUDY CITY CHARTER. Whereas, sixty percent of the respondents in the Lino Lakes quality of life survey conducted in 2006 favored changing the city charter so that the City Council can plan for and fund (budget) street construction and maintenance in a responsible manner; and Whereas, the Spotlight on 2030 Vision Plan identifies as a goal that the city ensure that local streets are maintained (or reconstructed to) an acceptable level and recommends that a citizen's group or task force be formed to study the existing charter and consider the need for amendment to accomplish this goal; and Whereas, the 2030 Visioning group is representative of the general citizenry of Lino Lakes and has volunteered to form a citizen task force from its members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby appoints the 2030 visioning group to form a task force through the selection of a group of its citizen members that will further study the issue of the city charter as it relates to road reconstruction and report back to the City Council and the Lino Lakes Charter Commission by June 1, 2007. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 12th day of February, 2007. John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Bartell, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPENDIX B 1 iffartil OM: iireR � k CRIA44 :r e Springstad l� ._® 2 . � _ >0d 2 4605;; SNP moo• ;:"�ioataso®aea® yrs ,or.m:�.s Sprtngsted 3 ' .,, " „i Mgr 'E -. F Peebt Setter AerbaM1 SDrtnOstH iPsweilu-ar g: r:.,:;:,: .. ., .t. Ca`Es..a•jit,:s.� *,tL. ...>'llXlS F' 7. �' .l-* µ...,.'T •:'Rr1 i�GE. u: t.g +�l:,":e a _1re•+m.•YP._aibilno et-trWwY•Klmolm aDa%D.•W -tPgr..7=1r....D.%a_et PIMA< Seam AYMfon SDrtngsted Paebr Suer Aorum. 441;0 MI if, Amami - Manua fA•••f 4et7!%6.ei X4••1 - 1/66•e0 • SDrtngsted 4 Pune: Sxetar Aurisen. Springstad -0-AmmIbftwV$1w70w -a-AmmIbaL a+G6iY1•a>aeraM1ea1merit -,..-Am•11.14.711w66iAwmmtigYlkYmam6l1a's. FYI samme W +A••••11:aM7 ]ran Www•4rrlrivra.r awwrlIMIr 911 0,115 iiiiihiliFiggigiFigeMegi �A�ln..saal.go.V 5 6 APPENDIX C .-� PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE 1 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM 1 III. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 1 A. Street Reconstruction B. Street Maintenance IV. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA 2 V. FINANCING 2 VI. STORM WATER UTILITY 3 VII. ASSESSMENTS 3 VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE 5 IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS 5 X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS 6 XI. CORNER LOTS 6 XII. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS 6 XIII. LOT WIDTH 6 XIV. COLLECTOR STREET CREDITS 6 XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6 XVI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS 6 XVII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 7 XVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN 8 XIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS 8 Pavement Management Policy 04/10/07 I. PURPOSE The Pavement Management Program (PMP) sets forth a system for the optimal maintenance of streets to extend their useful life and the reconstruction of streets, which have exceeded their useful life, and establishes a funding strategy to maximize available resources to carry the maintenance and reconstruction activities. The Pavement Management Program Policies will guide the timing and type of maintenance actions and reconstruction activities and the financing of activities. These policies will preserve the City's asset of streets, provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the City attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to the property owners and taxpayers of the City. II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM A. Background. In 2004, the City and TKDA investigated and evaluated every block of City pavement to establish its condition based upon what defects each block contained. City records were investigated to obtain knowledge of how old each block is and what maintenance has occurred throughout its history. This information was then entered into a nationally accepted computer program that identifies and analyzes all defects in each block of road and records it together with all relevant information concerning that block to determine the capable condition of the street. B. Index. The program rates the streets by using an Overall Condition Index (OCI) having a 1-100 scale with 100 being a perfect new street. It then projects the OCI of a segment and gives budget -dependent maintenance protocols for a given time period. It is the City's goal to maintain an overall OCI rating of 70. C. Rating Procedure. Each City street shall be rated every four years by the public works/engineering staff. This will be accomplished by reviewing 25% of the street mileage every year. M. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES The pavement management categories considered for City streets will be as follows: A. Street Reconstruction (OCI 0-40, "Problem" category) Includes: Storm Sewer Grade Changes Subgrade Correction (Major/Minor) Install Concrete Curb and Gutter Pavement Management Policy 1 04/10/07 Recycle Existing Pavement Financing: Lot/Unit Assessment Commercial/Industrial = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate Residential = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate City contributes balance from General Fund, State Aid Funds, or other sources. B. Street Maintenance. 1. Overlay (OCI 40-70, "Marginal" category) Includes: Crack Filling Milling Surface Patching Pothole Subgrade and Base Correction Repair or Replace Concrete Curb and Gutters 1 '/2 Inch Bituminous Surface Overlay Financing: City General Fund or other sources 2. Sealcoat (OCI 70-100, "Adequate" category) Includes: Pothole Filling Crack Filling Sealcoat Financing: City General Fund or other sources IV. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA The OCI rating shall serve as the base criteria for project selection. In addition to the OCI, streets shall be evaluated according to Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Stormwater Management, Public Utilities and project priority groupings to achieve economies of scale. The City Engineer shall annually prepare a five year Street Maintenance & Reconstruction Plan based on these criteria for review and approval by the City Council. The components of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) will be financed as follows: A. Maintenance (Sealcoating and Overlays) — The City will levy a property tax each year to pay for annual maintenance costs as outlined in the PMP. �a Local Street Reconstruction — The City will use: Pavement Management Policy 2 05/09/05 1. / General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds authorized under ` Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475 for reconstruction projects where the I existing street width is adequate and/or where no additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed. 2 General Obligation Improvement Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and at least 20% of the project cost is to be assessed. General Obligation Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and less than 20% of the project cost will be assessed. Street reconstruction projects financed through these means will be funded from special assessments to benefited properties, proceeds from the storm water utility, and city tax levies and other sources. C. Municipal State Aid Streets. 1. MSA funds or bonds will be used to finance reconstruction of streets designated as part of the City's MSA system. �.. 2. Properties benefiting from these projects will specially assessed according to the same formula used for benefited properties on local streets. 3. Other financing sources, including but not limited to, proceeds from the storm water utility and city tax levies may also be used. VI. STORM WATER UTILTY The City Council shall establish and maintain a storm water utility as authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444, for the purpose of financing those costs of the PMP related to storm water improvements, and for maintaining the storm water management system. VII. ASSESSMENTS A. The following is the general Street Reconstruction Policy for special assessments to benefiting property. 1. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property for street reconstruction costs, but not in excess of the special benefit to the Pavement Management Policy 3 05/09/05 property. This policy applies to all streets that are the responsibility of the City. 2. The maximum assessment rate for the reconstruction of previously paved streets shall be determined according to Section V11T of this policy. 3. Assessments shall not exceed any of the following: (a) the special benefit to the property being assessed; (b) the total project cost. (c) the maximum assessment rate. 4. Project cost includes both direct construction costs, including land acquisition, and all indirect costs such as engineering, legal, fiscal and administration. B. Method of Assessment The City Council, shall assess street improvements on the basis of a Lot/Unit assessment. The Lot/Unit assessment shall be calculated as follows: 1. Rural, Single Family, Two Family Residential Districts. (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. (c) The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot/Unit Assessment (d) Exceptions. Where parcels in Rural Zoning Districts have less than the minimum required lot width they shall be evaluated under the lot width requirements of the most applicable single family district. ii. Where parcels within zoning districts have less than the minimum required lot width of the respective district the Lot/Unit Assessment shall be calculated by multiplying the individual lot width by the Assessment Rate. Pavement Management Policy 4 05/09/05 2. Medium & High Density Residential, Commercial and Industrial Districts (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement, as determined under this policy. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. (c) The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot/Unit Assessment. (d) Parcels shall be converted into an equivalent number of parcel units by dividing the area of the parcel by the minimum lot area of the respective zoning district. The quotient of this shall be the Unit Assessment Multiplier. (e) The Lot/Unit Assessment shall be multiplied by the Unit Assessment Multiplier. The product of this shall be the assessment amount. 3. When an assessable parcel from an improvement project is subdividable under City Code, the City will assign the maximum number of Lots/Units to the parcel that would result from a future subdivision under the current City Code. 4. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Council from assessing 100% of a project cost upon receipt of a Petition and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal from 100% of the property owners benefiting from the project. VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE The base year for the street assessment under the Pavement Management Program will be 2005. The maximum assessment rate shall be $77.00 per front footage. This rate shall be adjusted annually (January 1) using the National Engineering News Record (ENR) cost index. IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS Project costs assessed under this policy will be collected over a 15 year period. Pavement Management Policy 5 05/09/05 X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS An interest rate of assessments shall be charged at 2% over the rate of bonds issued to finance the project. The minimum interest rate shall be 7% per annum. XL CORNER LOTS Corner lots in Single Family, Two Family and Medium Density Districts where single- family homes, two-family homes, townhomes, or condominiums are -built, will be a part of the improvement and assessment process if the driveway for the subject corner lot is on the improvement street. Such lot shall be assessed on a unit basis the same as interior lots. However, regardless of driveway location, where a lot is subdividable and such subdivision fronts the improvement street, the parcel shall be assessed for all units in excess of the original lot. XII. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS Irregularly shaped lots will be considered on an individual basis. Such lots will be measured and assessed on their average width with the lot width at the front setback line taken into consideration. XIII. LOT WIDTH Lot width is generally considered the lot width at the front setback line, with the exception of irregularly shaped lots. XIV. COLLECTOR STREET CREDITS All residential properties, with the exception of properties with a density of greater than 6 units/acre, will only be assessed for a city standard street as defined in Section XVIII., of this policy. Residential properties with greater than 6 units per acre density and commercial/industrial properties will be assessed toward the entire cost of street improvement as outlined in these policies. XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Street Maintenance and Reconstruction Plan, established per Section IV, shall be part of the City's Capital Improvement Program which is prepared during the budgeting process. XVI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS A. General Maintenance. An important element of a good street Pavement Management Plan Program is to provide good maintenance practices. Streets should be swept as early as possible in the spring to help dry the streets; cracks should be filled as early as possible in the year to prevent moisture into the sub - Pavement Management Policy 6 05/09/05 base; filling of potholes should be made as necessary to prevent travel hazards and damage to sub -base; and special maintenance shall be consistently performed to protect and prolong the life of the pavement. The City Council needs to provide the necessary funding in the budget to perform the necessary maintenance work in a timely and professional manner. B. Special Maintenance. Special maintenance shall be include timely seal coating and bituminous overlays on streets as follows: C. Minor Maintenance. (Under review by the LMC Insurance Trust Attorney) 1. Public Works will perform minor maintenance on the streets to address safety issues that may occur. When a street is scheduled for reconstruction, only pothole filling or other safety measures will occur on that road. It is not cost effective for the City to expend funds on temporary street maintenance on a road that has deteriorated to the point of requiring reconstruction. 2. In such cases the City, where conditions warrant, may post signs cautioning the public of poor street surface conditions and recommending reduced speed. XVII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and/or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following: 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project area. 