HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2007 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, November 1, 2007
1. Call to Order and Roll CaII 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 minutes, October 11, 2007 6:35 PM
6. Old Business
A. Paul Montain member status 6:40 PM
B. Review draft amendment from Attorney 6:50 PM
7. New Business
A. Information on road reconstruction for ballot,
Quad Press article, city-wide mailer and on
city website about amendment question.
B. Set November agenda
7:50 PM
8. Adjourn 8:30 PM
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS EXCUSED
MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
: October 11, 2007
. 6:35 P.M.
: 10:05 P.M.
: Duffy, Vacha, Trehus, Handrick, Dahl, Bening,
Aldentaler, Richard Williams, Rosemary Williams,
Storberg, Zastrow, and Carlson
: Bor, Stockman Maher
: Montain
: None
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Duffy called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:35
p.m. on October 11, 2007.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to approve the agenda.
Motion carried unanimously.
OPEN MIKE
Chris Bretoi, 6779 W Shadow Lake Dr, appeared before the Charter Commission to express
concern regarding proposed improvements on Shadow Lake Drive as well as the proposed
amendments to the Charter. He indicated that residents in the area attempted to petition the City
to conduct a feasibility study in order to obtain recommendations for repair to the road. He stated
a report was prepared by TKDA and the issue is now going to a referendum. Mr. P
expressed concern that a request for a study has now turned into a referendum. He stated that
residents have been informed that the street will not be repaired until the referendum passes. He
asked why it is necessary to have holding ponds and walking/biking paths as part of the
improvement.
Commissioner Handrick stated this is a safety issue that the City has to address.
Mr. Bretoi questioned why the City has not come in and performed the repairs in this area and
then dealt with the other improvements later on. He added most of the residents in the
neighborhood understand that improvements are needed and most residents probably want to
preserve the character of the neighborhood in doing that.
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 2
DRAFT
46
47 Commissioner Rosemary Williams suggested that residents write a letter to the Quad Cities
48 editor and try to get as many letters out there which includes a phone number for the Mayor so
49 that residents can voice their concerns. In addition, she suggested residents attend the City
50 Council meetings to express their ongoing concerns.
51
52 Mr. Bretoi stated that residents are perplexed that there has been minimal citizen input on this
53 matter.
54
55 Commissioner Vacha encouraged the residents to bring this issue to the attention of the City
56 Council through open mike.
57
58 Commissioner Storberg stated that Mr. Bretoi and any other residents in the area are welcome to
59 attend the next meeting of the Charter Commission.
60
61 John Freimuth appeared before the Charter Commission. He stated he is running for Mayor and
62 also lives in the Shadow Lake area. Mr. Freimuth stated under the current rules, residents are
63 required to hook up to city sewer and water if it is available; he indicated he is not certain that all
64 residents in that area want city sewer and water, and added the cost appears to be excessive. Mr.
65 Freimuth indicated he is opposed to any changes to the City Charter and expressed concern about
66 the City going forward without first obtaining citizen input.
67
68 Chair Duffy thanked Mr. Bretoi and Mr. Freimuth for their appearance at the meeting.
69
70 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 6, 2007, AND OLD BUSINESS
71
72 Chair Duffy suggested the Commission move the approval of minutes and old business agenda
73 items to follow "New Business — Charter Attorney."
74
75 MOTION by Commissiner Dahl; seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to approve moving
76 agenda items "Approval of Minutes" and "Old Business" to follow "New Business — Charter
77 Attorney." Motion carried unanimously.
78
79 NEW BUSINESS
80
81 A. Charter Attorney
82
83 Chair Duffy introduced Karen Marty, Marty Law Firm LLC.
84
85 Ms. Marty stated she had read the proposed Charter amendments and bullet points, as well as the
86 article regarding the Shenandoah neighborhood. She stated the existing Charter provides that any
87 local improvement project is to be funded via assessment. She asked the Commission how it has
88 worked in the past to have a public vote on paying for improvements with taxes.