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/09/05 Age of Street Maintenance Action 5 — 7 years First sealcoating 10 —14 years Second sealcoating 15 — 21 years Third sealcoating 20 — 28 years First overlay 25 — 35 years First sealcoating 30 — 42 years Second sealcoating 35 — 49 years Second overlay 40 — 56 years First sealcoating 47 — 65 years Road reconstruction C. Minor Maintenance. (Under review by the LMC Insurance Trust Attorney) 1. Public Works will perform minor maintenance on the streets to address safety issues that may occur. When a street is scheduled for reconstruction, only pothole filling or other safety measures will occur on that road. It is not cost effective for the City to expend funds on temporary street maintenance on a road that has deteriorated to the point of requiring reconstruction. 2. In such cases the City, where conditions warrant, may post signs cautioning the public of poor street surface conditions and recommending reduced speed. XVII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and/or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following: 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project area. 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/09/05 3. With the exception of trunk improvements (i.e., oversizing or overdepth) sanitary sewer and water main extension shall be 100% assessed to benefited properties provided that such assessments do not exceed the following: (a) the special benefit to the property being assessed; (b) the total project cost. 4-. All sanitary sewer and water main improvements proposed to be paid for by special assessments shall be subject to the provisions and procedures of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429 and City Charter, Chapter 8. XVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN A. The City Standard Street Design shall be 32 feet from back of curb to back of curb . 1. Exception. In cases were the existing street proposed for reconstruction is 29 feet wide or less, and not a Municipal State Aid Road, County, or other designated collector road, the street shall be reconstructed to a maximum width of 29 feet from back of curb to back of curb. All such streets constructed to such width shall be limited to parking on one side and be signed accordingly. B. The pavement section shall consist of a minimum 7 -ton design, which consists of 1-1/2 inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base course. XIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS. Owners of homestead property aged 65 or older, or who are retired by virtue of permanent and total disability may, if eligible, apply for deferral of special assessments in accordance with Ordinance 07-90. Pavement Management Policy 8 05/09/05 APPENDIX D Projected Tax Impact on $200,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $250,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 30.58 1.529% $ 30.58 1.529% $ 30.58 2006 2.140% $ 42.79 2.090% $ 41.80 2.042% $ 40.85 2007 2.605% $ 52.09 2.485% $ 49.70 2.373% $ 47.47 2008 3.429% $ 68.57 3.195% $ 63.90 2.982% $ 59.64 2009 4.240% $ 84.79 3.859% $ 77.18 3.520% $ 70.39 2010 5.107% $ 102.13 4.540% $ 90.79 4.047% $ 80.94 2011 5.393% $ 107.86 4.683% $ 93.66 4.080% $ 81.59 2012 5.656% $ 113.13 4.797% $ 95.95 4.084% $ 81.68 2013 5.901% $ 118.02 4.889% $ 97.77 4.067% $ 81.35 2014 6.140% $ 122.79 4.968% $ 99.36 4.039% $ 80.79 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $250,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $300,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 38.23 1.529% $ 38.23 1.529% $ 38.23 2006 2.140% $ 53.49 2.090% $ 52.25 2.042% $ 51.06 2007 2.605% $ 65.12 2.485% $ 62.13 2.373% $ 5933 2008 3.429% $ 85.71 3.195% $ 79.87 2.982% $ 74.55 2009 4.240% $ 105.99 3.859% $ 96.47 3.520% $ 87.99 2010 5.107% $ 127.66 4.540% $ 113.49 4.047% $ 101.17 2011 5.393% $ 134.82 4.683% $ 117.07 4.080% $ 101.99 2012 5.656% $ 141.41 4.797% $ 119.93 4.084% $ 102.10 2013 5.901% $ 147.53 4.889% $ 122.21 4.067% $ 101.68 2014 6.140% $ 153.49 4.968% $ 124.20 4.039% $ 100.99 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $300,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 45.88 1.529% $ 45.88 1.529% $ 45.88 2006 2.140% $ 64.19 2.090% $ 62.69 2.042% $ 61.27 2007 2.605% $ 78.14 2.485% $ 74.55 2.373% $ 71.20 2008 3.429% $ 102.86 3.195% $ 95.85 2.982% $ 89.46 2009 4.240% $ 127.19 3.859% $ 115.76 3.520% $ 105.59 2010 5.107% $ 153.20 4.540% $ 136.19 4.047% $ 121.40 2011 5393% $ 161.79 4.683% $ 140.49 4.080% $ 122.39 2012 5.656% $ 169.69 4.797% $ 143.92 4.084% $ 122.53 2013 5.901% $ 177.03 4.889% $ 146.66 4.067% $ 122.02 2014 6.140% $ 184.19 4.968% $ 149.04 4.039% $ 121.18 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Impact on $350,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Impact on $400,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 53.52 1.529% $ 53.52 1.529% $ 53.52 2006 2.140% $ 74.89 2.090% $ 73.14 2.042% $ 71.48 2007 2.605% $ 91.17 2.485% $ 86.98 