89
2
n
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 3
DRAFT
90 Commissioner Bening stated it has passed once and failed twice. He stated the same road has
91 failed twice.
92
93 Commissioner Carlson arrived at 7:15 p.m.
94
95 Ms. Marty stated the proposed Charter amendment includes changes to the way local assessments
96 are defined. She stated the current Charter reads the only time the City can assess a project is
97 when it is a public improvement with a local character. She indicated this language is missing
98 from the City Council draft and stated if the Commission wants the "local character" language, it
99 has to be added.
100
101 Commissioner Trehus requested a definition of "local character."
102
103 Ms. Marty stated the term creates ambiguity and does not have a standard definition. She
104 indicated it adds an extra concept and tells people that the idea is you are putting in
105 improvements that do something for Lino Lakes and not just for any other City or for traffic
106 passing through.
107
108 Chair Duffy stated the proposed amendment that the City Council has come up with does not
109 have the language it wants.
110
111 It was the consensus of the Commission to include the "local character" language in the proposed
112 amendment.
113
114 Ms. Marty requested input from the Commission regarding notification of property owners and
115 who should be notified.
116
117 Commissioner Dahl stated that property owners that abut the proposed improvement should be
118 notified.
119
120 Ms. Marty stated there is conflicting language in state law, the City Council draft, and the
121 proposed amendment regarding votes of property owners for assessments. She asked if the
122 Commission wants the ability to do area -wide assessments and stated the question comes down
123 to whether the assessed property owners are benefiting from the improvement. She added this is
124 an issue that needs to be addressed; state law requires that area assessments be imposed when an
125 improvement helps the entire neighborhood.
126
127 Commissioner Bening stated that currently, local residents pay a certain percentage, and the rest
128 is paid out of the City's general fund.
129
130 Ms. Marty stated it is state law that the City can assess the amount your property value increases
131 due to the improvement; you only have to pay the amount your value went up.
/'1 132
133 Chair Duffy asked what the most common scenario is.
3
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 4
DRAFT
134
135 Ms. Marty replied the most common scenario is to assess the adjacent property owners and have
136 the whole tax base of the City pick up the rest.
137
138 Commissioner Trehus asked where the Charter excludes area assessments.
139
140 Ms. Marty stated there are conflicting references in the current Charter and proposed
141 amendments and stated it is important these be consistent throughout the document.
142
143 Commissioner Handrick stated she is opposed to area -wide assessments and that it should be left
144 to the City to pick up the rest out of the general fund.
145
146 Commissioner Trehus concurred.
147
148 Ms. Marty requested the Commission consider the language regarding area -wide assessments and
149 get back to her. Ms. Marty asked if it is the intent to restrict the vote regarding assessments to
150 allow one vote per parcel or per frontage.
151
152 It was the concensus of the Commission to restrict voting to one vote per parcel and one name
153 per project (in the case of multiple lot owners).
154
155 Ms. Marty then addressed the items in the Commission's Bullet List.
156
157 Bullet #1: Ms. Marty agreed with the proposed changes in Bullet #1.
158
159 Bullet #2: Ms. Marty agreed with Bullet #2.
160
161 Bullet #3: Ms. Marty stated this requires 25% of the owners of the parcels; state law requires
162 35% of owners of the frontage. Discussion was held whether to raise the percentage consistent
163 with state law.
164
165 It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this provision as it currently reads (25%).
166
167 Commissioner Bening stated this provision begins "a neighborhood may initiate projects..." and
168 then talks about a petition for a feasibility study. He asked if the first sentence should include the
169 words "petition for feasibility study." Ms. Marty agreed to clarify this provision.
170
171 Bullet #4: Ms. Marty requested clarification of this bullet.
172
173 Commissioner Trehus stated the City has not indicated what is involved in the project and
174 nothing is defined. The Commission has concerns about this and wants the City to define an
175 improvement project.
176
4
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 5
DRAFT
177 Ms. Marty stated a project would normally start with a proposal, then a feasibility study,
178 followed by City Council review and a determination if the project is feasible. At that point they
179 should know which trees are coming out, how wide the road will be, etc. She added that all plans
180 are available for public viewing.
181
182 Chair Duffy stated the Commission's concern is that the City has not previously made it clear to
183 residents how much a particular project will cost, etc. and residents are feeling they are not being
184 given adequte opportunity to provide input.
185
186 Commissioner Handrick left the Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m.
187
188 Bullet #5: It was the consensus of the Commission to send notices via certified mail.
189
190 Bullet #6: Ms. Marty agreed with this provision.
191
192 Bullet #7: Ms. Marty requested clarification of the word "affected" as it relates to affected
193 property owners blocking a project with a petition of 25% of the affected property owners.
194
195 Chair Duffy stated it is important the Charter be consistent throughout with respect to this
196 provision. She added this provision relates to an objection of a proposed assessment and it does
197 not stop a proposed project.
198
199 It was the consensus of the Commission to leave the wording as currently proposed regarding a
200 petition.
201
202 Bullet #8: Commissioner Trehus stated the Charter currently has a referendum requirement; the
203 Commission proposes adding language to replace referendum with a "petition for" referendum
204 requiring a percentage of registered votes. The question is how many signatures would be
205 required on the petition. Chair Duffy added that currently, it automatically goes to a referendum.
206
207 It was the consensus of the Commission to continue to discuss this matter and provide feedback
208 to Ms. Marty.
209
210 Commissioner Aldentaler left the Commission meeting at 8:32 p.m.
211
212 Bullet #9: Ms. Marty requested the Commission provide her with the number of years it proposes
213 to include in the disallowance provision.
214
215 It was the consensus of the Commission to further deliberate this issue.
216
217 Bullet #10: Ms. Marty requested clarification of the Commission's intent with respect to the
218 requirement that developers pay for new roads and/or utilities that benefit developers or future
n 219 developments.
220
5
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 6
DRAFT
221 Commissioner Carlson asked what would prevent the City Council from okaying a developer
222 coming in, and the developer asking the City to put the roads in. He questioned if there is
223 anything to stop this without a referendum.
224
225 Ms. Marty replied she has never seen a city that allowed this.
226
227 It was the consensus of the Commission to defer to Ms. Marty for proposed language.
228
229 Bullet #11: Ms. Marty stated that the proposed language in this provision (establishing an
230 equitable fee structure to be paid by developers to cover construction traffic damage to existing
231 roads and also make them pay for increased infrastructure demands caused by the developer)
232 results in "impact fees" and these fees are illegal in this state. Ms. Marty agreed to research this
233 issue further.
234
235 Bullet #12: Ms. Marty suggested the Commission not adopt a standard petition form to be used
236 by residents. Instead, she proposed having a sample form available to residents but not a
237 required form.
238
239 Additional Concerns:
240
241 Items A and B: Ms. Marty stated she is okay with the first part of this section with respect to
242 analyzing the council task force amendment to see what citzen rights would be lost. She
243 requested an explanation of the second sentence regarding whether this proposal if ratified
244 establishes a funding source (as per the city survey question).
245
246 Chair Duffy stated the impetus for change to the Charter centers around the City Council claim
247 that 60% of residents want to change the Charter. She stated the Commission wants to know if
248 the proposed amendments change the funding source.
249
250 Ms. Marty stated if the City wants to establish, for example, a "road maintenance" fund, with
251 1/10 of 1% of money going into this account, and when the account gets big enough, the City can
252 spend the monies without going to a referendum.
253
254 There was significant discussion regarding use of City funds and the need for Charter amendment
255 to get away from referendums.
256
257 Item C: Ms. Marty recommended against including a requirement in the Charter to seal coat
258 every "x" years, overlay every "x" years, or including a clause with respect to following the
259 City's Pavement Management Program. She stated this level of detail does not belong in a
260 Charter; rather, it belongs in an ordinance or resolution.
261
262 Chair Duffy stated the City has recently approved a Pavement Management Plan which includes
263 a schedule for seal coating, etc. She asked if there is any recourse available if the Pavement
264 Management Plan is not followed.
6
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 7
DRAFT
265
266 Ms. Marty replied that language can be added that the City must maintain the roads according to
267 the Pavement Management Plan.
268
269 Commissioner Dahl stated she felt it is important to include language that the Charter
270 Commission can exercise its discretion with respect to this language.
271
272 Commissioner Carlson agreed with Ms. Marty that this language should not be included in the
273 Charter. Commissioner Bening and Commissioner Vacha concurred.
274
275 It was the consensus of the Commission to remove Item C.
276
277 Item D: Ms. Marty discussed language regarding the Charter Commission's standing to go after
278 the City Council if the City does not comply with the Charter.
279
280 Commissioner Dahl stated it is important that the City be held accountable.
281
282 Commissioner Bening stated he felt this provision should include a voting requirement (for
283 example, a 4/5 majority).
284
,."'N 285 Item E: Ms. Marty indicated she was in agreement with this section.
286
287 Further Discussion with Attorney
288
289 Chair Duffy stated the deadline for the Charter Commission's work is December 6.
290
291 The Commission requested Ms. Marty's proposed revisions by Thursday, October 25, 2007.
292
293 It was the consensus of the Commission to meet without Ms. Marty present in order to go over
294 her proposed revisions.
295
296 It was the consensus of the Commission to meet on Thursday, November 1, 2007, at 6:30 p.m.,
297 to review Ms. Marty's proposed revisions. The Commission will then submit its comments to
298 Ms. Marty on or before November 9, 2007.
299
300 It was the consensus of the Commission to meet again on Thursday, November 15, 2007, at 6:30
301 p.m., and requested Ms. Marty be present at this meeting.
302
303 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 2007
304
305 Commissioner Trehus requested that line 106 on page 3 be amended to read as follows:
306 "Commissioner Trehus stated that if they reject or approve the proposal tonight the Council
''. 307 could still put..." [adding the words "or approve"].
308
7
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 8
DRAFT
309 Commissioner Trehus requested line 131 on page 3 be amended to strike the word "continue"
310 and insert the word "begin" so that it reads as follows: "Bullet #4: Begin requiring notices via
311 certified mail."
312
313 Commissioner Trehus requested line 154 on page 4 be amended to strike the word "referendum"
314 and insert the words "bullet list" so that it reads as follows: "Bullet #13: Consensus of
315 Commission is to have this remain on the bullet list."
316
317 Commissioner Trehus requested line 156 on page 4 be amended to strike the words "in the
318 referendum" so that line 156 reads as follows: "or greater petition."
319
320 Commissioner Trehus requested lines 157 and 158 on page 4 be amended to strike the last
321 sentence.
322
323 Commissioner Trehus requested line 167 on page 4 be amended to strike the word "referendum"
324 and insert the words "bullet list" so that the sentence reads as follows: `Bullet #20: Leave in the
325 bullet list for discussion with the attorney."
326
327 Commissioner Dahl requested line 80 on page 2 be striken since it is redundant.
328
329 Commissioner Dahl requested line 114 and 115 on page 3 be amended to strike the sentence
330 "Commissioner Dahl questioned if the rest of the City will pay the neighborhood's taxes."
331
332 Commissioner Richard Williams requested line 182 and 183on page 5 be amended to read:
333 "Commissioner Richard Williams asked if it was worthwhile to list this in the newspaper at this
334 time."
335
336 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to approve the
337 September 6, 2007, Charter Commission meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried
338 unanimously.
339
340 OLD BUSINESS
341
342 A. 2007 Charter Budget — Chair Duffy reported that she and Commissioner Dahl attended the
343 City Council work session on October 1st and discussed the Commission's request for money.
344 She stated the City Council approved the Commission's request for funding for legal fees in
345 the amount of $5,250.
346
347 Commissioner Storberg expressed the Commission's appreciation to Chair Duffy for her
348 work in hiring Ms. Marty.