2.373% $ 83.07 2008 3.429% $ 120.00 3.195% $ 111.82 2.982% $ 104.37 2009 4.240% $ 148.39 3.859% $ 135.06 3.520% $ 123.19 2010 5.107% $ 178.73 4.540% $ 158.89 4.047% $ 141.64 2011 5393% $ 188.75 4.683% $ 163.90 4.080% $ 142.78 2012 5.656% $ 197.97 4.797% $ 167.91 4.084% $ 142.95 2013 5.901% $ 206.54 4.889% $ 171.10 4.067% $ 142.36 2014 6.140% $ 214.89 4.968% $ 173.88 4.039% $ 141.38 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Impact on $400,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $500,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 61.17 1.529% $ 61.17 1.529% $ 61.17 2006 2.140% $ 85.58 2.090% $ 83.59 2.042% $ 81.69 2007 2.605% $ 104.19 2.485% $ 99.40 2.373% $ 94.93 2008 3.429% $ 137.14 3.195% $ 127.79 2.982% $ 119.28 2009 4.240% $ 169.58 3.859% $ 154.35 3.520% $ 140.79 2010 5.107% $ 204.26 4.540% $ 181.59 4.047% $ 161.87 2011 5.393% $ 215.72 4.683% $ 187.32 4.080% $ 163.18 2012 5.656% $ 226.25 4.797% $ 191.89 4.084% $ 16337 2013 5.901% $ 236.05 4.889% $ 195.54 4.067% $ 162.69 2014 6.140% $ 245.59 4.968% $ 198.72 4.039% $ 161.58 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $500,000 residential homestead *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 76.46 1.529% $ 76.46 1.529% $ 76.46 2006 2.140% $ 106.98 2.090% $ 104.49 2.042% $ 102.12 2007 2.605% $ 130.24 2.485% $ 124.25 2.373% $ 118.67 2008 3.429% $ 171.43 3.195% $ 159.74 2.982% $ 149.10 2009 4.240% $ 211.98 3.859% $ 192.94 3.520% $ 175.99 2010 5.107% $ 25533 4.540% $ 226.99 4.047% $ 202.34 2011 5393% $ 269.65 4.683% $ 234.14 4.080% $ 203.98 2012 5.656% $ 282.81 4.797% $ 239.86 4.084% $ 204.21 2013 5.901% $ 295.06 4.889% $ 244.43 4.067% $ 203.37 2014 6.140% $ 306.99 4.968% $ 248.40 4.039% $ 201.97 *Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit APPENDIX E League of Minnesota cores 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55303-2044 (651) 283-1200 • (800) 925-1122 Fax (651) 281-1299 • TDD: (651) 281-1290 www.imnc.org May 10, 2007 Citizen Task Force City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1182 Re: Uniqueness ofthe special assessments referendum in Lino Lakes' charter Dear Citizen Task Foy Following my visit to Lino Lakes to present information on charters, 1 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 eta have a similar provision requiring 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 On special as. Section 8.04, subdivision 2 of tate Lino Lakes charter reads, in part: [Willis less than one hundred (100%) pe cent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, .connection charges, or any outside funding source other than the City general fund, the Council shall within one hundred twenty (120) days atter the conclusion of the public hearing submit the proposed local improvement and its assent formula to the voters of the city.... If a majority of those voting on said improves 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, 1 have found no other city which has a similar mandatory referendum in its charter. The closest charter to Lino Lakes in this respect is found in Mounds View. In Mounds View, the charber outlines a similar procedure for council to follow, yet its analogous subdivision 2 reads, in part Millen less than K0 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 pry improvement, a petition may be filed with Cecil, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Marx in the last regular election, protesting against Mi EQUAL OPPQRRUNITY(AFf1RMATiVE •ACii9R EMPLOYER *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. T e efore, while Mounds 'View's curter 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 clues dedicated to local improvements and special asserts varies quite a bit. Many charters have little more than two belief paragraphs The entire local improvement provision in the charter for Wield is "As per state law" At the same time, Biainerd's charter has 12 pages on local improvements and special assessments, and South St Paul has in incredible 58 pagers 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 "comprehensive ordinance" is said to supersede state law for the city! But in as many cases, the council has discretion as to whether they follow the ordinance or Mlnnesota Statutes. Some charters are silent on that pointe • 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 (M'mn. Stat. § 429.1I1). *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") is to 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 provisions. 