349
350 B. Commissioner Absences — Chair Duffy asked if any of the Commissioners has spoken to
351 Commissioner Montain. She stated she sent him an email and has not heard from him. She
352 added the last meeting attended by Commissioner Montain was in October 2006.
8
n
Charter Commission
October 11, 2007
Page 9
DRAFT
353 MOTION by Commissioner Bening, seconded by Commissioner Richard Williams, directing
354 Chair Duffy to send a certified letter to Commissioner Paul Montain informing him that unless
355 the Commission hears from him by October 31, 2007, the Commission intends to follow the
356 bylaws of the Charter regarding discharge of members. Motion carried unanimously.
357
358 C. On -Going Reports, Gordon Heitke, City Administrator — The Commission received the
359 quarterly update memo from Gordon Heitke. The Commission also received the updated
360 timeline for consideration of the Charter Amendment, which includes the December 6th
361 deadline.
362
363 NEW BUSINESS
364
365 Set November Meeting Date & Agenda
366
367 Chair Duffy stated the meeting dates for November (November 1 and 15) were set earlier. The
368 agenda at these meetings is the Charter amendments.
369
370 ADJOURN
371
372 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to adjourn the meeting at
373 10:05 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
374
375 Respectfully submitted,
376
377 Barbara Hughes
378 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
379
9
e s,s'
Lino Lakes
residents to vote
on street reconstruction
LINO LAKES — Two open
houses have been scheduled to
give residents an opportunity
to learn more about a referen-
dum
efereedum for, street reconstruction.
Residents will be asked to vote
on a tax levy on Nov 6 to be
used for reconstruction of
West Shadow Lake Drive (from
Birch Street to its northern ter-
minus), Shadow Court and
Sandpiper Drive.
„Illap city of Lino Lakes has
a ximately 100 miles of
loczu streets that need to be
maintained. Several years ago,
the City Council initiated a
pavement management plan to
identify what street improve-
ments were necessary, while
minimizing costs to property
owners and taxpayers. As the
city ages, the need for recon-
struction of local streets
increases. Streets that are in
poor condition or have storm
water drainage problems sub-
stantially increase city mainte-
nance costs. Eventually, it
becomes more cost-effective to
replace the street than contin-
ue to maintain it.
Funding for local streets is
typically dependent on special
assessments to benefiting
properties and general proper-
ty tax levies. Because the cost
of street reconstruction typi-
cally exceeds the amount that
can be assessed, a general tax
levy often becomes the pri-
mary funding source for local
street improvements.
The city charter governs, in
part, public improvements and
special assessments. The char-
ter requires voter approval if a
public improvement is
financed partially by special
assessments to benefiting
property owners. Since it is the
city's desire to minimize taxes,
benefiting property owners are
specially assessed. Therefore,
reconstruction of local streets
within Lino Lakes is solely
determined by the residents of
the city. In 2003 and 2005, the
referendum for reconstruction
of these streets failed.
Cost Breakdown
If the voters approve the referendum on Nov. 6, the cost to a property
owner is estimated to be:
Assessor's Market Value
$200,000
$250,000
$350,000
$500,000
The reconstruction, `if
passed, will be completed in
2009. The total cost is estimated
to be $5.5 million, financed by
the issuance of bonds payable
over 15 years. The project cost
will be covered two ways: 48.5
percent is proposed to be sup-
ported by tax levy, and the
remainder (51.5 percent) paid
by special assessments to the
affected property owners. The
annual payments on the bonds
are covered by the increase in
property taxes spread over the
city's entire tax base. The esti-
mated amount of property
taxes to be raised annually is
approximately $288,499.
The city will hold open hous-
es Oct 24 and Oct 30 from 5 to
7 p.m. at City Hall, 600 Town
Center Parkway. City staff will
be there to answer questions.
For more information, visit
www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us or
contact the community devel-
opment department at 651-982-
2424.
Estimated Annual Cost
$30.00
$38.00
$53.00
$76.00
MEMINWM
Referendum for Street Improvements in Lino Lakes
Lino Lakes residents will consider a ballot question on November 6 that will allow for the reconstruction of 1.5
miles of roadway on West Shadow Lake Drive (from Birch Street to its northern terminus), Shadow Court and
Sandpiper Drive.
The City of Lino Lakes maintains approximately 100 miles of local streets. Several years ago, the city adopted a
Pavement Management Plan that identified streets needing reconstruction and maintenance. This area of the city
was targeted as one with severely deteriorated roads. As these more established neighborhoods in Lino Lakes con-
tinue to age and infrastructure deteriorates, maintenance costs grow every year. Eventually, it becomes more cost
effective to replace the street rather than continue to maintain it.
Funding for reconstruction of local streets is dependent on special
assessments to benefiting properties and general property tax lev-
ies. Because the cost of street reconstruction typically exceeds the
nount that, by law, can be assessed to individual property own-
ers, a general tax levy often becomes a primary funding source for
local street improvements.
The Lino Lakes City Charter requires voter approval if a public im-
provement is financed partially by special assessments to benefit-
ing property owners. Since it is the city's desire to minimize taxes,
benefiting properties are specially assessed. Therefore, reconstruc-
tion of local streets within Lino Lakes is solely determined by the
residents of the city. In 2003 and 2005, the referendum for recon-
struction of these streets failed.
The Project
The proposed improvements for this street project:
• Develop a uniform street design
• Meet the city's minimum 7 -ton design standard
Provide surface water treatment and infiltration
• Install sanitary sewer and public water supply systems
(Sanitary sewer and water 100% paid by benefiting property owners)
The referendum is required in order to
allow the improvements and reconstruction
of these local streets:
• West Shadow Lake Drive (Birch
Street to the northern terminus)
• Shadow Court
• Sandpiper Drive
2009
Street Reconstruction
Referendum
Information
( I 1 1 it4/a`t O 1-
LNOLHKES
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
PRSRT STD
U.S. Postage PAID
Permit No. 225
Osseo, MN
Remember to Vote on Tuesday, Nov. 6
Referendum Question
"Should the City of Lino Lakes
be authorized to undertake
the 2009 Street Reconstruction
Project, and to pay approxi-
mately 51.5% of the cost from
special assessments levied
according to city policies and
48.5% of the cost from the city
general fund including reve-
nues from a levy on all taxable
property in the city"?
Two Informational Open Houses Scheduled
Lino Lakes City Hall Community Room
600 Town Center Parkway
Two Open House meetings are scheduled to provide an opportunity for the resi-
dents of Lino Lakes to review information and ask questions regarding the referen-
dum. City staff and financial and engineering consultants will be present to provide
information and answer questions regarding the proposed referendum.
Wednesday, October 24 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Tuesday, October 30 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.
For additional referendum information visit the city's website at:
www.ci.1ino-Iakes.mn.us
Click on Current Events -
2009 Street Reconstruction Project
or
Cable Channel 16
How will this affect property taxes?
The total cost of the 2009 Street Reconstruction Project is estimated
to be $5,583,000.00. The project is proposed to be financed by issu-
ance of bonds payable over 15 years. The project cost will be cov-
ered two ways: 48.5% is proposed to be supported by tax levy, and
the remainder (51.5%) paid by special assessments to the affected
property owners. The annual payments on the bonds are covered by
an increase in property taxes spread over the city's entire tax base.
The estimated amount of property taxes to be raised annually is ap-
proximately $288,499.
The estimated costs are based on the city's 2007 estimated market
value and do not take into consideration any residential, indus-
trial and commercial growth in 2007 and beyond. As the tax base
increases, the financial impact to property owners is expected to
decrease.
Estimated Cost to Property Owner
Assessor's
Market Value
Estimated Estimated
Annual Cost Monthly
$200,000 $30.00 $2.50
$250,000 $38.00 $3.17
$300,000 $45.00 $3.75
$350,000 $53.00 $4.42
$400,000 $61.00 $5.08
$500,000 $76.00 $6