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 Heitke, Lino Lakes City Administrator APPENDIX F 'Street Reconstruction Gordon Heitke Page 1 of: mom: Smith, Chris [CSmith©Imnc.org] _dent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:16 PM To: Gordon Heitke Cc: Chamberlin, Tracie Subject Street Reconstruction Attachments: Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Policies.pdf, What To Include in a Street Maintenance Policy.pdf TO: Gordon Heitke, Administrator, City of Lino Lakes FROM: Chris Smith, Risk Management Attomey, 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 ligh 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 ha; 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 suld amend its policy. Having a policy and following that policy will entitle the city to discretionary immunity for most claims ted 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?. «Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Policies.pdf» «What To Include in a Street Maintenance Policy.pdf» 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 steel 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 ofte 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 a issue of what the city should do to wam of dangerous streets. Again, that question should be answered by your policy. It is ''"Nbabiy not possible to wam of every condition. And if you tried to do so, a motorist might sue the city for failing to place a . ning device. First, I suggest that a waming 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 wamings, 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 lea( 3/29/2007 Street Reconstruction Page 2 of 2 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 Attomey League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (651) 281-1269 csmithalmnc.org 3/29/2007 APPENDIX G Citizen Task Force Members Kathi Gallup, Chair Peter T. Brown Judi Brunner Laura Carlson John Latcham Cheryl Sanchez Jamie Stem Memorandum To: Lino Lakes Charter Commission Members: Cori Duffy Caroline Dahl Donald Aldentaler Robert Bening Barbara Bor Harold Carlson Lisa Handrick Paul Montain Rosemary Storberg Mike Trehus Tom Vacha Richard Williams Rosemary Williams Irvin Zastrow Melissa Stockman Maher From: Gordon Heitke Date: July 11, 2007 Re: Proposed Charter Amendment The Lino Lakes City Council has accepted the report of the Citizens Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Local Improvements. In response to the recommendations of the report, the Council has proposed Ordinance No. 07-07, amending Chapter VIII of the Lino Lakes City Charter and approved its first reading at the July 9, 2007 meeting. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410.12, Subdivision 5, the City Council is hereby submitting Ordinance No. 07-07 to the members of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission on this 10th day of July, 2007 for review. The City Council looks forward to the Charter Commission's timely review and action on the ordinance in order to determine whether this amendment should be placed on the November ballot. Please feel free to call me with any questions. 1 Reading: July 9, 2007 Publication: 2nd Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 07-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed: cost of the improvement, including all costs and expenses connected therewith, with -all exceed the benefits to the property. exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Regulations. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after this Charter goes into effect and before local improvements can be acted upon, the Council shall enact suitable ordinance(s) goveming local improvements and special assessments. The ordinance(s) shall 00 asccssment districts, public h wrings, appeals from a collection of assessments, ordinance(s) shall also provide for installment payments and notices to be given thereof, 00 0 the subject of local improvements and assessments. After the adoption of such ordinance(s) providing for local improvements, all procedures in compliance therewith shall conform to the regulations as yet forth in such ordinance(s) and as othcrwice contained in this Charter. .. -. - - Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against four fifths affirmative vote of all of thc Council. The Council resolution shall state the on the proposed improvement. If within such sixty (60) day period, in a petitioning such improvement at the expense of the property bencfitted, unle:f, in thc maantime the Council. raid- for by special asce cments, connection charges, or any hundred twenty (120) days after thc conclusion of thc public hearing, submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no election is scheduled during such ono hundred twenty (120) day period, the Council hearing, proceed on the improvement. If after bids are received on thc project the propecod contract exceods the estimated cost of the engineer stated at the public 0 not award thc contract for the proposed improvement, but may rebid thc project for ono (1) time only. subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one (1) year after the public hearing on said improvement. that the cost of City services to streets, sidewalks, or other public or private property Section 8.06. When under the provisions of section 8.04, Subdivision 1, an improvement is petitioned for by one hundred (100%) peFoent of -the benefitted property owners, such property owners may after the mailing of notice of a public hearing, petition to waive fifty (50) of the sixty (60) days waiting period. After such petition, the City Council may immediately order the proposed project. Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.01 to read as follows: Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel, and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.02 to read as follows: Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who filed objections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and may consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written objections reqardinq the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. Subdivision 4. If timely objections are not filed by the required number of property owners under Subdivision 2 of this Section, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section do not apply to the subject local improvements, and all subsequent procedures for approval of and levying of special assessments for those local improvements shall be in accordance with state law, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1, clause (f), a resolution ordering the local improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the hearing by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended to read as follows: Section 8.073. Local Improvement; Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. Except as providcd in Subdivision 3, i In the geographic areas of the City described in Subdivision 2, the construction of local improvements, the levy of special assessment for the financing of those improvements must be conducted in accordance with procedures specified in state law. Subdivision 2. Subdivision 1 applies to land within three (3) geographic areas, each not exceeding 430 acres, legally described as follows: AREA NO. 1 - Trunk Highway #49 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid Highway #23 Intersection (Lake Drive) -All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN. 30-31-22-210001 -That part of Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 151 Tying south and east of State Trunk Highway #49 (Hodgson Road) right-of-way AREA NO. 2 - Interstate 135E and County Road 242 (Main Street) Interchange - Northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 - That part of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 Tying north of Cedar Street - East one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 - East one half (1/2) of the northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 24 AREA NO. 3 Interstate 135W and Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive) Interchange - North one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 18 - That part of the south one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 18 lying north of the Interstate 135W right-of-way - That part of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of Trunk Highway #49 (Lake Drive) right-of-way - All of the northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 with the exception of that part of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of said northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 as follows: beginning at a point at the intersection of the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4) with the east right-of-way line of Trunk Highway #49; thence northeasterly along said right-of-way line 938.14 feet (+ or -) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 (+ or -) feet to east line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4); thence south along said east line 588.5 (+ or -) feet to the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one quarter (1/4); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or -) to the point of beginning. - The north 720 feet of that part of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 Tying west of the Anoka County Park property - That part of the north one half (1/2) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property - That part of the north one half (1/2) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property -The south one half (1/2) of southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 - The southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 - The east 330 feet (+ or -) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of the southeast one quarter (1/4) of the southwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 8 asseccmcnts for the financing of those improvements specially benefit a parcel of real property, in an area described in subdivision 2, on which a single family, owner occupied residential unit existed on September 30, 1993, the owner/occupant of such may not specially assess such owner's property for the improvements constructed unless the owner, at his/her option, in the future elects to connect to or use the to the assessments as granted in this paragraph. This exception terminates on the first property. John Bergeson, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2007. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted.